Osla 4 1

Oslo Studies in Language
4 (1) / 2012
Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds.)
The Russian Verb

General editors: Atle Grønn and Dag Haug
Editorial board
International:
Henning Andersen, Los Angeles (historical linguistics)
Östen Dahl, Stockholm (typology)
Arnim von Stechow, Tübingen (semantics and syntax)
National:
Johanna Barðdal, Bergen (construction grammar)
Laura Janda, Tromsø (Slavic linguistics, cognitive linguistics)
Terje Lohndal, Trondheim (English, syntax and semantics)
Torgrim Solstad, Trondheim (German, semantics and pragmatics)
Øystein Vangsnes, Tromsø (Norwegian, dialect syntax)
Local:
Cecilia Alvstad, ILOS (Spanish, translatology)
Hans Olav Enger, ILN (Norwegian, cognitive linguistics)
Ruth E. Vatvedt Fjeld, ILN (Norwegian, lexicography)
Jan Terje Faarlund, CSMN, ILN (Norwegian, syntax)
Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, ILOS (German, contrastive linguistics)
Carsten Hansen, CSMN, IFIKK (philosophy of language)
Christoph Harbsmeier, IKOS (Chinese, lexicography)
Hilde Hasselgård, ILOS (English, corpus linguistics)
Hans Petter Helland, ILOS (French, syntax)
Janne Bondi Johannessen, ILN, Text Laboratory (Norwegian, language technology)
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen, ILN (cognitive linguistics)
Helge Lødrup, ILN (syntax)
Gunvor Mejdell, IKOS (Arabic, sociolinguistics)
Christine Meklenborg Salvesen, ILOS (French linguistics, historical linguistics)
Diana Santos, ILOS (Portuguese linguistics, computational linguistics)
Ljiljana Saric, ILOS (Slavic linguistics)
Bente Ailin Svendsen, ILN (second language acquisition)
4 (1) / 2012
Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds.)
The Russian Verb

Oslo Studies in Language, 4(1), 2012.
Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds.):
The Russian Verb.
Oslo, University of Oslo
ISSN 1890-9639
© 2012 the authors
Set in LATEX fonts Gentium Book Basic and Linux Libertine by

Vladyslav Dorokhin and Atle Grønn.
Cover design by UniPub publishing house.
Printed by UniPub from camera-ready copy supplied by the editors.
http://www.journals.uio.no/osla
Contents
The Role of Verb Semantics in Genitive Alternations: Genitive of

Negation and Genitive of Intensionality
Barbara H. Partee, Vladimir Borschev, Elena Paducheva, Yakov Testelets,
and Igor Yanovich 1
Time Reference in Russian Causative Constructions

Alexander Letuchiy 31
Peculiarities of Expressing the Apprehensive in Russian

Nadezhda Zorikhina Nilsson 53
Ot glagola k služebnomu slovu. Puti grammatikalizacii.

Sofia Pozharitskaya 71
Čeredovanie o/a v kornjach vtoričnych imperfektivov

Ajsylu Sagitova 97
A Database of Russian Verbal Aspect

Olga Borik and Maarten Janssen 117
Aspect in the Imperative Across Slavic — a Corpus Driven Pilot

Study
Ruprecht von Waldenfels 141
Distribution of Two Semelfactives in Russian: -nu- and -anu-

Julia Kuznetsova and Anastasia Makarova 155
Semantic Priming Study of Russian Aspect and Resultativity

Olga Batiukova, Pier Marco Bertinetto, Alessandro Lenci and Alessan-
dra Zarcone 177
Degree Semantics for Russian Verbal Prefixes: the Case of pod-

and do-
Olga Kagan 207
v
vi CONTENTS
Verbal Prefixes and Suffixes in Nominalization: Grammatical Re-

strictions and Corpus Data
Anna Pazelskaya 245
Adjuncts, Attitudes and Aspect: Some Additions to a Tense The-

ory for Russian
Atle Grønn and Arnim von Stechow 263
A. Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (eds.) The Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), 2012. vii–viii.
(ISSN 1890-9639)
preface
ATLE GRØNN AND ANNA PAZELSKAYA
Oslo, Moscow
In this issue of Oslo Studies in Language we present 12 contributions from the

conference “The Russian Verb” at the Norwegian University Centre in St. Peters-
burg in May 2010. The conference was organized by the RuN project at the Uni-
versity of Oslo, and the present publication marks the end of the RuN project.
The collection covers a variety of topics related to the Russian verb, starting
with a joint contribution by Barbara Partee and her Russian colleagues on verb
semantics in genitive alternations. The interaction of lexical verb semantics and
grammar is also central in the next articles by Letuchiy and Zorikhina Nilsson.
The two contributions in Russian – by Pozharitskaya and Sagitova – are related
to grammaticalization, dialectology and historical linguistics.
The last seven papers are more directly concerned with the evergreen issue of
Russian aspect, which must obviously be expected to be the main topic of a con-
ference devoted to the Russian verb. The works on aspect presented here vary
greatly both in the theoretical positions of the authors and in the range of phe-
nomena discussed.
The contributions include computational and corpus-based approaches by
Borik/Janssen, von Waldenfels and Kuznetsova/Makarova, psycholinguistic/ex-
perimental work on prefixes in Batiukova et al. and a purely semantic perspective
on prefixes in Kagan’s work. Pazelskaya analyses the aspectual structure in nom-
inalizations (following related work by Tatevosov), and the collection ends with
an article coauthored by Grønn and von Stechow.
The publication of this issue of Oslo Studies in Language is closely related to a
thematic issue of the journal Scando-Slavica (57:2, 2011). Its editor, Jens Nørgård
Sørensen, proposed the publication of a thematic issue from our conference, and
for practical reasons it was decided to include the contributions from the invited
speakers. Three of these speakers, Partee (et al.), Kagan and von Stechow/Grønn
also contribute to the present volume of OSLa.
The articles in Scando-Slavica (57:2, 2011) are:
• Barbara H. Partee, Vladimir Borschev, Elena Paducheva, Yakov Testelets,

and Igor Yanovich: The Role of Verb Semantics in Genitive Alternations in Russian
• Olga Kagan: The Scale Hypothesis and the Prefixes ‘pere-’ and ‘nedo-’
• Hans Robert Mehlig: General Questions and Verbal Aspect in Russian
[viii] grønn & pazelskaya
• Laura A. Janda and Olga Lyashevskaya: Aspectual Pairs in the Russian National
Corpus
• Sergei Tatevosov: Severing Perfectivity from the Verb
• Atle Grønn and Arnim von Stechow: Future vs. Present in Russian and English
Adjunct Clauses
• Tore Nesset and Julia Kuznetsova: Stability and Complexity: Russian Suffix Shift
over Time
• Vladimir Plungyan: Tipologičeskie aspekty slavjanskoj aspektologii (nekotorye

dopolnenija k teme)
For reasons of space, the following two articles will appear in Scando-Slavica
58:1, 2012:
• Stephen M. Dickey: The Development of the Imperfective General-Factual in Rus-

sian
• Viktor Xrakovsky: Hierarchy and Interaction of Russian Verb Categories (Aspect,

Tense, Mood)
We are very pleased with the high scholarly level of the 22 published contri-
butions from our St. Petersburg conference on the Russian Verb. We thank all the
participants in the conference, our authors and reviewers for their interest in the
Russian Verb.
a u t h o r c o n ta c t i n f o r m at i o n
Atle Grønn
Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages
University of Oslo
Norway
atle.gronn@ilos.uio.no
Anna Pazelskaya
proezd Shokalskogo, ‘b’, 162
Moscow
Russia
avis39@mail.ru
OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

A. Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (eds.) The Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), 2012. 1–29.
(ISSN 1890-9639)
the role of verb semantics in genitive

alternations: genitive of negation and
genitive of intensionality
BARBARA H. PARTEE, VLADIMIR BORSCHEV,

ELENA PADUCHEVA, YAKOV TESTELETS, AND IGOR YANOVICH
University of Massachusetts Ahmherst,
VINITI RAN, Russian State University for the Humanities, MIT
[1] i n t r o d u c t i o n : b a c k g r o u n d a n d h y p o t h e s e s
Genitive alternations, i.e. alternations between Genitive and Nominative case and
between Genitive and Accusative case, exist to various degrees in Slavic and Baltic
languages. In some cases they have become strongly grammaticized (e.g. Polish
Gen-Acc), in some cases virtually lost (e.g. Czech) (Franks 1995).
The most well-studied alternations are those in which Nominative or Accusative
may or must be replaced by Genitive under Negation, the so-called Genitive of
Negation (Gen Neg); a number of Slavic languages also show substitution of Gen-
itive for Accusative in the objects of some intensional verbs, which we refer to
as Genitive of Intensionality (Gen Int). In this paper we focus on Russian Subject
Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg, and only briefly discuss Genitive of Intensionality
(Gen Int). The Partitive Genitive is another alternating genitive which we will
say little about in the present paper, but which we include below in preliminary
illustrations of each kind.
We begin with some classic examples of the alternations in (1) and (2).1 The
Subject Gen Neg sentence in (1-d) is normally felt to be the negation of (1-b), an
existential sentence, whereas the negated sentence with Nominative subject (1-c)
is taken to be the negation of sentence (1-a), which has canonical word order. In
the case of Object Gen Neg, there is just a single affirmative form (2-a, 3-a), with
two alternative negative forms (2b-c, 3b-c).
[1] Examples (1c-d) are from Ickovič (1974) (cited in Babby 1980); those in (2) are our own. We note that after
decades of work on GenNeg, numerous examples highlighting various aspects of the construction have
in a sense become common property. We take many of our examples from this collection (sometimes
with variations), drawing principally on examples cited by Ickovič (1974), Babby (1980), Apresjan (1980),
and Padučeva (1992, 1997). When we need minimal pairs to make a point, we usually invent them.
[2] partee, borschev, paducheva, testelets & yanovich
(1) subject gen neg: Affirmatives in a-b, negatives in c-d.

a. Otvet iz polka prišel.
Answer-NOM.M.SG from regiment arrived-M.SG
‘The answer from the regiment has arrived.’
b. Prišel otvet iz polka.
Arrived-M.SG answer-NOM.M.SG from regiment
‘There was an answer from the regiment.’
c. Otvet iz polka ne prišel.
Answer-NOM.M.SG from regiment NEG arrived-M.SG
‘The answer from the regiment has not arrived.’
d. Otveta iz polka ne prišlo.
Answer-GEN.M.SG from regiment NEG arrived-N.SG
‘There was no answer from the regiment.’
(2) object gen neg: Affirmative in a, negatives in b-c.
a. Oni postroili gostinicu.
They built hotel-ACC
‘They built a/ the hotel.’
b. Oni ne postroili gostinicu.
They NEG built hotel-ACC
‘They didn’t build the hotel.’ (a ‘definite’ ‘planned’ hotel)
c. Oni ne postroili gostinicy.
They NEG built hotel-GEN
‘They didn’t build a hotel.’ (non-specific)
(3) a. Ja zametil vodku na stole.
I noticed vodka-ACC on table
‘I noticed the/some vodka on the table.’
b. Ja ne zametil vodku na stole.
I NEG noticed vodka-ACC on table
‘I didn’t notice the vodka on the table.’
(presuppositional: vodka was there)
c. Ja ne zametil vodki na stole.
I NEG noticed vodka-GEN on table
‘I didn’t notice any vodka on the table.’
(non-presuppositional: maybe was none)
The Genitive of Intensionality is illustrated in (4). The Genitive choice in (4-b)

often signals a ‘less specific’ interpretation of the object than the Accusative in
(4-a). The Partitive Genitive is illustrated in (5-b) with one of the several nouns
for which it has a morphologically distinctive form (usually it has the same form
as the regular Genitive); this is a different phenomenon, and not discussed in this
verb semantics in genitive alternations [3]
paper, but generally considered a historical source for Gen Neg (Kuryłowicz 1971;
Levinson 2005); it still shares some semantic properties with Gen Neg and Gen Int.
(4) gen int:

a. Petja ždal (svoj) avtobus.
Petja waited-for (self’s) bus-ACC
‘Petja was waiting for the (his) bus.’
b. Petja ždal avtobusa.
Petja waited-for bus-GEN
‘Petja was waiting for a bus.’
(5) partitive gen:
a. Petja vypil čaj.
Petja drank up tea-ACC
‘Petja drank up the tea.’
b. Petja vypil čaju.
Petja drank up tea-GEN
‘Petja drank (some) tea.’
These alternations vary across closely related languages and are subject to
historical change. It seems that Gen Neg in Russian was more strongly grammati-
cized (more nearly obligatory) in the past, and may disappear in the future, as in
Czech (and Heritage Russian (Polinsky 2006)). Gen Int is largely lexicalized; only
with some classes of objects of some verbs is there alternation between Genitive
and Accusative.
A major challenge for the analysis of these three Gen alternations is that there
are evidently multiple factors involved in the choice of Genitive case vs. Nomina-
tive or Accusative case, including syntactic, semantic, lexical, and stylistic factors.
In this paper we focus on semantic factors and especially on the interpretation of
the verb, but we do not claim that these factors account for all the variation.
One strict syntactic condition must be noted at the outset: Gen Neg and Gen
Int occur only with ‘structural arguments’ of the verb, subjects or objects which
are direct (not prepositional) arguments of the verb and which would otherwise
take Nom or Acc. Subject Gen Neg occurs only with intransitive verbs.
Other factors which have been discussed in the huge literature on this topic
(see especially (Babby 1980; Corbett 1986; Ickovič 1982; Timberlake 1975)) include
the referential status of the NP, the scope of negation2 , the ‘strength’ of nega-
tion; topic-focus or theme-rheme structure (Babby 1980); “Perspectival struc-
ture” (Borschev & Partee 1998, 2002a,c); Unaccusativity (Neidle 1982; Pesetsky
[2] Jakobson (1971/1936) and others suggested scope of negation as a factor, but Padučeva (1997) argues for
a presupposition-oriented approach instead; see also Partee & Borschev (2002).

1980); “style” (conservative, innovative, etc.); and verb semantics (Kagan 2007;
Padučeva 1992, 1997).
We begin by outlining some of our previous research and the hypotheses we
propose in our present study of the role of verb semantics in these alternations.
First, our view on subject gen neg (section [2]) is that there is a strong seman-
tic component which involves both the semantics of the verb and the semantics of
the NP. The Subject Gen Neg alternation is sensitive to a major syntactic/semantic
distinction between two sentence types: “existential” (including some “percep-
tual”) vs. “predicative” sentences. The verbs that may occur in existential sen-
tences are an open class; some are independently characterizable as existential
or perceptual, and others may undergo ‘semantic bleaching’ (section [2.3]).
Secondly, for a minority of transitive verbs, verbs of perception and creation,
the characteristics of object gen neg (section [3]) are close to those of Subject Gen
Neg. However, for many transitive verbs the Gen/Acc opposition seems to have
a somewhat different semantic basis from that in Subject Gen Neg: the distinc-
tion does not involve different “sentence types”, but rather is “weakly semantic”
(a notion we clarify below.) At least one common factor influences both Subject
Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg: relative referentiality of the NP (section [3.1.1]).
Borschev et al. (2008) capture this with a “demotion” type-shift of the NP to prop-
erty type (type ⟨e, t⟩), an approach to which Olga Kagan has also made important
contributions. This is consistent with Padučeva’s (2006) approach, on which an
important commonality between Subject Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg is that they
both require that the verb carry no presupposition of existence for the given ar-
gument.
Thirdly and crucially, as we discuss in section [3.1.3], a shift in NP type requires,
for composition purposes, a corresponding shift in V type and thus a shift in the ver-
bal semantics. Different classes of verbs have different “routes” to type-shifted
meanings, some easier than others. Borschev et al. (2008) argued that this is a
major factor in explaining the differences in the distribution and interpretation
of Object Gen Neg for different classes of verbs. Sometimes the semantic shift is
minimal or almost minimal, and sometimes it involves substantially modifying
the lexical meaning of the verb.
As discussed in (Borschev et al. 2008; Kagan 2007), while obj gen neg and gen
int share certain similarities, Gen Int involves a rather small number of verbs,
each with its own idiosyncratic behavior. We and Kagan have argued that the se-
mantic relation between the two alternate case forms is the same for both, but
there is a significantly heavier degree of lexicalization of case-choice for inten-
sional verbs, so that semantics plays a weaker role in Gen Int. We discuss Gen Int
briefly in section [3.2].
We will not discuss Partitive Gen in this paper at all; it is a different, though
overlapping, phenomenon from the other three. We note, however, that possible
partitive readings reinforce the possibility to have the Genitive form in examples
with mass or plural nouns. And since partitives may potentially be fruitfully an-
alyzed as property type, perhaps the similarity and overlap among Partitive Gen,
Gen Int, and Gen Neg is not surprising, though we will not discuss partitivity in
this paper3 .
Another construction we will omit from discussion is one that appears to be a
special subtype of Gen Neg: this is Gen Neg with ‘strengthened negation’, involv-
ing noun phrases that include such modifiers as ni odnoj ‘not a single’, nikakoj ‘not
any’. It is well known that subjects and objects whose negation is thus ‘strength-
ened’ often allow Gen Neg in contexts where they would not allow it otherwise
(Apresjan 1980; Mustajoki & Heino 1991; Padučeva 1992). The only exceptions
known to us to the generalization that Subject Gen Neg sentences are always in-
terpretable as existential sentences are examples involving such strengthened
negation, such as (6-a) below4 . The justification for calling for separate treatment
for ‘Strengthened Gen Neg’ construction comes from the new observation that
unlike normal Gen Neg, the strengthened kind can even occur with the subject
of transitive verbs, as in (6-b), from Yandex5 . We therefore avoid ‘strengthened
negation’ in all examples in this paper.
(6) a. Ni odnoj butylki ne razbilos’.

Not one-GEN.F.SG bottle-GEN.F.SG NEG broke-N.SG
[3] Bailyn (2004) proposes a unification of these different Genitive alternations from a syntactic perspective.
[4] Strengthened negation also provides the only counterexamples we have found via Google to the obser-
vation that Gen Neg is good with the ‘existential’ verb pojavit’sja ‘appear’ but not with its antonym isčezat’
‘disappear’.
Borschev & Partee (2002b) discuss the contrast between (i), with obligatory Genitive, and (ii), from
(Padučeva 1992, 53), with obligatory Nominative subject. They note that Gen Neg is impossible with
the verb isčezat’ ‘disappear’, since the lexical semantics of that verb is unsalvageably incompatible with
the Presupposed Equivalence.
(i) a. *(#) Somnenija ne byli

Doubts-NOM.N.PL NEG were-N.PL
*The doubts were not.
b. Somnenij ne bylo.
Doubts-GEN.N.PL NEG were-N.SG
‘There were no doubts.’ (Babby 1980)
(ii) Somnenija ne isčezli.

Doubts-NOM.N.PL NEG disappeared-PL
‘The doubts did not disappear.’
With the verb pojavit’sja ‘appear’, both Gen and Nom are possible under negation, since that verb can
be used in both existential sentences and predicational sentences. Such a contrast between pojavit’sja
‘appear’ and isčezat’ ‘disappear’, both Unaccusative verbs, is further support for Babby’s (1980) contention
that what Subject Gen Neg is sensitive to is the existential/predicational sentence type distinction, not
simply Unaccusativity. So it is interesting that the claim that isčezat’ ‘disappear’ never takes Gen Neg also
has counterexamples but only with strengthened negation, with ni odin ‘not a single’ or the like.
[5] http://qpr.right-web.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=348

‘Not a single bottle broke.’

b. Ni odnogo fonarja ne osveščalo
Not one-GEN.M.SG lamp-GEN.M.SG NEG lit-N.SG
naselënnye punkty srazu posle granicy.
villages immediately after border
‘Not a single lamp illuminated the villages immediately after the bor-
der.’
[2] s u b j e c t g e n i t i v e o f n e gat i o n , d i at h e s i s c h o i c e , a n d “ s e m a n -
tic bleaching” of verbs
[2.1] Approaches to Subject Gen Neg
In the Western tradition, Babby (1980) and others, following Jakobson (1971/1936),
argue that Subject Gen Neg alternation reflects scope of negation, with Nomina-
tive subject being outside the scope of negation, and Genitive subject inside of
it. In particular, Jakobson says that Subject Gen Neg “negates the subject itself”,
where a corresponding nominative with negation “negates only the action”. Bab-
by ties the scope of sentential negation to Theme-Rheme structure, claiming that
Theme is outside the scope of negation, and Rheme inside. Subject Gen Neg ap-
plies when the Theme is empty (or includes only a Locative) and the Verb plus
Subject constitute the Rheme. Pesetsky (1980) treats the Genitive as triggered by
a null NPI determiner that is licensed only in the scope of negation.
As for the relation between Subject Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg, the Unac-
cusative line of analysis, exemplified by Pesetsky (1980), Perlmutter (1978), Nei-
dle (1982), and others, says that Object Gen Neg is “basic” and can occur with any
transitive verb, a claim that is too strong for modern Russian (Padučeva 2006).
On the Unaccusative approach, Subject Gen Neg is argued to be possible only for
verbs for which the surface subject is an “underlying object”, i.e. the single argu-
ment of an Unaccusative verb.
In the Russian linguistic tradition, Subject Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg are
generally considered to be two separate constructions, with Subject Gen Neg hav-
ing more systematic semantic significance than Object Gen Neg. Within this tradi-
tion, Padučeva (1997) argues that Subject Gen Neg is restricted to two lexical class-
es of verbs: existential verbs and perception verbs. Babby (1980) finds similarities
between Subject and Object Gen Neg but argues that Subject Gen Neg applies only
to existential sentences; we agree, including sentences with perception verbs as
a distinctive subtype of existential sentences (with caveats; see footnote 7).
Borschev & Partee (2002a,b,c) agreed with much of Babby (1980), but argued
that Subject Gen Neg is sensitive not to Theme-Rheme structure but to “Perspec-
tival Structure”, involving a diathesis choice with verbs that take both an NP ar-
gument and a LOC(ation) argument (implicit or explicit), as described in Section
[2.2]. There are Subject Gen Neg examples in which the Genitive NP can be argued
to be the Theme, like kefira ‘kefir’ in (8) and sobaki ‘dog’ in (7).
(7) Sobaki u menja net. (Arutjunova 1976)

dog-GEN.F.SG at I-GEN not.is
‘I don’t have a dog.’
[Context: talking about dogs, perhaps about whether I have one.]
(8) [ Ja iskal kefir. ] Kefira v magazine ne
[ I looked-for kefir-ACC.M.SG ] Kefir-GEN.M.SG in store NEG
bylo.
was-N.SG
[I was looking for kefir.] ‘There wasn’t any kefir in the store.’
(Borschev & Partee 2002b)
Later, Partee & Borschev (2004) and Kagan (2005, 2007) independently sug-
gested that the diathesis choice6 involved in Subject Gen Neg, and also Object Gen
Neg and Gen Int, involves shifting the NP to “property type” ⟨e, t⟩ – a position
we maintain in the current paper as well and discuss in section [3.1.2]. We first
present our analysis of Subject Gen Neg in less formal terms.
[2.2] Our analysis of Subject Gen Neg

Among the central notions needed for understanding existential sentences, Aru-
tjunova (1976, 1997) distinguishes three components in a “classical” existential
sentence: a “Localizer” (“Region of existence”), a name of an “Existing object”,
and an “Existential Verb”. Borschev et al. (2008) use the terms loc(ation), thing,
and vbe .
(9) V ètom kraju (Localizer) est’ (Existential Verb) lesa (name of “Existing Object”).
In that region is/are forests-NOM.M.PL
‘There are forests in that region.’ (Arutjunova 1997, 57)
thing and loc are roles of the participants of the situation (or state) of existing
or of being located – not simply roles of the verbs, since with some verbs loc is not
expressed overtly. In the kefir sentence (8), the thing is denoted by kefir, and loc
is denoted by v magazine; in (1-b, d), thing is the answer, and loc is the implicit
location associated with the verb prišel ‘arrived’.
One of the core principles behind Borschev & Partee (1998, 2002b) is the fol-
lowing:
[6] This shift in the types of the verb’s arguments is not a prototypical case of “diathesis shift”, but such an
extension of the term “diathesis” to involve demotions from canonical subject or object status as well as
changes from one argument type to another has been argued for by, among others, (Ackerman & Moore
2001).

(10) “existence is relative” principle: Existence (in the sense relevant to ex-
istential sentences) is always relative to a loc(ation).
The relevant location may be implicit or explicit. It may be a physical location,

‘a perceiver’s perceptual field’, the virtual location of ‘in x’s possession’, or the
whole world, etc. Example (11-b) is a negated existential sentence7 with Gen Neg
which denies the existence of the thing in a perceiver’s perceptual field while
presupposing existence of that thing in a larger context. Sentence (11-b) could be
used when we’re looking for Masha, can’t see her, and surmise that she isn’t here.
A natural context for sentence (11-a), with nominative, could be while taking a
group photo: someone needs to move so that Masha will be visible.
(11) a. Maša ne vidna.

Masha-NOM NEG seen-F.SG
‘Masha can’t be seen.’ (but she’s here)
b. Maši ne vidno.
Masha-GEN NEG seen-N.SG
‘Masha is nowhere to be seen.’ (and may not be here at all)
The core of the proposal of Borschev & Partee (1998, 2002b) is that the dis-
tinction marked by Subj Gen Neg is a distinction between existential sentences
and locative (predicational) sentences, two sentences types that may both involve
verbs that can express a relation between a thing and a location (explicit or im-
plicit). We treat the distinction as involving a diathesis choice.
To spell out the proposal, we need some background ontology from Borschev
& Partee (1998, 2002b):
(12) The Common Structure of “Existence/location situations”: vbe

(thing, loc) (vbe abbreviates the (open) class of verbs that can occur in
existential sentences)
(13) perspective structure:
An “existence/location situation” may be structured as either centered
on the thing or centered on the location. We use the term perspectival
center for the chosen participant.
Borschev and Partee use a camera metaphor to explain the different choices of
Perspectival Center: the virtual camera may be ‘tracking the thing’ (thing is Per-
spectival Center) or be ‘fixed on the location’ (loc is Perspectival Center). In the
first case, we get a locative subtype of predicative sentence, in the second case,
[7] Borschev and Partee treated intransitive perception sentences like (11-b) as a subtype of existential sen-
tences. But they have a number of distinctive properties and not all of our team agree with this suppo-
sition. We leave the issue open for now.

an existential sentence. In the affirmative, the sentence types do not differ in

case choice, but when sentential negation is present, they are distinguished by
the case of the subject (thing): Nom if locative/predicative, Gen if existential.
(14) a. Otec ne byl na more. (Apresjan 1980)

Father-NOM.M.SG NEG was-M.SG at sea.
‘Father was not at the sea.’ (maybe never in his life)
b. Otca ne bylo na more.
Father-GEN.M.SG NEG was-N.SG at sea.
‘Father was not at the sea.’ “There was no Father there.” (at some
given event)
While we are skeptical about the Unaccusativity hypothesis for Gen Neg, this
semantic analysis is not incompatible with it; it could in principle provide the
semantic motivation for the choice between an Unaccusative and an Unergative
structure.
(15) perspectival center presupposition:

Any Perspectival Center must normally be presupposed to exist.
So in the first sentence of (16-a), from (Partee & Borschev 2004) the Nom construc-
tion presupposes that Petja exists but not that the concert exists. Thus denying
that there was a concert is a felicitous continuation. In (16-b), the Gen construc-
tion presupposes that the concert exists, and the continuation is thus infelicitous.
In sentence (16-b) the construction does not provide any presupposition of Petja’s
existence; the sentence denies his existence in the given location (by principle
(17) below). But the proper name itself carries a presupposition of existence in
the larger context.
(16) a. Petja na koncerte ne byl. Koncerta ne bylo.

Petja-NOM at concert NEG was-M.SG. Concert NEG was-N.SG
‘Petja was not at the concert. There was no concert.’
b. Peti na koncerte ne bylo #Koncerta ne bylo.
Petja-GEN at concert NEG was-N.SG. Concert NEG was-N.SG
‘Petja was not at the concert. #There was no concert.’ (P&B 2004)
Borschev and Partee have the following semantic rule capturing the semantics
of the Subject Gen Neg sentences:
(17) the semantics of negated existential sentences (nes):

An NES asserts or implicates the non-existence of the thing(s) described
by the subject NP in the Perspectival center location.
Borschev & Partee (1998) derive principle (17) from the literal semantics of
¬V (thing, loc), plus the following principle8 :
(18) presupposed equivalence: An NES presupposes that the following equiv-

alence holds locally in the given context of utterance:
VBE (thing, loc) ⇔ BE(thing, loc)
It is important to stress that perspectival structure reflects a structuring at the

model-theoretic level, like the telic/atelic distinction, or the distinction between
Agents and Experiencers. These properties reflect cognitive structuring of the
domains that we use language to talk about, and are not simply “given” by the
nature of the external world.
When we choose the location as Perspectival Center, the sentence speaks
about what things there are or are not in that location/situation.
Later, Partee & Borschev (2004) and Borschev et al. (2008), and similarly Ka-
gan (2007), proposed that central to the linguistic manifestation of this diathesis
choice of an existential construction (as opposed to the locative/predicative con-
struction), and also central to the related constructions that give rise to Object
Gen Neg and Gen Int, is a “demotion” of the NP argument to property type ⟨e, t⟩.
We discuss this further below.
[2.3] Bleachable verbs and the nature of semantic bleaching

It has often been observed that the lexical, non-be verbs in Subject Gen Neg sen-
tences seem “bleached”; substituting the verb byt’ ‘be’ for them often produces a
nearly equivalent sentence. Borschev & Partee (1998) argued the lexical verbs oc-
curring with Subject Gen Neg have their normal meanings9 . But the construction
presupposes the equivalence in (18). Then we may ask: can we find or accommo-
date for the given sentence in the given context further premises whose presence
can make the equivalence in (18) “locally valid”? Such premises may come from
the dictionary, common knowledge, or the context. Answers range from “Yes,
easily” to “Impossible.”
“Dictionary axioms”
Here is an example of how encyclopedic knowledge plus a “dictionary axiom”,
allows us to derive the relevant equivalence which enables the use of Subject Gen
Neg:
[8] We now consider it likely that the equivalence is an implicature rather than a presupposition, and that
it holds for all existential sentences, affirmative and negative. See Borschev et al. (2010).
[9] There is a contradiction between the claim that lexical meanings of verbs in Subject Gen Neg sentences
do not change and the earlier claim that with the shift of the NP in a Subject Gen Neg sentence to type
⟨e, t⟩, the verb type and verb meaning must also shift. This contradiction is addressed and resolved in a
forthcoming paper (Borschev et al. 2010), as briefly described in section [3.1.4] below.

(19) a. Ne belelo parusov na gorizonte.

NEG shone-white-N.SG sails-GEN.M.PL on horizon
‘No sails were shining white on the horizon.’
b. Presupposed Equivalence:
‘A sail shone white on the horizon.’ ⇔ ‘There was a sail on the hori-
zon.’
c. ‘Dictionary axiom’ (part of lexical semantics):
to shine-white ⇔ to be white (in the field of vision)
d. Dictionary or encyclopedic axiom; ‘common knowledge’:
‘Sails as a rule are white.’
Assuming that the generic axiom (19-d) holds in the given situation, we can
infer that there was a sail on the horizon if and only if there was a white sail on the
horizon. Then by the lexical axiom in (19-c) relating two Russian verbs, we can
derive that there was a white sail on the horizon if and only if a sail shone (visibly)
white on the horizon. Together, this gives us the desired equivalence in (19-b),
licensing Genitive.
Dictionary + contextual axioms
Now consider a modification of the previous example:
(20) Ne belelo domov na gorizonte. (B&P 1998)

NEG shone-white-N.SG houses-GEN.M.PL on horizon
‘No houses were shining white on the horizon.’
Here, in most contexts the analog of (19-d) will not be valid: houses are often
not white. In such contexts, (20) cannot be uttered successfully. When we try to
imagine a context in which (20) could be used, we are led to consider a region in
which all houses are white, and in which they can be seen from a long distance,
and to (for instance) imagine a traveller through such a region looking for signs of
habitation. In this way, contextual axioms can add enough information to make
the desired equivalence true; Gen becomes acceptable, and the sentence is inter-
preted as an existential sentence – there were no houses on the horizon.
Examples (18) and (19) involve the same verb, with the same meaning. In (18)
Gen is very natural, while in (19) special assumptions about the context are re-
quired. We did not require or find any change in the meaning of the verb belet’.
Hence the “semantic bleaching” phenomenon is not a change in the verb’s mean-
ing. Instead, the perception of meaning change comes from the added assumption
that in the given context, “to be (in this Loc) is to Verb (in this Loc)”.
More examples with non-trivial equivalence
(21) a. Moroza ne čuvstvovalos’.

Frost-GEN.M.SG NEG be.felt-N.SG
‘No frost was felt (there was no frost).’
(Babby 1980, 59; from Ickovič 1974)
b. Equivalence: Frost was felt ⇔ There was frost.
c. “Locative” S with Nom, no such equivalence:
Moroz ne čuvstvovalsja.
Frost-NOM.M.SG NEG be.felt-M.SG
‘The frost was not felt.’
Here, the Gen Neg variant in (21-a) is felicitous if it is presupposed that we

feel cold if and only if it is cold. This axiom, in (21-b), is the needed equivalence
itself. On the other hand, (21-c) does not presuppose any such equivalence. In
fact, in (21-c) it is presupposed that the cold did exist at the moment, and it is
predicated of it that it just was not felt (perhaps because we were dressed warmly).
So depending on whether the context validates (21-b) or not, we have a context
for (21-a) or for (21-c). And the meaning of the verb doesn’t change, but in the
Gen Neg case it is effectively “bleached”.
(22) V našem lesu ne rastet gribov.

In our forest NEG grows-SG mushrooms-GEN.M.PL
‘There are no mushrooms growing in our forest.’ (Babby 1980, 66)
It is “common knowledge” that for mushrooms in the woods, ‘to be is to be grow-

ing’. Babby (1980, 67) gives the contrasting example (23), a negated predicative
sentence with the same verb but with a Nom subject, saying that if you tried to
plant grass here, it wouldn’t grow.
(23) Zdes’ daže trava ne rosla.

Here even grass-NOM.F.SG NEG grew-F.SG
‘Even grass couldn’t grow here’
Conclusions about Subject Gen Neg and “Genitive verbs”
Subject Gen Neg can occur with any verb that can support the presupposed equiv-
alence. Since added premises may come from the context, a “list” of such verbs
is impossible. Some verbs are easier to find contextual support for than others;
for instance, agentives are usually impossible in Subject Gen Neg. But consider
(24)10 :
(24) Ne begalo tarakanov.

NEG ran-N.SG cockroaches-GEN.M.PL
‘There were no cockroaches running around.’
Two things help to make (24), a rare example of Subject Gen Neg with a nor-
mally agentive verb, possible: (i) the subject is non-human (and thus has de-
creased agentivity), and (ii) running around is a characteristic sign of the pres-
ence of cockroaches: for cockroaches in a human place of abode, ‘to be is to run
around’.11
And conversely, some verbs have meanings so close to byt’ that they virtually
demand Gen Neg, as suščestvovat’ ‘exist’ normally does. (But even suščestvovat’ ‘ex-
ist’ does not absolutely demand Gen Neg; see discussion of Paducheva’s suščestvo-
vat’ dlja nego ‘exist for him’ (‘exist in his world’) examples in (Partee & Borschev
2004).)
[3] o b j e c t g e n i t i v e s , s u b j e c t g e n i t i v e s , a n d t h e v e r b
[3.1] The Relation between Subj Gen Neg and Obj Gen Neg
Are Subject and Object Gen Neg in Russian the same construction? Franks (1995)
refers with approval to arguments by Pesetsky (1980) and Neidle (1982, 1988) that
Gen Neg applies only to underlying internal arguments (direct objects), so that
Subject Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg are actually a single phenomenon. But we are
sceptical about this view on empirical grounds, despite its theoretical elegance.
Western Slavists (other than Babby) start from Object Gen Neg and see Sub-
ject Gen Neg as a derivative phenomenon involving only “apparent” subjects. This
approach does not offer any direct account of the “existential” interpretation of
Subject Gen Neg sentences. Russian linguists are more inclined to see Subject Gen
Neg as a property of existential sentences, and not to expect the same analysis
to apply to Object Gen Neg sentences, which are not in any obvious sense “exis-
tential”, although as Padučeva has emphasized in her work, Subject Gen Neg and
[10] This example is based on a line from Turgenev, “Chor’ i Kaliniyč” (1846-47): meždu brevnami i po kosjakam
okon ne skitalos’ rezvych prusakov, ne skryvalos’ zadumčivych tarakanov ‘between the logs and along the win-
dow frames there didn’t wander any frisky red-cockroaches-GEN, there weren’t hiding any brooding
(black) cockroaches-GEN’. The verb skitat’sja ‘wander’ is normally agentive, normally applied only to
human subjects.
[11] In this example there may indeed be a substantive shift in the meaning of the verb, bringing it closer to a
non-agentive meaning like ‘teeming’; compare agentive and non-agentive uses of English ‘swarm’ in the
diathesis alternation Bees were swarming in the garden vs. The garden was swarming with bees. See Borschev
et al. (2010) for more discussion.

Object Gen Neg are often alike in requiring that the verb not impose an existence
presupposition for the NP in the given argument position12 .
A problem for approaches that take Object Gen Neg as basic and extend it to
Subject Gen Neg via Unaccusativity is that they do not explain why some but not
all passive sentences allow Gen Neg subjects. With the verb podat’ ’submit’, we find
parallel behavior13 and interpretation between the object and a passive subject,
illustrated in (25).
(25) a. On ne podal zajavlenija o kraže.

he NEG submit statement-GEN.N.SG about theft
‘He didn’t submit a statement about the theft.’
b. Zajavlenija o kraže ne bylo podano.
statement-GEN.N.SG about theft NEG was-N.SG submitted
‘No statement about the theft was submitted.’
c. On ne podal zajavlenie o kraže.
he NEG submit statement-NOM.N.SG about theft
‘He didn’t submit the statement about the theft.’
d. Zajavlenie o kraže ne bylo podano.
statement-NOM.N.SG about theft NEG was-N.SG submitted
‘The statement about the theft was not submitted.’
All are good, and the interpretations are parallel: Acc/Nom presupposes exis-
tence of the statement, Gen suggests no statement exists. But that is not true for
all transitive verbs.
(26) a. Oni ne osuždajut povedenija molodych chuliganov

They NEG condemn behavior-GEN.N.SG young-GEN thugs-GEN
‘They don’t condemn the behavior of the young thugs.’
b. *Povedenija molodych chuliganov ne
behavior-GEN.N.SG young-GEN thugs-GEN NEG
osuždaetsja.
condemn-REFL-N.SG
Intended meaning: ‘The behavior of the young thugs isn’t condemned.’
The pattern we see with osuždat’ ’condemn’ in (26) is unexpected on the Un-
accusativity approach; since the subject of (26-b) is an ‘underlying object’, (26-b)
should have been as good as (25-b) with podat’ ’submit’, but it is not. The pattern
can be explained by the fact that (25-b) but not (26-b) can be interpreted as an
existential sentence. The passive predicate podan(o) ‘submitted’ is a bleachable,
[12] But as the contrast between (25-a–b) and (26-a–b) below shows, this non-presupposition requirement is
much stronger for Subject Gen Neg than for Object Gen Neg.
[13] Thanks to Alexander Letuchiy for bringing up this issue and finding similar examples.

potentially ‘existential’ predicate similar to prišlo ‘arrived’. Its subject does not
carry a presupposition of existence, just as the object of podat’ ‘submit doesn’t
carry a presupposition of existence. Osuždan(o) ‘condemned’, on the other hand,
cannot be construed as an existential predicate; it presupposes the existence of
its subject. This doesn’t matter for Obj Gen Neg, but does for Subj Gen Neg.
The contrast between verbs meaning ‘appear’ and ‘disappear’ (both Unac-
cusative) noted in footnote 4 is also problematic for the Unaccusativity hypothe-
sis, which we believe tries to treat Subject Gen Neg and Object Gen Neg as more
alike than they actually are.
Gen Neg marks “demotion” from canonical Subject or Object

We believe that the two alternations are similar in that both involve a demotion
of the corresponding argument: a genitive subject is not a first-class subject, and
a genitive object is not a first-class object.
But because objects are more closely dependent on the verb, the semantic
effects of Object Gen Neg are more variable, while the semantic effects of Subject
Gen Neg fall into just one strong pattern, the existential type, with a perceptual
subtype, as in Maši ne vidno (11-b).
A cross-linguistic difference between subject alternations and object alter-
nations that fits well with the ⟨e, t⟩-type hypothesis comes from incorporation
phenomena in various languages: such variation in semantic type and associat-
ed grammatical marking is widespread for the “internal arguments” of a verb and
rare for subjects. It may well be that existential sentences are the only widespread
case of ⟨e, t⟩ subjects, and hence not surprising that existential sentences gener-
ally form a separate sentence type.
It is not that there are no Object Gen Neg cases that work similarly to Sub-
ject Gen Neg. In particular, Padučeva (2006) discusses two classes of verbs for
which Obj Gen Neg is closely parallel in semantics to Subj Gen Neg: verbs of cre-
ation (cause-exist) like stroit’ ‘build’ are analogous to existential verbs, and transi-
tive perception verbs are naturally parallel to intransitive perception predicates
like vidno ‘seen, visible’. But Obj Gen Neg applies much more broadly than Subj
Gen Neg, and by no means always corresponds to any sort of non-existence in a
location, as can be seen in many examples below.
The type-shifting approach to ‘demotion diathesis’

Instead of deriving Subject Gen Neg from Object Gen Neg, we argue for a different
generalization covering both, based on semantic types and type-shifting.
Semantic theories distinguish semantic types such as “individual”, “proposi-
tion”, “property”. In formal semantics, three main types have been proposed for
the meanings of NPs14 : (i) type e, “entity-type”, the default type for proper names,
[14] We will use NP as a cover term to include all of NP, QP, and DP.

pronouns, referential NPs (DPs); (ii) type ⟨⟨e, t⟩, t⟩, “generalized quantifier type”,
the type for strong quantificational NPs; and (iii) type ⟨e, t⟩15 , “predicate type” or
“property type”, default type for adjectives, common nouns, and predicate NPs.
Partee (1986) describes the different types of NP interpretations and offers an ac-
count of some of the type-shifting principles that govern their distribution.
Property-type interpretations of NP have been invoked for a number of con-
structions, including opaque objects of intensional verbs (Zimmermann 1993),
“subjects” of existential sentences (Padučeva 1985, 99; McNally 1992, 1997), in-
corporated nominals (Geenhoven 1998), and Russian small nominals (Pereltsvaig
2006), in addition to predicate nominals (Partee 1986, among others), where they
are the default interpretation.
We believe that what is sometimes referred to as the “decreased individua-
tion” or “decreased referentiality” of a Genitive NP (Timberlake 1975; Padučeva
1992) can be best formalized as a shift from a referential or e-type argument in-
terpretation to a property-type or ⟨e, t⟩-type interpretation.
(27) property-type hypothesis (Partee & Borschev (2004); Kagan (2005, 2007);
Borschev et al. (2008)): Where Russian has a Nom/Gen or Acc/Gen alter-
nation, if there is a semantic difference at all, then Nom or Acc preferen-
tially represents an ordinary e-type argument, whereas a Gen NP is pref-
erentially interpreted as property-type: ⟨e, t⟩.
The hedges reflect the fact that Acc and Gen forms are sometimes semantically in-
distinguishable, and semantic effects that do occur are sometimes optional; these
issues are discussed briefly below, and more in Borschev et al. (2008).
Shifting the NP, Shifting the Verb

In general, a change in the semantic type of an argument implies a change in
the verb’s meaning. There are familiar analogies in other domains, such as shifts
in meaning of reflexive versions of verbs like to hurt oneself, to help oneself, and
differences between ‘intensional’ and ‘extensional’ versions of seeking/looking for,
or expecting/waiting for.
The verb ljubit’ ‘love’ has different meanings with human vs. inanimate or
abstract nouns. Gen Neg is common with inanimate/abstract objects, for which
‘love’ generally relates to a ‘quality’, but is less common, and for some speakers
impossible, when it expresses the typical human-to-human ‘love’-relation. Apres-
jan (2005) finds Gen Neg ungrammatical for human objects of ljubit’ (suggesting
“depersonification”, insulting.) Others disagree, but most do find a contrast in
(28a-b), with (28-b) getting a ‘quality’ interpretation.
[15] Property type is really an intensional type; in some systems it would be ⟨s, ⟨e, t⟩⟩.

(28) a. (*) Ja ne ljublju ètoj ženščiny.

I NEG love that-GEN woman-GEN
‘I don’t love that woman.’
b. Ja ne ljublju ètoj pevicy.
I NEG love that-GEN singer-GEN
‘I don’t love that singer.’
The role-noun pevica ‘singer’ invites an interpretation where the attitude is di-
rected not toward the singer qua individual, but to some manifest (presumably
musical) qualities of that singer. This is one of many sorts of ‘property’ readings.
Even an ordinary human DP like èta ženščina ‘that woman’ can occur in genitive
if there is strong contextual help, as in (29); a woman as a normal e-type entity
does not ‘come in large doses’. (Acc is possible with a property reading, but Gen
is impossible without it.)
(29) Ja ne ljublju ètoj ženščiny, osobenno v bol’šix dozax.

I NEG love that-GEN woman-GEN especially in large doses
‘I don’t love that woman, especially in large doses.’
With the verb zametit’ ‘notice’ in (3b-c), the interpretation with Accusative ob-
ject under negation is presuppositional, the interpretation with Gen Neg is not. As
noted by Dahl (1971), Kagan (2005, 2007), and Borschev & Partee (2008), follow-
ing Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1970), the same verb takes clausal complements with
indicative (factive) or subjunctive (non-factive). On Kagan’s and our analysis, the
‘veridical’ (presuppositional) sense of the transitive verb as in (3-c) takes a type e
object, marked Acc; the non-veridical sense as in (3-b) takes a property-type ob-
ject, and could be roughly paraphrased as ‘notice something which seemed to be
(a/some) P’.
In general, Obj Gen Neg is less semantically uniform than Subj Gen Neg, but not
so lexically idiosyncratic as Gen Int. It is sensitive to verb classes in ways that we
explain in terms of different possible paths to type-shifting. Some type-shifting
possibilities form recurrent and semi-productive patterns; others are more id-
iosyncratic, depending on the particular verb and particular NP; some may arise
‘on the fly’ and may depend heavily on the context. We give an overview of the
main types of verbal shifts below.
verbs of creation may be viewed as causatives of inchoatives of potentially
existential verbs. Under negation, the act of creation is denied, both with Acc and
with Gen. Acc nevertheless takes a type e object, implying ‘referentiality’: the ob-
ject is understood as specific, existing perhaps in some world of plans and inten-
tions. See (2a-b): the Acc variant predicates non-creation of a specific ‘planned’
hotel; but in the Gen variant, there is simply no hotel at all, and no plans are
presupposed. Both readings are robust.
The variant of the sentence with Gen Neg can be viewed as a species of the
purely formal “non-specific” shift seen with existential verbs (and the open class
of “weak” “bleachable” verbs), discussed in more detail in Borschev et al. (2010).
Since indefinites have been argued to have ⟨e, t⟩ as their basic type (Landman,
McNally, others), when such verbs take bare NP objects with indefinite readings,
the NP need not shift at all.
verbs of perception. With intransitive verbs of perception, as in (11a-b), the
Acc variant implies Masha is not seen, but is somewhere ‘here’, while the Gen
variant simply asserts her non-existence in the observer’s field of perception,
which may be evidence of her absence from the observed location. The behav-
ior of objects of transitive perception verbs, as in (30) below, is very similar. The
Acc example (30-a) is compatible with a range of different interpretations, and
does not suggest Masha’s absence from a certain area. The Gen example (25-b)
simply states that there was no visual evidence of Masha’s presence. The differ-
ence, however, is more subtle in the Object Gen Neg than in Subject Gen Neg: the
object Genitive does not require the presupposed equivalence in (18) and thus
non-existence in the location, so the difference between the Gen and Acc vari-
ants is smaller in (30a-b). But the ⟨e, t⟩-type shift is the same for transitive and
intransitive verbs: the relevant argument is shifted into an ⟨e, t⟩-type meaning
“being Masha”. The verb ‘see’ then shifts its meaning into something like ‘get vi-
sual evidence of the presence of something which is P’. Together and with nega-
tion added, that produces ‘didn’t glimpse any trace of Masha’. Proper names shift
particularly easily to property type with these verbs.
(30) a. Ne videl Mašu.

NEG saw Masha-ACC
‘He didn’t see Masha.’ (didn’t take the time to go see her, or …)
b. Ne videl Maši.
NEG saw Masha-GEN
‘He didn’t see Masha.’ (no visual evidence … )
‘partitive shift’ lets an incremental theme verb like pročitat’ in (31-a) take Gen
Neg with a measure-like interpretation. This contrasts with the interpretation for
the Acc variant of the sentence in (31-b) where the two pages are some specific
two pages.
(31) a. Ja ne pročital dvux stranic.

I NEG read two-GEN pages-GEN
‘I didn’t read (even) two pages.’ (I read less than two pages.)
b. Ja ne pročital dve stranicy.
I NEG read two-ACC pages-ACC
‘I didn’t read those two pages.’
Another type of shift is a “semantic incorporation shift” to give a “kind of

action”. With the strongly actional ubit’ ‘kill’, a rather “all or none” action, Gen
Neg is rare. But it can marginally be used to denote a “kind” of killing (cf. lexi-
cal matricide). On this “incorporation” shift, the meaning shifts to a variant ‘to
Verb (or try to Verb) something with property P’. Thus the VP in (32) amounts to
something like a “be a mother-killer”:
(32) ?Petja ne ubival materi.

Petja NEG killed mother-GEN
‘Petja didn’t kill his mother.’ (‘Petja is not a mother-killer.’)
The pevica ‘singer’ example (28-b) demonstrates the quality-metonymy shift:

an e-type argument is turned into a property-type argument denoting a property
of that individual – which in (28-b) is most likely the qualities of the singer’s music.
The particular property chosen will be influenced by both the combination of the
verb and the noun, and the context.
situation-metonymy. The verb privetstvovat’ ‘greet’ in its more concrete sense
of literally saying your greetings to somebody disallows Gen Neg (33-a). But in its
more abstract sense of generally welcoming some development the same verb
does take Gen Neg even with a human object. The result is then interpreted as
(not) welcoming ‘the presence of x, the appearance of x’. So Gen in (33a–b) is
impossible if the sense is ‘concretely greet, shake hands with, etc.’, but OK in the
sense of ‘welcome the presence, arrival, appearance of’.
(33) a. ?On ne privetstvoval delegacii.

He NEG greeted delegation-GEN
‘He didn’t greet/welcome (the presence, arrival of) the delegation.’
b. ?On ne privetstvoval Nikiti Sergeeviča.
He NEG greeted Nikita-GEN Sergeevich-GEN
‘He didn’t welcome (the presence, arrival of) Nikita Sergeevich.’
Finally, sometimes there seems to be no substantial shifting, which is why we

use the hedges in the Property Type Hypothesis in (27). Many action verbs pre-
fer Acc under Neg. However, sometimes they allow Gen Neg with no apparent
shift in meaning at all (34a-b). It is hard to tell without much deeper investiga-
tion what is going on here: either there are some manifestations of the shift, but
too subtle for us to have noticed; or else this usage may well be “persistence of
Gen Neg” from an earlier historical norm, where Gen was automatically licensed
under negation without apparent interpetational consequences. (Some speakers
perceive some differences in some of these examples, suggesting that the histor-
ical explanation may be on the right track, but there is considerable variation in
judgments.)
(34) a. Ne otkryval okno.

NEG opened window-ACC
‘He didn’t open the window.’
b. Ne otkryval okna.
NEG opened window-GEN
‘He didn’t open the window.’
Resolving an apparent inconsistency

In fact, Subject Gen Neg also requires a shift in the verb’s type so that it takes
an ⟨e, t⟩ subject; in (Borschev et al. 2010), we show how to resolve the apparent
inconsistency between this fact and the claim in the present paper that with Sub-
ject Gen Neg, semantic “bleaching” does not require a shift in verb meaning. The
heart of the resolution, and a key difference between Subject Gen Neg and Object
Gen Neg, is that for Subject Gen Neg, the semantic shift in the verb is a purely “for-
mal”, minimal, one, requiring no substantive change in the meaning of the verb.
We argue in that paper that the shift in verb’s type in the Subject case is associ-
ated with the existential sentence construction, and happens in both affirmative
and negative existential sentences, another difference between Subject Gen Neg
and Object Gen Neg.
[3.2] Relating Genitive of Negation and Genitive of Intensionality

We will give only a brief illustration of the role of shifts in the verb meaning in
Gen/Acc alternations with intensional verbs. We believe that the property-type
demotion analysis does also help to unify Gen Neg and Gen Int, while still allowing
for substantial differences between them.
In both English and Russian we can observe slightly different verb senses in
intensional verbs like seek, expect, fear when they are used with differently in-
terpreted objects. The kind of seeking involved in looking for a lost wallet or a
particular woman is different from the kind of seeking involved in looking for the
(unknown) perpetrator of a crime or looking for a wife. We see similar differences
in the Russian examples in (35).
(35) a. Ja ždu podrugu / načal’nicu.

I wait-for girlfriend-ACC.F.SG supervisor-ACC.F.SG
‘I’m waiting for my girlfriend / the supervisor.’
b. Oni ždut spravedlivosti / načal’nicy.
They await justice-GEN.F.SG / supervisor-GEN.F.SG
‘They are waiting for (expecting, hoping for) justice / a supervisor.’
When ždat’ ‘wait for, expect, await’ is used with the accusative in (35-a), the
existence of the girlfriend or the boss is presupposed, and one is waiting for that
individual to ‘show up’; we analyze Acc direct objects as of type e, and the rela-
tion in this case is extensional. With the genitive in (35-b), the interpretation is
intensional: the existence of a referent of the NP is not presupposed, and its exis-
tence may be part of what is being awaited or expected. In the case of ‘supervisor’
in (35-b), for instance, ‘they’ may not have any supervisor, and are waiting to be
assigned one before starting to work.
Case is however quite lexicalized with intensional verbs; some may shift to
property-type objects even without genitive. There are some Acc-only intension-
al verbs like podsteregat’ ‘lie in wait for’, which with an object like dobyču ‘prey’
can be either specific or non-specific. And among Gen-only intensional verbs, the
objects of some, like žaždat’ ‘crave’, can only be specific, and of others, like dostigat’
‘attain’, can be specific or non-specific. Each intensional verb has its own pattern
of alternational potential with various classes of nouns. Few examples actually
allow free choice. Where there is a choice, Nom and Acc are either synonymous
or differ in line with our analysis.
For most intensional verbs, case choice correlates with the “sort” of the DP
argument, as described well by Ickovič (1982). The sortal hierarchy relevant for
this choice is as follows, with different verbs choosing the borderline differently.
(36) Gen ← abstract > mass > count inanimate > role-animate > animate → Acc
The examples in (37-38) illustrate the hierarchy; cases allowing alternation are
boldfaced. With ždat’ ‘expect, wait for’, the alternating pairs are in the interme-
diate part of the range, while with iskat’ they occur at the more ‘abstract’ end. No
two verbs behave exactly alike.
(37) a. Petja ždal (ot nego) OK spravedlivosti / *spravedlivost’.

Petja waited (from him) justice-GEN justice-ACC
‘Petja expected (was hoping for) justice (from him).’
b. Petja ždal OK moloka / OK (svoe) moloko.
Petja waited milk-GEN (his) milk-ACC
‘Petja was waiting for milk (non-specific) / (his/the) milk.’
c. Petja ždal OK avtobusa / OK (svoj) avtobus.
Petja waited bus-GEN (his) bus-ACC
‘Petja was waiting for a bus/ (his/the) bus.’
d. Petja ždal OK dobroj fei / OK dobruju feju.
Petja waited good fairy-GEN good fairy-ACC
‘Petja was expecting (awaiting) a good fairy/ was expecting (waiting
for) a/the good fairy.’16
[16] In (37-d) and in (38-b), Gen is unambiguously non-specific indefinite, while Acc may be +/–specific and
+/–definite.

e. Petja ždal *Maši / OK Mašu.

Petja waited Masha-GEN Masha-ACC
‘Petja was waiting for Masha.’
Examples like (37-d) are not common, but with a human ‘role’ noun native
speakers do sometimes get a good contrast, with the “non-specific” reading es-
pecially natural when waiting for the ‘role-person’ to come and fulfill a relevant
functional role.
Yakov Testelets notes that with the object sud’ja ‘judge’, the verb ždat’ can
have a Gen Neg object only when waiting for the judge in a court of law, where
his arrival is needed for the proceedings to begin. If one is waiting for a judge
anywhere other than in court, only Acc is possible. This observation provides ad-
ditional support for the claim that where there is a semantic difference, Genitive
generally signals a non-specific, or property-type reading, Accusative a specific,
or e-type, reading.
(38) a. Kol’xaas iskal OK spravedlivosti / OK spravedlivost’.

Kohlhaas sought justice-GEN justice-ACC
‘Kohlhaas sought justice.’
b. Kol’xaas iskal (?)OK moloka / OK moloko.
Kohlhaas sought milk-GEN milk-ACC
‘Kohlhaas was looking for (non-specific) milk / (the) milk.’
c. Kol’xaas iskal *bloknota / OK bloknot.
Kohlhaas sought notepad-GEN notepad-ACC
‘Kohlhaas was looking for a/the notepad.’
d. Kol’xaas iskal *sekretarši / OK sekretaršu.
Kohlhaas sought secretary-GEN secretary-ACC
‘Kohlhaas was looking for a/the secretary.’
When both cases are possible with a given verb and a given NP, the meanings
of the two forms differ in the predicted direction. Even the near-synonymous
forms in (38-a) tend to differ subtly: with Acc, the search was for justice as a whole,
e.g. hoping to find that it exists, whereas with Gen the search was for an instance
of justice (in some case).17
The Acc forms in (37-d, 38-b) fit a generalization concerning optionality dis-
cussed in (Borschev et al. 2008), that whichever case choice in a given example
is the “default” choice will tend to have a wider range of possible semantic in-
terpretations, with the non-default choice more strongly signaling its preferred
reading. In those examples, Acc is the default preference (because of the animate
[17] In the Russian National Corpus, as object of iskal ‘sought’, some instances of istinu ‘truth-ACC’ but none
of istiny ‘truth-GEN’ are capitalized, supporting this idea.

object in (37-d), and in (38-b) because the verb iskat’ ‘seek’ prefers Acc for all ex-
cept the most abstract objects), hence more ambiguous.
More discussion of Gen Int and its relation to Gen Neg and to Subjunctive can
be found in Borschev et al. (2008) and in Kagan (2007). Our conclusion is that if one
accepts the arguments of Zimmermann (1993) and Geenhoven & McNally (2005)
that opaque objects of intensional verbs are property-type, then the assumption
that Russian alternating Genitives are property-type provides a unified basis for
an account of Gen Neg and Gen Int, a unification argued for by Dahl (1971), Neidle
(1982) and Kagan (2005).
[3.3] Optionality issues

In examples like (28) and (29), as well as in (37-d, 38-b) as discussed just above, Acc
is possible with a property reading, but Gen is impossible without it; such “op-
tionality” issues frequently arise with Nom/Gen and Acc/Gen alternation. The
semantic correlate of the case distinction is not always complementary distribu-
tion of two interpretations.
There appear to be factors of several kinds behind the complexity of the da-
ta. Some of these are discussed explicitly in Borschev et al. (2008), others will be
further discussed in work in progress. We mentioned one factor at the end of the
section [3.2] above, and we mention some others here very briefly just to give a
flavor of the issues.
In the realm of semantics and pragmatics, the property-type reading is more
“non-committal”, more inclusive, more “underspecified”. It doesn’t presuppose
existence but doesn’t exclude it. Nom and Acc favor “specific” reading, but the
line is not sharp. Abstract nouns can easily be analyzed as denoting e-type “kinds”
or as ⟨e, t⟩-type “properties”, and there can be specific non-existent concrete en-
tities (like the “planned hotel”, etc.) It thus seems that while semantics does re-
quire certain differences between the Nom/Acc and the Gen examples, the lee-
way is quite big, and the distinctions are not always sharp. On the pragmatic side,
some differences between Gen and Nom/Acc may be due to blocking effects, with
failure to use e-type possibly implicating non-existence.
The degree of lexicalization of the case choice in the Gen alternations dif-
fers significantly. It is quite heavily lexicalized with intensional verbs in Gen Int,
and to a lesser extent with Gen Neg. Particularly familiar collocations may retain
patterns that are no longer productive.
This brings us to the question of history and the “changing norms” factor
for Gen Neg. Observation of the recent history of Gen Neg in Russian shows that
the “old norm”, which is quite recent by language change standards, favored the
invariant use of Gen under negation (similarly to modern Polish), while a “new
norm” now under development will probably eliminate Gen Neg entirely (as hap-
pened in Czech). Old and new norms may be reflected in stylistic or register choic-
es, creating a set of factors orthogonal to the factors coming from lexical and
sentence-level semantics.
Summing up, if there is a Gen alternation, when there are semantic differ-
ences between Gen and Acc/Nom, they always go in the same direction: Acc/Nom
towards specific, Gen towards non-specific. Our type-shift hypothesis is aimed to-
ward formalizing this factor, including explaining when and how proper names
and other definite NPs can occur in Genitive what sorts of interpretations they
then get, and what corresponding shifts in verb meaning may facilitate or be facil-
itated by the shifts in NP meaning. The type-shift account is compatible with ear-
lier proposals of “decreased individuation” (Timberlake), “narrow scope” (many),
“decreased referentiality” (Paducheva and others).
[4] c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t v e r b m e a n i n g - s h i f t s w i t h g e n i t i v e a l t e r -
n at i o n s
Our goal has been to capture what the different instances of Gen/Nom and Gen/Acc
have in common semantically while still respecting the multiplicity of factors in-
volved and not predicting more uniformity than is actually found. Our main idea
is to treat Gen Neg and Gen Int as a “diathesis shift”, a “demotion” into a non-
canonical subject or object position, semantically of type ⟨e, t⟩, thereby account-
ing for “decreased individuation/ referentiality”.
A crucial corollary is that a shift in NP type requires a shift in VP type, and
a corresponding shift in VP semantics. Different classes of verbs have differ-
ent “routes” to type-shifted meanings, some easier than others. We have argued
here and in Borschev et al. (2010) that Subject Gen Neg involves a whole differ-
ent sentence type, the existential construction, which is one of the few kinds of
sentences that regularly have an ⟨e, t⟩-type subject. The corresponding shift in
the verb meaning is in most cases a purely formal one, and the “semantic bleach-
ing” found in many Subject Gen Neg sentences does not involve any substantive
change in the meaning of the verb, but rather involves finding contextual support
for a local “presupposed equivalence” between “to V in a given Loc” and “to be in
the given Loc”.
Object Gen Neg, on the other hand, involves a wide variety of verb types and
frequently involves a more substantive shift in the meaning of the verb, a number
of which we have illustrated.
Our account is in line with the Russian lexico-semantic tradition of paying
careful attention to differences between different small word classes. What is still
missing, however, and what we are still exploring, is the possibility of a precise
framework that would help us move from verbal observations and explanations
to testable predictions. We offer this work as a step in the direction of such a
system.
aknowledgements
We are grateful to many colleagues and students for discussion, including Susan
Rothstein, Louise McNally, Larry Horn, Tore Nesset, Nina Dobrushina, and par-
ticipants in several conferences, especially the conference The Russian Verb in
St. Petersburg in May 2010. We also thank the editor and conference organizer
Atle Grønn for ideas, support and encouragement. We especially thank Alexan-
der Letuchiy for valuable corpus work, Olga Kagan for ongoing discussion, and
Ekaterina Rakhilina for both. A shorter variant of this paper, without Genitive
of Intensionality, recently appeared in the journal Scando-Slavica as (Partee et al.
2011). We are grateful to three anonymous referees for that journal and an anony-
mous referee for this one for very useful comments and suggestions. This work
was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-
9905748 to Partee and Borschev.
references
Ackerman, Farrell & John C. Moore. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding:
a correspondence theory of argument selection: Stanford monographs in linguistics.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Apresjan, Ju. D. 2005. Pravila vzaimodejstvija značenij i slovar’ [Rules of interac-

tion of meaning and the lexicon]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 9. 7–45.
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1980. Tipy informacii dlja poverxnostno-semantičeskogo komponen-

ta modeli “Smysl <–> Tekst” [Types of Information for the Surface-semantic Compo-
nent of the Model “Meaning <–> Text”]. Vienna/Moscow: Wiener Slavistische Al-
manach/Škola “Jazyki Russkoj Kul’tury”.
Arutjunova, Nina D. 1976. Predloženie i ego smysl [The Sentence and its Meaning].
Moscow: Nauka.
Arutjunova, Nina D. 1997. Bytijnye predloženija [Existential Sentences]. In Encik-

lopedija «Russkij jazyk», 57–59. Moscow: Bol’šaja Rossijskaja Enciklopedija.
Babby, Leonard H. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Karoma Publishers.
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2004. The Case of Q. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M.L.

Rivero & D. Stojanovic (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Lan-
guages: The Ottawa Meeting 2003 (FASL), vol. 12, 1–35. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paducheva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov Testelets & Ig-
or Yanovich. 2008. Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type
hypothesis. In A. Antonenko, J. F. Bailyn & C. Bethin (eds.), Formal Approaches to

Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, vol. 16, 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michi-
gan Slavic Publications.
Borschev, Vladimir, Elena V. Paducheva, Barbara H. Partee, Yakov Testelets & Ig-
or Yanovich. 2010. On semantic bleaching and compositionality: Subtraction
or addition? (On the bleaching of «lexical verbs» in Russian negated existen-
tial sentences). In Y.N. Falk (ed.), Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical
Linguistics 26, Jerusalem: Bar Ilan University (IATL 26).
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 1998. Formal and lexical semantics
and the genitive in negated existential sentences in Russian. In Ž. Bošković,
S. Franks & W. Snyder (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecti-
cut Meeting 1997, vol. 6, 75–96. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2002a. O semantike bytijnyx predloženij

[On the semantics of existential sentences]. Semiotika i Informatika 37. 59–77.
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2002b. The Russian genitive of negation
in existential sentences: the role of Theme-Rheme structure reconsidered. In
E. Hajičová, P. Sgall, J. Hana & T. Hoskovec (eds.), Travaux du Cercle Linguistique
de Prague (nouvelle série), vol. 4, 185–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2002c. The Russian genitive of negation:
Theme-rheme structure or perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics
10. 105–144.
Borschev, Vladimir & Barbara H. Partee. 2008. Bytijnye i lokativnye predloženi-

ja – čto ix različaet? Tema-rematičeskaya struktura ili diateza? [Existential
and locative sentences – what distinguishes them? Theme-rheme structure or
diathesis?]. In A. Kibrik & N. Nikolina (eds.), Dinamičeskie modeli: Slovo. Predlože-
nie. Tekst. Sbornik v čest’ E. V. Padučevoj [Dynamic Models: Word. Sentence. Text. A
Collection of Articles in Honor of E. V. Paducheva], 137–153. Moscow: Jazyki Slav-
janskix Kul’tur.
Corbett, Greville G. 1986. The use of the genitive or accusative for the direct object
of negated verbs in Russian: A bibliography. In R. D. Brecht & J. S. Levine (eds.),
Case in Slavic, 361–372. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers Inc.
Dahl, Östen. 1971. The Genitive and the Subjunctive in Russian. Scando-Slavica
17(23). 135–137.
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Geenhoven, Veerle van. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions.

Stanford: CSLI.
Geenhoven, Veerle van & Louise McNally. 2005. On the property analysis of
opaque complements. Lingua 115. 885–914.
Ickovič, V. A. 1974. Očerki sintaksičeskoj normy [Remarks on the syntactic norm].

In G.A. Zolotova (ed.), Sintaksis i norma, 43–106. Moscow: Nauka.
Ickovič, V. A. 1982. Očerki sintaksičeskoj normy. Moscow: Nauka.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971/1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeu-

tungen der russische Kasus. In Selected Writings, vol. II, 23–71. The Hague &
Paris: Mouton.
Kagan, Olga. 2005. Genitive case: A modal account. Ms. Jerusalem.
Kagan, Olga. 2007. On the Semantics of Structural Case: Hebrew University disserta-
tion.
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph (eds.),
Progress in linguistics, The Hague: Mouton.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1971. Słowiański genetivus po negacji. In Sesja Naukowa

Międzynarodowej Komisji Budowy Gramatycznej Języków Słowiańskich (= Polska
Akademia Nauk. Oddz. w Krakowie, Prace Komisji Słowianoznawstwa 23), 11–15.
Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Levinson, Dmitry. 2005. Imperfective of imperative and genitive of direct object:

Grammaticalization of aspect and case due to emphatic negation in Russian and
other Slavic languages. Ms.
McNally, Loiuse. 1997. A semantics for the English existential construction: Outstanding
Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland.
McNally, Louise. 1992. An interpretation for the English existential construction. Santa
Cruz: University of California dissertation.
Mustajoki, Arto & Hannes Heino. 1991. Case selection for the direct object in Rus-
sian negative clauses. Part II: Report on a Statistical Analysis. Slavica Helsingien-
sia 9.
Neidle, Carol. 1982. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax: MIT: Ph.D. dissertation.
Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Padučeva, Elena V. 1985. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s dejstvitel’nost’ju [The

Utterance and its Correspondence with Reality]. Moscow: Nauka.
Padučeva, Elena V. 1992. O semantičeskom podxode k sintaksisu i genitivnom

sub”ekte glagola BYT’ [On the semantic approach to syntax and the genitive
subject of the verb BYT’ ’BE’]. Russian Linguistics 16. 53–63.
Padučeva, Elena V. 1997. Roditel’nyj sub”ekta v otricatel’nom predloženii: sin-

taksis ili semantika? [Genitive subject in a negative sentence: syntax or se-
mantics?]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2. 101–116.
Padučeva, Elena V. 2006. Genitiv dopolnenija v otricatel’nom predloženii [Geni-

tive of direct object in negative sentences]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 6. 21–43.
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles.

In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh & M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Represen-
tation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2002. Genitive of negation and scope of
negation in Russian existential sentences. In J. Toman (ed.), Annual Workshop on
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: the Second Ann Arbor Meeting 2001 (FASL),
vol. 10, 181–200. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2004. The semantics of Russian Genitive
of Negation: The nature and role of Perspectival Structure. In K. Watanabe &
R. B. Young (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 14,
212–234. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Partee, Barbara H., Vladimir Borschev, Elena V. Paducheva, Yakov Testelets & Igor
Yanovich. 2011. Russian Genitive of Negation Alternations: The Role of Verb
Semantics. Scando-Slavica 57(2). 135–159.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(2).
433–500.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In

BLS 4: 24 Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
157–189. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Pesetsky, David. 1980. Paths and Categories: MIT dissertation.
Polinsky, Maria. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic

Linguistics 14. 191–262.
Timberlake, Alan. 1975. Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. Slavic and East
European Journal 19. 123–138.
Zimmermann, Ede. 1993. On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs.

Natural Language Semantics 1. 149–179.
Barbara H. Partee
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
50 Hobart Ln., Amherst
Amherst, MA 01002 USA.
partee@linguist.umass.edu
Vladimir Borschev
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
50 Hobart Ln., Amherst
Amherst, MA 01002 USA.
borschev@linguist.umass.edu
Elena Paducheva
Institute of Scientific and Technical Information,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Alabjana 10, kv. 168,
Moscow 125080, Russia.
elena.paducheva@yandex.ru
Yakov Testelets
Institute of Linguistics,
Russian State University for the Humanities,
ul. Nemchinova, d.2 kv. 4,
Moscow 127434, Russia.
testelets@gmail.com
Igor Yanovich
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
MIT Linguistics and Philosophy,
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Bldg. 32-D808,
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA.
yanovich@mit.edu

(ISSN 1890-9639)
time reference in russian

causative constructions
ALEXANDER LETUCHIY
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow
[1] i n t r o d u c t i o n
Russian belongs to the class of languages that do not mark the causative mean-
ing grammatically. In the typology proposed by Nichols et al. (2004), Slavic lan-
guages are included in the class of detransitivizing languages. In other words,
valency increase is not grammatically marked in this language group, whereas
different types of valency decrease have a regular grammatical expression (see
Paducheva (2001), among others on anticausative marking in Russian). More pre-
cisely, all Slavic languages employ the polysemous reflexive / reciprocal / an-
ticausative marker that can be reconstructed back to the Proto-Slavic reflexive
pronoun (in Russian, this marker became the verbal suffix -sja), which fulfills nu-
merous valency-decreasing functions.
However, in this paper I will consider the causative constructions in Rus-
sian. Like most detransitivizing languages, Russian has the means to express
the causative meaning, though these means are lexical, and not grammatical (see
Shibatani (1976), especially Comrie (1976), Shibatani & Pardeshi (2002), Shibatani
& Pardeshi (2002) on grammatical means of expressing the causative meaning).
For instance, there are numerous verbs with the causative meaning, such as zas-
tavit’ (perfective1 ) / zastavljat’ (imperfective) ‘make’, vynudit’ (pf) / vynuždat’ (ipf)
‘force’, pozvolit’ (pf) / pozvoljat’ (ipf) ‘let, allow’, razrešit’ (pf) / razrešat’ (ipf) ‘permit’
and so on. These lexical items do not show any clear sign of grammaticalization as
understood, for instance, by Lehmann (1982) or Bybee et al. (1993). For example,
they do not become morphologically dependent and do not lose any morphosyn-
tactic features of independent verbs, e.g., they have the full paradigm of tense,
person, gender, and number forms. However, as I will show, some semantic fea-
tures distinguish constructions with causative verbs from the usual constructions
with matrix predicates where the main verb is in a finite form and the embedded
predicate is in the infinitive form.
[1] In what follows, I take into account only the simplest meanings of Russian perfective and imperfective
verbs, namely, actual situation, taking place in the reference point, for imperfective, and finished situ-
ation for perfective. Other interpretations, such as the habitual interpretation for imperfective, are not
taken into account, unless other is explicitly stated.
[32] alexander letuchiy
In what follows, I examine the use of tense and aspect in constructions with
the verbs zastavit’ / zastavljat’ ‘make’ and pozvolit’ / pozvoljat’ ‘let, allow’ (see Bo-
guslavskaya (2005) where these and some other units are analyzed from the point
of view of lexical semantics)2 . I also include the verb delat’ / sdelat ‘make’ in my
analysis, though, as I will explain, this verb has special syntactic and semantic
characteristics. It seems that the conclusions are valid for other causative verbs
also, such as vynudit’ ‘force’, but I do not consider them here.
Let me remind some terms that are necessary for the analysis of causative
constructions. The object or situation which causes the occurrence of the situa-
tion coded with the base verb is called causer (for instance, the victory in example
(3)). The object or situation which is forced or allowed to carry out the action or
participate in the situation coded with the base verb (e.g., Sainz in (3)) is causee).
Verb infinitive construction

All causative verbs under analysis, except delat’ / sdelat ‘make’, govern an infini-
tive construction. In Russian, there are many verb classes which can head an
infinitive clause – either under the condition of co-reference of the subject of the
embedded clause with the subject of the main clause or not. Let me briefly sketch
the types of verbs which can form the verb + infinitive constructions – thus, they
can embed another verb in the infinitive form. The list includes, among others,
the following verb classes:
⇒ Verbs of wishing: xotet’ ‘want’, želat’ ‘desire’
⇒ Verbs of verbal causation: prosit’ ‘ask’, trebovat’ ‘demand’
⇒ Verbs of ability and possibility: moč’ ‘can’, udat’sja ‘manage’
⇒ Verbs of attitude: ljubit’ ‘love, like’, ustat’ ‘be tired’, nadoest’ ‘bother’
This list is, however, not homogenous. Most verb classes (verbs of wishing,
ability, and most verbs of attitude) admit the infinitive construction only if the
subject of the matrix clause is co-referent to the subject of the embedded clause.
However, some verbs (verbs of verbal causation, the verbs udat’sja ‘manage’
and nadoest’ ‘bother’) do not require this type of co-reference. The verbs prosit’
‘ask’, udat’sja and nadoest’ require that the subject of the embedded clause must
be co-referent to the dative argument of the main clause, while in constructions
with the verb trebovat’ ‘demand’, the subject of the embedded clause usually has
no co-referent argument in the main clause.
[2] The structure of event and aspectual properties of grammatical causatives is analyzed, for instance, by
Ivanov & Babicheva (2010).

time in causative constructions [33]
In what follows, I will compare the interpretations of tense / aspect forms of

the main verb which are accessible in the causative constructions under analysis
to the interpretations of other types of infinitive constructions. I will show that
the semantic properties of the causative constructions differ from those of other
infinitive constructions, which is an argument for the special status of causative
constructions.
[2] p r e s e n t t e n s e o f t h e m at r i x p r e d i c at e
The present tense of the matrix predicate does not have any special features with
most verb classes. For instance, in (1), with a verb of wishing, and in (2), with
a verb of verbal causation, the present tense of the matrix predicate refers to the
situation of, respectively, wishing, and the speech act:
(1) Mam-a xoč-et, čtoby ja ej pozvoni-l-∅.

mother-SG.NOM want-PRS.3SG that I she.DAT call-PST-SG.M
‘My mother wants me to call her.’
(2) Ja tebja proš-u bol’she tak ne dela-t’.

I you.ACC ask-PRS.1SG more so not do-INF
‘I ask you not to do so anymore.’
The wish and the speech act take place, roughly speaking, in the moment of speech.
However, neither (1) nor (2) bears any information concerning the question of
when the embedded situation takes place – for instance, in (1), when I will call
mother. The tensed form denotes only the time when the desire or the request
takes place. This is not the case in causative constructions.
[2.1] (S)delat’
First, let me examine the case of the verb (s)delat’ ‘make’. The construction which
we are interested in contains the imperfective variant of this verb delat’ (with
the perfective variant, the interpretation seems to be as with other verbs taking
sentential arguments).
(3) Et-a pobed-a delaj-et Sajns-a

this-F.SG.NOM victory-SG.NOM make-PRS.3SG Sainz-SG.ACC
rekordsmen-om.
record.holder-SG.INS
‘This victory makes Sainz (a famous rally-driver) the record-holder.’
The verb (s)delat’ ‘make’ does not form a polypredicative construction. Its object
is an NP in the instrumental case denoting the resulting property of the causee
which it gets under the affect of the causer.3
The sentence (3), found in Google, is not uttered at the moment when Sainz
becomes the record-holder. It is uttered at the moment when he is already the
record-holder. Thus, the present tense of delat’ does not refer to the time of cau-
sation. By contrast, it refers to the time when the resulting state of affairs (‘Sainz
is the record-holder’) takes place.
An interesting issue is the type of interpretation of the present tense in exam-
ples like (3). It seems that the form delaet ‘makes’ in (3) can be said to have a spe-
cial type of actual (progressive) interpretation, though referring to the moment
when the situation ‘to be a record-holder’ takes place. However, the classification
of meanings of temporal and aspectual form is outside the scope of the present
paper. Note that the interpretation in (3) is only accessible when the causer is
a situation, as it is in the case of (3), where the subject position is occupied by
pobeda ‘victory’. However, when the causer is an agent, this meaning is impossi-
ble: for instance, in (3), where the causer is an agent novyj trener ‘new coach’, the
present tense will have another meaning:4
(3′ ) #Nov-yj trener delaj-et belo-golub-yx

new-M.SG.NOM coach(SG.NOM) make-PRS.3SG white-blue-PL.ACC
čempion-ami.
champion-PL.INS
‘The new coach makes the white-blues (the football club “Dinamo”) the cham-
pions.’
In this case the present tense can only refer to the time of causation – in oth-
er words, at the moment of speech, “Dinamo” is not the champion, and the new
coach is in the process of making them champions. Let me now examine oth-
er causative verbs, zastavit’ and pozvolit’. They behave syntactically as canonical
lexical causatives, forming a polypredicative construction.
[2.2] Zastavit’ and pozvolit’

Zastavit’ ‘make’ and pozvolit’ ‘let’ are the main causative verbs in Russian. For in-
stance, in the Russian National Corpus, they occur more often than any of the oth-
er causative verbs. One more remark about these two verbs is called for: both of
[3] Note that sdelat’ is not a canonical causative verb in terms of Shibatani (1976) or Lakoff (1987). See, how-
ever, Queixalós (2002), where the author argues that verbs with causative meaning taking two nominal
arguments, which cannot govern a situation as an argument, can also be regarded as causative verbs.
[4] Maybe the semantic label ‘Agent’ is not exactly applicable to all examples used here – by saying ‘Agent’ or
‘Agentive causer’, I mean a causer which is an animate entity, and not an event or an abstract inanimate
entity, such as reč’ ‘speech’.

them can govern an embedded clause, the embedded verb being either perfective
or imperfective.
The combination of the imperfective variant zastavljat’ + embedded imperfec-
tive verb is found 3772 examples in the Russian National Corpus:
(4) Mysl’-∅ o smert-i zastavljaj-et zadumyva-t’-sja.

thought-SG.NOM of death-SG.LOC make-PRS.3SG think.of-INF-REFL
‘Thought of death makes us think.’
Imperfective variant zastavljat’ + embedded perfective verb – 1029:
(5) Eto zastavljaj-et zaduma-t’-sja o naš-ix

this.SG.NOM make-PRS.3SG think.of-INF-REFL about our-PL.LOC
televizionn-yx myslitelj-ax
television-PL.LOC thinker-PL.LOC
‘This makes us think of our television thinkers.’
Perfective variant zastavit’ + embedded perfective of the embedded verb – 2636:
(6) Opyt-∅ zastavi-l-∅ zaduma-t’-sja o

experience-SG.NOM make-PST-SG.M think.of-INF-REFL about
vozmozhn-yx napravlenij-ax tvorčesk-ix poisk-ov
possible-PL.LOC direction-PL.LOC creative-PL.GEN search-PL.GEN
‘Our experience made us think of possible directions of creative process.’
Perfective variant zastavit’ + embedded imperfective verb – 1838:
(7) Odnaždy dazhe zastavi-l-∅ nervniča-t’ sam-ogo Iosif-a

once even make-PST-SG.M be.nervous-INF self-SG.ACC Iosif-SG.ACC
Kobzon-a
Kobzon-SG.ACC
‘He has once made nervous even Iosif Kobzon (a famous Russian pop singer)
himself.’
The rarest cases are those in which zastavit’ is in the perfective and the embedded
clause contains a verb in the imperfective, and vice versa. Cases in which zastavit’
and the embedded verb have the same aspectual form are much more frequent.
For pozvolit’, the construction with the perfective variant of pozvolit’ and im-
perfective embedded verb is the least frequent:
• Pf of pozvolit’ + pf of the embedded verb – 7041

• Pf of pozvolit’ + ipf of the embedded verb – 1961
• Ipf of pozvolit’ + ipf of the embedded verb – 6518
• Ipf of pozvolit’ + pf of the embedded verb – 6645
Throughout the paper I will specifically point out the cases where I describe
one or another option for the existing four variants.
With zastavit’ and pozvolit’, the situation is roughly the same as with sdelat’.
Note, for instance, the interpretation of tense in (8):
(8) Postupok-∅ Rogozin-a zastavljaj-et somneva-t’-sja v

action-SG.NOM Rogozin-SG.GEN make-PRS.3SG doubt-INF-REFL in
naliči-i u nego čest-i.
presence-SG.GEN at he.GEN honour-SG.GEN
‘Rogozin’s action makes (us) doubt that he has any honour.’
In (8), the present tense zastavljajet does not refer to the time of the causing event
(the ‘action’). It rather denotes the time when the speaker doubts that Rogozin
has any honour – in other words, the present tense of the causative, just as with
sdelat’, designates the time of the caused event. The sole difference between sde-
lat’ and zastavit’ is that examples with zastavit’ all have another interpretation in
which the present tense does not refer to either the time of causation or the time
of the caused situation (see Section [4] below).
The same interpretation, as we have seen, is impossible with other verbs, such
as xotet’ or prosit’, which take an infinitive construction or a subordinate clause as
an argument. Note also that the same interpretation is at least improbable, if not
impossible, for zastavljat’ if the causer is an agent:
(9) Rogozin zastavljaj-et somneva-t’-sja v svo-ej

Rogozin-SG.NOM make-PRS.3SG doubt-INF-REFL in own-SG.LOC
čestnost-i.
honour-SG.GEN
‘Rogozin makes (us) doubt that he has any honour.’
Example (9) can hardly be interpreted as ‘Rogozin, by some of his actions carried
out in the past, makes us doubt in his honour’. This example rather presupposes
that Rogozin behaves now in such a way that we doubt in his honour. What is re-
ally important is that constructions like (8) are impossible if the caused situation
does not have any duration, that is, if it is either momentary or is conceptual-
ized as momentary. Confirm, for instance, (10), where the caused situation uezžat’
‘leave’ (in the imperfective variant) has a duration (the interval when many peo-
ple leave the country), with (11), where the perfective variant of the same verb
uexat’ ‘leave’ is conceptualized as lacking any duration. The fact that the former
is normal while the latter is semantically awkward shows that the present tense
of the causative verb really refers to the caused, and not the causing, situation:
(10) Rezultat-y posledn-ix vybor-ov zastavljaj-ut

result-PL.NOM last-PL.GEN elections-PL.NOM make-PRS.3PL
mnog-ix uezža-t’ iz stran-y.
many-PL.ACC leave.IMPF-INF from country-SG.GEN
‘The results of the last elections make many people leave the country.’
(11) */#Rezul’tat-y posledn-ix vybor-ov zastavljaj-ut
result-PL.NOM last-PL.GEN elections-PL.NOM make-PRS.3PL
mnog-ix uexa-t’ iz stran-y.
many-PL.ACC leave.PF-INF from country-SG.GEN
‘The results of the last elections make many people leave the country.5 ’
If the present tense referred to the time of the causing situation, the aspectual
properties of the embedded predicate would be irrelevant to the (un)grammaticality
of the whole construction. However, it is not the case: the present tense of zas-
tavljat’ ‘make’ refers to the time of the caused situation. This is why it is crucial
for the embedded predicate to denote a situation which has some duration.
[3] p a s t t e n s e o f t h e i m p e r f e c t i v e m at r i x p r e d i c at e
Interpretation of the past tense of imperfective verbs in causative constructions

is also noteworthy. The reading is different for agentive and for eventive causers,
as was the case with the present tense. With eventive causers, these forms can
refer to the caused situation only:
(12) Nabrann-ye v predydušč-em matč-e očk-i

gain.PART-PL.NOM in previous-SG.LOC match-SG.LOC point-PL.NOM
pozvolja-l-i im igra-t’ spokojno.
let-PST-PL they.DAT play-INF calmly
‘The points got in the previous match allowed them to play calmly.’
Example (12) means that the points the team has got in the previous match al-
lowed it to play calmly in the match the commentator is speaking of. In other
words, the tensed form denotes the time when the team played in such way. But
if the causee is agentive, this interpretation is impossible. For instance, sentences
like (13) are semantically awkward:
[5] I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for bringing my attention to the fact that sentences like
Rezul’taty poslednix vyborov zastavljajut menja uexat’ iz strany are acceptable at least to some extent in the
‘prospective’ reading (‘i am going to leave the country due to the result of the last elections’). Never-
theless, with interpretations like this, the sentence denotes the modal state which occurs ‘between’ the
elections and leaving the country. Thus, here we deal with the ‘modal state’ interpretation (see Section
[4] for details).

(13) ?? Svoj-im gol-om Ivanov pozvolja-l im

own-SG.INS goal-SG.INS Ivanov(SG.NOM) let-PST(SG.M) they.DAT
nadeja-t’-sja’ na perv-oe mest-o.
hope-INF-REFL on first-N.SG.ACC place-SG.ACC
‘By his goal, Ivanov allowed them (the team) to hope for first place.’
Note that the interpretation in which the past tense refers only to the causing
situation is unavailable for (13). It is impossible for this sentence to mean that
thanks to the points that the team got in the previous match, the team can play
carefully now; it can only mean that it could play carefully at some moment in the
past.
The sentence sounds strange because the imperfective variant refers to the
time when the causer (Ivanov) carries out the causing actions (scores the goal).
The imperfective form designates, in cases like this, a process which has some
duration – whereas the situation when the goal is scored does not have any du-
ration. Let us compare the situation with other matrix predicates. In most cases,
the imperfective past refers to the speech act or mental act itself:
(14) Ja v tot moment-∅ xotel-l-∅ uexa-t’.

I.NOM in that.M.SG.ACC moment-SG.ACC want-PST-SG.M leave-INS
‘At this time, I wanted to leave.’
However, constructions with verbs like prosit’ ‘ask’, trebovat’ ‘demand’, and
some other verbs of speech admit a more complicated interpretation.
(15) V pis’me otec-∅ prosi-l-∅ menja priexa-t’.

In letter father-SG.NOM) ask-PST-SG.M I.ACC come-INF
‘In his letter, my father asked me to come.’
In (15), the past tense of the imperfective verb prosit’ ‘ask’ refers not to the speech
act itself, but to the time when the letter is received. Nevertheless, the situation
is not the same as with causative verbs. What is important is that in (15), the verb
form does not refer to the time when the speaker came to his father (the caused
situation).
[4] t h e t e n s e w h i c h r e f e r s t o n o t h i n g
In the cases which we have analyzed so far, the tense of the matrix (causative)
predicate refers to the time when the caused situation takes place. However, in
our material there are some examples where the tense does not seem to refer
to the time of any subevent, either the caused or the causing one. Note that in
this section, only constructions with imperfective variants of causative verbs are
considered.
(16) Dostignut-ye izmenenij-a pozvoljaj-ut NATO v

reach.PART-PL.NOM change-PL.NOM let-PRS.3PL NATO in
dal’nejš-em otmeni-t’ embargo.
future-SG.LOC cancel-INF embargo.ACC
‘The attained changes allow NATO to cancel its embargo in the future.6 ’
In examples like (16), the present tense or past tense of imperfective verbs
does not refer to any of the subevents. The causing event, izmenenija ‘changes’,
has already taken place, and the caused event, otmenit’ ‘cancel’, will probably take
place in the future.
In fact, what the present tense really refers to is the ‘modal’ state of affairs
such that the embargo can be cancelled. Note that this state is not expressed in
any explicit way in (16). The same interpretation is also available for (8): it can
be the case that in the future we will doubt that Rogozin has any honour. How-
ever, a more plausible interpretation is that we already have doubts; therefore,
the present tense refers to the time of the caused situation. The state of affairs in
(16) is the result of the changes which have been attained – and it is this resulting
state which allows the embargo to be cancelled. In other words, the notion of the
result of the causing situation (if there is an eventive, and not agentive causer)
is crucial for the interpretation of causative constructions.7
The same is true for constructions with sdelat’, as in (3). In (3) the present
tense refers not only to the situation when Sainz is the record-holder, but also to
the time when the resulting state (the fact of the victory) exists in the speaker’s
mind.
Again, constructions with causative verbs where the subject is an agent, and
not an event, behave like constructions with non-causative verbs. For instance,
[6] I thank the anonymous reviewer for the important remark that the phenomenon illustrated by (16) is
in fact a general one. Russian modal verbs, such as moč’ ‘can’ can have the same type of interpretation.
Sentences like NATO mož-et otmeni-t’ embargo (NATO can-PRS.3SG cance-INF embargo.ACC) ‘NATO can
cancel the embargo’ also refers to the situation when NATO is in a ‘modal state’ when it can cancel the
embargo.
This interpretation is trivial for modal verbs. By contrast, its existence in causative constructions reveals
an important fact, namely, that the semantics of causative verbs also contains a ‘modal state’ component
which can be activated in examples like (16).
[7] As an anonymous reviewer remarks, there are also cases when there is no resulting state at the reference
time, but the future situation is represented by its signs before its occurrence. For instance, in (i):
(i) Predstojaščie morozy zastavili Petju kupit’ shubu.

‘The fact that the winter should be cold (lit. ‘the forthcoming frosts’) made Peter buy a fur-coat.’
the future situation (morozy ‘frost’) is represented by some signs (for instance, the fact that frosts always
occur in the winter). It is possible that constructions like (16) are sometimes possible with predicates
implicating no result, and the modal state in this case follows from the causing situation in a less trivial
way. However, at the moment I have too little data to discuss this matter.

(17) can only mean that the politicians carry out some actions in the moment of
speech:
(17) Politik-i pozvoljaj-ut ljudj-am / zastavljaj-ut

politician-PL.NOM let-PRS.3PL people-PL.DAT / make-PRS.3PL
ljud-ej otstaiva-t’ svo-e mneni-e.
people-PL.ACC assert-INF own-N.SG.ACC opinion-SG.ACC
‘The politicians let people assert their opinion.’
The present tense in (17) can have different interpretations (for instance, the
event can take place in the moment of speech or habitually). However, it cannot
be the case that the politicians have already carried out some action, thus allowing
people to assert their opinions. The sentence can only mean that the politicians
carry out these actions now – in some possible sense.
In the same sense, constructions with verbs like xotet’ ‘want’, ljubit’ ‘like, love’,
or moč’ ‘can’ presuppose that the event takes place in the moment of speech (or
habitually):
(18) Vasj-a xoč-et poj-ti v kino.

Vasja-SG.NOM want-PRS.3SG go-INF in cinema.SG.ACC
‘Vasja wants to go to the cinema.’
Thus, (16) should be interpreted in the following way:
(19) ‘At the moment of speech, the following state of affairs exists: NATO can
cancel the embargo’.
This interpretation requires some additional comment. It may seem contradic-

tory that the same interpretation is unavailable for constructions with agentive
causers, as in (17). Why is a reading like (19) impossible?
(20) ‘In the moment of speech, the following state of affairs exists: people can
assert their opinion’.
It seems that semantically this interpretation would be perfect (for instance, if

the existing political system were to allow people to assert their opinion).
It seems that the reason why the abovementioned interpretation is infelici-
tous for (17) is that the resultative component that is built into the semantics of
(16) is less obvious for (17). In (16), the causer is a situation (changes). As soon
as the situation has taken place (the changes have been achieved), the result is
obvious; it exists in the world and in the speaker’s mind.
In contrast, in (17) the causer is an agent. Though it is obviously the case that
the politicians carry out some actions, and that is how they let or make people as-
sert their opinion. However, these actions are not designated in the sentence, and
the state of affairs is not inferable from the sentence. Agents do not have any triv-
ial results which are always or usually associated with them. In constrast, events
are associated with these trivial results. For instance, the situation ‘Changes took
place’ leads to a resultative state ‘Changes have taken place’.
[5] i n t e r p r e tat i o n o f a d v e r b i a l m o d i f i e r s
Above we have seen that the tensed forms can have a special interpretation with
causative verbs. They can either refer to the time of the caused event or not refer
to the time of either of the two events. Another test which is used, for instance,
in Ljutikova et al. (2006) to examine the event structure of the causative situation
is the interpretation of temporal modifiers. Ljutikova et al. show that in Balkar,
when a causative is formed from a transitive verb, temporal modifiers usually per-
mit two interpretations: the first one when they refer to the causing event, and
the second one when they refer to the caused event. For instance, modifiers like
‘quickly’ can mean that the causing event took place quickly (‘The father quick-
ly made (forced) the son (to) cook the soup’) or that the caused event took place
quickly (‘The father made the son cook the soup quickly’).
In contrast, in Adyghe, as shown by Letuchiy (2009) and Arkadiev & Letuchiy
(2009), the interpretation of modifiers is less free. For example, the scope of ad-
verbials of temporal localization like njepe ‘today’ must include the caused situa-
tion, but not obligatorily the causing situation.
In what follows, I will show that in Russian, the situation with temporal modi-
fiers in causative constructions is also special and is more similar to Adyghe than
to Balkar.
[5.1] Adverbs of temporal localization

Let us first analyze the behavior of adverbs denoting temporal localization, such
as segodnja ‘today’, včera ‘yesterday’, v tri časa ‘at three o’clock’, and so on. The
causative constructions can be divided with respect to this criterion (as well as
other criteria mentioned above) into agentive (with agentive causers) and even-
tive (with eventive causers). If the causer is an agent, adverbials of temporal lo-
calization refer either to both subevents of causative verbs, such as pozvolit’ ‘allow,
let’, zastavit’ ‘make’, or only to the causing event:
(21) Včera ej pozvoli-l-i nenadolgo vsta-t’ s postel-i.

yesterday she.DAT let-PST-PL for.short stand.up-INF from bed-SG.GEN
‘Yesterday she was allowed to get out of her bed for a short time.’
At first glance, the adverbial včera ‘yesterday’ in (21), seems to refer both to the
causing event (the time when they (the doctors) allowed the patient to stand up)
and the caused event (the time when the patient stood up). It may be the case
that the caused event has not taken place at all (the patient has not stood up),
but if it took place, (21) means that the patient stood up yesterday, and not at
any other time. However, in reality, the interpretation that she got out of the bed
yesterday is a cancelable implicature; for instance, it can be cancelled if there is
another adverbial referring to the caused event. Therefore, the adverbial včera
‘yesterday’ really refers only to the causing situation.
The situation is different with eventive causers. Adverbials of the same type
can refer not only to the whole causative situation, but also to the caused subevent:
[Context: The turnover of the Russian market does not decrease]
(22) Včera et-o pozvoli-l-o Nabiullin-oj doloži-t’

yesterday it-SG.NOM let-PST-SG.N Nabiullina-SG.GEN report-INF
Putin-u, čto ekonomik-a razvivaje-t-sja stabil’no.
Putin-SG.DAT that economics-SG.NOM develop-INF-REFL stably
‘This let Nabiullina report to Putin yesterday that [Russian] economics
develops stably.’
In (22), Nabiullina reported the situation to Putin once, and her report took place
‘yesterday’, so the caused event is what the adverbial včera refers to. By contrast,
the situation denoted by eto ‘it’ (the situation on the market) takes place perma-
nently. It can hardly be said that this situation took place yesterday.
Note that normally adverbials situated before the main predicate cannot be
interpreted with respect to the embedded verb: cf. (23), with an agentive causer,
and (24), with a non-causative predicate:
(23) Včera Putin svo-imi dejstvij-ami pozvoli-l

Yesterday Putin(SG.NOM) own-PL.INS action-PL.INS let-PST(SG.M)
izmeni-t’ situacij-u v gosudarstv-e.
change-INF situation-SG.ACC in state-SG.LOC
‘Yesterday, Putin let (made possible that) the situation in the state change.’
(24) Včera general prikaza-l soldat-am
yesterday general(SG.NOM) order-PST(SG.M) soldier-PL.DAT
marširova-t’
march-INF
‘Yesterday, the general ordered the soldiers to march.’
In (23), with an agentive causer, the adverbial včera ‘yesterday’ refers to Putin’s
actions, and not to the time when the situation in the state changed. In the same
way, (24) means that the general’s order took place yesterday (note that it is not
necessary that the soldiers marched yesterday or today). Moreover, (24) does not
presuppose that the soldiers marched at all.
[5.2] Frequency adverbs

The situation with adverbs of frequency, such as často ‘often’ is roughly the same.
In constructions with eventive causers, it is possible that a frequency adverb sit-
uated before the causative verb refers only to the caused situation. The causing
situation (obrazovanie ‘education’ in (25) and nacionalnost’ ‘nationality’ in (26)) has
taken place once and is not repeated. In contrast, when the causer is an agent, as
in (27), the frequency adverb can only refer to the event as a whole meaning that
the causing event is always repeated:
(25) Mo-e obrazovani-e často pozvoljaj-et mne ob’’ektivno

my-N.SG.NOM education-SG.NOM often let-PRS.3SG I.DAT objectively
oceniva-t’ situacij-u.
estimate-INF situation-SG.ACC
‘My education often allows me to estimate the situation objectively.’
(26) Ego nacional’nost’ vsegda zastavljaj-et ego by-t’ na
his nationality-SG.NOM always make-PRS.3SG he.ACC be-INF on
storon-e russk-ix.
side-SG.LOC Russian-PL.GEN
‘His nationality makes him be on the Russians’ side.’
(27) Pap-a vsegda zastavljaj-et menja my-t’ po
father-SG.NOM always make-PRS.3SG I.ACC wash-INF in
večer-am posud-u.
evening-PL.DAT dishes-SG.ACC
‘My father always makes me wash dishes in the evening.’
The same is true for non-causative predicates taking an embedded infinitive ar-
gument. In constructions with these verbs, a frequency adverb always denotes
the repeatedness of the causing situation:
(28) Prepodavatel’-∅ vsegda pytaj-et-sja uvle-č’

professor-SG.NOM always try-PRS.3SG-REFL interest-INF
student-ov.
student-PL.ACC
‘The professor always tries to interest his students.’
It may seem that the case of frequency adverbs is not accounted for by the notion
of result that we used to describe the semantics of constructions like (16) and (17).
However, this is not the case.
Indeed, the very fact that NPs like obrazovanie ‘education’ can denote the result
of education does not account for the interpretation of frequency adverbials like
často. But the matter becomes clearer if we recall another property of results:
a result does not cease to exist except in some very special cases. Therefore, it
is not strange that, for instance, the result of the education mentioned in (25)
can be evident throughout the whole life of the speaker. The case of (26) is even
clearer: individual-level properties, like nacional’nost’ ‘nationality’, do not change
throughout the whole life of a person.
Yet another fact is not accounted for: why is the interpretation in (25) impos-
sible for the agentive causer in (27)? The agent (papa ‘father’) also exists for a long
time, but the given interpretation cannot be reached: adverbials like často in con-
structions with agentive causers are applicable only if the situation expressed in
the matrix clause with the causative verb has taken place many times.
The reason seems to be that agentive causers cannot be the reason of the
caused situation by themselves. According to Nedjalkov & Sil’nickij (1968) and
Pylkkänen (2002), the causative construction presupposes that a new subevent is
added to the initial situation, and it is the new situation which causes the emer-
gence of the caused situation8 . In other words, each sentence like John made Mary
go out really means something like ‘John’s actions made Mary go out’. Thus, for
(27), some events the father takes part in should be added to the semantics of
the situation. A default event is not a state, but rather a process or a momentary
event – thus, it is not surprising that these types of events have some restricted
duration. This is why the default (and the only natural) interpretation for (27) is
that the father makes me wash the dishes by different actions in different peri-
ods of time – and the adverb vsegda ‘always’ refers both to the causing and to the
caused situations.
[6] p a r a l l e l s i n o t h e r d o m a i n s
The situation in the domain of Russian causatives, where aspectual properties and
interpretation of temporal forms depend crucially on the agentivity of the sub-
ject (external argument), is by no means unique in Russian grammar. Paducheva
(2004) shows that many verbs (for instance, verbs of spatial localization and mo-
tion) show the same type of shift depending on the agentivity of the subject:
(29) Ivan-∅ zagoraživa-l-∅ proxod-∅ mešk-ami.

Ivan-NOM block-PST-SG.M way-SG.ACC sack-PL.INS
‘Ivan blocked the way with the sacks.’
(30) Mešk-i zagoraživaj-ut proxod-∅.
sack-PL.NOM block-PRS.3PL way-SG.ACC
‘The sacks block the way.’
[8] Here we leave aside the an alternative hypothesis that for causativization the addition of a new partici-
pant (causer), and not of a new subevent, to the structure of the event, is relevant. This point of view is
represented, among others, by Shibatani (1976).

In (29), where the subject is agentive, the dynamic interpretation occurs: the sen-
tence denotes that Ivan was blocking the way with sacks, changing their localiza-
tion. By contrast, in (30), the interpretation is stative. In this section, the state
of affairs when the sacks are on the way is referred to. This is rather close to the
contrast observed in (25), (26) vs. (27).
However, there are some differences between meaning shifts observed by Pa-
dučeva and those occurring with the causative verbs. The main difference is that
verbs like zagoraživat’ ‘block’ do not govern sentential arguments.
From this difference, others, less obvious, follow. When verbs like zagoraživat’
‘block’ have the stative reading the tense (e.g. the present tense in (30)) refers to
the moment when the change of state has already taken place, and the resulting
state is taking place in the moment of speech, following the change of state. In
contrast, in examples like (16), the present tense does not mean that the change
of state zastavit’ ‘make’ has already taken place. On the contrary, the change of
state can take place, and the state which is taking place in the moment of speech
precedes the change of state.
It is not obvious whether these two cases can be reduced to one. I think that
there are common features. The main of them is that the eventive subjects of za-
stavljat’, as in (12) and (16) and the non-agentive causers of zagoraživat’, as in (30),
both impose a resultative interpretation. However, the result is related different-
ly to the semantics of the sentence. In (12) and (16), the semantics contains the
resultative component, but this component emerges because the situation has an
eventive causee. In contrast, the semantics of localization verbs like zagoraživat’
contain the result of the process of blocking. In other words, in the stative reading
the verb denotes the result of the situation designated by the eventive reading.
[7] r u s s i a n c a u s at i v e s a n d r a m c h a n d ’ s s t r u c t u r e o f c a u s at i v e s
As Franks (1990), Franks & Hornstein (1992), Franks (1995), Babby & Franks (1998)
and others show, Russian constructions with infinitive-taking verbs are biclausal,
though they may semantically designate one complex event.
Note that the very class of biclausal constructions is not homogenous. Consid-
er, for instance, the opposition noted by Minor (2007, unpublished). Minor notes
that nibud’-pronouns are possible in constructions with infinitive complements,
thus proving them to be biclausal (see Minor’s work for detailed argumentation):
(31) Prepodavatel’-∅ poprosi-l-∅ kogo-nibud’ iz nas otkry-t’

teacher-SG.NOM ask-PST-SG.M somebody.ACC of we.GEN open-INF
okn-o.
window-SG.ACC
‘The teacher ask somebody of us to open the window.’
(32) *Prepodavatel’-∅ poprosi-l-∅ kogo-nibud’ iz nas o

teacher-SG.NOM ask-PST-SG.M somebody.ACC of we.GEN about
pomošč-i.
help-SG.LOC
‘The teacher asked somebody of us to help him (lit. about help).’
Sentence (31) is biclausal, while (32) is monoclausal. However, this criterion does
not seems to work with the causative verbs under analysis in the same way as with
speech act verbs like poprosit’ ‘ask’, because sentences like (33) are unacceptable:
(33) Prepodavatel’-∅ poprosi-l-∅ kogo-nibud’ iz nas sxodi-t’ k

teacher-SG.NOM ask-PST-SG.M somebody.ACC of we.GEN go-INF to
director-u.
director-SG.DAT
‘The teacher ask somebody of us to open the window.’
This shows one more time that the causative constructions with zastavit’ and poz-
volit’ are in many respects closer to monoclausal causative constructions than
constructions with speech acts, though this issue is outside the scope of the present
paper.
In formal literature, mainly monoclausal causative constructions have been
addressed. Among the recent approaches, Ramchand’s one 2008 seems to be the
most plausible to a wide set of typological data. Ramchand (2008) proposes the
following syntactic representation of the event structure of causatives. Her struc-
ture includes a vP projection corresponding to the causation, while the structure
of the initial verb depends on its own properties. For instance, in (29) the event
structure of the Japanese causative hashir-ase-ru [run+ CAUS] is represented. The
base verb hashiru ‘run’ is unergative and has both a vP and a VP. This structure was
used by Ljutikova et al. (2006) and Arkadiev & Letuchiy (2009) to test the proper-
ties of causative constructions.
This schema can be applied to monoclausal causative constructions. Howev-
er, it turns out that biclausal constructions have additional interpretations. If we
tried to apply Ramchand’s schema to Russian biclausal causative constructions
addressed in this paper, we would notice that this schema does not take into ac-
count the interpretations of tensed forms and temporal modifiers of the type dis-
cussed here, in particular the eventive causers, especially of the type in (16), in
which the present tense refers neither to the causing event nor to the caused
event, but to the state of affairs existing after the causing event has already tak-
en place, and the caused event only has to take place. This state of affairs is the
result of the caused situation.

(34) vP
XXX

XX
Initiator v’
XXX

XX
x v vP
XXX

XX
-sase- Initiator v’
PPP
P
y v VP
HH
H
hashir- Undergoer V’
y hashir-
Thus, in order to capture the Russian data presented above and, perhaps, bi-
clausal causative constructions in other languages, we need to introduce this state
somewhere in the event structure of causative situations. The precise formal im-
plementation of this requires further study. Note that the fact that the construc-
tion is biclausal does not allow us to avoid the question how the state of affairs
mentioned above can be represented: if we represent the construction in (16) as
including two different clauses with two different verbs, this does not allow us to
overlook the fact that the verb pozvoljat’ is interpreted statively in this sentence.
The properties of constructions with an eventive causer shed some light on

another problem, namely, the set of participants in the causative construction
like (16), More precisely, what is the causer of this type of construction? At first
glance, it may seem that the causer is izmenenija ‘changes’ and that this semantic
structure is parallel to that of (17) where the causer is politiki ‘politicians’. Yet,
the two constructions are not entirely parallel.
In examples like (9) and (17) that have an agentive causer, the causer is really
the agentive participant that is designated by the subject NP. In examples like (8)
and (25), the situation is more complicated. As I have said, the causer is really
not the event itself but rather the result of this event. These sentences can be
rephrased as ‘The fact that some changes took place…’ or ‘The fact that I have ed-
ucation’. The event in the narrow sense (changes, education) is a part of another
event (changes and their results, education and its result).
The data which I have analyzed in the present paper require that Ramchand’s
structure should be supplemented in some way with a result component. It should
allow us to interpret structures in which not the causing event itself, but rather
its result, is what is responsible for the emergence of the caused situation.
[8] c o n c l u s i o n s
In the present paper I analyzed the interpretation of tense and aspect forms, as
well as some groups of adverbial modifiers, with causative verbs zastavit’ ‘make’,
pozvolit’ ‘let, allow’, and sdelat’ ‘make’ in Russian.
Though the exact formal mechanism which should be used to account for the
tendencies observed can be different, it is evident that there are some crucial
distinctions between the predicates under analysis, depending on whether their
syntactic subject is an agent or an event. Note that the contrast between sen-
tences like (8) and (9), which mainly differ in whether the syntactic subject is an
agent or an event, shows that the semantic representation proposed, for instance,
by Nedjalkov & Sil’nickij (1968) — that presupposes that any causative construc-
tion denotes a semantic relation between two subevents (the causing one and the
caused one) — is not sufficient for the description of all causative constructions. In
many cases, the surface expression of the participants is crucial for the causative
construction.
The striking feature of the causative constructions with eventive subjects is

that the tensed forms and temporal adverbs in these constructions do not obliga-
torily refer to the causing situation. The tensed forms and adverbials sometimes
refer only to the caused situation.
I assume that it is the nature of events vs. participants that is responsible for
these distinctions. Each dynamic event is associated with some result. I have
shown that in some cases what the tense of the causative verb and temporal ad-
verbials refer to is the result of the causing event, and not the causing event in
the narrow sense.
The overall result is that causative constructions with an agentive causee be-
have like constructions with an embedded infinitive. In contrast, constructions
where the causer is an event behave in another way that is similar, in some re-
spects, to the behaviour of grammatical causatives in some other languages, such
as Adyghe (see Arkadiev & Letuchiy 2009). This seems to be a controversial result,
since Lakoff (1987), for instance, considers constructions with an agentive causee
to constitute the prototype of causative constructions. However, this result is ab-
solutely natural for a language without grammatical marking of causation, such
as Russian. In constructions with agentive causers, causative verbs not only de-
note the causation, but also bear some additional semantic components (for in-
stance, zastavit’ presupposes that the causer imposes his or her will on the causee
by force). In constrast, when the causer is an event, these components become
weaker or even vanish from the semantics of the verb.
a b b r e v i at i o n s
ACC – accusative case, DAT – dative case, F – feminine (gender), GEN – genitive
case, INF – infinitive, INS – instrumental case, IPF – imperfective aspect, N – neu-
tral (gender), M – masculine (gender), NOM – nominative case, PF – perfective
aspect, PL – plural, PRS – present tense, PST – past tense, REFL – reflexive suffix,
SG – singular.
references
Arkadiev, Peter & Alexander Letuchiy. 2009. The syntax and semantics of event
structure and Adyghe causatives. Ms. Available from: http://ling.auf.net/
lingBuzz/000811.
Babby, Leonard & Steven Franks. 1998. The Syntax of Adverbial Participles in
Russian Revisited. The Slavic and East European Journal 42(3). 483–516.
Boguslavskaya, Olga Yu. 2005. Kauzativnye glagoly v russkom jazyke [Causative

verbs in Russian]. Handout of talk presented in the Seminar for Theoretical
Semantics. Moscow.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1993. The Evolution of Grammar:
Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of
Chicage Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language

similarities and divergences. In M. Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causative
Constructions, vol. 6 Syntax and Semantics, 261–312. New York: Academic Press.
Franks, Steven. 1990. Case, Configuration and Argumenthood: Reflections on the

Second Dative. Russian Linguistics 14(3). 231–254.
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Franks, Steven & Norbert Hornstein. 1992. Secondary predication in Russian and
proper government of PRO. In R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri & J. Higginbotham
(eds.), Control and Grammar, 1–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ivanov, Mikhail & Maria Yu. Babicheva. 2010. Aspectual composition in causati-
ves. In M. Duguine, S. Huidobro & N. Madariaga (eds.), Argument Structure and
Syntactic Relations, 13–34. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A programmatic Sketch,

vol. I (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48) Köln.
Letuchiy, Alexander. 2009. Kauzativ, dekauzativ i labil’nost’ [Causative, anti-

causative and lability]. In Y.G. Testelets, P.M. Arkadiev, A.B. Letuchiy & N.R.
Sumbatova (eds.), Aspekty polisintetizma: očerki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka
[Aspects of polysynthesis: grammar of the Adyghe language], Moscow: Russian State
University for Humanities.
Ljutikova, Ekaterina A., Sergei G. Tatevosov, Mikhail Yu. Ivanov, Anna G.

Pazel’skaya & Andrei B. Šluiskij. 2006. Struktura sobytija i semantika glago-
la v karačaevo-balkarskom jazyke [Structure of event and semantics of verb in the
Karachay-Balkar language]. Moscow: Institute for World Literatures.
Minor, Sergei. unpublished. Tipologija pod”jema argumenta v konstrukcijax s

sentencial’nymi aktantami. Ms.
Minor, Sergei A. 2007. Ob’’ektnyj kontrol’ i pod’’jem argumenta v russkom

jazyke. In F.I. Dudchuk, N.V. Ivlieva & A.V. Podobriaev (eds.), Struktury i
interpretacii. Raboty molodyx issledovatelei po teoretičeskoj i prikladnoj lingvistike,
104–126. Moscow: MSU.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Georgi G. Sil’nickij. 1968. Tipologija morfologičeskogo

i leksičeskogo kauzativov [Typology of morphological and lexical causatives].
In A.A. Xolodovič (ed.), Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij [Typology of causative
constructions], Leningrad: Nauka.
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and
detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2). 249–311.
Paducheva, Elena V. 2001. Kauzativnyj glagol i dekauzativ v russkom jazyke

[Causative verb and anticausative in Russian]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii
1. 52–79.
Paducheva, Elena V. 2004. Dinamičeskie modeli v semantike leksiki [Dynamic models in

the lexical semantics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. MIT Press.
Queixalós, Francesc. 2002. The notion of transfer in Sikuani causatives. In M. Shi-

batani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, 319–340.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Bejamins.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cam-
bridge: CUP.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The Grammar of Causative Constructions. Syntax and

Semantics 6.
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Prashant Pardeshi. 2002. The causative continuum.

In M. Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation,
85–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Alexander Letuchiy
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Dekabristov str., house 38, apartment 134
127273 Moscow
Russia
alexander.letuchiy@gmail.com

(ISSN 1890-9639)
peculiarities of expressing
the apprehensive in russian
NADEZHDA ZORIKHINA NILSSON
University of Gothenburg
abstract
The present paper deals with different ways of expressing apprehension in
Russian by the verbal constructions using the subordinating conjunctions
как бы (не) and чтобы (не) and the –л (-l)-subjunctive verb form or infinitive.
The components of the constructions and the peculiarities of the synonymi-
ty of the conjunctions are examined in more detail. Special attention is giv-
en to the status of the negative particle не. We argue that negation in the
apprehensive does not lose its semantic nature but its manifestations are
uncommon due to the assertion-suspending contexts it operates within.
Languages throughout the world are able to employ a variety of grammatical
forms and structures to express a category that denotes apprehension or concern
on the part of the speaker about some imminent undesirable event. This seman-
tic category has been termed the apprehensive (Plungyan (2004, 17); Dobrushina
(2006)). However, the Russian language does not possess any specialized means
of expressing it, although its meaning can be conveyed by a number of linguistic
forms. Among these, the most prominent position is held by a construction in-
corporating the subordinating conjunction как бы (не)1 (in case; lit. ‘how would
not’) and an -л (-l) -subjunctive verb form (1) or infinitive (2):
(1) Как бы она не простуди-ла-сь!

how MOD:CNJ she:NOM NEG catch.a.cold:PF-CONJ(PRT).SG.F-REFL
‘In case she caught/might/should/would catch a cold!’
(2) Как бы [только] не простуди-ть-ся!
how MOD:CNJ only:ADV NEG catch.a.cold:PF-INF-REFL
[1] The conjunction как бы (не) derives from the interrogative pronominal adverb как ‘how’ and the modal
particle бы, which is genetically a form of the 2-3 pers. sg. aorist of the verb быти ‘be’, which already
in Old Russian was used as an auxiliary verb in the subjunctive analytical form (Gorshkova, Chaburgaev
1981, 317). Besides the combination “adverb + particle”, Old Russian even had the conjunctions какъ
(како) бы, какъ было, which expressed the goal of an action or condition (Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI-XVII,
7, 28–29). The question of the status of the negative particle не ‘not’ and its attachment to the conjunction
is currently a thorny issue in Russian grammar, for which reason the particle не is enclosed in brackets
in this paper. Our approach to this problem is expressed in section [4].
[54] nadezhda zorikhina nilsson
‘In case [only] [I, we] catch a cold!’
Formally, this structure is a subordinate clause, which clearly by virtue of its

vividly expressed semantics, has detached itself from the main clause and can
be used independently. Cf. (1), (2) and (3):
(3) a. Я боюсь, как бы она не

how MOD:CNJ she NEG
простудилась.
catch.a.cold:PF-CONJ(PRT).SG.F-REFL
I am afraid that she would/might catch a cold.
‘I am anxious for her not to catch a cold.’
b. Я боюсь, как бы не простудиться
how MOD:CNJ NEG catch.a.cold:PF-INF-REFL
‘I am anxious/afraid that I would/might catch a cold.’
However, it is more probable that the sentences under consideration have un-
dergone a different process of development. Observations show that subordinate
relations in Old Russian were formed by combining a pair of sentences, where the
function of the subordinate clause was usually assigned to a sentence, which had
an indirect modality, i.e. a sentence expressing a question, a command or a wish
(Lomtev 1956, 488). Thus, being independent in the narrative chain of sentences
of the heterogeneous syntactic nature, the sentences with the adverbial construc-
tion как бы were drawn into a closer relationship with other sentences while their
modal function attenuated. Therefore, these sentences which in modern Russian
are perceived as fragments of complex sentences may actually, from a diachronic
point of view, represent independent sentences. They did not become real sub-
ordinate clauses but instead managed to preserve a relative autonomy.2
This paper presents an analysis of the apprehensive construction with the
conjunction как бы (не) in complex or simple sentences with an infinitive phrase,
in both of which such a construction is often a dependent part (P1), occupying
one of the valency positions of the main verb form or the verb phrase of the main
part (P2).3 The dependent part communicates a possible situation, which, from
the point of view of the speaker (or the subject of the main clause), is undesirable
and in Russian can also be introduced by the conjunction чтобы (не) (in order
not…. /so that ... not/that…). Cf.:
[2] This hypothesis needs verification that involves data derived from the history of the language.
[3] The structures under analysis are a variety of valency taxis constructions. For valency taxis please refer
to: Khrakovskiy (2009).

the apprehensive in russian [55]
(4) Наши дамы по субботам домашних спектаклей не устраивали, боялись,

как бы он не узнал... (А.Чехов – НКРЯ4 ).
Our ladies did not stage plays at home on a Saturday being afraid that he
/could/might/would find out. (A. Chekhov – RNC)
(5) Как я боялась, чтобы не спросили из вежливости: «Как дела?» (Л. Гурчен-
ко – НКРЯ).
How I was afraid in case they could/might/would ask out of politeness, “How
are things?” (L. Gurchenko – RNC)
As noted in “Russian Grammar” (RG, v. 2, 479), in the sentences undergoing anal-

ysis, the meaning of apprehension is expressed explicitly in the main part, which
contains words denoting fear or concern (verbs such as бояться ‘fear’5 ; опасаться
‘be apprehensive’; пугаться ‘be frightened’; страшиться ‘be afraid of’,‘be care-
ful (not to)’, etc. (see examples (4), (5), (6); or nouns such as боязнь ‘fear’; страх
‘worry’; опасение ‘apprehension’, etc. Example (7)):
(6) Других гостей здесь не боятся, а вас опасаются, чтобы вы Прасковье Ива-
новне чего-нибудь не пересказали (С. Аксаков – НКРЯ).
Other guests are not feared here, but with you they are careful so that you
might/should/will not say anything to Praskovia Ivanovna. (S. Aksakov –
RNC)
(7) Женской прислуги он не держал из страха, чтобы о нем не думали дур-
но ... (А. Чехов – НКРЯ).
He never kept maidservants fearing/out of fear that they could/might/would
think ill of him … (A. Chekhov – RNC)
In traditional grammars of Russian the complex sentences under consideration

are listed among sentences with Object clauses.6 However, it should be noted that
these clauses are not prototypical and they do not always express pure object re-
lations as “that” clauses do. In addition to the “content” of fear emotion (бояться
чего? ‘fear of what’?), they also express the reason of the emotion (бояться почему?
‘fear why’?), although to varying degrees. The syncretic semantics of such clauses
can in some cases allow a peculiar “split” of the object (or valency expansion) at
the syntactic level. Thus, in the example (6) the object position of the verb опа-
саться ‘be apprehensive’ is in the main clause filled by the pronoun вы ‘you’ in the
genitive while the existence of a second object is not completely forbidden. This
phenomenon can be explained by the additional adverbial semantics of the sub-
ordinate clause. Here, in our opinion, we can speak about the transition case, in
[4] Hereinafter НКРЯ/RNC – Russian National Corpus.

[5] In the quotations the closest English equivalent is given. However, the translation may use synonyms.
[6] Cf. the Russian term «изъяснительное придаточное предложение» (GCLRL, 701-706; RG, 2, 473-479).

which two roles – that of the argument and that of the sentential adjunct – are
combined in one clause. As for example (7) the object semantics of the subordi-
nate clause here coexists with the attributive.
The main part may also contain verbs denoting feelings and actions that ac-
company apprehension or are caused by it (беспокоиться ‘worry’; волноваться ‘be
uneasy’; предостерегать ‘warn’; тревожиться ‘be anxious’) and words with the mean-
ing of surveillance and supervision (присматривать ‘watch’; караулить
‘guard’; посматривать, поглядывать ‘glance round’, ‘keep an eye (on)’, etc.). Exam-
ples (8) and (9):
(8) За эти годы я провел немало бессонных ночей, волнуясь, как бы его катер
не утонул вместе с мотором (В. Маккавеев – НКРЯ).
All these years I spent a good many sleepless nights worrying in case his boat
might/would sink//sank together with the motor. (V. Makkaveev – RNC)
(9) Ребята послали меня присмотреть, как бы чего не вышло (В. Рыбаков –
НКРЯ).
The guys sent me to watch in case something happened/ could/might/would
happen. (V. Rybakov – RNC)
In a more detailed analysis, it is necessary to consider the frequency of occurrence

and the peculiarities of the use of the conjunctions in propositions containing all
of the aforementioned semantic groups of verbs and nouns. Here, we will con-
fine ourselves to complex sentences and infinitive clauses where the main clause
predicate (P2) is expressed by the verb бояться ‘fear’. This verb is pre-eminent as
it is the most representative of all those in the groups considered, and examples
with other verbs will be given in a few cases only. In the article we examine in
greater detail the components of the constructions (section [2]) and the peculiar-
ities of the synonymity of the conjunctions (section [3]). In the conclusion, the
various viewpoints on the status of the negative particle не with the conjunctions
чтобы (не) and как бы (не) will be analyzed, while our approach to this problem
(section [4]) will also be defined.
[2] t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
The dependent part of the propositions examined takes the form of a structure
comprising the conjunction как бы or чтобы, a finite –л (-l) verb form or an in-
finitive, as well as the particle не. The infinitive is used when the subjects of the
main and the dependent clauses are co-referent. A formal expression of the sub-
ject with the infinitive is possible but this is a very rare case and the subject then
takes the dative case (10).

(10) a. Я боюсь, чтобы мне не утратить и то, что хоть порою мне дается
от неба (Н. Лесков – НКРЯ)
I fear that I might lose even that which, at times, is given to me by
Heaven. (N. Leskov – RNC)
b. Рассказывали, что, когда Черчилля попросили прокомментиро-
вать сие событие, он якобы ответил так: «Я думал, что я умру
от старости, но боюсь, как бы мне не умереть от смеха (М. Коза-
ков – НКРЯ).
They say that when Churchill was asked to comment upon this event,
he supposedly answered, “I thought that I would die of old age, but
now I fear that I shall die laughing”. (M. Kozakov – RNC)
It should be noted that the Russian language possesses a large number of infini-
tive constructions with the subject – the recipient of the situation expressed by
the infinitive – in the dative. These infinitive constructions have a modal charac-
ter. They can express (absence of) necessity, (im)possibility, directivity, and wish
(Fortuin 2000, 237).
Among the modal infinitive constructions, constructions with negation and
with the particle бы, can also be found. As a rule, they function in speech as inde-
pendent sentences and they are, indeed, semantically close to the constructions
with как бы, which can also be used independently. Another common feature of
both infinitive constructions is the fact that the infinitive has the form of the per-
fective aspect. Cf.:
(11) a. Не отставай, не опоздать бы к обеду (Б. Пастернак, Посторонний).

‘Come on, move, we don’t want to be late for dinner (Fortuin ibid,
434).
b. Не отставай, как бы не опоздать к обеду.
The difference lies in the fact that in the complex sentences under analysis, the
meaning of apprehension is expressed explicitly in the main clause by the verb
бояться.
As for the structures with an –л (-l) verb form, the subjects of the subordinate
and main clauses have as a rule different referents.
In the constructions under analysis, perfective verb forms are predominantly
used, although the use of imperfective verbs is also possible (12). In the latter
case, the majority of examples comprise predicates that include the imperfective
verb быть (to be). Example (12-a):
(12) a. Он и слушать больше такого не мог, и боялся, чтобы проводы не

были такими же торжественными, как встреча (Е. Чеповецкий –
НКРЯ).
He could not tolerate hearing such things any more and feared that
the send-off could/might/would be as grand as the welcome. (Ye. Chep-
oveckiy – RNC)
b. Скажи, что я улыбалась, боясь, чтобы он не рыдал (А. Щеглов – НКРЯ).
Tell him that I was smiling out of fear that he could/might/would sob.
(A. Shcheglov – RNC)
[3] s y n o n y m i t y o f t h e c o n j u n c t i o n s
The question of the synonymity of the conjunctions чтобы (не) and как бы (не)
deserves particular comment. If we examine the purely numerical correlation of
these conjunctions in the propositions under analysis, then, as our calculations
will show, there is no significant difference in their use in subordinates with a
predicate expressed by a finite –л (-l) verb form. In the Russian National Corpus
they show approximately the same frequency of use (see table 1). The infinitive
clause with чтобы (не) is observed, however, just over 2.5 times less often.
как бы (не) чтобы (не)

Infinitive 33 12
–л verb form 486 458
Total number in RNC 519 470
table 1: Frequency of occurrence in the RNC of the conjunctions kak by (ne) and
čtoby (ne) in sentences with the verb bojat’sja (fear) as the predicate of the
main clause
A more detailed analysis highlights the fact that in many instances of the use
of чтобы (не) in the propositions under review are encountered in the literature
of nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, while the conjunction как бы (не) pre-
dominates in the latter period. In the “Grammar of the Contemporary Literary
Russian Language” (GCLRL, 705), the conjunction как бы (не) is described as an ex-
pressively coloured substitute for чтобы (не). In this paper we would like to spec-
ify that it appears that in the modern language, the conjunction чтобы (не) with
the aforementioned meaning is going out of use. Let us cite several rare exam-
ples appearing in the RNC and belonging to late twentieth and early twenty-first
centuries.
(13) a. Она тебя любит и боится, чтобы тебя не обманули (Е. Евтушенко
(1999) – НКРЯ).
She loves you and is afraid that you could/might/would be fooled.
(Ye. Yevtushenko (1999) – RNC)
b. Агатов пропустил несколько абзацев, боясь, чтобы не напекло голо-

ву (Д. Гранин (1962) – НКРЯ).
Agatov left out several paragraphs for fear that his head could/might
/would get scorched from being in the sun too long. (D. Granin (1962)
– RNC)
c. Это мой сынишка поставил на окне светильник, боится, чтобы мать
не заблудилась (Б. Шергин (1930-1960) – НКРЯ).
It was my son who left the lamp in the window; he was worried that his
mother could/might/would get lost. (B. Shergin (1930-1960) – RNC)
The fact that the conjunction чтобы (не) belongs to those phenomena that are
disappearing from the contemporary Russian language is also confirmed by the
results of a survey of respondents.7 Hence, Russian native speakers practically
never use the conjunction чтобы (не) in example (14-a) and prefer как бы (не) in
example (14-b), remarking that чтобы (не) sounds rather unnatural there. Cf.:
(14) a. Врачи боялись, как бы (??? чтобы) я не догадался (С. Алешин (2001)
– НКРЯ).
The doctors were afraid in case/that I guessed/I could/might/would
find out (S. Aleshin (2001) – RNC)
b. Я боялся, как бы (? чтобы) ты не заболела после своих скитаний
(С. Таранов (1999) – НКРЯ).
I was afraid in case/that you became/you could/might/would become
ill after all your wanderings. (S. Taranov (1999) – RNC)
In contexts such as (14), the semantics of causation and purpose with regard to
чтобы (не) clearly conflict with the expression of undifferentiated meaning of pre-
sumption and of the hypothetical nature of the event, for which reason the con-
junction как бы (не) is preferred. As for the use of чтобы (не) with the infinitive,
the latest contemporary example found in the RNC belongs to the early twentieth
century:
(15) А дошедши, в многолюдном сборище я боялся, чтобы не потеряться от

маменьки в большой толпе деревенских мужиков и баб (И. Репин (1912-
1917) – НКРЯ).
And having arrived, amidst the crowded gathering, I was afraid of los-
ing/that I could/might/would lose mama in the huge crowd of peasant
men and women. (I. Repin (1912-1917) – RNC)
[7] We interrogated 10 respondents aged from twenty-two to fifty-five. The tendency noted requires further
investigation, which should be based on a more detailed survey taking into account both different forms
of the verb бояться (fear) and the presence of negation in the main clause.

Note that the verb бояться (fear) may form a part of structures of greater com-
plexity, where it governs the infinitive in the main part. Cf.:
(16) a. Но домой возвращаться боялся, чтобы (*как бы) не навлечь на близ-

ких свое невезение (П. Акимов (2000) – НКРЯ).
However, he was afraid to return home so as /in order not to (*in case
he brought/he could/might/would) bring his bad luck upon his family.
(P. Akimov (2000) – RNC)
b. Подолгу быть около Ольги Леонардовны мы боялись, чтобы (*как
бы) не утомить ее... (С. Пилявская (2000) – НКРЯ).
We were afraid to stay so long by Olga Leonardovna so as/in order not
to tire her. (*in case she got tired). (S. Pilyavskaya (2000) – RNC)
The presence of a dependent infinitive after the verb бояться (cf.: боялся возвра-
щаться (afraid to return) (16-a) and боялись быть (afraid to stay) (16-b)) emphasizes
the meaning of causation and purpose in the dependent part introduced by the
conjunction, and thus, in such constructions, which constitute a purpose clause,
the conjunction чтобы (не) is the only possible one.
Consequently, in contemporary Russian, one can note a continuing tenden-
cy towards further functional semantic differentiation of the formal means that
express the speaker’s apprehension at the approach of some undesirable event.
The structure that employs the conjunction чтобы (не) is rarely used in an ap-
prehensive meaning, and, at the same time, it is going to lose one of its formal
components, the infinitive. This, in its turn, has strengthened the position of the
constructions with как бы (не), which thus acquire a more pronounced specializa-
tion.
[4] n e gat i o n o r n o t ?
One of the most interesting peculiarities of the propositions under analysis is the
obligatory use of the particle не (not) in the dependent part. It should be noted
that the possibility of omitting не still existed in the nineteenth century.
(17) ...он боялся, чтобы она к нему подходила, ибо не хотел, чтобы она могла
приметить его страдания... (В. А. Жуковский. Письмо к С. Л. Пушкину
(1837) – НКРЯ).
…he was afraid that she would approach him, for he did not want her to no-
tice that he was suffering… (V. A. Zhukovskiy. The letter to S. L. Pushkin
(1837) – RNC)
Such a use is also noted in the paper by Mel’chuk & Iordanskaja (1990), exclusively
in the case of the verb бояться, when accompanied by the conjunction чтобы. The
authors cite a possible example:
(18) Мать боится, чтобы он ехал туда верхом

(Mel’chuk & Iordanskaja 1990, 23).
Mother is afraid that he will go there on horseback.
In their general comments, however, they note that, “many speakers avoid the
construction with čtoby altogether” (ibid).
Russian grammars present differing views on the status of the negative par-
ticle не and also its attachment to the conjunctions чтобы and как бы, and both
issues still remain a matter for discussion.
According to one point of view, the particle не belongs to the conjunctions

чтобы не and как бы не (RG, vol. 2, 479). As an integral part of the conjunction,
it loses its meaning of negation (Shuvalova 1983, 92). As proof, the supporters of
this theory frequently cite the synonymity of the propositions such as (19) and
(20):
(19) Мать боялась, как бы/чтобы дети не заболели.

Mother was anxious for the children not to get ill.
(20) Мать боялась, что дети заболеют.

Mother was afraid that the children would get ill.
According to a second point of view, found in earlier Russian grammars, in par-

ticular in the “Grammar of the Contemporary Literary Russian Language”, the
particle не does not become part of the conjunctions, and the propositions under
analysis possess a “negative subordinate” (GCLRL, 705).
The existence of two opposite viewpoints in describing the same linguistic ob-
ject is apparently not without reason. Research in recent years has significantly
extended and deepened our understanding of negation and the mechanisms of its
interaction with other language units.8 A certain compromise comprises a third
point of view, according to which the negation present in the conjunctions как
бы, чтобы and пока (until) is syntactic (expletive negation) and not a semantic
one (Brown & Franks 1995).9 One of the proofs of this latter position is the use of
[8] See, for example, a short review of different approaches in the work of Bylinina (2003) and Partee (2004).
For various types of negation, in particular, global negation in an assertion-suspending context, which
comprises the conjunctions under analysis, see also the work by Paducheva (2005).
[9] See, however, the critical review of this viewpoint in Abels (2005).

positive polarity items and the non-use of negative polarity items in such propo-
sitions.10 For example:
(21) Я боюсь, [как бы *никто/кто-нибудь/*кто-либо/#кто-то не пришел]11

(example from Bylinina (2003)).
I am afraid that anyone whosoever /anybody at all might/would come.
Thus, the use of the pronoun кто-нибудь (21) with a negation and the impos-
sibility, according to E. Bylinina, of using the pronoun никто in this example
demonstrate that “semantically, it is not a negative sentence (‘expletive nega-
tion’)” (Bylinina 2003, ibid).12 Unfortunately, the author does not give any expla-
nation to the use of the либо-pronoun in her example (21). Why is it so that only
нибудь-indefinites, but not либо-indefinites occur with как бы не and чтобы не? Are
there any cases where in clauses with these conjunctions ни-pronouns possible?
As it will be shown below in our material, all the aforementioned types of the
pronouns are found.
Let us consider in more detail the question of the status of negation in con-
structions with the apprehensive and present our position. In our view, the context
of the apprehensive construction is an example of the assertion-suspending con-
text.13 It is well known that the infinitive and the subjunctive belong to linguistic
means for the suspension of assertion. Such contexts express “a direct refusal
to take responsibility for the contents of the proposition”. (Paducheva 2005, 17).
As E. Paducheva has demonstrated, non-specific, non-referential indefinite pro-
nouns such as какой-нибудь are widely used in the assertion-suspending contexts
(22-a) and are practically inadmissible in the indicative mode (22-b) (Paducheva
2005, ibid):
(22) a. Написал бы что-нибудь /Написать что-нибудь /Напиши что-нибудь

Would you write anything/ To write anything/ Write anything
b. *Она написала что-нибудь.
*She wrote anything.
[10] Negative polarity items, i.e., items demanding a sentential negation in Russian include, for example,
negative pronouns, while indefinite pronouns with the particles -то,-нибудь are regarded as incompatible
with negation. As for the pronouns with the particle -либо, they belong to the type with its own particular
semantics and distribution and they had to be analysed separately. There are some sort of “irrealis”
contexts that license -нибудь-words (imperative, future, modal (possibility, necessity)) while they do not
license –либо-words. –Либо-words can even occur in negative contexts, for example, in the contexts with
distant negation. For further discussion and analysis see, for example, the works of Pereltsvaig (2000)
and Partee (2004).
[11] The # symbol in Bylinina’s example denotes the possibility of TO-pronouns in a sentence with negation,
but located, according to the author, out of zone of its action. (Bylinina 2003, ibid).
[12] Note that a number of Russian native speakers find it possible to use a negative pronoun никто (nobody)
in (21). See even our examples (24-a, b, c). The author of the cited article herself makes later a cautious
assumption of a possibility of a combined semantic-syntactic procedure of negation in these sentences.
[13] For details see: (Weinreich 1963).

It should be mentioned that indefinite pronouns with the particle -нибудь are
widely represented in the material that we are analyzing, e.g. (23):
(23) a. Боюсь, как бы ему что-нибудь не помешало: уж больно торопится

(Ю. Азаров (2002) – НКРЯ).
I am afraid in case anything gets/might/should/would get in his way:
he is in so much of a hurry. (Yu. Azarov (2002) – RNC)
b. Позднее Надя осторожно сказала мужу об этом: она боялась, как бы
Леонид Иванович не написал такое еще кому-нибудь (В. Дудинцев
(1956) – НКРЯ).
Later, Nadia cautiously mentioned this to her husband: she was afraid
that Leonid Ivanovich might/should/would write the same thing to
anyone else. (V. Dudincev (1956) – RNC)
c. Уходя, он всегда запирал ее на ключ в комнате, боясь, чтобы она
не натворила какой-нибудь беды (Г. Газданов (1966) – НКРЯ).
Leaving the house, he always locked her in the room for fear that she
might cause some trouble (G. Gazdanov (1966) – RNC)
However, examples are found, even though they are rare, of the use of negative
pronouns and also pronouns with the particle -либо.
(24) a. Но я беспокоилась не за вещи: боялась, чтобы никто не влетел

в раскаленные уголья на кухне (Д. Костенко. «Континент», 2006,
№129).
But I was not worried about household things: I was afraid that some-
body (lit. nobody) would run into the burning hot coals on the kitchen
fire. (D. Kostenko. “Kontinent”, 2006, N129)
b. Боялись ― как бы ничего дурного со мной опять не случилось
(Н. Джин (1980-1998) – НКРЯ).
They were afraid in case anything (lit. nothing) bad happened/might
/should/would happen to me again (N. Dzhin (1980-1998) – RNC)
c. Телевизионных камер было много, как никогда. Смотрительни-
цы волновались, чтобы никто ничего не повредил (Санкт-Петербург-
ские ведомости, Вып. № 023, 10.02.2009).
There were so many television cameras, more than ever before. The
attendants worried in case anyone (lit. noone) might/should/would
damage anything (lit. nothing) (The Saint-Petersburg Times, No 023,
10.02.2009).
d. Он боялся, чтобы кто-нибудь не помешал ему, чтобы что-либо не
прервало его состояния (К. Вагинов (1928) – НКРЯ).
He was afraid that somebody might/should/would impede him, in
case anything might/should/would disturb his state of mind. (K. Vagi-

nov (1928) – RNC)
The examples in group (24) clearly illustrate the fact that prohibition on the use
of negative polarity items in the propositions under analysis is not absolute. We
must therefore ask ourselves how to explain these facts and whether these propo-
sitions contain a semantic negation.
In order to explain the peculiarities of negation in the constructions with the
apprehensive, it is interesting to compare these constructions with two similar
linguistic phenomena, on the one hand, the expression of negation with the con-
junction пока (till/until/before/while), and the construction of the preventive on
the other.
[4.1] The conjunction Poka (till/until/before/while)

As it has been shown in earlier works, in particular (Barentsen 1979, 2011; Zorikhi-
na Nilsson 2002), the conjunction пока enters in a rather complex relationship
with negation and the verbal predicate of the subordinate part. The degree of co-
hesion of the entire structure depends in particular on the aspect and the lexical
meaning of the verb incorporated in it, as well as on the type of the taxis rela-
tions between the situations in the main and the dependent parts. It is possible
to distinguish three cases of the use of the particle не in structures with the con-
junction пока. In the first case, the particle не cannot be omitted, and this case is
most vividly manifested in propositions where the action of the main clause is in-
terrupted as a result of some sudden event. The perfective verb of the dependent
part denotes an action without an inherent duration; as a rule, it is a momentary,
instantaneous action.
(25) Мать его была слаба здоровьем, хозяйство совсем запустила, жила кое-
как... пока не утонула однажды в реке (В. Войнович).
His mother was of tender health, she neglected her household, let every-
thing slide... until one day she drowned in the river. (V. Vojnovič)
Cf.: *…жила кое-как ... пока утонула однажды в реке.
*…let everything slide… while one day she drowned in the river.
In the second case, the omission of не changes the meaning of the subordinate
clause into the opposite. Cf. (26-a) and (26-b):
(26) a. Смотри скорей, пока не погасло (lit. as long as it has not gone out).
Hurry up and take a look, before it goes out.
b. Смотри скорей, пока погасло.
Hurry up and take a look, while it is out (as long as it is still out).14
In the third case, we could speak about the synonymity of subordinate clauses
with and without не:
(27) a. В поисках подарка все ювелирки города обошел, пока нашел что-
то по-настоящему красивое [ср. пока не нашел] (Интернет).
Looking for a gift I passed all jewelry stores before /until I found some-
thing truly beautiful (Internet).
b. Я так половину города обошел, пока не нашел то, что искал [ср. по-
ка нашел] (Интернет).
I passed half the city before I found what I was looking for (Internet).
c. Я прочитала инструкцию и выпила. Все равно пол ночи крути-
лась, пока заснула! [ср. пока не заснула] (Интернет).
I read the instructions and drank. I still tossed and turned half the
night before I fell asleep (Internet).
In all the aforementioned cases, the conjunction пока retains its principal mean-
ing: it denotes the limited duration of the situation in the main clause relative to
that in the subordinate clause, while the particle не, in our view, combines two
functions. Firstly, it marks the “absence of action” in the dependent part against
the background of the continuing action in the main clause. Thus in (25), logi-
cally, the action «не утонула» (‘did not drown’) could be interpreted as an action
absent during the entire lifetime of the subject, whereas in (26) and (27), the situ-
ations expressed by the two predicates («смотри» (‘take a look’) and «не погасло»;
(‘did not go out’); «обошел» (‘passed’) and «не нашел» (‘did not find’); «крутилась»
(‘tossed and turned’) and «не заснула» (‘did not go to sleep’)) co-exist on the tem-
poral axis. In the latter case the particle realizes its prototypical function of nega-
tion. However, this function is often concealed by the communicative intentions
of the speaker, who wishes to emphasize the change from one action to another
and not the absence of some action against the background of another one. The
second function of the particle не in such structures could be called a communica-
tive or intentional one: this particle is used to mark the cessation of the action of
the main part and the advent of a new event or condition.
Unlike the conjunction пока, which, in contemporary Russian, has preserved
its variability in combining with both the positive and the negative predications,
the conjunctions чтобы and как бы, when used in the apprehensive, invariably
demand the particle не with the predicate. Note that the impossibility of omit-
ting не before the verb in such structures cannot serve, by itself, an argument in
favor of the loss of the negative function of the particle. In relation to this, let us
examine another construction where не is an indispensable part.
[14] Examples from the work of (Zorikhina Nilsson 2002, 84). See this article for further discussion.

[4.2] The preventive and the apprehensive

One of the convincing facts that demonstrate that negation has not lost its mean-
ing in the apprehensive is its comparison with the preventive. Semantically, these
two structures are similar: in both cases they express the speakers’ concern about
some undesirable future event, but in the preventive, the speaker is actively trying
to prevent possible consequences of the present situation by using the imperative
form to address the listener, which is never observed in the case of the apprehen-
sive. Cf.:
(28) a. Смотри, не заболей!

Don’t you get ill!
b. Я боюсь, как бы дочь не заболела.
I am anxious for my daughter not to get ill.
I am worried in case my daughter gets ill.
The preventive meaning is described quite well and in some detail in the linguistic
literature (Khrakovskiy & Volodin 2001; Birjulin 1994). Here, we shall present the
basic semantic components of the situation with the preventive in example (28-a),
in order to better compare it with the apprehensive construction:
1. At the moment t1 , situation P 1 occurs (X is in good health, not ill, P 1 = ¬P 2 ).
2. Situation P 2 (X will be ill, will become ill).
3. The speaker expresses apprehension at a possible imminent situation P 2 .
4. The speaker does not want the situation P 2 to occur (X wants «not P 2 »).
5. The speaker warns of the possibility of P 2 (X will be ill, will become ill).
As we can see from the enumeration of the components, number 5, which is

expressed by the imperative of a perfective verb, is excluded from the semantics
of the situation involving the apprehensive. This situation, however, includes ele-
ment 4, although it is in a rather weak form: the –л (-l)-subjunctive form after как
бы emphasizes the wish of the speaker (the agent of the narrative). The speaker
(the agent) expresses the wish that situation P 2 should not occur.
The presence of the semantic negation in the apprehensive and, at the same
time, its absence in the synonymous indicative structure (28-c) can be easily ex-
plained by the fact that in the indicative, the future form is used to only indicate
the fact that the situation P 2 is possible. Cf. (28-b) and (28-c):
(28) b. Я боюсь, как бы дочь не заболела.

I am anxious for my daughter not to get ill.
‘The speaker expresses concern about the possibility that situation
P 2 may occur’.
‘The speaker expresses the wish that the situation P 2 would not oc-
cur’ (weak component of sense).
c. Я боюсь, что дочь заболеет.
I am afraid that my daughter will get ill.
‘The speaker expresses concern about the possibility that situation
P 2 may occur’.
The situation described in the complex sentences with the subordinate intro-
duced by the conjunction что (that) involves only the elements (1, 2, 3), i.e. it
is less varied semantically than the construction with the apprehensive involving
the conjunctions чтобы (не) and как бы (не). Propositions with the conjunctions
что and чтобы (не) or как бы (не) are synonymous, but the synonymity is not ab-
solute and cannot serve as an argument for the absence of semantic negation in
the apprehensive.
It is also interesting to note that in constructions with the preventive, as well as
with the apprehensive, it is possible to use both indefinite and negative pronouns.
Cf.:
(29) a. [Смотри], не заболей ничем! (4)15

Don’t you come down with anything!
b. [Смотри], не заболей чем-нибудь! (96)
Don’t you come down with something!
(30) a. Не задави никого! (518)

Don’t you hit anyone!
b. Не задави кого-нибудь! (406)
Don’t you hit someone!
The examples (29) and (30) testify to the fact that also in structures with the pre-
ventive it is possible to use both negative and indefinite pronouns. However, in
the case of the preventive the presence of negation has never been denied on
these grounds. In our view, semantic negation is present both in the preventive
and the apprehensive constructions, but it manifests itself in a non-standard fash-
ion, which is conditional on the fact that from assertion-suspending contexts, we
can expect a nontrivial behavior by the language units.
[15] The figure in brackets shows the number of cases where the sentence was found using the Google search
engine for a search undertaken on December 1, 2010.

[5] c o n c l u s i o n
In this paper, I have examined the meaning of apprehension and concern about
some undersirable event in Russian expressed by the verbal constructions using
subordinating conjunctions как бы (не) and чтобы (не) and –л (-l)-subjunctive verb
form or infinitive.
The complex sentences and infinitive clauses where the main clause predicate
is expressed by the verb бояться ‘fear’ were invistigeted in greater detail.
As the study of the large corpus data has shown, the structure that employs
the conjunction чтобы (не) is rarely used in an apprehensive meaning and it is
on its way to disappear from the contemporary Russian language, particulary in
the infinitive clause. Thus, the constructions with как бы (не) acquire a more pro-
nounced specialization.
The paper discussed one of the most interesting peculiarities of the propo-
sitions under analysis, namely the obligatory use of the particle не (not) in the
dependent part and the semantic puzzles of the negation which is expressed in
it. I considered the context of the apprehensive construction as an example of
the assertion-suspending context. Although –нибудь-pronouns (positive polarity
items) were widely represented in my material, the examples of the use of ни-
pronouns (strong negative polarity items) and –либо-pronouns (weak negative
polarity items) were found. These facts allowed me to argue that the negation
in the apprehensive construction has some semantic function. Furthermore, the
comparison with other constructions (complex sentences with the conjunction
пока (не) and preventive constructions) strengthened the arguments confirming
the existence of “uncommon” uses. The negative particle ne (not) in these con-
texts interacts with the words of different meaning and this interaction results in
a non-standard behavior of many language units involved.
The proposed analyses of the apprehensive constructions with the verb бо-
яться ‘fear’ could be extended to other words denoting fear and concern, feelings
and actions that accompany apprehension as well as to words with the meaning
of surveillance and supervision.
aknowledgement
I am grateful to Adrian Barentsen and my anonymous reviewer for their very
thoughtful comments and useful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.
All remaining errors are, of course, my responsibility. None of the above neces-
sarily agree with the views expressed.
references
Abels, K. 2005. ’Expletive Negation’ in Russian: A Conspiracy Theory. Journal of
Slavic linguistics 13(1). 5–74.
Barentsen, A. 1979. Nabljudenija za funkcionirovaniem sojuza poka. In Dutch Con-

tributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, 57–159. Lisse.
Barentsen, A. 2011. O sxodstvax i različijax v upotreblenii ograničitel’nyx vre-

mennyx sojuzov v sovremennyx slavjanskix jazykax. Preprint. To be published
in Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku.
Birjulin, L. 1994. Semantika i pragmatika russkogo imperativa. Slavica Helsingiensia

13.
Brown, S. & S. Franks. 1995. Asymmetries in the scope of Russian negation. Journal
of Slavic Linguistics 3. 239–287.
Bylinina, Je. 2003. O sintaksise otricanija v russkom jazyke: otricatel’nye

mestoimenija i konstrukcija “ni x, ni y”. http://www.dialog-21.ru/
Archive/2003/Bylinina.htm.
Dobrushina, N.R. 2006. Grammatičeskie formy i konstrukcii so značeniem

opasenija i predostereženija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2. 28–67.
Fortuin, E.L. 2000. Polysemy or monosemy: Interpretation of the imperative and the
dative-infinitive construction in Russian. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language
and Computation, Amsterdam University dissertation.
GCLRL. 1970. Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva: Nau-

ka.
Khrakovskiy, V.S. 2009. Taksis: semantika, sintaksis, tipologija. Tipologija taksisnyx

konstrukcij. 11–113. Moskva: Znak.
Khrakovskiy, V.S. & A.P. Volodin. 2001. Semantika i tipologija imperativa. Russkij
imperativ. Moskva: URSS.
Lomtev, T.P. 1956. Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka. Moskva: MGU.
Mel’chuk, I. & L. Iordanskaja. 1990. Semantics of Two Emotion Verbs in Russian:

bojat’sja ‘to be afraid’ and nadejat’sja ‘to hope’. Australian Journal of Linguistics
10(2). 305–357.
Paducheva, E.V. 2005. Ėffekty snjatoj utverditel’nosti: global’noe otricanie. Russkij

jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 2(10). 17–42.
Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Formal Semantics, Lecture 8. Negation, Monotonici-

ty, and Negative Polarity Items. RGGU April 8. people.umass.edu/partee/
RGGU_2004/RGGU048a%20no%20codes.doc (15.05. 2011).
Pereltsvaig, A. 2000. Monotonicity-based vs. veredicality-based approaches to

negative polarity: evidence from Russian. In T.H. King & I.A. Sekerina (eds.),
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting 1999, 328–346. Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Plungyan, V.A. 2004. Predislovie. Irrealis i real’nost’. In Issledovanija po teorii gram-

matiki, vol. 3, 9–27. Moskva.
RG. 1980. Russkaja grammatika, vol. 2. Moskva: Nauka.
Shuvalova, S.A. 1983. Složnoe predloženie. Moskva: MGU.
Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI-XVII. 1980. Moskva: Nauka.
Weinreich, U. 1963. On the semantic structure of language. In J. Greenberg (ed.),

Universals of Language, 114–171. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.
Zorikhina Nilsson, N. 2002. Ešče raz o semantike vyskazyvanij s sojuzom poka.

Scando-Slavica (48). 81–102.
Nadezhda Zorikhina Nilsson
Institutionen för språk och litteraturer
Göteborgs universitet
Box 200, 405 30 Göteborg
Sweden
nadja.zorikhina@slav.gu.se

A. Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (eds.) e Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), 2012. 71–95.
(ISSN 1890-9639)
от глагола к служебному слову.

пути грамматикализации.
София Пожарицкая
Московский государственный университет
[1] Введение
Предметом исследования послужили диалектные (севернорусские) «мел-
кие слова», производные от форм глаголов быть, бывать (бы, бывает, будет),
которые мы рассматриваем в составе синтаксических конструкций в связи с
категорией модальности.
Материал был получен нами в процессе экспедиционного обследования го-
воров Архангельской области (Верхнетоемский, Вилегодский, Каргопольский,
Ленский, Лешуконский, Мезенский, Онежский, Пинежский, Плесецкий, Устьян-
ский р-ны) в связи с работой над Архангельским областным словарем (далее
АОС).
Способом получения нужных нам сведений были непринужденные беседы
с информантами и запись спонтанной речи диалектоносителей, в основном,
диалогического характера. Метод прямых ответов на поставленные диалекто-
логом вопросы не применялся. Были использованы также цитаты из опубли-
кованных выпусков АОС и его электронной базы¹. Благодаря этому нам уда-
лось, хотя и весьма приблизительно, выявить ареалы наиболее интенсивного
употребления каждого модального слова (союза или частицы) в пределах тер-
ритории Архангельской обл. При этом выяснилось, что имеются зоны наложе-
ния ареалов разных модальных слов/частиц, производных от быть, бывать, и
их дистрибуция в пределах частной диалектной системы представляет особый
интерес, поскольку дает возможность более точно определить их семантику
и связь с грамматическими структурами предложения. Приведенный в статье
цитатный материал представляет собой выборку примеров, наиболее ярко ил-
люстрирующих разные типы синтаксических конструкций с бы, бывает, будет
(буде) в связи с их семантикой. Полный объем материала мог бы быть обозрим
после того, как завершится работа по записи его для словаря, которая в настоя-
щее время еще продолжается. Следует отметить, что количество материала для
отдельных регионов Архангельской обл. существенно зависит от заселенности
[1] Список населенных пунктов, в которых был записан цитатный материал (как обследованных нами,
так и упомянутых в АОС), приводится нами в конце статьи. Фонетические особенности диалектов
передаются в той мере, в какой они не требуют применения специальных средств транскрипции.
[72] софия пожарицкая
соответствующей территории (и, следовательно, степени ее привлекательно-

сти для диалектологов), которая очень неравномерна: так, например, для Пи-
нежского и Верхнетоемского районов количество имеющихся в нашем распо-
ряжении цитат исчисляется сотнями, для Плесецкого и Онежского – десятками,
для Ленского – единицами.
Материал других единиц диалектного членения русского языка не был ис-
пользован для сопоставления, и перспектива его привлечения представляется
весьма сомнительной в связи с тем, что мы не располагаем записями спон-
танной речи с других территорий в достаточном объеме, поскольку остальная
территория изучалась в основном лингвогеографическими методами, которые
абсолютно непригодны для наших целей. Есть только все основания предпола-
гать, что описываемые нами конструкции не замыкаются административными
границами Архангельской обл., а распространяются за ее пределы на терри-
торию северозападных и вологодских говоров; тем самым, западная и южная
границы рассматриваемых явлений остаются пока неизвестными.
Единственным источником сведений, которые могли бы быть сопоставлены
с нашими, мог бы послужить словарь рязанского говора (CСРНГ) с его богатым
цитатным материалом и фонографическими записями, но в нем интересую-
щие нас конструкции отсутствуют – очевидно, не случайно.
Формам глаголов быть, бывать принадлежит, несомненно, особая роль в
образовании служебных слов в русском языке. Помимо употребления в своем
экзистенциальном значении, эти глаголы участвовали в качестве вспомога-
тельных элементов в образовании старых сложных форм времени: перфекта,
плюсквамперфекта, футурума I и футурума II. Занимая позицию, способствую-
щую клитизации, эти формы утрачивали как формальную, так и функциональ-
ную связь с глаголом и развивали новые синтаксические функции и значения,
прежде всего – в качестве модальных слов/частиц.
В литературном русском такими «реликтами» глаголов быть, бывать яв-
ляются служебные слова бы, бывает, буде, бишь², имеющие разный граммати-
чекий статус: бы – элемента формы сослагательного наклонения; бывает – ча-
стицы, «характеризующей действие по его протеканию во времени, по полноте
или неполноте его осуществления, по результативности или нерезультативно-
сти» (АГ 1980, т. 1: 727), буде – условного союза, синонимичного если.
В севернорусских говорах эти слова обладают теми же грамматическими
функциями, что и в литературном языке, но наряду с этим диалектная (северно-
русская) речь демонстрирует некоторые иные, по сравнению с литературным
[2] Имеется другая версия происхождения частицы бишь: опираясь на мнение ряда историков, М. Фасмер
дает ее как аллегровую форму баешь от баю «говорю» (Фасмер 1964, 170). Однако при эллиптических
трансформациях слова обычно сохраняется ударный гласный, каковым в данном случае является [а],
поэтому более убедительной нам представляется интерпретация Е.А. Галинской, которая доказывает,
что бишь – это остаток одной из форм имперфекта (Галинская 2006). Но в наших материалах частица
бишь не встретилась; ее мы не рассматриваем.

от глагола к служебному слову [73]
языком, возможности эволюции семантики глагольного слова на пути измене-

ния его грамматических функций. Тем самым, те же слова в диалектной речи
оказываются более многофункциональными, чем в литературном языке.
Для изучения категории модальности и, в частности, функций модальных
частиц иногда бывает необходимо обращение к внеязыковой ситуации, от-
носительно которой порождается высказывание, и/или к предтексту, которым
мы, к сожалению, не всегда располагаем. В ряде случаев это мешает однознач-
ности принимаемых нами решений. Однако в связи с целями исследования для
нас в первую очередь важно было не точное определение значения модального
слова в конкретном высказывании (однозначный «перевод» каждой диалект-
ной цитаты и каждого слова на литературный язык), а установление диапазона
семантического варьирования диалектного слова на основании суммы контек-
стов, принадлежащих частной диалектной системе.
[2] Бы
Морфологический статус этой частицы как элемента формы сослагатель-
ного наклонения в сочетании с л-формой глагола является общерусским и свой-
ствен, в том числе, и севернорусским говорам, например: Всё время бы пели –
скорее бы не забыли (Пин. Лав.). Наряду с этим в говорах наблюдается незна-
комое литературному языку употребление бы в контекстах с формами настоя-
щего, будущего времени и императива³:
(1) Там бы Го́ра называецце на угоре (Пин. Лав.);

(2) Ну Олёшка тожо бы любит цветы, да ему некогда (Усть. АП);
(3) Сын будет бы сватать девку – посмотрят, што умет делать
(Пин. Нюх.);
(4) Она бы споёт (Пин. Нюх.);
(5) Рвите бы лук-от, я не жалею (В-Т. Тин.).
Это свидетельствует о том, что синтаксические ирреальные наклонения в

диалекте могут взаимодействовать с категорией времени. Системный статус
диалектного бы в связи с этим позволяет считать, что сослагательное накло-
нение как категория морфологии глагола располагает парадигмой во времени
или, иначе говоря, бы является ирреальным модификатором синтаксического
плана, функционирующим на уровне сложного предложения и взаимодейству-
ющим с временем предиката.
[3] В Национальном корпусе русского языка (НКРЯ), по данным обобщающей статьи Н.Р. Добрушиной
(Добрушина 2009), отсутствуют примеры употребления бы с формами настоящего времен, а в кон-
струкции «бы+императив» встречается только глагол быть: «Будь бы товарищ мой не глухой, я про-
трубил бы ему, мы бы сговорились и ждали бы зайца на той и другой стороне» (М.М. Пришвин.
Дружба (1941)).

В диалектных текстах бы всегда является энклитикой и обычно находится

в контактной позиции по отношению к сказуемому, справа или слева от него
(мука бы есть и есть бы старушки), но может быть отделено определяющим
его наречием: мама бы хорошо работает.
[2.1] Бы в высказываниях с двумя предикатами.

Типичный и преобладающий во всех говорах контекст употребления бы –
двупредикатная конструкция со строгим расположением частей и сопостави-
тельным или противительным их отношением. Бы, структурно примыкающее
к первому предикату, играет роль компонента двухместного союза; вторая кла-
уза открывается союзами а, да, дак, но, ну, только:
(1) Она зовет бы, да я не хочу (В-Т. Тин.);

(2) У ней больша бы комната, ну холодно, зимой нельзя жить
(Пин. Лав.);
(3) Ничего не испекла: мука бы есть, дак дрожжей нету (Усть. АП);
(4) Клуб-от бы дивен⁴ у нас, да сцена маленька (Леш. Кеба);
(5) В красном доме есть бы старушка, только болеет, ей уж под
восемьдесят (Пин. Нюх.);
(6) Она бы на все болезни, но ней трудно искать (В-Т. Вдг.);
(7) Есть женщина бы и хорошо шьет, да робенок у ней (Пин. Нюх.);
(8) Она можот бы петь, да не запевает (‘не может быть запева-
лой’) (Леш. Кеба);
(9) Теперь бы сытые, а хуже веселяцце (Пин. Нюх.);
(10) И сена хватит бы на корову, только коров нету (В-Т. Тим.).
Содержанием первой части высказывания с бы является реальная позитив-

ная посылка; во второй, начинающейся с а, да, дак, ну, только, сообщается тоже
реальный факт, который препятствует предполагаемому позитивному разви-
тию ситуации, логически следующему из посылки в части первой. Тем са-
мым потенциальное (невербализованное) следствие первой посылки противо-
поставляется содержанию заключительной части. В некоторых случаях в со-
ставе высказывания может быть восстановлена еще одна предикативная еди-
ница – нереализованное позитивное следствие посылки, сформулированной в
первой части. Можно предположить, что бы в этих примерах прочитывается
не на фоне предиката первой части с реальной модальностью, а в составе пре-
диката отсутствующей части с ирреальной модальностью: ‘клуб большой, по-
этому в нем могли бы быть концерты, но…’; ‘есть старушка, которая могла бы
[4] Дивный – большой, хороший.

что-то рассказать, но…’; ‘женщина могла бы сшить что-то, но…’ и т.п. Семан-
тика «нереальности» относится, таким образом, не к вещественному содержа-
нию вербализованного предиката (клуб действительно велик, старушка на са-
мом деле живет в красном доме и т.д.), а к той ситуации (невербализованной),
которая не может реализоваться в силу причин, о которых сообщается в конеч-
ной части высказывания. Тем самым бы позволяет выявить невербализованный
предикат с ирреальной модальностью.
Примечательно, что во второй части высказывания либо имеется отрица-
ние, либо предикат содержит «негативную» сему: маленька, трудно, болеет,
холодно⁵.
В присущей этим контекстам ситуации сопоставления рема (реже тема)
первой части с примыкающим бы как правило выделяется повышением тона на
ударном гласном акцентируемого слова; во второй части понижением обычно
маркируется рема, если она относится к тому же подлежащему, либо тема, если
во второй части предложение с другим подлежащим (Кодзасов 1996, 194): она
↗ может бы петь, да не ↘запевает; мука бы ↗есть, дак ↘дрожжей нету;
клуб-от бы ↗дивен у нас, да ↘сцена маленька; у нас и ↗река бы близко, а по-
вадились в ↘колодец.
Общий прагматический смысл диалектных высказываний такого типа —
вербально не выраженное сожаление о нереализуемости имеющейся предпо-
сылки: ‘поставить концерт с большим количеством участников’, ‘побеседовать
со старушкой’, ‘сшить одежду’ и т.п.
Эта конструкция употребляется в диалектной речи так часто, что стано-
вится своего рода формулой, клишированным способом выражения эмоции со-
жаления о нереализованной возможности осуществления имеющейся предпо-
сылки, а клишированность, как известно, в высокой степени свойственна спон-
танной речи вообще и диалектной в особенности (Николаева & Седакова 1995).
[2.2] Бы в высказываниях с одним предикатом

(1) Она бы женщина трудолюбивая, роботящая (В-Т. Вдг.);
(2) Хорошо бы жить-то, всего бы много (В-Т. Вдг.);
(3) У нас земля бы очень хорошая (В-Т. Вдг.);
(4) Он бы и не старый, семнадцатого году (Пин. Нюх.);
(5) Мне бы не ндравицце так-то жить-ту (Леш. Кеба);
(6) У меня бы щас хлеб-от есь хорошой бы (Пин. Лав.);
(7) Черёмухи сухой килограмм бы шестнадцать есть (В-Т. Вдг.).
[5] О «позитивной» и «негативной» семантике в антонимических парах качественных прилагательных

см. (Апресян 1974).

Некоторые из приведенных высказываний оставляют впечатление недоска-

занности, не вербализованной идеи несоответствия существующей ситуации
тому, что автору представляется нормальным развитием сюжета, заявленного
в первой части (‘женщина трудолюбивая, а живет бедно’); однако завершаю-
щая интонация, наблюдаемая в ряде контекстов, указывает на их автономный
характер и свидетельствует в пользу необязательности антитезы типа ‘земля
хорошая, а урожаи плохие’, ‘жить хорошо, а уезжают’ и т.п. Допустимо и пози-
тивное развитие сюжета сообщения: ‘земля хорошая, и вследствие этого уро-
жаи большие’, ‘она женщина трудолюбивая, и поэтому живет хорошо’, ‘жить
хорошо, и поэтому никто не уезжает’. В режиме спонтанной речи, в диалоге,
когда собеседник обладает не только фоновыми знаниями, но ему понятны и
эмоции говорящего, которые он сам скорее всего разделяет, антитеза, присут-
ствующая в сознании говорящего, не нуждается в вербализации.
В таких случаях вероятна синонимия частиц бы и ведь в значении, кото-
рое предполагает разные пресуппозиции говорящего и адресата: она ведь жен-
щина трудолюбивая; земля ведь очень хорошая, т.е. «удостоверительное» зна-
чение частицы, подтверждение того знания говорящего, которое, возможно, не
очевидно для адресата (Бонно & Кодзасов 1998). Иногда такая интерпретация
представляется достаточно убедительной:
(8) Выпью редко, не хочу бы пить-то (Пин. Лав.);

(9) Осенью бы отпуск, осенью и приедут (В-Т. Вдг.);
(10) Река-то бы маленька, покупались бы (В-Т. Вдг.);
(11) Не надо покупать, свои бы есть (Пин. Нюх.);
(12) Где у нас старушки? Нет бы боле (Пин. Нюх.).
Две клаузы в составе этих высказываний не связаны семантикой антитезы;

они независимы, и при этом бы является частицей, принадлежащей только од-
ной клаузе и «удостоверяющей» значение предиката (не хочу ведь пить-то;
река ведь маленькая; нет ведь боле старушек).
Частица бы, синонимичная модальной частице ведь, соотносит мнения раз-
ных субъектных сфер (разных личностей – субъекта и адресата), в отличие от
бы в [2.1], которая участвует в соотнесении фактов в рамках одной субъектной
сферы – говорящего.
Встречающиеся иногда предложения со сказуемым в форме прошедшего
времени +бы, омонимичные сослагательной конструкции (и по всей вероятно-
сти, сосуществующие с ней в одной системе), не содержат значения ирреаль-
ности:
(13) Они бы не запрещали, но мы не могли (В-Т. Вдг.);

(14) Мама бы хорошо работала, а отец деньги пропьет (В-Т. Тин.);

(15) Он уж бы и плыл, и ревел⁶ , что спасайте, а никого нету (В-Т.
Тин.);
(16) Раньше и сыновья бы дома жили, а ноне уезжают (В-Т. Вдг.);
(17) Оне совсем бы меня не касались, а я приглядывалась (Усть. АП);
(18) Так-то там большая бы деревня была, а сейчас домов десять
(Усть. АП).
Семантика этих конструкций та же, что и в примерах с формами насто-

ящего времени: бы является сигналом возможного, но не состоявшегося по-
зитивного развития ситуации, а л-форма указывает на отнесение сюжета рас-
сказа к прошлому. Эти примеры подтверждают предположение о том, что бы
можно рассматривать как ирреальный модификатор синтаксического плана,
функционирующий на уровне сложного предложения и взаимодействующий
с временем предиката.
Возможность совмещения разнообразных функций бы в разных синтакси-
ческих конструкциях (общерусских сослагательных и специфически диалект-
ных, о которых шла речь выше в [2.1]) в одном речевом тексте иллюстрируют
следующие контексты, записанные в д. Акичкин Починок Устьянского р-на:
(19) Хоть и годов много бы, и ничего бы не действует, всё болит, а

умирать страшно. Я-то бы рада умреть-то, да нету смерти
дак;
(20) Она понимат бы, в медицине, и роботат бы хорошо, да спи-
лась. Она кабы не пила бы, страсть бы хорошо роботат. Вот
к нам медика-то эково и сунули. Она вообще знат бы всё дело,
опытная, ну испортилась вся.
[2.3] Бы с императивом.
(1) Чево хош бы делайте (Вил. Клуб.);
(2) Рвите бы лук-от, я не жалею (В-Т. Тин.).
В этом можно видеть смягчительную функцию бы, которая переводит мо-

дальность высказывания из директивной в разрешительную, и в связи с этим
интересно вопросительное высказывание, адресованное диалектологам:
(3) Университет – это бы с каким уклоном? (Пин. Нюх.).
[6] Реветь – кричать.

Частица бы в этом случае явно относится не к объективному (диктальному)

содержанию высказывания, а включена в апелляцию к собеседнику и выражает
уважительное отношение к нему говорящего. Тем самым частица бы, будучи
не связана с реальным содержанием высказывания, отсылает именно к форме
императива в модусной рамке (ср.: рвите бы — *скажите бы). Смягчительная
модальность естественным образом перетекает в форму вежливости: побужде-
ние (1) → разрешение (2) → вежливость (3)⁷.
Побуждение к действию (или его запрет) с формой императива 2-го лица +
бы может иметь косвенный или «смещенный» характер:
(4) Оне бы удочкой-то ↗ ловите, а травить-то бы не ↘ травите

(Вил. Клуб.).
Адресуясь к собеседнику (референту), говорящий (субъект высказывания)

сообщает ему свое мнение относительно тех действий 3-го лица (отсутству-
ющего адресата – субъекта действия), которые представляются ему правиль-
ными либо неправильными, желательными либо нежелательными. Соедине-
ние двух речевых перспектив (субъект речи → адресат речи, субъект речи →
субъект действия) приводит к рассогласованию по лицу субъекта и предиката:
благодаря 3-му лицу субъекта действия (оне) соблюдены интересы адресата,
поскольку речь идет об отсутствующем лице; формой 2-го лица предиката (ло-
вите, травите) говорящий помещает себя в ситуацию, когда прямым адреса-
том его высказывания становится отсутствующее лицо, чьими действиями он
недоволен.
Частица бы удерживается в аналитической форме императива с глаголом в
форме 3 лица настоящего или будущего времени и частицей пусть/ пускай:
(6) Уж будет ак сами выучацце как надо, а пускай роботают бы!

Пускай робят бы! (В-Т. Тин.);
(7) Пусть бы поживет неделю-то хоть бы у нас! (Пин. Лав.).
Ср. мнение А.А. Шахматова по поводу семантики предложений с 3-м ли-

цом в повелительном наклонении: «Говорящий, выдвигая название действия-
состояния… ставит данному третьему лицу обязанность стать его субъектом»,
которое сопровождается пометкой на полях: «Точно ли при 3-м единственном
возможен императив? Не желательное ли это?» (Шахматов 2001, 483).
Транспозиционное употребление императива, при котором бы усиливает
ирреальность потенциальной ситуации, наблюдается в следующих высказыва-
ниях:
[7] Ср. в (Добрушина 2009, 298) об участии бы при л-предикатах в литературном языке в формировании
семантики «смягчения категоричности»: «Частица бы для выражения желания встречается в корпусе
значительно реже, чем мы предполагали, причем чаще всего субъектом глагола является адресат, а
конструкция имеет значение мягкого совета, рекомендации».

(7) Хоть топеря бы поезжай — дак ишо правнуков ро́щу, ним по-
могаю (В-Т. Вдг.);
(8) Восемь классов кончил — поезжай бы учицце, а он вот еще и
не кончил (В-Т. Вдг.).
В (8) с предикатами временного следования (кончил школу – поезжай) пер-

вое действие (окончание школы) является условием выполнения второго (отъ-
езда на учебу), а третье аннулирует ожидаемый результат. Тем самым вербали-
зованной оказывается та предикативная единица в составе высказывания, ко-
торая опущена в цитатах из раздела [2.2], и именно туда, на свое «законное ме-
сто», перемещается бы, означающее потенциально возможное, но не реализуе-
мое действие. Выделительных акцентов здесь два: во второй и третьей клаузах;
размещение их характерно для ситуации контраста: поезжай бы ↗учиться, а
он вот еще и ↘не кончил (и не поехал). Возможный восходящий акцент на пер-
вой и второй клаузе (восемь классов ↗кончил – поезжай бы ↗учиться) объ-
единяет первую и вторую клаузу в высказывание с условно-гипотетической
модальностью, которое не обладает просодической завершенностью и нужда-
ется в присоединении третьей клаузы с нисходящим акцентом: а он вот еще и
↘не кончил.
Многофункциональность бы ведет к десемантизации, которая проявляется
в том, что его многократный повтор в речи часто представляется немотивиро-
ванным, избыточным с точки зрения семантики текста. Например, в разговоре
с диалектологами о возможности собрать деревенский хор в д. Лавела Пинеж-
ского р-на, было сказано: Моя сестра, да Петровна бы еще, да Пантелевна бы,
вот мы бы все бы Каскоменьски-ти, да вот Авдотья бы Кузьмовна, вот с одной-
то бы деревни, дак бы хорошо спевались, одной-то бы петь-то бы худо. И далее:
Там бы Сараева есть, хорошо поёт. В существовании Сараевой и ее способно-
сти петь говорящие не сомневаются; бы при этом, очевидно, символизирует
припоминание, присоединение еще одного персонажа к названным ранее.
Семантическую избыточность употребления многофункционального «мел-
кого слова» как характерную черту диалектного дискурса можно наблюдать
также и на примере других частиц; например, -от (-то, -та, -ту, -те): Робо́ту-
ту тежо́лу-ту не мо́жот ро́бить-та, а сиде́ть-та мо́жот, гледе́ть-то, ходи́ть-
то круго́м-ту (Леш. Кеба); Ны́нче-то на большо́й-то доро́ге ру́чей-то у ба́ни-то
у Па́вла-то до́ма – не текё сейгод (Пин. Шт.); Дак то бы ево́нно-то бы е́сть
письмо́-то наве́рно-то (Усть. АП).
Таким образом, в севернорусских говорах бы, помимо своей грамматиче-
ской роли в качестве союзного средства и модальной частицы, может быть тек-
стообразующим дискурсивным элементом с широкими функциями реализа-
ции свойственной диалектной речи инерционности текста: связи фрагментов
текста, усиления его выразительности путем повтора фрагментов и т.п.⁸ На-

блюдаемая при этом десемантизация («семантическое обесцвечивание» или
«опустошение») является, как известно, одним из характерных признаков грам-
матикализации.
Частица-союз бы вне формы сослагательного наклонения функционирует
на весьма обширной территории: максимальная концентрация ее наблюдается
в говорах среднего течения Пинеги (Пинежский и Верхнетоемский р-ны), нес-
колько менее – в Устьянском и Вилегодском р-нах, единично – едва ли не везде.
[3] Бывает
Изменение грамматического статуса глагольной формы бывает⁹, которая,
утратив формы словоизменения, стала частицей/вводным словом при преди-
катах с грамматической семантикой кратности, известно как литературному
языку, так и диалектам, ср.: Придет, бывает, охотник, захочется ему отдох-
нуть, он и воткнёт топор в дерево (М. Пришвин); диал. Быват до того доко-
сицце, на пожне¹⁰ родить стане (Плес. Прш.); Как клюквы много осенью, так и
ржи будут, а то быват и клюквинки нет (Холм. ПМ.).
Однако в говорах наблюдается формирование у бывает таких семантиче-
ских характеристик, которые позволяют приписать ему роль союзного сред-
ства, а также включить его в число слов-эгоцентриков с эпистемическим мо-
дальным значением и проследить не только семантический и морфологиче-
ский аспекты грамматикализации этого слова, но и сопровождающую его фо-
нетическую деформацию, напр.: Репа-то насеяна – она бай не выростет (В-Т.
Вдг.).
Исходная словоформа бывает представлена в говорах вариантами: быва́т,
быва́е, быва́й, быва́, бай, бват, бат, ба, которые обычно свободно варьируются в
двухсложных и в односложных модификациях (напр., в д. Веегора Пинежского
р-на – ба, бат, бват, быва́, быва́т) в зависимости от свойств их позиции во
фразе, сохраняя при этом семантическое тождество.
Полная трехсложная форма [быва́ет] или [быва́е] (последнее – в говорах,
которым свойственно отсутствие конечного [-т] в форме 3-го лица глагола) су-
ществует обычно как глагол/предикат, который, однако, тоже может быть двух-
сложным [быва́т] в результате стяжения гласных при выпадении интервокаль-
ного [j]: ([быва[j]ет>бываат>быват]). Таким образом, в виде быва́е, быва́т могут
встретиться в одном говоре как омонимичные 1) глагольная форма со стяже-
нием, 2) частица с грамматической семантикой кратности, 3) частица с эписте-
мической модальностью и 4) союз.
[8] О текстообразующей роли частиц см. (Евтюхин 1979).

[9] В дальнейшем изложении мы используем исходную форму бывает как прототипическую по отно-
шению к эллиптированным модификациям данной лексемы.
[10] Пóжня – сенокосное угодье.

Устойчивое эллиптическое преобразование исходной формы бывает в двух-

сложную или односложную частицу, занимающую преимущественно безак-
центную позицию во фразе, подтверждает идею о том, что «Интегральная ре-
дукция слова – стандартный способ маркировки семантического разрыва с ис-
ходной лексемой» (Кодзасов 2009, 328) и служит проявлением «фонетической
эрозии», которая сопровождает явление грамматикализации: «Oncе a lexeme is
conventionalized as a grammatical marker, it tends to undergo erоsion; that is, the
phonological substance is likely to be reduced in some way and to become more
dependent on surrounding phonetic material» (Heine 1993, 89).
В отличие от бы, которое не может занимать инициальную позицию во
фразе и является устойчивой клитикой, модификации слова бывает чаще за-
нимают инициальную позицию в клаузе и могут быть акцентированы – как
двухсложные, так и односложные.
[3.1] Бывает в высказаниях с двумя предикатами

В конструкциях с двумя предикатами бывает играет роль союза или ком-
понента двухместного союза с соотносительным дак, так. Значение его в этом
случае близко к условному если, но не тождественно ему:
(1) Быват не заможешь¹¹, дак с голоду умрёшь (Карг. Оз.);

(2) Быват двери полы¹², он всё выстудит (В-Т. Грк.);
(3) Соляры¹³ бат мало будет, и погасят (электричество) (Он. Лмц.);
(4) Быват ребята пойдут, дак быват и он пойдет (Карг. Оз.);
(5) Бай вы желаете чай, так берите (Плес. Прш.);
(6) По зиме бат худо кормили, дак не дояцце коровы-ти (В-Т. Тин.).
Высказывание в целом имеет гипотетическую модальность, относящуюся

к конкретной ситуации: в протазисе с инициальным, как правило, бывает, вы-
сказывается предположение о возможном действии или состоянии (говорящий
предполагает, что: ‘двери открыты’, ‘будет мало солярки’ и т.п.), а в аподо-
зисе сообщается вероятное следствие этого: ‘дома будет холодно’, ‘отключат
электричество’ и т.п.). Цитата (4) имеет двойную гипотетическую модальность:
предположение о том, что ‘ребята пойдут’ и предположение о том, что в этом
случае и ‘он (вероятно) тоже пойдет’. В протазисе с предикатом прошедшего
времени в (6) предлагается причинное обоснование ситуации, о которой сооб-
щается в аподозисе и которая имеет место сейчас; бат обеспечивает модаль-
ный характер предположения, относящегося к прошлому: ‘возможно (или ве-
роятно), что зимой коров плохо кормили’. Кажущаяся возможной замена бат
[11] Не замóчь (незамочь?) – стать слабым, беспомощным.
[12] Пóлый – пустой, открытый.
[13] Соляра – солярка, жидкое топливо.

на если меняет смысл высказывания, переключая модальность предположения

о причине конкретной ситуации в условную модальность общего характера.
Cр. у А.А. Шахматова, который интерпретировал модальное значение вы-
сказываний в рамках синтаксического «предположительного (гипотетического)
наклонения»: «Говорящий, устанавливая связь субъекта с предикатом, делает
это не с полной уверенностью, а с оговоркой; это достигается наречиями: ка-
жется, вероятно… при изъявительном наклонении». Здесь же приводится уточ-
нение, представляющее для нас особый интерес: «Областное быват» (Шахма-
тов 2001, 486). Ср. также цитату из словаря В. Даля: «Бывает, может статься;
быват пойду, может быть, пойду, арх.» (Даль 1955, I: 148).
Таким образом, на базе старой глагольной формы формируется союз с мо-
дальным оттенком предположения (гипотезы), а эволюция глагольных форм и
их движение в направлении модальных частиц представляется перетеканием
смыслов между категориями времени, вида и модальности.
[3.2] Бывает в высказываниях с одним предикатом.

Преобладающее во всех говорах значение бывает в контекстах с одним
предикатом служит выражением эпистемической модальности: оценки гово-
рящим возможности осуществления предикативного признака, градуирован-
ной по степени вероятности, которая иногда конкретизируется или «усилива-
ется» частицами/наречиями может, наверное, ведь, бы и другими:
(1) Ба и голодом придется сидеть. Ба война будет (Нянд. Врл.);

(2) Садитесь чаю пить, быва не пили сёдни¹⁴? (Пин. Лав.);
(3) Олёха-то не знай где, бывай в загуле опять (Пин. Нюх.);
(4) Он запился што-то; быват испортился там на чужой сто-
роны (Пин. Нюх.);
(5) Ну, Анка, говорю, они бай заблудилисе (Пин. Лав.);
(6) А где девочка-то? Быват лежит? (В-Т. Вдг.);
(7) Не знаю, быва либо дома не была, либо чё, не помню чё-то у ей
свадьбы (Пин. Лав.);
(8) Можот дешевле-то быват бы и взял (Он. Лмц.);
(9) Она тожо год-от наверно не помнит быват (В-Т. Тин.);
(10) У нас ба ведь есть тканьё-то? (Нянд. Врл.).
Такое значение способствует формированию союзной функции ба (веро-

ятно, и других модификаций бывает) в альтернативной конструкции:
[14] Сёдни — сегодня

(11) Там где-то жывё – ба в Ленинграде, ба где (Пин. Врк.).

В приведенных цитатах однозначно прочитывается единичность события,
о котором идет речь, и, следовательно, интерпретация через значение много-
кратности, как следовало бы предположить исходя из употребления бывает в
литературном языке, невозможна.
Таким образом, семантика «нерегулярности» и «кратности», которая при-
сутствовала в исходной форме глагола бывает, преобразуется в новую оценоч-
ную семантику, разрушающую семантику многократности, а следовательно, и
связь с категорией вида. Тем самым эллиптированные диалектные слова, про-
изводные от глагольной формы бывает, представляют следующую ступень в
цепочке грамматикализации, начинающейся с глагола-предиката и кончаю-
щейся модальной частицей: он бывает у нее → мы, бывает, навещаем ее (‘нере-
гулярно навещаем’) → диал. он бывает (быват, бат) навещает ее (‘может быть,
навещает’ — неуверенное предположение). Следующей ступенью может быть
практически полная десемантизация бывает, которая иногда компенсируется
дублирующими (или усиливающими) частицами либо наречиями может, на-
верное и другими: (7) — (10).
[3.3] Бывает с императивом

Таких примеров у нас мало, и роль бывает в них весьма неопределенна: ее
можно понять как «поддержку» императивности — (1) — (3) — либо как при-
глашение к совместному действию — инклюзивный императив (4), где быват
может быть понято как проявление вежливости по отношению к референту
(ср. подобную функцию частицы бы в [2.3]):
(1) Вы быва пойте! (Пин. Лав.);
(2) Стас, быват насос включи! (Пин. Нюх.);
(3) Быват не помножку ешьте, а то будешь меня ругать – окоянна
эта старуха, окормила меня (Он. Хчл.)
(4) Мало кто делат-то по-старинному, а мне приносят, я камус¹⁵
шью да деревянны заготовки делаю – быват зайдем в передни
комнаты-то, да я покажу (Пин. Лав.).
В любом случае, мы здесь имеем дело с высокой степенью десемантизации
исходной глагольной формы на пути превращения ее в текстообразующий эле-
мент дискурса.
«Реликты» глагола бывать в виде модальных слов (союзов и частиц) отме-
чаются на всей территории Архангельской обл., но зоной особенно активного
их употребления являются центральные ее районы — Верхнетоемский и Пи-
нежский.
[15] Камус – полоса шкуры с оленьей ноги для подбоя деревянных лыж.

[4] Буде
В словарях литературного языка буде дается как союз со значением ‛если’
и с пометой «устаревшее» (Ожегов 1972); в грамматике — «Союз буде исполь-
зуется в целях архаизации, а также с иронической окраской. Его употребление
ограничено теми случаями, когда обусловливающая ситуация ориентирована
в план будущего: Мамашу я приглашу с собой в Ялту в сентябре и потом, буде
она пожелает, вернется в ноябре в Москву (Чехов)» (АГ 1980, II: 568).
На территории Архангельской области есть два «разорванных» ареала осо-
бенно интенсивного употребления буде: северо-западный (север Онежского и
Приморский р-ны), где буде играет роль союзного средства в сравнительном
обороте, и южный (Каргопольский, Вельский, Вилегодский, Котласский, Крас-
ноборский, Устьянский р-ны), где буде функционирует как союз в условно-ги-
потетических конструкциях и как модальная частица эпистемического харак-
тера. Тем самым, семантические и грамматические характеристики слова буде
в этих ареалах существенно различны, и это ставит перед нами ряд вопросов: 1)
имеем ли мы дело с омонимичными союзами или с диффузностью семантики
(многозначностью) одного слова? 2) следует ли связывать различие в значе-
нии буде на разных территориях с различием их происхождения или считать
их дивергентами одной глагольной формы? Исходной формой для буде мог бы
быть, во-первых, императив буди→будь (к которому принято возводить союз
будто), во-вторых — форма 3-го лица индикатива будет. Второе предположе-
ние кажется нам предпочтительным хотя бы потому, что сохранение тембра
безударного [e] в конце слова характерно для фонетики говоров с полным ока-
ньем; мена же [и] в исходной форме императива буди на [е] в буде маловеро-
ятна.
[4.1] Буде в функции сравнительного союза (северо-западный ареал)

(1) Все ляги¹⁶ полны водой, буде колодцы стоят (Он. Лмц.);
(2) Она (церковь) там буде чаечка белеет (Он. Лмц.);
(3) Хвост роспушилсе буде куделя¹⁷ (Он. Лмц.);
(4) Борька на одной ноги скачет буде птичка (Прим. Пшл.);
(5) Лампочки буде звездочки горят (Прим. Пшл.).
Сравнение осуществляется на базе сходства образов: ‘лужа выглядит, как

колодец’, ‘церковь можно принять за чайку’, ‘хвост похож на куделю’.
[16] Ля́га — большая лужа.

[17] Кудéля (кудель) – вычесанный и перевязанный пучок льна, приготовленный для пряжи.

[4.2] Буде в конструкции с двумя предикатами

В контекстах с двумя предикатами буде может играть роль условного союза
в придаточной части сложноподчиненного предложения:
(1) Я задавлюсе, буде ты не пойдешь за меня замуж (Котл. Збл.);

(2) Глубоко у нас сейгод посажена картошка-то, а буде глубоко,
дак там опеть холодно (В-Т. Тим.);
(3) Ну да не беда, буде будет (крупа в магазине), дак сама сползаю
(Вил. Пвл.).
Это соответствует употреблению буде в литературном языке, где ему при-

писывается дополнительная роль «архаизации» и «иронического оттенка» (см.
выше), отсутствующая в диалектной речи. В условиях конкретной ситуации
условная модальность первой клаузы является по существу гипотетической:
говорящий высказывает предположение относительно настоящего (5), или бу-
дущего (6), (7) действия/состояния и формулирует его реальное следствие:
(4) Буде хорошая погода, дак погребите́ (Усть. АП);

(5) Буде нет замка, дак зайду в избу, коромысло выну (Карг. Лкшм.);
(6) Буде поедешь, тогда посмотрю (Вель. Сдр.);
(7) Буде и пьяный напьется, дак сожгёт буде всё (В-Т. Тим.).
В (7) первое и второе буде создают двойную гипотетическую модальность

высказывания: предположение о том, что ‘некто может напиться пьяным’ и
предположение о том, что в этом случае он ‘может всё сжечь’ (но может и не
сжечь).
Заметим, что в высказываниях с гипотетической модальностью клауза с
буде всегда находится в протазисе.
[4.3] Буде в конструкциях с одним предикатом

Буде регулярно употребляется в проспективных контекстах в составе про-
стого предложения с формами будущего времени. Положение буде по отноше-
нию к предикату свободное:
(1) А там приедут и увезут буде (В-Т. Тим.);

(2) Весь чай простудили, буде надо подогреть (Усть. АП);
(3) Уедете — опять одна буду, буде одна старушка кака́ зайдет
(Карг. Нкл.);
(4) Воды там нет, надо буде из-под слуды¹⁸ носить или с водо-
качки (Усть. АП);
[18] Слу́да – крутой берег реки.

(5) Вы булку-то ешьте, мне Дуська опять буде принесет (Усть.

АП);
(6) Ты это ешь, а то я буде маме оставлю (Усть. АП).
Особый интерес представляют редкие примеры, в которых представлена

форма будет с неутраченным конечным -т:
(7) Тебе, паря¹⁹, будет двенаццать рублей дадут (Вель. Сдр.);

(8) Зашила (начала шить) парню брюки, да не дошью буэт. Не ма-
ленькой, оттяну буэт (Мез. Дрг.);
(9) Скажу Митрию, он тебе намякат²⁰ будет (Шенк. ВП);
(10) Мы-то сами по себе дак, у меня топере окорёно²¹, а потом ро-
скряжую²² будет осенью-ту, на кряжи опеть вы́вожу-ту (вы-
везти на кряжи – ‘вывезти спиленное дерево из леса в виде
кряжей’) (В-Т. Тин.);
(11) Кака́-то когды жонка пошла, а мужик-от только што выско-
чил, дак она одва²³ не испужаласе: думат, он быват чего сделат
со мной будет (В-Т. Тин.).
Дублирование тождественных морфологических и лексических единиц для

подчеркивания, «обновления» их смысла чрезвычайно характерно для диалект-
ной речи и проявляется по-разному: дублируется показатель итеративности с
целью подчеркнуть идею кратности действия, заложенной (но, видимо, «стира-
ющейся») в глаголах несовершенного вида типа бить – бивать – бивывать, ска-
зать – сказывать – сказывливать и т.п. (Пожарицкая 1991); дублирование при-
ставок (попосле, поподавать, попоехать, поподоить, попоцедить и т.п.); сюда
же можно отнести и повтор корня в тавтологических сочетаниях, используе-
мый и в литературной речи (типа бегом бежит, ревмя ревут), но значительно
чаще и разнообразнее — в диалектной, как северной, так и южной: из веков
веков больница стояла, сидя сидит, до позда́ поздущего, пихко́м пихаются, брод-
ко́м перебредешь, видо́м ненавидит, прыгма́ прыгать, связма́ связать, сижма́ си-
деть и т.п. Повтор корня может иметь отличную от повтора аффикса функцию:
если значение аффикса, как грамматичное и менее осознаваемое говорящим,
может стираться и потому требует дублирования, то корневая семантика – бо-
лее конкретна, вещественна и потому осознаваема, поэтому повтор корня дает
[19] Пáря – обращение.
[20] Намя́кать – набить, побить.
[21] Окорúть – очистить от сучьев ствол спиленного дерева.
[22] Раскряжевáть – распилить на части (кряжи) ствол спиленного дерева.
[23] Одвá – едва.

усиление интенсивности признака и общей экспрессивности выражения. Но в

общем плане – то и другое представляют собой явления одного порядка.
В любом случае слово будет, теряющее согласование с полнознаменатель-
ным глаголом в форме будущего времени, но сохраняющее не усеченной форму
3 л. ед.ч. (роскряжую будет, будет выучацце), представляется нам промежуточ-
ным звеном, этапом грамматикализации глагольной формы в процессе пере-
хода ее в модальную частицу буде, когда глагол утрачивает формы словоизме-
нения, но его форма еще не эллиптирована и сохраняет присущую исходной
глагольной форме семантику времени.
Употребление буде (будет) при предикате будущего времени вне услов-
ной конструкции согласуется с предположением М.Н. Шевелевой (Шевелева
2008) относительно возможности его независимого употребления в древнерус-
ском языке в качестве глагольной формы, вводящей ситуацию будущего вре-
мени, подобно тому как вводит или подчеркивает ситуацию настоящего вре-
мени форма есть (В Окичкине наверно уж косят есь – Усть. АП) и ситуацию
прошедшего времени — формы было, бывало (Картошка в прошлом году была
вся выгнила – Мез. Мос.)
В контекстах с формами настоящего и прошедшего времени, где полностью
утрачена связь с глагольной категорией времени, становится вполне отчетли-
вым значение буде как модальной частицы с эпистемическим значением:
(12) Одна тут есть дак пять буде было… буде всех уж сдала в
детдом… ну што толку, нарожала да сдала…лучше бы уж не
рожала буде… на оборт ходила, чем государству воспитывать
(Усть. АП);
(13) Вот там одна женщина купила дом и вторые… там две се-
мьи… вот третей буде дом купил (Усть. АП.);
(14) Не знаю, чья родня, а буде уж Елене да Петеньке (Усть. АП);
(15) Некоторы дома наверно так буде стояли (Пин. Вгр.);
(16) Буде там есть на лесопункте обша баня (В-Т. Врш.);
(17) Котята там шурчат, буде ходя (Плес. Прш.);
(18) Слишком богомольных у нас буде нету (Красн. ВУ);
(19) (Есть у вас слово ‘рада’?) – Радуга буде? (Красн. ВУ).
Буде сообщает высказыванию семантику приблизительности в оценке ко-

личества — (7), (12), (13), неуверенного предположения относительно ситуации
настоящего или прошлого – (14)-(19).
Эпистемическая модальность естественно перетекает в союзную функцию
буде в альтернативной конструкции (ср. аналогичную ситуацию с бывает (ба)
в [3.2]):
(20) Тебя не поймешь ты буде хулишь²⁴, ты буде хвалишь (Красн. ВУ);

(21) Буде дак уйдет в лес, буде молотит, буде ткёт (Усть. Снк.).
[4.4] Буде при императиве

Буде существенно чаще встречается при императиве, чем бы и бывает:
(1) Пойте какую-небудь песню буде! (В-Т. Тим.);

(2) Пойду я капусту поливать, а вы буде чайник выключите (Усть.
АП);
(3) Ты это подтегай буде! (В-Т. Тим.);
(4) Допей буде-ка! (В-Т. Тим.);
(5) Поди буде ты в президенты! (Усть. АП);
(6) Ты не ходи буде некуды, обрежайсе²⁵ (Вель. Пкш.);
(7) Бежи буде к девочкам (Вил. Слн.);
(8) Иди буде ко мне на колени, циган (Вил. Пвл.);
(9) Ну-ко давай буде чаю стокан выпью. Давай, баба, буде мне
налей, не жирно только (о чае) (Усть. Снк.);
(10) Давай пойдемте буде набирать (Вель. Сдр.).
Оттенки императивных значений (степень категоричности), сообщаемых

разными частицами (ср. ‘давай пой’, ‘пой уж’, ‘пой, пожалуй’, ‘пой же’ и т.д.),
которые в свою очередь многозначны, весьма разнообразны и не могут быть
определены вне широкого контекста, включая просодический. Роль буде в на-
ших контекстах можно интерпретировать и как смягчающую директивный ха-
рактер высказывания, и как дублирующую, усиливающую его подобно частице
давай (Левонтина 2005).
Возможны и другие варианты семантики буде: как видим, в (9) буде в со-
четании с давай сопровождает и формальный императив (давай буде налей), и
формальный индикатив, который принято включать в парадигму императива
в качестве формы 1 лица ед. числа (давай буде выпью) (Бирюлин & Храковский
1992). В этом случае буде представляется синонимичным частице пожалуй в
одном из ее значений — ‘принятие решения’ (Разлогова 1998).
Просмотр значительного массива контекстов с буде показывает, что оно
употребляется преимущественно с проспективно ориентированными глаголь-
ными формами, что вполне естественно в связи с его союзной ролью в услов-
ных и гипотетических конструкциях и при императиве. Однако и при индика-
тиве буде чаще совмещается с формой будущего времени глагола (см. [4.3]).
[24] Хули́ть – осуждать, бранить.
[25] Обрежа́ться (обряжаться) – заниматься домашними делами, в том числе, ухаживать за скотом.

Возвращаясь к компаративной функции буде ([4.1]), нельзя не отметить ее

общности с семантикой предположения, гипотезы: сравнение может содер-
жать «ложное предположение», когда говорящий на основании внешнего сход-
ства как бы приписывает референту неверную интерпретацию наблюдаемого:
Идет – дак четыре пролехи (прорехи), буде вся прирвана²⁶ идет, буде по ку-
стам лезано (Он. Лмц.).
На основании внешнего вида женщины некто, по мнению говорящего, мо-
жет предположить, во-первых, что ее юбка разорвана, во-вторых, что это след-
ствие того, что женщина лазила по кустам; но говорящему известно, что на са-
мом деле таков модный покрой юбки, который он, очевидно, не одобряет. Общ-
ность компаративного значения и гипотетической модальности просматрива-
ется в цитатах из словаря В. Даля: «Буде со. Ежели, если, когда, коли (условно);
стар., а в народе местами и ныне будет… а будет нужда придет, покоримся и
ей. Буди нвг, в знач. Точно, ровно, словно. Глянь, пыль взнялась, буди кто идет»
(Даль 1955, I: 135). В последней цитате клауза с буди может прочитываться как
сравнение (‘пыль поднялась так, как она поднимается, когда кто-нибудь идет’)
и как предположение (‘возможно, что кто-нибудь идет’). Это показывает диф-
фузность семантики буде, в основе которой сохраняется связь с будущим вре-
менем.
Частицу/союз буде в ее союзной и модальной (эпистемической) функции
принято рассматривать как реликт одной из форм будущего времени, в ко-
торой глагол быть употреблялся в качестве вспомогательного: во-первых, это
была конструкция с инфинитивом, которая сохранилась в качестве формы слож-
ного будущего (буду ходить); во-вторых, утраченная конструкция с формой
причастия на -л (буду ходил), которую одни историки называют преждебуду-
щим временем (Горшкова & Хабургаев 1997), приписывая ей таксисное зна-
чение временного предшествования, другие – «предположительным наклоне-
нием», имеющим «…чисто модальное значение, которое может быть прибли-
зительно передано как ‛окажется, что [нечто уже произошло]’… Данная мо-
дальная форма выступает в предложениях со значением условия и в прида-
точных относительных» (Зализняк 2004, 177).
По данным исследователей письменных памятников (Шевелева 2008; Пень-
кова 2010), эволюция глагольной формы будет в условный союз буде наблюда-
ется уже в XII веке и достигает своего апогея в XVI-XVII веках, когда этот союз
становится подлинной приметой делового стиля письма. При этом, согласно
наблюдениям Я.А. Пеньковой, «Древнерусские памятники XII-XV вв. содержат
много свидетельств функционального сближения будеть именно с условным
союзом, данных о сближении будеть с сравнительным союзом нет, а с модаль-
ной частицей – крайне мало (по-видимому, последние две тенденции прояви-
[26] При́рванный – разорванный, рваный.

лись гораздо позже первой).» (Пенькова 2010, 208). В подтверждение послед-

него можно привести следующую цитату: «Ивашка Микитинъ, надеяся на него,
архимарита, или буде и по ево поученью, тово старца Александра бранилъ.»
(Чел.) Суб. Мат. III, 54, 1666. (Словарь XI-XVII, 345).
[5] Распределение функций бы, бывает, буде в частной диалектной системе
В системе одного говора обычно сосуществуют два из рассмотренных нами

слов, но иногда встречаются и все три. Обозначим эти системы как: I (североза-
падная) — бывает, буде; II (южная и юговосточная) – бы, буде; III (центральная)
– бы, бывает.
система i (буде, бывает). Разделение функций частиц буде и различных
модификаций бывает в этой системе достаточно просто и однозначно: буде
выполняет роль сравнительного союза: Ларь называли, буде гроб (Он. Лмц.);
Глаз не видно, буде ножичком чирнуто²⁷ (Он. Лмц.); бывает — частица с эпи-
стемической модальностью в диапазоне ‘неуверенное предположение’ — ‘под-
тверждение знания говорящего’: Я думала Валя бат приедет (Он. Лмц.); Дай
поку́рить! – Да у меня бат нету! (Он. Лмц.).
система ii (бы, буде). Большинство имеющихся контекстов с бы представ-
ляет собой двупредикатные конструкции с антитезой первой и второй клаузы
(бы… но), т.е. с союзной или союзно-модальной функцией бы. Модальные бы
и буде встроены в конструкции с предикатами разного времени: бы – настоя-
щего/прошедшего, буде – как правило, будущего. Если сопоставить те цитаты
с бы, которые можно понимать как завершенные высказывания типа Я бы по-
валяцце тожо люблю на кровате да (Усть. АП) с цитатами типа Ты это ешь, а
то я буде маме оставлю (Усть. АП), то очевидно, что в первых выражается от-
ношение говорящего к содержанию сообщаемого: (поваляцце ведь люблю), а во
вторых формулируется некая гипотеза-выбор относительно предполагаемого
действия: а то (пожалуй, тебе не дам, а) оставлю маме.
система iii (бы, бывает). Среди контекстов с бы преобладают, как и в си-
стеме ii, двупредикатные конструкции с сопоставительным или противитель-
ным отношением частей, где бы выполняет союзную функцию, осложненную
модальностью. В высказываниях с одним предикатом бы выражает субъектив-
ное отношение говорящего к содержанию высказывания — неуверенность в
оценке фактов (Черёмухи сухой килограмм бы (приблизительно, кажется) шест-
надцать есть – В-Т. Вдг.), либо используется для подтверждения истинности
сообщаемого: У нас старого-то бы (‘ведь’) много было В-Т. Вдг.). Частица бы-
вает с эпистемической модальностью участвует в выражении отношения го-
ворящего к реальности как неуверенного предположения (гипотезы) относи-
[27] Чи́рнуто – черкнуто, прорезано.

тельно истинности события или факта: В поле ростут, а в лесу-то бывай не

ростут еще (В.-Т. Вдг.); А где девочка-то? Бывай лежит? (В-Т. Вдг.)
Только в говоре д. Тинева Верхнетоемского р-на (едва ли не самом аутен-
тичном из обследованных нами), встретились все три реликта глаголов быть,
бывать; приведем этот материал полностью:
Бат/быват:
(1) Я давно песен-то не певала, боле бат сорока годов песен не пе-
вала, да всяко спела бы;
(2) Стойками-то бат не столь давно косят;
(3) Я не слыхала, бат нету;
(4) Она тожо наверно год-от не помнит быват;
(5) Сёдне²⁸ подморок²⁹, дак комара-то быват больше;
(6) По зиме бат худо кормили, дак не дояцце коровы-ти;
(7) Летом-то бат и живет кто, не знаю;
(8) Ты у нас на имушках³⁰ -то бат не бывала зимой-ту?
(9) Наболтаю бат чего не гоже.
Бы:
(10) В колхоз пошли дак бы и тожо дородно бы, ак ить по триста

грам дают на трудодень дак тожо дак;
(11) Наа³¹ посылать мне бы похоронна, съездили бы в Ленинграде-
то на могилу-ту;
(12) Мама бы хорошо роботала, а отец деньги пропьет;
(13) Мне бы охота сходить попроведать, да некогда;
(14) А за рекой-то боле бы сухо топере, да некого ешо нету;
(15) Он уж бы и плыл и ревел, што спасайте, а некого нету;
(16) Ак они бы есь немножко, да они червивы;
(17) Она зовет бы, да я не хочу;
(18) Он такой был бодрой, хорошой бы мужик-то;
(19) Рвите бы лук-от, я не жалею;
[28] Сёдне – сегодня.
[29] По́дморок – пасмурно, облачно.
[30] И́мушки – деревенский праздник.
[31] На́а – надо.

(20) Уж будет ак сами выучацце как надо, а пускай роботают бы!

Пускай робят бы!
Будет:
(21) Мы-то сами по себе дак, у меня топере окорёно, а потом ро-
скряжую будет осенью-ту, на кряжи опеть вы́вожу-ту;
(22) Кака́-то когды жонка пошла, а мужик-от только што выско-
чил, дак она одва не испужаласе: думат, он быват чего сделат
со мной будет;
(23) Уж будет ак сами выучацце как надо, а пускай роботают бы,
пускай робят бы!
Как нам представляется, роли бывает, бы и будет в этой системе доста-

точно четко распределены: бывает (бат, быват) употребляется как модальная
частица с эпистемическим значением ‘может быть’, ‘наверное’; бы реализует
весь широкий диапазон своих функций: оно «работает» и как общерусский
условный союз – (10), (11), и как союз с модальным значением сожаления о
нереализуемости предпосылки, сформулированной в первой клаузе двухчаст-
ного высказывания — (12)-(17), и как частица в высказывании с одним преди-
катом, которое можно интерпретировать и как фрагмент двухчастного выска-
зывания с антитезой содержания первой и второй части, и как завершенное
высказывание, где бы синонимично частице ведь (18). В (19), (20) частица бы
сопровождает императив.
Значение будет, которое вне системы могло быть интерпретировано дво-
яко (как эпистемическое и как дублирующее значение будущего времени –
см. раздел [4.1].), в системе, где выражение эпистемического значения опреде-
ленно принадлежит частице бывает, влечет за собой однозначное толкование
будет как дублера-усилителя значения будущего времени.
[6] Выводы
1. Диалектная речь наглядно демонстрирует общее движение старых форм бы-
тийных глаголов – переход их из грамматики глагольных форм (морфоло-
гии) на уровень грамматики высказывания (синтаксиса), в область эгоцен-
трических слов, обозначающих позицию говорящего.
2. Эволюция модальных слов, восходящих к формам глаголов быть, бывать,

показывает, что служебные слова, производные от бытийных глаголов, со-
храняют «семантическую память» на уровне обобщенных категориальных
значений, таких, как «нерегулярность» для бывает, «будущее» для буде.
3. Функциональная и семантическая многозначность диалектного слова в усло-

виях жизни вне рамок кодифицированной нормы ведет к его десемантиза-
ции, которая сопровождается эллиптическими преобразованиями исходной
формы, и в конечном счете оставляет за этими словами роль текстообразу-
ющих элементов.
список населенных пунктов архангельской обл. (район, деревня):
• Вель. – Вельский; Сдр. — Судрома, Пкш. – Пакшеньга;
• В-Т. – Верхнетоемский; Тин. — Тинева, Вдг. — Вадюга, Тим. — Тимошино,

Грк. — Горка, Врш. – Вершина;
• Вил. – Вилегодский; Клуб. — Клубоковская, Пвл. — Павловская, Слн. – Се-

ляна;
• Карг. – Каргопольский; Оз. — Озёрко , Лкшм. – Лёкшмозеро, Нкл. — Но-

кола;
• Котл. – Котласский; Збл. – Заболотье;
• Красн. – Красноборский; ВУ – Верхняя Уфтюга;
• Леш. – Лешуконский; Кеба;
• Мез. – Мезенский; Дрг. – Дорогорское; Мос. — Мосеево;
• Нянд. – Няндомский; Врл. – Верола;
• Он. – Онежский; Лмц. — Лямца, Хчл. – Хачела;
• Пин. – Пинежский; Лав. — Лавела, Нюх. — Нюхча, Врк. – Веркола, Шт. —

Шотогорка;
• Плес. – Плесецкий; Прш. – Першлахта;
• Прим. – Приморский; Пшл. – Пушлахта;
• Усть. – Устьянский; АП – Акичкин Починок, Снк. – Синики;
• Холм. – Холмогорский; ПМ – Плёсо-Мякурье;
• Шенк. – Шенкурский; ВП — Верхопаденьга.

Список литературы
АГ-80 Русская грамматика I, II. М., 1980.
АОС Архангельский областной словарь. Под ред. О.Г. Гецовой. Вып. 1 А-

Бережок. М., 1980; Вып. 2 Береза-Бяще. М., 1982.
Апресян Ю.Д. Лексическая семантика. М., 1974.
Бирюлин Л.А., Храковский В.С. Повелительное наклонение: проблемы теории

// Типология императивных конструкций. СПб, 1992.
Бонно К., Кодзасов С.В. Семантическое варьирование дискурсивных слов и его

влияние на линеаризацию и интонирование (на примере частиц же и ведь) //
Дискурсивные слова русского языка: опыт контекстно-семантического опи-
сания. М., 1998. С.382-443.
Галинская Е.А. Об одном остатке древнеславянского имперфекта в русском

языке // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 9. Филология 6/ 2006. С.47-
60.
Горшкова К.В., Хабургаев Г.А. Историческая грамматика русского языка. М.,

1997.
Даль В. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка. Т.1-4. М., 1955.
Добрушина Н.Р. Семантика частиц бы и б // Корпусные исследования по рус-

ской грамматике. М., 2009.
Евтюхин В.Б. Аранжировка диалектных текстов с помощью частиц // Север-

норусские говоры. Вып. 3. Л., 1979.
Зализняк А.А. Древненовгородский диалект. М., 2004.
Кодзасов С.В. Просодический строй русской речи. М., 1996.
Кодзасов С.В. Исследования в области русской просодии. М., 2009.
Левонтина И.Б. Давай-давай // Язык. Личность. Текст. Сборник статей к 70-

летию Т.М. Николаевой. М., 2005.
Николаева Т.М., Седакова И.А. Ценностная ориентация клише и штампов в

современной русской речи // Revue des études slaves. LXVI, 3, 1995.
Ожегов С.И. Словарь русского языка. М., 1972.

Пенькова Я.А. Будеть как источник формирования служебных слов (на мате-
риале деловых памятников XII-XV веков) // Вопросы русского языкознания.
Вып. XIII. Фонетика и грамматика. Настоящее, прошедшее и будущее. М.,
2010.
Пожарицкая С.К. О семантике итеративных глаголов в севернорусских говорах

// Современные русские говоры. М., 1991.
Разлогова Е.Э. Пожалуй // Дискурсивные слова русского языка. М., 1998.
СРЯ Словарь русского языка ХI-XVII вв. Вып.1 (А-Б) М., 1975.
CСРНГ Словарь современного русского народного говора (д. Деулино Рязанского

района Рязанской области). Под ред. И.А. Оссовецкого. М., 1969.
Фасмер М. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Том I. М., 1964.
Шахматов А.А. Синтаксис русского языка. М., 2001.
Шевелева М.Н. О судьбе древнерусских конструкций с независимыми формами

глагола быти в русском языке // Вестник Моск. Ун-та. Сер.9. Филология. 2008.
№ 6.
Heine B. Auxiliaries: сognitive forces and grammaticalisation. Oxford: Oxford U.

Press, 1993.
Адрес автора
Пожарицкая С.К.
Кафедра русского языка
Филологический факультет
Московский государственный университет им. М.В. Ломоносова
Москва
sofkonst@yandex.ru

A. Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (eds.) e Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), 2012. 97–116.
(ISSN 1890-9639)
чередование о/а в корнях вторичных

имперфективов
Айсылу Сагитова
Казанский федеральный университет
Аннотация
Чередование о/а в основах глаголов несовершенного вида является грам-
матическим средством, как правило сопровождающим образование им-
перфективов с суффиксом -ива- (-ыва-) на современном этапе развития
русского языка (обусловливать – обуславливать). Однако эта закономер-
ность действует не для всех вторичных имперфективов: охватывая основ-
ную часть глаголов, это чередование не возникает, однако, в таких фор-
мах, как приурочивать, узаконивать и др., и вызывает сложности в выборе
форм в случаях типа обезболивать/обезбаливать, уполномочивать/упол-
номачивать. Основной задачей настоящей статьи является выявление ус-
ловий и причин возникновения вариативности во вторичных имперфек-
тивах, а также факторов, способствующих сохранению корневого о на раз-
ных этапах истории русского языка. Статья состоит из двух частей: в пер-
вой части рассматривается история возникновения и развития чередова-
ния о/а. Теоретические выкладки сопоставляются с данными, получен-
ными из Словаря русского языка XI-XVII вв. Во второй части рассмат-
ривается чередование о/а во вторичных имперфективах на современном
этапе развития языка. Первый подраздел посвящен изучению восприятия
чередования носителями языка. Метод исследования – анкетирование –
позволяет выявить причины, мотивирующие выбор одной из форм. Во
втором разделе изучается употребление форм с о и а в корне в языке ху-
дожественной и нехудожественной литературы. Метод – статистический:
анализируются количественные данные, полученные из Национального
корпуса русского языка. В конце статьи приводятся выводы – обознача-
ются факторы, влияющие на судьбу чередования.
[1] История чередования

Исследуемое чередование о/а восходит к древнейшим чередованиям крат-
кого и долгого гласных: носити – нашати, просити – прашати. Первоначально
оно использовалось для выражения длительности и повторяемости действия.
Этот а был отмечен в старейшем типе кратных глаголов, который «характери-
зовался суффиксом -а- или -jа- и удлинением коренного гласного» (Обнорский
2009, 54). Указанный тип сложился еще в индоевропейскую эпоху.
[98] айсылу сагитова
250
200
-!"#- ($ % " &'()*)
150
-!"#- ($ + " &'()*)
-#- ($ % " &'()*)

100
-#- ($ + " &'()*)

50
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
рис. 1: Количество форм, зафиксированных в Словаре XI-XVII вв.
В производных имперфективах с суф. -ja- это чередование сохранилось и

в XI в. было весьма продуктивным. Так, в Словаре русского языка XI-XVII вв.¹
зафиксировано 35 глаголов несовершенного вида с суффиксом -а-, встречаю-
щихся в памятниках XI в., при этом 26 из них имеют в корне гласный а. В XIII-
XIV вв. начала действовать тенденция к устранению чередования о/а – проис-
ходило выравнивание основ. Вполне закономерно, что этот период характери-
зуется увеличением форм с о в корне. Так, в Словаре русского языка XI-XVII вв.
отмечено практически равное количество глаголов с о и а в корне (14 с о и 15 с а).
К этому времени получает распространение новый тип образований на -ивать,
-ывать. В 13-14 вв. в СРЯ XI-XVII он зафиксирован исключительно с о в корне.
Отмечен только один глагол с а: «А тобѣ, г(о)с(поди)не, кн(я)з(ь) вел(икии, без
насъ) не доканчивати ни с кимъ… Дух.и дог.гр., 11, ое.1351» (СРЯ XI-XVII , т. 4,
290). В XVI-XVII вв. картина кардинально меняется. Количество форм с о в корне
в первичных имперфективах (т.е. с суффиксами -а-, -ja-) существенно увели-
чивается. Это связано с тем, что вариантность глагольных основ уже была чи-
сто орфографической и не отражала реального произношения этих глаголов,
т.к. «в XV-XVI вв. на обширных территориях русских диалектов распространя-
ется аканье» (Историческая 1982, 187). В связи с тем что у большей части им-
перфективов ударенным был суффикс, корневой о оказался на акающих тер-
риториях в предударной позиции и стал произноситься как а – «появилось
несоответствие между складывавшейся орфографической нормой, предпола-
[1] Материал получен в результате сплошной выборки из 16 томов Словаря русского языка XXI-XVII
веков. Далее в тексте – в СРЯ XI-XVII .

o/а в корнях имперфективов [99]
гавшей написание о в имперфективах, и реальным произношением ее как [a]»

(Историческая 1982, 187).
Из 341 зафиксированного в СРЯ XI-XVII примера с первичными имперфек-
тивами 208 (т.е. 60,9%) - с о в корне. С приближением к современности количе-
ство их увеличивалось и постепенно полностью вытеснило первичные импер-
фективы с корневым а. Орфографическая норма современного литературного
языка сохранила чередование лишь в корреляциях -лаг-/-лож-, устранив его у
остальных глаголов и закрепив написание о в целях унификации орфографи-
ческого облика корневой морфемы.
Иначе обстоит дело со вторичными имперфективами. В старорусский пе-
риод (XVI-XVII вв.) суф. -ива- входит в «стадию максимальной продуктивно-
сти» (Историческая 1982, 176). При этом увеличивается количество вторичных
имперфективов с чередованием в корне. Из 360 примеров 290 – с а в корне
(80,55%): «Да во всѣхъ селахъ и деревняхъ монастырскихъ крестьяномъ межъ
себя дворовъ не огнаивати, и хоромы имъ въ тѣх мѣсто, которые обѣтшаютъ,
новые хоромы и городьба городити. Уставн. Гр. Патр. Иова, 19. 1590» (СРЯ XI-
XVII , т. 12, 238), «Да и впредь [мои складники] похваляются всякими недоб-
рыми дѣлы… и скотъ нашъ побивать, и за пасву выганивать. АХУ II, 665. 1623
г.» (СРЯ XI-XVII , т. 3, 192). Несомненно, это чередование уже не является фоне-
тическим, как раньше, но является показателем несовершенного вида. Оно не
обозначает долготу или краткость гласного, однако, на наш взгляд, с его помо-
щью передается значение длительности, которое заключается теперь в катего-
рии несовершенного вида. В толковом словаре отмечается, что «-ыва-(ть) - фор-
мообразовательная единица, образующая формы несовершенного вида глаго-
лов со значением длительности или длительной повторяемости действия»
(Ефремова 2000, 461). Подробнее о соотношении длительности и совершенно-
сти/несовершенности можно прочитать в работах Г. Павского (Павский 1850),
А. Потебни (Потебня 1977), С. Никифорова (Никифоров 1952) и др.
На современном этапе развития языка мена звуков происходит уже и там,
где первоначально подобного чередования быть не могло (растамаживать, оза-
бачивать) – по аналогии в этот круг втягиваются все новые и новые глаголы.
Таким образом, основной функцией чередования становится создание четкой
оппозиции «совершенный вид – несовершенный вид», происходит его морфо-
логизация. Итак, чередование о/а в корнях глаголов прошло следующие этапы:
1) чередование восходит к старым чередованиям краткого и долгого гласного;
2) с появлением суффикса -ыва-(-ива-) гласный а характеризовал новый тип

глаголов;
3) по аналогии с глаголами, уже принявшими новую форму, чередование на-

чало происходить там, где его быть не должно было: формы с а «допускаются
!"#$% & !"#$% &

-"- ' ("#)* -!- ' ("#)*
27% 73%
рис. 2: Соотношение форм в разговорном языке
и там, где их не следовало бы употреблять» (Чернышев 1915, 275), а новые

слова, которые входят в употребление, «принимают сразу форму с [а], ми-
нуя стадию варьирования» (Горбачевич 1978, 164);
4) охватив большинство глаголов, рассматриваемое чередование наряду с суф-

фиксом -ива- стало восприниматься как способ противопоставления совер-
шенного и несовершенного видов.
[2] Чередование о/а в современном русском языке

В глаголах с суффиксом -ива-(-ыва-) чередование о/а в основе осталось про-
дуктивным в современном русском языке. Наибольшее распространение оно
получило в XIX-XX вв., однако процесс мены о на а еще не завершился.
Еще А. Х. Востоковым было отмечено, что «ежели в коренном слоге глагола
есть гласная о без ударения, то оная, пред окончанием ывалъ или ивалъ, при-
нимая на себя ударение, превращается в а», в противном случае «коренная о
остается без перемены» (Востоков 1835, 63). Но если в начале XIX в. это пра-
вило имело лишь несколько исключений - по Востокову: страивал (от строить),
палзывал (от ползать), дабривать (при с-, у-добрить), вворачивать (от ворочать),
то в конце XIX столетия в группе с о ударным уже употребляются «большей ча-
стию образования с ударяемым а» (Чернышев 1915, 156).
В XX в. ситуация становится еще более разнородной. Так, С. П. Обнорский,
Д. Э. Розенталь, Л. К. Граудина, отмечают, что глаголы делятся на две группы: к
первой группе относятся «глаголы совершенного вида с ударением на корне-
вом о <…> ко второй – с ударением не на корневом о. В глаголах второй группы
<…> корневое о всегда переходит в ударяемое а (вы́работать - выраба́тывать);
сложнее дело обстоит с глаголами первой группы, так как для них нет единого
правила образования формы несов. вида с корневым о или а» (Розенталь 1965,
174).
Действительно, глаголы, совершенный вид которых имеет в корне ударное
о, в настоящее время могут вести себя по-разному:
• закрепиться с а в корне: настроить – настраивать, затронуть – затра-

гивать;
• сохранять в корне исконный гласный: узаконить – узаконивать, подыто-

жить – подытоживать;
• употребляться как с о, так и с а в корне: обусловить – обусловливать и

обуславливать, обезболить – обезболивать и обезбаливать.
Наибольший интерес для нас представляют 2 последние группы – так на-

зываемые вариативные формы и формы с о в корне.
Вариативность – это промежуточный этап в развитии языка, так как абсо-
лютно идентичные формы не могут долго сосуществовать, и одна из них рано
или поздно выйдет из употребления либо приобретет стилистическую марки-
рованность. Так, нормативными, литературными долгое время считались фор-
мы с о в корне: «варианты с -а- свойственны разговорной речи, варианты с -о-
более употребительны в письменной, книжной и деловой речи… Если в пись-
менных стилях зарегистрированы оба типа вариантов, часто с преимуществен-
ным употреблением вариантов на -о-, то в устной речи предпочитают формы
с -а-» (Граудина 1980, 220); «новые варианты с корневым [а] чаще встречаются
в тех печатных жанрах, которые менее строго опекаются корректорами» (Гор-
бачевич 1978, 163).
Постепенно сначала в разговорную, затем в письменную, литературную
норму проникают глаголы с -а- в корне. В XIX и нач. XX в., по свидетельству
К. С. Горбачевича, формы с гласным -а- в корне запрещались в статьях и брошю-
рах, посвященных изложению «неправильностей русского языка», но «после
работы С. П. Обнорского (2009) стало характерным стилистическое разграни-
чение (формы с о – в строгой литературной речи, формы с а – в разговорной
речи), положение вариантов с а в нормативной шкале оценок продолжает оста-
ваться неопределенным» (Горбачевич 1978, 163).
Основной задачей нашего исследования является определение положения
вариантов с а в нормативной шкале оценок для современного этапа развития
языка.
[2.1] Чередование о/а в представлении носителей русского языка

Живое и продуктивное в настоящее время чередование корневых о/а во
вторичных имперфективах является очагом ослабленной нормы. Выбор одной
из форм для этих форм часто бывает затруднен даже для носителей русского
языка. Методом исследования восприятия форм с о и а в корне этой категорией
лиц был выбран опрос. Необходимо учитывать, что в ответах будет отражаться
не реальная речевая практика респондента, а его представление о том, как надо
говорить, – представление, которое может расходиться с его собственной ре-
чевой практикой. На материале Обратного словаря (Зализняк 2003), а также
Словаря современного русского литературного языка (Словарь СРЛЯ 1946-1965)
был составлен наиболее полный список глаголов (171), в которых чередование
начало происходить с XVIII века или еще не произошло – тех, которые в со-
вершенном виде имеют о ударное в корне. Они входят в группу глаголов, для
которых «нет единого правила образования формы несов. вида с корневым о
или а»² (Розенталь 1965, 174). Из них были отобраны глаголы для опросного
листа: отбор был произведен таким образом, чтобы в опросник вошли слова
как нейтральные, так и отмеченные в словарях как устаревшие, официальные,
специальные. В итоге был составлен список из 52 глаголов с пропусками на
месте корневого гласного. Респондентам необходимо было вставить тот глас-
ный, который они обычно употребляют в речи. В опросе приняли участие 100
человек, из них
• 25 человек – ученики 10-11 классов;
• 25 человек – студенты-филологи;
• 25 человек – студенты-«не филологи»;
• 25 человек – работающие (старше 40 лет).
Первые две группы составили в основном люди, хорошо владеющие грам-

матическими правилами и кодифицированными нормами: предполагалось, что
ученики помнят школьное правило, требующее чередования в корне при суф-
фиксе -ивать (-ывать), за исключением некоторых слов: обусловливать, опо-
рочивать, подытоживать и др. Студенты-филологи, с одной стороны, помнят
школьное правило: «Правописание безударного гласного нельзя <…> прове-
рять при помощи глаголов несовершенного вида с суффиксами -ывать, -ивать,
так как в этих глаголах вместо корневого о часто бывает а. Например, слово вы-
бросить следует проверять словом бросить, а не выбрасывать» (Греков 2003, 61),
с другой – стремятся вычленить корневую морфему и восстановить исходную
форму слова. Третью и четвертую группы составили респонденты, которые в
силу отдаленности от филологии их специализаций употребляют вариатив-
ные формы интуитивно.
Первые три группы респондентов противопоставлены по возрастной ка-
тегории последней группе (работающие), что является принципиальным фак-
[2] Более подробную информацию о зависимости гласного о/а в корне глагола несовершенного вида от
ударного/неударного гласного в корне слова – в работах А. Востокова, В. Чернышева, Л. Граудиной.

тором в вопросе определения нормы.³ В речи людей старшего поколения, как

правило, отражаются нормы более консервативные, устойчивые, в речи млад-
шего – более мобильные, гибкие.
При анализе результатов опроса были учтены все вышеперечисленные фак-
торы. Итак, в ответах преобладали формы с а в корне – 73%, формы с о соста-
вили 27%. Самой многочисленной оказалась группа из 27 глаголов, где респон-
денты практически единогласно выбрали формы с а. Это слова, в которых ко-
лебания не фиксируются ни в современных словарях, ни в разговорной речи,
т.к. процесс мены о на а в корне рассматриваемых глаголов завершился уже
в XIX в. или начале XX века: благоустраивать, доканчивать, достраивать, за-
готавливать, замораживать, застраивать, наготавливать, настраивать, облаго-
раживать, обмораживать, обстраивать, осваивать, оспаривать, перестраивать,
подстраивать, потрагивать, устраивать, приготавливать, присваивать, пристра-
ивать, прорабатывать, разрабатывать, расстраивать, сдваивать, удваивать, уко-
рачивать, усваивать, успокаивать. Можно выделить группу слов, где форма с о
кажется искусственной, т.к. она не зафиксирована в словарях и не употребля-
ется в устной речи, но достаточно большое количество респондентов выбрали
именно ее: заболачивать (61) – заболочивать (35), задабривать (63) – задобри-
вать (37), обихаживать (68) – обихоживать (31), утраивать (69) – утроивать (31),
сдабривать (45) – сдобривать (55), сосредотачивать (68) – сосредоточивать (32),
удабривать(47) – удобривать (50), удостаивать (72) – удостоивать (28), уславли-
ваться (51) – условливаться (48). Надо заметить, что основной процент голосов
за форму о в отмеченной выше группе набирается за счёт выбора, сделанного
школьниками, и, вопреки нашим ожиданиям, студентами нефилологических
специальностей. Названные респонденты стремятся проверить глаголы, вызы-
вающие затруднения, с помощью родственных слов: заболочивать – болото
(четверо опрошенных затруднились сделать выбор гласного в корне, мотиви-
ровав это тем, что первый раз видят это слово. Таким образом, можно пред-
положить, что редко употребляемое и потому не всем знакомое слово вызы-
вает потребность подобрать к нему ряд однокоренных слов и, соответственно,
[3] В культуре речи учитываются законы не только современного литературного языка, но и различных
языковых подсистем (Фомина 2007, 50):
а) территориальные и социальные варианты языка - литературный язык
б) диахронические особенности - синхронические особенности
в) литературный стиль произношения - разговорный стиль произношения
г) собственно русская лексика - заимствованная лексика
В рамках нашей работы рассматриваются подсистемы (б) и (в).

проверить его)⁴: задобривать, сдобривать – добрый, обихоживать – обиход (два

человека воздержались), утраивать – трое (!), сосредоточивать – средоточие,
точный (!), удостоивать – достоин, условливаться – условие. Даже по этим
немногочисленным примерам видно, что респонденты в первую очередь пы-
таются подобрать проверочное слово, однако не всегда удачно. Но стремление
проверить, соотнести с рядом однокоренных слов, тем более если слово вы-
зывает сомнения в плане его лексического значения, поддерживает произно-
шение и написание о в корне. Таким образом, одним из факторов, удерживаю-
щих о в корне, может выступать стремление к сохранению единого орфографи-
ческого облика корневой морфемы, особенно в малоупотребительных словах.
Гласный о удерживается в тех случаях, когда ощущается четкая связь глагола с
прозводящей основой. Особенно явно это происходит в конфиксальных обра-
зованиях. Гласный в корне сохраняет свое качество, т.к. производное слово мо-
тивируется именем с о (в нашем случае) в корне, особенно это характерно для
многочисленных образований с конфиксом обез…ивать и словообразователь-
ным значением ‘лишать того, о чем говорится в производящей основе’: обез-
доливать, обеспложивать, обезболивать и т.п. Но даже в этих случаях формы
с а начинают активно использоваться. Так, вариант обезбаливать выбрали 23%
(почти четверть) опрошенных.
Дольше удерживается о в корне в тех случаях, когда конфиксальное обра-
зование сопровождается большим количеством родственных слов с аналогич-
ным гласным в корне. К. С. Горбачевич, приводя в пример глагол сосредото-
чивать, этот фактор (количество однокоренных слов) называет «авторитетом
орфографии и словообразовательного гнезда» (Горбачевич 1971, 164). Особенно
действенным, на наш взгляд, был этот фактор в древнерусском и старорусском
языке. Наши наблюдения показывают, что словообразовательные гнезда для
исследуемых глаголов в эти периоды были шире по сравнению с современ-
ным, что, несомненно, также способствовало сохранению корневого гласного.
Так, например, для глагола изгоняти/изганяти в Словаре русского языка 11-17
вв. отмечены следующие однокоренные слова: изгон, изгона, изгонение, изгоне-
ный, изгонка, изгонникъ, изгонный, изгономъ, изгоняя и др.
Не последнюю роль в выборе гласного в корне играет фоноэстетический
момент – благозвучие формы. Действительно, в последние годы стал призна-
ваться психолингвистический фактор: при отборе варианта произношения как
нормы носители языка оценивают его с эстетической и стилистической точки
зрения. Л. А. Вербицкая в качестве важного обстоятельства отмечает престиж-
ность той или иной формы, того или иного варианта произношения. Многие
респонденты мотивировали свой выбор тем, что «с а некрасиво», «так благо-
звучнее». Как неблагозвучные могут расцениваться и формы, типа облагоро-
[4] Данные получены из опросного листа. Респондентам предоставлялась возможность объяснить выбор
словоформы.

живать, успокоивать (то есть архаизированные), озабачивать, опорачивать,

приурачивать. «Некрасивые», с точки зрения носителей языка, формы нередко
используются в целях достижения комического эффекта современными юмо-
ристами, например: «Меня опорачивали другие», – из номера на юбилейном
вечере Клары Новиковой (Первый канал ТВ, 15 декабря 2006), особенно если
они вызывают нежелательную омонимию: «Нефть в России, как всегда, просра-
чивается» (Михаил Задорнов). Нами отмечены неоднократные случаи исправ-
ления говорящим одной из форм глагола и ее замены на «менее неблагозвуч-
ную». Это касается глаголов просрочивать/просрачивать, проспоривать/про-
спаривать – формы с а в этих случаях вызывают нежелательные ассоциации со
словами, имеющими отрицательную коннотацию. Выбор форм глаголов варьи-
руется и в зависимости от возраста и рода занятий носителей языка, а также,
что наиболее важно, от характера самого глагола.
Речь людей старшего поколения, несомненно, более консервативна, поэтому

в ответах группы людей от 40 лет преобладают формы с о в корне. В ответах
школьников также отмечено преимущество вариантов с о в корне, что связано
со стремлением респондентов подобрать проверочное слово.
Справедливости ради надо отметить, что однокоренные слова в большей

или меньшей степени пытались подобрать все категории опрошенных. Это
связано с немаловажной тенденцией: если носителями языка сохраняется и
ощущается связь глагола с однокоренными словами, производящей основой,
то в этом случае удерживается о в корне. Как удалось выяснить, связь со сло-
вообразовательным гнездом поддерживается в отыменных образованиях, осо-
бенно конфиксальных. Необходимость выявления производящей основы воз-
растает в том случае, когда слово не знакомо носителю языка, но в основе его
лежит известное, но малоупотребительное слово (например, глагол унавожи-
вать). С другой стороны, если подбор производящего слова вызывает затруд-
нения (например, из-за чередования согласных, сопровождающего чередова-
ние о/а в корне: заболачивать, обихаживать), то нередко выбор делается в поль-
зу формы с а в корне. При неверной мотивации глагола выбор гласного зави-
сит от того слова, которым глагол был мотивирован. Например, глагол огоро-
шивать соотносится говорящими со словом горох, что поддерживает корневой
о. Исконный о также сохраняется в глаголах, которые могут вызывать нежела-
тельную омонимию (просрочивать, проспоривать). Таким образом, можно вы-
делить общую тенденцию к росту употребления форм с а. Ей противостоит ряд
причин, преимущественно словообразовательного характера, который поддер-
живает традиционный облик слов и обусловливает удержание о на фонетиче-
ском и орфографическом уровне.
[2.2] Чередование о/а в языке художественной и нехудожественной литера-

туры
В результате сплошной выборки из Грамматического словаря русского языка
(Зализняк 2003) были выявлены вторичные имперфективы, образованные от
форм с о в корне. По данным Национального корпуса русского языка⁵ и биб-
лиотеки Максима Мошкова⁶ была составлена таблица статистических данных
употребления найденных в словаре Зализняка глаголов, что позволило нам вы-
делить 4 группы:
1) глаголы, малоупотребительные как в форме совершенного, так и несовер-

шенного вида;
2) глаголы, употребительные преимущественно в форме совершенного вида;
3) глаголы, употребительные преимущественно в форме несовершенного вида;
4) глаголы, широко употребляющиеся как в форме совершенного, так и несо-

вершенного вида.
Для исследования употребления глаголов в современных текстах художе-

ственной и нехудожественной литературы (1991-2011 гг.) был использован На-
циональный корпус русского языка.
первую группу составляют глаголы, малоупотребительные или не зафикси-
рованные в письменных текстах⁷ вообще как в форме совершенного, так и несо-
вершенного вида. Эти формы зафиксированы в словаре Зализняка, но практи-
чески не встречаются в текстах (по данным Национального корпуса).
Малоупотребительными они являются по разным причинам:
1) узкоспециализированные слова: наканифоливать, обезуглероживать, обес-

пложивать, обессоливать, перефасонивать, притонивать, растаможивать,
присворивать;
2) разговорно-сниженная лексика: засупонивать, отшпандоривать, погоготы-

вать, раздраконивать, разлимонивать, распатронивать, ухоливать;
3) разговорная лексика: натопывать, обмозоливать, обрезонивать, обхлопы-

вать, присаливать, прошколивать, проштопывать, раззнакомливать, ра-
зохочивать, рассиропливать;
4) советизм: орабочивать;
[5] http://www.ruscorpora.ru
[6] http://aot.ru
[7] Здесь и далее речь идет о художественных произведениях, использованных в электронных источни-
ках.

5) устаревшая лексика: прихоливать;
6) диалектные слова: обигоривать.
Узкоспециализированные слова, или термины, являются «законсервирован-

ными» в своем употреблении и редко проникают в обыденную речь. Поэтому
и норма здесь изменяется в последнюю очередь.
Устаревшее слово прихоливать, советизм орабочивать уже вышли из упо-
требления, диалектизм обигоривать также не фиксируется в современных сло-
варях, поэтому в дальнейшем не представляется целесообразным вести о них
разговор. Глаголы, вошедшие в группу разговорной лексики, малоупотреби-
тельны в письменном языке не только потому, что они маркированы и их ис-
пользование, например, в языке художественной литературы, в научной лите-
ратуре нежелательно, но и потому, что они малоупотребительны даже внутри
своей группы – в разговорной речи. Таким образом, очевидно явное вытесне-
ние исследуемых форм, хотя единичные глаголы встречаются вплоть до насто-
ящего времени:
(1) Люди раззнакомливаются, уезжают, исчезают, умирают или забывают

друг о друге, теряют интерес, перестают звонить… [Катанян Василий.
Лиля Брик. Жизнь (1999)] .
Итак, вся группа является «изолированной» в том смысле, что из-за ма-
лой употребительности отмеченных лексем кажется невозможным изменение
в ней произносительной нормы, тем более проникновение вариантов с а в
корне глаголов несовершенного вида в литературный язык.
вторую группу составляют глаголы, употребляемые преимущественно в форме
совершенного вида. Можно выделить несколько причин такого употребления:
1) В самой семантике глагола может содержаться нацеленность на результат:

благоустраивать – ‘хорошо оборудовать, делать удобным для жизни, ра-
боты, приводить в порядок (о месте проживания, работы и т.п.)’. Конечная
цель оговаривается уже в лексическом значении слова. Подобными являются
глаголы доканчивать, докрашивать (от крошить), доспоривать, досаливать
(в первом значении)⁸, задабривать, настраивать, опошливать, разохочи-
вать, разрознивать:
[8] досаливать несов. перех.
1. Заканчивать соление чего-л.
2. Солить до определенного предела.
3. Солить дополнительно

(2) Поверит, несомненно, водителю, но меня хочет задобрить, чтобы я не ве-

рещала и не создавала ему проблем. [Татьяна Устинова. Подруга особого
назначения (2003)].
(3) Не в столь еще давние времена по большим теплым праздникам, в пасху
и Троицу, задабривали его угощением, которое горкой складывали у корня
и которое потом собаки же, конечно, и подбирали, но считалось: надо,
не то листвень может обидеться. [Игорь Сухих. Однажды была земля //
«Звезда», 2002].
Сюда вошли также формы с префиксом до- (финитивный, или окончатель-

ный способ действия) (Русская грамматика 1980, 598):
(4) Воевать стало не с кем, и он ушел их догонять ― в надежде доспорить.

[Дмитрий Быков. Орфография (2002)].
(5) Мы все еще доспариваем споры XX века, хотя видим и понимаем, что
мир своим развитием оставил эти споры позади. [Александр Яковлев.
Омут памяти. Т.2 (2001)].
2) Можно выделить глаголы, исключающие значение процессуальности, про-

тяженности во времени, – действие в этих случаях происходит за относи-
тельно короткий промежуток времени: заспоривать (в значении «начать
спорить», отмеченном в словаре Даля), растревоживать, обездоливать:
(6) ― Видишь, как дело-то повернулось, не только твоего отца, он многих

обездолил… [Марина Дяченко, Сергей Дяченко. Магам можно все (2001)].
(7) Основная идея концепции «устойчивого развития» заключается в ор-
ганизации общества таким образом, чтобы не наносить необратимого
ущерба природной среде и не обездоливать последующие поколения
людей в отношении необходимых для них жизненных ресурсов. [Сер-
гей Ткачев. Устойчивое развитие: Спасение человечества или «троян-
ский конь»? (2003) // «Наш современник», 2003.06.15].
3) Особняком стоит группа глаголов, где указанные формы несовершенного

вида малоупотребительны, т.к. их заменили более краткие и, следовательно,
более удобные в употреблении, абсолютно идентичные в лексическом плане
формы несовершенного вида: намозоливать – мозолить, скомкивать – ком-
кать, сморщивать – морщить, опошливать – опошлять, оформливать –
оформлять⁹:
[9] В последних двух случаях представлены примеры замены суффикса -ива- на -а-.

(8) Порывы ветра то пропускали, то скомкивали и уносили прочь далекий

низкий звук дизеля. [Василий Голованов. Остров, или оправдание бес-
смысленных путешествий (2002)].
(9) Он заикался, сипел, комкал бланки в дрожащих руках, беспомощно пя-
тился, когда Инка предлагала ему еловый чай, напиток, сулящий долгую
жизнь, полную побед. [Улья Нова. Инка (2004)].
Подобная синонимия форм, писал В. В. Виноградов, возникает в тех случаях,

когда реальное значение предлога сливается с конкретным значением глагола
и поглощается им. Например: скопить – скапливать – копить. «Этот процесс
чаще завершается вытеснением предложной формы несовершенного вида» (Ви-
ноградов 2001, 511), что обусловлено, на наш взгляд, столь распространенной в
языке, особенно в последнее время, тенденцией к экономии языковых средств.
Таким образом, перед нами группа глаголов, по разным причинам употреб-
ляющихся в совершенном виде, а это значит, что при использовании несовер-
шенного вида этих глаголов, в сознании говорящего возникает форма совер-
шенного вида, и гласная в корне совершенного вида оказывает непосредствен-
ное влияние на выбор гласной в форме вида несовершенного: «употребляя в
несовершенном виде форму с о, мы подчиняем влиянию форм совершенного
вида: заработывать – заработать, настроивать – настроить)» (Чернышев 1915,
269).
Но даже в представленных случаях со столь ярким взаимодействием форм
совершенного и несовершенного вида влияние одной формы не абсолютно.
Значимыми оказываются и словообразовательные факторы.
18 глаголов из 51 (зашторивать, обездоливать, объегоривать, отфутболи-
вать, оформливать, потопывать, потрогивать, похлопывать, поцокивать, почмо-
кивать, пропесочивать, проспоривать, просрочивать, раздраконивать, разроз-
нивать, растревоживать, скомкивать, ухлопывать), действительно, имеют в корне
о, но сохранение этого гласного объясняется совокупностью факторов: влияние
глаголов совершенного вида и словообразовательные факторы.
Так, в глаголе обездоливать о в корне удерживается за счет конфикса
обез…ивать (ср. обезвоживать, обезболивать, обеспложивать и др.). Слова за-
шторивать, отфутболивать являются производными от заимствованных су-
ществительных штора, футбол. Именно иноязычный характер этих слов мо-
жет, по нашему мнению, удерживать о в корне.
В глаголах похлопывать, поцокивать, почмокивать также можно выделить
конфикс, но не меньшее значение в этом случае имеет характер корня – звуко-
подражательные слова хлоп, цок, чмок, которые могут считаться дополнитель-
ным фактором, удерживающим о, т.к. в сознании носителей языка такие слова
воспринимаются как нечленимое целое, в котором нежелательны, а в изоли-
рованном употреблении (имеется ввиду использование чисто звукоподража-
тельных слов, а не производных от них) и вовсе невозможны какие бы то ни

было изменения.
Можно выделить группу слов с ярко выраженной экспрессивной окраской,
имеющих просторечный характер: раздраконивать, пропесочивать, объегори-
вать, которые ассоциируются с существительными дракон, песок, егор, но уже
не мотивируются ими. Тем не менее о в этих словах также сохраняется – ви-
димо, в связи с просторечным характером этих слов и редким употреблением
их в речи.
(10) Обслуживающему персоналу русские опять же удобны и приятны: они

их спокойно объегоривают, наливая в ванны вместо воды из природных
источников обычную горячую воду с добавлением солей. [Олег Осе-
тинский. Из Москвы в Прагу – с любовью. Часть II (2002) // «Известия»,
2002.11.22].
(11) Там на собраниях так пропесочивали – на всю жизнь запоминалось. [Елена
Костина. Кто в ответе за ребенка? (2001) // «Семья», 2001.11.14].
В глаголе просрочивать, как уже отмечалось выше, о сохраняется во избежа-

ние нежелательных ассоциаций, хотя отмечен единичный случай употребле-
ния формы с а, но несколько ранее обсуждаемого периода:
(12) Он просрачивает ссуды в кредитные товарищества. [Юрий Фельштин-

ский. Разгром левой оппозиции в СССР; Письма ссыльных большеви-
ков (1928)] .
Нет оснований утверждать, что форма просрачивать не закрепится в языке,

т.к. случаи ее употребления, особенно в разговорной речи, уже фиксируются. К
тому же эта форма отмечена в словарях, пока с пометой «неправильно». Как пи-
сал В. Матезиус, «развитие языков вообще складывается прежде всего из изме-
нений, которые вначале с точки зрения действующей нормы воспринимаются
как ошибки» (Ицкович 1970, 15). Естественно запрещается то, что уже встре-
чается в узусе, входит в употребление, а вследствие этого – и в поле зрения
грамматиста.
Оставшиеся глаголы по разным причинам, оговоренным выше, являются
малоупотребительными и поэтому, как и слова первой группы, не могут быть
гибкими по отношению к литературной норме.
В третью группу входят глаголы, с преимущественным употреблением форм
несовершенного вида: выспаривать, обезболивать, обихаживать, облагоражи-
вать, оспаривать, охорашивать, подзадоривать, прирабатывать, притопывать,
прихорашивать, причмокивать
Преимущественное употребление этих форм в несовершенном виде свиде-
тельствует о дополнительной семантике длительности (обихаживать, прихора-
шивать) или многократности (причмокивать). Только 4 глагола из представ-

ленного списка сохраняют в корне о: обезболивать, подзадоривать, притопы-
вать, причмокивать. Причины такого употребления частично были оговорены
выше: обезболивать – конфикс обез…ивать удерживает гласный в корне; при-
топывать, причмокивать – звукоподражательный характер производящей ос-
новы + конфикс при…и(ы)вать; подзадоривать – конфиксальное образование.
В остальных случаях в корне наблюдается «долгий» гласный а.
четвертую группу составляют глаголы, для которых нельзя выделить прио-
ритет одной из видовых форм. Именно в них обнаруживается колебание форм с
а и о в корне (обусловливать/обуславливать, приурочивать/приурачивать, уна-
воживать/унаваживать и т.п.). Они находятся в некотором промежуточном
состоянии при общем процессе мены о на а – некоторые стилистически мар-
кированы (сосредотачивать – разг.), другие считаются неправильными (упол-
номачивать), есть и равноправные варианты (обусло/авливать). Важно учесть,
что на глаголы действуют разнонаправленные силы – удерживающие о, с од-
ной стороны, и провоцирующие мену на а – с другой. В том случае, когда
факторы, удерживающие о, более значительны (например, связь с произво-
дящей основой), чередование затруднено, например, уполномочивать. Надо
отметить, что в художественной литературе отмечено единичное употребле-
ние глаголов этой группы: обусло/авливать – 9, сосредото/ачивать – 8, упол-
номо/ачивать – 4, приурочивать – 3 и т.д. В то время как в нехудожественной
литературе (публицистика, научно-учебная литература и т.д.) эти глаголы ши-
роко используются: обусловливать (502) – обуславливать (121), сосредоточивать
(45) – сосредотачивать (22). При этом если в публицистике для этих глаголов
количество форм с о составляет 63%, то в научно-учебной литературе – 76% (со-
средоточивать) и 86% (обусловливать).
Язык научно-учебной литературы более консервативен, тогда как другие
сферы употребления языка (особенно публицистика) постепенно сближаются
с разговорной речью, где преобладают формы с а. Если в XIX веке этой особен-
ностью отличались лишь некоторые жанры (очерки, мемуары, драматургия),
то сейчас использование вариантов с а достаточно свободно практически во
всех жанрах. Это связано с тем, что на современном этапе развития языка про-
исходит их смешение.
В старорусском и древнерусском языке ситуация представляется более раз-
ноплановой. На первый взгляд не прослеживается закономерности употребле-
ния того или иного гласного в зависимости от жанра: в одном памятнике могут
встречаться формы как с а, так и с о в корне. Например, в Вестях-Курантах (XVII
в.) отмечено 12 интересующих нас форм с суффиксом -ива-, из них 6 форм – с
а в корне, 6 – с о. То же – в памятниках XVI века – Домострое, Назирателе,
Требнике и др.
Однако в памятниках деловой письменности – различных грамотах, делах,

актах – зафиксированы в основном формы с а в корне, тогда как в религиоз-
ной литературе – преимущественно о. Необходимо отметить, что в памятни-
ках духовной литературы формы с суффиксом -ива- вообще встречаются редко
– предпочтительнее здесь был суффикс -а-.
В XV в. о в корне отмечен в Палее Толковой, Неизданном памятнике рус-
ского церковного права XII в., и в сборнике Муханова – сборнике документаль-
ных материалов по истории России, Литвы, Украины, Белоруссии и Польши
XIV - XVIII вв. Гласный а в корне – в Актах, относящихся до юридического быта
древней России, Исследованиях о Двинских грамотах, Памятниках дипломати-
ческих сношений Московского государства с Польско-Литовским государством
и др. памятниках делопроизводства.
Таким образом, для предыдущих периодов закономерность, связанная с жан-
ровыми особенностями текстов, прослеживается, но этот вопрос требует более
детального изучения.
Одно несомненно: с каждым десятилетием, с каждым годом формы с а в
корне все увереннее проникают в литературу, не являясь уже в большинстве
своем неправильными или ненормативными.
[3] Выводы
Процесс мены о на а, начавшись с довольного узкого круга глаголов, к со-
временному этапу развития языка набирает обороты, вовлекая все больше и
больше глаголов. Распространению имперфективов с а в корне способствует
влияние следующих форм (фактор аналогии):
• слов, где а в корне уже закрепилось (успокаивать, приспосабливать);
• слов, где чередования никогда не происходило (рассаживать, показы-

вать) – по В. И. Чернышеву.
Гласный о в корне удерживает стремление к сохранению первоначальной

формы, связь с однокоренными словами. Как было отмечено многими исследо-
вателями и подтверждается практическим материалом, о дольше сохраняется в
глаголах, совершенный вид которых имеет это о ударным – это глаголы, где вы-
бор гласного зачастую вызывает колебания. Сохранение исконного гласного,
по нашим наблюдениям, поддерживается следующими факторами, выявлен-
ными в [2.1]:
1. Четкая связь производного глагола с производящей основой, что, в свою оче-

редь, может быть обусловлено следующими причинами:
a) отыменным образованием этих глаголов: производящая основа может

быть существительным (узаконивать), прилагательным (задабривать), чис-
лительным (удваивать), местоимением (присваивать) – в последних трех
случаях, хотя уже и закрепились формы с а, но долгое время функциони-
ровали с о в корне;
б) наличием звукоподражательного слова в производящей основе (поцоки-
вать, причмокивать);
в) отнесенностью к конфиксальным образованиям: в этом случае словооб-
разовательное значение (абстрактно) и лексическое (более конкретно) ука-
зывают на слово, лежащее в производящей основе. Например, обез…ивать
– ‘лишать того, о чем говорится в производящей основе’; обезвоживать –
‘удалять из чего-нибудь воду’ (Ожегов & Шведова 1999, 388);
г) наличием заимствованного слова в основе (отфутболивать, обандероли-
вать);
2. Разветвленное словообразовательное гнездо, большое количество одноко-

ренных слов с о в корне (сосредоточивать);
3. Возможность возникновения нежелательной омонимии (просрочивать). За-

кономерно, что а скорее возникает в тех случаях, где глаголы, теряют связь
с производящей основой, например:
а) из-за чередования согласных на стыке корневой морфемы и суффиксаль-

ной, которым обычно сопровождается чередование о/а (заболачивать);
б) если глагол выступает в несвойственном для него значении (потапы-
вать).
Исследование чередования в письменных текстах Национального корпуса

русского языка позволило подтвердить значимость вышеназванных факторов,
а также установить зависимость от сферы и широты употребления глагола.
Так, в малоупотребительных глаголах норма, как правило, меняется очень мед-
ленно, либо не меняется вообще, если слово выходит из употребления. Редко
употребительными словами считаются:
• архаизмы (прихоливать);
• историзмы (орабочивать);
• термины (обезуглероживать);
• просторечные слова (распатронивать);

• устаревшие формы на –ивать, замененные формой на -ать, -ять (уско-

ривать).
На один и тот же глагол действует, как правило, несколько факторов и часто

разнонаправленных. В этом случае на корневой гласный влияет не столько ко-
личество факторов, сколько их значимость. Так, например, глагол унавоживать
– отыменной, образован от существительного навоз конфиксальным способом,
но сам по себе этот глагол, по свидетельству С. П. Обнорского, «не городской»,
поэтому здесь нельзя говорить о строгом соблюдении нормы, что обусловли-
вает распространение формы унаваживать, к тому же из-за наличия чередова-
ния з/ж, а также из-за «незнакомости» слова для городских жителей теряется
связь с производящей основой, что также поддерживает форму с а.
Итак, отмеченная в начале статьи морфологизация чередования о/а во вто-
ричных имперфективах способствует закреплению форм с а в корне как сред-
ство противопоставления совершенного и несовершенного видов, что интуи-
тивно осознается носителями языка. Статистические данные, полученные из
Национального корпуса русского языка, показывают, что чем «свободнее» жанр,
тем более свободно употребляются формы с а в корне. Таким образом, нам
представляется закономерной скорая стабилизация форм с а в корне даже в тех
словах, где сейчас она может казаться маловероятной. Мы же являемся свиде-
телями того, как эта норма складывается.
Список литературы
Вербицкая Л. А. Русская орфоэпия (к проблеме экспериментально–фонетичес-
кого исследования особенностей современной произносительной нормы).
Л.: Изд-во Ленингр. ун-та, 1976. 124 с.
Виноградов В. В. Видовой и продуктивный тип видовой корреляции того же
происхождения // Виноградов В. В. Русский язык (Грамматическое учение о
слове) / Под ред. Г. А. Золотовой. 4-е изд. М.: Русский язык, 2001. 718 с.
Винокур Г. О. Культура языка. изд. 2-е испр. и доп. М.: Федерация, 1929. 336 с.
Востоков А. Х. Изменение гласных пред окончанием многократного вида //
Сокращенная русская грамматика А. Востокова. 3-е изд. СПб, 1835. 118с.
Горбачевич К. С. Изменение норм русского литературного языка. Л.: Просве-
щение, Ленингр. отделение, 1971. 270 с.
Горбачевич К. С. Морфонологические и суффиксальные варианты / Вариант-
ность слова и языковая норма. Л.: Наука, Ленингр. отд-ние, 1978. 238 с.
Граудина Л. К. Вопросы нормализации русского языка: грамматика и вари-
анты. М.: Наука, 1980. 288 с.
Греков В. Ф. Пособие для занятий по русскому языку в старших классах/

В. Ф. Греков, С. Е. Крючков, Л. А. Чешко. 40-е изд. М.: Просвещение. 286 с.
Историческая грамматика русского языка: Морфология: Глагол / Под ред. Р. И.

Аванесова, В. В. Иванова. М.: Наука, 1982. 440 с.
Ицкович В. А. Норма и ее кодификация // Актуальные проблемы культуры

речи. Под ред. В. Г. Костомарова и Л. И. Скворцова. М.: Наука, 1970. с. 9-39.
Обнорский С. П. Очерки по морфологии русского глагола / Отв. редактор

В. И. Борковский. Изд. 2-е. – М.: Книжный дом «Либроком», 2009. – 248 с.
Никифоров С. Д. Глагол, его категории и формы в русской письменности II

половины XVI в. / М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1952. 344 с.
Павский Г. Филологические наблюдения над составом русского языка Г. Пав-

ского. Рассуждение III. О глаголе. 2-е изд. СПб., 1850. 238 с.
Потебня А. А. Из записок по русской грамматике. Том IV Вып.II Глагол. М.:

Просвещение, 1977. 406 с.
Розенталь Д. Э. Практическая стилистика русского языка [Учебное пособие для

вузов] М.: Высшая школа, 1965. 355с.
Фомина Т. Г. Современный русский язык. Фонетика: учеб. пособ. Казань: Ка-

занский государственный университет, 2007. – 112 с.
Чернышев В. И. Правильность и чистота русской речи. Опыт русской стили-

стической грамматики. 2-е изд. Выпуск II, Части речи. СПб., 1915. 402 с.
Словари
Ефремова Т. Ф. Новый словарь русского языка. Толково-словообразовательный
в 2 томах. Т.1 А – О М.: Рус. яз. Библиотека словарей русского языка, 2000.
1210 с.
Словарь современного русского литературного языка в 17 томах. М.–Л.: Изд.

АН СССР, 1948-1965.
Зализняк А. А. Грамматический словарь русского языка: Словоизменение / 4-е

изд. испр. и доп. М.: Рус. словари, 2003. 794 с.
Словарь русского языка XI-XVII вв. Т.1-16. М.: Наука, 1975-1990.

Ожегов С. И. и Шведова Н. Ю. Толковый словарь русского языка: 80000 слов и

фразеологических выражений / Российская академия наук. Институт рус-
ского языка и языкознания им. В. В. Виноградова. – 4-е изд., дополненное.
М.: Азбуковник, 1999. – 944 с.
Шведова Н. Ю. Русская грамматика. т. 1-2. М: Наука, 1980.
Адрес автора
Айсылу Сагитова
Казанский федеральный университет
Россия
afsagitova@gmail.com

(ISSN 1890-9639)
a database of russian verbal aspect

OLGA BORIK AND MAARTEN JANSSEN
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Universitat Pompeu Fabra
When dealing with verbal aspect in Russian, it is not uncommon to find gener-
ic statements such as: all perfective verbs in Russian are morphologically com-
plex, and all prefixed verbs in Russian are perfective (e.g., Ramchand 2004; Filip
& Rothstein 2006). Statements of this type are so common that they are perceived
as general rules about the aspectual system of Russian with a very insignificant
class of exceptions (Forsyth 1970). Moreover, these statements often serve as the
basis for theories of aspect, especially those which are syntactically oriented and
treat prefixes as (roughly) secondary predicates (Svenonius 2004; Zaucer 2009).
More complex generalizations often state the limitations on secondary imperfec-
tivization in morphological terms, e.g. secondary imperfectives are not derived
from verbs with prefixes contributing predictable/quantificational type of mean-
ings, like, for instance, пере- in the distributional meaning (Babko-Malaya 1999;
Schoorlemmer 1995).
However, for such statements to be made with certainty, it is necessary to ei-
ther verify each and every verb in Russian by hand, or to have a full database of
verbal aspectual forms at your disposition, which to our knowledge does not exist
for Russian. This paper describes a pilot project which aims to provide a morpho-
logically oriented database of aspectual forms in Russian, which should be of great
practical help for the numerous theoretical studies of Russian verbal aspect.1 Al-
though the database itself will remain as theory independent as possible, we will
show how this database can serve to either support or refute theoretical general-
izations about Russian aspect.
It has been a while since the study of Russian aspect was a topic restricted to
the domain of interests of traditional grammarians and Slavisists. Given a great
theoretical importance of the notion of aspect for linguistic theory in general
(cf. Verkuyl (1993); Krifka (1998); Smith (1991) and many others), researches of
various theoretical backgrounds become intrigued by aspectual puzzles in dif-
ferent languages, including Russian. Clearly, not everybody who is interested in
[1] Although there have been databases which provide derivational information for Russian, e.g. Russian
Derivational Morphology Database (http://courses.washington.edu/unimorph) which was pointed
out to us by an anonymous reviewer, they do not focus on the aspectual information like our database
does. Moreover, we provide an open online access to our database, whereas the Russian Derivational
Morphology Database seems to be no longer available online.
[118] borik & janssen
Russian speaks it and/or has intuitions about it. However, it is indispensable for
researchers to have access to the full range of data in the language they study
to conduct independent investigations, and our database aims at providing this
access for Russian data, at least when it comes to aspectual morphology.
The practical aim of the project, which forms part of the Open Source Lexical
Information Network (OSLIN) for Russian, is to create a database of all Russian
verbs. All prefixed verbs in the database will be linked to their base form. Inde-
pendently of this, all the verbs will be classified as either perfective, imperfective
or biaspectual, and the members of a perfective/imperfective opposition with the
same derivational base are linked to each other. The linked members can further
be classified into aspectual (perfective/imperfective) pairs. To keep the database
as theory independent as possible, we establish the relation between the mem-
bers of an aspectual pair for the largest part semi-automatically, on the basis of
the information provided in their dictionary definitions.
With all the information above (i.e. aspectual class, morphological deriva-
tions, pairing) taken into account, the database can be used to group verbs in a
way reminiscent of Janda’s 2007 ‘aspectual clusters’. A crucial difference with the
aspectual clusters in the theory of Janda, however, is that the verb clusters gen-
erated from our database are based on an exhaustive lexicon, and created theory
independently. The clusters are not meant to be an explanation by themselves,
but to provide empirical grounds for data generalizations that, in turn, can be
used to support theoretical explanations.
With respect to theoretical linguistics, the database is meant to render the
means to conduct or facilitate the data search for research questions. That is to
say, it can and should be used to provide data support for theoretical hypotheses,
but does not itself concern with theoretical issues. For some theoretical ques-
tions, more information will be needed than the database can supply. Section [4]
illustrates this: the database provides a list of за- verbs with the relevant morpho-
logical information (i.e. base verb for prefixed verbs, aspectual value, etc.) and is
successfully used for the case study we present, even though this study still needs
to be supplemented with additional information about the inchoative vs. resulta-
tive meaning of за- for each particular verb. However, even in those cases where
additional information is required, the database already provides a large part of
information needed by not only extracting the words starting with за-, but also
stating whether or not those are prefixed words, what their aspectual class is, etc.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides
a detailed explanation of the database itself, including a thorough description
of its contents, and a characterization of the website where the database can be
consulted. In section [3] and [4], we illustrate how the database can be used to
check various theoretical hypotheses and section [5] presents the conclusions.
a database of russian verbal aspect [119]
[2] data b a s e a n d w e b s i t e
The Russian aspectual database described in this paper is part of the Open Source
Lexical Information Network (Janssen 2005). OSLIN uses a database architecture
with a modular set-up: the core of the database consists of a list of words of a
given language, typically taken from a dictionary (see Section [2.1]). Any number
of tables can be linked to this basic word list, each providing a specific type of in-
formation about the lexical units: their inflection, derived words, pronunciation,
syllabic structure, etc. The database has an online interface, which allows easy
access to all the data in the database. More information about the OSLIN project
can be found on the website of the project: http://www.oslin.org.
The Russian database is only a pilot project, and the Russian OSLIN has not
been developed in full. The focus of the pilot is Russian aspect, and therefore,
all data that have no direct relevance for aspect have not been developed in a
systematic way. Furthermore, the data that are relevant for aspect are themselves
still under development: errors in the database are still being corrected. We will
explain possible sources of errors in this section, not to emphasize the problems
in the database creation process, but to warn the readers about more error-prone
areas.
However, the percentage of errors is already low enough for the database to
serve as a tool for linguistic purposes, though some care should be taken with the
data at this point. The Russian data can be accessed via: http://ru.oslin.org,
a screenshot is shown in figure 1.
Typically, the most important table linked to the wordlist in OSLIN is the table
with inflectional information for each word in that language. However, since in-
flection is not of direct interest for the aspectual data, only a part of the word list
is inflected at this time. For the current project there are three relevant tables,
each providing a separate type of information.
The first table indicates the aspectual class of all the verbs in the word list: it
simply specifies for each verb whether it is perfective, imperfective, or biaspec-
tual (see section [2.2]).
The second table characterizes the morphological (de)composition of words,
which currently contains primarily the compositional structure for prefixed verb.
For instance, for the verb написать (to write.Perf), this table specifies that it is
composed of the prefix на- and the base verb писать (to write, Imperf., see sec-
tion [2.3]).
The third table lists aspectual pairs: it links perfective verbs to their imper-
fective counterparts. Furthermore, all the aspectual pairs contain information
about the formation process by which the members of the pair where derived:
prefixation, alternation, stress shift, secondary imperfectivization etc. (see sec-
tion [2.4]).
figure 1: The website of the OSLIN database for Russian
When all the information presented in each of the tables is brought together,
we get clusters of morphologically and aspectually related verbs (see section [2.5]).
Morphological information does not have to coincide with the aspectual one: many
morphologically related verbs are not related aspectually (i.e. do not constitute
pairs). Let us now explain the database setup in more detail.
[2.1] Basic Word List

The basic word list in the database consists of the combination of the vocabulary
of two major Russian dictionaries: the Толковый словарь русского языка (Ex-
planatory dictionary of the Russian language) by Ozhegov & Shvedova (1992), and
the Большой толковый словарь современного русского языка (Large explanato-
ry dictionary of the Russian language) by Ushakov (1935-1940). Both dictionaries
were taken from the available online sources, and these online version in turn
were generated from scanned versions of the respective dictionaries. For this pi-
lot project, no other words were included.
Creating a list of words on the basis of those dictionaries is by itself not a trivial
task: the problem is that dictionaries often combine various words in a single en-
try. Consider, for instance, the entry for the word муслить (to (be)slobber) shown
in figure 2, taken from Ozhegov dictionary, which not only lists the word itself,
МУСЛИТЬ -лю, -лишь и МУСОЛИТЬ, -лю, -лишь; несов., кого-что (разг.).

Смачивать или пачкать слюной, а также вообще пачкать мокрыми, липки-
ми руками. М карандаш. М. книгу. || сов. замуслить, -лю, -лишь; -ленный и
замусолить, -лю, -лишь; -ленный; намуслить, -лю, -лишь; -ленный и наму-
солить, -лю, -лишь; -ленный. || возвр. муслиться,-люсь,-лишься и мусолить-
ся, -люсь, -лишься, сов. замуслиться, -люсь, -лишься и замусолиться, -люсь,
-лишься.
figure 2: The Definition of muslit’ in the Ozhegov dictionary
but also a more common spelling variant (мусолить), several perfective coun-
terparts (замуслить, намусолить, ...), and several reflexive forms (мусолиться,
...).
When we fully dissect this dictionary entry, we find that there are 10 individu-
al words compressed into a single entry: замуслить, намусолить, муслиться, за-
муслиться, замусолиться, мусолить, замусолить, намуслить, мусолиться, and
муслить. In the OSLIN database, all of these words are listed separately. The total
number of words included in the OSLIN database from these two dictionaries is
81.852, amongst which there are 28.766 verbs.
The online versions of both of the dictionaries have errors in the optical char-
acter recognition of the scanned text. For instance, the original database lists
the word грязнугь instead of the word грязнуть (‘to sink’) in the orginal text. Al-
though we attempted to correct as many errors as possible, there are still some
remaining errors in the word list due to these mistakes.
The inflections included in the database at this moment are taken from the
STARLING database by Starostin: http://starling.rinet.ru/morpho.php.
Since the starling database does not include all the words in the dictionaries we
are working with, not all the words have been inflected. Furthermore, given that
inflection was not a primary objective of this pilot study, we only included those
inflections that could be derived automatically from the database. This means
that, for instance, in the case of homographs with different inflectional paradigms
the inflectional information is not always provided.
For a substantial amount of words, the syllabic structure of the word is al-
so indicated. For instance for the verb переговариваться (to talk to each other,
exchange words), the syllabic structure is listed as пе·ре·го·ва·ри·вать·ся, with
seven syllables and the stress on the forth one. The main motivation for includ-
ing this information in this pilot project is that in many cases, homographs with
a different aspectual behaviour can be distinguished by means of the position of
the stress, as, for instance, perfective у·ре·зать and imperfective у·ре·зать (to cut
down/off). Only for cases where stress was significant has the syllabic structure
been developed in detail, in other cases it was only added when the position of
the stress could be derived from the starling database.
[2.2] Grammatical Classification

All verbs in the database have received a grammatical classification, that is to
say, an indication whether the verb in question is perfective, imperfective, or
biaspectual in nature. In principle, the information was adopted from the source
dictionaries, either mentioned explicitly (сов. – perfective, несов. – imperfective,
сов-несов. – biaspectual), or implicitly as in the case of однокр. (semelfactive),
which is perfective by default, and многокр. (multiple action), which is always
imperfective. In cases where the aspectual information was missing (mostly in
the case of run-ons) or different in the two sources, we by default adopted the
information from the starling database.
[2.3] Morphological Composition

The morphological composition table provides morphological structure for com-
plex verbs in the database. This part of the database was originally intended as a
list of prefixed verbs, hence the largest part of the database consists of prefixed
verbs, however, several suffixed and infixed verbs are also marked. For each pre-
fixed verb a prefix and a base verb are indicated. In total, 9.838 verbs are listed as
being morphologically prefixed, or about 1/3 of the verbs.
The focus in this pilot project with respect to prefixed verbs was largely driv-
en by the following theoretical question: what exactly is the role of prefixation in
aspectual mechanisms? In other words, we are interested in looking into the rela-
tion between prefixation as a morphological process and the aspectual semantic
properties of verbs. In practice, the relation between the two processes is far from
being simple and straightforward. This issue is partially addressed in section [3].
The morphological composition is intended to model the synchronic status of
words: whether the word does consist of composing parts or not. It is not meant to
indicate the etymology of the verb, nor does it represent the full morphological
analysis, but only the outermost compositional elements. For instance, for the
verb разноситься (to be spread, distributed out), the database only models that
it consists of the verb разносить (to distribute, carry around), together with the
reflexive suffix -ся. The fact that разносить itself is a prefixed verb is modelled
only for the verb разносить, and not for the verb разноситься.
The morphological composition was established semi-automatically. As a first
step, a list of all productive prefixes in Russian was created. This list was then
used to see which verbs in the database can be split into a productive prefix and
an existing verb, that is to say, which words have the correct orthography to be
prefixed verbs. As an example: since за- is a productive prefix, we automatically
extracted all and only those verbs that start with за- and have a listed base with-
out за-. This procedure yields all the prefixed verbs, but also a small percentage
of false candidates. The false prefixed candidates were sorted out manually. As
an example of a false candidate, both words зачесть (to counterbalance, take into
account) and честь (honor) exist in the database, hence зачесть was automati-
cally classified as a verb with a prefix за- derived from честь. However, the verb
зачесть and the noun честь are not related, so the potential morphological rela-
tion was deleted during the manual check-up.
Many databases that model morphological composition mark the composition
in terms of a string of letters. However, this leads to problems in cases of homo-
graphs: analysing prefixation in terms of a prefix and the citation form of the verb
can lead to ambiguous and partially incorrect data. To take another case of verbs
starting with за-: the verb за·пах·нуть (to lap) is not a prefixed verb, but rather a
verb derived from the noun за·пах (a lap of a garment). Therefore, it is not a pre-
fixed form of the verb пах·нуть (to smell). However, the verb за·пах·нуть (to be-
gin to smell) both has a prefix and is derivationally related to пах·нуть (to smell).
If morphological composition were modeled only as за- + пахнуть, it would be
impossible to tell these cases apart. Therefore, the morphological composition is
modelled over an identifier that points to a specific verb.
In this database, prefixes are always listed in their orthographic form. That is
to say, the prefixes рас- and раз- are listed as separate prefixes, despite the fact
that they are commonly considered allomorphs. The same applies to prefixes о-
/об-, с-/со-, из-/ис-, etc. This is not intended as a claim that there is a difference
between these prefixes, but merely to keep the morphological structure trans-
parent.
Marginal cases
Let us now demonstrate some cases where the analysis had to be done manually.
For most words, it is clear whether a candidate for morphological composition is
indeed correct or not. However, there are quite a few verbs for which it is not
really obvious whether they need to be classified as prefixed or not. This cases
are also valuable from the theoretical perspective, since they indicate the most
non-trivial areas in a morphological derivation process.
The first class of manually treated verbs are the reflexives. Although for many
verbs, such as пробоваться (to try out.refl), it is clear that it is not a prefixed ver-
sion of *боваться, but rather a true reflexive form of пробовать (to try out.Imp),
there are other verbs for which this is not so clear. If we consider за·сы·пать·ся
(to be filled up.Pf), it can be analysed both as a prefixed form of сы·пать·ся (to
pour, fill up.Imp) and a reflexive form of за·сы·пать (to pour, fill up.Pf). In those
cases, we always opted to consider -ся to be the outermost compositional element,
unless there were clear counter-indications.
A similar issue arises with aspectual pairs. The verbs раз·ре·зать (to cut.Imp)
and раз·ре·зы·вать (to cut.Imp) are secondary imperfectives to their perfective
counterpart раз·ре·зать (to cut.Pf), which in turn is a prefixed verb, composed of
раз+ре·зать. Thus, although both secondary imperfectives are related to a pre-
fixed verb, they themselves are not. In the case of раз·ре·зать, the stress is a good
indication: the verb *ре·зать does not exist. But in cases in which the imperfec-
tive verb without prefix itself also exists, morphological composition becomes a
complicated procedure. Consider, for instance, the verb до·де·лы·вать (to finish
making). Should it be analyzed as a secondary imperfective of до·де·лать (to fin-
ish making.Pf), or a prefixed version of де·лы·вать (make.Imp, multiple action)?
In those cases, for practical purposes we always linked the secondary imperfec-
tive to a prefixed perfective verb without explicitly indicating the prefix of a sec-
ondary imperfective. This was largely done to keep a parallel between cases like
разрезывать and доделывать.
Problems also arise when the root verb itself has a marginal status. Consider
the verb взимать (to collect, levy). Even though Ushakov dictionary lists its base
verb, имать, as a separate entry, this verb is barely used in the modern language,
which makes the morphological composition of взимать as вз+имать question-
able.
Another good example of a marginal case is the verb замыкать, which can
be perfective and imperfective. As a perfective entry, за·мы·кать means to make
someone suffer and is most probably related to the imperfective entry мы·кать
(to endure), which in modern Russian has a highly restricted use, as, for instance,
in the expression горе мыкать (to bear/undergo grief, hardship) or in dialects in
the meaning ‘to hatch’. Thus, if we set apart a dialectal use, there seems to be a
morphological relation of prefixation between the two entries and it is reasonable
for this case to give a complex morphological structure for the verb за·мы·кать
(pf) involving the prefix за-. However, there is a homographic imperfective en-
try, за·мы·кать (to close, round out, shut), which is paired with the perfective
замкнуть and does not seem to show any sign of a complex morphological struc-
ture involving a prefix за-. The problem is solved by the existence of two sep-
arate entries, за·мы·кать and за·мы·кать, and manually controlling that all the
morphological and aspectual relations are linked to the correct entry.
[2.4] Aspectual Pairs

Pure aspectual pairs are those verbs which have an imperfective form and a per-
fective counterpart, and for which the perfective form expresses nothing more
than the imperfective form made perfective. For instance, in the case of делать:
сделать (to make.Imp:Pf) the perfective сделать is nothing but the action of де-
лать brought to its logical conclusion. In such cases, the perfective verb is almost
an inflected form of the imperfective verb, where the choice of which form to use
is determined by the context, much more than by the meaning the speaker wish-
es to convey. The database of aspectual pairs in meant to include such pairs of
verbs.
However, there are many examples of imperfective/perfective pairs for which
the difference between the two verbs also carries a semantic load, and is not
merely aspectual. For instance, the verb валить (to bring down; fell, lay, low)
has various morphological derivations such as завалить (to pile up, overwhelm),
привалить (to lean against), подвалить (to pile more, to come up to someone
(sl.)), развалить (to destroy), etc, which all mean different things. In these cases,
although the perfective verb expresses some perfective action related to the im-
perfective verb, it is more than just the aspectual counterpart: they are different
verbs that are most often related, but carry an additional semantic load. Also,
there are many verbs for which there is more than one perfective form linked to
a given imperfective verb as a pair. For instance, the same verb валить has two
perfective counterparts listed as a pair in Ushakov dictionary: свалить (to dump,
fell) and повалить (to lay, fell), depending on the meaning of the imperfective
verb.
The database of aspectual pairs is meant to include all those and only those
pairs of imperfective and perfective verbs that form an aspectual pair, and for this
pilot project only those that form an aspectual pair according to the dictionary.
In other words, we use the dictionaries as a source to decide whether or not two
verbs should be listed as a pair, and with very few exceptions only list those pairs
that are attested in either of the two dictionaries. For instance, the perfective
verb съежиться (to cringe, roll up.Pf) is linked to съеживаться (to cringe, roll
up.Imp) by Ushakov, but to ежиться (to cringe.Imp) in Ozhegov, hence, both are
listed as aspectual pairs in the database. On the other hand, all dictionarized pairs
are included, except in cases where there was a clear error. Amongst other things,
this means that in many cases, reflexive pairs are included alongside their non-
reflexive counterparts: not only the pair ягнить/оягнить (to lamb), but also the
pair ягниться/оягниться is listed in the database of aspectual pairs.
The total number of aspectual pairs is 11.455. Since some verbs have more
than one pair, the number of imperfective verbs that has at least one aspectual
pair is lower: 8.644. Given that there are just over 14.500 imperfective verbs in the
database, this means that 59% of the listed imperfective verbs have an aspectual
pair according to the dictionary. Perfective verbs have a pair even more often:
8.714 of the 12.810 perfective verbs (or 68%) has an aspectual pair.
The aspectual pairing is not unrelated to the morphological database: many
of the prefixed verbs form an aspectual pair with their morphological base. The
pairs in the aspectual database are selected for their functional relation indepen-
dently of morphological structure of the members of this relation. This means
that the relation between an imperfective verb and its perfective prefixed pair,
should it exist, is essentially the same as that between a perfective verb and its
secondary imperfective pair. In other words, the aspectual pairing table does
not make a distinction between the prefixed pairs and those made by secondary
imperfectivization, focusing not so much on the morphological structure of the
paired members, as on the functional relation between them.
Although functionally secondary imperfectives are no different from “sim-
ple” imperfectives, they are different from a morphological point of view: “sim-
ple” imperfectives are the morphological base of their perfective pair, whereas
the secondary imperfectives are the derivates. Therefore, the database explicitly
keeps track of the way in which the perfective was morphologically formed from
the imperfective, or vice-versa.
The aspectual pairing table, especially in combination with the morphological
decomposition table provides a rich set of data for the study of verbal aspect in
Russian, and helps answering many theoretically relevant questions. We will get
back to this issue in sections [3] and [4].
[2.5] Verb Clusters

On the website, the information from the tables described in the previous three
subsections is combined and presented as a single resource, which provides all
the relevant aspectual information about all the verbs in the database. For each
verb, the site provides a page which list all verbs that are morphologically or as-
pectually related to it.
Furthermore, it provides the option to automatically generate so-called ver-
bal clusters. A verbal cluster is defined by a verb together with all verbs linked to
it by either aspectual pairing or morphological derivation or both, plus the verbs
related to those verbs. Such verbal cluster can become rather large and complex.
As an example, consider the (imperfective) verb брать (to take), which has a per-
fective form взять, formed by suppletion. However, it also has several prefixed
forms with their own lexicalized meaning, such as забрать (to collect), убрать (to
clean, put away), and прибрать (to tidy), избрать (to elect), etc. As a lexicalized
perfective, избрать has a secondary imperfective form: избирать. But избрать,
in turn, can be further prefixed: переизбрать (to reelect), which has imperfective
form переизбирать. In total, there are 47 verbs in the брать cluster, as demon-
strated in figure 3. The image in figure 3 is a screenshot of a page of the database
website (http://ru.oslin.org/?action=aspect&act=explode&id=3544).
As has already been mentioned, the aspectual database is meant as a conve-
nient and necessary tool which can either support or refute various theoretical
generalizations and hypothesis concerning Russian aspect. The next two sec-
tions provide some examples of empirical studies that can be carried out using
the database. First we will demonstrate how various ‘common wisdom rules’ con-
cerning the morphology of aspect can be empirically checked. The second section
Verbal Cluster
Cluster base: !"#$%
lookup verb !"#$% (imperfective)

perfective of !"#$% (imperfective) &'($% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) '#!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) &)!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) *!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) +)!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) "#')!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) ,")!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) ,"-!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) ,).)!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) ,)!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) ,/"/!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) )$)!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) )!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) )!)!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) 0#!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) -'!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of !"#$% (imperfective) &1!"#$% (perfective)
imperfective of '#!"#$% (perfective) '#!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of &)!"#$% (perfective) &!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of *!"#$% (perfective) *!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of *!"#$% (perfective) -'*!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of *!"#$% (perfective) ,"-*!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of *!"#$% (perfective) "#'*!"#$% (perfective)
imperfective of +)!"#$% (perfective) +!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of +)!"#$% (perfective) +)!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of +)!"#$% (perfective) ,).+)!"#$% (perfective)
imperfective of "#')!"#$% (perfective) "#'!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of ,")!"#$% (perfective) ,")!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of ,"-!"#$% (perfective) ,"-!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of ,).)!"#$% (perfective) ,).!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of ,/"/!"#$% (perfective) ,/"/!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of )$)!"#$% (perfective) )$!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of )!"#$% (perfective) )!-"#$% (imperfective)
imperfective of 0#!"#$% (perfective) 0#!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of 0#!"#$% (perfective) ,)0#!"#$% (perfective)
imperfective of -'!"#$% (perfective) -'!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of -'!"#$% (perfective) ,/"/-'!"#$% (perfective)
imperfective of &1!"#$% (perfective) &1!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of &1!"#$% (perfective) ,/"/&1!"#$% (perfective)
derivation of *!-"#$% (imperfective) "#'*!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of +!-"#$% (imperfective) 0#+!-"#$% (perfective)
derivation of +)!-"#$% (imperfective) 0#+)!-"#$% (perfective)
derivation of +)!-"#$% (imperfective) ,")+)!-"#$% (perfective)
derivation of 0#!-"#$% (imperfective) ,)0#!-"#$% (perfective)
derivation of -'!-"#$% (imperfective) ,/"/-'!-"#$% (imperfective)
derivation of &1!-"#$% (imperfective) ,/"/&1!-"#$% (imperfective)
47 verbs in cluster
figure 3: The verb cluster for the word valjat’

is dedicated to a particular case study that has been conducted on the basis of col-
lected data. We look at the behaviour of prefix за- which, as is well-known, has
(at least) two meanings: an ingressive one (i.e. to begin to do something), and a
resultative one, which (loosely) refers to a complete action meaning.2 A natural
question that arises is whether there is any rule(s) governing the distribution of
the meanings of the prefix, depending on the type of verb the prefix is attached
to. We present the data to discuss one possible factor that might play a role in the
distribution of ingressive/resultative за-: the presence/absence of a direct object.
[3] a s p e c t u a l g e n e r a l i z at i o n s
The database provides a wide range of information that can be directly used to
verify tendencies and claims about Russian by statistical means. We demonstrate
that in this section by verifying some claims that have been made repetitively in
the literature. Even though the statistical data that we provide in this paper are
not completely fixed yet due to the possible mistakes in the database that have
not been eliminated, they nevertheless give a very good estimate of the general
tendencies.
[3.1] Prefixes and perfectivization

It is generally assumed that there is a very tight connection between perfectiviza-
tion and prefixation in Russian. Various authors differ in their precise definition
of the nature of this connection, but most of them agree on the following basic
fact: the output of the morphological operation of prefixation is aspectually per-
fective. In the formulation of Forsyth (1970, 18), “the addition of a prefix to a
simple verb makes it perfective (in addition to possibly altering its meaning in
other ways)...”. Taking this view to the extreme, some researches have proposed
to treat prefixes as perfectivizers and nothing else (Pinón 1994; Zucchi 1999; Borer
2005). The traditional view on Russian prefixation, however, is that prefixes are
not aspectual perfectivizers, but derivational morphemes with their own function
(Isachenko 1960).
The question of whether prefixes perform other functions apart from forming
perfective vebs falls outside the scope of this paper. However, what we can verify
is a part of the claim by Forsyth, namely, that the addition of a prefix to a verb
always makes it perfective. Interestingly, Forsyth himself, after giving this strict
rule about prefixation, starts listing counterexamples to it. However, these coun-
terexamples have been ignored in much of the subsequent literature on aspect,
and many authors assume the perfectivizing effect of prefixes to be an absolute
rule. In our database, there are 9.838 verbs marked as formed by prefixation.
If prefixes always had perfectivizing effect, one would expect that all prefixed
[2] By using the term ‘resultative’, we do not assume that any completed action necessarily lead to a certain
resultant state. We use the term in the most theoretically neutral way.

Aspect of base verb Aspect of prefixed verb # examples

biaspectual biaspectual 7
biaspectual perfective 88
perfective perfective 783
imperfective biaspectual 16
imperfective perfective 7942
imperfective imperfective 1000
perfective biaspectual 2
table 1: Distribution of prefixed verbs by aspectual classes
verbs are perfective. Ideally, prefixes would also attach to an imperfective stem,
to have an obvious aspectual effect. However, the reality is rather more complex:
although the majority of verbs does indeed follow this pattern, about 8% of the
prefixed verbs are in fact formed on the basis of a perfective or biaspectual verb,
and about 10% of the prefixed verbs remain imperfective themselves. A complete
breakdown of these numbers is shown in Table 1.
We can use the data in table 1 to verify the claim that all verbs become perfec-
tive after prefixation. For the majority of prefixed verbs (about 80%), it is indeed
true that that they are perfective verbs created from imperfective bases. Howev-
er, there is a substantial amount of verbs (about 10%) where the resulting verb is
still imperfective. To give some examples of these:
выявляться = вы + являться
to become apparent.Imp pref + appear.Imp
забегать = за + бегать
to pop by.Imp pref + run.Imp
соотносить = со + относить
to relate.Imp pref + refer.Imp
происходить = про + исходить
to originate.Imp pref + start.from.Imp
Concerning the statement that all perfective verbs are prefixed, the database
also shows that for most verbs, that is indeed true: of the just over 12.500 perfec-
tive verbs in our database, about 8.700 (or about 70%) are prefixed. However, that
still leaves about 30% of the perfective verbs that are not in fact prefixed. This is
hardly in line with the common view that there is only a small and insignificant set
of exceptions to the rule that ‘all perfective verbs are prefixed’. The non-prefixed
verbs are not a homogeneous class and are formed by different means, among
which a well-known suffix -ну-3 , but also cases of suppletion, various types of al-
ternation and so on. Each of these classes might be small and maybe insignificant,
but taken together, they present a serious class of counter-examples to the claim
that all perfective verbs are prefixed.
While the larger types of pairs (rows) in table 1 on the preceding page should
be self explanatory, the more marginal cases deserve some exemplification. There
are six examples of biaspectual verbs derived on the basis of another biaspectual
verb. To give an example, consider:
сонаследовать = со + наследовать
to co-inherit pref + inherit
The row with the smallest number of examples in table 1 on the previous page
is for biaspectual verbs which are derived from perfectives:
переосвидетельствовать = пере + освидетельствовать

to re-examinev pref + witness.Pf
исповедать = ис + поведать
to recieve confession pref + narrate.Pf
The first example is a relatively clear case of a biaspectual/perfective pair.

However, the second example might not really be an example of a biaspectu-
al/perfective pair, since there is disagreement between various dictionaries con-
cerning the aspectual marking: исповедать is classified as biaspectual by Ushakov,
but as perfective by Ozhegov. More remarks on biaspectual verbs will be made in
the next subsection.
[3.2] Biaspectual verbs

As the last generalizing claim, let us consider biaspectual verbs. Biaspectuality
is often presented as a marginal phenomenon which applies to a small class of
borrowed verbs only. Since they are seen as a marginal phenomenon, very little
have been said explicitly about this class of verbs. Let us point out that in the
database, 956 of all verbs are classified as biaspectual. This is 3.5% of the total
amount of verbs, which is not an overwhelming number, but not all that little
either.
Biaspectual verbs present a difficult case at least for the statement that any
verb in Russian is obligatorily classified as perfective or imperfective (Zaliznjak
& Shmelev 2000). In the case of biaspectual verbs, there is a single lexical entry
which can be used either with a grammatical value perfective or an imperfective
[3] Note, again, that not all -ну- verbs are perfective either. Cf: пахнуть (to smell), бухнуть (to expand,
swell), etc.

(Isachenko 1960), meaning that in context, all uses are either perfective or im-
perfective, but the verb itself has no (single) aspectual value. Unless we want to
say that the aspectual class is not a property of a verb, but of a verb in use (which
would immediately lead to problems in describing the effect of prefixation in re-
lation to aspect), we still have to assigns such verb an aspectual class, and in our
database they are simply classified as biaspectual. One possibility is that biaspec-
tual verbs are in fact homonymous aspectual pairs: that is to say, that a biaspec-
tual verb is in fact a pair of verbs, one imperfective, the other its perfective pair,
and in use, of course, one of the two is used. For a complete treatment of the ef-
fect of prefixation, the exact status of biaspectual verbs is important. However, a
full discussion of it is beyond the scope of this paper.
Concerning the claim that the majority of biaspectual verbs are borrowed
(e.g. Zaliznjak 1977 ), it might be true for many cases, but, nevertheless, there are
entries like велеть (to order, tell), бежать (to run, escape), даровать (to grant,
bestow) that can hardly be classified as borrowings and still are biaspectual verbs.
As we have hopefully illustrated in this section, a lot of common wisdom state-
ments concerning aspectual behaviour of verbs in Russian apply, at best, to a ma-
jority of verbs. However, the classes of exceptions do not amount to dozens, but
rather to hundreds and thousands verbs and hence cannot simply be ignored, if
the validity of theoretical observations is to be taken seriously.
[4] a c a s e s t u d y : p r e f i x z a -
To illustrate possible practical applications of the database for various theoretical
problems, we have conducted a case study on the basis of the verbs with prefix
за-, one of the most studied prefixes in the literature (Boguslavski 1960; Braginsky
2008; Dickey 2000; Ferm 1990; Golovin 1964; Isachenko 1960; Janda 1986; Schoon-
eveld 1978; Zemskaja 1955; Paillard 1991; Zaliznjak 1977, and many others).
We here first make a statistical analysis of some of the general claims about
this prefix, directly using the data from the database. We then go on to a more
detailed analysis of the formation process and meaning contribution of this pre-
fix. The data necessary for a more detailed analysis are not all present in the
database; for instance, the database says nothing about whether verbs are ingres-
sive or not. The classification of meanings (ingressive vs. resultatives) was done
manually. However, the database does directly provide the complete set of, for
instance, all verbs that are prefixed by за-, together with their aspectual class,
pairs, and derivates. This makes the type of analysis provided in [4.2] a lot faster
and more reliable.
[4.1] Statistical data

Let us first look at some of the most common statement found in the literature
that can be verified by means of the database. The first one concerns the per-
fectivity of prefixed verbs, the second one is about secondary imperfectivization.

Verifying these claims is similar to the analysis in [3.1], but then specific for за-
verbs.
The first statement has been most recently re-formulated in (Braginsky 2008,
i), who says: “While it is correct that all ZA-prefixed verbs in the lexicon are per-
fective, the prefix ZA- has additional semantic effects on the unprefixed verbs it
applies to.” Note that this statement is just an instantiation of a more common
claim that all prefixed verbs are perfective, which does not really hold, as was
discussed in the previous section. However, it could be the case that although in
general, prefixes are not always perfectivizers, the prefix за- really does turn all
verbs into perfectives.
If we look at the за- verbs in the database, we find that Braginsky’s claim holds
better than the general claim about prefixed verbs, but still not entirely. There
are 1019 verbs in our database with a prefix за- (as the outermost morphological
element), and of those, 946 (or 93%) are perfective. This is a large percentage of
the за- verbs, but nevertheless, about 7% of them are imperfective.
The group of exceptions consists mostly of prefixed motion verbs. Thus, the
verb забегать (за+бегать) has two meanings: a) to start to run (around) and b)
to pop by, and in the second meaning the verb remains imperfective, just like its
base verb бегать (to run).
However, there is a much larger class of imperfective verbs with a за- pre-
fixed which do not constitute a part of the 7% mentioned above. This is because
in the 1019 prefixed verbs selection, we did not take into account secondary im-
perfective verbs formed on the bases of prefixed perfectives, such as, for instance,
заделывать (to patch, seal), which has the following morphological derivational
‘history’:
делать ⇒ заделать ⇒ заделывать

to make.Imp. to patch, seal.Pf to patch, seal.Imp
The morphological structure of the last verb in the string, заделывать still
clearly contains prefix за-, although the prefix here is not the outermost mor-
phological element. While it is true in this case, that more aspectually relevant
morphology is present which makes the verb imperfective, it still remains a verb
that has a prefix за-, and its aspectual value is imperfective. For that reason, al-
though almost all verbs do become perfective after adding a за- prefix, not all
verbs that contain a за- prefix are perfective.
The second common statement about за-verbs has more broadly to do with
the process of secondary imperfectivization. It is often claimed that secondary
imperfectives do not form from perfective verbs with predictable prefix mean-
ings (Isachenko 1960; Schoorlemmer 1995; Babko-Malaya 1999) or, in more recent
terminology, that perfective verbs with ‘superlexical’ prefixes do not have sec-
ondary imperfectives (Di Sciullo & Slabakova 2005; Romanova 2006). In the case
of за-, the superlexical ‘version’ of it would contribute a ‘phasal’, or ingressive
meaning. Hence, the statement with respect to the superlexical за- would be that
we should not find secondary imperfective verbs with an ingressive meaning.
The database search shows that, indeed, this prediction is largely borne out,
even though a list of exceptions to this rule also emerges. However, these excep-
tions are small in number, and only comprise the following 8 verbs:
заболевать (from pf. заболеть) to become sick

загнаиваться (from pf. загноиться) to begin to fester
заговаривать (from pf. заговорить) to begin to talk
загораться (from pf. загореться) to begin to burn
замолкать (from pf. замолчать) to become silent
запевать (from pf. запеть) to begin to sing
зардевать (from pf. зардеть) to redden
зацветать (from pf. зацвести) to begin to blossom
Thus, we can conclude that the database does show that the general claims
for verbs with a за- prefix, namely, the statement that they are always perfective,
and that they have no secondary imperfectives for ingressive meaning, do hold
almost perfectly, with only a small number of exceptions.
[4.2] Detailed analysis

In this case study, we have focused on two meanings of за-: ingressive and resul-
tative, exemplified below, with an indication of the total number of verbs with
that type of meaning:
ingressive meaning: петь ⇒ запеть 410 verbs

to sing to start.singing
resultative meaning: резать ⇒ зарезать 395 verbs
to cut to stab (to death)
As can be seen, the distribution of these two types of meaning is about 50/50.
Although these two meanings are not the only meaning of за- verbs, together
they do account for most of verbs with a за- prefix. In this subsection, we try to
determine whether factors as transitivity play any role at the distribution of the
meanings of за- among the prefixed verbs.
It has often been suggested that the resulting meaning of за- can be predicted
on the basis of the (in)transitivity of the base verb, i.e. the presence or absence of
a direct object. One of the proposals to link ingressive за- verbs to transitivity was
put forward in Isachenko (1960), who claimed that all the ingressive за- verbs are
intransitive. A similar claim is made by Schoorlemmer (1995), ad Babko-Malaya

(1999), who claim that the resultative (lexical) meaning of за- arises only in the
case when a prefix attaches to a verb with a direct object, and the ingressive за-
verbs are formed on the basis of unergative unprefixed bases. A similar relation
between direct objects and the resultative reading is either explicitely made or is
expected in many syntactic approaches (Svenonius 2004; Ramchand 2004; Borer
2005). In this subsection, we will examine whether (in)transitivity is indeed a
necessary and/or sufficient condition for an ingressive/resultative meaning.
First, let us examine the relation between the resultative meaning of за- and
the presence of a direct object in the argument structure of the base verb. If the
direct object is a necessary condition for the emergence of the resultative mean-
ing of prefixed за- verbs, we expect that no resultative за- verbs can be formed
from unergatives. However, this statement is not supported by the data. There
are quite a few resultative за- verbs that have an unergative base, to name just a
few:
брызгать ⇒ забрызгать
(to splash.Imp) (to splash.Pf)
мусорить ⇒ замусорить
(to litter.Imp) (to litter.Pf)
ночевать ⇒ заночевать
(to overnight.Imp) (to overnight.Pf)
прыгнуть ⇒ запрыгнуть
(to jump.Pf) (to jump onto.Pf)
All the verbs on the left side are unergative. The prefixed verbs on the right
side, all have a resultative, and not an ingressive meaning. Thus, замусорить
really means “make a place dirty by littering” and not “to begin littering”, as
would be expected by the general rule.
If we look at the hypothesised generalization the other way around, i.e. if we
expect the direct object to be a sufficient condition for resultative за-, then we
should not be able to find any transitive verbs which have an ingressive meaning
after за- has been added. This, again, is incorrect and we find numerous examples
of ingressive за- verbs formed from the transitive bases:

ворошить ⇒ заворошить
(to stir up, rake.Imp, tr.) (to begin to stir up.Pf, tr.)
курить ⇒ закурить
(to smoke, optionally tr.) (to begin to smoke, Pf. tr./intr.)
торопить ⇒ заторопить
(to hurry.Imp, tr.) (to begin to rush.Pf, tr.)
шатать ⇒ зашатать
(to shake.Imp, tr.) (to begin to shake.Pf, tr.)
шептать ⇒ зашептать
(to wisper.Imp, tr./intr.) (to begin to wisper.Pf, tr./intr.)
Unaccusative verbs, i.e. the verbs whose only argument is an underlying di-
rect object (Perlmutter 1978), also regularly produce ingressive за- derivatives,
as shown below:
тошнить ⇒ затошнить
(to nauseate.Imp.) (to become nauseous.Pf)
тлеть ⇒ затлеть
(to smolder.Imp) (to begin to smolder.Pf)
пахнуть ⇒ запахнуть
(to smell.Imp) (to begin to smell.Pf)
Thus, this selection of data shows convincingly that no direct relation can be
maintained between the syntactic direct object and the emergence of the resulta-
tive meaning of за-. That is to say, although typically resultative за- verbs have a
transitive base verb, it is neither true that all transitive verbs leas to a resultative
за- verb, nor that all resultative за- verbs have a transitive basis.
Let us know verify if, on the other hand, there is a strict relation between the
ingressive за- verbs and the absence of a direct object. Once again, we need to
see if an absent direct object is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the
emergence of the ingressive за-, otherwise the generalization is either wrong, or
incomplete at best.
Should the absence of a direct object be a necessary condition for the ingres-
sive за-, we would expect to find no transitive or unaccusative verbs to form a
basis for the ingressive за- prefixed verb. However, as we saw in the examples
above, the cases of transitive verbs with ingressive за- prefix are many, including
торопить, ворошить, пахнуть, etc. Here are some more examples:

петь ⇒ запеть
(to sing.Imp, optionally tr.) (to begin to sing.Pf, optionally tr.)
знобить ⇒ зазнобить
(to shiver.Imp, unacc.) (to begin to shiver.Pf, unacc.)
ругать ⇒ заругать
(to scold, reprimand.Imp, tr.) (to begin to scold.Pf, tr.)
As the reader might have guessed by now, the absence of a direct object cannot
be held to be a sufficient condition for ingressive за- derivations either. If this
were the case, we would not find any prefixed за- verbs with resultative meaning
formed on the basis of unergative verbs. To add to the examples given above (i.e.
брызгать, мусорить, etc.), consider the following pairs:
воевать ⇒ завоевать
(to be at war, to fight.Imp) (to conquer.Pf.)
гадать ⇒ загадать
(to tell.fortune.Imp) (to make.wish.Pf)
служить ⇒ заслужить
(to serve.Imp) (to deserve.Pf)
Thus, we can safely conclude this section with the statement that none of the
possible correlations between the presence/absence of a direct object in the base
verb and the meaning of prefix за- in the derived verb really hold. We cannot pre-
dict the meaning of a prefixed verb on the basis of transitivity or, more broadly,
the syntactic property of having a direct object in the base verb.
This outcome urges us to explore other hypotheses. There can be many poten-
tial proposals to investigate, one of the latest trends being the relation between
the semantic type of a verb (in the sense of Vendler 1967) and the resulting за-
derivation (e.g. Braginsky 2008). This is not a simple relation to discuss, and even
though we believe that the database we are describing here can help solving a lot
of questions, a detailed discussion of the semantic issues will take too much space
and, hence, falls outside the scope of this paper.
As we have shown in this paper, a full lexical database of Russian aspect is a
valuable, if not a crucially necessary resource for verifying general claims about
the behaviour of aspect in Russian. The verbal aspect database now exists, even
though as a pilot project, and is available online. In the course of time, incidental
errors will be corrected, and more types of information will be incorporated into
the database. We have shown that several claims which have often been assumed
to be universal and undisputed for Russian verbal aspect, in fact, do not concur
with the reality of the Russian lexicon. To sum up the major claims defended in
this paper:
1. Despite the fact that it is often said that all (or at least the majority) of per-
fective verbs are prefixed, there are many perfectives in Russian which are
neither formed by prefixation, nor have a prefix in their morphological struc-
ture.
2. Contrary to a common assumption, there is a rather large class of biaspectual

verbs that are used both perfectively and imperfectively. The class does not
consist of borrowed verbs only.
3. There is no connection between the ingressive or resultative meaning of за-

prefixed verbs, on the one hand, and the presence or absence of a direct object
in the argument structure of the base verb, on the other.
We have furthermore shown that neither the aspectual classification of verbs,

nor the decision whether verbs are in fact prefixed is not, or at least not in all
cases, a straightforward matter. This complicates a precise analysis of the relation
between prefixation and perfectivity.
Since the database is not yet error free, the data and the statistics presented
in this paper have a small margin of error. Those mistakes which might have un-
dermined some of our conclusions were eliminated. For instance, there seemed
to be a handful of perfective verbs that become imperfective after prefixation.
The list was checked manually and it turned out that all the supposed instances
were, in fact, due to errors in the Ushakov dictionary. Because of these issues,
in this paper we included only those cases where there is a substantial class of
exceptions to a rule, and where the margin of error is very small. Thus, the per-
centages presented here will not be seriously affected by occasional errors in the
database.
As a final note, we want to point out that the Russian database project is an
at this point a non-funded pilot project. We appreciate any help or feedback in
the further development and improvement of the project. We hope that the the
OSLIN database in general, and the database of Russian verbal aspect in particular,
will prove a useful resource for data-driven linguistic research.
references
Babko-Malaya, O. 1999. Zero Morphology: A Study of Aspect, Argument Structure, and
Case: Rutgers University, PhD dissertation.
Boguslavski, A. 1960. Prefiksalne pary aspektowe a semantyka prefiksalna cza-

sownika rosyjskiego. Slavia Orientalis IX. 139–175.
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense. The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Braginsky, P. 2008. The Semantics of the Prefix ZA- in Russian: Bar-Ilan University,
PhD dissertation.
Di Sciullo, A. M. & R. Slabakova. 2005. Quantification and Aspect. Dordrecht:

Springer.
Dickey, S. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A Cognitive Approach. Standford, CA:

CSLI Publications.
Ferm, L. 1990. Vyraženie napravlenija pri pristavočnyx glagolax peremeščenija v

russkom jazyke. Uppsala: Almqvist Wiksell.
Filip, H. & S. Rothstein. 2006. Telicity as a semantic parameter. In J. Lavine,

S. Franks, Tasseva-Kurktchieva & H. Filip (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Lin-
guistics (The Princeton Meeting), vol. 14, 139–156. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Forsyth, J. 1970. A grammar of aspect: Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golovin, B. N. 1964. Slovoobrazovatel’nye typy glagolov s pristavkoj -ZA. Učenye

zapiski Gorkovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. M.N. Lobačevskogo. 68. 61–66.
Isachenko, A. V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii so slo-

vackim. Morfologija, čast’ 2. Bratislava.
Janda, L. 1986. A Semantic Analysis of the Russian Verbal Prefixes ZA-, PERE-, DO- and
OT-. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Janda, L. 2007. Aspectual Clusters of Russian Verbs. Studies in Language 31. 607–648.
Janssen, M. 2005. Open Source Lexical Information Network. In Third International

Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, Geneva, Switzerland.
Krifka, M. 1998. Origins of Telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Events and Grammar,

197–235. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Paillard, D. 1991. Aspect et lexique: Preverbes et perfectivation en russe. Le pre-

verbe ZA-. Bulletin de la linguistique generale et appliquee (BULAG) 17. 37–49.
Perlmutter, D. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In

BLS 4., 159–189. University of California at Berkeley.
Pinón, C. 1994. Accumulation and aspectuality in Polish 24(2). 491–506.
Ramchand, G. 2004. Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes. Nord-
lyd 32(2). 323–361.
Romanova, E. 2006. Constructing Perfectivity in Russian. Tromsø: Tromsø University

dissertation.
Schooneveld, C. H. van. 1978. Semantic transmutations: Prolegomena to a calculus of

meaning. Bloomingston.
Schoorlemmer, M. 1995. Participial passive and aspect in Russian. Utrecht: Utrecht

University, UiL OTS dissertation.
Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Svenonius, P. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP 2(32). 205–253.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Verbs and times. In Linguistics in Philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, H. 1993. A theory of aspectuality: the interaction between temporal and atem-
poral structure. Cambridge University Press.
Zaliznjak, A. A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. (Grammatical dictionary

of Russian). Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
Zaliznjak, A. A. & A. D. Shmelev. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju. Moskva:

Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
Zaucer, R. 2009. A VP-internal/Resultative Analysis of 4 VP-External Uses of Slavic Ver-

bal Prefixes: University of Ottawa dissertation.
Zemskaja, E. V. 1955. Tipy odnovidovyx pristavočnyx glagolov v sovremennom russkom

jazyke. Moscow: Issledovanija po grammatike literaturnogo russkogo jazyka.
Zucchi, S. 1999. Incomplete events, intensionality and imperfective aspect.

Natural Language Semantics 7. 179–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1008310800632.

Olga Borik
Departament de Filologia Catalana
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona)
Spain
Olga.Borik@uab.cat
Maarten Janssen
IULA, Universitat Pompeu Fabre
Roc Boronat, 138
08018 Barcelona
Spain
Maarten.Janssen@upf.edu

(ISSN 1890-9639)
aspect in the imperative across slavic —

a corpus driven pilot study
RUPRECHT VON WALDENFELS

Universität Bern
abstract
The paper introduces a quantitative approach to using a parallel corpus for
the investigation of category variation across Slavic. As a pilot case study, it
presents the corpus-driven study of aspect in the imperative, drawing on 13
versions of Bulgakov’s Master i Margarita in 11 Slavic languages as included in
the ParaSol corpus (von Waldenfels 2006). Taking departure from imperative
contexts in the Russian original, it is shown that differences in aspect use
follow an areal pattern. The results are largely consistent with theories such
as forwarded by Barentsen (1998, 2008) and Dickey (2000) that emphasize
the existence of two focal groups of aspect use in the East and the West and
confirm the results of a questionnaire-based study reported in Benacchio
(2010).
[1.1] Aspect variation across Slavic
In recent years a comparative perspective on Slavic aspect has gained increas-
ing prominence (Dickey 2000; Barentsen 1998; Петрухина 2000; Barentsen 2008).
Among others, Dickey (2000) argues for an east-west split with the East Slavic lan-
guages and Bulgarian in one, and Czech, Slovak and Slovene in a second group.
Differences in aspect use are said to be based on different prototypical meanings
of the category in these two groups; Polish and BCS are considered transitional
zones. In Dickey & Kresin (2009) this analysis is argued to be also relevant for the
use of aspect in negated past events, corroborating a prototype based theory of
aspect in these languages.
The present paper puts aspects of these theories to a test in a restricted envi-
ronment, focusing on verbal aspect in the morphological imperative. By examin-
ing aspect use in comparable texts in all major Slavic languages in a quantitative
way and relating them to another, the present study confirms, first, the general
finding of an areal distribution of aspect use across Slavic, and, second, the spe-
cific East-West contrast posited by Dickey (2000).
[142] ruprecht von waldenfels
[1.2] Aspect in the imperative

For the present pilot study, the non-negated imperative was chosen as an at the
same time interesting and largely unproblematic environment. It is largely un-
problematic because, first, all Slavic languages possess such a morphological cat-
egory; second, because the use of this category is rather consistent across Slavic;
third, because it is used rather independently of other constructions, i.e., it is not
normally embedded into other structures; third, it seems to be less subject to vari-
ation under translation than, say, events in an event chain. Furthermore, aspect
use in this environment is not grammatically restricted in any of the languages
involved. Imperatives are thus both comparably easy to extract from a corpus
and comparably easy to compare across Slavic languages.
Aspect use in the imperative has been a recurrent topic in the aspectological
literature on Russian, where a set of pragmatic functions of the aspectual opposi-
tion is noted. Wiemer (2008) nicely summarizes the most important distinction:
The bottom line of the matter [is] that imperfective verbs are used
in the non-negated imperative if the speaker supposes that the [ap-
propriateness of the] action in question is self-evident, e.g. because
it belongs to the relevant script or because it has already been intro-
duced; perfective verbs are used if the speaker does not suppose this
and the situation in question is therefore considered new or unex-
pected (Wiemer 2008, my translation1 )
In a series of papers and culminating in a book on the subject, Benacchio (2004,

2005, 2010) has enlarged the scope to the other Slavic languages, taking as point
of departure those context types found relevant in the literature on Russian. Her
work is based on questionnaire data and informant work and concerned with as-
pect in the imperative in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian,
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Slovene, Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, Czech, Slo-
vak and Polish, i.e., almost all Slavic literary languages. Moreover, she also takes
Modern Greek into perspective, thereby broadening the scope beyond Slavic. As
concerns areal grouping, her results are broadly compatible with those of Dick-
ey’s: she finds aspect use in the East Slavic languages to be strongly alike and
clearly divergent from its use in the Western languages, with intermediate types
for Bulgarian and Polish.
According to Benacchio’s findings, the use of the imperfective in contexts
where there is an opposition in the East involves pragmatic effects that become
[1] Als Quintessenz darf man ansehen, daß im unnegierten Imperativ ipf. Verben dann gewählt werden,
wenn der Sprecher voraussetzt, daß die betreffende Handlung sich bereits von selbst versteht, z.B. weil
sie zum Skriptwissen gehört oder weil die Handlung vorher schon einmal erwähnt worden ist, pf. Verben
hingegen dann, wenn der Sprecher meint, dies nicht voraussetzen zu können und die jeweilige Situation
in diesem Sinne neu bzw. unerwartet ist. Wiemer (2008)

contrasting verbal aspect across slavic [143]
less felicitous as one moves to the west, resulting in ungrammaticality of the im-
perfective in Czech, Slovak, Slovene and Lower and Upper Sorbian. The meanings
involved relate to politeness categories that are said to differ across the areal; they
range from positive politeness strategies and the expression of familiarity more
to the East and a sense of urgency and outright imposition as one moves towards
the Western Group.
[1.3] A corpus driven approach

Rather than taking departure from aspectual functions and specific contexts in
any of the languages, the approach draws on patterns of aspect use in all imper-
ative forms found in a set of texts; it is in this sense strictly corpus driven. The
analysis is based on multiple translations of Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master i Margari-
ta as included in the ParaSol parallel corpus (von Waldenfels 2006). Translations
into all major literary Slavic languages (except the two Sorbian languages) are
included in ParaSol; in Polish and Serbian, two translations are available2 .
It is important to keep in mind that the study is based on the language of a
series of specific texts, the degree of representativity of which is open to question.
Therefore I speak of doculects rather than of languages where appropriate.
[2] data a n d a n n o tat i o n

The category of imperative is quite similar across Slavic, but there is some varia-
tion nonetheless. The following constructions were taken into account: the syn-
thetic imperative of the 2. Person singular and plural that is present in all Slavic
(e.g. Bulgarian дай / дайте ‘give!’); the synthetic imperative of the 1. person plu-
ral, of varying status and form across Slavic (e.g., Polish słuchajmy ‘let’s listen!’);
constructions considered grammaticalized analytical imperative forms in Hansen
(2004): the Polish analytical polite imperative formed with proszę (proszę powiedz-
iéc ‘(please) say’) and the 1. person plural imperative formed with давай/те in
Russian (e.g., давайте петь (ipf) / давайте споем (pf) ‘let’s sing!’; cf. Храковский
& Володин 1986, 121f.) as well as cognate constructions in the other East Slav-
ic languages. The rare case of imperatives in imperative function (e.g., Russian
вставать! ‘Get up!’) was also taken into account. For the purposes of this study,
all these constructions were considered equivalent in respect to aspect usage (even
though this may be an oversimplification). Other means of expressing the speech
acts in question, e.g., modal verbs, were not taken into account. Pragmatic mark-
ers such as простите ‘excuse me’, прощай ‘farewell’, as well as imperative forms
in non-imperative function (such as the narrative imperative) were likewise dis-
carded.
[2] The same abbreviations as in the ParaSol corpus are used in this paper: RU Russian, BY Belarusian, UK
Ukrainian, PL Polish, SK Slovak, CZ Czech, SL Slovene, HR Croatian, SR Serbian, MK Macedonian, BG
Bulgarian.

Having thus delimited the scope of forms taken into account, the data basis for
the investigation is collected in three steps: Query and filtering, base annotation
and full annotation. These procedures will be described in the rest of this section;
I will then turn to data aggregation and visualization before reaching conclusions.
Query and filtering

In a first step, all word forms tagged as morphological imperatives in the Rus-
sian original were extracted from ParaSol together with their aligned segments.
The resulting XML file was then transformed using XSLT into a data base format;
morphological and other information from the aligned segments was used to au-
tomatically determine candidates for word forms equivalent to the Russian one.
The data were then loaded into MS Access where they were examined on a in-
dividual basis and either annotated or discarded (if irrelevant according to the
above list or due to tagging errors).
Base annotation
For the Russian, Slovene, Czech, Slovak and two Polish translations, ParaSol sup-
plies morphological tags3 , considerably easing the task of assigning aspect values
to each instance. On the basis of this annotation, each context was assigned to
one of three types, depending on the distribution of aspect values across texts:
consistently perfective, consistently imperfective, or with variation.
Of 362 relevant cases, 194 (54%) were classified as consistently perfective.
This typically involved imperatives relating to telic actions that were taken into
perspective as a whole and uttered without much context support. As an example,
consider (1). The context is as follows: Jesus is brought before Pilate to answer
to the allegations brought up against him. During the conversation, Jesus calls
Pilate ‘a good man’, whereupon Pilate has Jesus punished for the transgression.
He does this by issuing the following command to one of his soldiers. We are thus
dealing with the causation of a telic event that is not expected by virtue of script
knowledge or on other grounds and expressed in perfective aspect in the 6 base
doculects:
(1) Выведитеpf его отсюда на минуту, объясните ему, как надо разговари-
вать со мной. RU
Wyprowadźpf go stąd na chwilę i wyjaśnij mu, jak należy się do mnie
zwracać. PL
Wyprowadzićpf go i wytłumaczyć, jak należy ze mną rozmawiać. PL
Odveďtepf ho na chvíľu a vysvetlite mu, ako sa má so mnou rozprávať. SK
Odveďpf ho a vysvětli mu, jak se mnou má mluvit. CZ
Odpeljitepf ga za trenutek od tod in mu pojasnite, kako je treba govoriti z
[3] Note that morphosyntactic annotation for Bulgarian has since been added.

menoj. SL
‘Take him outside for a moment, explain to him how I ought to be spoken to.’
A much lesser number, 49 cases (14%) were classified as consistently imperfective.

Typically, this involved the causation of atelic situations, often also their contin-
uation. An example is given in (2):
(2) И слушай меня: если с этой минуты ты произнесешь хотя бы одно слово,
заговоришь с кем-нибудь, берегисьipf меня! RU
I zapamiętaj sobie, że jeśli powiesz od tej chwili choćby jedno słowo, jeśli
będziesz z kimkolwiek rozmawiał - to strzeż sięipf mnie! PL
A teraz słuchaj: jeśli od tej chwili wypowiesz choć jedno słowo, zaczniesz z
kimś rozmawiać — strzeżipf się mnie! PL
…ak od tejto chvíle prerečieš čo len slovo, ak sa s niekým budeš zhovárať, maj
sa predo mnou na pozore! SK
A teď dobře poslouchej: jestli od této chvíle hlesneš, varujipf se mě, to ti
povídám! CZ
In poslušaj me: če od tega trenutka naprej izrečeš le besedo, spregovoriš s
komer si bodi, potem se me paziipf ! SL
‘if from this moment on you say even one word, if you speak to anyone at all,
beware of me!´
Cases that do not exhibit variation in the use of either the imperfective, such
as (1), or perfective aspect, such as (2), arguably belong to an invariable core of
the category in Slavic. The contexts assigned to either category were not further
investigated.
Full annotation
In 118 (33%) of 362 cases base annotation revealed differences in aspect use across
the initial six doculects and were assigned to the variation group. For these con-
texts the analysis was expanded to include all translations. The relevant impera-
tive forms were annotated and their aspectual value was determined using stan-
dard dictionaries. Note that annotation was conservative: In cases of doubt or
conflicting classification in standard dictionaries, verb forms were coded as bi-
aspectual.
In the following attestation, for example, there is variation in the first six
texts: ‘repeat it a third time’ is expressed with a perfective imperative in all but
the Czech version, where an imperfective form was used. Therefore, analysis was
expanded to the full set of available translations:
(3) Первосвященник, повториpf в третий раз. RU

Arcykapłanie, powtórzpf to po raz trzeci. PL
Powtórzpf to po raz trzeci, arcykapłanie. PL

Veľkňaz, zopakujpf to tretí raz. SK
Opakujipf to potřetí, velekněže. CZ
Veliki duhoven, ponovipf mi to še tretjič. SL
Першасвятар, паўтарыpf трэці раз! BY
Первосвященику, повториpf втретє. UK
Първосвещенико, потвърдиpf го и трети път. BG
Првосвештенику, повториpf го тоа и по трет пат. MK
Prvosvešteniče, ponovipf i treći put. SR
Prvo svešteniče, ponovipf i treći put. SR
Prvosvećeniče, ponovipf treći put. HR
‘Repeat it a third time, High Priest.’
In this case, variation does not seem to follow a wider pattern: only the Czech
translation uses an imperfective form4 . In other cases, expansion of focus to all
translations in fact reveals more wide-spread variation. In (4) Czech and Slovene
use perfective aspect, while Russian and two Polish translations show imperfec-
tive aspect:
(4) […] ты когда-либо говорил что-нибудь о великом кесаре?

Отвечайipf ! RU
Odpowiadajipf ! PL
Odpowiadajipf ! PL
Odpovedzpf ! SK
Odpovězpf ! CZ
Odgovoripf ! SL
‘[…] did you ever say anything about the great Caesar? Answer!’
The use of the imperfective in Russian is well accounted for here: the ques-
tion in the first part ‘did you ever say anything about the great Caesar?’ provides
ample grounds for the explicit ‘Answer!’ to be an expected command with clear
context support.
Widening the perspective to all available translations, we see that only the
far West - Czech, Slovak, Slovenian and Croatian - uses the perfective where the
other language versions have imperfective aspect:
(4) Відповідайipf ! UK
Адказвайipf ! BY
Отговаряйipf ! BG
Одговарајipf ! MK
[4] I am obliged to Saša Rosen and Radovan Garabík for pointing out that in this case, both aspects are
admissible in both Czech and Slovak.

Odgovarajipf ! SR
Odgovarajipf ! SR
Odgovoripf ! HR
This example thus fits in nicely with the general picture of Dickey’s East-West
split and with Benacchio’s result that in contexts where in the Eastern languages
there is a pragmatic opposition resulting in the use of the imperfective, the West-
ern Group prefers the perfective.
But to what extent is this particular context representative for the general
picture and to what extent is this merely anecdotal evidence? In order to obtain
a more comprehensive perspective on the variation in the data, in the next step,
they are transformed to a distance matrix and visualized using specialized soft-
ware.
[3] a g g r e gat i o n : c o m p u t i n g d o c u l e c t d i s ta n c e s
Russian p p i i i p p p p i i i p i i i i
Belarusian i i i i i p p p p i i i p i i i i
Ukrainian i p - i i p p - p i i i p i i i i
Bulgarian i p i - i i p p p i - p p p p p -
Macedonian p p i p i p p p - p i i p p p p i
Serbian i p i - i p i p - p i i i p p p i
Serbian/2 - p i p i p p p p i i i - - p p i
Croatian - p i p i p p p p p i i i p p p i
Slovenian p p i p p p i i - p p p i p p p -
Czech i p - i i i i p i p p p p p p p p
Slovak i - - - p p i - p i p i - p p p p
Polish i i p - i i p p p - p i i i p p i
Polish/2 i i i - i i p p p i p i p - p p i
table 1: A small excerpt of the data matrix. Each row represents a text; each col-
umn one context. Each cell of the table contains i if the imperative form
in the relevant context and text is in imperfective aspect, p if it is in per-
fective aspect and - in all remaining cases.
For the aggregation of doculect differences, only the fully annotated contexts,
that is, those contexts where aspect use was neither consistently perfective nor
consistently imperfective, are represented in a table.
An excerpt of this table is given in 1. Each column represents a specific con-
text. Doculects are represented as rows of values: either p, if the imperative form
Russian p p p p i i i p i i
Polish i p p p - p i i i p
Czech i i p i p p p p p p
table 2: Illustrating the computation of hamming distance between doculects. In

the Russian-Polish pair, 4 of 9 contexts differ in aspect value, so distance
h = 4/9 = .444; between Czech and Polish, 5 of 9 contexts differ, so
h = .555. Between Czech and Russian, only 2 of 10 contexts coincide, so
the distance is much higher at h = .8.
in the given context is perfective, i, if it is imperfective. In case the verb in ques-

tion is biaspectual or if the relevant context does not contain an imperative, the
cell is assigned -. The resulting full table represents the complete data to be ana-
lyzed.
In the next step, the data are used to compute the hamming distances between
pairs of doculects ranging from 0 (if the two texts always use the same aspect in
the same context) or 1 (if they never do).
This is done by dividing the number of contexts with the same aspect value
in both doculects by the number of all contexts (counting only those contexts
where an aspect value was assigned in both texts). Table 2 gives an example of
this calculation based on a limited excerpt of the table.
Such a calculation is made for each pair of doculects, arriving at the distance
matrix given in table 3. These distances reflect the overall similarity or dissim-
ilarity of aspect use in imperatives across the doculects. However, such a set of
distances is not easy to interpret. To this end, the data is visualized in the next
step.
[4] v i s u a l i z at i o n : n e i g h b o r n e t g r a p h s
The data was visualized using SplitsTree (Huson & Bryant 2006), a software pack-
age developed for the visualization of biological data. Figure 1 contains a Neigh-
borNet graph, a graphical rendering of the data. This graph faithfully repre-
sents the distances contained in the distance matrix: shortest paths between the
doculect nodes are proportional to distances in the matrix. Since this is the case
for all distances, the graph also displays similarity in respect to other doculects.
To see this, consider the two Polish translations. Not only are they adjacent, i.e.,
most similar to each other, they are also very similar in respect to the distances
to the other doculects, as reflected in the overall position of the two and in the
structure of the network.
RU BY UK BG MK SR SR2 HR SL CZ SK PL PL2
RU 0 .13 .1 .4 .48 .49 .43 .54 .76 .75 .59 .44 .39
BY .13 0 .14 .39 .45 .44 .4 .52 .73 .69 .57 .37 .34
UK .1 .14 0 .42 .46 .47 .42 .51 .72 .75 .53 .4 .36
BG .4 .39 .42 0 .32 .31 .34 .28 .39 .46 .37 .38 .39
MK .48 .45 .46 .32 0 .26 .25 .16 .34 .39 .35 .41 .39
SR .49 .44 .47 .31 .26 0 .21 .2 .38 .4 .36 .41 .43
SR 2 .43 .4 .42 .34 .25 .21 0 .19 .48 .43 .34 .39 .36
HR .54 .52 .51 .28 .16 .2 .19 0 .24 .4 .3 .44 .43
SL .76 .73 .72 .39 .34 .38 .48 .24 0 .38 .33 .6 .61
CZ .75 .69 .75 .46 .39 .4 .43 .4 .38 0 .28 .56 .56
SK .59 .57 .53 .37 .35 .36 .34 .3 .33 .28 0 .44 .56
PL .44 .37 .4 .38 .41 .41 .39 .44 .6 .56 .44 0 .22
PL2 .39 .34 .36 .39 .39 .43 .36 .43 .61 .56 .56 .22 0
table 3: Pairwise doculect distances. Abbreviations see footnote 2.
0.1
Polish
Serbian/2 Polish/2
Serbian
Slovak
Czech
Belarusian
Russian
Ukrainian
Croatian
Slovenian Macedonian
Bulgarian
figure 1: NeighborNet graph of aspect-based distances of 13 doculects.

0.01
Czech
Slovak
Bulgarian Russian
Belarusian
Slovenian
Ukrainian
Croatian
Macedonian
Polish/2
Serbian Serbian/2
Polish
figure 2: NeighborNet graph of aspect-based distances of 13 doculects after boot-

strapping (n=1000); 95% confidence margin.
Other details such as the position of the nodes in the two-dimensional plane
and the figure’s orientation are arbitrary; the figure has been turned to align it to
the geographic position of the Slavic languages as far as possible.
The graph reveals some expected, and some surprising details. First of all, we
see that the three East Slavic versions as well as the two translations each into
Serbian and Polish are most similar to each other; this is expected. Likewise, the
Czech and Slovak texts are very similar and together with the Slovenian one form
a group that is diametrically opposed to the Eastern Slavic texts. This confirms
the relevance of two (rather than three or four) extreme groups in relation to the
category of aspect posited in the literature: a Western group, consisting of Czech,
Slovak and Slovenian, and an Eastern group, with the East Slavic languages at its
core. Likewise compatible with this theory is the position of the other texts: The
middle and East South Slavic versions as well as the Polish translations are situat-
ed between the two poles, with Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian and Bulgarian tending
towards the Western, and Polish tending towards the Eastern group. However,
we also see that the Macedonian translation is nearer to the Croatian than to the
Bulgarian or to one of the Serbian texts; this is rather astonishing given the inter-
mediate position of Macedonian between Bulgarian and Serbian in many respects.
But how significant are these results? In the end, the graph is built on quite
heterogeneous data shaped by the vagaries of the translation process, a small and
idiosyncratic corpus and a limited number of examples. To minimize the impact

of individual chance configurations, a measure of confidence is needed. To this
end, a bootstrapping function is available in SplitsTree. Bootstrapping is a vali-
dation technique that consists of repeatedly recalculating the distance matrices
with a certain portion of the data withheld. In this way, many distance matrices
on the basis of slightly different data are computed and then compared. Distances
that do not fluctuate are then deemed more significant than distances that are
found only in a small portion of the calculated matrices.
Figure 2 shows a NeighborNet graph computed on the basis of 1000-fold boot-
strapping and a confidence margin of 95%. It is less detailed, containing only
the information that is unlikely to be due to chance. This graph, again, confirms
the close proximity of the Eastern Slavic original and translations, as well as the
other groups that are expected as a base line: the Serbian and Polish alternate
translations and the Czech and the Slovak text. Moreover, the differences be-
tween Croatian and Serbian have, as expected, diminished, as has the distance
of Macedonian and Serbian. The graph now displays a central group of texts in
former Yugoslav languages excluding Slovenian, with Croatian tending towards
the Western Group. The Bulgarian text, in contrast, stands apart and nearer to
the East Slavic versions than the other South Slavic languages. The Polish transla-
tions, finally, stand closest to the Eastern Group; this is in accordance with Benac-
chio’s (2010) findings. Note that the fact that the Polish translations are nearer to
the Russian text than Bulgarian is not expected in the light of Dickey’s more gen-
eral assessment of Bulgarian as a member of the Eastern aspectual group (which,
however, does not explicitly address aspect use in the imperative).
Results and outlook

The present study has presented an empirical, corpus driven approach towards
the comparative analysis of aspect in in the imperative. It takes departure from
a given corpus and explicit procedures. Its results are therefore in principle re-
producible, and an important direction for further study is the validation and
exploration of this method using other texts and categories.
The results attained are preliminary, but encouraging: in broad terms, the
study supports the validity of a basic division of Slavic languages on the basis of
aspectual functions in an Eastern and an Western group. However, its results also
call into question the dichotomy of such a division: if there are so many inter-
mediate positions, what does this entail for the qualitative analysis of the aspect
category across Slavic? Are we really dealing with mixtures of two cognitive con-
cepts underlying the Western and Eastern aspectual systems, or is there perhaps
a much more varied picture of a multitude of micro-functions that still need to be
explored? It stands to reason that a principled assessment of a panslavic parallel

corpus such as ParaSol may have much to tell here.
The analysis of translations for contrastive studies usually involves a hypoth-
esis of equivalence across language versions: we pretend to be dealing with the
very same contexts in different languages. However, this hypothesis is quite un-
tenable, and using translated texts for the study of grammatical categories is al-
ways a problematic enterprise: translated texts are different from originally pro-
duced texts both due to priming by the language of their original sources as well
as by universals of translated texts (Mauranen 2008).
The present study shows that using multiple translations and many languages
can serve to balance these effects: if translations into closely related varieties
coincide in aspect use, this can be taken as an argument for the significance of
these cases for tendencies that go beyond a specific variety. However, this, as
well as other methodological issues pertinent to such an approach are left to be
explored in further research.
acknowledgments
Thanks are due to audiences at the BeLing colloquium, at The Russian Verb con-
ference in St.Petersburg and at Slavicorp in Warsaw as well as to the anonymous
reviewer. I would like to thank Bernhard Wälchli for our valuable discussions of
the method and data reported in this paper. All errors are, needless to say, mine.
references
Barentsen, Adrian. 1998. Признак ‹‹секвентая связь›› и видовое противопос-
тавление в русском языке. In М.Ю.Черткова (ed.), Типология вида: проблемы,
поиски, решения, 43–58. Москва: Языки русской культуры.
Barentsen, Adrian. 2008. Выражение последовательности действий при повто-

ряемости в прошлом в современных славянских языках [The expression of
the sequentiality of repeated actions in the past in the modern Slavic languages].
In Dutch Contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid: Lin-
guistics, 1–36. Amsterdam - New York: Rodopi.
Benacchio, Rosanna. 2004. Глагольный вид в императиве в южнославянских

языках. In Сокровенные мысли. Слово. Текст. Культура., 267–275. Москва.
Benacchio, Rosanna. 2005. Глагольный вид в императиве в чешском и

словацком языках. In Язык. Личность. Текст. Сборник статей к 70-летию Т.М.
Николаевой, 191–200. Москва.
Benacchio, Rosanna. 2010. Вид и категория вежливости в славянском императиве.

Сравнительный анализ. München, Berlin: Kubon und Sagner.
Dickey, S.M. & S.C. Kresin. 2009. Verbal aspect and negation in Russian and Czech.
Russian Linguistics 33(2). 121–176.
Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect. A cognitive approach. Stanford:

CSLI Publications.
Hansen, Björn. 2004. The grammaticalization of the analytical imperatives in Rus-

sian, Polish and Serbian/Croatian. Die Welt der Slaven 49. 257–274.
Huson, D. H. & D. Bryant. 2006. Application of Phylogenetic Networks in Evolution-

ary Studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23. 254–267.
Mauranen, Anna. 2008. Universal Tendencies in Translation. In G. Anderman &

M. Rogers (eds.), Incorporating Corpora. The Linguist and the Translator, 32–48. Cleve-
don.
Петрухина, Елена. 2000. Аспектуальные категории глагола в русском языке в

сопоставлении с чешским, словацким, польским и болгарским языками. Москва.
Храковский, В.С & А.П. Володин. 1986. Семантика и типология императива.

Русский императив. Ленинград: Наука.
von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. 2006. Compiling a parallel corpus of Slavic languages.

Text strategies, tools and the question of lemmatization in alignment. In
B. Brehmer, V. Ždanova & R. Zimny (eds.), Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen
Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 9, 123–138. München.
Wiemer, Björn. 2008. Zur innerslavischen Variation bei der Aspektwahl und der
Gewichtung ihrer Faktoren. In K. Gutschmidt, U. Jekutsch, S. Kempgen &
L. Udolph (eds.), Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongreß, Ohrid 2008
(Die Welt der Slaven. Sammelbände / Sborniki 30), 383–409. München: Sagner.

sources
ParaSol is developed as a joint project of the Slavic institutes of the Universities of
Bern, Switzerland and Regensburg, Germany. Head of the project and the Bern team
is Ruprecht von Waldenfels; head of the Regensburg team is Roland Meyer.
See parasol.unibe.ch and www.korpus.uni-r.de/ParaSol
Corpus texts:
Bulgarian (Л. Минкова): Михаил Булгаков, Майстора и Маргарита. Sofija, 1989.

Belarusian (А. Жук): Міхаіл Булгакаў, Майстар і Маргарыта. Minsk, 1994.
Czech (A. Morávková): Michail Bulgakov, Mistr a Markétka. Praha, 1980.
Croatian (A.V. Flaker): Mihail Bulgakov, Majstor i Margarita. Zagreb, 1993.
Macedonian (Т. Угрошевиќ): Михаил Булгаков, Мајсторот и Маргарита. Skopje,
2006.
Polish (I.Lewandowska, W. Dąbrowski): Michaił Bułhakow, Mistrz i Małgorzata. War-
saw, 1969.
Polish (A. Drawicz): Michaił Bułhakow, Mistrz i Małgorzata. Wrocław, 1995.
Russian: Михаил Булгаков, Мастер и Маргарита. 1938.
Slovak (M. Takáčová): Michail Bulgakov, Majster a Margaréta. Bratislava, 2002
Slovene (J. Gradišnik): Mihail Bulgakov, Mojster in Margareta. Ljubljana, 1987.
Serbian (M. Čopić): Mihail Bulgakov, Majstor i Margarita. Beograd 1985.
Serbian (Z. Kocić): Mihail Bulgakov, Majstor i Margarita. Beograd, 1998.
Ukrainian (М. Білорус): Михайло Булгаков, Майстер і Марґарита. Харків, 2006.
Ruprecht von Waldenfels
Institut für Slavische Sprachen und Literaturen
Universität Bern
Länggassstrasse 49, 3000 Bern 9
Switzerland
ruprecht.waldenfels@issl.unibe.ch

(ISSN 1890-9639)
distribution of two semelfactives

in russian: -nu- and -anu-
JULIA KUZNETSOVA AND ANASTASIA MAKAROVA
University of Tromsø
abstract
Russian semelfactive verbs formed with the suffix -nu- are well-known in
the literature (Isachenko 1960; Maslov 1948, 1965; Zaliznjak & Šmelev 2000).
However, the distribution between two semelfactive suffixes -nu- and -anu-
is less studied. Makarova & Janda (2009, 90) suggest that “there is no clear
trend concerning the frequency of -nu- vs. -anu-”, so the nature of the dis-
tribution between the two semelfactive suffixes remains unresolved. In this
paper we explore 2041 semelfactive verbs from the Russian National Cor-
pus (RNC1 ) produced with the two suffixes and show that: 1) distribution of
the two suffixes partly depends on the number of the syllables in the base, 2)
suffix -anu- is more recent and most monosyllabic roots are currently under-
going a shift from -nu- to -anu-, and 3) prefixed verbs most frequently choose
the -nu- semelfactive suffix, because the pairing of a prefix and a root func-
tions as multisyllabic base. These principles function as tendencies and we
do not postulate a clear-cut division. This paper is written within the theo-
retical framework of Cognitive Linguistics, which allows us to fully capture
the complex distribution of the two suffixes.
[1.1] Background
The general consensus in the linguistic literature (Vinogradov 1938; Bondarko
1971; Townsend 1975; Švedova et al. 1980; Zaliznjak & Šmelev 2000) is that verbs
with non-disappearing -nu- can denote semelfactive situations. Semelfactive is
a type of Aktionsarten which refers to “one “quantum” of activity, described by
the base verb”2 (Zaliznjak & Šmelev 2000, 118), where a base verb denotes a series
of multiple uniform actions, e.g. the base verb stučat’ ‘knock’ and its semelfactive
derivative stuknut’ ‘knock once’. Such verbs often refer to simple physical actions,
acoustic or optical phenomena (Zaliznjak & Šmelev 2000, 118), e.g. prygnut’ ‘jump’,
kriknut’ ‘shout once’, sverknut’ ‘flash once’.
The -nu- suffixation model is very productive, especially for spontaneous and
highly colloquial speech, and many such nu-verbs are expressive (Švedova et al.
[1] www.ruscorpora.ru
[2] «один «квант» деятельности, описываемой исходным глаголом» (Translation ours – JK, AM).
[156] kuznetsova & makarova
1980). Zelenin (2007, 99-100) points out that a large number of semelfactives in
-nu- appeared in Russian during and soon after the 1917 Revolution. Zelenin em-
phasizes that this could be connected not only to the expressiveness of -nu-, but
also to the high overall dynamism of that period in the Russian history. Even more
expressivity is associated with a modification of the -nu- suffix, namely -anu-,
e.g. stučat’ ‘knock’ - stuknut’ ‘knock once’ - stukanut’ ‘knock once with force’ (Šve-
dova et al. 1980, § 840; Townsend 1975, 105).
Recent articles have shown that the -nu-/-anu- distribution is more complex
and expressivity is not the only factor. Plungjan (2000, 218) points out that there
are several3 morphemes with identical meaning and that their distribution is
complementary depending on verbal stems, but admits that sometimes the distri-
bution is free. There are verbs that allow the formation of both types of semelfac-
tives (around 50% according to the database referred to in Dickey & Janda (2009)
and Makarova & Janda (2009)), while others only allow one of the two suffixes.
Moreover, even in cases where both forms (with -nu- and with -anu-) are attest-
ed, the choice of affix has consequences for further derivation. The -nu- suffix
allows further derivation, while -anu- blocks such derivation, cf. xlebat’-xlebnut’-
otxlebnut’, xlebat’-xlebanut’-*otxlebanut’ ‘slurp’ (Makarova & Janda 2009). In this ar-
ticle we explore the factors that govern the distribution of the two semelfactive
suffixes and their derivational capacities.
[1.2] -anu- vs. -a- plus -nu-

There is some controversy as to what should be recognized as the suffix
-anu-. The problem concerns semelfactives produced from base verbs that be-
long to the -aj- morphological subclass, such as kašljanut’ ‘cough’. These verbs
already contain -a- as a part of their stem, so the -anu- sequence can be described
either as the suffix -anu- or as the suffix -nu- added to a stem with a final -a- (j is
truncated by -nu-). The second approach is taken by Švedova et al. (1980, § 836),
who do not find it reasonable to analyze these examples as containing the -anu-
suffix. Švedova et al. choose between -nu- and -anu- semelfactive suffixes using
presence/absence of expressivity as a decisive factor. The expressive verbs are
recognized as having the -anu- suffix, while non-expressive have the -nu- suffix.
For the purposes of this paper we always analyze a sequence -anu- as the suffix
-anu-, we believe that synchronically it is reasonable to analyze all semelfactives
including [anu] as having the -anu- suffix, and not -a- as a stem-final vowel and
-nu- as a semelfactive formant, because other stem-final vowels never combine
with the -nu- suffix. We never attest forms like *grešinut’ ‘sin once’, *krutinut’ ‘turn
once’, *svistenut’ ‘whistle once’ with -inu-, -enu- or other suffixes, although the
base verbs grešit’ ‘sin’, krutit’ ‘turn’, and svistet’ ‘whistle’ have stem-final vowels.
[3] In addition to -nu- and -anu-, his list contains several circumfixes consisting of a prefix and the suffix
-nu-, such as the pro-…-nu- circumfix that appears in prostirnut’ ‘wash clothes once’.

semelfactives in russian [157]
In other words, stems of other morphological classes show that a stem-final vowel
is always truncated before -nu-, so it is only natural to assume that the stem-final
-a- shows the same behavior. This article explores the synchronic distribution
of the -nu- and -anu- suffixes, and the origin of -anu- is beyond the scope of the
present study.
[1.3] Morphological and semantic classes of the verbs

The morphological and semantic classes of a base verb play an important role in
the distribution of the semelfactive affixes. For the first time this correlation was
explicitly stated and statistically proven in the paper by Dickey & Janda (2009),
who analyze the distribution of two types of semelfactives, those produced with
the suffix -nu-4 and the prefix s-, e.g. krjaknut’ ‘quack once’, s”jazvit’ ‘be sarcas-
tic once’. Dickey & Janda (2009) argue that these two perfectivizing affixes are
not randomly distributed, and their distribution is governed by two factors: the
morphological class of the base verb and its semantic class. They show that the
distribution is close to complementary.
The same two factors are explored in the experimental research by Makaro-
va (2009) for the -nu- and -anu- semelfactive suffixes. Her experiment obtained
semelfactives from informants for real and non-existing (nonce) Russian verbs.
The total number of forms with -nu- and -anu-, along with the semantic class of
the base verb is presented in Table 1 on the following page. Semantic tagging
follows the RNC assignment of semantic classes5 .
As we see in the Table 1, the total number of anu-forms produced by the in-
formants is relatively high, although formations with -nu- are three times as fre-
quent. We also see in Table 1 that the various verb classes behave differently.
Only morphological classes -aj, -*ě-, -i-, -ova- allow anu-forms, and they are quite
rare for the -i- class. No anu-forms are registered for *-ěj- stems at all.
The informants strongly preferred -anu- when forming semelfactives from the
ova-class. For -aj- class the informants produced both -nu- and anu-semelfactives,
but for only one of the nonce verbs the number of anu-forms was notably high-
er than the number of nu-forms. For other verb classes the informants produced
nu-semelfactives almost exclusively. Makarova (2009, 73) offers several possible
explanations for the observed distribution. The first explanation is phonotactic:
for verbs ending in -ova- and -aj- adding the -anu- suffix seems logical and natu-
ral, because the verbal stem already contains the /а/ vowel6 . The other possible
[4] Dickey & Janda (2009) do not make a distinction between -nu- and -anu- semelfactives.
[5] Where the meaning of a nonce verb cannot be unambiguously identified from the context there are either
several options or a question mark.
[6] One could argue that for such verbs it is illegitimate to posit the -anu- suffix, because it is hard to draw
a boundary between the semelfactive suffix and the stem suffixes. The high number of -nu- forms for
the same verbs, however, speaks in favor of the legitimacy of the -anu- analysis. This means that the
informants in the experiment had a choice.

stem verb -anu- -nu- semantic class

-aj- trjadát’ 5 36 ?
lavkát’ 8 48 ?
bópat’ 1 42 impact
gezát’ 33 26 impact
mljatát’ 7 43 impact
tlikát’ 0 61 sound
gljasát’ 2 28 impact
*-ě- bisét’ 3 9 ?
mídet’ 4 31 ?
fidét’ 6 14 sound/speech
tipét’ 4 16 impact/move
škapét’ 1 11 behav
brjadét’ 0 12 impact
-i- djubít’ 1 12 speech/behav
gazít’ 3 24 behav
lutít’ 2 3 move/possess
losít’ 0 6 move
grádit’ 2 15 impact/speech
drépit’ 1 6 impact
-ova- bazovát’ 24 20 impact/sound/speech
biktovát’ 30 13 impact
tintovát’ 39 8 impact
limovát’ 5 4 impact
mylovát’ 4 14 impact
devnovát’ 3 43 impact/sound
*-ěj- talét’ 0 11 move
plasnét’ 0 12 move
tirét’ 0 2 physiol
dorét’ 0 8 speech/behav
Total 188 578
table 1: Number of forms with -nu- and -anu-, obtained from the informants.

factor that has an impact on the appearance of -anu- is the context the verb was
used in, and semantic class of the verb. The highest percentage of -anu- forms is
obtained for the verbs of the impact semantic class (note that most of the verbs in
the -ova- and -aj- morphological classes, unlike other classes, belong to the seman-
tic class impact), and additionally some of them are used in an expressive context
containing phrases like tak sil’no ‘so much’, neožidanno rezko i gromko ‘unexpect-
edly abruptly and loudly’, izo vsex sil ‘with all one’s strength’. These two factors
(membership in a semantic class and expressive context) are not easily separable,
since in all test items they were presented concurrently.
Thus, we see that the morphological and semantic classes of the verb are im-
portant factors in the distribution of various types of the semelfactive verbs in
Russian. In this study we show that these two factors are not the only ones that
affect the distribution of -nu- and -anu-. On the contrary other factors are more
powerful in predicting which of the two suffixes produces a semelfactive from a
given base verb.
[2] a n a l y s i s
This section is structured as follows. First, we present the data collected for this
study. Then we discuss the distribution of semelfactive suffixes produced from
unprefixed base verbs. We show that the distribution is restricted by the number
of syllables in the base and the structure of the coda for the monosyllabic bases
[2.2]. We also demonstrate that doublets – pairs of semelfactives produced using
both suffixes -nu- and -anu- from the same verbal root – have a diachronically
skewed distribution [2.3]. Finally, we discuss the distribution of prefixed stems
[2.4].
[2.1] The data

Our research aims at finding explanations for the distribution of the two affixes.
We created a database containing 2041 semelfactives culled from the RNC. This
sampling represents all examples of semelfactives in -nu- or -anu- attested in the
RNC. All previous research only dealt with smaller databases. The database de-
scribed in Dickey & Janda (2009) has 296 verbs culled from Švedova et al. (1980),
Zaliznjak (1980) and the “Exploring Emptiness” database developed at the Univer-
sity of Tromsø7 . The database compiled for Makarova & Janda (2009) contained
only 322 nu-semelfactives. The RNC allowed us to find not only most of the se-
melfactives listed in Švedova et al. (1980), Zaliznjak (1980), but also many others,
including recent occasional formations and neologisms such as snikersnut’ ‘eat a
“Snickers”’. Not only is the RNC the source for the database, but it is also a tool
[7] emptyprefixes.uit.no

for our further research on the diachronic distribution of the semelfactives (see
below in section [2.3])8 .
Of the 2041 semelfactives attested in the RNC 1876 use -nu- and 165 use anu-
forms: 66 bases form semelfactives with both -nu- and -anu-, 99 verbs form se-
melfactives with -anu- exclusively, and 1810 verbs form semelfactives with -nu-
exclusively.
[2.2] Phonological distribution

Multi- vs. monosyllabic base
The semelfactive suffixes -nu- and -anu- show a split driven by the phonological
characteristics of the base, which we can state as:
the syllabic rule: A multisyllabic base has a preference for the -nu-
semelfactive suffix, while a monosyllabic base tends to use the -anu-
semelfactive suffix.
Generally number of syllables is an important factor in the distribution of allo-

morphs across languages. English deadjectival verbs produced from color terms
reveal the importance of this parameter: monosyllabic adjectives form verbs by
adding -en (whiten, redden, blacken), while the multisyllabic adjectives cannot form
verbs by adding -en (*yellowen, *orangen), see (Halle 1973; Michaels 1977). There
are also opposite cases attested: in Norwegian, for instance, the formation of plu-
ral neuter nouns is dependent on the number of syllables in the base. Monosyllab-
ic stems can receive a zero affix, while multisyllabic receive the regular -er affix,
see barn(SG) – barn(PL) ‘child’, and prosjekt(SG) - prosjekter(PL) ‘project’ (for more
details see Faarlund et al. (1997, 160–173)). Multi- vs. monosyllabicity is also a
factor in the distribution of the Dutch diminutives, where the choice between -kje
and -etje suffixes depends on the number of syllables in the base (Souman & Gillis
2007, 186).
Some examples of Russian semelfactive verbs with mono- and multisyllab-
ic bases can be seen in Table 2 on the next page. The syllabic rule takes into
account the phonetic, but not orthographic form of a word, which can be indi-
cated by the verb ppksnut’ ‘fully agree once’ (abbreviation from podpisyvajus’ pod
každym slovom ‘subscribe to each word’). This verb’s base on the orthographic lev-
el does not contain any vowels, while at the phonetic level it contains four vowels:
[pepekaesnut’]. Since this verb uses the suffix -nu-, this is evidence in support of
the hypothesis that the phonetic, but not orthographic form of the word is im-
portant for the production of the semelfactive. Our database contains 156 verbs
with a multisyllabic root; all of them form a semelfactive using the suffix -nu-. In
[8] We deliberately decided not to include a few verbs that are present in the dictionaries, but do not appear
in the corpus, because they do not reflect actual usage. For example, the verb atuknut’ ‘say tally-ho’
appears in Zaliznjak’s dictionary, but is not attested in the corpus.

Appendix B the reader can find a list of all verbs with multisyllabic roots found in
the RNC.
One syllable base Semelfactives Two or more syllable base Semelfactives

with suffix with suffix
-anu- -nu-
grab- ‘rob’ grabanut’ babax- ‘bang’ babaxnut’
krut- ‘turn’ krutanut’ kukarek- ‘crow’ kukareknut’
gaz- ‘speed’ gazanut’ murlyk- ‘purr’ murlyknut’
psix- ‘be hysterical’ psixanut’ kuvyr- ‘somersault’ kuvyrnut’
šik- ‘show off’ šikanut’ xoxot- ‘laugh loudly’ xoxotnut’
dolb- ‘hollow’ dolbanut’ carap- ‘scratch’ carapnut’
table 2: Examples of the phonological distribution of semelfactive suffixes.
Verbs that have recently appeared in Russian follow the syllabic rule: mul-
tisyllabic bases form semelfactives using -nu-, while monosyllabic bases form se-
melfactives using -anu-. Table 3 shows several verbs that recently appeared in
the corpus (the year of the first appearance in the corpus is shown in the last
column of the table). As we see, monosyllabic bases xelp- ‘help’, faks- ‘fax’ and
ring- ‘ring-’ produce semelfactives with the suffix -anu-, while multisyllabic bases
snikers- ‘Snickers’ and tolkin- ‘Tolkien’ produce semelfactives with the suffix -nu-.
semelfactive gloss base suffix year

xelpanut’ ‘help’ xelp- -anu- 2004
faksanut’ ‘fax’ faks- -anu- 2000
ringanut’ ‘ring’ ring- -anu- 2000
snikersnut’ ‘eat a “Snickers”’ snikers- -nu- 2000
tolkinut’sja ‘go crazy and become an avid fan tolkin- -nu- 1997
of J.R.R. Tolkien’
table 3: Recently produced semelfactives with their year of appearance in the

RNC.
Thus, we can conclude that the choice of the semelfactive suffix depends on
the number of syllables in the base. Multisyllabic bases choose the suffix -nu-; this
fact can be explained by the tendency towards having fewer syllables in the re-
sulting verb. However, monosyllabic bases occur with both suffixes -nu- and -anu-,
so suffix distribution with monosyllabic bases requires further investigation.
Coda consonant cluster

In this section we discuss the distribution of the two semelfactive suffixes with
monosyllabic bases. This distribution depends on the structure of the coda of
the base. We show that verbs with a one-consonant coda like nyr- ‘dive’ and krut-
‘turn’ have equal distributions of -nu- and -anu- (i.e. semelfactive verbs like nyrnut’
‘dive once’ and krutanut’ ‘turn once’ are equally probable), while bases with two
consonant clusters like pisk- ‘squeak’ and zvezd- ‘thwack’ have a preference for the
-anu- suffix (i.e. semelfactives like zvezdanut’ ‘thwack once’ occur more frequently
than semelfactives like pisknut’ ‘squeak once’). The presence of the consonant
cluster is also mentioned by Markov (1970) as a possible factor that triggers the
appearance of the -anu- suffix. In this paper this hypothesis is elaborated and
supported by quantitative evidence.
Table 4 on the next page presents the distribution of the -nu- and -anu- suffix-
es according to the type of coda in the monosyllabic base. Among the verbs with a
monosyllabic base in our database there are 1324 verbs with a one-consonant co-
da. 1217 of these verbs produce semelfactives with the suffix -nu- (this is 65% of all
semelfactives with the suffix -nu-) and 107 verbs produce semelfactives with the
suffix -anu- (66% of all semelfactives with the suffix -anu-). Thus we see that verbs
with a one-consonant cluster coda show the same distribution between -nu- and
-anu- as all semelfactive verbs in our database. The chi-square test shows that the
difference is not statistically significant (chi-square = 0.01, df = 1, P = 0.92)9 .
However, if we compare verbs with two-consonant cluster codas, we see that from
the 437 such verbs in our database, 379 produce semelfactives using the suffix
-nu- (20% of all -nu-semelfactives) and 58 produce semelfactives using -anu- (36%
of all -anu-semelfactives). So the distribution of the two suffixes is notably dif-
ferent for verbs with two consonant cluster codas. If the distribution of 437 two-
consonant coda verbs were the same as the overall distribution, there would be
402 nu-semelfactives and 32 anu-semelfactives among them. The observed distri-
bution is significantly different from this prediction: the chi-square test shows
P = 0.03 (chi-square = 4.76, df = 1). Therefore we can conclude that the distri-
bution of the two suffixes is governed by:
the consonant cluster rule: Having two consonants in the coda of

a monosyllabic base increases the chance that the -anu- semelfactive
suffix will be used.
In other words, Russian tends to break up the potential consonant clusters you
get with the -nu- suffix by using the anu-variant of the semelfactive suffix. The
choice of the allomorphs based on the structure of the consonant cluster is not
unique for the distribution of -nu- and -anu-. Other Russian allomorphic affixes
[9] According to standard practice, we assume that the difference is significant if P < 0.05.

-nu- -anu- % of -nu- % of -anu- P

(number (number (chi-square
of verbs) of verbs) test)
total 1876 163 100 100

(C)VC 1217 107 65 66 0,92
(C)VCC 379 48 20 30 0,03
table 4: Number of monosyllabic bases with one and two consonants in the coda9 .
where the choice depends on the presence and structure of the consonant cluster
can be exemplified by -c-/-ec- distribution in plural forms and oblique singular
forms. If a base ends in one consonant the variant -c- is used, while if the base ends
in two-consonant cluster the -ec- variant of the suffix is chosen: žil’-c-a ‘tenant-
g.sg’ vs. begl-ec-a ‘runaway-g.sg’. The same factor is reported to influence the
formation of Russian imperative: in stressed stems bases ending in one consonant
are opposed to the bases ending in a consonant cluster: bros’-∅ vs. krikn-i (see
Nesset 2008, 157ff for more details).
[2.3] Diachronic distribution: -nu-/-anu- doublets

In this section we claim that the distribution of the two semelfactive suffixes with
unprefixed one-syllable bases also depends on a diachronic factor. While nowa-
days the distribution between new semelfactives produced with -nu- and -anu- is
purely phonological and depends on the number of syllables, prior to the appear-
ance of the semelfactive suffix -anu- only one semelfactive suffix existed. There-
fore at that period all semelfactives regardless of the phonological structure of
their base were produced using the suffix -nu-. However since the suffix -anu-
started to function as a separate semelfactive affix, competition between the two
affixes began. Currently we can observe the competition in the domain of one-
syllable bases, where semelfactives are shifting from the suffix -nu- to the suffix
-anu-. The shift from the -nu- to the -anu- semelfactive suffix can be best shown
by examining the doublets – pairs of semelfactives produced from the same base
with both suffixes, e.g. rubnut’-rubanut’ ‘chop once’. For most doublets the peak
of anu-use is in the last quarter of the twentieth century. This tendency can be
shown on a chart, for example Figure 1 on the following page showing the dis-
tribution of reznut’ and rezanut’ ‘cut once’. The number of examples of each verb
is summed for each 25-year period from 1775 to 1999. Note that this means that
the data from the period between years 2000 and 2006 attested in the corpus is
not present on the chart. Each dot of the solid line on the figure shows how many
[9] The numbers in the third and fourth rows do not add up to the numbers in the second row, because the
data on all semelfactives also includes three consonant cluster codas as well as open syllables.

figure 1: Verbs reznut’ and rezanut’ ‘cut once’: diachronic distribution (occur-
rences).
occurrences of the form rezanut’ are found in the RNC for that period of 25 years.
Each dot of the dashed line shows how many examples of reznut’ are found for the
same period.
Reznut’ has its peak of occurrences in the first quarter of the 20th century,
while rezanut’ has less than 10 examples per 25 years up until 1925. However,
in the second quarter of the 20th century we see a notable increase in anu-uses,
while at the same time we observe a decrease of nu-uses. In the last two quarters
rezanut’ predominates over reznut’.
Another doublet rugnut’-ruganut’ ‘swear once’ (see Figure 2 on the next page)
also shows us that at an earlier period (1800-1849) the nu-variant was used more
often. The period between 1850 and 1874 shows equal numbers of attestations of
rugnut’ and ruganut’ in the corpus. After that ruganut’ strongly predominates over
rugnut’.
Thus, for two doublets: reznut’-rezanut’ and rugnut’-ruganut’ we see a shift from
the nu-variant to the anu-variant. However for many of the verbs this method
cannot be used, since the number of occurrences of one of the verbs is too low for
comparison. This can be illustrated on the example of the pair pugnut’-puganut’
‘scare once’. The verb pugnut’ is more frequent in the corpus; it has 127 occur-
rences as opposed to only nineteen for puganut’. Thus we do not have enough
data to compare the distribution of the -nu- and anu-variants using number of oc-
currences for each 25-year period. For such cases we propose another method of
figure 2: Verbs rugnut’ and ruganut’ ‘swear once’: diachronic distribution (occur-
rences).
comparison: we calculate the mean of the years when the examples are attested.
This method allows us to study diachronic distribution even when the available
data is limited. The average year shows, for instance, that most of the uses of
puganut’ belong to the end of the twentieth century (mean of the years is 1987),
while most of the examples of pugnut’ are registered significantly earlier (mean
of the years is 1921). Thus although the number of occurrences is higher for the
nu-variant, the anu-variant is more recent.
It has to be noted here that average of the years of occurrence can be used only
as a relative measure, not as an absolute one. This means that we can compare the
diachronic distribution of the two forms and conclude that one of them is more
recent than the other. However, the number of texts for each period in the RNC is
not balanced and the corpus has more data for the period between 1950 and 2006
than for the earlier periods. For these reasons the mean of years for pugnut’ – year
1921 – does not really tell us when the verb pugnut’ was most frequently used. It
might have been used most in the 19th century, but the data in the corpus would
not allow us to confirm that because there is not enough data for that period. We
are more confident about the average of the years of uses of puganut’ since all of
them occur in the 20th century which is better exemplified in the corpus. But
we can be sure that the average of the years of occurrence for pugnut’ (1921) and
for puganut’ (1987) indicate a difference in the relative distribution of these two
forms over time.
There are all together sixty-six -nu-/-anu- doublets found in the RNC. For fifty-
eight of them the average of the years for the nu-variant is lower than or equal
to the average of the years for the anu-variant. The list of doublets and their
average years of occurrence can be seen in Appendix A. Thus we can conclude that
modern Russian is undergoing a shift from nu-semelfactives to anu-semelfactives
for monosyllabic bases.
[2.4] Prefixes
Three hypotheses for prefixed semelfactives
Above we discussed the behavior of unprefixed stems. We have shown that their
distribution can be mostly explained by phonological factors: monosyllabic bases
tend to use the anu-semelfactive suffix, while multisyllabic bases tend to use the
suffix -nu-. Now we turn to prefixed stems and observe how semelfactive suffixes
are distributed with these stems.
There are 1225 prefixed verbs in our database and nearly all of these verbs use
the semelfactive suffix -nu-. There are only three exceptions – where a verb that
contains a prefix uses the semelfactive suffix -anu-. All three such verbs contain
the prefix s-. These verbs are: s-šib-anu-t’ ‘knock down’, s-blev-anu-t’ ‘throw up
once’, and s-ygr-anu-t’ ‘play once’10 . Therefore we can say that with the exception
of these three verbs the distribution of the two suffixes is determined by:
the prefix rule: Prefixed bases choose the semelfactive suffix -nu-.
Sixteen out of nineteen verbal prefixes contain a vowel. Only the prefixes s-, v-
and vz- do not contain a vowel. This suggests that the behavior of prefixed bases
is not that different from the behavior of unprefixed bases. If a prefix contains a
vowel, it automatically transforms a prefixed base into a multisyllabic base, which
as we know always uses the semelfactive suffix -nu-. Thus the behavior of prefixed
bases with prefixes containing a vowel follows from the distribution of monosyl-
labic vs. multisyllabic bases. We only have to account for the bases with non-
syllabic prefixes which show the same preference for the semelfactive suffix -nu-
and explain why three exceptions with prefix s- are possible. We offer three hy-
potheses that can explain the behavior of bases with non-syllabic prefixes in the
derivation of the semelfactive: these hypotheses can be called the mobile vowel
hypothesis, the morphological boundary hypothesis and the analogy hypothesis.
After discussing the explanatory power of each hypothesis we choose the last one:
the analogy hypothesis, which allows us to discard the prefix rule, since the dis-
tribution of the suffixes -nu- and -anu- with prefixed verbs is fully explained by
the syllabic rule and analogy.
[10] One might argue that the verb skazanut’ ‘say once’ that belongs to the database also contains prefix s-.
However this verb has a fused root and is no longer divided into the prefix s- and the verb kaz- for the
speakers of modern Russian, so it will not be discussed.

The mobile vowel hypothesis states that in a prefix ending in a consonant

there is always a mobile vowel -o-. Etymologically this vowel is derived from a yer,
since the prefix v- is derived from vъ-, vz- is derived from vъz- and s- is derived
from sъ- (see Vasmer 1964). In modern Russian this vowel can still be seen in the
alternations of prefixes in the contexts of a vowel or a consonant cluster: see such
prefixed verbs as vo-jti ‘come in’, voz-nesti ‘praise’, so-edinit’ ‘unite’. The mobile
vowel hypothesis explains the distribution of semelfactives produced from bases
with non-syllabic prefixes: according to this hypothesis a prefixed stem always
has two or more syllables, and therefore the distribution follows from the syllabic
rule. However this hypothesis is not able to account for the exceptions with prefix
s- produced with the suffix -anu-. Following this hypothesis we would have to
assume that any occurrence of the prefix s- contains a vowel, which would mean
that the base is multisyllabic and therefore has to choose the suffix -nu-.
The morphological boundary hypothesis states that morphological bound-
aries have effects on the phonological level. This effect can be seen for exam-
ple in the consonant clusters that occur in Russian only across a morphological
boundary and never within a morpheme. Such clusters as vzl in vz-lomat’ ‘break
open’ and vzgl’ in vz-gljanut’ ‘look once’ occur only when prefix vz- is attached to
a root starting with a consonant or a consonant cluster. No other words in Rus-
sian contain such clusters. This suggests that a morphological boundary plays
an important role on the phonological level, functioning not only as morphologi-
cal, but also as a phonological boundary. According to the morphological bound-
ary hypothesis the morphological boundary functions as a syllable boundary, so a
prefixed verb always contains at least two syllables, and therefore distribution of
the bases with non-syllabic suffix follows from the syllabic rule. This hypothesis
though, like the mobile vowel hypothesis, fails to account for the exceptions with
the prefix s- and the semelfactive suffix -anu-. According to the morphological
boundary hypothesis these words would have multisyllabic bases and therefore
would use the suffix -nu-.
The analogy hypothesis states that verbs with a syllabic prefix are subject to
the syllabic rule, while other prefixed verbal bases choose -nu- by analogy with
more frequent syllabic prefixes. This hypothesis though accounts for the strong
preference of prefixed bases for the -nu- suffix, allows some instability for the
bases with non-syllabic prefixes, since analogy may not always be followed. The
analogy hypothesis allows for the existence of exceptions such as sšibanut’ ‘knock
down’, sblevanut’ ‘throw up once’, and sygranut’ ‘play once’, though it does not ex-
plain why more exceptions to the rule are not attested. However, we are exploring
a new, developing phenomenon and the RNC might be too conservative to con-
tain new prefixed semelfactives with the -anu- suffix. If we turn to the Google
search engine, we can find more anu-semelfactives produced from bases with a
non-syllabic prefix. Table 5 on the following page shows examples of the verbs
verb gloss occurrences in Google

vpixanut’ ‘push in once’ 132
vlipanut’ ‘get into a mess once’ 2
vzletanut’ ‘fly up once’ 1
vzbrykanut’ ‘kick up once’ 7
sxlopanut’ ‘collapse once’ 2
stolkanut’ ‘clash together once’ 2
table 5: Examples of the prefixed -anu-semelfactives in Google.
that along with the regular semelfactive produced using the suffix -nu-, also oc-
casionally produce anu-variants. Thus, we can conclude that the behavior of pre-
fixed semelfactives is best accounted for by the analogy hypothesis.
[2.5] Derivational base of a prefixed semelfactive

Prefixed verbs with a semelfactive suffix raise another interesting question: from
which base are the prefixed semelfactives derived? There can be three possible
origins for the derivation: the prefixed semelfactive can be produced from the
base imperfective verb, the prefixed perfective verb, or the unprefixed semel-
factive verb. For example, the prefixed semelfactive otxlebnut’ ‘take a sip’ may
originate from the base imperfective xlebat’ ‘slurp’ using both the prefix ot- and
the semelfactive suffix -nu- at the same time, it can be derived from the prefixed
perfective otxlebat’ ‘slurp a part’ by adding the semelfactive suffix or it can be pro-
duced from the unprefixed semelfactive xlebnut’ ‘slurp once’ by prefixation. Dif-
ferent semelfactives show evidence for different types of derivational bases. First,
for the prefixed semelfactive vzgljanut’ ‘look once’ there exist the unprefixed se-
melfactive gljanut’ and the base imperfective gljadet’ ‘see’, but there is no prefixed
perfective *vzgljadet’. Thus vzgljanut’ shows us that prefixed semelfactives cannot
be derived from the prefixed perfective verb. Second, for the prefixed semelfac-
tive svergnut’ ‘overthrow’ there exists only the prefixed perfective verb svergat’,
and there is no unprefixed semelfactive *vergnut’ or imperfective base verb *ver-
gat’. Thus, svergnut’ shows that a prefixed semelfactive cannot be produced from
the unprefixed semelfactive and cannot be produced from a base imperfective
verb. Third, for the prefixed semelfactives vzdremnut’ ‘take a nap’ and vsplaknut’
‘have a little cry’ there exist neither prefixed perfective (*vzdremat’, *vsplakat’)
nor unprefixed semelfactive (*dremnut’, *plaknut’), so such prefixed semelfactives
can only be produced by circumfixation of a prefix together with a semelfactive
suffix. We can see that from the three possible derivational bases for the prefixed
semelfactive none of the forms can function as a derivational base for all prefixed
semelfactives. While we can propose that some verbs are produced via deriva-
tion (either through the unprefixed semelfactive: gljadet’>gljanut’>vzglajnut’ ‘look

once’ or through prefixed perfective: svergat>svergnut’ ‘overthrow’), for the se-
melfactives like vzdremnut’ ‘take a nap’ and vsplaknut’ ‘have a little cry’ we have to
conclude that the prefixed semelfactive functions as a morphological construc-
tion11 prefix-V-nu-t’ produced from a verbal root V and a verbal prefix using the
verbs like otxlebnut ‘take a sip’ and vzgljanut ‘look once’ as model even though
neither the prefixed verb, nor the unprefixed semelfactive exists in Russian.
Summing up, we can conclude that the four elements mentioned above – the
prefixed semelfactive, the base imperfective verb, the prefixed perfective verb,
and the unprefixed semelfactive form a family of related morphologic construc-
tions. These families differ in the size: some contain all four possible members,
while some have only the base imperfective verb and the prefixed semelfactive.
We formulated two rules that govern the distribution of the two Russian semel-
factive suffixes: the syllabic rule and the consonant cluster rule. We have shown
that the distribution of -nu- and -anu- suffixes is driven by phonological factors. A
crucial factor for the distribution is the number of the syllables of the base. Mul-
tisyllabic bases use the semelfactive suffix -nu-, while monosyllabic bases tend to
use the suffix -anu-. An additional factor in the distribution of the semelfactives
produced from a monosyllabic base is the structure of the coda. Monosyllabic
bases with a coda consonant cluster more frequently use the semelfactive suffix
-anu-. Currently monosyllabic bases are undergoing a shift from the -nu- to the
-anu- semelfactive suffix. This can be seen both from the behavior of new verbs in
the RNC and from -nu-/-anu- doublets (pairs of semelfactive verbs produced from
the same root with two different semelfactive suffixes). For most doublets the
anu-variant is more recent than the nu-variant. Most prefixed verb bases use the
semelfactive suffix -nu-, which for syllabic prefixes can be explained as a result of
a syllabic rule, while for non-syllabic prefixes is best explained by analogy. Some
prefixes form a circumfix together with the suffix -nu-, which signifies that prefix-
V-nu- functions as a morphological construction, and is derived neither from the
unprefixed semelfactive, nor from the prefixed perfective.
Our paper shows that the same factors govern synchronic and diachronic dis-
tribution. While the syllabic rule and the consonant rule are tendencies discernible
on the synchronic level, the doublet semelfactives also show that diachronic change
is governed by the same tendencies.
The rules formulated in this paper should be regarded as strong trends rather
than absolute principles. These trends can be observed as statistical tendencies.
Our findings are in agreement with Cognitive Linguistics where linguistic phe-
[11] We use the term “construction” as it is done within the theory of Construction Grammar (see Fillmore
1988; Goldberg 1995, 2006; Tomasello 2003; Fried & Boas 2005)

nomena are recognized as gradient rather than defined according to clear-cut

boundaries (Ross 1972; Lakoff 1973; Langacker 1986, 2008). We conclude that the
proposed analysis accounts best for variation among the two Russian semelfactive
suffixes and allows us to capture the diachronic shift from -nu- to -anu-.
references
Bondarko, A.V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Moscow: Prosveščenie.
Dickey, S.M. & L.A. Janda. 2009. Xoxotnul, sxitril: The relationship between semel-
factives fromed with -nu- and s- in Russian. Russian Linguistics 33(3). 229–248.
Faarlund, J.T., S. Lie & K.I. Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Uni-
versitetsforlaget.
Fillmore, Ch.J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. In S. Axmaker,
A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of
the Berkeley Linguistics Society., 35–55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fried, M. & H.C. Boas. 2005. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, vol. 4.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E. 2006. Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4.
3–16.
Isachenko, A.V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim.
Bratislava: Izdatel’stvo Slovatskoi Akademii nauk.
Lakoff, G. 1973. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology
game. In C. Corum, T.C. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (eds.), Papers from the 9th Meet-
ing of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
Langacker, R. 1986. An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science 10(1).
1–40.
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Makarova, A. 2009. Psycholinguistics evidence for allomorphy in Russian Semelfactives.
University of Tromsø, unpublished MA thesis. Available at: http://www.ub.
uit.no/munin/handle/10037/2377.
Makarova, A. & L.A. Janda. 2009. Do It Once: A Case Study of the Russian -nu-
Semelfactives. Scando-Slavica 55. 78–99.
Markov, V.M. 1970. Problema formirovanija samostojatel’nyx morfem na osnove

protivopostavlenija fonetičeskix variantov. In Voprosy grammatičeskogo stroja
russkogo jazyka, 3–20. Kazan’: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta.
Maslov, Ju.S. 1948. Vid i leksičeskoe značenie glagola v russkom jazyke. Izvestija
Akademii Nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i jazyka 7(4). 303–316.
Maslov, Ju.S. 1965. Sistema osnovnyx ponjatij i terminov slavjanskoj aspektologii.

Voprosy obščego jazykoznanija 53–80.
Michaels, D. 1977. Linguistic Relativity and Colour Terminology. Language and

Speech 20. 333–343.
Nesset, T. 2008. Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model. Cognitive Linguistics and the
Morphology-Phonology Interface. Foreign Language Study. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Plungjan, V.A. 2000. ‘BYSTRO’ v grammatike russkogo i drugix jazykov. In Slovo

v tekste i slovare: Sb. st. k 70-letiju akademika Ju.D. Apresjana, 212–223. Moscow:
Ross, J.R. 1972. The category squish: Endstation hauptwort. In P.M. Peranteau,
J.N. Levi & G.C. Phares (eds.), Papers from the 8th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society, 316–338. Chicago.
Souman, A. & S. Gillis. 2007. A longitudinal study of acqusition of diminutives

in Dutch. In I. Savickeenė & W. Dressler (eds.), The Acquisition of Diminutives. A
cross-linguistic perspective, 183–206. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: a usage based theory of language acqui-

sition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Townsend, C.E. 1975. Russian Word-formation. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers,

Inc.
Vasmer, M. 1964. Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Progress.
Vinogradov, V.V. 1938. Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove.

Moscow: Učpedgiz.
Švedova, N.Ju. et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika vol. I. Moscow: Akademija nauk
SSSR.
Zaliznjak, A.A. 1980. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
Zaliznjak, A.A. & A.D. Šmelev. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju. Moscow:
Zelenin, A.V. 2007. Jazyk russkoj emigrantskoj pressy (1919-1939). Saint Petersburg:
Zlatoust.
appendices
A list of all nu/anu doublets from the rnc (66 verbs)
Doublet Gloss Frequency Average year12

-nu- -anu- -nu- -anu- -nu- -anu-
boltnut’ boltanut’ shake, dangle 20 4 1931 1982
gasnut’ gasanut’ fade 695 1 1954 1956
glotnut’ glotanut’ swallow 544 1 1973 1992
grebnut’ grebanut’ row, rake 582 6 1941 1943
groxnut’ groxanut’ bang, kill 703 6 1978 1990
gryznut’ gryzanut’ gnaw 19 2 1963 2002
davnut’ davanut’ crush, 128 23 1952 1962
press down
dernut’ deranut’ tug, drink a shot 2575 5 1951 1982
erznut’ erzanut’ fidget 10 1 1952 1999
ževnut’ ževanut’ chew 3 1 1953 1997
katnut’ katanut’ roll 27 8 1936 1989
kliknut’ klikanut’ call 550 1 1905 2002
krutnut’ krutanut’ twist, turn 65 148 1968 1991
krutnut’sja krutanut’sja twist, turn (refl.) 40 58 1976 1995
listnut’ listanut’ turn the page 8 3 1964 1991
lupnut’ lupanut’ hit 3 16 1952 1982
maznut’ mazanut’ smear 124 8 1964 1971
maxnut’ maxanut’ wave 5989 26 1950 1987
Continued on next page
[12] In this table the verbs are grouped in three sets. First, verbs for which the anu-variant has a higher
average year than the nu-variant (56 verbs). Second, verbs for which the average years for the anu-variant
and the nu-variant are equal (2 verbs). Third, verbs for which the anu-variant has a lower average year
than the nu-variant (8 verbs). Within each set the verbs are given in Russian alphabetical order.

– continued from previous page

Doublet Gloss Frequency Average year
motnut’ motanut’ reel, wind, waste 713 24 1952 1975
money
pisnut’ pisanut’ write, pee 9 4 1948 1979
pugnut’ puganut’ frighten 127 19 1921 1987
reznut’ rezanut’ cut 177 198 1933 1976
rubnut’ rubanut’ chop 18 176 1921 1978
rugnut’ ruganut’ swear at 83 273 1921 1954
rugnut’sja ruganut’sja swear at 87 2 1979 1981
sblevnut’ sblevanut’ throw up 2 3 1970 2000
sverknut’ sverkanut’ twinkle 1579 5 1941 1993
skaknut’ skakanut’ gallop 121 2 1957 2003
skrebnut’ skrebanut’ scrape 11 3 1914 1998
sopnut’ sopanut’ wheeze 13 1 1946 1987
stegnut’ steganut’ whip 111 40 1935 1952
streknut’ strekanut’ jump, escape 8 7 1910 1954
strugnut’ struganut’ plane, shave 1 1 1929 2000
stuknut’ stukanut’ knock 2501 11 1953 1994
sypnut’ sypanut’ pour 16 81 1907 1981
tolknut’ tolkanut’ push 3239 24 1950 1961
truxnut’ truxanut’ dread 9 3 1889 1975
trjaxnut’ trjaxanut’ shake, jolt 1286 22 1945 1988
xapnut’ xapanut’ grab 92 2 1978 1982
xvastnut’ xvastanut’ boast 12 5 1916 1962
xvatnut’ xvatanut’ snatch 6 68 1964 1992
xvostnut’ xvostanut’ give a lash 4 1 1983 2004
xlebnut’ xlebanut’ slurp 606 5 1956 1974
xlestnut’ xlestanut’ lash 368 20 1945 1991
xlestnut’sja xlestanut’sja lash (refl.) 2 3 1916 1987
xlystnut’ xlystanut’ whip 4 1 1862 1997
xrapnut’ xrapanut’ snore 17 2 1904 1966
capnut’ capanut’ seize 152 1 1967 2000
čerknut’ čerkanut’ scribble 177 20 1937 1980
čerpnut’ čerpanut’ ladle out 45 10 1930 1988
čirknut’ čirkanut’ strike 386 3 1969 1984
šiknut’ šikanut’ hiss, show off 66 7 1958 1994
širknut’ širkanut’ shuffle 10 1 1966 1997
Continued on next page

– continued from previous page

Doublet Gloss Frequency Average year
šmygnut’ šmyganut’ slip 460 3 1956 1976
šugnut’ šuganut’ scare off 11 70 1930 1975
ščipnut’ ščipanut’ pinch 61 2 1917 1983
dristnut’ dristanut’ chicken out 1 1 1998 1998
tusnut’ tusanut’ go out 2 1 2000 2000
dubnut’ dubanut’ freeze, kill 1 4 2000 1972
ebnut’ ebanut’ hit 18 4 2001 1975
ebnut’sja ebanut’sja hit (refl.), fall 1 7 2002 2001
kopnut’ kopanut’ dig 191 7 1963 1903
kusnut’ kusanut’ bite 98 5 1968 1925
polosnut’ polosanut’ slash 274 4 1968 1959
strignut’ striganut’ cut 2 8 1993 1974
ščelknut’ ščelkanut’ click, flick 1857 2 1962 1929
B l i s t o f a l l s e m e l fa c t i v e s p r o d u c e d f r o m u n p r e f i x e d m u l t i s y l -
l a b i c b a s e s i n t h e r n c ( 1 5 6 v e r b s ) 13
agaknut’ ‘say aha once’, aguknut’sja ‘have an effect’, aleknut’ ‘say hello once’,
ataknut ‘attack’, auknut’ ‘halloo to each other’, auknut’sja ‘halloo to each oth-
er (refl.)’, babaxnut’ ‘bang’, babaxnut’sja ‘bang once (refl.)’, barternut’ ‘to barter’,
bašljanut’ ‘pay a lot’, berlyknut’ ‘produce a sound usual for a turkey’, bibiknut’
‘honk’, bormotnut’ ‘mumble’, bubuxnut’ ‘let fall with a thud’, bultyxnut’ ‘plunge
/ plop into the water’, bultyxnut’sja ‘plunge / plop into the water (refl.)’, veernut’
‘wave one’s hand like a fan’, vertuxnut’sja ‘capsize’, vizažnut’sja ‘visit a visagiste’,
voroxnut’ ‘stir up’, voroxnut’sja ‘stir up (refl.)’, voskliknut’ ‘exclaim’, voskresnut’
‘rise from the dead’, voskriknut’ ‘exclaim’, vostorgnut’sja ‘admire’, gagaknut’ ‘say
“gaga”’, gigiknut’ ‘chuckle’, gogotnut’ ‘cackle’, golosnut’ ‘vote, hitch’, gromyxnut’
‘rumble’, groxotnut’ ‘thunder’, guguknut’ ‘drone’, gygyknut’ ‘say “gygy”’, dem-
bel’nut’sja ‘return from the army’, derjabnut’ ‘drink a shot’, drebeznut’ ‘tinkle’,
drobolyznut’ ‘drink’, duduknut’ ‘blow’, zemljanut’ ‘expel from thieves’, kašljanut’
‘cough’, kajuknu’sja ‘come to an end’, klokotnut’ ‘boil, bubble’, kovyl’nut’ ‘hob-
ble’, kovyrnut’ ‘rummage’, kovyrnut’sja ‘fall’, kozyrnut’ ‘show off’, kolebnut’sja
‘swing’, kolonut’ ‘prick’, kolupnut’ ‘pick’, kolyxnut’ ‘sway’, kolyxnut’sja ‘sway (re-
fl.)’, kon”junkturnut’ ‘use the current state of affairs’, kopirnut’ ‘copy’, korot-
nut’ ‘short circuit’, kritiknut’ ‘criticize’, kuvyrknut’ ‘somersault’, kuvyrknut’sja
‘somersault (refl.)’, kuvyrnut’ ‘somersault’, kuvyrnut’sja ‘somersault (refl.)’, ku-
[13] The verbs are given in Russian alphabetical order.

daxtnut’ ‘cackle’, kudkudaknut’ ‘cluck’, kukareknut’ ‘crow’, kukuknut’ ‘cuckoo’,

kurlyknut’ ‘call (of cranes)’, labuxnut’sja ‘be mistaken’, lepetnut’ ‘mumble’, lo-
byznut’ ‘give a kiss’, lopotnut’ ‘mutter’, lopuxnut’sja ‘drop a clanger’, loxonut’sja
‘drop a clanger’, maternut’ ‘curse’, maternut’sja ‘curse’, matjugnut’ ‘curse’, mat-
jugnut’sja ‘curse’, matjuknut’ ‘curse’, matjuknut’sja ‘curse’, memeknut’ ‘mum-
ble’, murlyknut’ ‘purr’, mjauknut’ ‘mew’, nizvergnut’ ‘overthrow’, nizvergnut’sja
‘overthrow (refl.)’, nizrinut’ ‘throw down’, nizrinut’sja ‘precipitate’, nisproverg-
nut’ ‘subvert’, piliknut’ ‘strum’, preminut’ ‘to fail + to inf’, rabotnut’ ‘work’, reag-
nut’ ‘react’, reanimnut’sja ‘resuscitate’, regotnut’ ‘shout’, rerixnut’sja ‘go crazy,
study Rerikh’, rokotnut’ ‘roar’, samovydvinut’sja ‘nominate oneself’, skazanut’
‘say something inappropriate’‚ skal’pel’nut’ ‘cut with a scalpel’, skrežetnut’ ‘grind’,
snikersnut’ ‘eat a snickers’, sortirnut’ ‘sort’, spekul’nut’ ‘speculate’, spotyknut’sja
‘stumble’, stimul’nut’ ‘stimulate’, stopornut’ ‘stop’, strekotnut’ ‘chirr’, stukotnut’
‘knock’, suetnut’sja ‘fuss’, sjusjuknut’ ‘lisp’, tararaxnut’ ‘bang, hit’, terebnut’ ‘fin-
ger, bother’, tetexnut’sja ‘hit against’, tililiknut’ ‘make high sounds’, tolkinut’sja
‘go crazy and become an avid fan of J.R.R. Tolkien’, tormoznut’ ‘stop’, tormoznut’sja
‘stop (refl.)’, trepetnut’ ‘tremble’, trepyxnut’ ‘flutter’, trepyxnut’sja ‘flutter (re-
fl.)’, užasnut’ ‘scare’, užasnut’sja ‘get scared’, uxmyl’nut’sja ‘grin’, fraernut’sja
‘cheat’, frezernut’ ‘cut, mill’, fujaknut’ ‘hit’, xeraknut’ ‘hit’, xexeknut’ ‘chuckle’,
xixiknut’ ‘chuckle’, xlobystnut’ ‘hit’, xolonut’ ‘get colder’, xoxotnut’ ‘guffaw’, xu-
jaknut’ ‘hit’, capcarapnut’sja ‘scratch’, carapnut’ ‘scratch’, citatnut’ ‘quote’, če-
lomknut’ ‘give a kiss’, čertyxnut’sja ‘swear’, čiriknut’ ‘chirp’, čifirnut’ ‘drink strong
tea’, šabarknut’ ‘scratch, claw’, šandaraxnut’ ‘bang, wham’, šandaraxnut’sja ‘bang,
wham (refl)’, šandoraxnut’ ‘bang, wham’, šararaxnut’ ‘bang’, šaraxnut’ ‘hit’, ša-
raxnut’sja ‘dash aside’, ševel’nut’ ‘move’, ševel’nut’sja ‘move (refl.)’, šeloxnut’ ‘stir’,
šeloxnut’sja ‘stir (refl.)’, šoloxnut’sja ‘stir (refl.)’, šuxernut’sja ‘take fright of’, šu-
šuknut’ ‘whisper’, ščebetnut’ ‘twitter’, ščegol’nut’ ‘flaunt’, ščekotnut’ ‘tickle’, èk-
spluatnut’ ‘exploit’

Julia Kuznetsova
Teorifagbygget hus 4
TEO-H4 4.353
N-9037 Tromsø
Norway
julia.kuznetsova@uit.no
Anastasia Makarova
Teorifagbygget hus 4
TEO-H4 4.353
N-9037 Tromsø
anastasia.makarova@uit.no

(ISSN 1890-9639)
semantic priming study of

russian aspect and resultativity
OLGA BATIUKOVA, PIER MARCO BERTINETTO,
ALESSANDRO LENCI, ALESSANDRA ZARCONE
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa,
Università di Pisa, Universität Stuttgart
abstract
This paper reports four priming experiments, in which resultative, proces-
sual, and delimitative Russian verbs were tested. The experiments were
based on the semantic decision task: the participants had to decide whether
the target denoted an event / situation with a clear outcome. To assess the
impact of morphological cues on the decision latencies, verbs of different
morphological complexity (prefixed and unprefixed perfectives) were used.
The results obtained suggest that the aspectual feature of resultativity is
consistently exploited in semantic priming (processual targets were primed
in two experiments), and that the morphological cues facilitate the iden-
tification of resultative targets (prefixed perfectives exhibited faster deci-
sion latencies than unprefixed perfectives). As far as the delimitative forms
are concerned, a category-induction experiment was designed to investigate
the subjects’ tendency to group them with resultatives or with processuals,
since the delimitatives represent an in-between category. The proportion
of yes/no answers confirmed that the speakers place the delimitatives be-
tween these two domains, but much closer to the processuals than to the re-
sultatives. These findings support the distinction of boundedness vs. telici-
ty from both the theoretical and the behavioural perspective. The fact that
the resultative interpretation of the delimitatives was not ruled out com-
pletely for most verbs suggests that, when certain conditions are met (when
no cognate resultative form is readily available and when the delimitative
is frequent enough), the delimitative can be conceptualized as the perfec-
tive counterpart of the basic imperfective, thus taking on the prototypical
perfective role (resultativity).
This paper presents an experimental study of the category of verbal aspect and
related semantic features in Russian. In particular, we were interested in inves-
tigating the relationship between the grammatical (perfective and imperfective)
aspect on the one hand, and the aspectual features of resultativity, delimited-
ness and processuality on the other hand. Psycholinguistic research of aspect
[178] batiukova et al.
and event-related categories has begun only recently, and no work has been done
on Russian to our knowledge. Many of the existing studies are based on reading
tasks, and deal with aspectual coercion (Todorova et al. 2000; Pylkkänen & McEl-
ree 2006; Bott 2008) and the processing of different aspectual classes of predicates
(Heyde-Zybatow 2004; Gennari & Poeppel 2003; Husband et al. ms.). Some of these
studies seem to be interested in the inherent complexity of events as ontological
categories and do not distinguish between events on the basis of their internal fea-
tural constitution (as in Gennari & Poeppel (2003); Finocchiaro & Miceli (2002));
others, however, do focus on particular aspectual features or event phases (ini-
tial and final boundary achievements in Heyde-Zybatow (2004), durativity and
terminativity in Husband et al. (ms.)). The focus on VP that most authors assume
is coherent with the compositional approach to aspectual interpretation, but still
leaves unanswered the question of what aspectual properties of the verb take part
therein and to what extent. This is especially relevant for languages like Russian,
which overtly mark their verbal forms for aspect.
One way of proving that a given feature is present in the semantic represen-
tation of verb meaning is to show that it is involved in on-line processing effects,
such as priming. Semantic priming is defined as “improvement in speed or accu-
racy to respond to a stimulus […], when it is preceded by a semantically related
stimulus (e.g., cat-dog) relative to when it is preceded by a semantically unrelated
stimulus (e.g., table-dog)” (McNamara 2005, 3).
In our study, we followed the semantic priming paradigm to test the feature of
resultativity and its interaction with grammatical perfective and imperfective as-
pect in Russian. The general design is similar to the priming study of resultativity
and durativity in Italian (Zarcone 2008; Zarcone & Lenci 2010), which, in turn, was
inspired by the experiment with French data reported in Bonnotte (2008). Both
of the previously mentioned studies tested two classes of verbs, non-durative re-
sultatives and durative non-resultatives (achievements and activities in Vendler’s
terms, respectively). Two semantic decision tasks were performed. In the dura-
tivity task, the subjects had to answer whether the target verb denoted a durable
situation. In the resultativity task, they had to decide whether the target verb de-
noted an event with a clear outcome. Both studies detected significant facilitating
priming effects, as summarized in Table 1.
Note that in both experiments there are differences between ACHs and ACTs
in regard to their sensitivity to event type related priming effects. In the French
experiment, ACTs (being +DUR) seemed to be primed in the DUR task and ACHs
(being +RES) in the RES task: the conclusion drawn from these data was that “on-
ly the positive value of each feature benefited from priming” (+DUR for ACTs and
+RES for ACHs). In addition, Bonnotte (2008) points out that DUR shows prim-
ing effect with both opposite and similar primes, while RES with similar primes
only, and she claims that this suggests a crucial difference between RES being a
priming study of perfective prefixes [179]
French: Bonnotte (2008) Italian: Zarcone (2008)

Zarcone & Lenci (2010)
DUR1 RES DUR RES
ACH ACT ACH ACT ACH ACT ACH ACT
opposite * * **
similar * * **
table 1: Summary of results obtained in previous studies
binary feature and DUR being a continuous feature. In the Italian experiment,
by contrast, ACHs were more sensitive to opposite primes and ACTs to similar
primes. Zarcone & Lenci (2010) interpreted this result as a crucial difference be-
tween ACHs and ACTs rather than between DUR and RES: the event type features
of ACHs are more lexicalized and emerge more clearly in an opposition, whereas
those of ACTs are more ductile and prone to being facilitated by a similar (+DUR)
context.
[2] t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y : a n o v e r v i e w
In the present study, the same semantic decision task was performed on four sets
of stimuli. In the four experiments, the subjects had to decide whether the target
verb “refers to an event / situation with a clear outcome” (“указывает ли глагол
на событие или ситуацию с явно выраженным результатом”).
In the first three experiments, perfective resultative (i.e. telic) and imperfec-
tive processual (i.e. atelic) verbs were tested both as primes and as targets.2 Un-
prefixed perfectives were used in experiment 1 and prefixed perfectives in exper-
iment 2. In experiment 3, prefixed perfectives primed unprefixed perfectives (see
the scheme in (9)). The main goals of the first two experiments were as follows.
First, we wanted to check whether the native speakers are able to identify a one-
to-one relationship between resultativity and perfectivity on the one hand, and
processuality and imperfectivity on the other hand. Second, we wanted to see
the priming effect of different types of perfective forms (prefixed vs. unprefixed)
on the decision latencies, thus assessing the impact of morphological cues on the
decision latencies and accuracy.
[1] The following abbreviations will be used henceforth: DUR – durativity, RES – resultativity, ACH – achieve-
ment, ACT – activity.
[2] In the present paper we use the terms “perfective/imperfective” in the sense appropriate to the grammar
of any Slavic language, namely with reference to the (morpho-)lexical specification of the verbs. In order
to refer to the strictly semantic dimension, we make use of the Vendlerian terminology (telic/atelic,
accomplishment, activity, etc.). The terms “processuality” and “resultativity” will be employed as mere
synonyms of, respectively, atelic and telic.

The absence of a priming effect in the second experiment (see subsection [3.5]
for details) motivated the decision of conducting yet another test (experiment 3)
to check whether these results were due to the inefficiency of prefixed forms as
primes or to their easy identification as resultative targets. To this end, unpre-
fixed targets from experiment 1 were combined with prefixed primes from ex-
periment 2.
In the fourth experiment, an additional category of perfective verbs was test-
ed, the delimitatives (e.g., porabotat’ ‘work for a while’, poigrat’ ‘play for a while’).
At this point, a brief review of the properties of po-delimitatitives is in order to
motivate the design of experiment 4 and to provide a background for the inter-
pretation of the obtained results.
This particular Aktionsart was chosen, among other considerations, because
of its productivity in modern Russian and its semantic transparency: it contributes
a clearly identifiable actionality meaning to the imperfective base, without mod-
ifying its lexical content. In addition, delimitativity is conceptually fairly close to
resultativity, the other feature tested in this study.
Delimitatives profile a temporally bounded portion of the event, but without
a change of state (Isačenko 1965, 234-238; Maslov 2004a, 32; Maslov 2004b, 404;
Padučeva 1996, 145-147; Filip 2000; Mehlig 2006; Tatevosov 2003, among others).
In other words, they are bounded, like resultatives, but atelic. The well-known
tests of adverbial modification show this (cf. Bertinetto & Delfitto 2000; De Miguel
1999; Batiukova 2006; Lentovskaya 2007-2008): delimitatives are compatible with
the adverbials <do t> ‘until t’ (1-a), <s t do t> ‘from t to t’ (2-a), the durative ad-
verbial <x vremja> ‘for x time’ (3-a), and are not compatible with the time-frame
adverbial <za x vremja> ‘in x time’ (4-a). The resultative forms in (1-a′ )-(4-a′ ) are
given for comparison.
(1) a. Oni vmeste porisovali do semi

They together PO-paint-PST.PERF.DEL until seven
‘They painted together until seven o’clock’
a′ . *Oni narisovali portret vmeste do semi3
They NA-paint-PST.PERF.RES portrait together until seven
*‘They painted the portrait [=finished the portrait] together until sev-
en’
(2) a. Oni porisovali s dvux do trex

They PO-painted-PST.PERF.DEL from two to three
‘They were painting from two to three’
a′ . ?Oni narisovali portret s dvux do trex
They NA-paint-PST.PERF.RES portrait from two to three
[3] This sentence is only acceptable with the interpretation ‘They finished the portrait before seven’.

?‘They painted the portrait [=finished the portrait] from 2 to 3’

(3) a. Oni porisovali pjat’ minut i ušli
They PO-paint-PST.PERF.DEL five minutes and left-PST.PERF
‘They painted for five minutes and left’
a′ . *Oni narisovali portret pjat’ minut
They NA-paint-PST.PERF.RES portrait for five minutes
*‘They painted the portrait [completely] for five minutes’
(4) a. *Oni porisovali za pjat’ minut
They PO-paint-PST.PERF.DEL in five minutes
*‘They painted in five minutes’
a′ . Oni narisovali portret za pjat’ minut
They NA-paint-PST.PERF.RES portrait in five minutes
‘They painted the portrait in five minutes’
Delimitatives are typically compatible with durative adverbials with approxi-

mate meaning (časa dva ‘for about two hours’, minut pjat’ ‘for about five minutes’)
and with vague quantifiers (such as nemnogo ‘a little’):
(5) On porabotal časa dva / nemnogo i

He PO-work-PST.PERF.DEL for about two hours / a little and
ušjol
leave-PST.PERF
‘He worked for about two hours and left’
Like all atelic forms, the po-delimitatives do not entail the corresponding telic
form:
(6) On popil čaja, no tak i ne dopil ego.

He PO-drink-PST.PERF.DEL tea but not DO-drink-PST.PERF.RES it
‘He drank some tea, but did not finish it’
As pointed out in several classical as well as recent works (see Isačenko 1965;
Dickey 2006; Mehlig 2006), the semantic scope of po-delimitatives extends be-
yond the prototypical delimitative core, and can be used to express the meanings
of other Aktionsarten: most frequently the resultative (7-a) and the distributive
(7-b).
(7) a. My {poeli / pokrasili zabor} za desjat’ minut.

We {PO-eat / PO-paint the fence}-PST.PERF.RES in ten minutes
‘We had lunch / painted the fence in ten minutes’
b. On pobil vsju posudu.
He PO-break-PST.PERF.DISTR all dishes
‘He broke all the dishes’
Because of this potential aspectual ambiguity of the delimitatives, special care

was taken in selecting the clearest cases for the data set:
Verb Event type of base verb Transitivity

Pobrodit’ ‘wander a while’ Activity INTR
Podyšat’ ‘breathe for a while’ Activity INTR
Pogrozit’ ‘threaten’ Activity4 INTR
Poigrat’ ‘play for a while’ Activity / accomplishment TR5 / INTR
Poiskat’ ‘search for a while’ Activity TR
Pokrutit’ ‘twist’ Activity TR
Polistat’ ‘thumb through the pages of a book’ Activity TR
Popisat’ ‘write for a while’ Activity / accomplishment TR / INTR
Poplakat’ ‘cry for a while’ Activity INTR
Porabotat’ ‘work for a while’ Activity INTR
Poxodit’6 ‘walk for a while’ Activity INTR
Poževat’ ‘chew for a while’ Activity TR
table 2: Delimitatives selected for experiment 4
Most of these delimitatives are derived from activities (see Padučeva 1996,
145-147), dynamic events implying no change of state. They represent homoge-
neous or cumulative (in terms of Krifka 1989, 1992) events: any part of the event
has the same properties as the whole event (cf. Tatevosov 2003). For instance,
[3] We disregard the stative meaning of grozit’ here (as in ‘it’s threatening to rain’), since it cannot be used
to derive the delimitative form.
[4] The transitive use of igrat’ ‘play’ corresponds to the meaning ‘to perform a piece of music’.
[5] As an anonymous reviewer points out, correctly, poxodit’ has another, lexicalized meaning: ‘be similar
to’. However, it is less frequent than the delimitative meaning we are interested in, and has a formal,
literary flavour to it (out of a total of 3326 hits in the Russian Web Corpus, approximately a third, 1142,
corresponds to this lexicalized meaning, which can be easily identifiable since the complement of the
verb is introduced by the preposition na). Given that it is almost impossible to avoid polysemy, we
consciously chose to keep this kind of verbs. To insure that the corresponding results are not skewed,
the subjects were instructed to think of the most extended verb meaning in each case. Anyway, a
separate analysis performed on poxodit’ showed that there was no significant difference between the
decision latencies of this verb as contrasted with the other delimitatives:
Mean (ms) Standard deviation (ms)

Poxodit’ 2276 925
Other delimitatives 2587 967
t (40.4) = -0.66
p = 0.52

any part of the event of crying or looking for something can be defined as ‘cry’ or
‘look for, search’, respectively.7
The data above also includes two verbs (igrat’ ‘play’ and pisat’ ‘write’), which
can behave as activities when used intransitively or as accomplishments when
accompanied by a direct object: igrat’ ‘play’ vs. igrat’ simfoniju ‘play a sympho-
ny’; pisat’ ‘write’ vs. pisat’ roman ‘write a novel’. Accomplishments are quantized
or heterogeneous entities, since the properties of their final subevent (the resul-
tant state of ‘having played a symphony’ or ‘having written a novel’) are different
from the properties of the activity subevent, ‘playing a symphony’ or ‘writing a
novel’. As noted in Bertinetto & Squartini (1995), among others, “most accom-
plishments show their true character in allowing for the contextual obliteration
of their telicness”. This is exactly what happens when a delimitative is derived
from an accomplishment base verb: the resultant phase is obliterated, and the
delimitative focuses on a temporally bounded quantity of the activity that pre-
cedes the change of state (see Mehlig 2007 and Maslov 2004b, 404-405). The fact
that the culmination subevent is demoted in this case does not imply that the re-
sultative reading is definitely excluded. Rather, no information is provided as to
whether the final goal has been achieved or not. As Mehlig (in press) suggests, “If
nevertheless, these predications are as a rule interpreted as denoting a change-of-
state which has not reached the culmination point, then this is a conversational
implicature which arises from the non-use of the paired perfective verb”. For ex-
ample, we cannot infer from (8) whether the article was read in its entirety or
not, but since a delimitative form was used instead of the resultative pročital ‘read
through’, the implicature is that the reading event was probably not completed.
(8) On počital statju i otdal

He PO-read-PST.PERF.DEL article-ACC and give-PST.PERF
gazetu drugu.
newspaper-ACC friend-DAT
‘He read the article (for a while) and gave the newspaper to his friend’
Going back to the design of the fourth experiment, it should be mentioned that
it was based on the “category induction” method: participants were shown clear-
cut resultatives, clear-cut non-resultatives, and delimitatives. For each verb, they
had to decide whether it referred to an event / situation with a clear outcome.
The relevant measure in this experiment was the proportion of positive and neg-
ative answers. The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the subjects’
[7] Tatevosov & Ivanov (2009, §5.1.) elaborate on the constraints affecting the distribution of po-
delimitatives (following Mehlig 2006). They show that the base predicates cannot represent inherently
ordered activities, such as shoot the captive or give out a book. Indeed, porasstrelivat’ plennogo ‘shoot the
captive for some time’ and povydavat’ knigu ‘give out a book for some time’ are unacceptable with the
intended reading.

tendency to group delimitatives with resultatives or with non-resultatives. As in

previous experiments, we were also interested in checking the effect of perfective
and imperfective primes on the decision latency in terms of differential speed.
To sum up, the present study aims at providing basic insights into the pro-
cessing of perfective and imperfective verbal forms of different morphological
complexity in Russian. In doing so, it follows feature-based approaches to verbal
semantics (commonly assumed in theoretical studies), and focuses on the aspec-
tual feature of resultativity, crucially involved in mechanisms of semantic and
syntactic composition (see Dölling et al. 2008, and the references therein). In ad-
dition, it aims at pinpointing finer grained (and hence more elusive) details of
actionality by focusing on the delimitatives, a category floating between the do-
mains of resultativity and processuality.
[3] m e t h o d
[3.1] Participants
The first three experiments were conducted in Pisa (Laboratorio di Linguistica
della Scuola Normale Superiore) and Florence (Università degli Studi di Firenze),
and the fourth one in Madrid (Universidad Carlos III). Thirty six native Russian
speakers (mostly undergraduate and PhD students) volunteered to participate in
each of the experiments and were paid for their collaboration. All had either
normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
The participants came from varied professional and academic backgrounds,
the only educational requirement was a high school diploma or equivalent. Cru-
cially, none of the subjects had background in theoretical linguistics, which guar-
antees that their responses were solely guided by their intuitions as native speak-
ers.
[3.2] Materials
Experiments 1-3
The stimuli for experiments 1, 2, and 3 were 24 prime-target pairs. Perfective
forms in experiment 1 were morphologically simple (unprefixed)8 and those in
experiment 2 were derived (prefixed). For experiment 3, we used unprefixed tar-
gets from experiment 1 and prefixed primes from experiment 2. In all experi-
ments, the perfective forms were not related derivationally to the imperfectives.
[8] The set of unprefixed perfectives included suppletive forms (e.g., vzjat’, ‘take’, pojmat’ ‘catch’), forms
with vowel alternation (e.g., brosit’ ‘to throw’, končit’ ‘to finish’) and perfectiva tantum (ruxnut’ ‘crash,
collapse’, ucelet’ ‘survive’). See the Appendix for details.

a. Experiment 1
primes process(IMPERF) resultative(UNPREF.PERF) neutral (XXX)9
targets process(IMPERF) resultative(UNPREF.PERF)
b. Experiment 2
(9)
primes process(IMPERF) resultative(PREF.PERF) neutral (XXX)
targets process(IMPERF) resultative(PREF.PERF)
c. Experiment 3
primes process(IMPERF) resultative(PREF.PERF) neutral (XXX)
targets process(IMPERF) resultative(UNPREF.PERF)
Primes and targets were pair-wise balanced for variables known to affect pro-
cessing costs: frequency and length. To prevent unintended priming effects, spe-
cial attention was paid to pair up primes and targets belonging to different se-
mantic classes.
Word frequencies were taken from the Russian Web Corpus, integrated into
the Word Sketch Engine. The mean log frequency was 3.4 for imperfectives and
prefixed perfectives, and 3.8 for unprefixed perfectives. As expected, a pair-wise
comparison through a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between
unprefixed perfectives and the other two groups (F = 3.552, p = 0.034). Given
the data sparsity problem in the group of unprefixed perfectives, little could be
done to get a more balanced sample. However, as will be shown in the results
section, a higher frequency of this group did not result in lower decision latencies
as compared to the other groups.
As the prefixed forms are longer than the non-prefixed, an effort was made to
reduce the difference as much as possible. In the final data set, the mean length
was 6.9 characters for unprefixed forms and 7.5 for the prefixed ones. A one-
way ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the three groups tested
(F = 0.974, p = 0.41). In order to control the semantic class variable, all the
verbs were tagged with generic semantic labels borrowed partially from WordNet
classification of topnodes. Given that the topnodes in WordNet are only a conven-
tion adopted to label different verb groups and considering that several classes
overlap, the main restriction we imposed on prime and target pairs was that they
should not belong to semantically related classes, such as state-emotion-body
process, social-communication, change-creation-consumption, motion-contact-
possession, and cognition-perception.
A total of six lists were compiled for experiments 1 and 2, and three lists for
experiment 3. Each target appeared only once in the same list and was paired with
an opposite, similar or neutral prime (a string of Xs). In addition to 24 prime-
[9] A string of ‘X’ (‘XXXXX’) was used as a neutral prime. The neutral prime provides the base-line for
assessing the effect of similar and opposite primes on processing.

target pairs, each list included 3 warm-up pairs (at the beginning) and 9 pairs
of distractors, which were not considered in the data analysis. The distractors
were non-resultative perfective forms (of the kind listed in (10)) meant to focus
the subjects’ attention on the semantic feature of resultativity rather than the
perfective grammatical aspect.
(10) a. Ingressives: zaryčat’ ‘start growling’, pobežat’ ‘start running’, vozne-

navidet’ ‘start hating’
b. Evolutives: razboltat’sja ‘start talking a lot’, rassmejat’sja ‘burst out
laughing’, razgoret’sja ‘flare up’
c. Attenuative-delimitatives: poprideržat’ ‘hold a little bit’, privrat’ ‘tell
a little lie’, podzabyt’ ‘forget a little’
The lists were structured following the scheme in Table 3:
A B C
prime target prime target prime target
4P 4P 4R 4P XXX 4P
4R 4R 4P 4R XXX 4R
3 DIS 3 DIS 3 DIS 3 DIS XXX 3 DIS
XXX 4P 4P 4P 4R 4P
XXX 4R 4R 4R 4P 4R
XXX 3 DIS 3 DIS 3 DIS 3 DIS 3 DIS
4R 4P XXX 4P 4P 4P
4P 4R XXX 4R 4R 4R
3 DIS 3 DIS XXX 3 DIS 3 DIS 3 DIS
table 3: (XXX – neutral prime, P – ‘processual’, R – ‘resultative’, DIS – ‘distractor’)
In experiments 1 and 2, lists D, E and F were added. They were formed by

randomly reversing the order of primes and targets (the targets from lists A, B
and C were used as primes in lists D, E and F, while the primes were used as targets,
respectively). This was done in order to have more lists and thus test more items
in the target position. In experiment 3, however, there were only three lists, since
the prefixed perfectives were only tested as primes and the unprefixed perfectives
only as targets.
Each participant was assigned one and only one list, in order to restrain the
priming effect to one element within each items pair. The presence of neutral
primes makes the third (and, in experiments 1-2, the sixth) list necessary.
Experiment 4
The stimuli in experiment 4 were 36 prime-target pairs. The data set was com-
posed of 24 imperfectives (the same primes and targets as in experiment 1), 12
unprefixed perfectives (the same targets as in experiment 3), 12 prefixed perfec-
tives (the same primes as in experiment 3), and 12 po-delimitatives.
Since the delimitatives are longer and less frequent than the other groups
tested (the mean length is 8.6 characters and the mean log frequency 2.85), it
was not possible to balance the data set for these two parameters. However, the
length and frequency factor was not important in this particular experiment since
the relevant measure was the proportion of yes/no answers in the resultativity
decision task. Nevertheless, as we wanted to check whether there would be any
priming effect (in spite of these between-group differences), the prime and target
in each pair were matched for frequency and length. Also for this experiment, we
made sure that, within each pair, prime and target belonged to different semantic
classes.
A total of three lists were compiled. Since the number of verb pairs per list
was higher in this experiment, the number of distractors was reduced to six pairs.
The lists were structured following the scheme in Table 4:
A B C
prime target prime target prime target
4P 4P 4R 4P XXX 4P
4R 4R 4P 4R XXX 4R
4R 4D 4P 4D XXX 4D
2 DIS 2 DIS 2 DIS 2 DIS XXX 2 DIS
XXX 4P 4P 4P 4R 4P
XXX 4R 4R 4R 4P 4R
XXX 4D 4R 4D 4P 4D
XXX 2 DIS 2 DIS 2 DIS 2 DIS 2 DIS
4R 4P XXX 4P 4P 4P
4P 4R XXX 4R 4R 4R
4P 4D XXX 4D 4R 4D
2 DIS 2 DIS XXX 2 DIS 2 DIS 2 DIS
table 4: Structure of the lists in experiment 4 (D – ‘delimitative’)

[3.3] Procedure
The participants were tested individually using the Presentation experimental
software. Each trial was structured as follows: a fixation point ‘+’ was displayed
in the center of the screen for 600 ms, followed by the prime for 250 ms and the
target for 5000 ms. The stimuli were presented in white lower-case letters on a
black background10 .
During the instruction phase, participants were shown illustrative examples
of resultative and non-resultative verbs with two diagrams representing these
aspectual classes (as in (11)). No specific linguistic criteria were provided at this
point. When introducing the examples, the subjects’ attention was drawn to the
differences between the two diagrams: crucially, the presence of a double vertical
bar symbolizing result at the end of the dashed line for resultative events.
(11) a. resultative events: .

e.g.: postroit’ ‘build’, uvidet’ ‘see, catch sight of’, odolet’ ‘overcome,
prevail over’, skazat’ ‘say’, razbit’ ‘break’
b. non-resultative events: .
e.g.: zaprygat’ ‘start jumping’, rabotat’ ‘work’, radovat’sja ‘be glad, hap-
py’, poxrapyvat’ ‘snore a little’
Special emphasis was put on the fact that resultativity and perfectivity over-
lap only partially: ingressive forms such as zaprygat’ ‘start jumping’ and others
were provided to show this point. Finally, participants were instructed to read
and identify the first letter string, and to decide as quickly and accurately as pos-
sible “whether the second letter string referred to an event or a situation with
a clear outcome” (“указывает ли глагол на событие или ситуацию с явно выра-
женным результатом”)11 . Upper and lower button of the button box were used to
answer. The instruction was completed with a training session, made up of sev-
en trials for the first three experiments and ten trials for the fourth experiment
(where it was especially important for the subjects to assimilate the difference
between prototypical resultatives and processuals).
Each subject was assigned a list, the order of trials was randomized every time
a list was displayed.
[10] The reason for this choice (white characters on a black screen) is self-explaining and is nowadays current
practice in this sort of experiments. A white screen is felt as exceedingly fatiguing by the participants,
who have to stare at it for quite a long time, practically without interruption. A black screen, instead,
is much more relaxing for the eyes. Besides, the sharp contrast white-on-black facilitates the process of
character recognition.
[11] No theoretical assumptions hinge on the terms ‘event’ and ‘situation’ in this case, they are used as inter-
changeable synonyms. Besides, it should be emphasized once more that the participants had no training
in linguistics, so they could not possibly have any technical meaning of these terms in mind.

[3.4] Design
In subsequent analyses, the dependent measures were decision latency and accu-
racy. The featural value of the target (processual and resultative in the first three
experiments plus delimitative in the fourth experiment) and the type of priming
context (neutral, similar, opposite) were within-subjects factors.
[3.5] Results
A logistic regression analysis of errors revealed no effect of the priming context,
the featural value, the target or any other factor. It is worth mentioning that
the accuracy is noticeably high: the mean is 0.93 (see Table 5). The error rate
reported in Zarcone & Lenci (2010) for a similar task in Italian is higher (0.86).
This difference is consistent with the fact that in Russian, unlike in Italian, the
distinctions in point are in most cases overtly marked and in any case constitute
a prominent grammatical feature.
In all decision latencies reported, trials with wrong responses and outliers
were excluded. We excluded data points with z-scores above 2 and under -2 after
a z-transformation by participant and by item. The outlier removal process af-
fected 7% of the data in experiment 1, 3 and 4, and 9% in experiment 2. Answers
given past the 5000 ms limit were considered outliers.
Observations Errors + outliers Accuracy SD accuracy

Exp1 864 54 0.94 0.24
Exp2 864 52 0.94 0.24
Exp3 864 61 0.93 0.26
Exp412 1296 118 0.9 0.32
MEAN 0.93
table 5: Error rate
The lowest mean decision latencies were obtained in experiment 2, where pre-
fixed perfectives were used (see Table 6). The longest decision latencies were
yielded by the delimitatives, which may be due to two factors. Firstly, as already
mentioned, they are less frequent and longer than the other verbs (mean length:
8.6 characters; mean log frequency: 2.85). Secondly, they are cognitively more
complex due to their status of an in-between category.
As the data in Table 6 show, in all experiments resultative targets yielded
faster decision latencies (with respect to the neutral prime condition) after both
opposite and similar primes. This processing advantage was also observed after
[12] The error rate for experiment 4 only includes the processual and resultative targets. The accuracy cri-
terion is not applicable to delimitatives for obvious reasons (see section [3]).

Neutral Opposite Similar

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Exp1 PRO 1793.86 601.75 1692.32 533.93 1710.10 526.12
RES 1788.18 575.09 1673.75 611.04 1735.69 621.08
MEAN 1790.92 589.91 1683.04 572.70 1722.94 574.75
Exp2 PRO 1521.45 435.99 1545.31 509.94 1563.70 458.53
RES 1630.02 592.81 1591.31 589.42 1569.61 522.72
MEAN 1576.82 523.69 1568.50 550.79 1566.59 489.93
Exp3 PRO 1627.34 502.58 1472.25 454.46 1504.89 447.23
RES 1669.96 548.65 1637.99 560.82 1574.84 464.74
MEAN 1648.46 525.32 1553.46 515.06 1539.72 456.44
Exp4 PRO 2026.51 717.83 1927.34 811.36 2088.06 746.00
RES 1967.58 780.73 1899.55 732.24 1956.30 786.63
DEL 2610.22 967.86 2507.83 951.55 2607.30 973.11
(PRO) (RES)
MEAN 2201.44 881.71 1913.45 768.40 2022.18 768.61

(without DEL) (without DEL)
table 6: Mean decision latencies
both types of primes for processual targets in experiment 1 and 3. By contrast,

processual targets exhibited an advantage only after opposite primes in exper-
iment 4 and showed no advantage whatsoever in experiment 2. A mixed-effect
model on decision latencies showed, however, that the given effects reached sig-
nificance only for processual targets in experiments 1 and 3 (see Table 7).
The results of experiment 3, which mirror those in experiment 1, suggest that
the absence of priming effect on resultatives in experiments 1 and 2 was not due to
the morphological nature of similar primes (prefixed or unprefixed) or of the tar-
gets themselves for that matter. Both types of perfective forms are easily identi-
fiable as resultatives, which may hinder the priming effect. Faster reaction times
for prefixed targets (in experiment 2) indicate that morphological cues do facili-
tate the recognition of these forms, even though they are not as frequent as un-
prefixed resultatives.
Let us now consider the results of the category induction measure for delimi-
tatives in experiment 4. Out of 414 valid observations, 237 were ‘no’ and 177 ‘yes’.
This means that the speakers categorize this group as an in-between category,
with a clear proclivity towards the processual interpretation.
We searched for a possible influence of the aspectual value of the prime on the
class assignment of delimitatives. The analysis was performed with a binomial
Estimate MCMCmean HPD95lower HPD95upper pMCMC Pr(>|t|) Significance

Experiment 1, PRO targets
(Intercept) 0.0001 9.7597 9.6864 9.8342 9.7628 0.0000
opp -0.0663 -0.0647 -0.1292 -0.0032 0.0490 0.0290 *
sim -0.0622 -0.0594 -0.1202 0.0037 0.0596 0.0393 *
Experiment 1, RES targets
(Intercept) 9.7404 9.7399 9.6603 9.8160 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0491 -0.0530 -0.1161 0.0091 0.0980 0.1070
sim -0.0277 -0.0302 -0.0897 0.0326 0.3376 0.3567
(Intercept) 9.6106 9.6076 9.5365 9.6723 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0028 -0.0018 -0.0615 0.0541 0.9544 0.9190
sim 0.0128 0.0139 -0.0411 0.0728 0.6348 0.6435
(Intercept) 9.6529 9.6513 9.5668 9.7342 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0180 -0.0189 -0.0823 0.0424 0.5644 0.5460
sim -0.0364 -0.0352 -0.0989 0.0259 0.2676 0.2219
(Intercept) 9.6686 9.6660 9.5960 9.7324 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0915 -0.0927 -0.1469 -0.0393 0.0014 0.0004 ***
sim -0.0677 -0.0689 -0.1215 -0.0139 0.0150 0.0094 **
(Intercept) 9.6925 9.6881 9.5903 9.7878 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0150 -0.0166 -0.0715 0.0453 0.5760 0.5915
sim -0.0363 -0.0378 -0.0981 0.0190 0.1994 0.1966
(Intercept) 9.8842 9.8797 9.7904 9.9610 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0543 -0.0567 -0.1214 0.0095 0.0898 0.0826
sim 0.0338 0.0323 -0.0300 0.1005 0.3288 0.2701
(Intercept) 9.8466 9.8414 9.7363 9.9387 0.0001 0.0000
opp -0.0403 -0.0398 -0.1081 0.0279 0.2590 0.2131
sim -0.0205 -0.0197 -0.0898 0.0466 0.5710 0.5253
Experiment 4, DEL targets
(Intercept) 10.1067 10.1085 10.0103 10.1989 0.0001 0.0000
primeopp_pro -0.0399 -0.0408 -0.1145 0.0330 0.2822 0.2748
primeopp_res -0.0083 -0.0078 -0.0782 0.0695 0.8438 0.8189
Mixed-effect model: log(dl) ∼ prime + (1|subj) + (1|verb) + (1|sem_cl)
table 7: Separate analyses [the table contains the estimated coefficients (Estimate), their Markov
Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) mean, the highest posterior density (HPD) confidence interval, a p-value
based on MCMC (pMCMC), another p-value P r(> |t|) based on the t-statistics, and the significance
levels: ∗ = p < 0.05 (marginally significant effect); ∗∗ = p < 0.01 (significant effect); ∗ ∗ ∗ =
p < 0.001 (highly significant effect)]

logistic regression model (cbind(P RO, RES) ∼ prime + subj + verb) and did
not yield any significant effect of the prime on the class assignment.
A further analysis of the individual responses of the subjects was performed to
see whether any of them consistently categorized the delimitatives as resultatives
or as processuals (i.e. gave the same answer in at least 75% of the observations).
As shown in Table 8, out of twenty subjects who did answer consistently, seven
seem to have adopted the resultative strategy and thirteen the processual strate-
gy. This confirms that the subjects tended to place the delimitatives closer to the
processuals than to the resultatives.
Subject PRO RES Subject PRO RES Subject PRO RES

1 5 6 13 7 5 25 1 11
2 3 9 14 10 1 26 5 6
3 5 5 15 5 6 27 10 1
4 7 5 16 8 1 28 12 0
5 6 6 17 5 7 29 5 7
6 8 4 18 5 7 30 5 6
7 4 8 19 8 4 31 6 5
8 10 2 20 5 6 32 5 7
9 1 11 21 11 1 33 9 3
10 7 4 22 4 8 34 10 2
11 11 1 23 8 1 35 11 1
12 4 8 24 4 8 36 7 4
table 8: Proportion of PRO / RES answers per subject
Performing a qualitative analysis on such a reduced data set is fairly prob-

lematic. We can only offer some tentative generalizations about the aspectual
and, more broadly, semantic properties of particular verbs and about how these
properties might have determined the choice of the speakers.
Verb PRO RES Verb PRO RES

Pobrodit’ ‘wander a while’ 18 16 Polistat’ ‘thumb’ 23 13
Podyšat’ ‘breathe for a while’ 20 16 Popisat’ ‘write for a while’ 20 11
Pogrozit’ ‘threaten’ 14 17 Poplakat’ ‘cry for a while’ 15 21
Poigrat’ ‘play for a while’ 18 17 Porabotat’ ‘work for a while’ 20 15
Poiskat’ ‘search for a while’ 27 9 Poxodit’ ‘walk for a while’ 24 11
Pokrutit’ ‘twist’ 19 15 Poževat’ ‘chew for a while’ 19 16
table 9: Proportion of PRO / RES answers per verb13

Based on the summary in Table 9, three groups of delimitatives can be distin-

guished according to how they were categorized by the participants:
1) verbs preferably categorized as processuals: poiskat’ ‘search for a while’, popisat’

‘write for a while’, poxodit’ ‘walk for a while’, and polistat’ ‘thumb through the
pages of a book’
2) verb preferably categorized as resultative: poplakat’ ‘cry for a while’
3) verbs categorized as either processual or resultative in comparable degree:

pobrodit’ ‘wander for a while’, podyšat’ ‘breathe for a while’, poigrat’ ‘play for a
while’, pokrutit’ ‘twist’, porabotat’ ‘work for a while’, poževat’ ‘chew for a while’,
and pogrozit’ ‘threaten’
The base verb of popisat’ ‘write for a while’, in group 1, can behave as ei-
ther an activity or an accomplishment, the latter interpretation being associated
with the resultative form napisat’ ‘finish writing, create by writing’. The sharp
contrast between these two forms (the resultative and the delimitative) might
have motivated the speakers’ choice, even though generally delimitative forms
derived from accomplishments do not exclude a resultative interpretation (see
section [2]). However, the same account cannot be straightforwardly applied to
the other verbs in the same group: poiskat’ ‘search for a while’, poxodit’ ‘walk for a
while’, and polistat’ ‘thumb through the pages of a book’ are derived from homo-
geneous events (activities), which do not imply any kind of result or culmination,
and are not coupled with any perfective verb with this meaning. We believe that
in this case other perfective forms conventionally associated with the base verb
might have come into play, suggesting a completed view in one way or another. In
other words, the existence of a cognitively prominent resultative counterpart14
might have blocked the possible resultative interpretation of the delimitative. In-
deed, polistat’ ‘thumb through the pages of a book’ can only indirectly be related
to the terminative form prolistat’ ‘thumb through (the whole book)’. The same
effect could explain the case of poxodit’ ‘walk for a while’, a non-directed motion
verb associated with the perdurative form proxodit’ ‘walk for a certain period of
time’, and with the many perfective forms derived from the corresponding direct-
ed motion verb idti ‘go somewhere’: dojti ‘reach some place’, projti ‘cover a certain
distance’, etc. The result of iskat’ ‘search for a while’, in turn, is lexicalized as na-
[13] The number of responses per verb varies since wrong answers and outliers were excluded from the anal-
ysis, as explained in the beginning of this section.
[14] When talking about ‘cognitively prominent resultative counterparts’ of delimitatives, we do not imply
that such perfectives form aspectual pairs – in the sense traditionally assumed in Slavic aspectology
– with the delimitatives (or the corresponding imperfectives, for that matter). We rather refer to the
existence of a verbal cluster, in the sense of Janda (2008). See also, among others, Isačenko (1965, 309-
339) and Batiukova (2006, ch. 4).

jti ‘find’, and this strong association prevents poiskat’ from being categorized as
resultative.
In addition to the above presented semantic and grammatical considerations,
a trivial quantitative difference in frequency can explain why some perfective
forms are able to block the resultative interpretation of delimitatives while others
are not. As mentioned above, resultatives are much more frequent than delimi-
tatives (see the Appendix and Table 10 below); this explains at least in part why
they can successfully block the resultative interpretation of the delimitatives. By
contrast, other productive Aktionsarten encoding completed events (terminative,
perdurative, and finite) usually exhibit lower frequency than the delimitatives.
Hence, they are less likely to compete with the delimitatives for the resultative
reading.
Verbs that were not unequivocally categorized as either processual or resul-
tative are the largest group (group 3). They denote, again, activity predicates
which do not convey any specific goal or result and are not related to any resulta-
tive form with the same meaning: pobrodit’ ‘wander for a while’, podyšat’ ‘breathe
for a while’, pokrutit’ ‘twist’, poževat’ ‘chew for a while’, pogrozit’ ‘threaten’, and
porabotat’ ‘work for a while’. Even though a number of perfective Aktionsarten
can be derived from their base verbs, apparently none of them is close enough
to resultativity to completely exclude the resultative reading of the delimitative
form. In some cases this interpretation can even prevail: pogrozit’ ‘threaten’ was
identified as resultative in over 50% of the instances. With poplakat’ ‘cry for a
while’ (the only verb in group 2), this effect was even stronger.
Once again, we have to refer to frequency data to complete the analysis for
this group. Non-resultative perfective forms potentially capable of expressing
the resultative meaning are less frequent than the delimitatives and hence unable
to block this interpretation. This even happens when the other perfective forms
are closer to resultativity than the delimitative (for example, proževat’ ‘masticate
thoroughly’ and sževat’ ‘chew up’, derived from ževat’ ‘chew’).
The Table 10 on the facing page summarizes the frequency data of delimita-
tives and cognate perfective forms.
To sum up, we can conclude that the processual interpretation of the delim-
itatives was preferred over the resultative interpretation, which confirms that
the notions of telicity and boundedness should be kept apart. However, these
forms were sometimes categorized as resultatives for both typically homogeneous
and tendentially heterogeneous predicates. For the latter, this is a logical con-
sequence of the fact that the resultative interpretation is not completely ruled
out. As for typically homogeneous predicates lacking any directly cognate resul-
tative form, the delimitatives can sometimes take on the resultative interpreta-
tion when other related non-resultative perfective forms are not close enough to
resultativity or else are less frequent than the delimitative.
Delimitative PRO/RES LF Resultative LF Perdurative LF Other perf. LF

an-
forms
swers
Group 1
Poiskat’ 27/9 3.38 Proiskat’ 0.85 Najti 4.85
‘search for a while’ ‘search for a certain ‘find’
period of time’
Popisat’ 20/11 2.59 Napisat’ 4.77
‘write for a while’ ‘finish writing,
create by writing’
Poxodit’ 24/11 2.92 Proxodit’ 4.66 Sxodit’ 3.99
‘walk for a while’ ‘walk for a certain ‘go somewhere and
period of time’ back’ SEM
Dojti 4.06
‘reach some place’
Projti 4.74
‘cover a distance’
Polistat’ 23/13 2.56 Prolistat’ 2.25
‘thumb’ ‘thumb through (the
whole book)’ TERM
Group 2
Poplakat’ 15/21 2.57 Proplakat’ 1.99
‘cry for a while’ ‘cry for a certain
period of time’
Group 3
Pobrodit’ 18/16 2.74 Probrodit’ 0.78
‘wander a while’ ‘wander for a
certain period of
time’
Podyšat’ 20/16 2.75
‘breathe for a while’
Poigrat’ 18/17 3.39 *Sygrat’15 3.92 Proigrat’16
‘play for a while’ ‘perform a piece of ‘play for a certain
music’, ‘play a game’ period of time’
Pogrozit’ 14/17 2.54
‘threaten’
Pokrutit’ 19/15 2.76 *Skrutit’ 2.68
‘twist for a while’ ‘twist off’, ‘tie up’
Porabotat’ 20/15 3.46 Prorabotat’ 3.16 Otrabotat’ 3.01
‘work for a while’ ‘work for a period of ‘work for a period of
time’ time, work a shift’
FIN
Poževat’ 19/16 2.54 *Sževat’ 1.82 Proževat’ 1.89
‘chew for a while’ ‘chew up’ ‘chew for a period of
time’, ‘masticate
thoroughly’
table 10: Log frequency of delimitatives and related perfective forms (LF – log fre-
quency; SEM – ‘semelfactive’, TERM – ‘terminative’, FIN – ‘finite’. As elsewhere in the paper, we
only consider the non-lexically-idiosyncratic meanings of the prefixed forms.)
[14] The star ‘*’ is used here to mark resultative forms whose meaning differs from the corresponding im-
perfective form. Sygrat’ is a true resultative for one of the senses of igrat’: ‘perform (a piece of music)’.
Sygrat’ corresponding to the other meaning of igrat’, ‘engage in sport or recreation’, has a semelfactive
flavor: ‘play a game, a match’. Skrutit’ has several lexicalized meanings, such as ‘wrench off
(a screw-bolt)’, ‘tie up’, and ‘roll a cigarette’. Sževat’ means ‘chew up’, it is also partially lexicalized.
[15] The most frequent meaning of proigrat’ is ‘lose (in a match or a game)’. As most instances in the corpus
correspond to this sense, it is hard to determine the frequency of the perdurative form.
These conclusions are consistent with the view of aspectual pairhood and as-
pectual clustering put forward in Dickey (2006) and Janda (2006). Janda (2006)
suggests that Russian verbs sharing the same root form structured clusters and
these verbs are represented as clusters in the minds of the speakers (this con-
ception is meant to replace the traditional model based on aspectual pairs). The
resultative forms denoting volitional goal-oriented (i.e. resultative) actions are
cognitively prominent in a cluster17 and hence have higher probabilities of be-
ing activated (along with the basic imperfective form) than other perfectives. As
Dickey (2006) shows, when an imperfective form has no resultative counterpart
(for the situation denoted is inherently homogeneous and atelic, and the result
is not lexicalized, as in the case of rabotat’ ‘work’), the po-delimitative becomes
eligible as a neutral (typically resultative) perfective partner.18
Alternatively, one can account for the pairhood effects described above, by
considering it a kind of grammatical bias or metalinguistic reflex. The Russian
speaker expects to find clustered verbs, at least one of which is prototypically
telic. When there is no telic form immediately available, the resultativity feature
gets extended to an available, less prototypical, form.
[4] g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n s
The goal of the present research was to provide basic insight into the processing
of perfective and imperfective aspect in Russian by focusing on the resultativity
feature.
In general, it was shown that this feature is consistently exploited in seman-
tic priming. This confirms the role it plays in the mental representation of verb
meaning. Furthermore, the results showed that semantic processing depends on
the featural value of the target: only negatively marked targets (processuals) were
affected by priming. This pattern contrasts with the results in Bonnotte (2008),
where priming mainly occurred on positively marked targets: ACHs in the RES
task and ACTs in the DUR task. It also differs partially from the results in Zarcone
& Lenci (2010), where, in addition to the facilitating effects reported in Bonnotte
(2008), ACHs were found to yield priming in the DUR task.
As we mentioned in section [1], both Bonnotte (2008) and Zarcone & Lenci
(2010) put forth a proposal regarding the different strength of the priming ef-
fect of resultativity vs. durativity, and activities vs. achievements. Both studies
pointed out that activities are more likely to benefit from priming because they
are contextually more malleable. According to Bonnotte (2008), the reason for
this asymmetry is that durativity is a continuous feature while resultativity a bi-
nary one. Zarcone & Lenci (2010) ascribed this difference to the different lexical
[17] This prominence is explained along the source-goal asymmetry, a general cognitive tendency investigat-
ed from the linguistic perspective at least since Lakusta & Landau (2005).
[18] See Dickey (2007) for a diachronic account of the development of different po–meanings.

encoding of these two features: “the [+DUR] and [-RES] of ACTs is ductile and sub-
ject to contextual adaptation, whereas ACHs are more ‘inherently’ [-DUR] [+RES]”.
Since the durativity feature was not tested in our experiments (many resultative
forms were durative, and hence positively marked for both [+DUR] and [+RES]),
we cannot straightforwardly compare our results to the ones in Bonnotte (2008)
and Zarcone & Lenci (2010) in this respect. However, as far as resultativity is con-
cerned, we did find that non-resultative (atelic) verbs give rise to priming, unlike
the resultative (telic) ones, which certainly confirms that atelic verbs are more
subject to contextual adaptation. A specific study on durativity would be needed
in order to assess its empirical relevance and make far-reaching generalizations
on its role in on-line processing effects.
The analysis of decision latencies and the error rate shows that the identifi-
cation of resultative forms was an easy task for the native speakers, which most
certainly has to do with the grammaticalized nature of aspect in Russian. An ad-
ditional facilitating factor was the morphological cue: prefixed forms were iden-
tified faster than unprefixed ones.
The design adopted in this experimental research went beyond the studies
it was inspired by, in that not only clear-cut categories were tested but also one
in-between category, namely the category of delimitatives, which is atelic (like
the processuals) and bounded (like the resultatives). The proportion of positive
and negative answers in the category induction experiment suggests that indeed
Russian speakers place the delimitatives between these two domains, but much
closer to the processuals than to the resultatives. These findings support the dis-
tinction of boundedness vs. telicity from both the theoretical and the behavioural
perspective (Bertinetto & Lentovskaya 2012).
Although the group of delimitatives tested was not representative enough to
perform a thorough qualitative analysis, our data seem to indicate that, whenever
a readily available resultative form is present in the cluster to which the delim-
itative belongs, the latter is less likely identified as a resultative, even though
such reading is not completely ruled out. By contrast, when no such resultative is
readily available, the delimitative verb can more easily be conceptualized as the
perfective counterpart of the basic imperfective, thus taking on the prototypical
perfective role (resultativity). We also pointed out that the probability of the re-
sultative reading of the delimitative depends on whether its frequency is higher
than that of the “competing” perfective forms. As a rule, the delimitatives are
less frequent than pure resultatives and more frequent than other perfective Ak-
tionsarten. Thus, in most cases, they are successfully blocked by their resultative
cognates. Although the frequency factor alone does not account for all facts (for
in many cases there are also semantic reasons preventing the delimitatives from
taking on the resultative interpretation), it has to be taken into account, given its
impact on processing.
There remain some problematic issues in this study that have not been ad-
dressed directly and should be clarified in further research. One of these issues
is the absence of priming effect on processuals in experiment 2, although the
same primes and targets yielded highly significant priming effect in experiment 3.
Note, however, that the situation was not exactly the same in both experiments.
In experiment 2, prefixed perfectives were used as both primes and targets, which
maximized the morphological contrast between resultatives and processuals and
most likely facilitated the recognition of both groups, therefore hindering the
priming effect. The same holds for experiment 4, although in this case the ab-
sence of priming could have been caused by the possible confusion induced by
delimitatives.
We hope that the results of this first empirical study will contribute to fos-
ter the experimental investigation of aspect and actionality in Russian, providing
new theoretical insight into the syntax-semantics interface.
aknowledgement
We gratefully acknowledge the financial and technical support of Laboratorio di
Linguistica (Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa). Without the invaluable assistance
of its staff members (Irene Ricci, Chiara Bertini, and Maddalena Agonigi) none of
this would have been possible. We appreciate all the participants from Pisa, Flo-
rence, and Madrid, who gave up a part of their scarce spare time to take the tests,
and all the colleagues and friends who put their Russian-speaking acquaintances
in Italy and Spain at our disposal (Anna Lentovskaya, Francesca Fici Giusti, Svet-
lana Yaskova, Svetlana Holtsova, Yulia and Sofia Grinevich, Olga Kebko, Anjelika
Prokofieva, Maria Kubareva, Olga Oleneva, and so many more). Many thanks to
the audience of the “Russian Verb” conference (especially Hans Robert Mehlig,
Stephen Dickey, and Atle Grønn), as well as to Elena de Miguel and to an anony-
mous reviewer of OSLa, for their insightful and encouraging comments on this
study. This project has been partially financed by a postdoctoral scholarship and a
grant “Juan de la Cierva” awarded to Olga Batiukova by the Ministry of Science and
Innovation of Spain, and by the research project “Diccionario electrónico multi-
lingüe de verbos de movimiento con significado amplio (andar, ir, venir y volver)”
(FFI2009-12191, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid).
references
Batiukova, O. 2006. From lexicon to syntax: aspect and qualia in the grammar of Russian
and Spanish. Madrid: Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Bertinetto, P.M. & D. Delfitto. 2000. “Aspect vs. Actionality: Why they should be
kept apart”. In Ö. Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, 189–226.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bertinetto, P.M. & A. Lentovskaya. 2012. “A diachronic view of the action-

al/aspectual properties of Russian verbs”. Russian Linguistics 1(36).
Bertinetto, P.M. & M. Squartini. 1995. “An attempt at defining the class of gradual
completion verbs”. In P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham & M. Squar-
tini (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. I: Semantic and Syntactic Per-
spectives, 11–26. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Bonnotte, I. 2008. “The role semantic features in verb processing”. Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research (37). 199–217.
Bott, O. 2008. “Doing it again and again may be difficult, but it depends on what
you are doing”. In Proceedings of the 27th WCCFL, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Press.
De Miguel, E. 1999. “El aspecto léxico”. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática
Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, 2977–3060. Madrid: Espasa.
Dickey, S. 2006. “Aspectual Pairs, Goal Orientation and po-Delimitatives in Rus-

sian”. Glossos 7.
Dickey, S. 2007. “A prototype account of the development of delimitative po– in

Russian”. In D. Divjak & A. Kochańska (eds.), Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain,
329–374. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dölling, J. et al. 2008. Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Filip, H. 2000. “The Quantization Puzzle”. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.),

Events as Grammatical Objects, 39–96. Standford: CSLI.
Finocchiaro, C. & G. Miceli. 2002. “Verb Actionality in Aphasia”. Folia Linguistica

3(36). 335–358.
Gennari, S. & D. Poeppel. 2003. “Processing correlates of lexical semantic com-

plexity”. Cognition 1(89). 27–41.
Heyde-Zybatow, T. 2004. “Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Verbklasse der

Achievements”. In A. Steube (ed.), Grammatik und Kontext: Zur Interaktion von
Syntax, Semantik und Prosodie bei der Informationsstrukturierung (Linguistische Ar-
beitsberichte 81), 11–32. Universität Leipzig.
Husband, M., L. Stockall & A. Beretta. ms. “VP-internal event composition”. Michigan
State University.
Isačenko, A. 1965. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slo-

vackim, Morfologija I-II. In Wiener Slavistischer Almanach, vol. Sonderband 59,
[The edition quoted is 2003, Moscow, Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury].
Janda, L. 2006. “Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs”. Studies in Language 3(31).

607–648.
Janda, L. 2008. “Motion Verbs and the Development of Aspect in Russian”. Scando-
Slavica (54). 179–197.
Krifka, M. 1989. “Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification

in Event Semantics”. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (eds.),
Semantics and Contextual Expressions, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.
Krifka, M. 1992. “Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and tem-
poral constitution”. In I. Sag & A. Szablocsi (eds.), Lexical Matters, 29–53. Stan-
ford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Lakusta, L. & B. Landau. 2005. “Starting at the end: the importance of goals in
spatial language”. Cognition (96). 1–33.
Lentovskaya, A. 2007-2008. “Una nuova possibile classificazione azionale dei verbi

russi”. Cuaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica (7). http://linguistica.sns.
it/QLL/Quaderni.htm.
Maslov, Ju. 2004a. “Očerki po aspektologii. Ob osnovnyx ponjatijax aspektologii”.

In Izbrannye trudy, 23–70. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
Maslov, Ju. 2004b. “Stat’ji po aspektologii. Universal’nye semantičeskie kompo-

nenty v soderžanii grammatičeskoj kategorii soveršennogo / nesoveršennogo
vida”. In Izbrannye trudy, 396–410. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.
McNamara, T.P. 2005. Semantic priming: perspectives from memory and word recogni-
tion. New York: Psychology Press.
Mehlig, H.R. 2006. “Glagol’nyj vid i vtoričnaja gomogenizacija oboznačaemoj

situacii posredstvom kvantifikacii: K upotrebleniju delimitativnogo sposoba
dejstvija v russkom jazyke” [Verbal aspect and the secondary homogenization
of a described situation by means of quantification: Use of the delimitative Ak-
tionsart in Russian]. In Semantika i structura slavjanskogo vida. Sbornik materi-
alov konferencii “Slavjanskij vid i leksikografija” (The semantics and structure of Slav-
ic aspect. Collected papers from the conference “Slavic aspect and lexicography”) 5,
235–276. Slavolinguistica.
Mehlig, H.R. 2007. “Aspect and bounded quantity complements in Russian”. In

S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of As-
pect, 257–290. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mehlig, H.R. in press. “Hybrid predicates in Russian”. In B. Dvorak & E. Gorischne-

va (eds.), Collected Contributions to the 2nd Congress of Slavic Linguistic Society,
München: Otto Sagner.
Padučeva, E. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
Pylkkänen, L. & B. McElree. 2006. “The syntax-semantic interface: On-line compo-

sition of sentence meaning”. In M. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook
of Psycholinguistics, 539–580. New York: Elsevier.
Tatevosov, S. 2003. “A Theory of Slavic Aspect and the Russian Delimitative”. In

P. Kosta et al. (eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics (FDSL IV), 873–891.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Tatevosov, S. & M. Ivanov. 2009. “Event structure of non-culminating accom-

plishments”. In L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop & A. Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic
Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Modality, 83–129. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Todorova, M., K. Straub, W. Badecker & R. Frank. 2000. “Aspectual coercion and
the online computation of sentential aspect”. In Proceedings of the 22nd Confer-
ence of the Cognitive Science Society, 3–8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates.
Zarcone, A. 2008. Empirical correlates of event types. Pisa University MA thesis.
Zarcone, A. & A. Lenci. 2010. “Priming Effects on Event Types Classification: Ef-
fects of Word and Picture Stimuli”. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1886–1891.
Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

A appendix
Imperfective targets in experiment 1 (lists A, B, C), experiment 2 (lists A, B, C),
experiment 3, and experiment 4
Imperfective primes in experiment 1 (lists D, E, F) and experiment 2 (lists D,
E, F)
Verbs Semantic class Length LF Verbs Semantic class Length LF

xrapet’ ‘snore’ body process 7 2.75 pečatat’ ‘print, creation 8 3.55
type’
stradat’ ‘suffer’ emotion 8 4.00 gresti ‘pull, motion 6 2.81
paddle’
pomogat’ ‘help’ social 8 4.59 trogat’ ‘touch’ contact 7 3.64
sočinjat’ ‘com- creation 8 3.37 tratit’ ‘spend’ consumption 7 3.85
pose, make up’
gasit’ ‘extin- change 6 2.94 lupit’ ‘hit, peel’ contact 6 2.78
guish, put
out’
kormit’ ‘feed’ possession 7 3.86 glazet’ ‘stare at’ perception 5 2.76
Imperfective primes in experiment 1 (lists A, B, C), experiment 2 (lists A, B, C),

experiment 3, and experiment 4
Imperfective targets in experiment 1 (lists D, E, F) and experiment 2 (lists D,
E, F)

toptat’ ‘tram- change 7 2.93 probovat’ ‘try, consumption 9 3.80
ple’ taste’
šutit’ ‘joke, communication 6 3.64 drožat’ ‘trem- body process 7 3.83
make fun’ ble’
zvonit’ ‘ring, perception 7 4.17 platit’ ‘pay’ possession 7 4.24
call’
merit’ ‘mea- cognition 6 2.85 bormotat’ ‘mut- communication 9 3.42
sure’ ter, mussitate’
žarit’ ‘fry’ change 6 3.06 kivat’ ‘nod’ motion 6 3.45
obedat’ ‘have consumption 7 3.37 xlopat’ ‘clap, contact 7 3.35
lunch’ spank’

Unprefixed perfective targets in experiment 1 (lists A, B, C), experiment 3, and

experiment 4
Unprefixed perfective primes in experiment 1 (lists D, E, F)

ucelet’ ‘survive’ state 7 3.32 udarit’ ‘hit’ contact 7 3.81
spasti ‘save’ social 6 3.80 prostit’ ‘for- social 8 4.10
give’
otvetit’ ‘re- communication 8 4.64 očutit’sja ‘find motion 9 3.33
spond’ oneself’
pojmat’ ‘catch’ possession 7 3.92 pustit’ ‘let, re- contact 7 3.64
lease’
končit’ ‘finish’ change 7 3.39 najti ‘find’ cognition, per- 5 4.64
ception
sest’ ‘sit down’ motion 5 4.19 usvoit’ ‘adopt, cognition, pos- 7 2.97
assimilate’ session
Unprefixed perfective primes in experiment 1 (lists A, B, C)

Unprefixed perfective targets in experiment 1 (lists D, E, F)

očnut’sja body process 8 3.40 vstretit’ ‘meet’ social 9 4.06
‘regain con-
sciousness’
posetit’ ‘visit’ motion 8 3.53 ruxnut’ ‘crash, motion 7 3.57
collapse’
lišit’ ‘deprive possession 6 3.28 kupit’ ‘buy’ possession 6 4.50
of’
rešit’ ‘decide’ cognition 6 4.69 obidet’ ‘offend’ social, emo- 7 3.24
tion
isčeznut’ ‘dis- change 9 4.11 brosit’ ‘throw’ motion 7 4.16
appear’
leč’ ‘lay down’ motion 4 3.84 oščutit’ ‘feel’ perception 7 3.52

Prefixed perfective targets in experiment 2 (lists A, B, C)

Prefixed perfective primes in experiment 2 (lists D, E, F)

poobeščat’ communication 9 3.55 posadit’ ‘sit motion, cre- 8 3.80
‘make a down, plant’ ation
promise’
počinit’ ‘repair, change 8 2.70 pomyt’ ‘wash’ change 6 3.00
fix’
ukolot’ ‘bite, contact 7 2.31 upast’ ‘fall’ motion 6 4.20
sting’
poterjat’ ‘loose’ possession 8 4.32 poverit’ ‘be- cognition 8 4.18
lieve, give
credit’
poprosit’ ‘ask (a communication 9 4.28 vyrostit’ ‘grow, creation 9 2.79
favor)’ raise’
dopit’ ‘drink consumption 6 2.75 nalit’ ‘pour motion, pos- 6 3.41
up’ (out)’ session
Prefixed perfective primes in experiment 2 (lists A, B, C), experiment 3, and

experiment 4
Prefixed perfective targets in experiment 2 (lists D, E, F)

slomat’ ‘break’ change 7 3.69 prošipet’ ‘hiss’ communication 9 2.76
izbit’ ‘beat, contact 6 2.98 sgoret’ ‘burn change 7 3.32
bang up’ away’
vylečit’ ‘cure, social 8 2.75 porvat’ ‘tear’ change 7 3.34
heal’
pročitat’ ‘read cognition 9 3.89 s’’est’ ‘eat up, consumption 6 3.67
through’ consume’
pozvat’ ‘call communication 7 3.75 sprjatat’ ‘hide’ motion 8 3.70
smb’
položit’ ‘put motion 8 4.10 poslat’ ‘send’ motion 7 3.90
down’

Delimitative targets in experiment 4

pokrutit’ ‘twist contact 9 2.77 poigrat’ ‘play social 8 3.39
for a while’ for a while’
polistat’ ‘leaf, contact 9 2.56 poplakat’ ‘cry, emotion 9 2.58
thumb for a weep for a
while’ while’
porabotat’ social 10 3.46 poiskat’ ‘search perception 8 3.38
‘work for a for a while’
while’
poževat’ ‘chew body process 8 2.54 poxodit’ ‘walk motion 8 2.92
for a while’ for a while’
podyšat’ body process 8 2.75 popisat’ ‘write creation 8 2.59
‘breathe for a while’
for a while’
pobrodit’ ‘wan- motion 9 2.75 pogrozit’ communication 9 2.54
der’ ‘threaten for a
while’

Olga Batiukova
Filología Española
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
volha.batsiukova@uam.es
Pier Marco Bertinetto

Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa
Italy
bertinetto@sns.it
Alessandro Lenci
Dipartimento di Linguistica
via Santa Maria 36
56126 Pisa
Italy
alessandro.lenci@ling.unipi.it
Alessandra Zarcone
Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung (IMS)
Universität Stuttgart
Azenbergstraße 12
D-70174 Stuttgart
Germany
alessandra.zarcone@ims.uni-stuttgart.de

(ISSN 1890-9639)
degree semantics for russian verbal

prefixes: the case of pod- and do-
OLGA KAGAN
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Verbal prefixation plays a central role in Slavic aspectual system and word forma-
tion. Although a lot of work is devoted to the semantics of verbal prefixation in
Slavic, numerous questions regarding the semantic nature of the prefixes remain
open.
Descriptively speaking, prefixation constitutes the most common means of
perfectivization in Slavic languages. For instance, while the verb pisat’ (write) is
imperfective, such verbs as napisat’ (write), perepisat’ (rewrite) and podpisat’ (sign)
are all perfective. Still, as argued convincingly by Filip (2000), verbal prefixes can-
not be analyzed as inflectional perfectivizing morphemes, and their semantics
cannot be equated to perfectivization. Thus, a prefix can be attached to a verb
that is already perfective and, as such, cannot undergo perfectivization. Further,
a verb that contains a prefix may be imperfective, if it also contains an imperfec-
tivizing suffix. Semantics of such verbs does not generally involve an application
of a perfective operator, despite the presence of the prefixes. Moreover, as illus-
trated above, a given stem may combine with different prefixes, since, in addition
to having a perfectivizing effect, such prefixes are associated with a wide range
of further semantic contributions. A prefix may contribute a spatial, cumulative,
diminutive, inchoative, completive or distributive interpretation, to list just a few
possibilities. Given such variation, is it possible to make any generalizations re-
garding the semantics of verbal prefixes? Or do we have to confine ourselves to
investigating the properties of each prefix in isolation?
The situation is further complicated by the fact that a prefix with a given
phonological realization may be associated with multiple meanings. For instance,
the Russian prefix pere- may contribute a spatial interpretation “to cross” (e.g. pe-
rejti ‘cross by walking’), one of excess (perepit’ ‘drink too much’), an iterative mean-
ing (perečitat’ ‘reread’), a distributive meaning (perestreljat’ ‘shoot one by one’).
The different uses of a single phonological prefix are set even further apart in
the context of the lexical/superlexical contrast. Lexical prefixes affect the lexical
meaning of the verb; they may change its argument structure; their contribution
may be idiosyncratic and not (fully) compositional, and they are compatible with
[208] olga kagan
secondary imperfectivization. In contrast, the contribution of superlexical prefixes

is transparent; they do not change the lexical meaning or argument structure of
the verb, but rather contribute some kind of quantificational or aspectual mean-
ing in a purely compositional manner; further, they are typically incompatible
with secondary imperfectivization (e.g. Babko-Malaya (1999); Romanova (2004);
Svenonius (2004)). Importantly, the same string of sounds may correspond to a
lexical prefix under one meaning and to a superlexical one under another. As a
result, in the literature that concentrates on the lexical/superlexical distinction,
such strings are sometimes implicitly treated as distinct prefixes1 . An important
theoretical question thus emerges regarding the status of such items, which are
identical phonologically but not semantically. Should they be treated as a single
prefix with a uniform but indeterminate meaning, and, thus, be provided a uni-
fied account? (This approach, whereby an invariant meaning of a prefix is sought,
is in the spirit of Jakobson’s work and has been recently applied to certain prefix-
es in Russian and Czech by Braginsky (2008) and Součková (2004a,b).) Or should
they rather be regarded as exhibiting polysemy or homonymy? With different
prefixes, different answers may be correct. Further, assuming that for some pre-
fixes, a unified account is the right solution, can we make any generalizations as
to what aspects of meaning are likely to remain stable across multiple uses and
what are the likely parameters of variation?
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the study of Slavic prefixation
and to the investigation of the issues raised above. I propose an approach to ver-
bal prefixes that is formulated within the framework of degree semantics. Under
this approach, the major semantic function of a prefix is to impose a certain re-
lation between two degrees on a scale. Prefixes differ in the type of the scale to
which they apply, in the properties of the compared degrees and in the relation
that holds between the degrees and the event argument contributed by the verbal
stem.
Importantly, the notion of scales and degrees has received a central role in a
number of recent approaches to telicity, perfectivity and perfectivization (e.g. Ken-
nedy & Levin (2002, 2008); Filip & Rothstein (2006); Filip (2008); Rappaport Hovav
(2008, 2009); Piñón (2008) ). For instance, Kennedy & Levin (2002) define verbs
of gradual change, which denote events that involve an increase in the degree to
which their argument possesses a certain gradable property (p. 5). To illustrate,
the degree achievement cool denotes an increase in the degree of coolness. Anal-
ogously, the verb of motion ascend entails a progress along a path on the part
[1] It should be emphasized, however, that a polysemy or homonymy position is not obligatory under an
approach that distinguishes between lexical and superlexical uses of the same phonological prefix. Un-
der this approach, lexical and superlexical prefixes are assumed to occupy different structural positions
(superlexical prefixes attach higher than lexical ones). Therefore, such an approach is perfectly compat-
ible with an assumption that we deal with a single prefix whose semantic contribution depends on the
structural position in which it is merged.

degree semantics for russian prefixes [209]
of its argument, and is therefore associated with an increase in the property of

advancement along a path. The semantics of verbs of gradual change involves a
‘degree of change argument’. This is the degree to which an argument undergoes
an increase in the relevant property between the beginning point of the event and
the endpoint of the event. We can think of a degree of change as the length of the
interval between the point on the scale associated with the beginning of an event
and the point on the same scale associated with the end of the event. The degree
of change plays a crucial role in the telicity of the predicate. In particular, if the
degree of change is quantized, or bounded, then an endpoint of the event can be
identified, and the predicate is telic. If the degree of change is non-quantized, the
predicate is atelic (Hay et al. 1999; Kennedy & Levin 2002, 2008).
In turn, Filip (2008) and Filip & Rothstein (2006) analyze telicity and perfec-
tivity as maximalization on events. Perfective predicates are taken to denote sets
of events that are maximal, in a given situation, relative to a particular scale (e.g.
a time scale or a path scale). Turning to verbal prefixation, Filip (2008) states that
certain uses of prefixes “contribute to the specification of the ordering criterion
on events” and “can be assimilated to the class of scale inducing expressions”. Fil-
ip points out that “[m]any prefixes historically developed from prepositions and
adverbs used for the expression of directed path structures in space and time.
Other meanings commonly lexicalized by prefixes are related to cardinality and
measure. Directed path structures, cardinality and measurement notions are pre-
cisely the type of meaning components that have independently been uniformly
represented by means of scales.”
The analysis developed in this paper is in the spirit of the above-mentioned
approaches in that it assigns to verbal prefixes a scalar semantics. I put forward
a hypothesis that a verbal prefix imposes a relation between two degrees on a
scale, one of which is a degree associated with the event denoted by the verbal
predicate, and the other, the standard of comparison. A degree may be linked to
an event in several different ways; for instance, this may be the degree of change
argument of the event in the sense of (Kennedy & Levin 2002). Additional possi-
bilities will be demonstrated below. In turn, the standard of comparison can be
contributed either by a linguistic expression that appears in the sentence, or by
the context. The scale to which the prefix applies is typically contributed by the
linguistic environment in which the prefix appears (e.g. by the verbal stem or by
a direct object); in more rare cases, a lexical prefix may introduce a scale of its
own. The core meaning proposed for verbal prefixes can be represented as in (1).
(It will be shown in Sections [3] and [4] that the formula needs to be slightly re-
vised in order to capture the finer distinctions imposed by certain prefixes.) This
approach will be referred to below as The Scale Hypothesis.

[210] olga kagan
(1) The Scale Hypothesis (Version 1)

λP λdλxλeλds [P (d)(x)(e) ∧ dRds ]
R stands for a relation between the two degrees, d and ds , the precise relation
(e.g. ‘<’, ‘=’, ‘≥’) being determined by a given prefix. All the uses of a given prefix
will involve the same relation between the two degrees. The different uses of a
given prefix differ primarily in terms of the scale on which the two degrees are
compared (e.g. a path scale, a property scale, a time scale, etc.) The intuitive con-
trast between the different uses, which sometimes makes them seem absolutely
unrelated semantically despite the phonological identity, is to a large degree re-
ducible to this basic distinction. With some prefixes, the uses will also differ in
terms of additional properties, such as the source and the nature of ds , the stan-
dard of comparison. Distinct prefixes may differ from one another along a whole
range of parameters, which are discussed in more detail at the end of the paper,
in Section [5]. Under the proposed analysis, Paillard’s (1997) claim is followed ac-
cording to which prefixes should be treated as relators (реляторы), which impose
a relation between two items. Specifically, I propose to treat prefixes as relations
between degrees.
A support of a scalar approach along the line of (1) comes from an analysis for-
mulated by Součková (2004a) for two specific prefixes, po- and na- in Czech (the
analysis is largely based on Filip’s (2000) account of the prefixes po- and na- in Rus-
sian). Following Filip (2000), Součková treats these prefixes as measure functions
that delimit the event. Crucially, she argues that they do so by virtue of measur-
ing an interval on the scale that is relevant for the delimitation of the event. More
precisely, they measure the degree of change of the event. (In other words, they
measure a change that an event participant undergoes in some gradable proper-
ty in the course of the event.) na- specifies that the degree of change reaches or
exceeds a contextually provided standard; po-, on the contrary, specifies that the
degree does not exceed such a standard. The different uses of the prefixes corre-
spond to the different scales to which they apply (for instance, po- in Czech can
apply to property, path and time scales). This analysis can be translated into the
framework adopted in the present paper as follows:
(2) Jpo-K = λP λdλxλe.[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ d ≤ dc ]

Jna-K = λP λdλxλe.[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ d ≥ dc ]
where d is the degree of change (Kennedy & Levin 2002)
In this paper, I argue that the analysis provided in (1) successfully applies to
additional prefixes, which differ considerably from both po- and na- in terms of
their properties. One goal of the paper is to propose that the analysis in (1) rep-
resents a general pattern followed by multiple prefixes which exhibit different
properties and belong to different groups (rather than being an accidental prop-
erty that happens to characterize a couple of prefixes). Importantly, I will argue

that the Scale Hypothesis applies even to prefixes that are not superlexical, do
not make a purely transparent contribution and do not necessarily function as
event delimiters or measure functions. In what follows, the Scale Hypothesis will
be discussed and argued for in four stages, briefly discussed below.
(i) In Section [2], I extend The Scale Hypothesis to the prefix pod- in Russian.
This prefix is characterized by a variety of uses, mainly lexical, which are
intuitively quite different from each other. I will argue that all these uses
are unified by the semantic core represented in (3):
(3) λP λdλxλeλds .[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ d < ds ]2
The prefix consistently specifies that a certain degree on a scale associated

with the event is lower than a standard of comparison. The uses of pod- dif-
fer in terms of the scale to which this prefix applies, as well as in terms of
the source of the standard of comparison: with some uses, it corresponds
to a contextually specified norm, while with others it is contributed by the
semantics of a linguistic expression. Some lexical uses of pod- may be asso-
ciated with additional meaning components.
(ii) In Section [3], the Russian prefix do- is discussed. It is proposed that the pre-
fix identifies the point on a scale that is reached by an event participant at
the endpoint of the event with a standard of comparison. It will be shown
that the prefix can apply to scales with different types of dimensions, in-
cluding path scales, property scales and the time scale.
(iii) In section [4], the general semantics for prefixes proposed in (1) is slightly
revised, in accordance with the demands revealed in the previous sections.
(iv) In addition to capturing the semantic core that unifies different prefixes and
their uses, the Scale Hypothesis allows us to identify a whole range of pa-
rameters along which prefixes are predicted to vary. These parameters are
discussed in Section [5].
Only two prefixes will be discussed in this paper in detail for reasons of space.
However, the choice of the prefixes is not accidental. pod- is a lexical prefix under
most of its uses; it affects the lexical meaning of the verb and sometimes changes
its argument structure, and its contribution is not always purely transparent. In
turn, do- has properties of both lexical and superlexical prefixes. For instance,
like a lexical prefix, it is compatible with secondary imperfectivization (dopisat’ –
[2] I assume that d, the degree associated with the event, may be, and often is, existentially quantified over.

[212] olga kagan
dopisyvat’ (to finish writing)), but like a superlexical prefix, it contributes an as-
pectual interpretation in a purely compositional way. Tatevosov (2008) captures
these facts by arguing convincingly that do- belongs to a third group of interme-
diate prefixes. Given that the prefixes po- and na- discussed by Filip and Součková
are superlexical, the discussion will allow us to conclude that the Scale Hypothesis
successfully applies to prefixes belonging to all the three types – lexical, interme-
diate and superlexical. The prefixes pod-, do-, na- and po- differ considerably in
their properties, belong to different classes and, therefore, do not form a natural
class to the exclusion of the other prefixes. The fact that all these morphemes re-
ceive a scalar analysis along the line of (1) suggests that the scalar semantics is not
an accidental characteristic of two or three morphemes but rather a more gener-
al property associated with Slavic verbal prefixation. Of course, future research
is needed in order to determine how far The Scale Hypothesis can be extended,
whether it applies to the complete set of prefixes or not, and if not, how the pre-
cise range of prefixes for which it is valid can be classified. This paper constitutes
one of the first steps toward this goal and may provide a basis for future inves-
tigation. Hopefully, the direction of research developed in this paper will prove
helpful in the study of additional prefixes.
[2] t h e p r e f i x p o d -
This section is devoted to a discussion of the semantics of the prefix pod- in Rus-
sian. I will list several different uses of this prefix and then propose a semantic
analysis that unifies all these uses. Roughly speaking, it will be proposed that the
prefix specifies that an event, or some aspect of the event, reaches a degree on a
certain scale that is lower than a standard of comparison (the latter being provid-
ed either by a PP found in the sentence or by the context). Given that the prefix is
derived from the preposition pod ‘under’, ‘below’, the semantics of the prefix un-
der the proposed analysis can be conceived of as metaphoric. The prefix specifies
that the event in question reaches a degree on a scale that is located below anoth-
er degree. In this sense, the analysis conforms to a generalization made by Janda
(1988, 328) according to which a prefix usually has a spatial submeaning, with the
other uses corresponding to metaphorical extensions of this submeaning. The
different uses of the prefix will be argued to differ in terms of the dimension of
the scale to which it applies, and in the nature of the standard of comparison.
What kind of scale is involved largely depends on the properties of the predicate
to which the prefix attaches.
Before we proceed to a more detailed investigation of the prefix, one com-
plication should be mentioned. Under most uses of pod- to be discussed below it
clearly functions as a lexical prefix, which affects the lexical meaning of the verb
and, sometimes, changes its argument structure. As is well-known, the contribu-
tion of a lexical prefix is not always purely compositional, can be idiosyncratic,
and may even give rise to idiomatic readings. Therefore, the meaning of some
verbs that contain pod- cannot be predicted in a purely compositional manner on
the basis of the (uniform) semantics of the prefix and the denotation of the stem.
We should allow for certain lexical uses of the prefix in combination with certain
verbs (i) to introduce idiosyncratic meaning components in addition to the uni-
form contribution of the prefix, and even (ii) to create idiomatic or near-idiomatic
meanings. Despite these complications, degree semantics makes it possible to de-
fine a meaning component that unifies the different uses of pod-, as long as the
semantics of the resulting predicate is at least partly compositional (which is
typically the case). The discussion of the prefix pod- is thus important for at least
two reasons. First, it demonstrates how what looks like different and unrelated
uses of a given prefix can be unified under a scalar analysis. Second, it shows that
a scalar analysis can be applied to a lexical prefix, and not only to a superlexical
one. This way, the discussion of pod- renders considerable support to the Scale
Hypothesis.
This section is organized as follows. In Section [2.1], four uses of pod- are in-
troduced on a descriptive level. In Section [2.2], I propose a formal analysis of the
prefix and show how it applies to the four uses. Section [2.3] extends the discus-
sion to an additional, fifth use of pod-. It is shown that the meaning component
defined in Section [2.2] characterizes this use as well3 . Section [2.4] formulates
generalizations regarding the relation between the meaning of pod- and the en-
vironment in which it appears. In Section [2.6], I discuss several uses of the mor-
pheme pod that does not function as a verbal prefix. It is shown that these uses
render further support to the scalar nature of pod. Finally, Section [2.7] concludes
the discussion.
[2.1] The Prefix pod-: A List of Uses

This section contains a pre-theoretical discussion of four different uses of pod-.
Vertical pod-
I begin with the use of pod- that is especially strongly related to the semantic
meaning of the preposition pod (under). This use of pod- is referred to by Plungyan
(2001) as nižnjaja okrestnost’ (lower boundary). The precise effect of the attach-
ment of the prefix is in part idiosyncratic, but the resulting predicates can be
[3] It should be noted that the goal of this section is not to provide an exhaustive list that would cover all
the sub-uses of pod- and all the individual verbs containing this prefix. The range of such uses is quite
wide, as some of them only contain very small groups of verbs; further, some verbs are characterized by
especially low compositionality and by idiomatic components. My goal is rather to describe and analyze
several major uses which cover a wide range of verbs that contain the prefix pod- and, by considering
these uses, to demonstrate the relevance of scale structure for the analysis of the prefix. The general
principle developed in the paper can be further applied to analyze additional instances of pod- even if
they happen not to be listed in this paper.

[214] olga kagan
roughly divided into two types. Verbs of the first type denote events whereby
an object x undergoes motion, with the result of x being located under an object
y. Compositionality is to a high degree observed with verbs of placement. Such
verbs, in combination with pod-, mean roughly “to put x under y”, with additional
meaning components contributed by the lexical semantics of the root. This kind
of interpretation is exhibited by such verbs as podložit’ (pod-lay/put down) ‘to lay
x under y’, podstavit’ (pod-put (in a vertical position)) ‘to place x under y’, podstelit’
(pod-lay/spread) ‘to lay x under y’. The use of such verbs is exemplified in (4):
(4) a. podložit’ podušku (pod golovu)

pod-lay pillow under head
‘to put a pillow (under one’s head)’
b. podstavit’ skameječku pod nogi
pod-put footstool under legs
‘to put a footstool/a small bench under one’s legs.’4
Podpisat’ (pod-write) is a verb whose meaning is not compositionally derived, but

in which the ‘under’ meaning of pod- can be still made out. This verb means ‘to
sign’. Signing involves writing, and in the prototypical case, a signature is placed
below some picture / text etc. Of course, sign is not identical to write below; still, it
is non-surprising that the prefix pod- is used to derive a verb with this meaning.
The second type consists of verbs in which pod- introduces the meaning of
moving upward, such as podnjat’ ‘lift’ (the stem is a bound morpheme which can-
not function as an independent word), podprygnut’ (pod-jump (once)) ‘jump up’,
and podbrosit’ (pod-throw) ‘throw up’. Although, perhaps surprisingly, the motion
is upward, rather than downward, we can still detect the original meaning of ‘un-
der’: the point in space at which the motion begins is located at the lower end of
the vertical path traversed by the object. Roughly, the source is located under
the goal.
pod- of Approaching
pod- of approaching, which corresponds to prilegajuščaja okrestnost’ (adjacent vicin-
ity) in Plungyan’s terminology, is similar to vertical pod- in that it, too, relates to
the path traversed by an event participant. However, its contribution is not asso-
ciated with vertical configuration. This use is found primarily with determinate
(uni-directional) verbs of manner of motion, and the semantic contribution of the
prefix can be intuitively described as to approach (in the manner of motion spec-
ified by the verb). This use is exemplified by podojti (pod- + idti (walk), approach
by walking), podbežat’ (pod- + bežat’ (run), approach by running), podletet’ (pod- +
[4] Note that podstavit’ can be used even if one’s legs are not located on/above the footstool immediately
after the putting event. The verb can be used as soon as the speaker intends for someone to put his or
her legs on the object in the near future. In this case, the purpose of the subject is sufficient.

letet’ (fly), approach by flying). It is also found with verbs belonging to other class-
es, e.g. the transitive verb pododvinut’ (pod- + dvinut’ (move), to move an object x
close to y). The object that is approached is typically specified by a PP headed
by the preposition k (towards) (alternatively, it can be specified by the context).
According to (5), Masha reached (by walking) a location that is close to the store
(the result state is one of her being near the store.)
(5) Maša podošla k magazinu.

Masha pod-walked toward store
‘Masha approached the store.’
pod- of Limited Change

Degree achievements denote an event of change whereby an event participant
comes to be characterized by a gradable property to a certain degree (e.g. melt,
shorten, grow). The change of state is from having the property to a degree d to
having it to a higher degree d’ (see Hay et al. (1999); Kennedy & Levin (2002, 2008);
Rothstein (2008), and references therein). (For instance, a growing event is an
event whereby a participant undergoes a change in size; at the end of the event
it comes to be bigger than at its beginning.) When pod- attaches to such verbs, it
specifies that the degree to which the property comes to hold of the participant
at the end of the event is relatively low.
Examples: podtajat’ (pod- + melt, melt a little bit / incompletely), podrasti (pod-
+ grow (up), grow (up) a little bit), podzabyt’ (pod- + forget, forget slightly, not com-
pletely), podgoret’ (pod- + burn, to burn slightly), podmoknut’ (pod- + get-wet, get
slightly wet (not to be thoroughly soaked)), podsoxnut’ (pod-dry) ‘get somewhat
drier’, podgnit’ (pod-rot) ‘become tainted’, podustat’ (pod-get-tired) ‘to get some-
what tired’.
Stative pod
The last type of pod- that I will mention in this section is not productive, and is
found with a small number of verbs. Despite this fact, I believe this use is worth
discussing because it illustrates the contribution of the prefix in a straightforward
way.
Stative pod- is found with verbs that are not eventive, but rather denote a state
whereby a certain gradable property holds of their argument. The function of
the prefix is to indicate that the property in question holds of the argument to a
relatively low degree. An example would be the verb podtašnivat’, derived from
the prefix pod- and the verb tošnit’ ‘nauseate’. The resulting verb means ‘nauseate
slightly’. Importantly, the verb does not have a perfective form, a fact that is
related to its purely stative nature. However, an attachment of a prefix normally
results in a formation of a perfective verb. As a result, pod- can only attach to this
[216] olga kagan
root in combination with a secondary imperfective suffix -va. Thus, we deal with a
situation whereby a prefix can only appear in an imperfective verb with a stative
semantics. Even though such cases are relatively rare, their existence constitutes
additional evidence against the treatment of prefixes as semantic perfectivizers.
The same holds for podnyvat’ (ache slightly), derived from the prefix pod-, the
suffix -va and the stem ny- (the verb is used only in spoken, informal language).
The more basic verb nyt’, ‘to moan’ under its literal meaning, can also be used with
the meaning ‘to ache (slightly)’. The attachment of pod- indicates an even lower
intensity of the pain. Stative pod- is further illustrated in such verbs as podvanivat’
(pod- + stink), ‘to stink’ (not too heavily) and its synonym podpaxivat’ (pod- + smell).
While this type of pod- is highly restricted, its use is sometimes extended in
informal speech to stems with which it cannot combine in the more formal or
standard dialects (even spoken ones). Some examples from the internet are pro-
vided in (6). It is very likely that the speakers of these sentences would say upon
second thought that the verbs in question do not exist. Still, such examples are in-
teresting as they illustrate the speakers’ ability to use the prefix productively, in
predicted ways which reveal the speakers’ implicit understanding of the function
of the prefix.
(6) a. posle pročtenija otvetov menja stalo podznablivat’

after reading answers me started pod-chill
‘After having read the answers, I started to feel a slight chill.’
http://forum.ozpp.ru/showthread.php?t=57117&page=12
b. golova tože možet podbalivat’
head too may pod-ache
‘The head may ache slightly, too.’
http://forum.antivsd.ru/index.php?topic=3174.0
c. Včera začesalsja glaz, vtoroj k noči načal
yesterday started-itching eye second toward night started
podčosyvat’sja.
pod-itch
‘Yesterday an eye started itching; the second one started itching slight-
ly by night.’
http://club.passion.ru/viewtopic.php?t=158028&postdays=
0&postorder=asc&start=405&sid=
[2.2] The Prefix pod-: A Unified Analysis

I propose that all the uses of pod- listed above share a substantial meaning com-
ponent, which can be formulated within a framework that relates events to scales
and degrees on those scales. More precisely, pod- specifies that the reported event
(or some aspect of this event) reaches a relatively low degree d on a certain scale.
Type of pod- Example Scale

pod- of limited change podgoret’ (burn slightly) property scale
stative pod- podtašnivat’ (nauseate slightly) property scale
(physical experience)
pod- of approaching podjexat’ (approach by driving) path scale
vertical pod- podstelit’ (lay under) path scale (verticality)
table 1: Uses of the prefix pod-
The degree d is relatively low in the sense that it is lower than another degree
ds which is either contextually supplied or provided by a linguistic expression
present in the sentence. The unified semantics of pod- has been formalized in (3),
repeated below as (7):
(7) Jpod-K = λP λdλxλeλds .[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ d < ds ]
The different uses of the prefix differ primarily in terms of the scale relative to
which they restrict the event – and, therefore, in the precise component of the
event that is restricted. Also, some uses differ in terms of the source and nature of
the standard of comparison, and in the precise relation between the degree d and
the event (e.g. with pod- of limited change and pod- of approaching, d is associated
with the endpoint of the event, whereas with stative pod-, it is linked to the state
as a whole.)
An important consequence of the proposal made in this section is that the
multiple types of pod- discussed above should not be treated as an instance of
homonymy. We deal with a single prefix, rather than a set of different morphemes
that happen to be phonologically identical. It seems likely that polysemy should
be ruled out on the same ground. We do not deal with multiple meanings of the
item, but rather with a single meaning, indeterminate to a certain degree, with
the precise interpretation largely predictable on the basis of the environment in
which the prefix appears. Still, some features may characterize one use but not
the others (see discussion below), a factor that could be used to argue for a polyse-
my approach (but definitely not homonymy). And of course, we should allow for
a certain degree of idiosyncrasy given that this is a derivational morpheme. But
overall, by analogy with Součková’s (2004b) claim about the prefix po- in Czech,
we can conclude that in Russian, there is only one pod-.
In what follows, I reconsider the uses of pod- listed in Section [2] and specify
the scales relative to which each of the uses imposes the restriction in (7). The
range of scales involved is summarized in Table 1.
[218] olga kagan
pod- of Limited Change

Let us begin with pod- of limited change, observed with such verbs as podtajat’ (melt
incompletely) and podrasti (grow (up) a little bit). The verbs with which this type
of pod- combines lexicalize a property scale (Rappaport Hovav 2008), e.g. the scale
of height in the case of rasti ‘grow’5 or the scale corresponding to the property of
liquidity (the consistence) in the case of tajat’ ‘melt’. The prefix specifies that the
degree d, which an argument of the verb reaches on the property scale at the end
of the event, is lower than the standard of comparison (even though it is higher
than the degree associated with the starting point of the event).
I will assume the semantics of degree achievements in (8), which is based on
Kennedy & Levin (2002), with several modifications in accordance with the formal
framework adopted in this paper. (9) formalizes the denotation of the complex
predicates which contain pod- of limited change.
(8) JVK = λd′d λd′′d λye λev .[Q(d)(y)(end(e)) ∧ Q(d′′ )(y)(beg(e)) ∧ d′ > d′′ ]
(9) Jpod-V K = λdλxλeλds λd′′ .[Q(d)(x)(end(e)) ∧ Q(d′′ )(x)(beg(e)) ∧ d >

d′′ ∧ d < ds ]
(where Q is the gradable property lexicalized by the verb,
beg is the function from events to times that returns an event’s beginning
point
end is the function from events to times that returns an event’s final point
(Kennedy & Levin 2002))
The standard of comparison can come from two sources, depending on the type of
scale introduced by the predicate. The important distinction is between upper (or
totally) closed scales, on the one hand, and open (or lower closed) scales, on the
other, in the sense of Kennedy & McNally (2005)6 . Upper closed and totally closed
scales are scales that have a maximal element. For instance, consider a gradable
adjective like full. A vessel can filled to different degrees, but if it is completely
full, then it is filled to a maximal degree that cannot be further exceeded. In
contrast, lower closed and open scales lack such a maximal element. Such a scale
is introduced by the adjective high: no matter how high a given entity is, it is
always possible to conceive of something that is yet higher, i.e. the scale is not
associated with an upper boundary, or a maximal value.
It turns out that the type of scale plays a crucial role in determining the stan-
dard of comparison that is invoked by pod-. If the verbal stem lexicalizes a totally
or upper closed scale, then the comparison is to the maximal degree on this scale.
[5] For the Russian verb, this is most likely to be the scale of height, although this could be a scale of size,
too.
[6] See Filip (2008) for a detailed discussion of the relation between the upper boundary of closed scales and
perfectivity and maximalization.

The predicate with pod- denotes a set of events whose participant fails to reach
this maximal degree. To illustrate, tajat’ (melt) introduces a closed scale whose
maximal degree corresponds to the state of being absolutely liquid. Podtajat’ de-
notes a set of events in whose course an object becomes more liquid than it was at
the beginning of the event but still fails to become absolutely liquid. Importantly,
the change of state may be quite considerable, as long as by the end of the event
the object fails to completely turn into the liquid state.
In turn, if the predicate introduces an open (or lower closed) scale, a scale that
does not have a maximal element, then the degree reached by the participant is
required to be lower than some contextually specified expectation value or norm.
For example, the property scale lexicalized by rasti (grow) is open. The subject of
podrasti is entailed to reach a higher degree on this scale than it used to have,
but the degree it reaches is still lower than a contextually specified standard. In
other words, in the course of the event, the subject becomes higher or taller than
he used to be, but he still does not become truly high/tall (with the denotation of
high/tall being contextually determined).
A strongly related fact is that, as pointed out by Filip (2008), what counts as
a maximal event is determined by the context if the associated scale is open, and
by the upper bound of a scale if it is closed.
To sum up, we have seen that pod- of limited change applies to a property scale
and relates the event to a degree that is lower than either the maximal element
on the scale (if the latter exists) or a contextually specified value.
pod of Approaching
Let us now turn to pod- of approaching. This prefix relates an event participant to
a degree on a path scale. A path scale orders objects located along a path in ac-
cordance with their remoteness from the source. pod- specifies that the maximal
element on the path scale reached by the moving object in the course of the event
is lower than the element specified in the direction phrase. Thus, here, it is the
direction phrase that provides the standard of comparison. Part of the semantics
of verbs of motion that contain this type of pod- can be formalized as in (10), by
relating to the gradable property in which the subject undergoes a change (along
the line of Kennedy and Levin’s approach in (8)). The gradable property would
then be advancement along a path (ADV).
(10) λdλd′ λxλeλds .[adv(d)(x)(end(e))∧adv(d′ )(x)(beg(e))∧d > d′ ∧d < ds ]
Interestingly, pod- of approaching contributes an additional meaning component.

It specifies that the maximal degree reached by the event participant is close to
the degree contributed by the direction phrase. Thus, at the end of the event,
the subject reaches a degree that is lower than but close to the standard of com-
parison. This meaning component of proximity does not characterize some of
[220] olga kagan
the types of pod- (e.g. pod- of limited change or pod- of limited contribution (see Sec-
tion [2.3] below)), a factor that could perhaps be used to argue for a polysemy
approach to the prefix. It will be shown in Section [2.4], however, that the proxim-
ity component does characterize some uses of pod as a free morpheme (although,
again, not all of them). Also, as we will see in the next section, this component
is typically associated with vertical pod-. It thus seems that all the uses of pod dis-
cussed in this paper share the component of the ‘lower than’ relation between two
degrees; some but not all of them introduce, additionally, a proximity restriction7 .
Finally, it should be noted that predicates with pod- of approaching may con-
tain an adjunct phrase (headed by the preposition na) that specifies the distance
between the degree reached at the endpoint of the event and the standard of com-
parison. Essentially, it provides the difference between the two degrees to which
the prefix applies. (As demonstrated by (11-b), the notion of proximity associated
with pod- of approaching is context-dependent.)
(11) a. …on podojdjot k vam na rasstojanije udara…

he pod-walkfut toward you on distance strikegen
‘He will come within hitting distance of you.’
b. …vrag podojdjot na rasstojanie 80 kilometrov k Kremlju…
enemy pod-walkfut on distance 80 kilometers toward Kremlin
‘The enemy will come within an 80 kilometer distance of Kremlin.’
National Corpus of Russian
Stative pod-
Stative pod- is found with verbs that denote a state of being characterized by a
property that is, to begin with, gradable. The semantics of these verbs can be
represented as in (12). It should be noted that this type of pod- is only compati-
ble with a limited range of gradable properties – mainly, properties having to do
with physical health, with the exception of smell emission. The prefix thus only
combines with verbs that report a physical experience/perception and introduce
an experiencer argument, either explicitly or implicitly.
(12) JVK = λdλxλe.[P (d)(x)(e)]

where P is the property lexicalized by the verb, and x stands for either
an experiencer argument or, with such verbs as vonjat’ (stink), for the
stimulus
[7] In the case of pod- of approaching, the proximity component may be intuitively motivated in the following
way. It only makes sense to describe an endpoint of a motion event relative to a point that has not been
reached if the moving object got close to this point. Otherwise, using this point as a landmark would be
too uninformative.

pod- applies to the degree argument which is present in the semantics of the stem
to begin with, and specifies that the degree is lower than the standard of com-
parison. Note that in this case, the degree is not linked to the endpoint of the
eventuality, but rather to the state in general. This results from the fact that
here, pod- does not apply to verbs that denote a change (in contrast to the case of
pod- of limited change).
(13) Jpod-VK = λdλxλe.[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ d < ds ]8
With stative pod-, the standard of comparison consistently corresponds to a con-

textually supplied value. It is world knowledge together with the more specific
context of utterance that determines which degree of stinking or aching is judged
as high and which, as low.
Vertical pod-
Finally, I turn to vertical pod-, which is associated with the meaning ‘(from) un-
der’. Let us begin with the preposition pod (under), from which this use of the
prefix receives its meaning. This preposition, similarly to many others, encodes
a certain spatial relation between two objects, a theme, figure, or trajector (de-
pending on one’s terminology) and a reference object / ground / landmark (cf.
Janda (1988); Levinson (2001); Rappaport Hovav (2009), and references therein).
This relation can be treated as a relation between two degrees on a scale. The
scale can be conceptualized as a path scale, since it imposes an ordering relation
on objects in accordance with their spatial configuration. The path is formed by
a “set of contiguous locational points between the theme and [the reference ob-
ject]” (Rappaport Hovav 2009, 7). In the case of the preposition pod and its English
counterparts under and below, this scale is concerned particularly with verticality.
It orders points that are spatially located under one another, with a lower posi-
tion corresponding (iconically) to a lower degree on the scale. The prepositions
specify that a certain object (the theme) receives a lower value than another one
(the reference object) on this scale. A sentence of the form x is below y relates x to
a degree on the vertical path scale which is lower than the degree corresponding
to the location of y. The fact that these prepositions introduce a scale is sup-
ported by their compatibility with degree modifiers (cf. Rappaport Hovav 2009,
7), e.g. three meters below, five meters under, far below, v vos’mi metrax pod (in eight
meters under).
I propose that the vertical pod- contributes the same scale as the preposition
pod and specifies the same relation along this scale. This is the only use of the
prefix that contributes a scale of its own (rather than applying to a scale contribut-
[8] I am using e as a variable over eventualities of any kind, including both events and states. Alternatively,
the variable s could be used to indicate that we deal with state predicates.

[222] olga kagan
ed by the environment). This is the scale inherited from the preposition from
which the prefix is derived. As shown above, vertical pod- has evident signs of a
lexical prefix: its contribution is not transparent and varies from verb to verb.
It is important that despite this fact, the prefix is characterized by the meaning
component in (7). It makes sure that a certain degree associated with the event
is lower on the scale of vertical configuration than another degree. A point on
this scale occupied by an argument at some stage of the event is lower than the
standard of comparison. The more precise relation between the reported event
and the two degrees in question depends on the particular verb involved since,
as we have seen, the contribution of the prefix varies to a certain degree with the
stems it attaches to. To illustrate, verbs like podstelit’ ‘lay x under y’ or podnyr-
nut’ ‘dive under’ denote a set of events which result in one of their participants
located under another object. (The latter object is normally referred to by a lin-
guistic expression). Here, the result state is one whereby an argument occupies
a certain degree on the (vertical) path scale which is lower than the standard of
comparison.
Note that the proximity component discussed above with respect to pod- of
approaching is present here, too. The object that undergoes motion is expected to
end up in a position that is close to the standard of comparison. The proximity
component is also present with the second type of vertical pod- discussed above,
the one that indicates motion upward (e.g. podprygnut’ ‘jump upward’). Plungyan
(2001, 105) points out that verbs of this type can only denote events in whose
course the object does not move too far from the source. As a result, the event of
motion is localized relative to the source. Apparently, that is why the prefix ap-
plies to the degree that corresponds to the source location and is thus associated
with the beginning of the event. Here, it is the source that is entailed to occupy a
relatively low position on the vertical path.
[2.3] pod- of Limited Contribution

In this section, an additional sub-meaning of pod- is discussed. I will relate to this
use as pod- of limited contribution. Similarly to vertical pod-, this is a lexical prefix
whose attachment is not fully productive and whose semantic contribution is not
always transparent and varies, to a certain degree, from verb to verb and even
from context to context. It is therefore interesting to see that in spite of these
properties, this use is, too, characterized by the meaning component represented
in (7). It, too, associates an event with a degree that is lower than a standard of
comparison.
pod- of limited contribution can be roughly divided into two main subtypes, pod-
of accompanying and pod- of addition, briefly introduced below.
pod- of accompanying is illustrated in (14):
(14) podpet’ podsvistet’ podygrat’

pod-sing pod-whistle pod-play
accompany in singing accompany in whistling play up to / accompany, vamp
With this type of pod-, a verb denotes a set of P-events each of which is secondary
in the sense that it makes a limited contribution to a more basic P-event (where
P is the event property denoted by the stem). For instance, a sentence with the
verb podpe(va)t’ denotes an event of singing which is secondary relative to a more
basic, major singing event.
pod- of addition is exemplified in (15):
(15) podrisovat’ podkupit’ podlit’

pod-draw pod-buy pod-pour
touch up / buy some more pour some more
add an element
to a picture
podkrutit’ pod’’jedat’
pod-twist pod-eat
twist some more eat remnants
For instance, the verb podrisovat’ can be used when a picture has already been
drawn by the time of the reported event, and the subject adds something to the
picture. The subject may or may not be the agent of the main drawing event.
In turn, the verb podkupit’ means roughly ‘to buy (some) more’. For instance,
podkupit’ saxaru ‘to buy some more sugar’ can be uttered if the subject has some
sugar at home and buys some more sugar, to be added to the original quantity.
The amount that is bought is likely to be lower than the already available quan-
tity. Note that the event of podkupit’ need not be preceded by another buying
event. The original sugar may have been obtained in a different way, for exam-
ple brought by a neighbor9 . A somewhat different example is pod’’jedat’ (pod-eat),
which means roughly ‘to eat remnants’. This verb is used to report an event whose
agent eats stuff that remains after another, presupposed, eating event. No infor-
mation is provided regarding the relative quantity of stuff eaten in the course of
the presupposed event and in the course of “pod-eating”. Suppose, for example,
that a king eats a very small amount of food served on the table, and after he
leaves, the servants eat all the rest. Under this scenario, the verb pod’’jedat’ can
still be used to describe the event of eating performed by the servants.
[9] The case is analogous with such items as more in a sentence like I bought (some) more sugar: the presup-
posed eventuality need not instantiate exactly the same event property as the asserted one (cf. Greenberg
(2009) and references therein).

[224] olga kagan
Thus, verbs with pod- of addition presuppose a certain state of affairs, which
may but need not be obtained as a result of a past event denoted by the root verb.
The prefixed verb denotes an event which makes a further contribution to this
state, for instance, by making more stuff undergo the change of state denoted by
the stem. Intuitively, the result of the reported event is viewed as a relatively low
contribution to a more general, presupposed state of affairs.
It can be concluded that with both pod- of accompanying and pod- of addition,
the reported eventuality is conceptualized as secondary, as making a relatively
low contribution to a presupposed situation. As pointed out by Plungyan (2001,
110), “the prefix pod- introduces an admittedly reduced, “diminished” realization
of the original situation” (my translation).
To make things more precise, we have to distinguish between three eventual-
ities: the entailed event (ee ), the presupposed event (ep ), which either precedes ee
or temporally overlaps with it, and a more general, unifying eventuality (eun ) that
includes both ee and ep and can sometimes, but not always, be treated as their sum
ee ⊔ ep . (In this sense, the meaning of pod- has much in common with the addi-
tive more, whose semantics has been argued by Greenberg (2009) to involve three
eventualities – the entailed event, the presupposed one (which either precedes
the entailed one or is contemporaneous with it) and their sum.)
To illustrate, consider the verb podpe(va)t’ (accompany in singing). Here, ee is
the accompanying event performed by the subject, ep is the major singing event
performed, most probably, by a different individual (who is accompanied by the
subject and can be referred to by a dative DP), and eun is the overall singing
event whose participants include both the major singer(s) and the ones who sing
along10 . A somewhat different example is provided by the VP podkupit’ saxaru (buy
some more sugar). ee is an event of sugar-buying performed by the subject, in-
cluding, crucially, the result state of the subject having the obtained sugar. ep is
a temporally preceding event whereby an already available amount of sugar has
been obtained (together with its corresponding result state). eun here is the sum
ee ⊔ ep .
How is the uniform contribution of pod-, represented in (7), revealed under
this use? I propose that the type of pod- discussed in this section measures the
contribution of ee to eun (or, more precisely, it relates to the degree to which an
agent of ee contributes to eun by performing ee .) The standard of comparison is in
this case provided by the presupposed eventuality: this is the degree to which (a
participant of) ep contributes to eun . The contribution of ee is entailed to be lower
than that of ep . Hence the intuition that the asserted event has a secondary status:
its contribution to a more general state of affairs is lower than that of a presup-
[10] Note that here, eun cannot really be treated as the sum ee ⊔ ep ; and neither ee nor ep constitute stages of
eun in the sense of Landman (2008), since they are not cross-temporally identical with it; still, the more
encompassing relation of inclusion holds: eun ⊂ ee ∧ eun ⊂ ep .

posed eventuality. This meaning component can be half-formally represented as

in (16) (the presupposed part is underlined):
(16) λdλxλee .contr-eun (d)(x)(ee ) ∧ ∃d′ ∃y∃ep [contr-eun (d′ )(y)(ep ) ∧ d < d′ ]
However, the notion of contribution is, obviously, vague and indeterminate. What
does it mean for a person x to make a lower contribution to a certain eventuality
than a person y? A participant may contribute to an event along various parame-
ters or dimensions, and it is along such specific dimensions that contributions of
different participants are ultimately evaluated and compared. To illustrate, one’s
contribution to an eventuality can be measured according to the amount of stuff
that one produces or causes to undergo a change of state. Alternative dimensions
may include, for instance, loudness (of one’s singing), or the prominence of the
role played by an event participant (relative to the roles of the others). A number
of specific examples are provided below. Over all, we can treat contribution as a
multidimensional property, which consists of (and can, thus, be measured along)
multiple parameters. pod- of limited contribution entails an existence of a salient
parameter, or dimension, along which the agent of ee makes a lower contribution
to eun than the agent of ep . This dimension can be represented by a specific scale
which contains the two compared degrees.
(17) λdλxλee .∃P ∈ contr−eun [P (d)(x)(ee )∧∃d′ ∃y∃ep [P (d′ )(y)(ep )∧d < d′ K
The notion of contribution is thus indeed underspecified, and I believe that

the uniform meaning of pod- of limited contribution is indeed underspecified in the
way predicted under (17). The precise dimension along which contribution is
compared varies from stem to stem and with some verbs, from context to context.
The choice of the specific dimension depends, among other factors, on the lexi-
cal semantics of the verb, on scenarios conventionally associated with the kind of
eventuality it denotes, and on the context. For instance, the verb podpe(va)t’ (pod-
sing) leaves it up to the context to determine the precise dimension of contribu-
tion. Suppose that during a party, somebody plays a guitar and several people
sing. One could choose to say that one of them podpevajet if the person only sings
some, relatively small, parts of the song. In this case, we can say that the contri-
bution is measured according to the number of lines that is sung by each of the
participants. The contribution of the subject is lower than that of other partici-
pants, because (s)he sings fewer lines (or stanzas). Alternatively, the prefix pod-
may be used if the subject sings very quietly (crucially, appreciably more quiet-
ly than the others.) Here, it is along the scale of loudness that his contribution is
measured. Because the subject sings quietly, his contribution to the singing event
is conceptualized as lower than that of other participants. Finally, suppose that a
song is being performed by a chorus. Such an eventuality is associated with a set
[226] olga kagan
of conventionally determined roles (e.g. soloist, second part, etc.) These roles, in
turn, are (conventionally) ordered, subject to a particular ranking (with the role
of a soloist being the highest in the hierarchy.) The verb podpevat’ can be used
to indicate that the subject receives a relatively low role in terms of this ranking
(more precisely, his role is lower than that of the soloists who are presupposed to
participate in the singing event.)
For other verbs, the parameter along which contribution is measured is lex-
ically determined, rather than context-dependent. For instance, with the stem
jest’ (eat), it is measured according to the ranking of the social roles taken by the
participants (one has the ‘higher’ role of the person for whom the food has been
cooked; the other one receives the ‘lower’ role of a person who is allowed to eat
whatever is left by the former.)
To sum up this section, the semantics of verbs that contain pod- of limited con-
tribution is not purely compositional and is, to a considerable degree, context-
dependent. I have argued that despite this complexity, this instance of pod- ex-
hibits the meaning component represented in (7) above, which unifies it with the
other uses of the prefix. Under this use, too, the asserted eventuality is associ-
ated with a degree on a scale that is entailed to be lower than the standard of
comparison.
[2.4] Generalizations and Predictions

The Meaning of pod- Depends on the Semantics of the Stem
The unified treatment of pod- argued for above allows us to make predictions re-
garding the meaning of the prefix on the basis of the environment in which it ap-
pears. Predictability is somewhat restricted due to the presence of certain lexical
uses whose contribution is not purely transparent. Still, a number of generaliza-
tions can be made, including the following:
(i) pod- of limited change is obtained with those stems that denote events of
change and lexicalize a property scale. The prefix applies to the scale con-
tributed by the stem, which results in the limited change interpretation.
Furthermore, the standard of comparison, too, depends on the environ-
ment, or more precisely, on the kind of scale lexicalized by the verb. If
this is an upper closed scale, the standard of comparison will correspond to
its maximal element (the degree which an argument reaches on this scale
will be entailed to be lower than the maximum.) If this is an open scale, the
standard of comparison will be a contextually supplied standard
(ii) pod- of approaching is obtained with those stems that lexicalize a path scale.
Again, the interpretation is a product of the prefix applying to the scale
contributed by the verb.
(iii) It is somewhat more difficult to predict the attachment of vertical pod-, due
to its restricted productivity and “highly lexical” nature. Typically, this
type of pod- is available with those stems that denote events of motion or
placement and which are especially easily conceptualized as involving mo-
tion directed either upward (as in podprygnut’ (jump upward)) or to a po-
sition that is located under a certain object (e.g. podstelit’ (lay under), pod-
polzti (crawl under), podlezt’ (creep under), podnyrnut’ (dip under)). As stated
above, the scale of vertical configuration is contributed by the prefix, rather
than its environment, but the stem must be semantically compatible with
this scale
(iv) If the stem is semantically compatible with the vertical path that can be
introduced by pod-, and also contributes a scale of its own, an ambiguity may
result, since the prefix may apply to each of the potentially available scales.
To illustrate, the verb podpolzti is ambiguous: it may mean ‘to approach by
crawling’ (18-a) or ‘to crawl under’ (18-b), depending on whether the prefix
applies to the path scale introduced by the verb or contributes and applies
to a vertical path scale.
(18) a. Jaščerica podpolzla k derevu.

lizard pod-crawled toward tree
‘The lizard crawled to the tree.’
b. …[dog]… podpolz pod slomannyj divan.
Great-Dane pod-crawled under broken sofa
‘…the Great Dane crawled under a broken sofa.’
Kanžinsky, “Biologičeskaja radiosvjaz’” (“Biological Radio Commu-
nication”)
http://www.teatr-zverey.ru/test_new/kanjin_1.html
The same kind of ambiguity holds for podprygnut’ (pod-jump).

Further, the choice of scale to which the prefix applies appears to be subject
to the following hierarchy (which is evoked in those cases when more than one
scale is in principle available):
(19) vertical path scale > scales lexicalized by the verbal stem > contribution scales
As a rule, the prefix will apply to the scale that is highest on the hierarchy out
of the ones that are available. (This is a strong tendency which may be overruled
by lexically fixed properties of a given verb.) One prediction is that whenever
the prefix contributes a scale of its own, it is to this scale that it will apply. This is
indeed the case: whenever pod- contributes the ‘vertical path’ meaning, it is to the
vertical path scale that it applies. And whenever the prefix applies to a different
scale, it can be seen that the vertical path meaning is not introduced. For instance,
[228] olga kagan
in (20) below, the vertical path scale is not introduced: no information is provided
regarding the relative positions of objects on this scale.
(20) Lena podošla/ podbežala/ pod’’jexala k ploščadi.

Lena pod-walked pod-ran pod-drove to square
‘Lena approached the square (by walking / running / driving).’
Once the vertical path scale is contributed by the prefix, it is to this scale that
it must apply.
The situation is slightly more complex with the choice between contribution
scales and scales lexicalized by the stem. In many cases, if the prefix does not
contribute a scale but the verbal stem does, pod- will apply to the scale provided by
the stem (rather than measuring contribution). For instance, the verb podojti (pod-
walk) does not have the meaning of ‘to walk a little bit more’, as demonstrated in
(21). Here, the stem lexicalizes a path scale, and the prefix has to apply to this
scale, rather than a scale of contribution.
(21) Ja šla po ulice. *Potom podošla eščo nemnogo.

I walked on street then pod-walked more a-little
intended meaning: ‘I walked down the street. Then I walked a little bit
more.’
An exception is constituted by a subset of verbs that lexicalize a property

scale. With some of these stems (apparently with most of them), pod- can only
apply to the property scale (e.g. podtajat’). But with others, it seems that the pre-
fix may choose whether to apply to the property scale or to a scale of contribution.
For instance, the verb podlečit’ (pod- + cure) may be used to report curing events
whereby the health of the patient improves but not completely. Here, the prefix
applies to a property scale. But, as pointed out by Plungyan (2001, 111), the verb
may be used to mean roughly ‘to give a short / non-aggressive / reduced course of
treatment’. Under this reading, the prefix seems to apply to a contribution scale,
as the event is asserted to make a relatively low contribution to the overall health
state of the patient.
Crucially, however, the ranking in (19) still holds. Once a property scale is
available, the prefix may apply to this scale only or to this scale as well as to
the contribution scale. However, the prefix will not apply to a contribution scale
alone, without having the alternative of applying to the property scale. Thus, an
asymmetry between the two scale types is still present.
On the intuitive level, the hierarchy in (19) can be understood in the following
way. If the prefix contributes its own scale, it will denote a relation on this scale.
If it does not, the pod-verb will denote a set of events that are, in a certain sense,
limited. If the stem lexicalizes a scale, then the limitation will be relativized to
this scale: the event is limited in the sense that it fails to reach a certain degree on
this scale. If the stem does not provide a scale, then the event will be interpreted
as successfully completed. However, it will be understood as limited in compar-
ison with another, presupposed, eventuality, because the latter makes a higher
contribution to some more encompassing situation.
[2.5] Non-Existent Interpretations

In addition to making predictions regarding the contributions available to pod- on
the basis of its environment, the proposed analysis allows us to deal with those
meanings that pod- cannot have. The degree framework makes it possible to list
some scales to which pod- cannot apply and account for the corresponding gaps
in its use.
First of all, is can be seen that pod- cannot apply to the volume/extent scale
associated with the object. This results in non-existence of such VPs as *podčitat’
knig (pod- + read books), meaning ‘to read few books’, *pod’’jest’ jablok (pod- + eat
apples), ‘to eat a small amount of apples’11 .
Secondly, pod- cannot apply to the time scale. For example, there does not
exist a verb *podstojat’ (pod- + stand), whose meaning would be expected to be ‘to
stand for a short while’. Analogously, one cannot say *podbolet’ (pod- + be-sick)
with the intended meaning of ‘to be sick for a short while’. Thus, pod- cannot
measure an event by applying to the time scale and asserting that the duration of
the event denoted by the stem is shorter than some standard of comparison.
These restrictions can be accounted in the following way. It is generally ac-
cepted in the current literature on the topic that different verbal prefixes in Slavic
occupy different structural positions (cf. e.g. Romanova (2004); Ramchand (2004).)
For instance, superlexical prefixes appear higher in the structure than the lexi-
cal ones, which accounts for many of the differences between the two groups. I
remain agnostic as to the precise syntactic position taken by pod-, but I propose
that it applies locally to the verbal stem, so that other syntactic constituents re-
main outside of its scope. (In this respect it differs from some lexical prefixes
which have been argued to take the object NP as their complement, or at least to
include it in their scope, cf. Filip (2005); Ramchand (2004)). As a result, the prefix
[11] Such VPs as podkupit’ saxaru (pod-buy sugar) or pod’’jedat’ jedu (pod-eat food) do not constitute an excep-
tion to this generalization since, as discussed above, pod- in these cases measures the contribution of ee .
If it measures quantities of stuff, this is an indirect result of measuring contribution. This view is sup-
ported by the fact that in the absence of the ‘limited contribution’ reading, i.e. when the entailed event
is not compared to a presupposed one, pod- clearly cannot apply to a volume/extent scale and measure
quantities of stuff (see examples above). Further, with such phrases as pod’’jedat’ jedu, no information is
provided regarding the amount of food eaten in the course of the event. The amount could be big both
in comparison with the presupposed eating event and relative to a contextually provided expectation
value.

[230] olga kagan
can only apply to those scales that are already introduced at the level of the pod-V
constituent12 .
Thus, it can apply to a scale that is lexicalized by the verb, e.g. a path scale
or a property scale. It can also contribute a scale of its own, as is the case with
vertical pod-. However, the prefix cannot apply to a scale that is introduced at a
higher level of derivation. For instance, the time scale is not lexicalized by the
verb; rather, it is introduced at a higher structural level (possibly in the area of
AspP). This scale is thus not available for pod- to apply to. The case is similar with
the volume/extent scale. As argued by Rappaport Hovav (2008), this scale is not
lexicalized by the verb but rather contributed by its object. As a result, it, too, is
not accessible to the prefix.
[2.6] Non-Verbal pod-

Further evidence of the scalar nature of pod- comes from the uses of this item not
as a verbal prefix. In the following subsections, I discuss certain uses of pod as a
free morpheme and the prefix pod- that attaches to nouns.
Pod as a Free Morpheme

We have seen that the standard spatial meaning of the preposition pod can be rep-
resented in scalar terms (cf. Section [2.2]). The free morpheme pod is interpreted
as a relation between two degrees under at least two additional uses, quantifica-
tional and temporal.
a) Pod with Quantity Expressions
Firstly, the morpheme pod can combine with quantity expressions, mainly nu-
merals. The resulting [pod Num] constituent denotes a quantity that is close to,
but somewhat lower than, the quantity denoted by the original numeral. Two
examples are provided in (22):
[12] The situation is not quite clear in those cases when pod- combines with an already prefixed stem, e.g. pod-
vy-pit’ ‘take a drop’, pod-u-stat’ ‘get somewhat tired’ and pod-za-rabotat’ ‘earn a little bit’. Since lexical
prefixes cannot stack, pod- that appears in such verbs is more likely to be a superlexical (or maybe an
intermediate) prefix, which as such is expected to attach at a higher structural position. Still, even with
these verbs, the scale to which the prefix applies appears to be contributed by the verbal stem. For in-
stance, ustat’ ‘get tired’ contributes the property scale of weariness. Vypit’ under the relevant meaning
of drinking alcohol contributes the scale of drunkenness. Pod- applies to this scale, rather than to a vol-
ume/extent scale contributed by an object. This can be seen from two facts. First, the verb podvypit’
does not easily combine with an object at all. Second, what the verb measures is the state of the subject’s
drunkenness, and not the amount of alcoholic beverages that have been drunk. The subject is entailed
to be drunk but not dead drunk; the verb provides no information about the amount of alcohol he has
consumed. Finally, the verb podzarabotat’ may seem to measure the object (the amount of money). How-
ever, the prefixed stem zarabotat’, meaning ‘to earn’, seems to contribute the scale corresponding to the
amount of the income on its own, independently from whether it combines with an object or not (in
fact, the object is perceived as redundant in the phrase zarabatyvat’ den’gi ‘earn money’.) All these facts
suggest that even when pod- combines with a prefixed stem, it applies to the scale that is made available
by the verb, rather than by additional constituents.

(22) a. Ej pod 80.

shedat pod 80
‘She is slightly less than 80 years old.’
b. V etoj glave pod 40 stranic.
in this chapter pod 40 pages
‘This chapter is a little less than 40 pages long.’
(22-a) entails that the subject is slightly less than eighty years old (probably 78 or
79). According to (22-b), the length of the chapter is slightly less than 40 pages;
it is maybe 37 or 39 pages long. Under this use, pod applies to a scale that orders
numbers. A certain degree on this scale is entailed to be slightly lower than the
degree contributed by the numeral. This way, the degrees corresponding to the
woman’s age in (22-a) and the length of the chapter in (22-b) are entailed to be
slightly lower than the values provided by the numerals that complement the
preposition.
b) Pod with Temporal Expressions
Secondly, a scalar interpretation is sometimes invoked when pod combines with
a temporal expression. The event modified by the pod-phrase is then entailed to
take place slightly before the time denoted by the original temporal expression.
For instance, the expression pod utro (pod morning) in (23-a) is used to refer to the
time of day that precedes the morning (possibly 4 or 5 a.m.)
The expression pod Novyj God (pod New Year) can be used to temporally lo-
cate events that take place, for instance, on December 29-30, or in the morning of
December 31.
It should be noted that this use of pod is not fully productive; in fact, it is high-
ly restricted. The most typical examples are the ones provided in (23). Still, a
search in National Corpus of Russian renders a considerable amount of additional
examples (e.g. (24)), showing that this use of pod is productive to a certain degree,
and is not limited to a number of frozen expressions. The example in (24-c) is in-
teresting since the speaker explicitly specifies what she means by the expression
pod zimu (pod winter). The expression is used to pick up a relatively late part of
the fall, here, the end of October.
(23) a. pod utro/ pod večer

pod morning pod evening
b. pod konec
pod end
c. pod Novyj God/ pod Roždestvo
pod New Year pod Christmas
d. pod osen’
pod fall

[232] olga kagan
(24) a. …pod final zadam vam krasivyj vopros ot slušatel’nicy...

pod end I-will-ask you beautiful question from auditress
‘In the end, I will ask you a beautiful question from our auditress.’
b. Esli už oxota na oligarxov, to pod vybory.
if already hunt on oligarchs then pod elections
‘If there is a hunt on oligarchs, it takes place before elections.’
c. Možno sejat’ osen’ju pod zimu (v konce oktjabrja)…
may sow in-fall pod winter in end October
‘One may sow in the fall, before the winter (at the end of October.)’
Once again, pod imposes a relation between two degrees, this time on the time
scale. The time of the event modified by the PP is entailed to be lower on the
scale than the value invoked by the complement of the preposition.
Interestingly, the uses of pod discussed in this subsection involve a proximi-
ty meaning component, in addition to contributing the ‘lower than’ relation be-
tween two degrees. As we saw above, this meaning component is also present in
the meaning of pod- of approaching. However, it does not characterize most other
uses of the prefix pod-, nor does it characterize the preposition pod under its basic
spatial meaning. A sentence of the form x is under y does not entail that the dis-
tance between x and y is relatively small, as one can, for example, talk about cities
located under the blue sky. It thus appears that the proximity meaning compo-
nent characterizes some uses of pod but not all of them, both when it functions as
a verbal prefix and when it appears as a free morpheme.
pod- as a Nominal Prefix

The nominal pod- is a derivational prefix that attaches to nouns. The seman-
tic contribution of this prefix is comparable to that of the prefix sub- in such
words as subset or subtype. The nominal pod- indicates a lower level on a taxono-
my/hierarchy than the one associated with the stem. Thus, pod-nouns are often
hyponyms of their counterparts that do not contain pod-.
(25) podvid podrazdel podpolkovnik podderevo

pod-species pod-section pod-colonel pod-tree
subspecies subsection lieutenant colonel sub-tree
podmnožestvo podsistema
pod-plurality pod-system
subset subsystem
Here again, the function of the prefix can be formulated in scalar terms. The
relevant scale orders elements in accordance with their rank in a certain hierar-
chy or with their level in a taxonomy. The value of the pod-noun on this scale is
one-level lower than the value associated with the stem. Thus, the ‘lower than’
relation between two degrees is contributed by this type of pod, too.
[2.7] Pod: A Summary

To sum up the discussion of the verbal pod-, I have argued that this prefix denotes
a relation between two degrees. It specifies that a degree associated with an event
(in some cases, the degree reached by an event participant at the endpoint of the
event) is lower than the standard of comparison. This approach allowed us to
unify different uses of pod-, which were argued to differ primarily in terms of
the scale to which the prefix applies. The range of contributions available to the
prefix is to a large degree predictable on the basis of the environment in which it
appears. Further, the impossibility of certain contributions can be accounted for
on the basis of the structural position of the prefix and its semantic scope. Finally,
it has been shown that certain non-verbal uses of pod (as a free morpheme and as
a nominal prefix) render support to the scalar nature of this morpheme.
[3] t h e p r e f i x d o -
The prefix do- is derived from the preposition do, which can be translated as to,
until, or as far as. This prefix can often be translated as finish, since it relates the
event denoted by the stem to a certain finishing point. It is referred to as a termi-
native prefix by Filip (2008), who points out that the prefix relates to an endpoint
on a certain scale, with the details of the latter being determined by the environ-
ment in which the prefix appears.
The attachment of this prefix is productive, and its contribution is transpar-
ent. These properties, together with the fact that the prefix has a clearly aspectu-
al meaning, suggest that the prefix is superlexical. However, similarly to lexical
prefixes, it is perfectly compatible with secondary imperfectivization (e.g. dočitat’
– dočityvat’ (finish reading)). This duality is captured by Tatevosov (2008), who ar-
gues that do- is an intermediate prefix.
Uses of this prefix are illustrated in (26).
(26) a. Vasja dočital knigu.

Vasja do-read book
‘Vasja finished reading a/the book.’
b. Vasja dočital knigu do konca/ do serediny.
Vasja do-read book do end till middle
‘Vasja finished reading the book / half of the book.’
c. Vasja dobežal do magazina.
Vasja do-ran do store
‘Vasja reached the store by running.’
[234] olga kagan
d. My dosideli tam do utra.

we do-sat there do morning
‘We sat there till the morning.’
e. …ja eščo ne doros do amerikanskogo pensionnogo vozrasta…
I yet NEG do-grew do American pensionable age
‘I have not yet reached the American retirement age.’
(National Corpus of Russian)
f. Dotajal poslednij sneg v ovragax.
do-melted last snow in ravines
‘The last snow finished melting in (the) ravines.’
For instance, (26-a) asserts that Vasja finished reading the book. (For the sake
of comparison, its non-prefixed counterpart Vasja čital knigu entails that Vasja
was engaged in reading the book but provides no information as to whether the
event reached its natural endpoint or not.) A PP headed by the preposition do
can be added to this sentence (26-b), the resulting sentence entailing that the
reading event reached the point specified by the do-phrase. If the phrase is do
serediny (to middle), then the sentence entails that the middle of the book was
successfully reached in the course of the reading event, i.e. Vasja finished reading
half of the book. (26-c)-(26-f) constitute additional illustrations of the use of this
prefix; some of them contain a do-phrase and some do not.
I propose that the prefix do- introduces the relation of identity between two
degrees. It identifies the degree associated with the endpoint of an event (i.e. a
degree reached by some event participant at the endpoint of the event) with a
standard of comparison. This way, the prefix functions as an event delimiter, as it
contributes information regarding the endpoint of an event (and, more generally,
introduces the endpoint into the picture13 .)
(27) λP λdλxλeλds .[P (x)(e) ∧ QP (d)(x)(end(e)) ∧ d = ds ]

where P is the event property denoted by the verbal predicate,
and QP is the gradable property an increase in which is denoted by the pred-
icate
[13] As discussed by Filip (2008), if the verb is imperfective and receives a progressive interpretation, the
resulting sentence does not entail that this endpoint is reached in the actual world. The details of the
semantics of such sentences depend on one’s more general assumptions on the semantics of progressive
and imperfective aspect. For instance, an intensional approach to the progressive originally proposed
by Dowty (1979) may be assumed. Under this approach, the imperfective sentences entail that the end-
point is reached in so-called inertia worlds, worlds in which events develop without interruption, but not
necessarily in the actual world. In any event, the presence of do- makes sure that an endpoint is intro-
duced into the semantics of the sentence (and identified with the standard of comparison). However, in
the presence of an imperfective operator, this endpoint need not be entailed to be reached in the actual
world.

It should be noted that the formula in (27) does not constitute an instance of (1). In
fact, the schema in (1) turns out to be insufficient for the purposes of representing
the requirements imposed by do- in a sufficiently precise way. More specifically,
it does not leave open the possibility of indicating the precise relation between
the degree argument d and the event denoted by the verb. This suggests that the
semantics in (1) should be slightly modified. I turn back to this issue in Section
[4] below.
With the prefix do-, the standard of comparison is often specified by a linguis-
tic expression, in particular, by the do-PP, e.g. do magazina in (26-c). This way,
(26-c) reports a running event at the end of which Vasja reaches a point on the
path that corresponds to the location of the store. In the absence of such an ex-
pression, the source of the standard of comparison depends on the type of scale
involved. Here again, the important question is whether the scale is upper closed
or not. If the scale is upper closed, then the standard of comparison corresponds
to the maximal point on this scale. An event participant is thus entailed to reach
this maximal point at the end of the event. For instance, (26-f) asserts that the
snow has melted completely. The verb melt lexicalizes a property scale which
has a maximal point (corresponding to the state of being absolutely liquid). In
the absence of a do-phrase, the sentence entails that the snow, which undergoes
a change of state, reaches the maximal point on the property scale (i.e. it com-
pletely turns into water) at the end of the melting event. The situation is similar
in (26-a). Here, the volume/extent scale introduced by the object knigu is a closed
one (the maximal point on this scale corresponds to the book in its wholeness.)
The sentence entails that this point was reached at the end of the reading event,
namely, that Vasja finished reading the book. However, once a do-PP is added,
it overrides the contribution of the maximal point, winning the competition for
the status of the standard of comparison. If present, a do-phrase will determine
the standard of comparison. As a result, (26-b) with the do serediny variant entails
that at the end of the reported event, Vasja completed reading half of the book,
rather than the book in its wholeness, i.e. he “reached” the middle of the book.
If do- applies to a scale that is not upper closed, and a do-PP is absent, the
context has to be sufficiently rich to determine what counts as the standard of
comparison. For instance, a sentence like (28) is somewhat strange out of context.
However, it is perfectly acceptable in a context whereby it is known that Vasja
had been running towards the store. Then an overt do-phrase is not required,
and information regarding the point on the path which Vasja is asserted to reach
is recoverable from the context.
(28) Vasja dobežal.

Vasja do-ran
[236] olga kagan
It can be seen from the examples in (26) that do- can apply to scales with dif-
ferent dimensions, including a scale of volume/extent contributed by the object
(as in (26-a)-(26-b)), a path scale (26-c), a time scale (26-d), or a property scale
(26-e)-(26-f)). The scale to which the prefix applies depends on the environment
in which it appears (Filip 2008, cf.), as is also the case with pod- (and even more
so, given that the contribution of do- is purely compositional.) If the verbal stem
lexicalizes a scale, it is to this scale that do- will apply. This may be a path scale
or a property scale. If the verb itself does not contribute a scale, but it is an in-
cremental theme verb, then the prefix will apply to the scale introduced by the
direct object (a volume/extent scale)14 . If none of these conditions are satisfied,
the prefix can apply to the time scale. (Součková (2004a) shows that an analogous
hierarchy determines the scale to which the prefix po- applies: it “selects” a time
scale only in case no other scale is lexicalized by the VP.)
Finally, let us illustrate the semantics of a sentence that contains the prefix
do-, assuming the analysis proposed for this prefix in (27). The logical form of (29)
can be represented as in (29′ ):
(29) …radiator dogrelsja do 60 gradusov…

heater do-warmed do 60 degrees
‘The heater warmed up to 60 degrees Celcius.’
http://forum.ixbt.com/topic.cgi?id=62:15454-113
(29′ ) ∃e∃d∃d′ [warm(d)(the radiator)(beg(e))∧
warm(d′ )(the radiator)(end(e)) ∧ d′ > d ∧ d′ = 60℃]
[4] s e m a n t i c s f o r p r e f i x e s m o d i f i e d
As we have seen above, the semantics in (1) does not allow for us to define some
nuances of the more specific relations between an event and a degree argument
imposed by such prefixes as do-. For instance, it does not make it possible to relate
the degree specifically to the final point of the event. In order for such restrictions
to be represented, I propose to modify the scalar semantics for prefixes in the
following way:
(30) The Scale Hypothesis (Final Version)

λP λdλxλeλds .[P (x)(e) ∧ QP (d)(x)(f (e)) ∧ dRds ]
(Note that the semantics proposed for do- in (27) does constitute an instance of
(30).)
Here, P is the event property denoted by the verb (or by the higher verbal
projection to which the prefix applies). QP is a gradable property related to P
[14] See Rappaport Hovav (2008) for evidence that volume/extent scales are contributed by the object, rather
than by the verb itself.

in a certain way; the precise relation is underspecified in the general formula

and has to be fixed for a particular prefix or a particular use of a prefix. Indeed,
prefixes may differ in terms of the precise relation between P and QP . The two
properties may be identical. Alternatively, as in the case of do-, QP may stand
for the property a change in which is denoted by the predicate. (For instance, if
P is a property of events of growing, QP would be the property of being big to a
degree d.) Finally, f is a function that takes an event as its argument. The precise
nature of the function is, again, determined by a prefix or by its particular use. For
example, this may be a function from events to times, as is end in the semantics of
do-. The application of this function allows for us to relate the degree d to an event
via a particular temporal stage of this event. f may also be an identity function,
in which case d is related more directly to the event e.
It should be noted that if f is an identity function, and it holds that P = QP ,
then (30) is reducible to (1), repeated below:
(1) λP λdλxλeλds .[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ dRds ]
Finally, turning back to the prefix pod-, its semantics under the modified approach
can be represented as follows:
(31) λP λdλxλeλds .[P (x)(e) ∧ QP (d)(x)(f (e)) ∧ d < ds ]
(31) is identical to (30) except for the fact that the relation between the two
degrees is now fixed. The contrast between (31) and the semantics of pod- origi-
nally formulated in (3) does not affect the semantics of the sentences discussed in
Section [2] in any significant way. At the same time, the pattern provided in (31)
allows for us to represent the specific contribution of the different uses of pod- in
a more explicit way. While the relation between the two degrees is fixed in (31),
the nature of f and the relation between P and QP is not; here, the details de-
pend on the individual use of the prefix. For instance, pod- of approaching and pod-
of limited change are similar to do- in that they apply to the final point of an event
and to the property an increase in which is denoted by the root. The semantics of
both these uses can be represented as in (32), with the difference that with pod- of
approaching, QP is the property of advancement along a path, whereas with pod-
of limited change, different properties are lexicalized by different verbs, all of them
being associated with a property scale.
(32) λP λdλxλeλds .[P (x)(e) ∧ QP (d)(x)(end(e)) ∧ d < ds ]

where P is the event property denoted by the verbal predicate, and QP
is the gradable property an increase in which is denoted by the predicate
With stative pod-, the gradable property to which the prefix applies is identi-
cal to the property denoted by the stem (i.e. P = QP ). Since the resulting verb is
[238] olga kagan
stative, non-surprisingly, the compared degrees are not associated with any par-
ticular sub-interval of the time of the eventuality, but rather with the state as a
whole. Finally, the standard of comparison is systematically contributed by the
pragmatic context. Here, the contribution of the prefix is reduced to the follow-
ing:
(33) λP λdλxλe.[P (d)(x)(e) ∧ d < ds ]
[5] t h e s c a l e h y p o t h e s i s : d i v e r s i t y i n u n i t y
It can be seen that The Scale Hypothesis successfully applies to the lexical prefix
pod-, the intermediate prefix do-, in addition to the superlexical po- and
na-. Thus, it applies to morphemes that have different properties and do not
form a natural class to the exclusion of the other verbal prefixes. As suggested
above, the Scale Hypothesis seeks to capture the common semantic core shared
by different prefixes, as well as by different uses of a given prefix. An additional
advantage of this approach lies in its ability to predict semantic variation across
prefixes in a whole range of parameters. Thus, the approach makes it possible to
compare different prefixes explicitly, formulating in a clear way which proper-
ties unify them and which distinguish between them. Below, several parameters
along which the prefixes are predicted to vary are briefly discussed.
(i) Most obviously, prefixes are predicted to differ in terms of the relation be-
tween two degrees that they impose (e.g. ‘<’ in the case of pod-, ‘=’ for do-,
‘≥’ for na-, etc.) It should be noted that the fact that a prefix may impose a
relation between intervals on a scale, rather than points, makes the range of
potential relations wider. For instance, two intervals may be related via the
relation of inclusion. (This relation seems to be involved in the semantics of
the prefix pere-, which under its most basic, spatial interpretation means ‘to
cross’.) Investigation of additional prefixes is needed in order to determine
an exhaustive list of relations that they may encode.
(ii) Prefixes differ in the range of scales to which they apply. For some prefixes,
the range of scales may be lexically determined (and, thus, in some sense
analogous to selectional restrictions imposed by a predicate). In most cases,
however, the range of scales can be motivated. For instance, prefixes that
constitute measure functions or event delimiters can only apply to a scale
if there is homomorphism between the scale and the event (cf. Součková
2004a). This restriction applies to do-, as well as po- and na-. At the same
time, it does not apply to pod-, which does not have an event delimiting
function under some of its uses. To illustrate, there is no homomorphism
between the progress of an event and the scale to which pod- of accompanying
and addition applies.
Further, the range of scales accessible to a prefix depends on its structural

position and scopal properties, as has been suggested above for the prefix
pod-.
(iii) Prefixes differ in the nature of the compared degrees: they can denote re-
lations between points on a scale (e.g. do-) or intervals (e.g. na-). Some pre-
fixes apply only to the degree of change (na-, po-), which can be analyzed as
an interval on a special, derived scale (Kennedy & Levin 2008).
(iv) Another parameter of variation is the source of the standard of compari-

son. For instance, it can be provided by a linguistic expression, it may cor-
respond to a contextually provided norm, or to the maximal point of an
upper closed scale. With po- and na-, the standard of comparison can only
be a contextually specified norm; with do-, on the opposite, such a standard
cannot be used. Finally, with pod-, the source of the standard of comparison
varies with the different uses.
(v) Finally, prefixes (as well as individual uses of a given prefix) may differ in
terms of the relation that holds between the degree d and the event e. In
the case of do-, pod- of approaching and pod- of limited change, the verbs de-
note events of change in a certain property, and d constitutes the degree
to which the property holds of an argument at the endpoint of the event.
In contrast, with po- and na-, d corresponds to the degree of change. What
unifies all these cases is that d is related to the property lexicalized by the
verbal stem. The case is different with pod- of limited contribution. Here, the
degree d measures a property that is not contributed by the stem; further,
the degree is not linked to any particular part of the event. Rather, the
degree measures a property which characterizes the event as a whole and
along which the event can be compared to other eventualities. In order to
provide a more detailed and exhaustive list of possible relations between d
and e, a larger number of prefixes has to be analyzed. I leave further inves-
tigation of this issue to future research.
Table 2 on the next page summarizes semantic properties of the four prefixes
discussed in this paper, relating to the parameters listed above. The information
on po- and na- is based on the discussion in Filip (2000) and Součková (2004a,b).
To sum up, this paper investigated the semantics of two prefixes, pod- and do-.
It has been argued that each of these morphemes, in its own way, provides evi-
dence in favor of the scalar approach to Slavic prefixation. Under this approach, a
prefix is analyzed as an element imposing a certain relation between two degrees
[240] olga kagan
Prefix Type Relation Scales The nature of The source of

the degree d standard of
comparison
pod- mostly lexical < vertical path, point linguistic
path,property, (typically expression or
contribution linked to the contextually
endpoint of provided
the event) standard
do- intermediate = time, path, point (always linguistic

property, linked to the expression (a
volume/ endpoint of tendency) or
extent the event) a contextual
standard
po- superlexical ≤ Czech: time, the degree of contextually

property, change provided
path, expectation
?volume/ value
extent
(restricted)
Russian:
time,
property
(restricted),
?volume/
extent
(restricted)
na- superlexical ≥ volume/extent, the degree of contextually

incremental change provided
experience expectation
value
table 2: Four Prefixes: A Summary

on a scale – a degree associated with the event denoted by the verb and another
degree, contributed either by a linguistic expression or by the context. The dif-
ferent uses of a given prefix are assumed to share the relation they impose but to
differ in terms of the scale they apply to and, sometimes, in terms of the source
and the nature of the standard of comparison. We have also considered a number
of parameters along which prefixes are predicted to exhibit variation.
The approach to verbal prefixes argued for in this paper raises the following
important question. The fact that prefixes of different types exhibit scalar seman-
tics suggests that we deal with a non-accidental property that is characteristic of
verbal prefixation in Slavic. Why should verbal prefixes contribute scalar mean-
ings? There are at least two reasons for their scalar nature. First, as pointed out
by Janda (1988, 328), most prefixes usually have a basic spatial submeaning, with
their other uses corresponding to metaphorical extensions of this submeaning.
Spatial meanings contributed by the more basic use can often be conceptualized
as relations between two entities on a path scale (as discussed above for vertical
pod-.) The metaphorical extensions can then be most naturally seen as involving
the same relation between entities applied to a different type of scale.
Second, verbal prefixes typically fulfill an aspectual function, by measuring
out an event or relating to its natural endpoint. It has been recently suggested
that telicity and event delimitation can be analyzed in scalar terms, and attributed
to a bounded degree of change (Kennedy & Levin 2002, 2008; Součková 2004a) or
to the notion of maximalization (Filip 2008). If this approach to telicity is correct,
then the scalar semantics of prefixes is non-surprising.
references
Babko-Malaya, Olga. 1999. Zero Morphology: A Study of Aspect, Argument Structure
and Case: The State University of New Jersey, Doctoral dissertation.
Braginsky, Pavel. 2008. The Semantics of the Prefix ZA- in Russian: Bar-Ilan Univer-
sity, Doctoral dissertation.
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word and Meaning in Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel
Publishing.
Filip, H. & S. Rothstein. 2006. Some title. In Someone (ed.), kfd, 22–34.
Filip, Hana. 2000. The Quantization Puzzle. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (eds.),
Events as Grammatical Objects, 3–60. Standford: CSLI Publications.
Filip, Hana. 2005. Measures and Indefinites. In G. N. Carlson & J. F. Palletier (eds.),
References and Quantification: The Partee Effect, 229–288. Standford: CSLI Publica-
tions.
[242] olga kagan
Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and Maximalization: The case of telicity and perfectivity.
In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics
of Aspect, 217–256. John Benjamins.
Greenberg, Yael. 2009. Additivity in the Domain of Eventualities. In Proceedings of

the 10th Symposium on Logic and Language., Budapest, Hungary.
Hay, J., C. Kennedy & B. Levin. 1999. Scale structure underlies telicity in ‘degree
achievements’. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic
Theory, vol. 9, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Janda, Laura. 1988. The Mapping of Elements of Cognitive Space onto Grammatical
Relations: An Example from Russian Verbal Prefixation. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn
(ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 327–343. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kennedy, C. & B. Levin. 2002. Telicity Corresponds to Degree of Change. Unpub-

lished ms., Northwestern University and Standford University.
Kennedy, C. & B. Levin. 2008. Measure of Change: The Adjectival Core of Degree
Achievements. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax,
Semantics and Discourse, 156–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C. & L. McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the
semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381.
Landman, F. 2008. On the differences between the tense-perspective-aspect sys-

tems of English and Dutch. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic
Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, 107–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, S.C. 2001. Space: Linguistic expression. In N.J. Smelser & P. Baltes (eds.),
International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 22, 14749–14752.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Paillard, D. 1997. Formal’noje predstavlenije pristavki ot-. In M.A. Krongauz &

D. Paillard (eds.), Glagol’naja prefixacija v russkom jazyke: sbornik statej, Moscow:
Russkije slovari.
Piñón, C. 2008. Aspectual composition with degrees. In McNally L. & C. Kennedy

(eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse, 183–219. Oxford
University Press. http://pinon.sdf-eu.org/covers/acd.html.
Plungyan, V.A. 2001. Pristavka pod- v russkom jazyke: K opisaniju semantičeskoj

seti. Moskovskij lingvističeskij žurnal 5. 95–124.
lyd 32(2). 323–361.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized Meaning and the Internal Structure
of Events. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the
Semantics of Aspect, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2009. Scalar Roots and their Results. Handout of talk,
Workshop on Roots: Word Formation from the Perspective of ‘Core Lexical El-
ements’, Universität Stuttgart.
Romanova, Eugenia. 2004. Superlexical vs. Lexical Prefixes. Norlyd 32(2). 255–278.
Rothstein, S. 2008. Two Puzzles for a Theory of Lexical Aspect: The Case of
Semelfactives and Degree Adverbials. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatowand &
M. Shaefer (eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, Berlin:
Mouton De Gruyter.
Součková, Kateřina. 2004a. Measure Prefixes in Czech: Cumulative na- and De-
limitative po-. University of Tromso. Unpublished M.A. thesis.
Součková, Kateřina. 2004b. There’s only one po-. Nordlyd 32(2). 403–419.
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic Prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32(2).
205–253.
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2008. Intermediate Prefixes in Russian. In A. Antonenko et al.

(eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Boook
Meeting, 423–445. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Olga Kagan
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
olga@sharat.co.il

(ISSN 1890-9639)
verbal prefixes and suffixes in

nominalization: grammatical
restrictions and corpus data
ANNA PAZELSKAYA
Independent researcher, Moscow
abstract
This paper aims to investigate the options of -nie/tie nominalization chosen
by various verbal stems in Russian, as far as these options can be seen in
the texts of the Russian National Corpus. The paper is in some sense an
addition to Sergei Tatevosov’s work presented in Tatevosov (2009) in that it
is an attempt to look beyond the grammatical restrictions outlined in this
work.
[1] g r a m m a r o f t h e -nie/tie nominalization

Russian verbs all bear perfective or imperfective aspect, depending on their lex-
ical properties and on the suffixes and prefixes in the stem, and many Russian
verbs have a corresponding -nie(-tie) nominalization.
basic “imperfective” prefixed “perfective” prefixed and suffixed

“imperfective”
Verb PISA-t’ ‘to write’ O-pisa-t’ o-pis-YVA-t’
‘to describe’ ‘to describe,
to be describing’
Nominal PISA-nie ‘writing’ O-pisa-nie o-pis-YVA-nie
‘description’/ ‘describing’
?
’describing’
table 1: -nie(-tie) nominalization, prefixes and suffixes of a verbal stem.1
For instance, as shown in Table 1, the basic imperfective verb pisa-t’ ‘to write’
has a corresponding -nie/tie nominal pisa-nie ‘writing’. This basic imperfective
[1] Note that the words “verbal stem”, “nominalization” and “verbal prefixes & suffixes” are used here only
since they provide a convenient way of naming the things involved; as shown in Pazelskaya & Tatevosov
(2006), it is more appropriate to speak about a non-specified initial stem acquiring verbal/nominal fea-
tures in the course of derivation, and at least some of the Aktionsart morphemes attach to this under-
specified stem earlier than it becomes a verb or a nominal.
[246] anna pazelskaya
verb can be prefixed with o- to give a perfective O-pisa-t’ ‘to describe’, and this
prefixed perfective verb also has a nominal -nie/tie counterpart O-pisa-nie refer-
ring to the concept ‘description’ or, less likely, the ‘process of describing’. This
prefixed verb can, in turn, be further augmented with the suffix -yva- to give a so-
called “secondary imperfective” o-pis-YVA-t’ ‘to describe, to be describing’ with
its own nominalization o-pis-YVA-nie ‘process of describing’.
Despite this formal parallelism, nominals with Aktionsart prefixes and -yva-
are crucially different from their corresponding verbs. In verbs these derivational
morphemes are primarily responsible for the change of verbal aspect (from im-
perfective to perfective and back to imperfective, see e.g. Forsyth (1970), Babko-
Malaya (1999), Dickey (2000), Zaliznjak & Shmelev (2000). This change induces
several well-known effects, most known of which are the ban on perfective verbs
as the infinitival complement of phase verbs (cf. (1-a, b), see e.g. Borik 2006), and
aspectual composition (cf. (2-a, b), see Filip 1999, 2005a,b).
(1) a. Vasja nača-l pisa-t’ pis’mo

Vasja start-PST write-INF letter
‘Vasja started writing a letter.’
b. *Vasja nača-l NA-pisa-t’ pis’mo
Vasja start-PST PREF-write-INF letter
Int.: ‘Vasja started writing a letter.’
(2) a. Vasja pisa-l pis’m-a (dva časa) (OK no ostalos’ napisa-t’ ešče
Vasja write-PST letter-PL two hours but remain write-INF still
mnogo pisem)
many letters
‘Vasja has been writing letters for two hours (OK but there still remain
many letters to write).’
b. Vasja NA-pisa-l pis’m-a (za dva časa) (*no ostalos’ napisa-t’
Vasja PREF-write-PST letter-PL in two hours but remain write-INF
ešče mnogo pisem)
still many letters
‘Vasja has written the letters in two hours (*but there still remain
many letters to write).’
The only formal difference between sentences (2-a) and (2-b) is the presence of
the prefix na- on the verb in the latter. However, at the level of meaning the dif-
ference is crucial. The first sentence is atelic (and therefore it is consistent with
dva časa ‘for two hours’ adverbial) with a cumulative interpretation of the inter-
nal incremental argument pis’ma ‘letters’ (so that a continuation assuming the
writing of additional letters is possible). The second sentence is telic (as shown
by the adverbial za dva časa ‘in two hours’), and pis’ma the NP ‘the letters’ re-
verbal prefixes and suffixes in nominalization [247]
ceives a unique maximal interpretation (see Filip 2005a), the NP referring to a

contextually-specified set of letters which were all written during the described
event. Thus, with a prefixed verb the reference of both the situation and the in-
ternal incremental argument becomes quantized, and not cumulative like in the
case of an unprefixed verb.
However, the same two effects of perfectivity are completely absent in de-
verbal nominals corresponding to perfective verbs. First, both unprefixed and
prefixed nominals can occur in the context of phase verbs (3-a, b).
(3) a. Vasja nača-l pisa-nie pis’m-a

Vasja start-PST write-NMN letter-GEN
b. OK Vasja nača-l NA-pisa-nie pis’m-a
Vasja start-PST PREF-write-NMN letter-GEN
Second, -nie/tie nominals show aspectual composition of the “English” type, when
the cumulativity/quantizedness of a situation referred to by a verb is determined
by the cumulativity/quantizedness of the internal incremental argument, and not
by the properties of the verb itself.
(4) a. Vasja včera zanima-l-sja pisa-ni-em pis-em

Vasja yesterday be.busy-PST-REFL write-NMN-INSTR letter-GEN.PL
/NA-pisa-ni-em pis-em
/PREF-write-NMN-INSTR letter-GEN.PL
Context: What has Vasja been doing yesterday?
‘Yesterday Vasja was busy writing letters.’
b. Pisa-nie /NA-pisa-nie pis-em zanja-l-o u
write-NMN /PREF-write-NMN letter-GEN.PL take.PST-N at
Vas-i dva časa (*no ostalos’ napisa-t’ ešče mnogo pisem)
Vasja-GEN two hours but remain write-INF still many letters
Context: Vasja is involved in a lawsuit and yesterday he had to write ten
letters to the other participants of the suit
‘Writing the letters took Vasja two hours (*but there still remained
many letters to be written).’
In (4-a), as well as in (4-b), both “imperfective” (without the prefix na) and “per-
fective’ (with the prefix) nominals are equally grammatical. Moreover, the inter-
pretation of the whole sentence, as well as the cumulativity/quantizedness of the
NP (na-)pisa-nie pisem ‘writing (the) letters’ does not depend on the choice of the
nominal. Both NPs (na )pisa-nie pisem in the first sentence are cumulative, giv-
en cumulative reference of pisem ‘letters’, while in the second sentence, with the
context-specified and therefore quantized set of letters to be written, the same

NPs are quantized.
These two crucial differences in aspect-induced behaviour between prefixed/
unprefixed verbs, on the one side, and prefixed/unprefixed nominals, on the oth-
er side, leads to a conclusion that Aktionsart prefixes and -yva- are not directly
responsible for the effects of aspect in Russian. Rather, Aktionsart prefixes and
-yva- in nominals (and, consequently, in verbs, if we stick to the hypothesis that
verbs and -nie/tie nominals are formed from the same stems) are event structure
modifiers (Tatevosov 2003; Pazelskaya & Tatevosov 2006; Tatevosov 2009) rather
than aspectual ones, and therefore -nie/tie nominals in Russian do not bear as-
pect (contrary to Ivannikova (1972), but in line with Peshkovsky (1956); Comrie
(1980))2 .
NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY. Although the notions of perfectivity and imperfectiv-

ity are inapplicable to verbal stems without inflection and, especially, to
nominalizations, for convenience I will use the terms “perfective/imperfec-
tive stem” and “perfective/imperfective nominal” to refer to ‘a stem which
gives rise to a perfective/resp. imperfective verb’ and to ‘a nominal derived
from such a stem’. Imperfective stems include basic stems referring to pro-
cesses and activities, and perfective stems suffixed with -yva- or -a-. Perfec-
tive stems are (at least synchronically) basic perfective stems and prefixed
stems.
However, not every prefixed/suffixed verb has a corresponding -nie/tie nomi-

nal. The picture presented in Table 1 above where every new derived verbal stem
gives rise to a grammatical -nie/tie nominalization is relatively rare. There are
two types of restrictions on the occurrence of Aktionsart morphemes in nomi-
nals: absolute (grammatical) restrictions and individual, lexicalized ones, which
are more accidental in nature. The grammatical restrictions (according to Pazel-
skaya & Tatevosov 2008; Tatevosov 2009) are the following
• Process deverbal nouns in Russian maximally contain a projection of the

“secondary imperfective” morpheme -yva-.
• Any material that merges outside -yva- blocks nominalization.
E.g., external prefixes (see Ramchand (2004), cf. superlexical prefixes in Ro-
manova (2004, 2006)) merged outside -yva- are impossible in nominalizations (5,
[2] Moreover, other types of deverbal nominals in Russian do not bear aspect either, although nominals de-
rived via different models show a number of distinctions in their syntax and morphology, see Pazelskaya
(2009a,b). Cf. also observations on various distinctions of aspectual nature in English deverbal nominals
(Brinton 1995) and their French counterparts (Martin 2008).

6-a), while prefixes merged lower are generally fine (6-b). One and the same pre-
fix can have more than one landing site, and it only blocks nominalization when
it attaches above -yva- (6-a), not below (6-b):
(5) PO-side-t’ — *po-side-nie

DELIM-sit-INF DELIM-sit-NMN
‘to sit for some time’
(6) a. [na-[[otkry-]va]]-t’ banok — *naotkryvanie banok
CUMUL-open-YVA-INF cans
‘to openPFV plenty of cans’
b. [[na-[dar-]]iva]-t’ podarkov — nadarivanie podarkov
CUMUL-give-YVA-INF presents
‘to regularly giveIPFV plenty of presents’
The order of attaching of the prefix and -yva- in verbal stems, marked by square
brackets in (6-a, b), is unambiguously justified by the aspect of the resulting verb:
if the (“perfectivizing”) prefix is merged after the (“imperfectivizing”) suffix, the
verb as a whole will be perfective, as in (6-a), and if the suffix is structurally above
the prefix, the verb will be imperfective, as in (6-b). Only in the second case is the
nominalization possible, since in the first case it would require to nominalize a
stem containing more than the -yva- projection, namely, the projection of the
perfectivizing prefix attached above -yva-.
This constraint on the order of attachment is the only strict one. Other re-
strictions are irregular and seem to be related to individual properties of a given
stem (i.e. lexical). In many cases only one member of an “aspectual pair” can be
nominalized with -nie/tie, the other being completely out (7-a), less frequent (7-b),
or referring to a different meaning of the same verb (7-c).
(7) a. da-t’ ‘to givePFV ’ — *da-tie

da-VA-t ‘to giveIPFV ’ — OK da-VA-nie ‘giving’
b. pozna-t’ ‘to getPFV to know, to cognizePFV ’ — pozna-nie ‘cognition’
pozna-VA-t’ ‘to cognizeIPFV ’ — ?? pozna-VA-nie ‘cognition’
c. otkry-t’ ‘to openPFV (a door), to discoverPFV (America)’ — otkry-tie ‘dis-
covery (of America)’
otkry-VA-t’ ‘to openIPFV (a door), to discoverIPFV (America)’ — otkry-VA-
nie ‘opening ((of) the door)’
The examples in (7) are restricted to aspectual pairs where the imperfective stem
is formed by secondary imperfectivization, i.e. -yva- suffixation, of the unprefixed
stem, but they show the range of available options. The differences in acceptabil-
ity and meaning of nominalizations of different stems cannot be (at least so it
seems by looking at the data) attributed to any difference between suffixed and
unsuffixed stems as such. There are verbal stems very close to those in (7) with
different behaviour under nominalization, cf. (7-a) to (8-a), (7-b) to (8-b), and (7-c)
to (8-c).
(8) a. vzja-t’ ‘to takePFV ’ — OK vzja-tie

b. uzna-t’ ‘to recognizePFV ’ — *uzna-nie uzna-VA-t’ ‘to recognizeIPFV ’
— OK uzna-VA-nie ‘recognition’
c. pokry-t’ ‘to coverPFV ’ — pokry-tie ‘covering’
pokry-VA-t’ ‘to coverIPFV ’ — pokry-VA-nie ‘covering’
The basic hypothesis is, therefore, that the occurrence of Aktionsart morphemes
merged below -yva- and of -yva- itself in nominalizations is not restricted by gram-
matical rules. What we see in (7) and (8) are preferences and tendencies, some-
times suggesting pragmatic or euphonical factors to be responsible for the distri-
bution, and sometimes we are just faced with lexicalized properties of the stems.
The analysis of statistical preferences, tendencies, lexicalized properties is ex-
actly where text corpora can prove useful, so what if we take corpus data into
account and try to look beyond the grammar?
Questions addressed in this paper are:
• What are the distributions of the nominalization patterns with respect to

Aktionsart morphemes of the stem?
• Are there types of stems which give rise to more nominalizations than other
types of stems?
• Are there types of stems which give rise to more frequently used nominal-
izations?
• Is there any relation between frequency distributions of nominals and verbs

sharing the same stems?
• What are the possible reasons for these distributions?
[2] data s a m p l e s
This research and all the calculations in it are based on the annotated part of
the Russian National Corpus (www.ruscorpora.ru) containing 557 555 sentences
and 6 179 022 words. In what follows, I will refer to it just as the Corpus for con-
venience. In order to choose the most frequent verbs/nominals for the investiga-
tion, I also used a word frequency list for the Corpus, i.e. a list of lemmatized words
in which every word has a score corresponding to the number of occurrences of
this word in the Corpus.
This Corpus was used to form two research samples of nominalizations, based
on different principles: Sample 1 “from verb to nominalization”, and Sample 2
“nominalizations as they are”. In both cases I chose only event nominalizations,
i.e. deverbal nominals referring to more or less the same situations as the one
denoted by the corresponding verb, excluding result, manner, agent etc. (cf.
Padučeva 1974; Grimshaw 1990; Alexiadou 2001, for further discussion of these
types of nominals).
Sample 1, based on the “from verb to nominalization” principle, was compiled
as follows. I collected the top verbs in the frequency list in the current Corpus and
broadened the sample with the derivational nests of these verbs (for basic verbs I
added their prefix derivatives, for other verbs the basic verbs they were derived
from and the derivatives). This resulted in 201 verbs (98 “seeding” verbs + their
derivates and/or basic verbs they are derived from). These verbs gave rise to 136
nominals (see section [3.1] for details).
Sample 2 includes the 209 most frequent -nie/tie nominals, so it shows just
-nie/tie nominalizations as they are.
Sample 1 is needed to be able to compare the scores attested for nominals
with those for verbs, while Sample 2 presents more balanced and natural results
for the nominals themselves.
This research is centered around two main parameters: the number of nom-
inals corresponding to a certain type of stem and the average frequency of the
nominals of a certain type in the Corpus. Average frequency is the average of
the frequencies of all the words of a group in the Corpus, i.e. the average of the
numbers of occurrences of the word among all the words in the Corpus.
[3] c o r p u s s t u d y
Let us first see the results for the two samples (“verb-based” sample and “nominal-
based” sample) separately and then compare them.
[3.1] Sample 1. Most frequent verbs and their nominalizations

Let us start from the “from verb to nominalization” sample. Figure 1 shows how
the set of the verbs for future nominalization has been chosen. Each of 98 “seed-
ing” verbs from the top of the frequency word list was taken to form a maximum
of derivations from those shown in the scheme.
Not all the verbs allow for all the derivations, and not every stem can be nom-
inalized. Therefore, these operations resulted in a set of a total of 201 verbs, of
which 95 were perfective and 106 imperfective, giving rise to 136 nominals, 48
“purely perfective” imperfective

derivate imperfective with -yva-/-a-4
(internal prefix) pro-čit-yva-t’
pro-čita-t’ ‘to read something
‘to have read (something)’ regularly’
basic verb
čita-t’. perfective derivate imperfective
‘to read’ with an external with -yva-/-a-
prefix pere-čit-yva-t’
pere-čita-t’ ‘to read again
‘to have read again’ regularly’
figure 1: The “seeding” basic verb and its derivates.
corresponding to perfective verbal stems, 88 to imperfective stems3 . Unfortu-

nately, only 71 of these nominals had non-zero frequency in the annotated part
of the Corpus, 30 “perfective”, 41 “imperfective”.
One can notice that imperfective stems in general nominalize more often than
perfective ones (cf. 88 nominals from imperfective stems to 48 from perfective
stems). However, consider the fact that out of these 88 imperfective stems only
41 (or 46,6%) are attested in the Corpus, while for the “perfective” nominals 30
items of potentially 48 (or 75%) are attested. The average frequencies of nominal-
izations of both types in the corpus (Figure 2) compared to the average frequency
of the corresponding verbs (Figure 3) confirm this trend.
The general trend is, therefore, that imperfective stems more often have cor-
responding nominalizations, but nominalizations of perfective stems are average-
ly more frequent in the Corpus (Figure 2). Note that for the corresponding verbs
the picture is quite the opposite, with imperfective verbs being more frequent
(Figure 3).
Let us now switch from the binary perfective/imperfective opposition to a
more fine-grained classification of verbal stems involved in the derivation of these
nominals.
[3] The procedure of attributing a nominal to either a perfective or an imperfective stem is quite formal, and
every nominal clearly shows which stem it belongs to. Deverbal nominals derived from perfective stems
share a part of their morphology with perfective past participles in their predicative form, cf.: o-pisa-t’ ‘to
describe’ — o-pisa-N ‘described’ — o-pisa-N-ie ‘description’, otkry-t’ ‘to open, to discover’ — otkry-t ‘open,
discovered’ — otkry-t-ie ‘opening, discovery’, see Tatevosov (2003). So, if the deverbal nominal without
-ie is identical to a perfective past participle, which is part of the verbal paradigm and therefore clearly
identifiable, this nominal corresponds to the perfective stem, otherwise to the imperfective.
[4] The nature and exact position of this a in imperfective verbs remain unclear (see discussion in Pazelskaya
& Tatevosov 2008), but for our purposes it is enough to say that it is something that makes a perfective
verb an imperfective one and for many verbs it is complementarily distributed with -yva-.

figure 2: Average frequency of nom- figure 3: Average frequency of

inals with perfective and verbs with perfective and
imperfective stems. imperfective stems.
If we look not only at the aspectual characteristics of a verbal stem, but at

the means of deriving it, namely, on the Aktionsart morphemes involved, we can
recognize 5 different types of stems and therefore 5 types of nominals derived
from these stems:
1. basic imperfective stems, i.e. stems giving rise to imperfective verbs and being
(at least synchronically) derivationally simple: pisa-t’ ‘to writeIPFV ’ — pisa-nie
‘writing’;
2. basic perfective stems, i.e. stems giving rise to perfective verbs and being (at
least synchronically) derivationally simple: reši-t’ ‘to decide, to solve’ — reše-nie
‘decision, solution’;
3. perfective stems with “purely perfectivizing” (in terms of Romanova 2004, 2006)
prefixes, i.e. stems derived from those of type 1 by adding prefixes without
their own lexical meaning: na-pisa-t’ ‘to writePFV ’ — na-pisa-nie ‘writing’;
4. perfective stems with all other perfectivizing prefixes, here labeled as exter-
nal, these stems are also derived from stems of type 1: o-pisa-t’ ‘to describe’ —
o-pisa-nie ‘description’;
5. imperfective stems derived from perfective ones with -yva- and -a-, these stems
can be derived from any of the stems in 2-4 by adding the imperfectivizing
suffixes -yva- and -a-: o pis-yva-t’ ‘to describe, to be describing’ — o-pis-yva-nie
‘describing’.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the number of nominals derived from the stems of
every type in our sample (Figure 4), and the average frequency shown by nominals
with these types of stems (Figure 5).
figure 4: Types of stems in 136 nom- figure 5: Average frequency of nom-

inals derived from the 201 inals of the 5 different
most frequent verbs. types.
Figure 4 shows that imperfective stems with imperfectivizing suffixes show

the highest number of derivations in our sample (60 of 136 nominals are formed
from these stems), perfective stems with external prefixes are on the second place
(38 nominals), basic imperfective stems come third (28 nominals), while basic per-
fective stems and perfective stems with purely perfectivizing prefixes derive very
few nominalizations (6 and 4 nominals, respectively).
Figure 5 demonstrates that nominals derived from stems with purely perfec-
tivizing stems have the maximum average frequency (i.e., the maximum number
of occurrences in the Corpus); nominals from basic perfective stems are on the
second place, followed by nominals corresponding to basic imperfective stems;
nominalizations of perfective stems with external prefixes come next to last, while
nominalizations of derived imperfective stems with imperfectivizing suffixes are
the least frequent.
Note that, again, the two most productive types of stems, namely, imperfec-
tive stems with -yva- and perfective stems with “external” prefixes, derive nomi-
nals with the lowest average frequency, and, vice versa, basic perfective and pre-
fixed perfective stems, the least productive in nominalizations, derive nominals
with the highest frequency in the Corpus.
[3.2] Sample 2. The most frequent nominals and what they are derived from
Now let us turn to the second sample containing 209 -nie/tie ending nominals
from the top of the frequency list, excluding non-deverbal nouns like desjatiletie
‘decade’ or zdanie ‘building’. Among these nominals, 152 correspond to perfec-

tive stems, 52 to imperfective, and 5 to stems which are biaspectual in their ver-
bal form (like obeščanie ‘a promise’, cf. obeščat’ ‘to promise’5 ) — the distribution
is presented in Figure 6 below. Figure 7 shows the distribution of the nominals
with respect to the five types of stems identified above: basic imperfective, basic
perfective, prefixed perfective with purely perfectivizing prefixes, prefixed per-
fective with all the other (“external”) prefixes, suffixed imperfective.
figure 6: Number of -nie/tie nomi- figure 7: Types of stems in the 209

nals with perfective, im- most frequent -nie/tie
perfective, and biaspectual nominals.
stems.
Note that the distribution of stem types for the two samples is different (cf. the
scores in Figure 7 and Figure 4). Apart from the presence of biaspectual stems
with their specific morphology, Sample 2 shows crucially a low score for suffixed
imperfective stems and a threefold prevalence of the number of nominals of the
productive type (prefixed perfective with external prefixes) over the number of
nominals of the second productive type (the ones derived from basic imperfective
stems).
The average frequency scores for the nominals from the second sample of dif-
ferent types are given below. Figure 8 shows the average frequencies for nominals
derived from all perfective stems, all imperfective stems, and biaspectual stems.
[5] See e.g. the entry for this verb in Kuznecov (1998). Biaspectual verbs, their semantics and their place in
the aspectual system represent a challenge for researchers of Russian and Slavic aspect (see e.g. Anderson
2002, as well as a small state-of the-art overview in Janda 2007). What is important for us here is that
their derivational structure in terms of Aktionsart morphemes is equally unclear. Therefore, in this work
they will be kept apart as a separate category, different from both perfective and imperfective stems, as
well as from all the five types of stems defined with respect to their derivational history.

The average frequencies are just slightly different, imperfective nominals show-
ing the highest score, and perfective ones the lowest.
Figure 9 presents a comparison of average frequencies for nominals corre-
sponding to the five identified types of stems plus biaspectual stems forming a
separate category. The highest score is shown by nominals corresponding to per-
fective stems with purely perfectivizing prefixes; average frequencies for nomi-
nalizations of both basic types of stems (perfective and imperfective) and suffixed
imperfective stems are almost equal, and perfective stems with external prefixes
give rise to the least frequent nominals.
The average frequency scores for most frequent nominals (Sample 2) are dif-
ferent from what has been attested for the nominals corresponding to the most
frequent verbs in [3.1], cf. Figure 8 to Figure 2, as well as Figure 9 to Figure 5
above.
figure 8: Average frequencies for figure 9: Average frequency for 209

-nie/tie nominals with -nie/tie nominals wrt the
perfective, imperfective, stem type.
and biaspectual stems.
Apart from the presence of several biaspectual stems, the most striking dif-
ferences between the results of this sample and the results in section [3.1] are:
• higher average frequency of nominalizations of imperfective stems;
• more precisely, relatively high frequency of nominalizations of suffixed im-

perfective stems with -yva-.
In what follows I am going to discuss these results and propose an explanation

for the attested differences.
Sample 1 (verb-based) Sample 2

(nominal-based)
1 higher number of nomi- imperfective stems perfective stems
nals
2 higher number of perfec- nominals with external nominals with external
tive nominals prefixes prefixes
3 higher number of imper- nominals with imperfec- nominals derived from
fective nominals tivizing suffixes -yva- /-a- basic imperfective stems
4 higher frequency perfective stems imperfective stems
5 highest frequency among nominals with purely nominals with purely
perfective nominals perfectivizing prefixes perfectivizing prefixes
6 higher frequency among nominals derived from almost equal, score of the
imperfective nominals basic imperfective stems nominals derived from
basic imperfective stems
is slightly higher
table 2: Comparison of the two samples.
[4] d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s
The results for Sample 1 “from verb to nominalization”, and Sample 2 “nominal-
izations as they are” are given in Table 2.
The results in Table 2 give rise to the following generalizations:
(i) There exists a general pattern “the higher the number of nominals derived
from a stem of a certain type, the less is their average frequency” (cf. lines
1 and 4 for both samples, lines 2 and 5 for both samples, lines 3 and 6 for
Sample 1).
(ii) Lines 3 and 6 for Sample 2 will not be such a striking counterexample to (i)
if we consider the numbers: in Sample 1 the average frequency of nominals
derived from basic imperfective stems is more than ten times higher (213,46
vs. 18,12), while in Sample 2 it is only 498,05 vs. 471,2. That is, where we
would expect nominals derived from stems with -yva- to have higher fre-
quency, it is just not so dramatically lower; therefore there should be some
reason for these nominals to be less frequent than nominals derived from
basic imperfective stems.
(iii) The results for the two samples are in some cases opposite: consider the
number and frequency of nominals derived from perfective/imperfective
stems, without details of their formation (lines 1 and 4), and the number of
nominals with -yva- and the ones corresponding to basic imperfective stems
(line 3). In the first sample there are more nominals derived from imper-
fective stems, but nominalizations of perfective stems are averagely more
frequent, and most imperfective nominals correspond to suffixed imper-

fective stems. On the other hand, in the second sample nominals derived
from perfective stems prevail over those derived from imperfective stems,
although the latter show a higher average frequency, and among nominals
derived from imperfective stems there are more of those corresponding to
basic imperfective stems.
The generalization (ii) seems to be a common property of all the classes of

words in a language: the bigger a natural class of words sharing some important
property, the less frequent are the words the class consists of, and vice versa —
cf. e.g. the number and frequency of lexical and auxiliary verbs (Baayen 2001).
The reason for the lower frequency of the nominals derived from stems with
-yva- (ii) might lie in their stylistic markedness. Nominalizations in Russian are
generally considered as part of cold, overcomplicated, “bureaucratic” speech (cf.
Nichols 1988), something which is to be avoided in e.g. creative writing (Gal’ 1987).
All this is in the first place true exactly for -yva- nominals, since other types of
nominalizations often have the option to become more justified as result nomi-
nals (cf. the case of O-pisa-nie ‘description’/?’describing’ — o-pis-YVA-nie ‘describ-
ing’) or manner nominals (e.g. vide-t’ ‘to see’ — vide-nie ‘vision, view, viewpoint’),
while -yva- nominals lack such an option. Therefore, the only role they can have
is as a description of the action itself, i.e. exactly this stylistically depreciated use
that other types of nominals avoid.
As for the split of results between the two samples (iii), one probable reason
could be the shortage of material, especially in the first sample, and therefore
it is just an incidental deviation. As far as the average frequency of perfective/
imperfective stems is considered, nominals in Sample 2 pattern together with
verbs in Sample 1, and not with nominals in Sample 1. This may show, again,
that the imperfective stems regain their high scores as soon as there is enough
material, or, alternatively, suggest that in the higher part of the frequency distri-
bution the profile is not the same as in the lower one. This cannot be seen without
a more extensive study and more extensive samples (and, probably, more exten-
sive annotated corpora).
This study is instructive in two main respects. First, it shows that -nie/tie nom-
inals in their distribution with respect to aspectual characteristics of the stems
they are derived from, as well as with respect to the Aktionsart morphemes in
them, respect the statistical law “the bigger class — less frequent items”. Second,
the study confirms the general view of those of -nie/tie nominals which have the
only option of denoting a situation, as generally potential, but rarely attested in
the real life type of words (Nichols 1988), that is, as something more like a syn-
tactic construction than part of the lexicon.
[5] g l o s s e s
In examples (1–8) and throughout the text the following glosses are used:
PST past tense INF infinitive

PREF prefix NMN nominalizer
DELIM delimitative prefix PL plural number
CUMUL cumulative prefix GEN genitive case
YVA imperfectivizing suffix INSTR instrumental case
REFL verbal reflexive marker
acknowledgements
I would like to thank Sergei Tatevosov for sharing his work on verbal prefixes
and their relation to aspect in Russian, as well as for fruitful discussions of the
related issues. My thanks also go to all the people involved in creating and main-
taining the Russian National Corpus, especially to Dmitry Sichinava who gave me
the frequency lists of words in the annotated part of the Russian National Cor-
pus. Finally, I want to thank the audience of the Russian Verb conference for their
valuable comments, especially Peter Arkadiev, Stephen Dickey, Dmitry Gerasi-
mov, and Laura Janda.
All the errors, omissions and other shortcomings of this paper are of course
mine.
references
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Anderson, Cori. 2002. Biaspectual Verbs and Their Implications for the Category of
Aspect in Russian: The University of North Carolina Senior Honor dissertation.
Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word Frequency Distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Babko-Malaya, Olga. 1999. Zero Morphology: A Study of Aspect, Argument Structure

and Case. New Jersey: The State University of New Jersey, Ph.D. dissertation.
Borik, Olga. 2006. Aspect and reference time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1995. The aktionsart of deverbal nouns in English. In P. M.

Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, Ö. Dahl & M. Squartini (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect,
and Actionality, 27–42. Torino.
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Nominalization in Russian: lexical noun phrases or trans-

formed sentences? In C. V. Chvany & R. D. Brecht (eds.), Morphosyntax in Slavic,
212–220. Ohio: Columbus.
Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. A Cognitive Approach. Stanford:

CSLI Publications.
Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types and noun phrase semantics. New York,
London: Garland Publishing.
Filip, Hana. 2005a. On accumulating and having it all. In H. Verkuyl, H. de Swart

& A. van Hout (eds.), Perspectives on Aspect, 125–148. Dordrecht: Springer.
Filip, Hana. 2005b. The Telicity Parameter Revisited. In Semantics and Linguistic
Theory (SALT) XIV, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Forsyth, James. 1970. Grammar of Aspect. Usage and meaning in the Russian Verb.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gal’, N.Ya. 1987. Slovo živoe i mërtvoe. Iz opyta perevodčika i redaktora (Live word and
dead word. From my experience as editor and translator). 4th revised edition. Moscow:
Cambridge University Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ivannikova, E. A. 1972. K voprosu ob aspekte izučenia kategorii vida u otglagol’nyx

suščestvitel’nyx v russkom jazyke (Towards studying the category of verbal as-
pect of deverbal nominals in Russian). Izvestija AN SSSR, Literature & Language
series 31(2). 113–123.
Janda, Laura A. 2007. What makes Russian Bi-aspectual verbs Special. In D. Divjak
& A. Kochanska (eds.), Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain. Cognitive Linguistics
Research, 83–109. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuznecov, S. A. (ed.). 1998. Bol’šoj tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo yazyka (Big Explanatory
Dictionary of Russian). Saint-Petersburg: Norint.
Martin, Fabienne. 2008. The Semantics of Eventive Suffixes in French, vol. 1,

Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
Nichols, Johanna. 1988. Nominalization and assertion in scientific Russian prose.

In John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and
Discourse, 349–428. Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Padučeva, E.V. 1974. O semantike sinkaksisa (About syntax semantics). Moscow: Nau-
ka.
Pazelskaya, A. G. 2009a. Modeli derivatsii i sintaksičeskaja pozitsija otglagol’nyx

suščestvitel’nyx po korpusnym dannym (Derivational models and syntactic po-
sition of deverbal nominals on corpus data), vol. 8 (15), 373–378. Moscow.
Pazelskaya, A. G. 2009b. Modeli derivatsii otglagol’nyx suščestvitel’nyx: vglyad

iz korpusa (Derivational models of deverbal nominals on corpus data). In
E.V. Rakhilina S.G. Tatevosov K.L. Kisseleva, V.A. Plungyan (ed.), Korpusnye
issledovaniya po russkoj grammatike (Corpus studies of Russian grammar), 65–91.
Moscow: Probel.
Pazelskaya, A. G. & Sergei G. Tatevosov. 2008. Отглагольное имя и структура рус-
ского глагола (Deverbal nominal and the structure of Russian verb). In S. G. Tat-
evosov V. A. Plungyan (ed.), Исследования по глагольной деривации (Investiga-
tions of verbal derivation), 348–379. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kultur.
Pazelskaya, Anna G. & Sergei G. Tatevosov. 2006. Uninflected VPs, Deverbal Nouns
and the Aspectual Architecture of Russian. In J.E. Lavine, S. Franks, M. Tasseva-
Kurktchieva & H. Filip (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14. The Prince-
ton Meeting, 258–276. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publicatoins.
Peshkovsky, A. M. 1956. Russkij sintaksis v naučnom osveščenii (Russian syntax in
scientific persective. Moscow: Nauka.
lyd. Special issue on Slavic prefixes 32(2).
Romanova, E. 2004. Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. Nordlyd. Special issue on Slavic
prefixes 32(2).
Romanova, E. 2006. Constructing Perfectivity in Russian: Ph.D. dissertation. Univer-
sity of Tromso dissertation.
Tatevosov, Sergei G. 2009. Perfectivity Dilemma: Verbless Aspect and Aspectless
Verb.
Tatevosov, Sergei G. Anna G. Pazelskaya. 2003. Nominalization in Russian: even-
tuality types and aspectual properties. In Paul Robert van Rooy Dekker (ed.),
Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium, 169–174. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University.
Zaliznjak, Anna & Alexey Shmelev. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju (Intro-
duction to Russian aspectology). Moscow: Nauka.
Anna Pazelskaya
proezd Shokalskogo, 18 ‘b’, 162
Moscow
Russia
avis39@mail.ru
(ISSN 1890-9639)
adjuncts, attitudes and aspect:

some additions to a tense theory for
russian
ATLE GRØNN AND ARNIM VON STECHOW
University of Oslo and Tübingen/Konstanz
abstract
Compared to other languages, the temporal organisation in Russian relative
clauses and temporal adverbial clauses is as simple as it can possibly be: The
tense morphology is licensed locally and the adjunct tense and matrix tense
are independent of each other.
It is tempting to give a purely deictic analysis of adjunct tense in Russian.
However, there are some exceptions to the deictic story, the most important
one being adjunct tense embedded under attitudes and modals. For these
cases, we argue that the highest tense in the adjunct is anaphoric (Tproi ).
We show that our previous analyses of complement tense and adjunct tense
can be combined to successfully treat adjuncts in such intensional contexts.
Furthermore, we discuss some residual issues in our tense theory for Rus-
sian, such as the insertion of covert tenses at LF (Russian lacks overt perfect
tenses) and the integration of aspect in our system of feature transmission
via semantic binding.
In this paper we address some open ends from our previous work on subordinate
tense in Russian, and try to tie them together in a coherent theory.
The sequence of tense (sot) parameter accounts for the following striking dif-
ferences in the distribution of tenses in English and Russian:
(1) E Mary will give birth to a son who has blue eyes like his father.
(“present under will”)
R Maša rodit syna, u kotorogo budut golubye glaza kak i u otca.
(“budet under future”)
(2) E John thought that Mary would give birth to a son who had blue eyes
like his father. (“[past under would] under past”)
R Vanja podumal, čto Maša rodit syna, u kotorogo budut golubye glaza
kak i u otca. (“[budet under future] under past”)
[264] grønn & von stechow
In English, subordinate tenses can inherit temporal features from a higher tense
across verbal quantifiers (will, would, thought ...). In (1E), the present tense has is
simultaneous (and therefore coindexed) with the infinitive give birth. The latter
inherits a deictic present tense feature from the verbal quantifier will, and the
feature is transmitted to has under binding. A similar story can be told for the
licensing of the past tense of had in (2E) which involves feature transmission from
thought via would.
In Russian, a non-sot language, this kind of long distance binding is not pos-
sible. Instead, the morphological tense licensing is done locally in Russian. This
is true not only for complement tense, but also for adjunct tense, viz. relative
clauses (RC) and temporal adverbial clauses (TAC).
Adjunct tense in Russian appears to be extremely simple in examples like (1R):
Both the matrix and adjunct are interpreted deictically; the adjunct tense is there-
fore semantically independent of the matrix. But is this always so?
In this paper we will encounter constructions where the adjunct tense is bound
and, in some cases, dependent on the matrix, for instance in configurations with a
relative future in the adjunct under a matrix past. Furthermore, under intension-
al temporal quantifiers (attitudes and modals) the adjunct tense cannot be deictic
for semantic reasons (modulo de re interpretations). For instance, in (2R) the em-
bedded future birth of Maša’s son need not take place after the speech time. And,
a deeper point: Vanja’s embedded thought (the thought of the attitude holder)
cannot possibly refer to the utterance time of the speaker.
Let us therefore assume, in the general case, that the highest tense in the ad-
junct is anaphoric, called Tpro. Typically, though, Tproi is coindexed with the de-
ictic now, in which case Tproi does not have any role to play. However, Tproi may
also be bound by other tenses from above to produce dependent or non-deictic
readings. To capture and analyse the distribution of deictic and non-deictic in-
terpretations is the main goal of this paper.
In this Introduction we will briefly recapitulate the main tenets of our theory
for complement tense and adjunct tense.
In Section [2] we address the issue of dependent (bound) vs. independent (de-
ictic) interpretations of adjunct tense. We consider relative clauses and temporal
adverbial clauses headed by do/posle/kogda – before/after/when.
Then, in Section [3] we analyse some special cases of backward shifting in Rus-
sian, constructions that require the insertion of a covert tense due to the absence
in Russian of overt perfect tenses. Covert tenses lack inherent tense features and
therefore do not interact with the SOT parameter and feature transmission.
Next, in Section [4] we show how to analyse adjuncts inside complements.
Several of the examples discussed are rather complex, giving rise to issues that
have not been properly discussed in the literature.
a tense theory for russian [265]
Finally, in Section [5] we raise the question of how aspect in Russian fits into
our tense theory and the syntax-morphology-semantics interfaces.
This paper, which mostly focuses on Russian, builds on our previous work on
complement tense (Grønn & von Stechow 2010) and adjunct tense (Grønn & von
Stechow 2011) in Russian and English. Our theory of adjunct tense is worked out
and explained in detail in two recent, closely related papers; the first part on RCs
(von Stechow & Grønn 2012a) and the second part on TACs (von Stechow & Grønn
2012b). The two parts of this survey article also include an analysis of the non-sot-
language Japanese, and some discussion of the (mixed) sot-languages German and
French. We refer the reader to this work for a detailed overview of the state of
the art of adjunct tense in formal semantics.
[1.1] Architecture of Tenses

We recapitulate some essential points below. We assume the architecture for
tenses outlined in Figure 1.
TP
(( (((hhhhh
((
( hh
h
T’ AspP
XXXX !aa
X !! a
{ T-shifter } T-centre { Asp } VP
p(ast)  n(ow)  pf
f(uture) Tpro ip
 
TPRO
figure 1: Architecture of Tense and Aspect.
Tense in complements is semantically vacuous or contains a vacuous centre

(TPRO). Tense in adjuncts is deictic (n) or contains a variable (Tproi ) bound by a
higher tense. These claims are based on a syntax of tense consisting of two parts,
the first obligatory and the second optional:
• a pronominal semantic tense, the temporal centre of the clause, which may
be n (“now”), denoting the speech time, Tproi (an anaphoric pronoun bound
by a higher tense) or TPRO (a zero tense)1 :
(3) JnK = λw. the time of the utterance context;

written as s∗ . (feature: in)
[1] The notation alludes to big PRO which is the standard notation used for subjects of infinitivals. By anal-
ogy, TPRO is the covert subject of the TP. TPRO is confined to complements of attitudes and other inten-
sional contexts.

(4) JTprogi K = g(i) (u-feature inherited from the binder tense i in

accordance with the sot parameter.)
(5) JTPROK = undefined! (featureless, except for intensional contexts

in non-sot languages, where TPRO has the feature in.)
• a relative semantic tense, i.e. a T-shifter, like p(ast) or f(uture) with the
standard “Priorian” meanings:2
(6) JpK = λwλtλPit .(∃t′ ≺ t)P (t′ ) type (i(it,t))

(feature: ip)
(7) JfK = λwλtλPit .(∃t′ ≻ t)P (t′ ) type (i(it,t))

(feature: if)
Note that our system does not contain a relative semantic tense pres(ent).
Hence, we do not expect a present in the adjunct to express simultaneity with a
matrix past or future. This is important to keep in mind in the discussion of Rus-
sian adjuncts. However, for “present under past (or future)” in Russian attitude
constructions and modal contexts, our formulation of the sot parameter makes
the simultaneous interpretation possible (see below).
[1.2] Temporal LFs

We assume a grammar in the style of Chomsky’s GB-theory: we generate a syn-
tactic tree that branches at a certain point (Spell-Out/SO) into Phonetic Form (PF)
and Logical Form (LF).
(8) Maša spala.

‘Mary slept.’
(9) SO: [TP [T pn][VP Maša[spala TPRO]]]
TPRO movement (with subsequent TPRO deletion)
LF: [TP n λ0 p t0 TPRO λ1 [VP Maša[spala t1 ]]]
= λw.(∃t ≺ s∗ ) Mary sleeps in w at t
We see that the verb at the PF in (8) has morphological tense, whereas at the
LF in (9) the verb is tenseless. The LF has a straightforward compositional inter-
pretation assuming the following meaning for the verb:
(10) Jspat’/spit/spalai(et) K = λwλtλx.x sleeps in w at time t
[2] A note to the logical types: The simple types are e (individuals), i (times), v (events), t (truth-values) and s
(world histories). The world argument is not projected in the syntax because we are using an intensional
language; the time argument is the first by convention (other authors have the local evaluation time as
the last argument).

The temporal argument of the verb in (9) is TPRO. TPRO is semantically vac-
uous. It has to be moved for type reasons creating the temporal variable t1 . The
binding index 1 of TPRO is interpreted as λ1 . At LF, TPRO is deleted by Chom-
sky’s principle of Full Interpretation. In what follows, we will mostly write our
LFs without the deleted TPRO, i.e., instead of TPRO λi we will simply write λi (or
TPROi ). TPRO movement is an essential ingredient for the construction of binding
chains for feature transmission.
[1.3] Feature Transmission under Semantic Binding

The LFs show that a semantic tense can be quite distant from the verb it modifies.
But every semantic tense is connected with at least one verb via a binding chain.
Covert semantic tenses are semantically interpreted at LF, while the overt
morphological tenses are not semantically interpreted. At PF it is the other way
round; the semantic tenses are not interpreted (therefore covert), but the mor-
phological tenses are interpreted (and therefore overt). The function of a mor-
phological tense is to point at the presence of a particular semantic tense. It fol-
lows that there must be a relation between semantic tense and morphological
tense, namely a licensing relation.
The feature theory, inspired by Irene Heim’s work3 , is based on the following
principles (simplified):
(11) feature theory and pronunciation rule

(i) In the derivation of PF the interpretable features (i-features) of a se-
mantic operator are copied as uninterpretable features (u-features) onto
all variables that it binds.
(ii) The u-feature of the temporal variable of the finite verb determines
the temporal morphology of the verb (pronunciation rule).
(iii) In case of conflicting features between the T-shifter and T-centre, the
feature of the semantic tense (T-shifter) blocks the projection of the fea-
ture of the argument (T-centre).
In this paper we are concerned with the following interpretable (prefix: i) and
uninterpretable (prefix: u) temporal features:
(12) temporal features

[n] “now”, originates with the pronoun n, i.e. the deictic present.
[p] “past”, originates with a semantic operator p(ast).
[f] “future”, originates with a semantic operator f(uture), a perfective
tense in Russian.
[3] See (von Stechow & Grønn 2012a) for references and technical details.

To see how the feature transmission works, consider again our toy sentence
from above, now with the features indicated in brackets:
(13) [[p[ip] (n[in] )] λt[ Maša [spala (t[up] )]]]
The feature [in] originates with the deictic present n, which serves as the T-
centre. This time is the argument of the relational tense p(ast). The semantic
tense p has the feature [ip], which is in conflict with [in]. Therefore [in] is blocked
at the argument position of p, and p transmits [up] to t under binding. Assuming
that the host of the tense feature that determines the pronunciation is the time
variable of the verb, the finite verb is pronounced as spala.
[1.4] Verbal Quantifiers

Temporal auxiliaries are quantifiers over times, but they also come with their own
verbal morphology. We thus define the category of verbal quantifiers:
(14) A verb α is a verbal quantifier if and only if

(i) α can be inflected with tense morphology (α has its own verbal mor-
phology)
(ii) α controls the reference time of the embedded verb (α is a temporal
quantifier).
Here are the lexical entries for some verbal quantifiers in Russian and English:
(15) Jbudet/willK = λwλtλPit .(∃t′ ≻ t)P (t′ ) type (i(it,t))

4
(subcategorisation feature: iinf ; feature of temporal argument of the
auxiliary: un).
(16) JwouldK = λwλtλPit .(∃t′ ≻ t)P (t′ ) type (i(it,t))
(subcategorisation feature: iinf; feature of temporal argument of the aux-
iliary: up).
(17) Jdumaet/thinksK type (s(it)),(i(et))
= λwλPs(it) λtλy.(∀w1 )(∀t1 )[(w1 , t1 ) is compatible with everything y be-
lieves of (w, t) in w at time t → P (w1 )(t1 )] (Lewis 1979)
(feature of temporal variable of the attitude verb: un).
The temporal auxiliaries budet, will or would change the reference time of the
embedded verb to a future time. Attitude verbs like says, said, govorit, govoril are
more complicated. The semantics of these verbs involves quantification over the
[4] The subcategorisation feature makes sure that the complement of the auxiliary is a verb in the infinitive.
We must stipulate that subcategorisation features are not transmitted beyond the complement. We will
omit the representation of these features below.

reference time of the complement, that is, metaphorically speaking, the “subjec-
tive now” of the attitude holder.
Obviously, the purely temporal meaning of budet/will/would is the same as for
the synthetic semantic tense f in (7), i.e., the perfective future in Russian (modulo
aspect). The difference is in the features. At the syntax-semantics interface we
have to make sure that the time argument of budet/will (and dumaet/thinks) has
the feature [un], while the temporal variable of English would has the feature [up].
Otherwise the tense morphology of the verbal quantifier itself will not be licensed.
In our system (ignoring aspect), the following sentences therefore come out
as truth-conditionally equivalent:
(18) R Dolli podumaet, čto ja ostavljaju vtorogo muža.

(“present under future”)
[Lev Tolstoj. “Anna Karenina”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]5
E Dolly will think I’m leaving my second husband.
(“present under will”)
The synthetic (inflectional) future of the attitude verb podumaet (the semantic
tense is f) has the same meaning as the analytic construction will think (the se-
mantic tense is n shifted to the future). Concerning the present tense in the com-
plement, ostavljaju/am leaving, the sot parameter will allow for a simultaneous
interpretation in both cases: In non-sot languages like Russian, the embedded
present is licensed by the vacuous tense of the complement, the T-centre TPRO,
while in English we find long distance agreement: The highest tense, a deictic
present with the feature [in], transmits its feature as [un] to the time argument
of will, from where the feature is further transmitted through the infinitive ver-
bal quantifier think down to the finite auxiliary in the complement, where it is
pronounced as am.
[1.5] The SOT Parameter

We adopt the formulation of the sot parameter from (von Stechow & Grønn 2012a).
In the definition in (19) we refer to the broader class of temporal quantifiers
which include verbal quantifiers but also various modals such as nado (‘must’),
dolžen (‘must’), možno (‘can’). The latter are not verbs in Russian.
(19) A language L is an sot language if and only if

(i) temporal quantifiers of L without their own temporal i-features trans-
[5] Most of the examples in our study are naturally occurring data retrieved from searchable parallel cor-
pora, such as the RuN-Euro corpus developed at the University of Oslo, and the English-Russian parallel
corpus provided by the Russian National Corpus. The first item listed in the examples is the original
source text, and then follow the translations made by professional translators. Our main focus will be
on contrasts between Russian and English, but we will occasionally also provide Norwegian and German
data.

mit temporal features.

(ii) intensional temporal quantifiers of L do not license present tense mor-
phology.
By contraposition, Russian is a non-sot language: temporal/verbal quanti-

fiers without temporal i-features (budet, govorit, govoril, (po)dumaet, (po)dumal etc.)
do not transmit temporal features, while intensional temporal quantifiers (gov-
orit, govoril, (po)dumaet, (po)dumal, nado, dolžen, možno etc.) license present tense
morphology. Another way of formulating clause (ii) above is to say that in inten-
sional contexts in Russian, the T-centre TPRO has the feature [in].
In Appendix A we show how the system works for Russian by providing our
analysis of simultaneous present tense and backward shifted past complements
under attitude verbs.
[2] i n d e p e n d e n t v s . d e p e n d e n t t e n s e i n r u s s i a n a d j u n c t s
Apparently, adjunct tense is more straightforward and displays less idiosyncrasies
in Russian than in languages like English. In the literature, tense in Russian ad-
juncts is therefore assumed to be deictic, most recently in (Kubota et al. 2011).
The analysis of Russian adjuncts does not have the sot-rule which we find in
English. The differences between the two languages can be illustrated by looking
systematically at how they express simultaneous interpretations between rela-
tive clauses and the matrix. The semantic independence of deictic Russian ad-
juncts results in morphological tense harmony between the matrix and adjunct,
as we see in table 1.
English Russian
pf_fut under matrix pf_fut – OK
pres under matrix pf_fut – #
will/budet under matrix will/budet OK/marginal OK
pres under matrix will/budet OK #
past under matrix past OK OK
pres under matrix past # #
would under matrix would OK/marginal –
past under matrix would OK –
table 1: Simultaneous Interpretations in English and Russian RCs.
To obtain a simultaneous interpretation in a non-sot language like Russian,

we must rely on a bit of pragmatics since the deictic adjunct and deictic matrix
are semantically independent of each other. If both times are located in a past
time (or future time), only the context can tell us that these two past times (fu-
ture times) are the same.6 This remark also holds for English “past under past”,
unless one makes use of the Tproi strategy and long distance binding with only
one semantic p.
Note that while both languages have a synthetic past, English lacks the syn-
thetic future that we find in Russian. However, the main difference between the
two languages is that English has bound tense under the verbal quantifiers will
and would7 In these cases, long distance binding is required to license the tempo-
ral morphology in the adjunct. The bound, simultaneous configurations “present
under will” and “past under would” follow from the sot parameter and the as-
sumption that English is an sot language.
Given the tense distribution in table 1, we can see why the issue of tense de-
pendencies in Russian adjuncts has been neglected in the literature. Simultane-
ous interpretations in Russian adjuncts do not involve binding from the matrix
into the adjunct. Furthermore, a purely extensional configuration, as we typi-
cally find in ordinary RCs and TACs, does not license an embedded present tense
(clause (ii) of the sot parameter). Unlike Japanese, neither English nor Russian
have a relative present tense as such (von Stechow & Grønn 2012a).8
Despite the emerging pattern, which suggests a deictic and independent anal-
ysis of adjunct tense in Russian, we will in the following nevertheless give evi-
dence for non-trivial dependent tense both in relative clauses and temporal ad-
verbial clauses. We will review the relevant data below. In Section [4], we will
have a closer look at a special case of non-deictic adjuncts, viz. adjuncts under
attitudes and modals.
[2.1] Relative Clauses

Consider the Russian example (20) with a “past under past”.
(20) Vanja uvidel devušku, kotoraja spala. (simultaneous or backward shifted)

‘Vanja saw a girl, who was sleeping / who had been asleep.’
[6] The morphological distribution is the same in kogda/when clauses as in RCs. However, as we will show
below, an intersective analysis of kogda/when clauses gives us simultaneity with the matrix without any
pragmatic adjustment (unlike RCs).
[7] The temporal auxiliary would in English is special since it cannot occur in plain matrix sentences (unlike
will), but must be embedded under an attitude/modal.
[8] In (Grønn & von Stechow 2010) we assumed a relative pres in Russian in our analysis of complement
tense, but then it remains unclear why Russian adjuncts do not make use of this tense and do not display
the configurations “present under past” or “present under future”.
The current version of the sot parameter captures the distribution of subordinate tense in both com-
plements and adjuncts without a semantic relative pres. Thus we are able to predict that the following
“present under past” can only have a deictic interpretation:
(i) Vanja uvidel devušku, kotoraja plačet. (only deictic interpretation)

‘Vanja saw a girl, who cries (now)’.

As indicated in the English translation, the construction is ambiguous with re-

spect to the temporal relation between the matrix and the RC.
For the sake of the argument, let us consider the possible analyses predicted
by our theory. Russian is a non-sot language, but the sentence in (20) does not
contain any intensional operators, nor any verbal/temporal quantifiers without
temporal i-features. We have only past semantic tense(s) with i-features. Accord-
ingly, the sot parameter is irrelevant for the analysis.
To account for the simultaneous reading, we could consider the possibility of
having one matrix past operator licensing the morphology of the two verbs. We
would then need an anaphoric Tproi in the adjunct, coindexed with the temporal
variable of “uvidel – saw”. For the configuration under discussion this solution
appears to be elegant, but then it becomes unclear why Russian has unbound (and
typically deictic) tense in other adjunct constructions. Furthermore, if we adopt
this solution, we lose the following generalisation:
(21) licensing rule in russian adjuncts

The temporal morphology in Russian adjuncts is always licensed locally.
As we will see throughout the paper, in examples involving various temporal con-
figurations, tense licensing in Russian adjuncts is always compatible with local
licensing. This is also the case when Tproi is the temporal centre of the adjunct.
So we will assume that the past of spala in (20) is licensed by a local past operator
– both on the simultaneous and backward shifted reading.
On the simultaneous reading, the T-centre of past is n, or, equivalently, Tproi
coindexed with n. For the backward shifted reading (spala ≺ uvidel), Tproi is coin-
dexed with the temporal variable of the matrix verb. In Figure 15 on page 298 in
Appendix B we give an underspecified analysis of the two readings in (20) using
Tproi . The analysis with an anaphoric tense as the highest tense of the RC is flex-
ible enough to account for both interpretations.
Strictly speaking, examples like (20) do not require an anaphoric analysis. The
RC could be treated as simply deictic on both interpretations, since the deictic
(independent) reading is compatible also with the adjunct reference time tem-
porally preceding the time of the matrix. Thus, if the T-centre of the adjunct is
the utterance time, the time of the adjunct and the time of the matrix may be si-
multaneous (= ‘who was sleeping’) or the adjunct may precede the matrix (= ‘who
had been asleep’). The deictic analysis only requires the adjunct tense to precede
the utterance time, but leaves it open how the adjunct tense is temporally located
with respect to the matrix tense.
However, we do find convincing evidence for the strict necessity of anaphoric
tense in certain relative clauses, cf. examples like (22) from (Grønn & von Stechow
2011):

(22) Imenno v universitete devuška poznakomilas’ s Billom Klintonom, koto-

ryj vposledstvii stanet (?budet, ?byl) ee mužem.
(Internet, from a biography of Hillary Clinton)
‘At the university the girl got to know Bill Clinton who would later become
her husband.’ (our translation).
Russian uses a synthetic future stanet where we have the analytical form would be-
come in our English translation. Both forms clearly express a non-deictic, relative
future because the marriage was after the time of acquaintance, but before the
speech time. Russian, unlike English, has a real future tense. The example shows
that this future can be used not only deictically, but also prospectively, i.e., as a
forward shifter.
We can account for (22) by letting the anaphoric tense Tproi in the adjunct be
bound by the matrix past poznakomilas’ – got to know. The analysis of (22) is given
in Figure 2.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 devuškay poznakomilas’(t2 ) s Klintonom

ip up
[RC kotoryjx Tpro2 λ3 f(t3 ) λ4 x stanet(t4 ) mužemy ]

up if uf
= (∃t2 ≺ s∗ )[girly get-to-know(t2 ) BC & (∃t3 ≻ t2 )[BC become(t3 ) husbandy ]]

figure 2: Future under Past in Russian RCs.
A relative future under past is possible in Russian because f has its own feature
[if], which licenses the future verb in the RC. Note that the time argument of f has
to be Tproi bound by the matrix p. So this construction is a counter example to
the claim that tenses in Russian RCs are always deictic, and it shows convincingly
that we sometimes need an anaphoric tense in the relative clause. At the same
time, the analysis confirms the generalisation in (21), viz. that tense licensing is
local in Russian adjuncts.
Example (22) invites a few more remarks concerning the differences between
the Russian and English tense systems. Our translation of (22) into English uses
the past tense version of the verbal quantifier will, i.e. would. Russian has the
verbal quantifier budet corresponding to will, but lacks a past version. The past
tense copula byl is not a future time shifter. In Russian, one can circumvent this
gap in the system by using the (perfective) semantic future in a forward shifted
adjunct under a past matrix. This is what we observe in (22).
However, the inventory of Russian tenses, aspects and auxiliaries raises the
question of how forward shifting under a past matrix is expressed when the ad-
junct carries imperfective aspect? The simplest solution is to use a purely deictic
“past under past” with pragmatic accommodation of the forward shift, as in the
following constructed example:
(23) V 1909 godu on zaregistriroval firmu, kotoraja vposledstvii byla nazvana

L’Oreal. (“past imperfective under past perfective”)
‘In 1909 he registered the firm which later was called L’Oreal’.
The form byla nazvana – was called is a passive construction with the imperfec-
tive past copula. Could we use the imperfective auxiliary budet in the context of
(23)? According to the sot parameter, this should not be possible, but the “budet
under past” is still attested on the internet:
(24) V 1909 godu on zaregistriroval firmu, kotoraja vposledstvii budet naz-

vana L’Oreal. (Internet, authentic example)
‘In 1909 he registered the firm which later would be (literally: will) called
L’Oreal’.
In our theory, budet must be bound by n, which licenses the feature [un] on the
temporal argument of the auxiliary, but then budet cannot be a forward shifter
bound by the past matrix verb zaregistriroval.
The present tense form budet in somewhat marginal cases like (24) appears
to represent a usage reminiscent of the historical present. So there is a kind
of perspective shift between the matrix and RC. We also find such examples in
Germanic languages, as shown in our German translation below:
(25) 1909 registrierte er die Firma, die später L’Oreal genannt wird.
[2.2] Temporal do/posle (before/after) Clauses

Temporal adverbial clauses come in different variants and can be highly compli-
cated. Let us start with the most simple cases:
(26) R Vanja ušel do/posle togo, kak Maša ušla. (“past under past”)
E John left before/after Mary left. (“past under past”)
(27) R Vanja uedet do/posle togo, kak Maša uedet.
(“perfective future under perfective future”)
E John will leave before/after Mary leaves. (“present under will”)
The correct semantic paraphrase of the last construction is arguably the follow-
ing:
(28) Vanja will leave before/after the earliest time at which Maša leaves.
Our analysis of the Russian construction in (27R) is given in Figure 16 on page 299
and Figure 17 on page 300 in Appendix C. The temporal prepositions do/posle – be-
fore/after relate two times of type i. The definite expression togo in Russian overtly
shows that the object of the preposition is a definite time. Following (Beaver &
Condoravdi 2003), we take this definite time to be the earliest time at which the
proposition expressed in the adjunct holds.
The Russian syntax gives further evidence that the right input to the earliest
operator is a temporal relative clause; kak is an overt manifestation of the tem-
poral abstraction which is needed for type reasons. In Germanic and Romance
languages these elements are covert. See (von Stechow & Grønn 2012b) for refer-
ences to the literature on before/after in English and a comprehensive analysis of
these TACs.
Parallel to the RCs discussed above, we find tense harmony in Russian TACs:
“past under past” and “perfective future under perfective future”. Obviously, giv-
en the meaning of the temporal prepositions, there is a semantic difference com-
pared to RCs inasmuch as the time of the matrix cannot be simultaneous with the
time of the do/posle adjunct. In this respect, we note that a deictic adjunct tense
with local tense licensing avoids the kind of inconsistency that may arise on a
naïve Tproi analysis of (27E) in English.9
So, these Russian TACs seem to be straightforward. But let us ask the same
question as we asked for Russian RCs: Can we reduce temporal adjuncts in Rus-
sian to independent/deictic tense, i.e., a construction in which the adjunct tense
always has the same T-centre as the matrix, typically n?
It is not easy to find parallel examples to (22) above, i.e., a “future under past”.
For obvious reasons, we cannot have a future under posle – after with a matrix past,
but even a future under do – before with a matrix past is hard to find. In cases of a
non-veridical adjunct the data typically follow patterns such as the following:
(29) K sožaleniju, Edison umer do togo, kak smog zaveršit’ svoe izobretenie.
(Internet)
‘Unfortunately, Edison died before the (time) that (he) could finish his
invention.’
(30) Filipp umer do togo, kak smog proizvesti na svet ešče odnogo syna.
(Internet)
‘Filipp died before the (time) that (he) could produce yet another son.’
The Russian modal smog in the do-adjunct carries perfective past morphology.
Semantically, one could perhaps have a bound configuration with a perfective fu-
[9] As we have shown in our previous work on the English construction, we need Tproi as the highest tense
in the English adjunct. The present tense morphology of the adjunct in (27E) is licensed by a feature
transmitted through the verbal quantifier will, but since Tproi is coindexed with the time argument of
the matrix verb, covert time shifters must be inserted in the adjunct to avoid semantic inconsistency.

ture version of the modal in the adjunct, umer do togo, kak smožet zaveršit’/proizvesti
– died before he will-can ..., but this variant seems to be pragmatically blocked by a
preference for morphological tense harmony and semantically independent tens-
es. Thus, again we have two independent past tenses: umer and smog.
We note the presence of the modal in the examples above, but in this paper
we will not try to account for the non-veridicality of these do-adjuncts, a prob-
lem well-known in the literature (Beaver & Condoravdi 2003). For the record, we
should point out that non-veridical readings also occur without overt modals, as
in the famous example below:
(31) Mozart died before he finished the Requiem.
Here is a Russian counterpart of this example:
(32) Štjuler umer do togo, kak zaveršil proekt. (Internet)

‘Stüler died before the (time) that (he) finished (his) project.’
So, do we ever find a dependent future under past in Russian do – before claus-
es? Example (33R) from our parallel corpus is a candidate:
(33) N Bryllupet skulle stå i mai, før jektene stevnet sør.

[Herbjørg Wassmo. “Dinas bok”. (RuN-Euro Corpus; Oslo Multilingual
Corpus)]
E The wedding would take place in May, before the cargo boats headed
south.
G Die Hochzeit sollte im Mai sein, bevor die Frachtschiffe nach Süden
fuhren.
R Svad’ba dolžna byla sostojat’sja v mae, do togo, kak karbasy ujdut na
jug. (literally: Wedding must was take-place in May, before that how ships
will-go to south)
The three Germanic languages, including the Norwegian original, display the
same construction – a past under a modalised past – in contrast to Russian, which
has a future under a modalised past. The same configuration is also observed in
an example from the Russian Reference Grammar (Švedova 1980, § 2972):
(34) Valja dolžna byla soprovoždat’ otca do togo, kak načnet svetat’.
‘Valja had to accompany her father before it would dawn’
(literally: before that how will-begin dawn).
However, these examples contain a modalised matrix. The modal operator

is an intensional temporal quantifier, which, according to clause (ii) of the sot
parameter, licenses present tense in non-sot languages like Russian. What this
means is that the T-centre under the modal is a TPRO with the feature [in]. Pre-
sumably, the forward shift is with respect to the TPRO of the modal, and the em-
bedded future in (33) and (34) is not directly dependent on the matrix past. We
will return to the analysis of example (33) towards the end of section [4].
[2.3] Kogda (when) Clauses

Kogda/when-clauses are typically deictic, and again we observe tense harmony in
Russian – the matrix and the adjunct have the same tense.
In (von Stechow & Grønn 2012a), following (Arregui & Kusumoto 1998), we
analyse when/kogda as a temporal relative pronoun. Like any other relative pro-
noun, it is semantically vacuous. This strategy leads to an intersective analysis
(predicate modification), which in our approach has the consequence that the
time of the kogda-clause is simultaneous with the time of the main clause.10 Below
we give two examples with the synthetic future; see Appendix D for the analysis.
(35) R Ja priedu, kogda vy vyjdete zamuž.

[Lev Tolstoj. “Anna Karenina”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
E I’ll come when you get married.
(literally: I will-come, when you will-get married)
N Jeg skal komme når De gifter Dem.
(36) R Ja eto skažu emu, kogda on priedet.
E I’ll tell him that when he comes.
(literally: I will-tell him, when he will-come)
N Jeg skal si det til ham når han kommer.
The derivation given in Appendix D shows that the at-PP plays a crucial role
in our account. The at-PP makes it possible to have an independent deictic future
in the adjunct and still cash out the simultaneity of the matrix and the adjunct in
Russian. The reason is the following:
By Predicate Modification the kogda-adjunct applies to the time argument of
the matrix, a variable bound by the matrix f(uture). The adjunct also contains a
deictic future tense that binds the temporal variable of the embedded verb. Now,
the at-PP identifies the temporal variable of the verb in the adjunct with the time
argument of the matrix. The main verb and the verb in the adjunct are thus evalu-
ated at the same future time, and the adjunct is interpreted as if it were tenseless.
The sot-parameter predicts that Russian TACs cannot have the equivalent
construction of the English “present under will”, i.e., a dependent (non-deictic)
present under the verbal quantifier budet – will. Instead we get “budet under
budet”, cf. the contrast between (37E) and (37R):
[10] The advantages of an intersective analysis of when-clauses were recently also pointed out in (Sæbø 2012).

(37) E Look ye; when captain Ahab is all right, then this left arm of mine
will be all right; not before. (“present under will”)
[Herman Melville. “Moby-Dick”. (Russian National Corpus)]
R Kapitan Achav budet zdorov togda, kogda opjat’ budet zdorova moja
levaja ruka, ne ran’še, slyšite? (“budet under budet”)
In Figure 3 we give the analysis of a similar example, the constructed toy sentence
(38).
(38) Alla budet rabotat’, kogda Vova budet rabotat’.

‘Alla will work when Vova will work’.11
n λ1 budet(t1 ) λ2 [Alla rabotat’(t2 )

in un
[RC kogda3 n λ4 budet(t4 ) λ5 Vova rabotat’(t5 ) & t5 at t3 ](t2 )]

in un
= (∃t2 ≻ s∗ )[Alla work(t2 ) & (∃t5 ≻ s∗ )[ Vova work(t5 ) & t5 = t2 ]]

figure 3: “budet under budet” in kogda-constructions.
In fact, the temporal organisation in these Russian examples is as simple as it

can be. Are there any cases that require a bound Tproi in Russian kogda-clauses?
As pointed out in (Haraldsson 1999), a text book of Russian grammar, a future
under kogda occurs frequently with past forms of the intensional verb ždat’ – to
wait in the matrix. Here are some authentic examples from the RuN-Euro corpus:
(39) R Vse ždali, kogda on končit.

E Every one was waiting for him to finish.
(literally: waited, when he will-finish)
N Alle ventet på at han skulle bli ferdig.
(40) R Levin ne slušal bol’še i ždal, kogda uedet professor.
E Levin listened no more, and simply waited for the professor to go.
(literally: waited, when professor will-leave)
N Levin hørte ikke efter lenger og ventet på at professoren skulle gå.
(41) R Djudja sidel na krylečke v odnoj žiletke, bez šapki i ždal, kogda zagov-
orit proezžij. [Anton Čechov. “Baby”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
[11] As we have just seen in the authentic examples above, English typically has the sot-configuration: ‘Alla
will work when Vova works’.

E Dyudya was sitting on the step in his waistcoat without a cap on,
waiting for the visitor to speak first.
(literally: waited, when visitor will-speak)
N Djudja satt på trappen i bare vesten, uten lue, og ventet på at den
reisende skulle begynne å snakke.
This particular variant of kogda-adjuncts is not found in languages like En-

glish or Norwegian, as we see from the corpus translations. We propose to anal-
yse the Russian examples following our general approach to TACs: The kogda-
adjunct is here reminiscent of a free temporal relative clause. It combines with
the covert definite operator the earliest time, cf. our analysis of do/posle (be-
fore/after)-clauses. A semantic paraphrase of example (39R) is therefore roughly
as given in (42), leaving the waiting predicate unanalysed. The analysis of the
adjunct is depicted in Figure 4.
(42) Every one waited for the earliest time t such that he finishes at t.
the earl kogda3 f(Tproi ) λ4 he finish(t4 ) & t4 at t3

if uf
figure 4: “future under kogda – when” (Bound by Matrix Past).
The LF for the adjunct has Tproi as the T-centre of a local future that checks
the morphology of the verb (via the temporal argument of the latter). Tproi is
coindexed with the reference time of the matrix.
[3] p a s t s h i f t e d r e a d i n g s i n r u s s i a n a d j u n c t s
In example (20), which is analysed in Appendix B, we encountered a Russian “past
under past” with a possible backward shifting of the RC. In that case we assumed
a Tproi and bound tense, but noted that a deictic analysis of the adjunct was pos-
sible as well.
This raises the question of how we should analyse backward shifting in “past
under future” configurations. Consider the following example from the Russian
Reference Grammar (Švedova 1980, § 663).
(43) Posle togo, kak postroili novyj cech, zavod uveličit vypusk produkcii.
‘After they built a new stock, the factory will increase its production’.
The Reference Grammar fails to point out that examples like (43) are only fe-
licitous with a strictly deictic past interpretation of the temporal adjunct. Our
theory, which offers the possibility of having Tproi as the temporal centre of
the adjunct, predicts that a backward shifted, dependent reading could be pos-
sible in (43): “After the time that they will have built ...”. This would be a con-
figuration corresponding to a future perfect in Germanic. The future perfect
solves the conflict between forward and backward shifting by expressing both,
but since Russian does not have overt composite perfect tenses, Russian has to
make a choice: either future or past. It turns out that a future perfect (future-
2) interpretation must be expressed with a “perfective future under a perfective
future”:
(44) Posle togo, kak postrojat novyj cech, zavod uveličit vypusk produkcii.
‘After they will-build a new stock, the factory will-increase its produc-
tion’. (constructed example)
Since a dependent backward shifted reading is not attested in configurations like

(43), we must invoke a pragmatic blocking principle. In (Grønn & von Stechow
2011), we speculate that shifted readings based on certain tense mismatches be-
tween the matrix and RC, viz. a “past under future”, are blocked due to compe-
tition from independent/deictic constructions without mismatch (“future under
future”). This pragmatic phenomenon – a preference for morphological tense
harmony – is also responsible for the obligatory deictic interpretation of the TAC
in (43).
In a semantic representation of the “future under future” in (44), the mean-
ing of the temporal preposition posle – after will guarantee the correct temporal
precedence relation between the two events (matrix after adjunct) located at two
independent future times. In other cases, however, we may be forced to insert
covert relative tenses to obtain a past perfect or future perfect interpretation
in Russian; cf. (Paslawska & von Stechow 2003) and (Grønn 2003). We will illus-
trate this phenomenon by first looking at an example involving a kogda – when
adjunct:
(45) E Audrey will double-check when I’m done.

(“present perfect under will”)
[Michael Connelly. “City Of Bones”. (Russian National Corpus)]
R Kogda ja zakonču, Odri pereproverit.
(“future under future”)
To license the morphology in (45R), we assume two independent deictic future

tenses. However, our analysis of the temporal conjunction kogda – when as an
overt temporal relative pronoun that abstracts over the reference time of the ad-
junct, has the effect that kogda-clauses are tenseless and express temporal identity
with the matrix. So, we end up saying that the matrix and adjunct occur at the
same future time. This is obviously wrong, cf. the simplified truth conditions for
the English original:
(46) (∃t1 ≻ t0 )[check(t1 ) & (∃t2 ≺ t1 )[finish(t2 )]]
Admittedly, the truth conditions are a bit weak since it does not follow that the
“future perfect” event must be located after the utterance time. This problem has
been known for a long time in the literature on the future-2 in Germanic languages
and will not bother us here.
To get the correct temporal relation between the events (reference times) of
the matrix and adjunct in (45R), we need some pragmatic adjustment. Apparently,
there are two ways of cashing out the condition t2 ≺ t1 . Given the overt perfect
in the adjunct of the English original, it is tempting to have a covert past in the
Russian adjunct. However, a pure time shifter in the adjunct will not do the trick
since its effect will be cancelled by the at-PP, which forces simultaneity between
the adjunct event and the matrix.12
Instead, we propose to analyse (45R) by having an additional covert relative
future in the matrix. We can think of this as an and next-operator, a way of
encoding narrative progression. It therefore makes sense that the Russian trans-
lator has chosen to invert the order of the adjunct and matrix. On this strategy,
the “backward” shifting in the Russian adjunct is analysed in Figure 5 as a forward
shifting of the matrix.13
n λ1 f(t1 ) λ2 [[RC kogda3 f(n) λ4 zakonču(t4 ) & t4 at t3 ](t2 )

if if uf
& [ f(t2 ) λ5 Odri pereproverit(t5 )]]

uf uf
figure 5: Insertion of a Covert Future in a Russian “future under future”.
The best evidence for a covert past inside Russian adjuncts comes from tense
under aspectual adverbs like uže – already or ešče ne – not yet. The following exam-
ple has uže – already in a future RC, which forces a future-2 reading:
(47) Innokentij napered znal, kak utrom za zavtrakom oni s vostorgom soob-
ščat, čto im oboim snilsja odin i tot že son ... – Odinakovych snov ne by-
vaet! – skažet im otec, kotoryj uže vernetsja s nočnogo dežurstva i budet
zavtrakat’ vmeste s nimi. (Internet)
‘Innokentij knew in advance that during breakfast the next morning they
[12] This raises the question of how one should analyse (45E). One must make sure that the at-relation holds
between the perfect state in the adjunct and the matrix event time.
[13] If this analysis is on the right track, we will have to put restrictions on the availability of a featureless
f in Russian. For instance, we cannot have a covert, featureless f in a present adjunct under budet. The
existence of such a covert tense would predict that the “present under budet” could have a simultaneous
interpretation.

would tell with great enthusiasm that they both had had the same dream
… – Identical dreams do not happen, – their father, who would already have
returned from the night shift and would be having breakfast with them,
would tell them.’ (our translation).
To encode the future-2 interpretation suggested by uže in the RC we insert a

covert p, but how do we license the future tense morphology of vernetsja in (47)?
The Russian example contains three verbs in the synthetic future: soobščat,
skažet, vernetsja. All these verbs follow the past attitude/factual verb znal – knew.
We assume that skažet, vernetsja – will-say, will-return here occur in a context of
free indirect discourse. The temporal centre of the embedded matrix skažet –
will-say is therefore not the deictic n, but TPRO.
Accordingly, the highest tense of the deeply embedded RC must be non-deictic,
viz. the anaphoric Tproi . Should Tproi be coindexed with TPRO or the reference
time of the matrix skažet – will-say?14 There are principled reasons for adopting
the former option.
By Ockham’s razor, the second option is attractive, i.e., to coindex the time
of the adjunct with the matrix. In that case, we would only need one future
operator outscoping the matrix and RC. The problem, however, is that we lose
the generalisation stated above in (21), viz. that adjunct tense in Russian is always
licensed locally.
On the other hand, if we coindex the adjunct with the T-centre (TPRO) of the
matrix, we get a local and independent, though non-deictic, future in the relative
clause above the covert past. An analysis along these lines is depicted in Figure 19
on page 302 in Appendix E.
Example (47) also highlights another point, concerning the periphrastic im-
perfective construction “budet zavtrakat’ – will have breakfast” in the RC. The con-
struction involves the verbal quantifier budet, whose present tense morphology
must be licensed by TPRO under znal – knew (free indirect discourse). This is where
the second clause (ii) of the sot parameter is activated. The role played by TPRO
in (47) anticipates the next section, which we will turn to now: adjuncts under
attitudes.
[4] a d j u n c t s u n d e r at t i t u d e s a n d m o da l s
For many of the examples we obtain the same result regardless of whether we
assume a deictic n or Tproi as the T-centre in RCs and TACs. However, in the gen-
eral case, n is not possible as the T-centre, because we can embed adjuncts under
an attitude and get a bound reading, as in the following examples, modelled in
[14] As we mentioned above in connection with (45E), the truth conditions of a “future perfect” will in neither
case allow us to force the interpretation that the father’s return is after the T-centre of the matrix.

accordance with Ogihara’s evidence that the past in English RCs must sometimes
be bound (Ogihara 1996):
(48) E John thought that Mary would give birth to a son who had blue eyes
like his father. (“[past under past] under past”)
R Vanja podumal, čto Maša rodit syna, u kotorogo budut golubye glaza
kak i u otca. (“[budet under future] under past”)
(49) λw.(∃t ≺ s∗ ) John thinks in w at t [λw1 λt1 .(∃t2 ≻ t1 )(∃x)
Mary gives birth to x in w1 at t2 & boy(x) & x has blue eyes at t2 in w1 ]
In examples like (48) the highest tense in the complement – the T-centre of the
embedded proposition – cannot be deictic. The reason is that John did not think
in the past about the current speech time. Thus, in our theory, the T-centre of
the highest sentence under attitudes is TPRO, i.e., eventually λi . We spell out the
differences between (48E) and (48R) in Figure 6 and Figure 7. As we see, the feature
checking is very different. Note the different coindexation of Tproi in English and
Russian in the two figures.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 John thought(t2 ) TPRO3 would(t3 ) λ4 Mary give(t4 ) birth to

ip up up up
a boy [RC WHx Tpro4 λ5 x had(t5 ) blue eyes like hisx father]
up up
figure 6: Bound RC under Attitude in English.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 Vanja podumal(t2 ) TPRO3 f(t3 ) λ4 Maša rodit(t4 ) syna

ip up in if un uf
[RC kotorogox Tpro3 λ5 budut(t5 ) λ6 BYT’(t6 ) u x golybye glaza kak u otcax ]

un un
figure 7: Bound RC under Attitude in Russian.
The difference in tense distribution between (48E) and (48R) follows from the
sot parameter. In English, Tproi in the deeply embedded RC is coindexed with the
infinitive give birth. The temporal argument of the infinitive has a feature [up],
which is transmitted from the matrix p via binding. Following the sot parameter,
the feature transmission is not blocked by the two verbal quantifiers: the attitude
predicate (here: thought) and the forward shifting auxiliary in the complement
(here: would). In the end, the verb of the RC inherits the past tense morphology
(here: had).
In Russian, in accordance with the sot parameter, TPRO comes with its own
feature [in] in intensional contexts. Since the present tense morphology of the
verbal quantifier budet in the embedded RC cannot be licensed by the future per-
fective rodit in the highest embedded clause, the [un] feature of the time variable
of the adjunct tense must be checked by [in] of TPRO. Accordingly, the interpre-
tation of the adjunct is not dependent on the speaker’s utterance time, but on the
“subjective now” of the attitude holder (Vanja).
We conclude that the temporal anaphor Tproi , which can be used as the T-
centre of adjuncts, is flexible enough to capture the two kinds of dependency ex-
emplified in the English and Russian examples.
Consider next temporal do/posle (before/after) adjuncts, which encode the tem-
poral relations ≺ and ≻ between the matrix and adjunct.
(50) E John said that he would leave before Mary left.

(“[past under past] under past”)
R Vanja skazal, čto ujdet do togo, kak ujdet Maša.
(“[future under future] under past”)
As pointed out above, a local tense operator is needed semantically in these TACs
to avoid inconsistency. If we use the Tproi strategy and feature checking from the
matrix to the adjunct, we run the risk of equating the time of the matrix event and
the subordinate event, in contradiction with the meaning of the temporal prepo-
sitions. With two independent tenses and the at-PP in the adjunct this problem
is neatly solved. Our analysis of example (50R) is depicted in Figure 8.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 Vanja skazal(t2 ) TPRO3 f(t3 ) λ4 ujdet(t4 )

ip up in if uf
& t4 do togo earl kak5 f(Tpro3 ) λ6 t6 at t5 & Maša ujdet(t6 )

if uf
= λw.(∃t ≺ s∗ ) Vanja says in w at t [λw1 λt1 .(∃t2 ≻ t1 )Vanja leaves in w1 at t2

& t2 ≺ the earliest t3 : t3 ≻ t1 & Maša leaves at t3 in w1 ]
figure 8: TAC under Attitude in Russian.
We note for the record that (50E) is, strictly speaking, ambiguous. In the anal-
ysis given here we have represented the natural reading according to which John’s
leaving ≺ Mary’s leaving. However, (50E) can marginally also mean that John’s
reporting (his intentions to leave) ≺ Mary’s leaving. Interestingly, the latter read-
ing is not attested for the Russian “[future under future] under past” in (50R).
If the temporal preposition relates Vanja’s saying event and Maša’s leaving, the
preference for morphological tense harmony in Russian gives us the following

configuration with a past tense in the adjunct:
(51) [Vanja skazal, čto ujdet] do togo, kak ušla Maša.

(“past under [future under past]”)
Let us now turn to authentic corpus data. Given what is said above about a
preference in Russian for tense harmony, how do we explain the data in (52R)
and (53R)?
(52) R Voenvrač Platonov obeščal otpustit’ ee, no velel nabljudat’ Šapošniko-

va do togo, kak Platonov sam osmotrit ego.
[Vasilij Grossman. “Žizn’ i sud’ba”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
E Dr Platonov promised to let her go, but told her to watch over Sha-
poshnikov until he himself came to examine him.
(literally: P ordered to watch over S before the (time) that P will-examine S)
(53) R Ženja probiralas’ na kuchnju, kogda vse spali, a utrom staralas’ umy-
vat’sja do togo, kak prosnutsja žil’cy.
[Vasilij Grossman. “Žizn’ i sud’ba”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
E In the morning Yevgenia would steal into the kitchen when everyone
was asleep and try to get washed before they woke up.
(literally: Ž tried to wash self before the (time) that will-wake-up lodgers)
The intensional verbs velel – ordered/told and staralas’ – tried subcategorise for in-
finitive complements: nabljudat’ – watch over and umyvat’sja – get washed, respec-
tively. Importantly, the temporal relation induced by the temporal proposition
holds between the reference time of a non-finite verb and a verb in the perfec-
tive future: nabljudat’ – watch over ≺ osmotrit – will-examine in (52R) and umyvat’sja
– get washed ≺ prosnutsja – will-wake-up in (53R). So, there is no real morphological
tense mismatch.15
[15] If we minimally change the context of (53) such that we have two finite verbs, we expect an “imperfective
past under imperfective past”:
(i) ... a utrom umyvalas’ do togo, kak prosypalis’ žil’cy.

... and in-the-morning got-washed before the (time) that woke-up lodgers.
However, some informants also accept a tense mismatch between the matrix (imperfective past) and
adjunct (perfective future):
(ii) ... a utrom umyvalas’ do togo, kak prosnutsja žil’cy.

... and in-the-morning got-washed before the (time) that will-wake-up lodgers.
Without going into the details, we believe that this possibility is due to the modal interpretation of the
habitual imperfective past operator umyvalas’ – got washed.

Our theory is flexible enough to account for various complicated configura-

tions as they occur in real texts. Consider the Russian construction in (54R) with
an overt relative past in the RC:
(54) E Sirrah Locksley, do thou shoot; but, if thou hittest such a mark, I will
say thou art the first man ever did so.
[Walter Scott. “Ivanhoe”. (Russian National Corpus)]
R Nu, Loksli, plut, streljaj chot’ ty, i, esli, popadeš’ v takuju cel’, ja
skažu, čto ty pervyj čelovek, kotoromu eto udalos’.
Recall that we cannot for pragmatic reasons have an overt relative past in the RC
under a future matrix. We must use a “future under future” (tense harmony).
However, under a future attitude as in (54R) we can express a relative past in the
deeply embedded adjunct with past tense morphology, since the construction un-
der discussion is not a “past under future”, but a “past under TPRO”. The relative
past is evaluated with respect to the subjective now of the attitude holder. On the
timeline, ignoring the intensional semantics of attitudes, the temporal configu-
ration in (54) is thus the following: n ≺ udalos’/succeeded ≺ [ty pervyj/you are
the first & skažu/will-say].
The present tense in ty pervyj čelovek – you are the first man is licensed by TPRO
in Russian (clause (ii) of the sot parameter) and, in English, by the present tense
of will (say) in the matrix (clause (i) of the sot parameter). Given that Tproi in the
deeply embedded RC is anaphoric to TPRO in Russian, the translator could obvi-
ously not have used a future form in the RC (udastsja) to get a backward shifted
reading with respect to TPRO. This means that there is no competition from the
morphological future and the past tense morphology is licensed in (54R) in order
to express a relative past.
The fact that Russian adjuncts are preferably independent of the matrix verb
may lead to certain tense mismatches in complicated structures. This becomes
evident when we analyse authentic corpus data. The Russian translation below is
a case in point.
(55) N Og Bou-Bou oppdaget at hun likte å ha ham der, likte den høflige
oppmerksomheten han viet henne og talentet han hadde for tall.
[Nikolaj Frobenius. “Latours katalog”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
E And Bou-Bou discovered that she liked having him there, liked the
gentlemanly attention he paid her and his talent for figures.
R Bu-bu obnaružila, čto ej nravitsja ego obščestvo, vežlivoe vnimanie,
kotoroe on ej okazyval, i talant k rasčetam. (literally: Bou-Bou discov-
ered that she likes [...] the attention that he showed her)
In (55R), if we bind Tproi in the RC to the embedded present (nravitsja – likes), we

get a backward shifted reading, which is undesirable in this context. Accordingly,
Tproi must be bound by the highest deictic n, as depicted in Figure 9.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 Bu-bu obnaružila(t2 ) TPRO3 ej nravitsja(t3 ) vnimanie

ip up in un
[RC kotoroex Tpro1 λ4 p(t4 ) λ5 on ej okazyval(t5 )(x)]

ip up
figure 9: Deictic RC under Attitude in Russian.
Next, consider the Russian construction in (56R).
(56) E [He burnt] everything that showed that he had lived here in this
empty house with a strange woman who would forget him tomor-
row, who had gone and quite forgotten him already.
[Ray Bradbury. “Fahrenheit 451”. (Russian National Corpus)]
R [On sžeg] vse, čto napominalo o tom, kak on žil zdes’, v etom pustom
dome, rjadom s čužoj emu ženščinoj, kotoraja zabudet ego zavtra,
kotoraja ušla i uže zabyla ego.
We have two deeply embedded RCs, the first displaying future tense and the
second past tense. We propose the analysis in Figure 10.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 On sžeg(t2 ) vse WHx p(n) λ3 x napominalo(t3 ) kak TPRO4 p(t4 )

ip up ip up in ip
λ5 on žil(t5 ) s ženščinoj [RC kotorajay Tpro5 λ6 f(t6 ) λ7 y zabudet(t7 ) ego]

up if uf
& [RC kotorajay Tpro4 λ8 p(t8 ) λ9 y ušla(t9 ) & p(Tpro4 ) λ10 y zabyla(t10 )]
ip up ip up
figure 10: Perspective Shift in RCs under Attitude in Russian.
In fact, there is a kind of perspective shift in the construction which our the-
ory can account for straightforwardly by having Tproi as the highest tense in the
adjunct. In the first RC, Tproi is coindexed with the time of the matrix verb žil
– lived (which itself is embedded under the factive attitude verb napominalo – re-
minded). In the second RC, we get a contradiction if the T-centre comes from the
matrix verb (ušla – left ≺ žil – lived), so instead we coindex Tproi with the TPRO
of the higher attitude verb. The two RCs then give us the right temporal con-
figurations: zabudet – forgets ≻ žil – lived-together, and ušla/zabyla – left/forgot ≺

napominalo – reminded.
The next example (57) is highly complicated and illustrates some interesting
differences between English and Russian. Although English and Russian use dif-
ferent temporal prepositions in this particular case, until ... after and kogda, re-
spectively, we assume that the truth-conditions expressed are much the same:
Jacob did not wait for the earliest time (in the night) after which the departure of
the guests took place.
(57) N Han var rasende fordi han skjønte at Jacob ikke hadde vist måte, og
ventet med bryllupsnatten til folk var kommet til ro i sømmelighet.
[Herbjørg Wassmo. “Dinas bok”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
G Er war wütend, weil er begriff, daß Jacob sich nicht beherrscht und
mit der Hochzeitsnacht gewartet hatte, bis die Gäste in aller det Ehr-
barkeit zu Bett gegangen waren.
E Dina came rushing down the stairs, making an extraordinarily loud racket. She ran through the rooms
wearing only pantalets, past thirty pairs of eyes that stared at her aghast. She knocked the punsj glass
from the sheriff’s hand, splattering its contents and causing unpleasant stains. Then she climbed into
his lap and declared loudly and clearly, so everyone could hear: “We’re going home to Fagerness. Right
now!” The sheriff’s heart skipped several beats. He asked the maid to put the bride in “proper condition”
again.
He was furious, because he realized Jacob had shown no restraint,
had not waited until the bridal night, after people had properly gone
to rest.
R Dina s grochotom skatilas’ s lestnicy. V odnich pantalonach ona promčalas’ po komnatam na glazach
u vsech tridcati ispugannych gostej. Ona vyrvala iz ruki lensmana stakan s punšem, zabryzgav vsech
vokrug. Potom pljuchnulas’ k nemu na koleni i gromko, tak čtoby vse slyšali, ob”javila: – Dovol’no!
Edem domoj, v Fagernesset! Serdce lensmana zamerlo i propustilo neskol’ko udarov. Potom on poprosil
služanku pozabotit’sja, čtoby nevesta odelas’ podobajuščim ee položeniju obrazom.
On rasserdilsja na Iakova, ponjav, čto tot v svoem neterpenii ne do-
ždalsja noči, kogda gosti razojdutsja na pokoj.
The Russian translation (57R) displays a “future under past” of the kind we
encountered in Section [2], i.e., a “future under kogda” with a past form of ždat’ –
to wait in the matrix. However, in the example under discussion the entire con-
struction is embedded under an attitude verb, the perfective gerund ponjav – hav-
ing realised.
The context in (57) makes it clear that the guests have not yet left at the time
of the sheriff’s anger. The proposition expressed as the sheriff’s thought (realized –
ponjav, čto) contains a backward shifted matrix (had not waited – ne doždalsja). The
embedded temporal adjunct, however, should be forward shifted, although the
shift is not overtly expressed by the English verb form had gone. This is in contrast
with Russian, where we do indeed find an overtly expressed relative future in the
temporal adjunct: razojdutsja.
On the other hand, the temporal adjunct in (57) should also contain a perfect
stativiser. This is what we find in the Norwegian original (var kommet) and the
English translation (had gone). As we recall from Section [2], a “future perfect”
cannot be formed overtly in Russian, hence we have the simple future razojdutsja
– will-go which encodes the forward shift, but not the past in the future (or perfect
state) interpretation.
Finally, we end this section with some Russian examples in which the adjuncts
are embedded under modals. First, we have an example displaying a deeply em-
bedded RC:
(58) E At midnight, then, I have to ask you to be alone in your consulting

room, to admit with your own hand into the house a man who will
present himself in my name, and to place in his hands the drawer
that you will have brought with you from my cabinet.
[Robert Louis Stevenson. “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.
Hyde”. (Russian National Corpus)]
R Tak vot: v polnoč’ bud’te u sebja i nepremenno odni – nado, čtoby vy
sami otkryli dver’ tomu, kto javitsja k vam ot moego imeni, i peredali
emu jaščik, kotoryj voz’mete v moem kabinete.
The modal expression nado, čtoby ... – it is necessary that ... in (58R) subcategorises
for the subjunctive, a fake past in Russian. Accordingly, we get the subjunctive
past tense forms otkryli dver’ – opened the door and peredali jaščik – gave the drawer
in the matrix clauses under nado. Following (von Stechow 2005), we assume that
a covert future must be inserted in such modal contexts both in English and
Russian.
Interestingly, we see that the subcategorisation feature (i-subjunctive) in Rus-
sian is only transmitted to the matrix verbs. The embedded adjuncts in the Rus-
sian translation do not display fake past, but simple perfective future: kto javitsja
– who will-turn-up ... kotoryj voz’mete – that you-will-take. So, the future, which is
covert in the matrix (fake past), is expressed overtly in the adjuncts. Obviously,
this cannot be a deictic future, neither can the two instantiations of perfective
future be relative to the matrix (the bringing of the drawer from the cabinet is
not after, but before the placing of the drawer in the man’s hands). The perfec-
tive future must be independent of the matrix, and Tproi in the adjuncts must be
coindexed with TPRO under the modal.
Once more we observe that the future-2 (that you will have brought) cannot be
overtly expressed in Russian (kotoryj voz’mete – that you-will-take). So the Russian
morphology is misleading: the matrix peredali – gave/placed-in-his-hands is appar-
ently in the past tense, while the adjunct voz’mete – will-take/bring appears to dis-
play simple future tense. Still, the temporal relation between the two events must
be the following: voz’mete ≺ peredali.
Below we give two examples with a before clause embedded under a past inten-
sional/modal expression. In English and Norwegian the embedded TAC has past
tense morphology, while in Russian we have a perfective future; a similar tense
distribution as in (58).
(59) R Emu chotelos’, čtoby solnce ne vzošlo prežde, čem on dojdet do bolota.
E He hoped the sun would not be up before he reached the marsh.
N Han ønsket at solen ikke skulle stå opp før han var fremme ved myren.
(60) E And I wanted to finish my story before the bad Patrol Boy came for
the last time. [Stephen King. “The Gunslinger”. (RuN-Euro Corpus)]
R I mne chotelos’ zakončit’ svoju istoriju, prežde čem zloj patrul’nyj
zajavitsja v poslednij raz.
For the previously introduced example (33), repeated below, we now propose
the analysis in Figure 11.
(61) R Svad’ba dolžna byla sostojat’sja v mae, do togo, kak karbasy ujdut na
jug. (literally: Wedding must was take-place in May, before the (time) that
ships will-go to south)
E The wedding would take place in May, before the cargo boats headed
south.
n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 byla(t2 ) λ3 dolžna(t3 ) TPRO4 svad’ba sostojat’sja(t4 ) v mae

ip up in
& t4 do togo earl kak5 f(Tpro4 ) λ6 karbasy ujdut(t6 ) & t6 at t5

if uf
= λw.(∃t ≺ s∗ )[(∀w1 )(∀t1 )[Accw,t (w1 , t1 ) → [wedding take-place(w1 )(t1 )

& t1 ≺ the earliest t2 : (∃t3 ≻ t1 )[ t3 = t2 & boats leave(w1 , t3 )]]]]
figure 11: Future under Modalised Past in Russian.
The copula byla – was is interpreted as the identity function. The necessity
modal dolžna – must embeds a temporal property that is formed by TPRO move-
ment. The sot parameter says that TPRO under an attitude or modal licenses [un],
so the temporal variable of the verb sostojat’sja – take-place has that feature. How-
ever, like English modals, dolžna – must assigns the status feature [uinf], which
determines the pronunciation of the infinitive. The feature [un] is also transmit-
ted to the bound Tpro4 , but once again the [un] feature does not show up at PF
because the host of Tpro4 is f which assigns [uf] to the temporal variable of the
finite verb ujdut – will-leave.
The entire do – before-construction is embedded under the necessity modal.
The construction leaves it open whether the wedding – and/or departure of the
boats – took place at all. Furthermore, the departure of the boats could have
been before the speech time. Thus, the embedded f cannot be deictic, but must
be bound. In Figure 11, we take it that the T-centre of the adjunct, i.e. Tpro4 ,
is bound by the TPRO4 of the modal. Alternatively, Tproi could be bound by the
matrix p (Tpro2 ). This would be similar to a de re perspective.
[5] a n o t e o n a s p e c t a n d f e at u r e s
In our work on sot and subordinate tense phenomena we make the simplified
assumption that tense binds the time variable of a verb. For the examples under
discussion this does no harm, but, more accurately, tenses bind the time variable
of an aspect operator. The aspect operator in turn binds the event variable of the
verb and thereby checks the aspect feature. At the same time the aspect operator
must transmit the temporal features to the bound aspect (event) variable in order
to check the temporal and aspectual morphology of the verb.
We will here briefly present our view on Russian aspect, starting with the fol-
lowing minimally different toy sentences:
(62) a. Vanja el arbuz.

‘Vanja was eating/used to eat/ate a melon.’
b. Vanja s”el arbuz.
‘Vanja ate (up) a melon.’
c. Vanja s”edal arbuz. (secondary imperfective)
‘Vanja was eating/used to eat/ate (up) a melon.’
Here are the relevant verb entries accommodated:
(63) a. JelK features of variables: [up], [uip]

= λwλeλxλy.y eats x in e in w
b. Js”elK features of variables: [up], [upf]
= λwλeλxλy.y eats up x in e in w
c. Js”edalK features of variables : [up], [uip]
= λwλeλxλy.y eats up x in e in w
We note that s”el and s”edal have the same lexical meaning and differ only in the
u-features of the variables.
The entries for the verbs in (63) should make clear that we separate the seman-
tic contribution of aspect (“viewpoint aspect”) from the semantic contribution of
the prefixes, which determine the Aktionsart of the VP (“lexical aspect”). For in-
stance, the prefix s- says that the VP should be telic, i.e., lacking the subinterval
property, cf. (Krifka 1989). This is the contribution to lexical meaning represent-
ed in the English translation with the particle “up”. Telic verbs have the feature
[upf] as a default value. The feature points to the semantic perfective operator
pf, which takes scope over the entire VP and is separated from the verb. Many
perfective verbs can be imperfectivised by the secondary imperfective, here the
suffix -da. This suffix has no lexical meaning. It simply replaces the feature [upf]
by [uip]. Note that the imperfective VP in (63c) is telic as well. So there is no abso-
lute correspondence between telicity and perfectivity. German prefix verbs are
much like the Russian ones, but German has no grammaticalised viewpoint aspect;
this is a main difference between the two languages. Thus we share the views on
aspect recently defended in (Tatevosov 2011) and by other scholars mentioned by
him, e.g. (Issatschenko 1968).
Semantic aspects have their usual meanings, cf. (Paslawska & von Stechow
2003) and others, but the order of the arguments is different in the current sys-
tem:
(64) a. JpfK = λtλPvt .(∃e) τ (e) ⊆ t & P (e) type (i(vt,t)

b. JipK = λtλPvt .(∃e) t ⊆ τ (e) & P (e) type (i(vt,t)
For Russian we need a special rule saying that the feature combination [un,
upf] normally has to be licensed by the presence of the operators f and pf. The
reason for this coercion to a future tense is that the perfective temporal config-
uration τ (e) ⊆ s∗ , where τ gives the time span of the event and s∗ denotes the
speech time, does not make sense semantically. On the assumption that s∗ de-
notes a minimal interval, it cannot include the event time, cf. (Grønn 2011).
The semantics for ip ignores the imperfective paradox, habituality, the general-
factual readings etc. (Grønn 2003) assumes an underspecified semantics for the
Russian imperfective and accounts for the different uses by pragmatic means
(competition with the perfective, size of the reference time, etc.).
Given these basic ingredients of our theory of aspect, we depict the combined
feature checking for tense and aspect in Figure 12, based on (62b) and (64a) above.
[TP n λ1 p(t1 ) λ2 [AspP pf (t2 ) λ3 [VP Vanja s”el arbuz(e3 )]]]

ip ipf up upf, up
(∃e)(∃t ≺ s∗ ) Vanja eats a melon in e & τ (e) ⊆ t

figure 12: Combined Feature Checking of Tense and Viewpoint Aspect.

Technically, when we add viewpoint aspect, the verb has only an event vari-
able with aspect features. But, obviously, the verb morphology is also marked
with tense, e.g. with past tense. We cannot cash out the agreement patterns di-
rectly, and therefore we have to add a stipulation to the system in order for the
tense operator to be able to transmit a temporal u-feature via the aspect operator,
cf. our use of the rather impressionistic box ipf up in Figure 12.
To be a bit more precise, we see that the tense feature [up] is first transmitted
to the variable t2 of pf. Recall that the internal argument of pf is a time. The
interpretable aspect feature [ipf] of the perfective operator is not in conflict with
the uninterpretable past tense feature [up]. We therefore assume that the latter is
transmitted further to the event variable e3 of the verb. The aspect feature [upf]
is transmitted to the same variable. As a result, the event variable carries both a
tense and aspect feature, determining the pronunciation as s”el. Thus, we assume
crucially that features are transmitted through intervening operators – here the
aspect operator pf – as long as there is no feature conflict16 , and that a variable
may carry several non-conflicting features.
Finally, we would like to mention another simplification in the tense-aspect
theory outlined above. Both tenses and aspects are here interpreted in a static
framework as indefinite, i.e., as existential quantifiers over times and events,
respectively. Nothing in the present paper hinges on this view. We note, however,
that this is a simplification. Instead of being quantificational, both tenses and
aspects can be either indefinite or definite.
We believe that one would ultimately need a dynamic theory of tense and
aspect, as outlined in for instance (von Stechow 2012). In such a framework,
an indefinite tense introduces a new temporal variable, while a definite tense is
anaphoric to an old variable, presupposing its descriptive content, i.e. the tem-
poral relation. The following temporal donkey sentence illustrates the point:
(65) When a farmer had a donkey, the farmer usually beat the donkey.
The past tense in the antecedent should be an indefinite term (like a farmer/a
donkey), but the past tense in the consequent should be a definite term (like the
farmer/the donkey). A paraphrase that illustrates the intended interpretation is
this:
(66) Usually, when a farmer had a donkey at some past time, the farmer beat
the donkey at that past time.
The following celebrated example from Čechov illustrates a similar point for
Russian aspect:
[16] In logical terms, an intervening λ-operator breaks a binding chain. So, there is no semantic binding
relation between past and the variable e3 .

(67) V etoj porternoj ja [...] napisal pervoe ljubovnoe pis’mo k Vere. Pisal
karandašom.
‘In this tavern [...], I wrote (perfective past) my first love letter to Vera. I
wrote (imperfective past) it in pencil.’
Both the tense and the aspect in the second sentence (pisal) are definite, i.e.,
anaphoric to the indefinite tense/aspect in the first sentence (napisal), cf. (Grønn
2003). To implement this we would need a dynamic framework in which discourse
markers for times and events can be either new (indefinite) or old (definite). Tens-
es and aspects will then be purely relational with an indefinite or definite article
on top.
Complicated authentic data of adjunct tense in Russian display a great diversity in
temporal configurations, demonstrating the need for a flexible tense theory. The
possibility of having the anaphoric Tproi as the temporal centre of the adjunct is
crucial in our theory. We can now account for the data presented above, but the
system overgenerates and must be constrained.
But what are the actual constraints at work in Russian adjunct tense (and as-
pect)? We have suggested that tense licensing is always local in Russian, i.e., there
is always a local tense operator inside the adjunct. Furthermore, there is a pref-
erence (which is difficult to make precise) for morphological tense harmony. In
other words, there is a tendency to avoid tense mismatches between the matrix
and adjunct.
Taken together these factors tend to produce deictic, independent tenses in
the adjunct. But not always. In the paper, we have seen various examples using
Tproi as the temporal centre in non-deictic adjuncts. Table 2 sums up the dif-
ferent kinds of forward shifted or backward shifted interpretations encountered
above – bound interpretations either with respect to the matrix or, frequently,
with respect to TPRO.17
RC do/posle kogda
past under fut blocked # / blocked blocked
fut under past OK blocked / # marginally OK
fut under past in intensional contexts OK OK OK
table 2: Bound Interpretations in Russian Adjuncts.
[17] Table 2 is not exhaustive. In principle, one could also look at, say, backward shifted past readings under a
future matrix embedded in an intensional context. However, the various analyses provided in this work
will allow us to make precise predictions about all such marginal configurations.

We can have bound future relative clauses under a past matrix, and we have
non-deictic adjuncts under attitudes and modals. Although adjuncts in intension-
al contexts are mostly bound by the temporal centre (TPRO) of the matrix, and not
by the matrix tense itself, we do also find examples of tense dependencies between
the adjunct and matrix in embedded contexts.
Thus, an important part of the paper is devoted to the analysis of data that
involve both complement tense and adjunct tense. We show that the sot param-
eter is relevant for both cases, and, importantly, we provide an analysis which
combines the two phenomena in a unified and coherent tense theory.

appendix
A. Complement Tense
Complements of attitude verbs in Russian are analysed as in Figure 13 and Fig-
ure 14 on the facing page.
(68) Vanja dumal, čto Maša spit.

‘Vanja thought that Masha was asleep.’ (literally: sleeps)
CP
XXXX
X
C it
čto PPP

PP
tcentre! t
TPRO1 !aa
!! a
[in] e
et
Maša "b
" b
i
i(et)
t1
spit
[un]
figure 13: Simultaneous Complements in Russian.

(69) Vanja dumal, čto Maša spala.

‘Vanja thought that Masha had been asleep.’ (literally: slept)
CP
XXXX

XX
C it
čto XXXX

XX
tcentre! t
TPRO0 PPP
P
[in] (it)t
it
[ip] !aa
"b !! a
" b λ1 t
p t0 !aa
[ip] [un] !!
! aa
e
et
Maša "b
" b
i
i(et)
t1
spala
[up]
figure 14: Backward Shifted Complements in Russian.

B. Relative Clauses
In Figure 15 we have a relative clause in which the highest tense is the anaphoric
Tproi . If Tproi is coindexed with n, we get the deictic interpretation (which can be
simultaneous or backward shifted, depending on the context). The other option
is to coindex Tproi with the reference time of the matrix verb, which results in a
backward shifted configuration.
CP
et
XXXX
X
kotoraja3 t
PPP
P
tcentre! it
Tproi PPP
P
λ0 t
PP

PP
(it)t it
[ip] HH
Z H
Z λ1 t
p !aa
!!
t0
a
[ip] e et
t3 "b
"
" b
b
i(et) i
spala t1
[up]
figure 15: Relative Clauses in Russian (= ‘who (had) slept’).

C. do/posle Adjuncts
PP
((((hhhhhhh
(((( h
reference time of the matrix P′
i it
XXXX
X
P
the earliest time that ...
i(it)
i
do / posle "b
" b
(it,i)
it
togo Q
Q
... CP ...
figure 16: do/posle (before/after) the earliest time that ...

CP
it
XXXXX
X
kak2 TP
WH2 t
XXXX

X
X
T
(it)t it
PPP
[if]
PP
HH
H λ1
VP
f t
n /Tproi PPP
[if]
P
P
PP VP
!aa
ZZ !!
! a
a
t1 e V
P
[uf] Maša et
TT "b
at t2 " b
i
i(et)
t1
uedet
[uf]
figure 17: Input to the earliest Operator (togo) in Russian Temporal Adjuncts.

D. kogda Adjuncts
(70) Maša uedet, kogda Dima uedet.
‘Maša will-leave when Dima will-leave.’
∃t2 (t2 ≻ s∗ ) Maša leave(t2 ) & (∃t4 ≻ s∗ ) Dima leave(t4 ) & t4 = t2
t
(((hhhhh
(((( hh
(it)t
it (by`
PM)
[if] ```
``
`
Z
Z it it
f n HH XXX
H
X
X
[if] [in]
λ2 kogda3
"b PPP
" b P
t2 (it)t
M-uedet it
[uf] [if] PP

PP
Z
Z λ4
f n ```
```
[if] [in] D-uedet(t4 ) & t4 at t3
[uf]
figure 18: Russian kogda-clause in a “future under future”.

E. Covert Past in RC
Here is our analysis of example (47) (... will-say father, who will-return already).
M (matrix verb) = skažet (“will-say”)
R (verb in relative clause) = vernetsja (“will-return”)
t
( ( (((hhhhh
(( hh
(it)t (ithhhh
"b ( ( ( ( hhh
" b (((
( h
h
f TPRO0 λ1
( ( ( (thhhh
[if] [in] ( hhhh
(((( hhhh
( ((
e et
H PP
HH
PP
the et λx.M (t1 , x)
!!aa
! a [uf]
otec et
PP
PP
WHx t
!!aa
! a
(it)t it
Q
ZZ Q
f Tpro0 λ2 t
[if] Q
Q
(it)t it
A QQ
p t2 λ3 t
HH
H
R(t3 , x)
[uf]
figure 19: Covert Past in Russian RC – “future under future”.

references
Arregui, Ana & Kiyomi Kusumoto. 1998. Tense in temporal adjunct clauses. In
D. Strolovitch & A. Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT VIII, 1–18. Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University.
Beaver, David & Cleo Condoravdi. 2003. A uniform analysis of Before and After.
In R. Young & Y. Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIII, 37–54. CLC Publications,
Cornell.
Grønn, Atle & Arnim von Stechow. 2010. Complement tense in contrast: the SOT
parameter in Russian and English. In A. Grønn & I. Marijanovic (eds.), Russian in
Contrast. Grammar (Oslo Studies in Language 2(1)), 109–153. University of Oslo.
Grønn, Atle & Arnim von Stechow. 2011. Future vs. Present in Russian and English
adjunct clauses. Scando-Slavica 57(2). 245–267.
Grønn, Atle. 2003. The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian Factual Imperfective.
University of Oslo: Doctor Artium Thesis.
Grønn, Atle. 2011. byvalo and used to as verbal quantifiers. Slovo 52. 63–80.
Haraldsson, Helgi. 1999. Russisk syntaks. Den komplekse setningen. Oslo: Unipub.
2nd edition.
Issatschenko, Alexander. 1968. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Teil i: Formen-
lehre. München: Max Hueber.
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantifi-

cation in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. von Emde Boas
(eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.
Kubota, Yusuke, Jungmee Lee, Anastasia Smirnova & Judith Tonhauser. 2011.
Cross-linguistic variation in temporal adjunct clauses. In C. Nishida & C. Rus-
si (eds.), Cahier Chronos: Selected Proceedings of Chronos 8, Amsterdam/Atlanta:
Rodopi.
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. The Philosophical Review 88.
513–543.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Paslawska, Alla & Arnim von Stechow. 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. In
A. Alexiadou, M. Rathert & A. von Stechow (eds.), Perfect explorations, 307–362.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2012. Adverbial clauses. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn &
P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Mean-
ing, vol. 2, 1420–1441. Mouton de Gruyter.
von Stechow, Arnim. 2005. Semantisches und morphologisches Tempus: Zur tem-
poralen Orientierung von Einstellungen und Modalen. Neue Beiträge zur German-
istik 4(2). 9–54.
von Stechow, Arnim. 2012. Typed dynamic semantics. Ms.
von Stechow, Arnim & Atle Grønn. 2012a. Tense in adjuncts part 1: Relative claus-
es. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. to appear.
von Stechow, Arnim & Atle Grønn. 2012b. Tense in adjuncts part 2: Temporal
adverbial clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. to appear.
Tatevosov, Sergei. 2011. Severing perfectivity from the verb. Scando-Slavica 57(2).
216–244.
Švedova, Natalija. 1980. Russkaja grammatika, vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka.
Atle Grønn
Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages
University of Oslo
Norway
atle.gronn@ilos.uio.no
Arnim von Stechow

D-78463 Konstanz
St. Stephansplatz 18
Germany
arnim.stechow@me.com

Osla 4 1

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osla 4 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osla 4 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oslo Studies in Language

Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds.)

The Russian Verb

Atle Grønn & Anna Pazelskaya (eds.)

The Russian Verb

Set in LATEX fonts Gentium Book Basic and Linux Libertine by

The Role of Verb Semantics in Genitive Alternations: Genitive of

Time Reference in Russian Causative Constructions

Peculiarities of Expressing the Apprehensive in Russian

Ot glagola k služebnomu slovu. Puti grammatikalizacii.

Čeredovanie o/a v kornjach vtoričnych imperfektivov

A Database of Russian Verbal Aspect

Aspect in the Imperative Across Slavic — a Corpus Driven Pilot

Distribution of Two Semelfactives in Russian: -nu- and -anu-

Semantic Priming Study of Russian Aspect and Resultativity

Degree Semantics for Russian Verbal Prefixes: the Case of pod-

Verbal Prefixes and Suffixes in Nominalization: Grammatical Re-

Adjuncts, Attitudes and Aspect: Some Additions to a Tense The-

In this issue of Oslo Studies in Language we present 12 contributions from the

• Barbara H. Partee, Vladimir Borschev, Elena Paducheva, Yakov Testelets,

• Sergei Tatevosov: Severing Perfectivity from the Verb

• Vladimir Plungyan: Tipologičeskie aspekty slavjanskoj aspektologii (nekotorye

• Stephen M. Dickey: The Development of the Imperfective General-Factual in Rus-

• Viktor Xrakovsky: Hierarchy and Interaction of Russian Verb Categories (Aspect,

OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

the role of verb semantics in genitive

BARBARA H. PARTEE, VLADIMIR BORSCHEV,

(1) subject gen neg: Affirmatives in a-b, negatives in c-d.

The Genitive of Intensionality is illustrated in (4). The Genitive choice in (4-b)

(4) gen int:

OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

(6) a. Ni odnoj butylki ne razbilos’.

(i) a. *(#) Somnenija ne byli

(ii) Somnenija ne isčezli.

OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

‘Not a single bottle broke.’

(7) Sobaki u menja net. (Arutjunova 1976)

[2.2] Our analysis of Subject Gen Neg

OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

The relevant location may be implicit or explicit. It may be a physical location,

(11) a. Maša ne vidna.

(12) The Common Structure of “Existence/location situations”: vbe

OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

an existential sentence. In the affirmative, the sentence types do not differ in

(14) a. Otec ne byl na more. (Apresjan 1980)

(15) perspectival center presupposition:

(16) a. Petja na koncerte ne byl. Koncerta ne bylo.

(17) the semantics of negated existential sentences (nes):

(18) presupposed equivalence: An NES presupposes that the following equiv-

It is important to stress that perspectival structure reflects a structuring at the

[2.3] Bleachable verbs and the nature of semantic bleaching

OSLa volume 4(1), 2012

(19) a. Ne belelo parusov na gorizonte.

Dictionary + contextual axioms

Now consider a modification of the previous example:

(20) Ne belelo domov na gorizonte. (B&P 1998)

More examples with non-trivial equivalence

(21) a. Moroza ne čuvstvovalos’.