BIASPECTUAL VERBS IN RUSSIAN AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS ON THE CATEGORY OF ASPECT
by
CORI ANDERSON
Honors Essay
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina
2002
Approved:
_____________________________
Jennifer Smith
_____________________________
Lawrence Feinberg
_____________________________
Laura Janda
1
Biaspectual Verbs and Their Implications for the Category of Aspect in Russian
Verbal aspect is one of the most unique characteristics of the Slavic languages,
and one of the most difficult concepts for non-native speakers to grasp. Conceptualizing
this category within Russian (and other Slavic languages, such as Czech, Polish, or
Slovak) is also a subject of great debate in linguistic literature. To this day, there is little
agreement on precise meanings of the two primary aspectual categories of the Russian
verb, perfective and imperfective. Also, there is still no clear answer as to whether
perfective and imperfective partners are two forms of one verb or two verbs that have
nearly identical meanings. Under this problematic umbrella fall biaspectual verbs, such
as zhenit’sia ‘marry,’ organizovat’ ‘organize,’ and diskvalifitsirovat’ ‘disqualify.’ While
many arguments exist concerning how to understand the usage of two members of a pair,
biaspectual verbs create further problems for a unified view of the expression of aspect
because their behavior does not match that of most verbs. While most verbs express one
and only one aspectual meaning, biaspectual verbs are capable of expressing both
perfective and imperfective. All verbs – paired, unpaired or biaspectual – express only
one aspect in a given context, so even biaspectual verbs cannot express both aspectual
meanings simultaneously. What makes these verbs special is that they express either
aspect without changing their morphological or phonological form.
Biaspectual verbs cause so much debate because they behave very differently
from most verbs, and do not fit into the grammatical model of aspect that focuses on
paired verbs. Biaspectual verbs are not paired, nor are they anomalies of the aspectual
system, as some have tried to prove (Isachenko, Avilova, etc.). Like all verbs, in Russian
they express aspect in every instance of usage, and with unambiguous contextual triggers,
2
only the appropriate aspectual meaning is expressed. In short, they are normal verbs
aside from their lack of aspectual morphological markers. But not all verbs form pairs, as
evidenced by a group of verbs that do not have aspectual correlates. Imperfectiva tantum
verbs, such as znat’ ‘know,’ only express imperfective, with no perfective correlate,
whereas perfectiva tantum verbs, such as rukhnut’ ‘crash down,’ are perfectives that lack
imperfective correlates. The existence of unpaired verbs clearly shows that not all verbs
are paired, and attempts to classify biaspectual verbs within the constraints of a system of
compulsory verbal correlates have proved unsuccessful. Verbs that have more than one
aspectual correlate, such as the chain bit’ ‘hit, beat (imp.),’ razbit’ ‘smash, break (perf.),’
razbivat’ ‘smash, break (imp.)’ also point out the flaws of a system where all verbs
should form aspectual pairs. Conceptions of the aspectual system have focused on binary
oppositions of perfective and imperfective verbs, but biaspectual verbs show that this
view is limited, and emphasis should be taken off this binary view to more fully account
for the behavior of all verbs.
Trying to understand biaspectual verbs within a system based on aspectual pairs
will only lead to conclusions of irregularity. Biaspectuals differ from paired verbs
enough to be considered a separate group, like the unpaired verbs. Recent works on the
Russian verb (i.e. Tikhonov, 1998) do examine biaspectual verbs as separate from regular
pair-forming verbs and unpaired imperfective or perfective verbs. This paper studies
biaspectual verbs as their own, unique group of verbs, and aims to answer the following
questions:
— What are biaspectual verbs?
— How many are there in modern Russian?
3
— Do they lose their biaspectuality as the language nativizes them by deriving
partners?
— How do they express aspect if not through the morphological markers of
paired verbs?
— Do they fit into the aspectual system in place, or should the system be
reexamined to account for their existence?
First, further explanation about the Russian system of aspect is needed.
Verbal Aspect
Any student of Russian as a foreign language has been faced with the subject of
verbal aspect. It is a difficult concept to master for those who are not native speakers of a
Slavic language, because this category is not grammaticalized the same way in other
languages. Verbal aspect relates to “different ways of viewing the internal temporal
consistency of a situation” (Comrie, 1976, p. 3, based on defintion by Holt, 1943, p. 6).
Unlike tense, which is the relationship of the action to the present moment, aspect is how
an action or state is related to time itself. Aspect can be broken down into many different
distinctions, but modern Russian primarily distinguishes between imperfective and
perfective. There are still numerous debates as to how to define the meanings of each
aspect in Russian, but that is not the goal of this thesis. Comrie (1976) provides a clear
definition of the aspectual distinctions based on many languages, including Russian. He
says, “perfectivity indicates the view of a situation as a single whole, without distinction
of the various separate phases that make up that situation; while the imperfective pays
essential attention to the internal structure of the situation” (p.16). Russian employs this
same differentiation, where the perfective refers to a completed action, and is used when
a completion, achievement, result, etc. is emphasized. Imperfective refers to a
4
continuous or habitual action or a situation when completion or result is not emphasized
or is de-emphasized.
While there is still no agreement over the precise meaning of the aspects, no one
doubts that every verb in Russian expresses one aspect or another. There are no “aspectless” verbs, or verbs that cannot express either imperfective or perfective. A simple test
to see which aspect is expressed is to see if the sentence answers a question using a
perfective or imperfective pro-verb. The most common is delat’ ‘do (imp.)’ versus
sdelat’ ‘do (perf.).’ If the sentences answers the question chto delali? ‘what were they
doing (imp.)?,’ it is imperfective; if it answers chto sdelali? ‘what did they do (perf.)?,’
then the perfective aspect is expressed. Usually, this is evident from the verb itself,
because most Russian verbs are morphologically marked for aspect, and therefore a given
verb expresses only one aspectual meaning. The verb delat’ is always imperfective; it
has the partner sdelat’ to express the perfective.
Most verbs in Russian are have aspectual partners, or correlates, such as the above
verb, with one expressing imperfective aspect, and the other perfective. These pairs can
be viewed as two verbs that differ only in aspect, and not in meaning (Tikhonov, 1998, p.
14), which puts them in opposition to each other. Others view pairs as two forms of one
verb, such as different cases of a noun (Isachenko, 1962, p. 138). Regardless, these two
verbs can express all forms of a verb. While both perfective and imperfective verbs form
infinitives, past, imperatives, conditionals, and past active participles, other forms are
limited to one or another aspect. The distribution of the other forms with respect to
aspect can be seen in Tables 1 & 2. How are the two verbs of an aspectual pair
distinguishable from each other if they are so semantically alike? Are they
5
phonologically similar? Generally, they are similar in form as well as function, differing
by one or two morphemes. Scholars generally recognize three different types of pairs,
based on the morphological structure of the verbs: prefixation, suffixation, or suppletion.
Some perfective members of a pair are prefixed versions of the imperfective. Sometimes
the imperfective member adds a suffix to a perfective verb. In the third type of
correlation, the two verbs are not morphologically related. This is “suppletion,” and
these types of pairs are few in number (Tikhonov, 1998: 17).
When a perfective verb is based on a non-prefixed imperfective verb, it is via
“perfectivization.” The perfective verb is usually formed by adding a prefix that does not
change the meaning of the verb. Perfectives can be formed with the suffix -nu-, although
this happens much less frequently, leaving the difference only in aspectual meaning
(Tikhonov, 1998:18-19). This is seen above in the aspectual pair delat’/sdelat’ ‘do’
(when an aspectual pair is given, the imperfective is generally listed first), where the
addition of the prefix s- to the imperfective verb makes the verb perfective. Verbs are
only considered an aspectual pair if the prefix does not change the meaning. There are
seventeen prefixes that can be used to form perfective verbs: po-, s-, za-, o-, ob-, na-,
pro-, vy-, u-, vz-, ot-, raz-, iz-, pri-, voz-, pere- and pod-, though only six of them (po-, s-,
za-, na-, pro-, and ot-) form true pairs. All of these prefixes can sometimes carry
semantic values that can change the meaning of certain verbs while forming a perfective.
For instance, the imperfective verb bit’ ‘hit, strike’ can be joined with the prefix raz(which adds the meaning of “splitting” or “separation”) to create the perfective verb
razbit’, which means ‘break, smash.’ Because of this semantic difference, these two
6
verbs are not an aspectual pair, even though the perfective is just a prefixed derivative of
the imperfective verb.
Another process for forming an aspectual pair is via imperfectivization. In
opposition to perfectivization, this process tends to use suffixes instead of prefixes. The
suffixes involved are (hard and soft variants) -yvaj-/-ivaj-, -vaj-, and the unproductive -aj(Tikhonov, 1998: 18). Imperfectivization always forms pure aspectual pairs, because,
unlike prefixes, the suffixes cannot change the lexical meaning. Continuing with the
perfective verb razbit’, the imperfective is formed by adding the suffix –vaj-: razbivat’.
The new pair razbivat’/razbit’ is a purely aspectual correlation because these words do
not differ semantically.
Not all pairs follow these rules for formation/derivation of a correlate. Some pairs
are not formed from each other using the above two processes, but still make an aspectual
pair. One of the most common examples is the pair govorit’/skazat’ ‘talk, say.’ These
words do not share a common root like delat’/sdelat’ or razbivat’/razbit’, but are still
considered an aspectual correlation because they differ only in terms of aspect.
Although imperfectivization and perfectivization are methods of forming
aspectual pairs that can be dated several centuries back, there is still debate over whether
the category of aspect in Russian is an inflectional or derivational category. That is, are
the members of an aspectual pair two different words, or are they two forms of the same
word? Since the two verbs differ only in their aspectual meanings (and not in their
lexical meaning), it can be argued that they are forms of the same verb. Also, some
verbal forms are seen with imperfective verbs (such as present), and others only with
perfective (such as simple future). On the other hand, the prefixes and suffixes that are
7
used in perfectivization and imperfectivization are not inflections, such as conjugations or
declensions of nouns and adjectives. Nor do all verbs form a perfective or imperfective,
whereas every verb can be conjugated, and some have more than one “partner.” Both
arguments are strong, and there is still no clear conclusion in modern aspectology
(Zaliznak & Shmelev, 2000: 14-15). Further in this paper, both sides of the argument
will be taken into consideration.
As mentioned above, not all verbs have an aspectual partner. As Tikhonov (1998)
writes, “In modern Russian any verb relates to one of the aspects; there is no verb outside
the aspectual system, however not all form an aspectual pair” (p.15). He (among others:
Zalizniak & Shmelev, 2000) breaks verbs into three groups based on how they form
pairs: paired, unpaired, and biaspectual. Unpaired verbs can be either imperfective only
(imperfectiva tantum), such as razgovarivat' ‘have a conversation’ or perfective only
(perfectiva tantum), such as rukhnut’ ‘crash down’. As the label “unpaired” implies,
these verbs do not have aspectual partners, and always express one and only one aspect.
Biaspectual verbs
Biaspectual verbs are not nearly so straightforward. Tikhonov (1998) notes that
the place these verbs hold in the aspectual system is still not universally agreed upon (p.
176). The Academy of Russian Grammar (Shvedova et al., 1980) defines biaspectual
verbs as “verbs whose aspectual meaning for the majority of forms is not expressed by
special means” (p. 521, in Chertkova & Chang, p. 13). These “special means” are those
mentioned above, the morphemes that distinguish perfective verbs from imperfective
verbs in pairs. Here are two sentences with the biaspectual verb zhenit’sia with the two
different aspectual meanings:
8
Resheno. Ia zhenius’ (imp.) na Mari i uezzhaiu s nei v Parizh.
(It’s decided. I’m marrying Marie and leaving for Paris with her.)
Ia zhenius’ (perf.) na Irine, esli ona soglasitsia zhit’ so mnoi v shalashe.
(I’ll marry Irina if she’ll agree to live with me in a hut.)
(Zalizniak & Shmelev, 2000, p. 10)
While the two forms of the verb do not differ phonologically or morphologically, they
each express a different aspect.
Categorizing Biaspectuals
There have been many disagreements and arguments on how to categorize and
define biaspectual verbs. They have been called “aspect-less” and “aspect-neutral.” One
of the older opinions, in adamant opposition to considering biaspectual verbs as part of
the aspectual system, was expressed by Kartsevskii (1923). He claimed that “dual
aspectual meanings are in glaring contradiction with the spirit of the Russian language,
which demands that each verb has only one aspectual meaning” (p. 56, in Chertkova &
Chang, p. 15). Likewise, Isachenko (1960) writes that biaspectual verbs are an anomaly
of the language, and therefore tend to be eliminated (p.145). Isachenko does not back up
his argument about how this anomaly is resolved, but Avilova (1968) presents evidence
supporting the claim that biaspectual verbs, especially those with borrowed roots,
gradually enter the system of aspectually paired verbs, by acquiring prefixed or suffixed
derivatives, thereby losing their biaspectuality.
Tikhonov presents other views of biaspectual verbs, such as the idea of “common
aspect,” such as “common gender” in nouns, where the verbs do not differentiate between
aspects in their usage. However, since all verbs express aspect in every usage,
biaspectual verbs must also. He says, “in the semantic plan their aspectual meanings are
always differentiated. A different matter is the means of expression of these aspectual
9
meanings” (p.178). Muchnik (1971) discusses the “unique methods” of aspectual
expression in these verbs. He claims that where most verbs are part of an aspectual
opposition that expresses the different forms of perfective and imperfective verbs,
biaspectual verbs do so with homonymous forms (p. 129).
Biaspectual verbs do not have to be seen as anomalies, nor do they have to be
interpreted within the constraints of a system that requires aspectual correlates of all
verbs. In Tikhonov (1998) and Zalizniak & Smelev (2000), biaspectuals are considered a
class of verbs within the aspectual system. This is the most accurate view, because it
accounts for the existence of biaspectuals, as well as unpaired tantum verbs and even
verbs that form correlates, but with more than one verb. Further in this paper, we will
consider biaspectual verbs to be their own class, and show how they are not anomalous to
the aspectual system under this interpretation.
Expressing Aspect
Because all Russian verbs have to express aspect, biaspectuals must do so also.
Due to their lack of formal aspectual markers, many verbal forms of biaspectual verbs are
identical (e.g. infinitive, past tense, etc.; see Table 1), and the question remains over how
to interpret which aspect is expressed by a given form of a biaspectual verb. Isachenko
(1960) claims that the differentiation between perfective and imperfective meanings with
biaspectual verbs is the duty of the speaker and the listener (p. 144). The speaker decides
what meaning to express, and the listener interprets it. However, Avilova (1968) argues
that biaspectual verbs carry a “certain” ambiguous meaning due to a lack of formal
aspectual expression. Her argument is weak, as she herself admits that in context
10
biaspectual verbs reflect either perfective or imperfective aspect. Inadequate contexts
will be discussed later as possible cases for ambiguity.
Our view is that the appropriate aspectual meaning of a biaspectual verb is always
disambiguated in context. The context is defined by both syntactic and semantic clues,
which make up where the morphological markers leave off in biaspectual verbs. For
example, there is no ambiguity in the sentences Vrach bol’nogo dolgo obsledoval ‘The
doctor examined the ill man for a long time’ and Vchera vrach obsledoval bol’nogo i dal
emu retsept ‘The doctor examined the ill man yesterday and gave him a prescription’.
Both sentences have the past tense of the biaspectual verb obsledovat’ ‘investigate,
examine.’ This form is homonymous in the imperfective meaning (as in the first
sentence) and the perfective meaning (expressed in the second sentence), yet these
sentences leave no question as to the aspectual meaning of either. The adverb dolgo ‘for
a long time’ can only be used with imperfective, and the presence of the perfective verb
dat’ ‘give’ implies that obsledoval is perfective also. Since the correct aspectual meaning
is expressed in both sentences, there is no confusion, and the goal of communication is
reached.
Biaspectuals and the Aspectual System
Another matter of interest regarding biaspectual verbs is their relation to the
binary system of aspect as perfective versus imperfective. Biaspectuals can represent
both aspects, so they do not have only one aspectual meaning like most verbs. This has
several implications for biaspectual verbs because it sets them apart as very different
from most verbs, which express only one aspectual meaning, and generally have an
aspectual correlate to express the other aspect. Avilova (1968) argues that a lack of clear
11
distinction between perfective and imperfective leads to the loss of biaspectuality.
Taking pairedness as the norm, she argues that biaspectual verbs will eventually enter the
binary system of aspectual correlates by gaining a perfective or imperfective partner. The
verbs “normalize” into pairs, and the result would be a reduction in the number of
biaspectual verbs in the language. The data I collected from two current Russian
dictionaries, described later, are used to discuss the possible existence of such a trend.
An alternative to this claimed loss of biaspectuality is a reshaping of the system to
account for biaspectual verbs. Demidenko (1966) suggests that “biaspectual verbs and
their ability to express an undefined dual aspectual meaning [give way to] a triadic
character of aspectual oppositions in modern Russian: imperfective verbs, perfective
verbs, and biaspectual verbs” (p.152). However, all verbs in Russian express either
imperfective or perfective, and there is no evidence to suggest a third category of aspect.
In the above examples, contextual triggers made the aspectual meaning clear despite the
presence of a biaspectual verb.
Tikhonov (1998), Zalizniak & Shmelev (2000), and others lay out a different view
of incorporating biaspectual verbs into the aspectual system. Rather than three aspects,
there are three classes of verbs in the aspectual system: aspectually paired, aspectually
unpaired and biaspectuals. This sets the biaspectuals apart as not paired, but does not
imply that they are incapable of expressing both aspectual meanings, like the unpaired
verbs (which are always imperfective or perfective). This conception of the aspectual
system is more encompassing of verbs that do not have aspectual correlates, and does not
view them as “anomalies” in the language. Biaspectual verbs do not break the system, or
12
imply that aspect does not exist in all verbs, but do require a broader understanding of
how aspect functions in Russian.
Types of Biaspectual Verbs
Before attempting to shed more light on arguments over definitions and
expression of aspect in biaspectual verbs, we should take a deeper look into what is
known about these verbs themselves. Before classifying biaspectual verbs we must
understand how they are related to one another. The biaspectuals constitute two groups:
etymologically Russian verbs and Western European borrowed verbs. The first group is
much smaller than the second. In Zalizniak’s Grammaticheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka
(1977) only 57 out of 894 have Russian or Slavic roots, and 837 have borrowed roots. In
Ozhegov and Shvedova’s Tolkovyi slovar’ russkogo iazyka, 4th ed. (1999), 51 out of 522
are of Russian and/or Slavic descent, leaving 471 borrowed verbs. Overall, the first
group holds only 5-10% of all biaspectual verbs, and is no longer productive. These are
verbs such as velet’ ‘order, tell,’ zhenit’sia ‘marry,’ zaimstvovat’ ‘borrow,’ ispol’zovat’
‘use,’ issledovat’ ‘investigate, examine,’ obeshchat’ ‘promise,’ and rodit’sia ‘be born.’
There is also a small subset of verbs that have religious meanings: krestit’ ‘cross,’
krestit’sia ‘cross oneself,’ venchat’(sia) ‘marry,’ ispovedovat’ ‘confess,’ khodataistvovat’
‘petition, intercede.’
The second group is much larger and newer, and still productive. Included are
verbs such as adresovat’ ‘address,’ informirovat’ ‘inform,’ organizovat’ ‘organize,’
rekomendovat’ ‘recommend,’ spetsializirovat’ ‘specialize,’ kharakterizovat’
‘characterize,’ elektrifitsirovat’ ‘electrify.’ The unifying element of this group is the
suffix -ova-. This suffix has 4 variants: -irova-, -izirova-, -izova-, or -fitsirova-.
13
Chertkova and Chang (1998) state that the most productive of these is -irova-, found in
approximately 60% of the verbs they analyzed (p. 14), and a similar figure was reached
in the data from Zalizniak (1977) and Ozhegov & Shvedova (1999). In her article about
biaspectual verbs with borrowed roots, Avilova (1968) points out the bookish, foreign
nature of verbs that end in the allomorphs of -ova-, but these borrowings have been noted
in the language since the times of Peter the Great.
Counting Biaspectual Verbs
While biaspectual verbs can be neatly classified into these two groups, another
problem in describing them remains. How many verbs are biaspectual? For this paper, I
examined dictionary articles from two dictionaries listed above and arrived at two very
different totals. Almost twice as many verbs (894) were marked ‘perfective &
imperfective’ in Zalizniak’s grammatical dictionary (1977) as were marked in Ozhegov
& Shvedova (522 biaspectual verbs). Part of this is simply because Zalizniak’s
dictionary contains a total of 100,000 words, whereas Ozhegov & Shvedova list only
80,000 dictionary articles. Also, Zalizniak lists reflexive verbs separately (verbs that end
in -sia), as their own entry, whereas Ozhegov & Shvedova do not always list a reflexive
verb, even if it exists in the language.
Another important factor in the difference between totals in these two dictionaries
is the difference in aspectual marking/definition. Out of the 941 verbs marked as
biaspectual in at least one dictionary, in at least one meaning, in at least one form, 399
did not appear at all in Ozhegov & Shvedova’s dictionary, which also marks an
additional 20 verbs as either perfective only or imperfective only. Only 21 of the 941
verbs did not appear in Zalizniak at all, and an additional 26 are not marked biaspectual.
14
Tikhonov (1998) lists several verbs with varying “aspectual characteristics,” comparing
how different dictionaries have marked some biaspectual verbs (p. 229-235). The words
on this list that I found in Zalizniak and Ozhegov & Shvedova are marked on Table 4 in
the appendix. Tikhonov compared how the aspectual definition of four dictionaries
differed for some biaspectual verbs. The four dictionaries are Slovar’ sovremennogo
literaturnogo iazyka (Dictionary of modern literary Russian) v. 1-17 (1950-1965),
Slovar’ russkogo iazyka (Dictionary of Russian), ed. A. P. Evgen’eva v. 1-4, 2nd ed.
(1981-1984), Tolkovoi slovar’ russkogo iazyka pod redaktsii Ushakova (Defining
dictionary of Russian, ed. Prof. D. N. Ushakov) v. 1-4 (1935-1940), and, Slovar’
russkogo iazyka (Dictionary of Russian) S.I. Ozhegov (1990), respectively in the table.
A hyphen indicates no listing, i indicates imperfective, p indicates perfective, b indicates
biaspectual, and r indicates reflexive/passive (only the 17-volume dictionary uses this as
an aspectual marking, although it really is not related). There is a great deal of variety,
reflecting that some biaspectual verbs are changing or losing their biaspectuality as time
goes on.
Variations of Biaspectuality: Classification Issues
As mentioned above, the 941 verbs considered biaspectual in this study are noted
as such in at least one dictionary, in at least one meaning, in at least one form. As this
implies, there are some verbs that are not biaspectual in all meanings or in all forms.
Chertkova & Chang (1998) break the biaspectual verbs they examined into 4 groups:
verbs functioning only as biaspectual (64%), verbs functioning as both biaspectual and
paired (26%), verbs currently functioning as paired only (9%), and verbs functioning as
unpaired imperfective (1%).
15
From my findings, there are some verbs that function as both biaspectual and
paired, either having one meaning or only certain verbal forms (i.e. past tense) that are
considered biaspectual. 10 verbs are listed in Ozhegov & Shvedova as being biaspectual
in only one meaning: bezhat’ ‘escape,’ blokirovat’ ‘block (military),’ bombardirovat’
‘bombard (with bombs),’ ispovedovat’ ‘candidly announce,’ massirovat’ ‘concentrate
(forces),’ obrazovat’ ‘present, organize,’ operirovat’ ‘operate (on a patient)’
privetstvovat’ ‘salute (mil.),’ protestovat’ ‘protest (officially), strike,’ taranit’ ‘destroy
using a certain military technique.’ 6 more are marked as biaspectual in only one
meaning in Zalizniak: venchat’ ‘crown,’ detonirovat’ ‘explode,’ minovat’ ‘go by,’
simvolizirovat’ ‘represent with a symbol’ soglasovat’sia ‘correspond, go along with.’
For most of these verbs, it is the peripheral or more specialized meaning that is
biaspectual, implying that the main meaning of the verb is no longer biaspectual. It
follows that biaspectuality itself is already peripheral in such verbs, showing that
biaspectuality can indeed be lost.
Some verbs are biaspectual only in some forms, such as past or non-past. There
are 6 such verbs, marked as follows: massirovat’ ‘massage,’ “imp., but past tense also
perf.,” obrazovat’ ‘present, organize’ “past tense only perf.,” obrazovat’sia “past tense
only perf.,” organizovat’ ‘organize’ “past tense only perf.,” fiksirovat’ ‘record, register’
“imp., past tense and inf. also perf.,” khodataistvovat’ ‘intercede, petition’ “imp., past
tense also perf.” Verbs like organizovat’ are biaspectual only in the non-past, whereas
khodataistvovat’ is imperfective, but biaspectual in the past, when it can be used as both
imperfective and perfective. All these verbs have two common form/aspect
combinations: a non-past (i.e. present) imperfective, and a past perfective. This is
16
noteworthy because the imperfective’s “default” is arguably non-past, and the default
form of perfectivity is past, considering the process/result focus of each aspect. While
past may be the “main” form of perfective, and non-past the “default” of imperfective,
past and non-past are both essential for full expression of all verbal forms. A verb will
not stop using one or the other completely, and imperfective only and perfective only
verbs both have past and non-past forms. Unlike different meanings of a word that can
be peripheral to one another, verbal forms of past and non-past are not in competition as
the “main” form, and thus the variations in use as biaspectual are not competing for
primacy in the way meanings can. But it can be assumed that the fewer forms that are
biaspectual, the more a verb has lost its biaspectuality.
In some instances of loss of biaspectuality, one of the aspectual meanings of a
biaspectual verb has been replaced by (or is in current competition with) a perfective or
imperfective correlate verb. Most often the verb is a perfective, based on prefixation of
an existing biaspectual verb. Many biaspectual verbs have a perfective form listed in
their dictionary article in Ozhegov & Shvedova. For example, the verb informirovat’
‘inform’ is listed as ‘perfective & imperfective,’ but the article states “perfective also
proinformirovat’.” A few of the other prefixed perfective alternatives listed in this
dictionary are noted in Table 4. These prefixed perfectives can be used instead of the
biaspectual verb in perfective conditions: Nemtsi parirovali udary, perebrosiv k etomu
flangu svoi reservy ‘The Germans parried the hits, transferring their reserves to this
flank’(A. Ignat’ev, in Chertkova & Chang, 1998, p. 17) vs. Eto menia-to besstyzheiu
nazyvaiut – s prenebrezhitel’noi veselost’iu otparirovala Nastasia Filippovna ‘That calls
me shameless, replied Nastasia Filippovna with scornful cheer’ (Dostoevsky, in
17
Chertkova & Chang, 1998, p. 17). Both of these sentences have perfective meanings, but
either form, the biaspectual verb or the prefixed perfective, can be used.
While perfective prefixes are found more often than suffixes in forming an
aspectual pair for verbs that are marked as biaspectual, some verbs do form pairs via
imperfectivization, and their usage in the language is more complicated. Examples of
suffixed imperfectives are found with the biaspectual verbs obrazovat’ ‘present,
organize; to educate’ and organizovat’ ‘organize,’ which have imperfective variants
listed in their dictionary articles: obrazovyvat’ and organizovyvat’ (respectively). For the
verb obrazovat’, since it is used only as a perfective in the past, the derived imperfective
verb is used for imperfective past: Vziavshis’ za ruki, oni brodili po zalam muzeia,
sovsem kak kogda-to v Leningrade, kogda Ada “obrazovyvala” Krylova ‘Taking each
other by the arm, they strolled around the museum halls, just like once in Leningrad,
when Ada “was educating” Krylov’ (D. Granin, in Chertkova & Chang, 1998, p. 22).
Sometimes the infinitive form is also used: V severnoi chasti vozvyshaiutsia doma
evropeiskoi arkhitektury i okolo nikh nachinaiut obrazovyvat’sia pravil’nye ploshchadi
‘In the northern part, houses of European architecture tower above, and near them,
regular squares begin to appear’ (Pushkin, ‘Travel to Arzrum’, in Muchnik, 1966, p.
136). Chertkova & Chang note four circumstances under which the suffixed imperfective
is necessary:
1) concrete-processual future: V poslevoennye gody on budet organizovyvat’
Buninu material’nuiu pomoshch’ ‘In the years after the war, he will organize
material help for Bunin’ (V. Lavrov)
18
2) phasal verbs plus infinitives (nachinat’ ‘begin’, prodolzhat’ ‘continue’,
priniat’sia ‘start’): Gavrilov s pomoshch’iu Kasatkina prinialsia
organizovyvat’ tut pravil’nuiu oboronu ‘Gavrilov, with the help of Kasatkin,
set to organizing proper defense here (S. Smirnov)
3) with temporal phrases like dolgo ‘for a long time’, dva chasa ‘for two hours’
in the past and present: Sektsiu shtangi dolgo organizovyvali ‘They organized
the cross-bar section for a long time’(A. Prelovskii), and
4) with modal phrases: Poluchili otvet na ofitsial’nom blanke: “nikakikh opytov
po izucheniu priemov Eklebena organizovyvat’ ne sleduet” ‘They received
the answer on an official form: “One should not to organize any experiments
in the study of Ekleben’s devices” (“Komsomol’skaia pravda”) (pp. 22-23)
The use of derived imperfectives is motivated by the fact that organizovat’ and
obrazovat’ are exclusively perfective in the past. Only some verbs allow the use of the
derived imperfective in the present, such as organizovat’ and soglasovat’, whereas other
verbs, such as obrazovat’ use only the biaspectual form, and not the derived imperfective,
in the present (Chertkova & Chang, 1998, p. 23). A relatively small number of
biaspectual verbs do form suffixed imperfectives, and this form is generally used for the
non-past (present and future) tenses. Despite the competition for the suffixed form, these
verbs are still biaspectual in at least one form, which could be a sign that they are losing
their biaspectuality one meaning or form at a time.
Loss of Biaspectuality
These derived perfective and imperfective forms are a sign that some of the
biaspectual verbs are losing their biaspectuality. Avilova (1968) writes that
19
perfectivization with prefixes occurs as borrowed verbs gain a wider range of meanings,
and then a meaningful prefix helps form a meaningful perfective partner. Chertkova &
Chang (1998) found that in all the prefixed alternate perfective forms of biaspectual
verbs, 11 of the 17 prefixes are used for at least one verb: pro-, za-, s-, ot-, na-, po-, vy-,
o-, raz-, ob-, and u-. This shows that verbs are most likely using different prefixes that
better suit their meanings. For example bronzirovat’ ‘bronze’ goes well with the prefix
na-, as it has a meaning of “positioning, placing on top/outside; filling” (Chertkova &
Chang, 1998, p. 19), and there is a perfective verb nabronzirovat’ as an emerging
correlate for the biaspectual verb bronzirovat’. Bronzing is putting bronze all over
something, so to complete the action of bronzing would be placing bronze all over the
outside of an object. The prefix chosen has a logical connection to the verb, and this does
little to the meaning of the verb while still changing only the aspect.
Perhaps examples of aspectual correlates of biaspectual verbs coming into use are
proof for Isachenko’s (1960) argument that these “anomalies” fall out of the language
and become “regularized,” or as Kartsevskii put it, “russified” (1923, p. 56, in Chertkova
& Chang, 1998, p. 15). However, Tikhonov (1998) points out that new biaspectual verbs
are coming into the system more actively than others are leaving (p. 207). Support for
this argument is seen in the differences between dictionary markings. The data from the
dictionaries I used compared with figures from earlier works (i.e. Muchnik, 1971) shows
that the number of biaspectual verbs has risen. The verbs marked as biaspectual in one
dictionary are not necessarily marked biaspectual in another, as some do become paired
and lose their biaspectuality and new biaspectuals enter the language. This is a sign that
while there is a tendency towards “russification” and consequent creation of aspectual
20
correlates, this group of verbs as a whole cannot be an anomaly by Isachenko’s argument
that anomalies are regularized. Not all biaspectual verbs are losing their biaspectuality
and becoming regularized; instead they are functioning normally in the language as
biaspectuals.
Can biaspectual verbs accurately communicate the correct aspectual meaning, or
do they really carry an ambiguous meaning, as Avilova has suggested, thus creating the
need for an aspectual correlate to elimite the ambiguity? As noted, biaspectual verbs do
not express aspect morphologically. Muchnik (1966) writes that syntax and context play
an important role in the expression of aspect:
Truly, a set of forms of biaspectual verbs expresses a certain aspectual meaning,
unsatisfactory in its morphological range. What concerns morphologically
undifferentiated forms is that for the most part they gain a certain aspectual
meaning in the strength of syntactic or general contextual conditions, but, in a set
of cases, an aspectual ambiguity is present (p. 130).
As seen in the examples below, biaspectual verbs can be used both in sentences that
require imperfective and those that require perfective. The syntactic and contextual
triggers for one aspect or another make it clear which aspect is required, but the external
form of the verb does not change:
My v techenii riada let mekhanizirovali nashi predpriiatiia
‘Over the course of many years, we mechanized our business’ vs.
My uzhe polnost’iu mekhanizirovali nashi predpriiatiia
‘We’ve already completely mechanized our businesses’
(Muchnik, 1971, p. 129)
The imperfective is denoted by the focus on the length of the process v techenii riada let
‘over the course of many years’ whereas the adverb polnost’iu ‘completely’ triggers the
perfective, emphasizing the result. As for ambiguity, such situations are hard to come by
unless taken out of context. Ambiguous sentences such as Vrach’ obsledoval bol’nogo
‘The doctor examined the ill man’ have no temporal context to provide such syntactic or
21
contextual triggers for aspect. As soon as temporal markers are added, such as vchera
‘yesterday’, mnogo raz ‘many times’, it is clear which aspectual meaning is expressed in
a sentence. Aspectual correlates that come into the language may limit the ambiguity to
some extent, but much disambiguation is achieved through context.
Expressing Aspect: Interpreting Biaspectual Verbs
As mentioned before, Isachenko (1960) claims that speakers and listeners select
the appropriate aspectual meaning. Another view of aspectual expression for biaspectual
verbs is through contextual triggers, as pointed out above. To examine how native
speakers interpret possible ambiguous sentences, I conducted an informal survey with a
group of students studying Russian morphology and a number of young adults taking
English night classes. They were asked to determine the aspect of a set of verbs, given in
their infinitive form, including imperfective, such as bit’ ‘hit, strike,’ perfective, such as
razbit’ ‘smash, break,’ and a few biaspectual, such as zhenit’ ‘marry’. They judged
whether sentences containing biaspectual verbs had adequate motivation to determine
aspectual meaning, or if they were ambiguous, and which aspect they thought was
expressed. The sentences included: On ne uspel zhenit’sia ‘He didn’t manage to get
married’, Sasha obeshchal priiti ‘Sasha promised to come’, Tri goda issledovali etot
vopros ‘For three years they investigated this question’, Vchera moi drug organizoval
kontsert ‘Yesterday my friend organized a concert’, Nel’zia ispol’zovat’ takie materialy
‘You can’t use those kinds of materials’, and others.
The first task was mainly to check understanding of imperfective and perfective,
since this is not something that native speakers normally think about in a conscious
fashion. For the paired verbs, like (bit’, razbit’, etc.), everyone had the same answers,
22
correctly identifying the aspect. The three biaspectual verbs on the list received different
markings: zhenit’ ‘marry’: imperfective: 3, perfective: 2, biaspectual: 3; issledovat’
‘investigate’: imperfective: 5, perfective: 0, biaspectual: 3; adresovat’ ‘address’:
imperfective 2, perfective: 2, biaspectual: 4. The judging of the sentences had more
complicated results, which are in Table 3. Most said the sentences adequately expressed
one aspect or another. Table 3 also lists which aspect they assigned to each verb in a
group discussion of the sentences. Some sentences were more ambiguous in their
aspectual meaning than others, as seen in the greater number of “no’s,” and usually by
the listing of both aspects. Sometimes with heated argument, the students came to the
conclusion that more contextual background was needed to determine if a sentence was
imperfective or perfective. Without more information, it was too hard to say, making the
sentence somewhat ambiguous. However, the sentences might not be ambiguous with
more aspectual cues, as would occur under normal verbal or written conditions. These
sentences were examined as individual units, but in non-experimental circumstances,
sentences are strung together, providing the contextual triggers required for biaspectual
verbs to express one aspectual meaning or another. The verbs are not ambiguous in
complete contexts, shown by the appropriate interpretation of sentences that have
“adequate aspectual motivation.”
Fitting into the Aspectual System
The data from the survey and dictionaries help paint a clearer picture of what
biaspectual verbs really are and how they fit into the aspectual system. At the same time,
biaspectual verbs remain difficult to categorize because they do not all behave the same
way, nor is it clear how many biaspectual verbs there are in the language. Different
23
dictionaries list different verbs as biaspectual, and list some biaspectual verbs as paired.
Some of the pairs listed are biaspectual only in certain meanings or grammatical forms of
a verb. This dissonance in the dictionary data reflects the change in number of
biaspectual verbs, with growth being greater than loss.
Change within the class of biaspectual verbs begins as some express the
perfective with a prefixed perfective (alternate) verb, as discussed above. For example,
some of the survey subjects agreed that using proinformirovat’ would make the sentence
Ia khotel vam informirovat’ ob etom zavtra ‘I wanted to inform you of this tomorrow’
unquestionably perfective. Knowing that the perfective partner exists made them lean
towards interpreting the sentence as originally presented as imperfective. However, as
shown by the data from the dictionary listings, the presence of these perfective “partners”
does not instantly change the status of the verb from biaspectual to paired. Verbs such as
zhenit’sia ‘marry’ and obeshchat’ ‘promise’ have been in the language for centuries, and
have had the perfectives pozhenit’sia and poobeshchat’ for nearly just as long, yet are
still considered biaspectual in most dictionaries. The same is true of imperfective
partners that get introduced: organizovyvat’ ‘organize’ is used in only some situations, as
explained above, yet the verb organizovat’ remains biaspectual. Perfective and
imperfective correlates to biaspectual verbs are coming into the language, but they are not
completely overtaking their biaspectual counterparts.
There are instances when biaspectual verbs do become fully paired and lose their
biaspectuality. Avilova (1968) and Isachenko (1960) point out that these irregularities
fall out of the system, but this is not fully supported by the new data from Zalizniak
(1977) and Ozhegov & Shmelev (1994). The number of biaspectual verbs continues to
24
rise. Muchnik (1966) enumerates biaspectual verbs with borrowed roots at around 600
(p. 137), yet my count puts this number at over 900 (to take only the verbs from Ozhegov
& Shvedova would put the number close to 500, but I feel that this dictionary ignored
many “specialized” biaspectual verbs rather than marking them as imperfective or
perfective only). Chertkova & Chang’s (1998) analysis found more verbs than Muchnik
notes, and Tikhonov (1998) has a section in his chapter on biaspectual verbs about new
verbs in the class. The West European borrowings form a very productive class (the ova- ending is very productive in Russian in general) because new verbs are easily
introduced into Russian from non-Russian roots. As long as new ideas are introduced to
Russian society, new verbs will be introduced. The spread of new ideas into the language
is seen in the biaspectual verbs, as many of them have scientific or technological
meanings. The growth in the group of biaspectuals is so great that the prefixed perfective
and suffixed imperfective verbs that make older biaspectuals paired are coming into the
language much more slowly than newly-innovated biaspectual verbs. In short, more
verbs are joining the biaspectual category than are leaving.
Despite this growth, the fact that some biaspectual verbs do leave this category to
become paired verbs presents an argument for the idea of the biaspectual class as a
“holding tank” for new verbs before they are fully nativized to the Russian grammatical
system. Biaspectuality may indeed function as a “holding tank,” since this category is so
productive for new borrowings, and a fair number of these verbs do end up with a
prefixed perfective or suffixed imperfective correlate. However, many verbs seem to
have biaspectuality as their final destination. A large number of verbs do remain
biaspectual despite a new perfective or imperfective partner, thus the “holding tank”
25
theory cannot be confirmed completely. This idea may prove to be true if more
biaspectual verbs gain partners and eventually leave this category at a faster rate than new
verbs are introduced.
The survey results highlight the possible ambiguity of biaspectual verbs. One
native speaker may determine that a sentence could express either aspectual meaning,
without more contextual data, and another might interpret it as having only one possible
meaning. From the survey, the sentence Kogda my emigrirovali, vsë bylo ochen’ trudno
‘When we emigrated, everything was very difficult’ was interpreted as imperfective by
some, and perfective by others. This sentence lacks distinct semantic and syntactical
triggers for aspectual determination. However, if more semantic or syntactic context
was given, such as a temporal adverb or background information on the situation, the
sentence lost its aspectual ambiguity. Despite such possibly ambiguous situations, the
evidence for biaspectual verbs appearing as an anomaly in the language is lacking. They
are completely capable of expressing the correct aspect meaning in all situations,
although relying on contextual triggers more heavily than morphology does allow for
some ambiguity when context is inadequate. Given that the sentences in the survey were
designed to raise ambiguity, they cannot be generalized to all usage, but rather point out
that biaspectual verbs can create aspectual ambiguity.
Ambiguity from a lack of context is not unique to aspect in Russian; it is seen in
other categories in the language (and other languages). In Russian, every noun expresses
gender, yet some can express both masculine and feminine. The words sirota ‘orphan’
and zhadina ‘greedy person’ can be used in reference to a male or a female, although
these words are grammatically feminine. Sentences such as Kakoi bednyi sirota! ‘What a
26
poor (male) orphan!’ and Kakaia bednaia sirota! ‘What a poor (female) orphan!’ show
the use of masculine adjectives (bednyi ‘poor (male)’) and feminine (bednaia ‘poor
(female)’) with a grammatically feminine noun. Without these markers, the gender of the
person is unclear: Ia videl sirotu okoli tserkvi ‘I saw an orphan near the church.’ From
this sentence alone, it is not clear if the orphan was a boy or a girl, and has a hint of
ambiguity. Likewise, biaspectual verbs sometimes depend on syntactic contexts for
proper interpretation. Taking the sentence, Professor arendoval svoiu kvartiru studentam
‘The professor rented his apartment to students’, it is unclear if this is perfective or
imperfective. By adding contextual words, the ambiguity of interpretation is lost:
Kazhdyi god professor arendoval svoiu kvartiru studentam ‘Every year the professor
rented his apartment to students’. This sentence can only be interpreted as imperfective,
as the adverbial phrase kazhdyi god ‘every year’ implies repetition of an action, which is
a meaning of the imperfective. Ambiguity is limited to the rare situations that lack
adequate context. While the speaker and the listener do some of the interpretation, syntax
and context do play a large role. Since this is not unique to biaspectual verbs, they
cannot be considered an anomaly for this.
Biaspectual verbs express aspect like all Russian verbs, as shown in recent
literature (Tikhonov, 1998, Chertkova & Chang, 1998, etc.), with minimal ambiguity in
context, as shown in the survey results. The earlier arguments that they are “aspect-less”
cannot be true. In situations that call for expression of perfective, it is this meaning that
is expressed, and the same holds true for imperfective. Again, returning to common
gender nouns, they function quite similarly. When professor refers to a male professor,
this is expressed, and when the professor is female, the same word does the job.
27
Homonyms are not an anomaly; English uses the same phonetic form to refer to one fish
or many fish, yet context always disambiguates the interpretation of number. Likewise,
biaspectual verbs always express the one aspectual meaning that is called for, just like all
other verbs.
Biaspectual verbs also pose an interesting case for the ongoing debate in
aspectology over the nature of the grammatical category of aspect itself: do all Russian
verbs form pairs? Biaspectual verbs use the same phonetic and morphological form to
express both aspectual meanings as called for in the language. The question remains,
how do they do this? Are these verbs pairs of homonyms, or special cases of unpaired
verbs that can “swing” between perfective and imperfective as necessary? To
conceptualize biaspectuals within the frames of paired verbs is to see them as pairs of
homonymous verbs. There is no morphological change for the perfective or imperfective
in most biaspectual verbs. Zaimstvovat’ ‘borrow’ is the form of the perfective and the
imperfective, and no change is made to express either aspectual meaning. Another view
is to not treat biaspectual verbs as paired, but to look at the aspectual system as having
three classes: paired, unpaired, and biaspectual verbs, as mentioned above. These three
classes behave differently in how they express aspect, and therefore biaspectuals do not
have to be understood as pairs, and are not “lacking” perfective or imperfective partners
any more than unpaired imperfectiva or perfectiva tantum verbs are. Both biaspectuals
and the tantum verbs present strong evidence that not all verbs in Russian are required to
have aspectual pairs, and perhaps other verbs traditionally thought of as paired could
prove to be outside that requirement also.
28
Most view biaspectual verbs as pairs, because that is how most Russian verbs are
viewed: paired. Muchnik (1968) holds that biaspectual verbs are homonymous forms of
perfective and imperfective verbs; that the two aspectual correlates are expressed
identically phonetically and morphologically. Zalizniak & Shmelev (2000) also view
biaspectual verbs as pairs whose members are homonyms (pp. 75-76). They argue that
the language starts deriving prefixed perfectives or suffixed imperfectives from
biaspectual verbs in order to create a difference within the correlation. Avilova (1968)
also notes a tendency for biaspectual verbs to form perfective and imperfective partners.
Some verbs, such as arestovat’ ‘arrest’ have prefixes added to them to form a perfective
correlate, in this case zaarestovat’. By adding a perfective prefix, the two forms are
distinguishable. To a lesser but still notable extent, imperfective suffixes are used to
make pairs from biaspectual verbs, as seen in the formation of obrazovyvat’ ‘present,
organize; educate’ from obrazovat’. These perfective or imperfective variants can be
used to clarify aspectual meaning in situations lacking clear contextual triggers. Some
surveyed native speakers provided a perfective or imperfective form of a biaspectual verb
(if one existed) to disambiguate a sentence with a ambiguous aspectual meaning. For
example, the sentence Ia khotel vam informirovat’ ob etom zavtra ‘I wanted to inform
you about that tomorrow,’ was interpreted as imperfective because, they argued, if this
sentence had a perfective meaning, the aspectual meaning would be made clearer with the
perfective-only form proinformirovat’ instead of biaspectual informirovat’.
The fact that not all biaspectual verbs have started gaining aspectual correlates,
including some that have been in the language for a long time (i.e. kaznit’ ‘assassinate’,
ispolzovat’ ‘use’, etc.), shows that forming a pair is not a requirement to function in the
29
language. In purely biaspectual verbs, the imperfective is expressed identically to the
expression of perfective. If the biaspectual verb represents two separate verbs that share
the same meaning except for their aspect, then biaspectual verbs are two homonymous
verbs that form a pair. Whether aspect is an inflectional or derivational category does not
change the fact that the language has paired two homonyms.
If biaspectual verbs are not a pair, either of homonymous verbs or grammatical
forms, then the two aspectual meanings are expressed by one verb, the biaspectual.
Rather than describing two identical verbs as an aspectual pair or correlate, which is
redundant, biaspectual verbs are easier to interpret as individual verbs that can express
both aspectual meanings. Tikhonov (1998) points out that there is no morphological
differentiation between the forms, claiming that they are not paired. Since the verbs can
express both meanings, they are not unpaired in the traditional sense of perfectiva or
imperfectiva tantum, making them their own class of verbs. Yet the support for
Tikhonov’s argument that they are not paired is the basis for an explanation as to why
biaspectuals gradually gain the morphology of paired verbs. Like unpaired verbs of
imperfectiva or perfectiva tantum, they have no partner. Yet rather than leave one
aspectual meaning empty, which is arguably the case with aspectually unpaired verbs for
semantic reasons, biaspectual verbs stand in as imperfective or perfective as needed.
Unlike the triadic aspectual system proposed by Demidenko (1966), with
distinctions between imperfective, perfective and “biaspectual” aspects, biaspectual verbs
can be incorporated into the existing binary system as their own class of verbs. This
classification is more logical than explaining verbs without pairs, or with more than one,
as anomalies. Not only are biaspectuals non-paired, but the tantum verbs are outside the
30
world of aspectual pairs also. Although not touched on in this paper, some verbs form
more than one aspectual correlate, which is of equal consideration when claiming
aspectual pairedness to be universal in Russian. For instance, the verb sudit’ ‘judge’ is
imperfective, has a perfective correlate with a slightly different meaning obsudit’
‘discuss.’ From this verb, a suffixed imperfective is derived: obsuzhdat’. The chain goes
one step further with the perfective poobsuzhdat.’ What verbs are aspectual partners?
How many pairs are there in this chain? The confusion such situations cause in the
system of aspectual pairs point out flaws in this understanding.
Biaspectual verbs present a strong case against obligatory formation of aspectual
correlates for all Russian verbs. They are unpaired, individual verbs that can express
meanings of either aspect equally, and function fully in the language. They cannot be
called anomalies, because they are no less valid in terms of aspectual expression than
other verbs, although biaspectual verbs do not have morphological distinctions between
imperfective and perfective like other verbs. There is little evidence that biaspectual
verbs are ambiguous in average, ordinary usage. Ambiguous sentences can be contrived,
but contextual triggers always disambiguate aspectual meaning. The class of biaspectual
verbs is growing, as evidenced by the increased number of verbs considered biaspectual
over the past few decades. There is traffic out of the class, as some verbs gain aspectual
correlates and begin behaving as paired, although not all biaspecutals do this, nor do all
meanings or grammatical forms of a given verb lose their biaspectuality. The (limited)
loss of biaspectuality is not evidence that the biaspectuals are falling out of the language
and being “regularized,” but may point to an idea of a “holding tank” for new verbs based
31
on West European borrowings that do not instantly link up with a perfective or
imperfective partner.
Again, full functioning without a partner raises the question over the obligation of
Russian verbs to be members of aspectual pairs. Further studies into verbs traditionally
viewed as paired may find evidence against the need for an aspectual correlate and
against limiting correlates to two members. The definition of a pair could be modified so
that it excludes aspectual chains with semantic differences between verbs, and limits an
aspectual correlation to two verbs that are semantically identical aside from aspect. At
the very least, the aspectual system should be open enough to include verbs that express
both aspectual meanings as a single verb: the biaspectual verbs.
32
Bibliography
Avilova, N.S. (1964). Obrazovanie vidovoi korreliatsii u glagolov, imeiushchikh
dvuvidovoe znachenie. Ocherki po istoricheskoi grammitike russkogo literaturnogo
iazyka XIX v: Glagol, narechie, predlogi, soiuzy. pp. 34-44 Moscow: ANSSSR.
___________. (1968). Dvuvidovye glagoli s zaimstvovannoi osnovoi v sovremennom
literaturnom russkom iazyke. Voprosy iazykoznaniia, 5, 66-78.
Cherkova М.Iu., & Chang P. (1998). Evoliutsiia dvuvidovykh glagolov v sovremennom
russkom iazyke. Russian Linguistics, 22, 13-34.
Comrie, B. Aspect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976.
Demidenko L.P. (1966) K probleme dvuvidovosti v sovremennom russkom iazyke.
Voprosy morfologii i sintaksisa sovremennogo russkogo iazyka. Novosibirsk, 124-152.
Isachenko А.V. (1960). Grammaticheskii stroi russkogo iazyka v sopostavlenii s
slovatskim, v.2, Bratislava: Slovatskoi akademii nauk.
Muchnik I.P. (1971). Grammaticheskie kategorii glagola i imeni v sovremennom
russkom literaturnom iazyke. Moscow: Nauka.
Ozhegov, S.I., & Shvedova, N.Iu. (1999). Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo iazyka. Rossiskaia
akademiia nauk. Institut russkogo iazyka im. V.V. Vinogradova, 4th ed. Moscow:
Azbukovnik.
Tikhonov А.N. (1998). Russkii glagol: problemy teorii i leksikografii. Moscow:
Academia.
Zalizniak, A.A. (1977). Grammaticheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka. Moscow: Russkii
iazyk.
Zalizniak А.А., & Shmelev А.D. (2000) Vvedenie v russkuiu aspektologiiu. Moscow:
Iazyki russkoi kul'tury.
Zasorina, L.N., ed. (1977). Chastotnyi slovar' russkogo iazyka. Moscow: Russkii iazyk.
33