On Non-Compatibility of Partitive and Imperfective in Russian

Paducheva, Elena V.

doi:10.1515/thli.1998.24.1.73

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…примеры ( 13)-( 14)). Данное свойство отличает рассматриваемую группу как от «предельных» глаголов СВ, где использование разных падежных форм указывает на полноту вовлечения объекта в ситуацию и, соответственно, на характер предела ситуации (абсолютный или относительный), так и от глаголов НСВ, не допускающих употребление родительного падежа в позиции прямого дополнения при референции к единичной ситуации в актуально-длительном значении [Wierzbicka 1967;Padučeva 1998]. Следует отметить, что способность делимитативных глаголов к сочетанию с родительным падежом весьма непоследовательно отражена в словарях.…”

Section: делимитативные глаголыunclassified

«Точки» И «запятые» В Структуре Ситуации: Абсолютный И Относительный Предел И Средства Их Выражения (Аспектуальные Характеристики И Падеж Прямого Дополнения)

Чуйкова¹

2021

Język I Metoda

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper deals with some features of the event structure that influence its formal expression and determine the wider context of a clause. The notion of relative/absolute boundedness is used to indicate the exhaustiveness of the event. The relative boundedness is a feature that makes it possible to use the genitive partitive case as the direct object. Within such perfective verbs as vypit’ ‘drink.PF’ and sjest’ ‘eat.PF’, the nominal case determines the interpretation of a verbal phrase: the accusative indicates the absolute boundedness while use of the genitive results in the relative boundedness. As for degree achievements, delimitative Aktionsart and semelfactive Aktionsart, it is the verb that determines the interpretation of a verbal phrase. What all the examined cases have in common is that the use of the genitive as the direct object marker indicates the relative boundedness (partial resultativeness): the object of the event is a part of the cumulative object of a wider (actual or ideal) situation.

show abstract

Section: делимитативные глаголыunclassified

«Точки» И «запятые» В Структуре Ситуации: Абсолютный И Относительный Предел И Средства Их Выражения (Аспектуальные Характеристики И Падеж Прямого Дополнения)

Чуйкова¹

2021

Język I Metoda

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prefixes also affect case assignment properties of the base verb. Specifically, it has been observed for Slavic that there is a relation between the form of objective case and aspectual properties of the verb; consider, for instance, Jakobson (1936), Wierzbicka (1967), Paducheva (1998), Pereltsvaig (2000), Rozwadovska & Willim (2004), Borer (2005), Błaszczak (2007) and Richardson (2007). In Russian and Polish, the partitive genitive is restricted to the perfective aspect, as shown in (21), taken from Paducheva (1998: 80).…”

Section: Prefixation and Casementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assuming that case assignment is dependent on the -features Agree, as discussed in chapter 2.8.1, the unvalued Tense-feature on marku cannot be valued by the prepositional head P. After movement to the edge of the vP phase, marku receives structural accusative via Agree with unvalued -features and the valued Tense-feature of the aspectual head (see e.g. Jakobson 1936, Wierzbicka 1967, Paducheva 1998, Pereltsvaig 2000, Rozwadowska & Willim 2004, Borer 2005and Richardson 2007 for the relation between case and aspectual properties of the predicate and recall from the preceding chapter that the aspectual head encodes the relation between the reference time and the event time).…”

Section: Non-defective Ppmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prepositions, Case and Verbal Prefixes

Biskup

2019

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction 2 Verbal prefixes 2.1 R Russian SK Slovak SL Slovenian US Upper Sorbian 'become ill' 'start running' (2) a. prze-robić b. prze-pisać overdo over-write 'rework' 'rewrite' (3) a. na-begat'sja b. na-laufati se c. na-běhat se on-run.self on-run self on-run self all mean: 'come to have one's fill of running' Compositional (spatial) lexically prefixed verbs are cases like the Serbo-Croatian nabàcati in (4a), the Old Church Slavonic naiti in (4b) and the Polish namalować in (4c). Consider also the Russian vpisat' in (5a), the Czech vnést in (5b) and the Slovak vliať in (5c). (4) a. na-bàcati b. na-iti c. na-malować on-throw on-walk on-paint 'throw sth. on sth.' 'walk on sth.' 'paint sth. on sth.' ('find') (5) a. v-pisat' b. v-nést c. v-liať in-write in-carry in-pour 'write sth. in sth.' 'carry sth. in sth.' 'pour sth. into sth.' The examples show that the superlexical prefixes in (1)-(3) and lexical prefixes in (4) and (5) behave consistently and that the meaning of the prefixed verbs is composed of the meaning of the verb and the meaning of the prefix/preposition. In contrast, the changes induced by lexical 'carry' 'carrying' (8) a. pis-a-ć b. pis-m-o write-TH-INF write-NMLZ-NOM.SG.N 'write' 'writing, magazine' (9) a. běl-at b. běl-it white-TH-INF white-TH-INF 'become white' 'make white' 'he/she/it will swim in sth. / swim out of sth. / swim away from sth. / swim to sth. / 'become ill one after another' 'alter/redo one after another' c. po-roz-děl-á-va-t po-apart-do-TH-SI-INF 'disassemble one after another' The fact that superlexical prefixes have an adverbial meaning and can scope over the secondary imperfective suffix is the reason why some researchers propose that superlexical prefixes are generated in or above the aspectual phrase. 5 Note, however, that superlexical prefixes could, in fact, also merge lower in the verbal structure-being an overt reflection of some higher operator-and later move. It is a well-known fact that it is necessary to distinguish between lexical aspect and

show abstract

“…With the negative indefinite pronouns such as nikas 'nothing, nobody' the use of the genitive is even mandatory here. There is a general tendency towards canonical object (acc) and subject (nom) marking alongside some more conservative varieties, which is assumedly due to the influence of the neighbouring languages: (a) Latvian with only some few traces of this rule (with the subjects of existential predicates), (b) Russian and (c) Belarusian dialects with differential marking (Nau, 2014: 224) constrained by scope specificity and other parameters (inter alia, Babby, 1978;Paducheva, 1998;Partee, 2008).…”

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Independent Partitive as an Eastern Circum-Baltic isogloss

Seržant

2015

J Lang Contact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper claims that the independent partitive case in Finnic languages and the independent partitive genitive case in Baltic and East Slavic (henceforth: ip(g)) show considerable correlations that cannot be accounted for but by language contact. Given that both the ip(g) in Baltic and East Slavic as well as the ip(g) in Finnic are inherited from the respective proto-languages, the paper also offers a methodological discussion of how inherited categories may also be shown to be subject to language contact. A typologically not infrequent category must be individualized on the basis of a list of properties. Thus, 13 semantic and 5 morphosyntactic properties have been discussed. While the study reveals that in general the ip(g) is or was subject to intensive language contact, there is no common hotbed for all properties analysed and different properties have different hotbeds and are distinct with respect to their geographical distribution and entrenchment. North Russian and Finnic show the greatest degree of correspondence as, e.g., the aspectuality related functions of the ip(g) or the morphological distinction between the possession (sensu lato) and the partitive-related functions are concerned. Here, Finnic is the donor language. However, other properties such as the semantic and syntactic merger of the acc and ip(g) marking must have spread from Russian to Finnic and, to some extent, Baltic. Similarly, the genitive/partitive-under-negation probably developed first in Baltic and Slavic and spread then into Finnic, since preconditions for this rule are already found in the ancient Indo-European languages. Finnic, however, preserves this rule best.

show abstract

On Non-Compatibility of Partitive and Imperfective in Russian

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

«Точки» И «запятые» В Структуре Ситуации: Абсолютный И Относительный Предел И Средства Их Выражения (Аспектуальные Характеристики И Падеж Прямого Дополнения)

«Точки» И «запятые» В Структуре Ситуации: Абсолютный И Относительный Предел И Средства Их Выражения (Аспектуальные Характеристики И Падеж Прямого Дополнения)

Prepositions, Case and Verbal Prefixes

The Independent Partitive as an Eastern Circum-Baltic isogloss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About