Preverbs in Russian: situation or viewpoint aspect?

Abstract

The present paper has two goals: to present the complex data of verbal preixation of Russian, and to assess the validity of the Situation Aspect-Viewpoint Aspect (Smith 1991) distinction for preverbs, in particular the thesis that all preverbs are telicity-markers (Borer 2005). First, arguments are introduced to show that all preixed verbs are automatically perfective (pf), all are subject to lexical restrictions. A preliminary conclusion is that all preverbs are telicity markers, contra Filip (2005Filip ( , 2008 for whom the preverb is pre-functional (lexical). This raises the question of the exact nature of telicity. In the literature (Dowty 1979, Krifka 1998, telicity is tested by means of in x time frame adverbials. A more relaxed version of telicity is proposed, following Borer (2005) & Lakorczyk (2010): it sufices for an event to be either non divisive or non homogeneous to be telic. The concept is akin to Paducheva & Pentus' (2008) terminativity: the function of the preverb is to seal off the event. This accounts for the behavior of po-delimitative verbs. The data show that some assumptions are not correct: po-delim verbs are currently extending their functional scope in Russian and often act as pf partners to impf verbs, they do not necessarily indicate short duration, and are subject to lexical restrictions (Dickey 2006). Finally, the role of the preverb with respect to viewpoint aspect is assessed. The conclusion is that it is Situation Aspect that is grammaticized in Russian by means of the preverbs, and not viewpoint aspect, which is derived by means of correlations.

On the “one+verbal classifier” sequence as a delimitative aspect marker in Taiwanese Southern Min

“…Only the former meaning survives in modern Russian. Corre (2015), on the other hand, argues that po-is a telic marker (situation type), adopting a more relaxed version of telicity: it suffices for an event to be either non-divisive or non-homogeneous to be telic. The preverb po-, according to Corre, is not lexical telicity (presence of the event's inherent culmination), but rather terminativity.…”

Degree achievements and maximalization: a cross-linguistic perspective

“…For Aymara, relevant references were Cerrón-Palomino (2008), Gonzalo Segura (2011), Martínez Vera (2018a,b). For Polish, relevant references were Filip (1999Filip ( , 2005Filip ( , 2008, Filip & Rothstein (2006), Lazorczyk (2010), Corre (2015). For Hungarian, relevant references were É.…”

On Some Properties of the Aspectual Projection and Verbal Movement in Russian and Lithuanian

“…Given other well-known similarities between Russian and Lithuanian, such as rich verb tense and agreement systems and active derivation by prefixation and suffixation, it is interesting to explore why the two languages should exhibit striking aspectual differences. Russian aspect is perceived as possessing features of the addition of a prefix to the imperfective verbal stem which makes the verb perfective (e.g., Corre, 2015;Holvoet, 2001;Holvoet & Čižik, 2004;Svenonius, 2004bSvenonius, , 2004cTatevosov, 2015). In Lithuanian, the addition of the prefix does not necessarily perfectivise the verb and, regardless of the resultative prefix, it may still have an imperfective reading.…”