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

1. “Borrowing Verbs into Russian: A Usage-Based Approach” Laura A. Janda UNC-Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu, www.unc.edu/~lajanda

2. 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

3. 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

4. Overview • Traditional assumptions about Russian aspect • Traditional assumptions about borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs • Janda’s “clusters” model and borrowed and Bi-aspectual verbs • Empirical study • Conclusions

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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!

13. 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

14. “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

15. “Pair” vs. “cluster” Cluster recognizes different kinds of Perfectives • 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 Non-Completable !

16. Completable vs. Non-Completable Bi-Aspectual verbs tend to be of this type Unambiguously Completable Sestra ideti v kino. ‘My sister is goingi to the movie theater.’ Ambiguous Sestra pišeti dissertaciju. ‘My sister is writingi her dissertation.’ Sestra pišeti naučnuju fantastiku. ‘My sister writesi science fiction.’ Unambiguously Non-Completable Sestra rabotaeti v kabinete. ‘My sister is working/worksi in her office.’ NP, SP NP, SP Non-Bi-aspectual verbs tend to be of these types CA CA

17. 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-

18. 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

19. 4. Empirical study • 555 foreign verbs in Wheeler 1972/1992 • 349 (63%) Bi-aspectual • 206 (37%) Imperfective Yes! Logistic regression model using Pearson’s statistic yields 107.37 and the associated p-value is <.0001 Is this significant?

20. 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’

21. 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’

22. 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

23. 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

24. Bibliography, p 1 Anderson, 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.

25. Bibliography, p 2 Dickey, 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.

26. Bibliography, p 3 Jászay, 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 i vremeni”. Revue des etudesSlaves 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.

27. Bibliography, p 4 Smith, 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.