Figure - uploaded by Ilja Seržant
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... is the second schema that was involved in creating the imperfect in Common Slavic ( §3.2.4). In turn, the third schema in Table 2 involving the suffix -a-je/o-(past tense: -a-) remained productive into Early Slavic and gave rise to a wide range of allomorphic variants which are all, etymologically, morphological extensions thereof (see Table 3 below). Crucially, in the Common Slavic and Early Slavic period, the formation of various modifications of actionality was still highly lexicalized and by no means regular, and a number of simplexes did not have any pluractional or durative correspondent, e.g. ...Context 2
... schemata in Table 2 and Table 3 played an important role in the rise of the new aspectual system (Maslov 2004 [1959]; Meillet 1965). The number of schemata has considerably diminished from PIE times, and, concomitantly, their morphological make-up changed from schemata causing stem-internal morphonological changes to concatenative suffixation, creating thus morphologically more transparent derivation. ...Context 3
... secondary imperfectivization is based on the same suffixes already discussed and illustrated in §3.2.1 above (Table 2 and Table 3). As has been mentioned, the old schemata (Table 2) became unproductive and were superseded by more transparent ones (Table 3), showing a tendency toward concatenation. ...Context 4
... secondary imperfectivization is based on the same suffixes already discussed and illustrated in §3.2.1 above (Table 2 and Table 3). As has been mentioned, the old schemata (Table 2) became unproductive and were superseded by more transparent ones (Table 3), showing a tendency toward concatenation. Moreover, the number of productive suffixes decreased. ...Context 5
... the suffixes mentioned in Table 3, the suffix -iva-has became the most productive means of secondary imperfectivization in Russian and Polish, whereas traditional Belarusian and Bulgarian have kept -va-; the West Slavic languages except Polish prefer -ova-. However, the productivity and functional range with which these suffixes are applied in different Slavic languages varies a great deal. ...Context 6
... is the second schema that was involved in creating the imperfect in Common Slavic ( §3.2.4). In turn, the third schema in Table 2 involving the suffix -a-je/o-(past tense: -a-) remained productive into Early Slavic and gave rise to a wide range of allomorphic variants which are all, etymologically, morphological extensions thereof (see Table 3 below). Crucially, in the Common Slavic and Early Slavic period, the formation of various modifications of actionality was still highly lexicalized and by no means regular, and a number of simplexes did not have any pluractional or durative correspondent, e.g. ...Context 7
... schemata in Table 2 and Table 3 played an important role in the rise of the new aspectual system (Maslov 2004 [1959]; Meillet 1965). The number of schemata has considerably diminished from PIE times, and, concomitantly, their morphological make-up changed from schemata causing stem-internal morphonological changes to concatenative suffixation, creating thus morphologically more transparent derivation. ...Context 8
... secondary imperfectivization is based on the same suffixes already discussed and illustrated in §3.2.1 above (Table 2 and Table 3). As has been mentioned, the old schemata (Table 2) became unproductive and were superseded by more transparent ones (Table 3), showing a tendency toward concatenation. ...Context 9
... secondary imperfectivization is based on the same suffixes already discussed and illustrated in §3.2.1 above (Table 2 and Table 3). As has been mentioned, the old schemata (Table 2) became unproductive and were superseded by more transparent ones (Table 3), showing a tendency toward concatenation. Moreover, the number of productive suffixes decreased. ...Context 10
... the suffixes mentioned in Table 3, the suffix -iva-has became the most productive means of secondary imperfectivization in Russian and Polish, whereas traditional Belarusian and Bulgarian have kept -va-; the West Slavic languages except Polish prefer -ova-. However, the productivity and functional range with which these suffixes are applied in different Slavic languages varies a great deal. ...Similar publications
This research is a descriptive research that is aimed to describe the task types and to see the frequent task types that appeared in the textbooks entitled “Bahasa Inggris: When English Rings a Bell” and Bright an English Course for junior high school. The data was gained by using a data format. The data format is a table to classify the types the...
Citations
... Importantly, however, aspectual systems sharing with Slavic ones the properties (i)-(iii) are found in other languages as well, most notably in those geographically close to Slavic. These are the Baltic languages, Yiddish and Hungarian in Eastern Europe, and Ossetic and Kartvelian languages in the Caucasus (see Arkadiev 2014 for an areal-typological perspective and further references, and Arkadiev and Shluinsky 2016 for a broader cross-linguistic outlook; cf. also Wiemer and Seržant 2017). ...
This is a survey of the domain of morphological borrowing complemented with a case study of contact‐induced phenomena in the domain of verbal prefixes in Baltic, Slavic and neighbouring languages. Section 2 presents a concise overview of the main divisions and analytical problems of morphological borrowing, focusing on the distinction between matter borrowing and pattern borrowing, on the one hand, and on the borrowing of different types of morphology (e.g. derivation vs inflection, affixes vs processes, etc.). Section 3 further illustrates these issues on the basis of the data of the borrowing phenomena involving verbal prefixes in Baltic and Slavic, such as borrowing of individual prefixes from Slavic into Baltic dialects and of whole systems of prefixes from Slavic into Romani and Istro‐Romanian and from Baltic into Livonian, as well as cases of pattern replication involving verbal prefixes in Lithuanian, Yiddish and Romani. The borrowability of the Slavic and Baltic verbal aspect expressed by means of prefixation is also discussed, and it is shown that the aspectual values of borrowed prefixes are never exact copies of their counterparts in the source languages.
... The semelfactive suffix consists of -n-and some vowel in Slavic (the original form was *-nVn-, see Wiemer & Seržant 2017). It selects a root with a punctual or instantaneous property 2 In this respect, Czech differs from Russian, which only allows completive do-in the lower position (see Tatevosov 2008 and his intermediate prefixes). ...
This article is concerned with the derivation of morphological aspect in Russian and Czech. It investigates four aspectual markers: prefixes, the secondary imperfective suffix, the semelfactive marker and the habitual suffix. It argues that not only in Russian (see Tatevosov 2011, 2015) but also in Czech aspect interpretation is separated from prefixes and the secondary imperfective suffix. Moreover, it extends the separation to the semelfactive suffix and the habitual marker. Specific morphological aspect properties of Russian and Czech predicates are derived by an Agree analysis with minimality based on dominance relations in the complex verbal head. 1 Aspectual markers This section introduces four aspectual markers, prefixes, the secondary imperfective marker, the semelfactive suffix and the habitual suffix. I call these morphemes aspectual markers since they are relevant to morphological aspect (they can change the perfective/imperfective value of the base predicate) and/or since they are relevant to aspect more generally, e.g. because of bringing about (a)telicity, habituality or new aktionsart properties. 1.1 Prefixes Lexical prefixes (also called internal, qualifying, resultative) as well as superlexical (external, modifying, aktionsart) prefixes almost always perfectivize the imperfective simplex verb (for discussion of the two types of prefixes, see e.g.
... The supporting effect of language contact may also lead to an increase in fusional morphological complexity. For example, the preservation of the suffixal and prefixal actionality derivations due to language contact allowed the Slavic languages to develop an aspectual system that is typologically unusual with regard to its morphological properties(Wiemer and Seržant 2017). ...
This paper seeks to identify causal factors constraining the diachronic dynamics of particular morphosyntactic categories of Slavic. It is suggested that the modern inventory of Slavic languages is not a result of accumulation of historically accidental changes and non-changes. Instead, it is argued that macro-areal pressures constrained by the geographic location and the particular language-contact configuration determine the selection of inherited properties for either retention or loss and, subsequently, innovation. I primarily provide evidence from two categories: verbal person-number indexes (subject agreement markers) and partitivity markers and I also briefly discuss some other fusional categories.
... 5 The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to pfv stems. For this reason the PFV : IPFV opposition can be considered a classificatory category (Wiemer 2006;Wiemer and Seržant 2017). Such a category can be defined using the following quote from Plungjan (2000, p. 125): ...
... After all, the productive patterns of stem derivation that we observe today as crucial for the PFV : IPFV opposition in Slavic languages (see Fig. 1) are the outcome of the continuous renovation of a very ancient technique (namely, suffixation) and its combination with a more recent technique (namely, prefixation), which both have been preserved (in contrast to other IE families in Europe; cf. Wiemer and Seržant 2017). The vitality of triplets, in particular, can be explained as the coincidental meeting of two factors: the preservation of the motivating simplex (IPFV1) stems (maybe because of their higher token frequency?) ...
The Slavic perfective (pfv): imperfective (ipfv) opposition is based on stem derivation. It creates a complex network of functions for finite and non-finite forms, which largely applies regardless of aspectual pairedness (and actionality groups), since this opposition has classificatory properties. However, can derivationally related stems claimed to represent identical lexical concepts be treated as representatives of one or of two paradigms? The issue becomes especially intricate with aspect triplets in which two ipfv stems correspond to one pfv stem, as though combining two productive patterns of aspect derivation. On this background, we test some core assumptions of the morphology-lexicon interface on one typical aspect triplet from Polish and Czech, the cognate ipfv Pol. dzielić – rozdzielać, Cz. dělit – rozdělovat ‘divide, separate’. We provide their token-based analysis for the period 1750–2017. The two ipfv stems show preferences for different basic functions associated with the ipfv aspect, the coding of marginal arguments and adjuncts also yields clear biases of choice. These preferences prove stable over time, distinctions in form typically associated with inflection turn out to be altogether irrelevant. Our findings, as well as a revision of theoretical positions, support a notion of paradigm in which typical inflectional distinctions are brought into an equilibrium with functional inventories and collocational constraints.
... On my account, both verbal prefixes and suffixes do not by themselves express perfective or imperfective meanings (semantic aspects), but "merely" manipulate the input of the aspect operator. To this end, the story told here is in line with Tatevosov (2018). Rhema. ...
The paper shows that a single aspect operator successfully generates the interpretations of Russian perfective and imperfective forms, if the following requirements are met. First, the default aspect operator has to be based on the notion of state change. Secondly, the output of the operator is filtered by semantic and morphological blocking constraints.
... Cf. also the application ofVendler's approach (1957) to Czech and other Slavic languages byKučera (1983) andEckert (1984). The diachronic perspective on aspect in Slavic languages and beyond is taken byNěmec (1958),Wiemer -Seržant (2017), orBybee et al. (1994), cf. also the respective chapters inComrie (1976) orDahl (1985). ...
Odvozování českých sloves a kategorie vidu (shrnutí)Příspěvek se zabývá změnami v kategorii slovesného vidu, k nimž dochází během odvozování sloves od sloves v češtině. Po stručném shrnutí základních bodů aspektologických diskuzí nad videm českého slovesa je tvoření vidových protějšků prezentováno jako integrální součást derivace českých sloves. Ve shodě s tímto pohledem je kategorie vidu využita jako důležitý rys při modelování slovesné derivace v databázi zachycující derivační morfologii češtiny. V příspěvku představujeme sadu kritérií, na jejichž základě byla slovesa v databázi organizována.Odvozování českých sloves a kategorie vidu (shrnutí)Příspěvek se zabývá změnami v kategorii slovesného vidu, k nimž dochází během odvozování sloves od sloves v češtině. Po stručném shrnutí základních bodů aspektologických diskuzí nad videm českého slovesa je tvoření vidových protějšků prezentováno jako integrální součást derivace českých sloves. Ve shodě s tímto pohledem je kategorie vidu využita jako důležitý rys při modelování slovesné derivace v databázi zachycující derivační morfologii češtiny. V příspěvku představujeme sadu kritérií, na jejichž základě byla slovesa v databázi organizována.
Tematem artykułu jest relacja między aspektem, akcjonalnością i modalnością. Stawia on pytanie o czynniki decydujące o preferowanej interpretacji modalnej konstrukcji złożonych z czasownikowego operatora możliwości i bezokolicznika. Na materiale Narodowego Korpusu Języka Polskiego przeprowadzono badania mające na celu ustalenie, czy czynnikiem ważniejszym jest aspekt, czy raczej akcjonalność wyrażenia bezokolicznikowego. Badania te wykazały, że negacja w połączeniu z bezokolicznikami aspektu niedokonanego wyraźnie sprzyja interpretacjom deontycznym, podczas gdy bezokoliczniki aspektu dokonanego wyraźnie preferują interpretacje okolicznościowe (‛dynamiczne’) niezależnie od negacji. Podstawowa dychotomia nie polega na opozycji interpretacji deontycznych i epistemicznych, lecz raczej dotyczy różnicy między znaczeniami deontycznymi a okolicznościowymi. Ważne jest przy tym staranne odróżnianie aspektu zarówno od znaczeń (a)telicznych, jak i od innych cech istotnych dla akcjonalności.
This volume investigates the functional-semantic field of aspectuality in relation to the role of language contact in the development of minority languages in Italy and beyond, highlighting hitherto completely unknown parallels, e.g. contact-induced development of progressive and prospective verbal periphrases. The influences of the dominant languages surface not only in Slavic derivational verbal aspect, but also in the restructuring of morphosyntactic reflexes of aspect. Aspectuality is examined in relation to Slavic micro-languages spoken in Italy (Molise Slavic, Resian, Tersko, Nadiško), Austria (Burgenland Croatian), Germany (Upper Sorbian), Albania (Kaj-nas) and the Baltic, as well as in relation to Arbëresh, Cimbrian, Griko, Lithuanian and Macedonian.
