“a semantic map of russian aspect ” laura a. janda unc chapel hill [email protected]

16
“A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill [email protected]

Upload: reginald-mcdaniel

Post on 24-Dec-2015

214 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

“A semantic map of Russian aspect ”

Laura A. Janda

UNC Chapel Hill

[email protected]

Page 2: “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

Page 3: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

Defining Terms

• Activity (= Process + Repetition)

• Completion Act (= Accomplishment + Achievement)– Natural Perfective – Specialized Perfective

• Complex Act (= Aktionsart: Delimitative, Perdurative, Ingressive, Terminative, etc.)

• Single Act (= Semelfactive)

Page 4: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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

Page 5: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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)

Page 6: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

The Conceptual Space of Aspect

open

closed closed

closed closed

completable

non-completable

durative instantaneous

Page 7: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

Russian Grams and the Conceptual Space of Aspect

Imperf suffixessimplexes

prefixes ну suffix

Completion Acts

Activities

Complex ActsSingle Acts

Page 8: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

Proposed Semantic Map of Russian Aspect

Activity

Specialized Perfective

NaturalPerfective

Complex Act Single Act

Page 9: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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?

Page 10: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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’

Page 11: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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

Page 12: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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

Page 13: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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

Page 14: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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

Page 15: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

Implicational Hierarchy

• Implicational hierarchy (completable or non-completable):

Activity > (Specialized Perfective/Natural Perfective) > Complex Act > Single Act

Page 16: “A semantic map of Russian aspect ” Laura A. Janda UNC Chapel Hill janda@unc.edu

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