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

Laura A. JandaUNC-Chapel Hilljanda@unc.edu,

www.unc.edu/~lajanda

The problem

• Nearly all Russian verbs are either Perfective (napisat’p ‘writep’) or Imperfective (pisat’i ‘writei’) – Except several hundred “Bi-aspectual” verbs

(likvidirovat’p/i ‘liquidatep/i’)• Nearly all Bi-aspectual verbs are foreign

borrowings– Scholars assume Bi-aspectual verbs = foreign

borrowings• But

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

aspectual verbs

Outcomes

• Empirical study confirms predictions of “cluster” model of Russian aspect– “Cluster” model has been suggested by Janda

as alternative to traditional aspectual “pair” model

• Study also suggests interaction between lexical semantics and grammatical aspect– Bi-aspectual verbs lack a Non-Completable

(atelic) construal

Overview

1. Traditional assumptions about Russian aspect

2. Traditional assumptions about borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs

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

4. Empirical study

5. Conclusions

1. Traditional assumptions about Russian aspect

• (Prototypical situation, ignoring Bi-aspectuals)

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

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

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

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’

– podpisat’p ‘signp’

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’

– perepisat’p ‘revisep’

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

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

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’

– podpisat’p ‘signp’

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’

– perepisat’p ‘revisep’

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

Root: pis

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

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’

– podpisat’p ‘signp’

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’

– perepisat’p ‘revisep’

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

Perfectives derived by prefixation

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

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’

– podpisat’p ‘signp’

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’

– perepisat’p ‘revisep’

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

Secondary Imperfectives derived by suffixation

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

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’

– podpisat’p ‘signp’

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’

– perepisat’p ‘revisep’

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

A Bi-aspectual verb, likvidirovat’p/i ‘liquidatep/i’, fills both roles

2. Traditional assumptions about Bi-aspectual verbs

• What we DO know– Borrowed verbs in Russian:

• Have –ova- suffix, which gives verbal inflection but does not designate aspect

– Bi-aspectual verbs• Over 90% are foreign borrowings

• Can express both Perfective and Imperfective with the same morphological form (never ambiguous) (Isačenko 1960, Mučnik 1966, Avilova 1968, Galton 1976, Gladney 1982, Čertkova 1996, Jászay 1999,

Zaliznjak & Šmelev 2000, but cf. Timberlake 2004)

2. Traditional assumptions about borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs

• What we DON’T know– Are there non-Bi-aspectual (Imperfective)

borrowed verbs? – Do Imperfective borrowed verbs behave

differently from Bi-aspectual borrowed verbs?– Do semantic factors motivate aspectual status

of borrowed verbs?

YES!

YES!

YES!

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

• An alternative to the “pair” model:– Clusters of aspectually related verbs

• Metaphorical motivations for aspect in Russian– More than one type of Perfective– Completability (telicity) distinguishes among

Perfectives: A COMPLETABLE ACTION IS TRAVEL TOWARD A DESTINATION

– Bi-aspectual verbs tend to lack Non-Completable (atelic) construal

“Pair” vs. “cluster”

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’

– podpisat’p ‘signp’

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’

– perepisat’p ‘revisep’

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

Typical aspectual pair

Secondary aspectual pairs

“Pair” vs. “cluster”

• pisat’i ‘write’i

– napisat’p ‘writep’ NATURAL (NP)

– popisat’p ‘write for a whilep’COMPLEX ACT (CA)

– podpisat’p ‘signp’ SPECIALIZED (SP)

• podpisyvat’i ‘signi’– perepisat’p ‘revisep’ SPECIALIZED (SP)

• perepisyvat’i ‘revise’i

Cluster recognizes different kinds of Perfectives

Non-Completable !

Completable vs. Non-CompletableUnambiguously Completable

Sestra ideti v kino.‘My sister is goingi to the movie theater.’

AmbiguousSestra pišeti dissertaciju.

‘My sister is writingi her dissertation.’

Sestra pišeti naučnuju fantastiku.‘My sister writesi science fiction.’

Unambiguously Non-CompletableSestra rabotaeti v kabinete.‘My sister is working/worksi in her office.’

NP, SP

NP, SP

CA

CA

Bi-Aspectual verbs tend to be of this type

Non-Bi-aspectual verbs tend to be of these types

4. Empirical study

• Hypothesis:

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

– Imperfective borrowed verbs will be more likely to form Complex Act Perfectives with po-

4. Empirical study

• Methodology:

– Cull all foreign verbs from a single source

– Sort Bi-aspectual vs. Imperfective

– Collect data on frequency of unprefixed and po- prefixed (Complex Act Perfective) forms

4. Empirical study• 555 foreign verbs in Wheeler 1972/1992

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

Bi-aspectual borrowed verbs

Imperfective borrowed verbs

unpref po- pref unpref po- pref

Avg # hits 1,903 51 1,973 265

Max # hits 77,799 2,444 25,784 1,697

Min # hits 19 0 20 0

Is this significant? Yes! Logistic regression model using Pearson’s statistic yields 107.37 and the associated p-value is <.0001

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

• Covering a surface– gummirovat’p/i ‘coat with rubberp/i’, meblirovat’p/i ‘upholsterp/i’,

metallizirovat’p/i ‘coat with metalp/i’, ornamentirovat’p/i ‘ornamentp/i’, plakirovat‘p/i ‘platep/i’, satinirovat’p/i ‘polishp/i’

• Removal– demaskirovat’p/i ‘unmaskp/i’, deblokirovat’p/i ‘unblockp/i’,

demilitarizirovat’p/i ‘demilitarizep/i’, demobilizirovat’p/i ‘demobilizep/i’, denacionalizirovat’p/i ‘privatizep/i’, dezertirovat’p/i ‘desertp/i’

• Physical change of state– denaturirovat’p/i ‘denaturep/i’, gofrirovat’p/i ‘crimpp/i’, granulirovat’p/i

‘granulatep/i’, kristallizovat’sjap/i ‘crystallizep/i’, temperirovat’p/i ‘temperp/i’, vulkaniz(ir)ovat’p/i ‘vulcanizep/i’

• Cultural/Linguistic change of state– anglizirovat’p/i ‘anglicizep/i’, evropeizirovat’p/i ‘europeanizep/i’,

germanizirovat’p/i ‘germanifyp/i’, internacionalizirovat’p/i ‘internationalizep/i’, latinizirovat’p/i ‘latinizep/i’, dešifrirovat’p/i ‘decipherp/i’

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

• Arrangement/Organization– decentralizovat’p/i ‘decentralizep/i’, dezorganizovat’p/i

‘disorganizep/i’, èšelonirovat’p/i ‘echelonp/i’, flankirovat’p/i ‘flankp/i’, frakcionirovat’p/i ‘fractionatep/i’, kollektivizirovat’p/i ‘collectivizep/i’

• Budgetary arrangement– assignovat’p/i ‘allocatep/i’, debetovat’p/i ‘debitp/i’, kapitalizirovat’p/i

‘reinvestp/i’, monopolizirovat’p/i ‘monopolizep/i’

• Proclamation– dekretirovat’p/i ‘decreep/i’, denonsirovat’p/i ‘denouncep/i’,

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

5. Conclusions

• Both Bi-aspectual and Imperfective borrowed verbs exist

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

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

• Grammatical aspect is influenced by lexical semantics

THANK YOU

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

Bibliography, p 1Anderson, Cori. 2002. Biaspectual Verbs in Russian and their Implications on the

Category of Aspect. Honors Thesis, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.Avilova, N. S. 1968. “Dvuvidovye glagoly s zaimstvovannoj osnovoj v russkom

literaturnom jazyke novogo vremeni”. Voprosy jazykoznanija: 66-78.Avilova, Natal’ja S. 1976. Vid glagola i semantika glagol’nogo slova. Moscow: Akademija

nauk SSSR.Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Denis Delfitto. 2000. “Aspect vs. actionality: Why they should

be kept apart”. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Dahl, Östen (ed.), 189-225, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1983. Principy funkcional’noj grammatiki i voprosy aspektologii.

Leningrad: Nauka.Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.Čertkova, Marina Ju. 1996. Grammatičeskaja kategorija vida v sovremennom russkom

jazyke. Moscow: Moscow State University.Čertkova, Marina Jurevna and Pej-či Čang. 1998. “Evoljucija dvuvidovyx glagolov v

sovremennom russkom jazyke”. Russian linguistics 22: 13-34.Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. A Cognitive Approach. Stanford:

CSLI Publications.

Bibliography, p 2Dickey, Stephen M. 2006. “Aspectual pairs, goal orientation and po- delimitatives in Russian.”

Glossos 7: http://seelrc.org/glossos.Durst-Andersen, Per. 1992. Mental Grammar: Russian Aspect and Related Issues. Columbus,

OH: Slavica.Forsyth, J. 1970. A grammar of aspect: Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge:

Cambridge U Press.Galton, Herbert. 1976. The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: Macedonian

Academy of Sciences and Arts.Gladney, Frank Y. 1982. “Biaspectual verbs and the syntax of aspect in Russian”. Slavic and

East European Journal 26: 202-215.Glovinskaja, Marina Ja. 2001. Mnogoznačnost’ i sinonimija v vido-vremennoj sisteme russkogo

glagola. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii

s slovackim. Morfologija, čast vtoraja. Bratislava: Vydavatel’stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.

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

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

Janda, Laura A. Forthcoming a. “Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs”. Studies in Language.Janda, Laura A. Forthcoming b. “Inflectional Morphology”. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics,

ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens. Oxford: Oxford U Press.

Bibliography, p 3Jászay, László. 1999. “Vidovye korreljaty pri dvuvidovyx glagolax”. Studia Russica 17:

169-177.Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.Maslov, Jurij S. 1965. “Sistema osnovnyx ponjatij i terminov slavjanskoj aspektologii”.

Voprosy obščego jazykoznanija: 53-80.Mazon, André. 1914. Emplois des aspects du verbe russe. Paris: Librairie ancienne

Honoré Champion.Mehlig, Hans Robert. 1994. “Gomogennost’ i geterogennost’ v prostranstve ivremeni”. Revue des etudes Slaves 66: 595-606.Mehlig, Hans Robert. 1997. “Nekotorye zamečanija po povodu opisanija katergorii vida v

russkom jazyke”. Russian Linguistics 21: 177-193.Mučnik, I. P. 1966. “Razvitie sistemy dvuvidovyx glagolov v sovremennom russkom

jazyke”. Voprosy jazykoznanija: 61-75.Ožegov, Sergej I. 1949/1989. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Mosow: Russkij jazyk.Padučeva, Elena V. 1996. Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Schooneveld, Cornelis H. van. 1978. Semantic transmutations: Prolegomena to a

calculus of meaning. Vol. 1: The cardinal semantic structure of prepositions, cases, and paratactic conjunctions in contemporary standard Russian. Bloomington: Physsardt.

Bibliography, p 4Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Šaxmatov, A. A. 1941. Sintaksis russkogo jayzka (Russian syntax). Leningrad. Učpedgiz. Švedova, Natal’ja Ju., et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Moscow: Nauka.Tatevosov, Sergej. 2002. “The parameter of actionality”. Linguistic Typology 6: 317-401.Timberlake, Alan. 1982. “Invariance and the syntax of Russian aspect”, in Paul Hopper,

ed. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 305-331.

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

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

Vinogradov, Viktor V. 1972. Russkij jazyk, 2nd ed. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.Wheeler, Marcus. 1972/1992. The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.Zaliznjak, A. A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka (Grammatical dictionary of

Russian). Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Zaliznjak, Anna A. and Aleksej D. Šmelev. 2000. Vvedenie v russkuju aspektologiju

(Inroduction to Russian aspectology). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.