“A semantic map of Russian
aspect ”
Laura A. Janda
UNC Chapel Hill
janda@unc.edu
Overview
• Theoretical issue: Implications of
– Conceptual space (Croft 2001, 2003)
– Semantic maps (Haspelmath 1997a&b, 2003)
• Practical issue: aspectual pairs vs. verb
clusters
– There are several types of perfective, both
semantically and morphologically
– The structure of verb clusters is highly
constrained
Defining Terms
• Activity (= Process + Repetition)
• Completion Act (= Accomplishment +
Achievement)
– Natural Perfective
– Specialized Perfective
• Complex Act (= Aktionsart: Delimitative,
Perdurative, Ingressive, Terminative, etc.)
• Single Act (= Semelfactive)
Aspect and the potential for a
dynamic semantic map
• Most semantic maps are synchronically
static, though they may reflect historical
development
• Russian aspect, however, rather than
giving just a menu of alternatives,
combines grams in a dynamic fashion, and
produces verb clusters
The Conceptual Space of Aspect
• Three semantic dimensions:
– closed vs. open (Smith 1991; Isačenko 1960; Avilova
1976, Jakobson 1957/1971, Padučeva 1996; Talmy
2000; Forsyth 1970; Bondarko 1971; Comrie 1976;
Dickey 2000; Maslov 1965; Bondarko 1971;
Timberlake 1982; van Schooneveld 1978 )
– completable vs. non-completable (Smith (1991;
Mehlig 2003; Croft in preparation)
– durative vs. instantaneous (Smith 1991; Čertkova
1996; Bondarko 1971; Padučeva (1996)
The Conceptual Space of Aspect
closed
completable
durative
open
closed
non-completable
closed
instantaneous
closed
Russian Grams and the
Conceptual Space of Aspect
Completion Acts
Activities
Complex Acts
Single Acts
simplexes
prefixes
Imperf suffixes
ну suffix
Proposed Semantic Map of
Russian Aspect
Specialized
Perfective
Natural
Perfective
Activity
Complex Act
Single Act
But are all verbs like
щипатьi ‘pinch, plucki’ ?
• Do all verb clusters have the same
pathway structure or are there
variations?
• If there are variations, are there
patterns?
• Are there pathways that do not exist?
• What are the overall implications and
constraints of the system?
Data: A survey of 283 verb clusters
• Culled from the simplexes in Townsend’s
(1975) verb inventory
• Simplex Imperfective = Activity; Natural
Perfective identified by Ožegov
• Simplex Perfective = Natural Perfective
• Specialized Perfective(s) identified by
Zaliznjak
• Complex Act verified on internet
• Single Act identified in Obratnyj slovar’
The Three Dominant Cluster Types
• Represent most verbs in Russian (each
accounts for under 20%, collectively
account for 56%)
• Contain three or four elements = Activity +
Specialized Perfective + Natural Perfective
and/or Complex Act
• Exclude Single Acts
Uncommon but well-attested
cluster types
• Each accounts for under 10%, collectively
account for 35%
• All attested cluster types that contain a
Single Act verb appear in this grouping
• All cluster types that contain a Single Act
verb also contain a Complex Act verb
• Activity + Natural Perfective is in low end
of this group
Rare cluster types
• Each accounts for <1%-2%, collectively
account for less than 8%
• With one exception, all types in this group
conform to patterns established by larger
groups
• One cluster type not attested in survey
violates restraint requiring Activity to
precede Natural or Specialized Perfective
Some Generalizations
• Most possible cluster types are not attested
• A quarter of the possible types account for over
90% of verbs in survey
• All attested cluster types contain an Activity
• Over half of verbs have a cluster type consisting
of Activity + Specialized Perfective, with Natural
Perfective and/or Complex Act
• Single Act verb in a cluster requires the
presence of Complex Act
• Clusters that contain a Perfective simplex do not
contain a Single Act verb
Implicational Hierarchy
• Implicational hierarchy (completable or
non-completable):
Activity > (Specialized Perfective/Natural
Perfective) > Complex Act > Single Act
Comparison with
aspectual pair model
• Cluster types consisting of only two elements
are uncommon
• Activity + Natural Perfective should be
predominant cluster type, but less than 10% of
verbs have this cluster type, and they are
semantically unusual
• Aspectual pair model denies existence of larger
clusters in which “pairs” are almost always
embedded
• Aspectual pair model fails to capture significant
patterns and implicational hierarchies