romano-bohemica ii - university of...

Romano-Bohemica IIRomano-Bohemica IIJournal for Central European Studies

nr. 2 | 2013

Romano-Bohemica apare sub egida | is published under the aegis ofSocietas Romano–Bohemica

Revistă pentru studii central-europeneRočenka pro středoevropské studieJournal for Central European Studies

Coperta: Vlad A. Arghir, [email protected]

ISSN 2284–7014ISSN-L 2284–7014

Reproducerea integrală sau parțială, multiplicarea prin orice mijloace și sub orice formă,cum ar fi xeroxarea, scanarea, transpunerea în format electronic sau audio, punerea ladispoziția publică, inclusiv prin internet sau prin rețele de calculatoare, stocareapermanentă sau temporară pe dispozitive sau sisteme cu posibilitatea recuperăriiinformațiilor, cu scop comercial sau gratuit, precum și alte fapte similare săvârșite fărăpermisiunea scrisă a deținătorului copyright-ului reprezintă o încălcare a legislației cuprivire la protecția proprietății intelectuale și se pedepsesc penal și/sau civil înconformitate cu legile în vigoare.

© Editura Universității din București ® E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]ărie online: http://librarie-unibuc.roCentru de vânzare: Bd. Regina Elisabeta nr. 4–12, BucureștiTel. +40.21.314 35 08/ 2125www.editura.unibuc.ro

Redactor-șef: Dr. Sorin Paliga

Romano-Bohemica IIRomano-Bohemica II

Special Issue dedicated to the SymposiumThe Verbal Aspect in the Slavic LanguagesBucharestOctober 4–7, 2012

Număr special dedicat simpozionuluiAspectul verbal în limbile slave

București4–7 octombrie 2012

Editor: Sorin Paliga

Editura Universității din București®

Revistă pentru studii central-europeneRočenka pro středoevropské studieJournal for Central European Studies

Calde mulțumiri sponsorilor simpozionului: Warm thanks to our sponsors:Mari VilaRosal

This special issue of Romano-Bohemica has been prepared for print by Sorin Paliga, PhD, who also was the organizer of the Symposium on behalf of the Department of Russian and Slavic Philology of the University of Bucharest and the Societas Romano-Bohemica

ContactDr. Sorin PaligaDepartamentul de filologie rusă și slavăStr. Pitar Moș 7–13București, sectorul 1Româniae-mail: [email protected]@gmail.com

Contents | Cuprins

• 9 Gorana Bikić-Carić L'aspect verbal en croate – que peut-il exprimer enplus de la perfectivité / imperfectivité du verbe ?

• 35 Katja Brankačkec Irregular Aorist and Imperfect Forms in Older UpperSorbian and Upper Sorbian Aspect

• 53 François Esvan À propos de l’usage de l’imperfectif dans lanarration de séquences d’événements en tchèque

• 67 Zlatka Genčeva Notions aspectuelles: conceptualisation etterminologie

• 89 Galia Hatav Perfectivity: A three-way distinction

• 109 Nezrin Samedova Aspectual and non-aspectual initiality: on evidence for their di&erentiation

• 125 Barbara Schmiedtová Zur Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform imheutigen Tschechisch

• 165 Eduard Werner Upper Sorbian and Verbal Aspect

• 183 Iulia Anamaria Alexandru Verbal Aspect. A contrastive study of Arabic andRussian

• 195 Mircea Dan Duță Some Di'culties of Czech and Slovak Students ofRomanian in Working with the Verb Aspect and ItsUse in Bilateral Translations

• 235 Anca Irina Ionescu The verbal aspect in bilingual Romanian�Slavicdictionaries

• 245 Marilena Felicia Luţă The Verbal Aspect between Narration and Discourse

• 259 Mariana Mangiulea Verbal Aspect in Bulgarian—From Theory to Practice

• 273 Sorin Paliga Aspect in Czech and other Slavic Languages: HowShall We Understand and Define Verbal Action?

pagină vacantă | page intentionally blank

Argument__________

__________7

An Argument

In the summer of 2011, at the initiative of the chairman of the Romanian Association of Slavic Studies (Asociația Slaviștilor din România), the Department of Slavic Studies organized two series of debates regarding the verbal aspect in Slavic. The aim, at that time, was to exchange ideas on various methods mainly referring to teaching aspect, starting from the principle that our students should be given some solid, reference points, which may further help them advance in acquiring a good knowledge of a Slavic language.

The debates were, of course, interesting, which made me suggest a meeting at a higher level, by inviting guests from other countries in order to have a larger scope of the issue and, at the same time, to gather information about other views regarding aspect, in general, and Slavic aspect, in particular. The proposal was accepted and, as always, the one who suggests something is also in charge with organizing it. The result was that a series of colleagues accepted the invitation, other declined it, others could not arrive, but sent their studies. I am indeed glad that many of those who could note come are present here with their contributions, including some colleagues of our university.

The present volume, as a special issue of Romano-Bohemica, the first issue of which was published in 2012, is therefore a contribution to the general problem of verbal aspect, mainly to the problem of aspect in the Slavic languages. Initially, I planned to distribute the contributions in fields of approaching the topic. Later, I realized that such a distribution may prove too subjective, the final decision being that out guests are the first, in alphabetical order, followed by the contributions of our colleagues at the University of Bucharest, the largest in Romania and the only one covering almost all the Slavic area. I do hope that this initiative will be followed by other similar meetings, in our university and elsewhere, aiming at clarifying the problems related to the verbal aspect in general, and in the Slavic languages, in particular.

Sorin Paliga, PhDUniversity of BucharestDepartment of Russian and Slavic PhilologyOrganizer of the symposium

Romano-Bohemica II__________

__________8

[pagină albă]

L’aspect verbal en croate__________

__________9

L'aspect verbal en croate – que peut-il exprimer en plus de la perfectivité / imperfectivité du verbe ?

Gorana Bikić-CarićUniversité de Zagreb

Introduction

Dans cet article nous voudrions mettre en évidence certains rôles que joue l'aspect perfectif ou imperfectif des verbes en croate. Nous traiterons de l'apparente contradiction qui réside dans l'aspect perfectif du présent, de la différence entre l'impératif perfectif et imperfectif dans l'expression de l'(im)politesse, du perfekt qui, grâce aux aspects perfectif et imperfectif, a pratiquement remplacé les autres formes verbales exprimant le passé, de même que du lien entre l'aspect verbal et le caractère défini ou indéfini du nom complément d'objet direct.

Nous avons choisi ces sujets parce que nous trouvons intéressant de montrer, d'un côté, comment l'aspect verbal peut être envisagé sous plusieurs angles et, de l'autre côté, comment deux langues comme le croate et le français expriment les mêmes idées à l'aide d'outils différents. Un cadre pour ces réflexions est fourni par l'approche cognitive. Comme le dit Delbecque (2006: 17), la langue n'est pas simplement un outil de communication, elle reflète aussi la perception du monde ayant cours dans une communauté culturelle donnée. L'auteure continue (Delbecque 2006: 34) que le monde n'est pas une réalité objective existant en et de par elle-même. Il nous apparaît toujours d'une façon ou d'une autre par le biais de notre activité qui consiste à catégoriser sur la base de notre perception, de nos connaissances, de notre état d'esprit. Kwapisz-Osadnik (2009: 28) mentionne la notion de prototype qui est défini comme l'exemplaire idéal et le plus représentatif d'une catégorie autour duquel s'organisent les concepts selon le principe de ressemblance de famille. Cela veut dire que l'appartenance à une catégorie et la position du concept dans sa structure dépend du degré de similarité avec le

Romano‑Bohemica II / Bikić-Carić__________

__________10

prototype. Nous croyons que pour notre propos il est important de tenir compte du fait que dans les questions concernant l'aspect verbal, les deux langues que nous comparons ici montrent des différences non seulement dans l'emploi prototypique, mais aussi dans les traits saillants d'une catégorie grammaticale. Nous essaierons de montrer que souvent les mêmes dénotations désignent des concepts variés, et qu'une même idée peut trouver son expression dans différentes catégories grammaticales.

L'aspect verbal en croate

Comme il est bien connu, le système aspectuel est non seulement très riche dans les langues slaves, mais il y joue un rôle, nous oserions le dire, plus compréhensif. Voyons comment des grammairiens croates approchent la question. D'après Silić et Pranjković (2007: 48), l'aspect verbal est un moyen d'exprimer l'accomplissement ou le non-accomplissement d'une action, d'un état ou d'un procès. L'aspect, perfectif ou imperfectif, se reconnaît dans la forme des verbes, excepté pour les verbes biaspectuels, d'un nombre très réduit, dont l'aspect est suggéré par le contexte (On uvijek tako večera (IMP) / Il dîne toujours de cette manière; Kad večeraš (PERF), dođi, pa ćemo porazgovarati / Quand tu auras dîné, viens, et nous parlerons). Babić et al. (1991: 669) expliquent que l'aspect perfectif représente l'action comme une unité : doći / venir, dati / donner, skočiti / sauter. L'aspect imperfectif, par contre, signifie que rien n'est dit sur le début ou la fin de l'action : dolaziti / venir, davati / donner, skakati / sauter. Seuls les verbes imperfectifs répondent à la question : Qu'es-tu en train de faire ? Težak et Babić (1994: 119) précisent que les verbes imperfectifs peuvent être compléments des verbes qui expriment le début, la suite ou la fin d'une action : Počinjem raditi (IMP) u šest sati / Je commence à travailler à six heures. Nastavili su vikati (IMP) / Ils ont continué à crier. Prestanite pisati (IMP) / Arrêtez d'écrire.

De plus, comme nous le verrons, on distingue plusieurs groupes de verbes en fonction de leur présentation de l'action, et souvent ces verbes peuvent être, à leur tour, perfectifs ou imperfectifs. Si c'est le cas, nous citons d'abord la forme perfective et ensuite la forme imperfective.


__________11

Silić et Pranjković (2007: 56), en expliquant la formation des verbes, précisent que les verbes perfectifs se forment à partir des verbes imperfectifs à l'aide de préfixes (sjeći > presjeći / couper), et les verbes imperfectifs à partir des perfectifs à l'aide de suffixes (izreći > izricati / dire). Ces auteurs divisent les verbes en :

1. satifs, qui expriment la saturation de l'action : najesti se – najedati se (manger assez)

2. intensifs, qui expriment que l'action a atteint son sommet : razljutiti se – razljućivati se (se fâcher complètement)

3. inchoatifs, qui expriment le début d'une action : poletjeti – polijetati (s'envoler)

4. finitifs, qui expriment la fin de l'action : dovršiti – dovršavati (terminer).5. diminutifs, qui expriment un degré moindre de l'action : poigrati se – poigravati se (jouer un peu)

6. augmentatifs, qui expriment un degré exagéré de l'action : prejesti se – prejedati se (manger trop)

7. péjoratifs, qui expriment la dépréciation de l'action : piskarati (écrivailler)

8. majoratifs, qui expriment que l'action surpasse une autre action : nadjačati – nadjačavati (être plus fort)

9. totifs, qui expriment la totalité d'une action ; ils sont tous perfectifs : izgraditi (construire)

10. duratifs, qui expriment une action qui dure sans interruption ; ils sont tous imperfectifs : pisati (écrire)

11. distributifs, qui désignent une action distribuée : porazdijeliti – porazdjeljivati (distribuer)

Ce n'est pas le seul regroupement possible des verbes perfectifs et imperfectifs. Barić et al. (1979: 146) ajoutent les verbes pantifs, qui expriment une action graduelle, dont le résultat est visible dans chaque phase (graditi kuću / construire une maison), les verbes itératifs, qui expriment une action qui se répète, à savoir qui s'arrête et puis reprend (odlijetati, poodlijetati / s'envoler un à un) et


__________12

les verbes momentanés, tous perfectifs, qui expriment une action se déroulant dans un laps de temps très court (jurnuti / se précipiter). Babić et al. (1991: 671), parmi les verbes perfectifs, distinguent les verbes résultatifs et les verbes semelfactifs. Les verbes résultatifs se divisent en verbes spatiaux qui désignent le départ ou l'arrivée (izletjeti / s'envoler de quelque part ; uletjeti / arriver en volant), en verbes cumulatifs qui expriment que l'action se fait partie par partie (nabacati / jeter peu à peu) et en verbes finitifs, satifs et distributifs déjà cités. Les verbes semelfactifs expriment l'action qui ne se produit qu'une fois (zijevnuti / bâiller une fois). Les verbes imperfectifs sont, à leur tour, divisés en verbes multiples qui peuvent désigner des actions à plusieurs phases (zijevati / bâiller plusieurs fois) ou des actions répétées (noćivati / passer la nuit réitérativement), en verbes évolutifs qui désignent l'évolution d'une action (crvenjeti / rougir) et en verbes d'état qui expriment une durée non articulée (boraviti / séjourner). Les auteurs ajoutent les verbes qui peuvent être perfectifs ou imperfectifs, à savoir les verbes de déplacement, avec une direction (letjeti, odletjeti / s'envoler) ou sans direction (lijetati, razletjeti se / voler), et les verbes diminutifs, que nous avons déjà mentionnés.

Il est aisé de constater que l'aspect verbal exprime beaucoup plus que le simple accomplissement ou non-accomplissement de l'action, et que ces nuances peuvent être regroupées de manières différentes.

Nous pouvons remarquer que les auteurs s'accordent à souligner l'importance du début ou de la fin de l'action (poletjeti, dovršiti), de la distribution (poigravati se) ou de la répétition (noćivati), de l'évolution (crvenjeti), mais aussi de l'intensité de l'action, qui peut être comparée aux autres actions (nadjačati) ou à une norme imaginée (najesti se, prejesti se). Même le rapport entre l'action et l'espace peut être exprimé par l'aspect verbal (izletjeti, uletjeti), ou le rapport entre l'action et sa perception par la société, ce qui est le cas des verbes péjoratifs (piskarati). Comme dans la plupart des cas ces verbes peuvent être ou bien perfectifs ou bien imperfectifs, l'accomplissement ou le non-accomplissement de l'action n'est qu'un des traits exprimés par l'aspect perfectif ou imperfectif. Il en résulte que l'aspect verbal (en croate mais aussi dans les langues slaves en général) véhicule un nombre important de sens.


__________13

Nous voudrions maintenant nous aventurer dans quelques situations où l'aspect verbal, combiné avec le temps ou le mode verbaux, ou même avec les noms, peut exprimer encore d'autres concepts.

Le présent des verbes perfectifs

Etant donné qu'en croate presque toutes les formes verbales peuvent être perfectives ou imperfectives (excepté l'imparfait, qui ne se forme qu'à partir des verbes imperfectifs, et l'aoriste, seulement à partir des verbes perfectifs), le présent lui aussi peut être perfectif ou imperfectif. Le présent perfectif représente, à première vue, une contradiction, puisque le présent devrait désigner une action dans sa durée, donc non achevée. C'est pourquoi l'aspect perfectif du présent est dédié à des emplois particuliers.

Silić et Pranjković (2007: 190) distinguent les emplois absolus et relatifs des temps et des modes, en disant que le présent, dans son emploi absolu (nécessairement à l'aspect imperfectif), exprime une action en cours au moment de la parole (Ovoga časa sjede i pišu / En ce moment, ils sont assis et ils écrivent). L'emploi absolu pourrait être rapproché de l'emploi prototypique dans la terminologie de la linguistique cognitive.

Maintenant nous analyserons les emplois relatifs du présent en fonction de leur aspect, en propositions indépendantes et en propositions subordonnées.

Propositions indépendantesa)le futurComme nous avons indiqué, dans l'emploi absolu peut figurer seul l'aspect

imperfectif. Cet aspect est aussi le plus courant dans l'emploi relatif qui exprime le futur (Sutra rano putujemo / Demain nous partons de bonne heure). Les deux emplois s'expliquent par le fait que l'aspect imperfectif exprime une action non accomplie, ce qui correspond bien à l'emploi absolu (une action qui a lieu au cours de la parole), mais aussi à l'expression du futur (une action qui n'a pas encore eu lieu n'est pas accomplie). Nous voudrions souligner aussi une différence avec d'autres langues slaves comme le tchèque, le polonais ou le russe, où la forme verbale qui correspond au présent perfectif sert à former le futur des verbes


__________14

perfectifs. En croate, le présent perfectif ne peut pas s'employer seul pour exprimer le futur. Ce n'est possible qu'avec un adverbe de manière, le plus souvent možda (peut-être) : Možda se pronađe i bolje rješenje (Peut-être trouvera-t-on une meilleure solution, Barić et al. 1979: 325). Par contre, le présent perfectif peut être, dans une proposition subordonnée, l'équivalent du futur antérieur en français (Kada se vratiš (PERF), otići ćemo na plažu / Quand tu seras rentré, nous irons à la plage).

b)le passéIl est intéressant de noter que dans certains emplois relatifs l'aspect

imperfectif peut alterner avec l'aspect perfectif. C'est le cas du présent historique, qui par sa nature place l'interlocuteur dans un cadre du passé comme s'il s'agissait du présent. Le choix de l'aspect montre la différence entre une description ou une action en cours : Sjedimo (IMP) jučer u kavani i razgovaramo (IMP), et une action momentanée et terminée, où c'est le résultat qui compte : Jučer uzmem (PERF) novine i pročitam (PERF) neobičnu vijest. Si nous voulions remplacer ces présents historiques par les temps correspondants du passé, en français cela donnerait l'imparfait dans le premier exemple (Hier nous étions assis dans un café et nous parlions) et le passé composé dans le deuxième (Hier j'ai pris le journal et j'ai lu une nouvelle bizarre). Nous pouvons faire un pas de plus et conclure que ces correspondances montrent que même en français le présent historique peut présenter non seulement une action perçue comme étant en cours (ce qui est un trait du présent en général), mais aussi une action momentanée, terminée, même si elle est située dans le passé.

c)la répétition de l'actionA la différence du présent historique, où le choix de l'aspect verbal marque

un changement dans la perception de l'action, le présent qui exprime la répétition de l'action se prête beaucoup mieux aux deux aspects. La différence entre Svako jutro pere (IMP) zube et Svako jutro opere (PERF) zube (Chaque matin il se brosse les dents) est à peine perceptible. Seulement, l'aspect imperfectif met l'accent sur l'action et l'aspect perfectif sur le résultat, comme c'est habituel. C'est pourquoi dans la phrase avec l'aspect perfectif on s'attend peut-être à une autre action qui suit la première, terminée (Svako jutro opere zube i obuče čistu košulju / Chaque


__________15

matin il se brosse les dents et il met une chemise propre). Comme l'aspect perfectif souligne le fait que les actions sont terminées et bornées, ce récit est plus dynamique.

d)l'extratemporalitéD'après Silić et Pranjković (2007: 191), un autre emploi relatif du présent

est associé à l'expression de l'extratemporalité (Svi ljudi umiru (IMP) / Tous les hommes meurent), surtout à l'aspect imperfectif. Mais l'aspect perfectif est possible aussi si le verbe est accompagné d'un complément circonstanciel de temps : Svi ljudi umru (PERF) prije ili kasnije / Tous les hommes meurent plus tôt ou plus tard.

e)une action habituelleLes aspects peuvent alterner aussi dans le présent qui exprime une action

habituelle, comme dans l'exemple Ova se knjiga brzo čita (IMP) / Ova se knjiga brzo pročita (PERF) / Ce livre se lit vite. Ici aussi le présent perfectif apporte de la vivacité, en soulignant l'accomplissement de l'action et son résultat.

Un autre exemple, intéressant à notre avis même si, à notre connaissance, il n'a pas été étudié, est le présent perfectif dans les recettes de cuisine. Il faut noter que dans ce type de texte on utilise normalement l'impératif ou éventuellement l'infinitif. Pourtant, nous avons trouvé des exemples de présent perfectif, et non seulement dans les recettes échangées entre ami(e)s, mais aussi dans des livres de cuisine publiés. Voici un extrait de la recette d'un dessert composé de pommes et de poires : Šećer se u vodi skuha (PERF), pa kad se šećerna otopina ohladi (PERF), doda (PERF) joj se malo ruma. Jabuke i kruške se ogule (PERF) i režu (IMP) u kockice, izmiješaju se (PERF) s usitnjenim orasima, oguljenim i izrezanim bademima te močenim grožđicama. Voće se prelije (PERF) šećernom otopinom i izmiješa (PERF)1 / On fait bouillir le mélange de sucre et d'eau, et quand la solution sucrée s'est refroidie, on y ajoute un peu de rhum. On pèle les pommes et les poires et on les coupe en dés, on les mélange avec les noix moulues, les amandes pelées et coupées et les raisins secs mouillés. On verse la solution sucrée sur les fruits et on remue. Comment expliquer ces présents perfectifs ? Nous

1 Vučetić, Mira 1986. Zlatna knjiga kuharstva, Zagreb : Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, p. 111


__________16

dirions que l'aspect perfectif souligne, là aussi, le fait que l'action est terminée et son résultat, de même qu'une suite qui est attendue logiquement.

f)un ordreLe présent perfectif, introduit par la particule da, peut remplacer l'impératif

(Silić et Pranjković 2007: 191), pour exprimer un ordre : Ti da ostaneš kod kuće! / litt. Toi, que tu restes à la maison ! Nous parlerons plus loin du rôle de l'aspect verbal dans l'expression de l'(im)politesse, mais il faut souligner ici que c'est une façon très autoritaire (et, par conséquent, peu employée) de donner un ordre, justement en raison d'une grande insistance sur l'accomplissement de l'action.

Propositions subordonnéesA notre avis, le présent perfectif dans les propositions subordonnées sert

surtout à exprimer la virtualité de l'action, ce qui peut, dans certains cas, être rapproché au mode subjonctif (qui n'existe pas en croate, de même que dans les langues slaves en général) en français et dans d'autres langues romanes. La virtualité s'associe bien à ce que nous avons appelé une contradiction apparente entre le présent comme temps et l'accomplissement de l'action.

Bien que nous parlions ici des propositions subordonnées, nous voudrions souligner ce qui est, à notre avis, une expression de la virtualité dans une proposition indépendante. Nous avons déjà mentionné la possibilité d'exprimer le futur à l'aide du présent perfectif, mais seulement avec un adverbe de manière, le plus souvent možda (peut-être). Même si, en français, peut-être n'introduit pas le subjonctif, nous croyons qu'il faut remarquer sa possible transformation en l'expression il se peut que qui, elle, est suivie du subjonctif : Možda dođe (PERF) sutra / Peut-être viendra-t-il demain / Il se peut qu'il vienne demain.

La virtualité de l'action se rapporte, dans la majorité des cas, à une action future, qui n'est qu'envisagée dans l'esprit du locuteur. Voici quelques exemples qui montrent l'équivalence entre le présent perfectif en croate et le subjonctif en français dans une proposition subordonnée :

- possibilité : Moguće je da ona pročita (PERF) ovu knjigu. MAIS : Moguće je da ona čita (IMP) ovu knjigu.


__________17

Ces deux phrases seraient traduites en français par la même phrase : Il est possible qu'elle lise ce livre, mais il y a une différence importante. La première, avec le présent perfectif, montre qu'il existe une possibilité dans le futur pour une action qui pour le moment n'est qu'envisagée dans l'esprit du locuteur, et la deuxième, avec le présent imperfectif, que l'action est peut-être déjà en cours, mais nous ne le savons pas.

- une conséquence virtuelle : Podijelio je zadatke tako da svi budu (PERF) zadovoljni / Il a partagé les tâches de manière que tous soient contents.

MAIS : Podijelio je zadatke tako da su (IMP) svi zadovoljni /Il a partagé les tâches de manière que tous sont contents – pour exprimer une conséquence réelle, le verbe est à l'aspect imperfectif

- souhait : Želim da budeš (PERF) sretan / Je veux que tu sois heureux. - attente : Pisat ću vam dok mi ne odgovorite (PERF) / Je vous écrirai jusqu'à ce que vous ne répondiez.

- but : Roditelji su ga poslali u London zato da dobro nauči (PERF) engleski / Ses parents l'ont envoyé à Londres pour qu'il apprenne bien l'anglais.

- condition : Otići ćemo na plažu ako bude (PERF) lijepo vrijeme / Nous irons à la plage, à condition qu'il fasse beau.

MAIS : Idemo na plažu ako je sada (IMP) lijepo vrijeme / Nous allons à la plage si maintenant il fait beau – une réalité, qui est exprimée à l'aide de l'aspect imperfectif

Nous pouvons voir que dans tous ces exemples le présent perfectif exprime une action virtuelle, rendue par le subjonctif en français, mais dans l'expression de la possibilité, de la conséquence et de la condition, en plus, une nuance se dessine dans la différence entre l'aspect perfectif ou imperfectif. Le présent imperfectif, en désignant une action réelle en cours, s'oppose à la virtualité du présent perfectif.

Il est intéressant de noter que les grammaires du croate que nous avons consultées n'envisagent pas l'aspect perfectif sous ce point de vue. Nous constatons avec regret que l'aspect verbal dans les grammaires du croate est surtout expliqué comme la différence entre une action accomplie ou non-


__________18

accomplie, avec, certes, les nuances citées en haut, mais les particularités du présent perfectif, à notre avis, ne sont pas assez prises en compte. Par exemple, Težak et Babić (1994: 264) ne parlent que du passé (Otišla je u šumu da nabere (PERF) gljiva / Elle est allée dans la forêt pour cueillir des champignons – litt. pour qu'elle cueille des champignons) ou du futur (Odlazi moj otac da nam nabavi (PERF) kruh / Mon père part pour acheter du pain – litt. pour qu'il achète du pain) exprimés par l'aspect perfectif du présent. Silić et Pranjković (2007: 191) parlent d'une action antérieure à une autre action au futur dans les propositions conditionnelles (Ako padne (PERF) kiša, sve će propasti / A condition qu'il se mette à pleuvoir, tout sera détruit). Il est vrai que l'action de cueillier des champignons appartient au passé du point de vue du narrateur, que l'action d'acheter du pain est future par rapport au départ du père, et que la pluie doit être antérieure au fait que tout sera détruit, mais, à notre avis, c'est loin d'expliquer la virtualité du présent perfectif. Les auteurs comme Težak et Babić, Barić et al. ou Katičić n'abordent pas l'aspect verbal dans le chapitre sur le présent, ou, d'ailleurs, sur les formes verbales temporelles en général. Dans les chapitres consacrés aux propositions subordonnées, il est possible de trouver des exemples qui s'apparentent à ceux que nous avons mentionnés, mais sans explications concernant les particularités du présent perfectif. Nous avons l'impression que l'aspect verbal en croate n'est pas envisagé sous tous les angles qui seraient possibles.

Pour illustrer nos propos, nous avons cherché des exemples dans un corpus parallèle, composé d'un texte en français (Marcel Proust, Combray)2 et de sa traduction en croate3. Nous avons trouvé, comme attendu, beaucoup d'exemples où l'aspect perfectif du présent est l'expression de la virtualité de l'action qui n'est pas réalisée, et dont l'équivalent est le subjonctif en français. Il faut noter que, du fait qu'en croate la concordance des temps n'existe pas, le présent perfectif peut être l'équivalent de tous les temps du subjonctif, même de ceux du passé. Voici quelques-uns de ces exemples, où le subjonctif est introduit par:2 Proust, Marcel 1999. A la recherche du temps perdu – Combray. Paris : Gallimard3 Proust, Marcel 2004. Put k Swannu – Combray. Zagreb : Globus Media (traduit par Zlatko Crnković)


__________19

1)une expression de volonté :

2)une expression de but

3) une expression de temps (avant que, jusqu'à ce que)

De sorte que ce bonsoir que j'aimais tant, j'en arrivais à souhaiter qu'il vînt le plus tard possible, à ce que se prolongeât le temps de répit où maman n'était pas encore venue.

et j'allais, sans en avoir l'air, dire qu'on apportât les sirops

elle était entrée demander qu'on fît un point à sa jupe qu'elle avait déchirée dans l'escalier.

Stoga sam na kraju želio da taj pozdrav koji sam toliko volio uslijedi što kasnije, da se produlji ono vrijeme do mamina dolaska.

Ja bih neopazice otišao javiti posluzi da nam donesu voćnih sokova

pa je svratila k njima da joj na brzinu pokrpaju suknju koju je bila zaderala na stubištu.

ne lui trouvant pas un prestige suffisant pour qu'on pût le servir à des étrangers

et disparaissait, confuse qu'on s'occupât d'elle, peut-être pour qu'on ne la vît pas pleurer

Quand Françoise, après avoir veillé à ce que mes parents eussent tout ce qu'il leur fallait

držeći da nije dostatno ugledan da ga predstave stranim osobama

jer joj je bilo neugodno što se netko bavi njome, a možda i zato da se ne rasplače

Pošto se Françoise već pobrinula da moji roditelji dobiju sve što im treba

mais quand, comme pour moi, elle est entrée en nous avant qu'il ait encore fait son apparition dans notre vie

ali kad nas ta tjeskoba, kao što je bilo sa mnom, spopadne još prije nego što se u našem životu pojavi ljubav


__________20

4) une expression de sentiment ou de jugement (s'il s'agit de quelque chose qui n'est pas encore réalisé) :

L'aspect verbal comme expression de la politesse

Nous voudrions maintenant nous consacrer à la différence entre l'impératif perfectif et l'impératif imperfectif dans l'expression de la politesse. Nous comparerons cette différence en croate à celle en français, où il existe aussi deux formes de l'impératif (impératif présent et passé) à degrés différents de politesse. Mais il faut remarquer que, tandis qu'en français seul l'impératif présent est d'usage régulier, et l'impératif passé est d'un emploi restreint (Grevisse 1980: 852), en croate les deux formes sont courantes, et elles se distinguent surtout en fonction du degré de politesse.

Ici nous ne traitons que de l'impératif affirmatif, étant donné qu'en croate à l'impératif négatif on emploie pratiquement toujours un seul aspect, imperfectif, d'où la neutralisation de l'opposition aspectuelle. Les impératifs négatifs perfectifs

Et je restais avec mon oncle jusqu'à ce que son valet de chambre vînt lui demander, de la part du cocher, pour quelle heure celui-ci devait atteler.

jusqu'à ce que j'entendisse le dernier coup

Ostajao sam kod strica sve dok ne bi došao sobar da ga u kočijaševo ime upita u koliko sati treba upregnuti kočiju.

sve dok ne začujem i posljednji udarac

p r é f é r a n t, si la vérité devait se découvrir, que ce fût en son absence

si cela pouvait vous faire plaisir qu'il écrive un mot en tête de votre volume

Ma mère craignait qu'il ne se d é v e l o p p â t chez Françoise une véritable haine pour ma tante

više voli, ako se baš istina mora otkriti, da to bude za njegova izbivanjaako bi vam bilo drago da vam na naslovnoj stranici vaše knjige napiše koju riječ

Majka se pribojavala da se u Françoise ne razvije prava mržnja prema tetki


__________21

sont très rares (par exemple, dans la Bible: Ne ubij! / Tu ne tueras point) et stylistiquement marqués (Silić, Pranjković 2007: 195).

La politesseDans les échanges avec ses interlocuteurs, le locuteur a à sa disposition

plusieurs façons d'essayer d'influencer leur comportement. Une demande est d'autant plus polie que le locuteur donne plus d'initiative à son interlocuteur et moins impose la réalisation immédiate de l’action. Comme nous le verrons plus loin, cette possibilité (ou impossibilité) de négociation joue un rôle important dans notre comparaison entre les impératifs en français et en croate.

Brown et Levinson ont introduit le concept de FTA (face threatening acts - effets potentiellement négatifs sur les faces, actes "menaçants"). Ces deux auteurs, en s'inspirant des notions de face et de territoire de Goffman, soulignent la différence entre la face positive (l'image de soi-même positive, valorisante) et la face négative, qui se réfère au respect de l'espace personnel de l'allocutaire (Brown et Levinson 1994: 13). Brown et Levinson postulent que la plupart des actes de langage sont des actes potentiellement menaçants pour l’une des deux faces des interlocuteurs et que, principalement, le locuteur a le choix de faire ou non le FTA.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2008: 108), en reprenant les FTA de Brown et Levinson, ajoute une autre catégorie, à savoir les FFA (face flattering acts - effets potentiellement positifs, actes "valorisants" pour la face d'autrui), qui sont en quelque sorte le pendant positif des FTA. D'après l'auteure, tout acte de langage peut ainsi être décrit comme un FTA, un FFA, ou un complexe de ces deux composantes. En plus, Kerbrat-Orecchioni oppose la politesse négative (évitement ou adoucissement de FTA) et la politesse positive (production de FFA, éventuellement renforcés). Elle souligne l'importance du contexte et distingue (2008: 134) la politesse (un marqueur dont la présence est plus ou moins conforme aux attentes normatives en vigueur dans la situation), l'hyperpolitesse (présence d'un marqueur excessif par rapport à ces attentes), l'apolitesse (absence "normale" d'un marqueur de politesse) et l'impolitesse (absence "anormale" d'un marqueur de politesse). D'après cette distinction, les impératifs dont nous parlons ici peuvent être caractérisés comme impolis et apolis.


__________22

L'impératifNous avons trouvé chez Sémon (2006: 152), qui parle de l'impératif russe,

des remarques pouvant s'appliquer à l'impératif croate. D'après cet auteur, quand l'impératif directif positif est perfectif, l'énonciateur ordonne, conseille, demande que le terme, télique ou congruent, du procès soit atteint. Ce faisant, il situe nécessairement cette limite terminale, moment qu'il sélectionne dans l'acte, dans l'avenir par rapport au moment où il parle, laissant non situé le début du procès par rapport au présent de l'énonciation, permettant en quelque sort à l'allocutaire de choisir le moment où il décidera de passer à l'acte: seule l'atteinte du résultat est ordonnée, conseillée, demandée. C'est l'impératif directif ordinaire. Si, en revanche, l'énonciateur exige que le procès soit en cours dans l'instant, il emploiera l'imperfectif: Uxodi - "Va-t'en (à l'instant)" - c'est-à-dire: sois partant dans le moment même où je l'exige. C'est l'impératif d'exécution immédiate. L'impératif imperfectif est donc dans ce cas plus brutal que l'impératif perfectif, accompagné d'intonations adéquates et souvent de termes avec le sens de sur le champ, immédiatement. Nous voudrions pourtant souligner une différence entre le croate et le russe: en russe, l'impératif imperfectif peut, outre qu'être "plus brutal", exprimer une invitation polie à accomplir une action, ce qui n'est pas le cas en croate.

Thomas, en soulignant les bornes initiale et finale du processus, voit lui aussi l'importance de la différence de l'encadrement temporel du processus. Il fait remarquer (2006: 174) que l'incitation à poursuivre un procès déjà en cours s'exprime par l'imperfectif (la borne initiale n'est pas envisagée, l'action n'est pas insérée dans une séquence), alors que le perfectif suppose une certaine projection dans l'avenir du début du procès (la borne initiale est prise en compte, et une mise en séquence envisageable). Il continue (2006: 176) que l'imperfectif pourra être utilisé pour inciter énergiquement à passer à l'acte, après qu'un premier impératif du même verbe, au perfectif celui-là, n'a pas été suivi des effets attendus. Le second impératif à l'imperfectif apparaît fréquemment à l'oral accompagné, comme dans l'exemple ci-dessus, d'expressions marquant l'impatience, voire une certaine exaspération, du type "puisque je te le dis": Dođi! (P) Dolazi (I) kad ti kažem! / Viens! Viens puisque je te le dis! Tout se passe comme si le locuteur, face à la passivité de son interlocuteur, renonçait à l'inviter à entrer dans le procès en passant par la borne initiale de celui-ci, mais le précipitait brutalement dans le


__________23

cours de l'action, sans plus chercher à insérer celle-ci dans une chronologie qui partirait du moment de l'énonciation. Thomas (2006: 188) affirme que, pour les verbes téliques, la valeur fondamentale du perfectif est d'insérer le procès (borné) dans une suite chronologique d'actions (exprimées ou sous-entendues), alors que l'imperfectif vient annuler l'une des bornes, initiale ou finale, voire les deux. L'action est en quelque sorte présentée comme s'il fallait qu'elle soit déjà commencée au moment de l'énonciation.

En croate, la différence entre l'impératif perfectif et l'impératif imperfectif peut s'expliquer de la même manière, puisque l'impératif l'aspect imperfectif est moins poli que l'aspect perfectif. Vraćaj se (IMP)! (Rentre !), où l'on insiste sur l'action est plutôt perçu comme impoli, tandis que Vrati se (PERF)!, à l'aspect perfectif, est neutre (d'après la terminologie de Kerbrat-Orecchioni, un impératif perfectif en croate serait apoli). Težak et Babić (1994: 268), à part l'impolitesse, voient dans l'aspect imperfectif une incitation (Hajde, oblači se! / Allez, habille-toi !). Il faut préciser que cette différence dans le degré de politesse, en principe, n'est applicable que pour les verbes intransitifs. Là où le verbe peut avoir un complément d'objet direct, la différence entre les aspects précise s'il y a un objet, même sous-entendu (Pojedi (PERF)! / Mange !) ou non (Jedi (IMP)!). Thomas (2006: 180), lui aussi, fait remarquer que la présence d'un complément d'objet direct tend à faire préférer le perfectif, mais il souligne qu'il ne s'agit que d'une tendance.

A la différence du croate, en français la forme "perfective" Sois rentré ! est moins polie que Rentre !, justement parce que dans le premier exemple on insiste sur l'accomplissement et non sur l'action elle-même. Pour exprimer cette insistance, le français se sert de l'opposition entre la forme composée et la forme simple (ce qui peut être rapproché de la différence entre les temps), et le croate de celle entre les aspects perfectif et imperfectif.

Il en résulte que ces deux langues ont chacune deux formes de l'impératif, dont l'une est considérée comme moins polie que l'autre. En français, Rentre ! est non-accompli et "neutre" (ou apoli), Sois rentré ! est accompli et moins poli (dans certains contextes, c'est impoli). En croate, Vraćaj se ! est non-accompli et moins poli (ou impoli), Vrati se ! est accompli et "neutre" ou apoli. Insister sur le


__________24

déroulement ou sur l'accomplissement de l'action peut, selon la langue, rendre l'impératif plus ou moins poli. Nous pourrions expliquer l'impolitesse par le fait que, si on insiste sur l'accomplissement de l'action, comme en français (Sois rentré avant midi !), cela veut dire que le locuteur ne laisse pas à l'interlocuteur le choix du moment de terminer l'action. Par contre, si on insiste sur le déroulement de l'action, comme en croate (Vraćaj se!), le locuteur ne permet pas à l'interlocuteur de choisir le moment où il décidera de passer à l'acte, à savoir de commencer l'action.

Même si les deux langues connaissent une différence de degré de politesse dans l'impératif, ces formes ne se correspondent pas dans les traductions. L'impératif passé français se perd dans les traductions en croate, puisqu'il n'a pas d'équivalent exact (Sois rentré avant midi ! ne peut être traduit autrement que par Vrati se (PERF) prije podneva!, à savoir de la même façon qu'on traduirait Rentre avant midi !). En plus, en croate, on peut dire Vrati se (PERF)! Vraćaj se (IMP) kad ti kažem!, mais en français on ne peut pas dire Rentre ! *Sois rentré, puisque je te le dis ! De même, en français on emploie l'impératif passé plutôt rarement, certainement beaucoup plus rarement que l'aspect imperfectif de l'impératif en croate. Par suite, d'un côté nous avons les impératifs "neutres" (perfectif/présent), de l'autre côté les impératifs "marqués" (imperfectif/passé), mais leur distribution est loin d'être la même.

Il n'est pas facile de trouver dans un texte littéraire comme Combray des exemples d'où il ressortirait l'impolitesse exprimée par l'aspect imperfectif de l'impératif en croate (ou, d'ailleurs, par l'impératif passé en français). Même, en général, il n'y a pas beaucoup d'impératifs. Pourtant, voici un exemple de l'impératif "neutre" ou apoli, à l'aspect perfectif en croate :

Dans cet exemple il serait beaucoup plus autoritaire de dire dolazi, à savoir d'employer l'impératif imperfectif. Dans ce cas-là, la traduction ne correspondrait pas à un viens plutôt neutre.

Allons, Gilberte, viens ; qu'est-ce que tu fais

Hajde, Gilberte, dođi (PERF), što to radiš?


__________25

Le rapport entre l'aspect verbal et le temps verbal

Le temps et l'aspect découpent l'action du verbe du point de vue extérieur ou intérieur. Comme le dit Leeman-Bouix (2005: 47), le verbe comporte une représentation interne du temps puisque l'état ou l'action supposent un commencement, un déroulement et une fin (c'est ce qu'elle appelle l'aspect), mais aussi une représentation externe à l'idée verbale elle-même, puisque cette idée verbale est inscrite dans une chronologie, dans une époque.

Il s'en suit que l'aspect et le temps, tout en étant des notions différentes, recouvrent quelques concepts communs, dont la durée (située à l'extérieur de l'action – c'est le temps, ou dans son intérieur – c'est l'aspect). C'est pourquoi il n'est pas étonnant que les différentes langues expriment un même concept à l'aide de l'un ou de l'autre.

Nous voudrions ici souligner ce "chevauchement" entre le temps et l'aspect en croate, qui est encore plus évident en comparaison avec le français. Nous croyons pouvoir dire qu'en croate l'aspect verbal sert à exprimer, entre autres, des notions qui, en français, sont exprimées à l'aide du temps verbal.

En comparant le système des formes verbales qui situent une action dans le passé, le présent ou le futur en français et en croate, il est aisé de constater que le système croate est beaucoup plus pauvre, non seulement dans le style courant, mais aussi, dans une certaine mesure, dans le style littéraire. Cela est surtout évident dans l'expression du passé. Silić et Pranjković, en parlant des temps du passé (2007: 192), disent que l'imparfait, l'aoriste et le plus-que-parfait sont devenus très rares. L'aoriste, qui est toujours à l'aspect perfectif, dans son emploi absolu exprime une action dans un passé immédiat par rapport au moment de la parole (Silić et Pranjković 2007: 192). Težak et Babić ajoutent que l'aoriste exprime aussi les actions accomplies au passé en général (1994: 265). Selon Silić et Pranjković (2007: 192), l'imparfait (formé seulement à partir des verbes imperfectifs) est employé encore moins que l'aoriste dans la langue croate contemporaine. Parfois on le trouve dans des textes littéraires où il ajoute une nuance archaïsante, et il peut toujours être remplacé par le perfekt. Le plus-que-parfait (Silić et Pranjković 2007: 193) ne s'emploie que si on veut insister sur l'antériorité ou pour des raisons


__________26

stylistiques. De même, dans le chapitre consacré au perfekt, il est dit (Silić et Pranjković 2007: 192) que cette forme verbale, autrefois spécialisée pour exprimer un passé accompli dont les résultats sont présents au moment de la parole, a aujourd'hui supprimé l'aoriste, l'imparfait et le plus-que-parfait. Les autres auteurs consultés (Težak et Babić, Barić et al., Katičić) sont d'accord quant au remplacement de l'aoriste, de l'imparfait et du plus-que-parfait par le perfekt. Même si ce n'est pas le cas dans toutes les langues slaves, nous croyons que cet appauvrissement du système verbal temporel peut s'expliquer par la richesse du système aspectuel. En effet, nous pouvons constater que le rôle des formes verbales qui expriment le passé n'est pas seulement celui de situer une action dans le passé, mais aussi, en plus, de fournir des informations sur son (non-)accomplissement (en français, l'imparfait est en général associé à une action non-accomplie, et le passé composé ou le passé simple à une action accomplie). En croate, ces informations sont fournies par l'aspect verbal, et non par le temps verbal.

Pour exprimer l'antériorité, en croate on peut utiliser le perfekt à l'aspect perfectif (Bio sam nervozan jer nisam pročitao (PERF) knjigu / J'étais nerveux parce que je n'avais pas lu le livre) mais aussi imperfectif (Bio sam gladan jer nisam ništa jeo (IMP) prije polaska / J’avais faim, parce que je n’avais rien mangé avant mon départ).

Si nous comparons le perfekt en croate et les temps du passé en français, nous pouvons voir non seulement que le perfekt imperfectif ou perfectif couvre pratiquement tous les temps du passé en français, mais de même que l'aspect imperfectif ne correspond pas nécessairement à l'imparfait ou l'aspect perfectif au passé composé.

Parfois les différences sont subtiles, comme dans l'exemple suivant : Nikada se nije udavala (IMP) / Nikada se nije udala (PERF). Les deux phrases seraient traduites par Elle ne s'est jamais mariée, mais il existe une nuance qui distingue le sens "neutre" de la deuxième phrase où tout simplement le résultat est constaté, et une connotation stylistique qui peut être remarquée dans la phrase où l'aspect imperfectif souligne une certaine continuité du fait.

Voyons maintenant quelques exemples qui illustrent nos propos. En comparant les phrases correspondantes de Combray en français et en croate, il est


__________27

aisé de constater que le perfekt est l'équivalent du passé simple, du passé composé, de l'imparfait et du plus-que-parfait en français, même dans un texte d'une aussi grande qualité littéraire.

imparfait / perfekt imperfectif :

passé simple / perfekt perfectif :

passé composé / perfekt perfectif :

plus-que-parfait / perfekt perfectif :

Ces évocations tournoyantes et confuses ne duraient jamais que quelques secondes

Ta vrtoglava i zbrkana sjećanja nisu nikad trajala (IMP) dulje od nekoliko sekundi

Mais une fois, mon grand-père lut dans un journal que M. Swann était un des plus fidèles habitués des déjeuners du dimanche chez le duc de X...

Ali djed je jednom pročitao (PERF) u novinama da je gospodin Swann jedan od najredovitijih gostiju na nedjeljnim objedima kod vojvode de X...

Imagine-toi, Céline, que j'ai fait la connaissance d'une jeune institutrice suédoise qui m'a donné sur les coopératives dans les pays scandinaves des détails tout ce qu'il y a de plus intéressants

Zamisli, Céline, upoznala sam se ( P E R F ) s j e d n o m š v e d s k o m učiteljicom koja mi je iznijela (PERF) izvanredno zanimljive pojedinosti o zadrugama u skandinavskim zemljama

elle avait apporté dans la famille de mon père un esprit si différent que tout le monde la plaisantait et la tourmentait

baka je u obitelj mog oca unijela (PERF) toliko različit duh da su se svi s njom šalili i zadirkivali je


__________28

Mais, comme nous l'avons déjà souligné, le passé composé ou le passé

simple n'ont pas toujours comme équivalent l'aspect perfectif. C'est le cas dans les situations où ces formes verbales sont employées en français avec des adverbes qui délimitent la durée (longtemps) ou soulignent la répétition de l'action (toujours), mais aussi s'il s'agit d'une action ponctuelle. En croate, en revanche, l'aspect imperfectif met l'accent sur l'action et non sur le résultat :

Comme il est évident, le perfekt est omniprésent dans la langue croate, ce qui ne serait pas possible sans la richesse du système aspectuel.

La détermination du complément d'objet direct

Dans l'étude de l'expression d'une idée, il ne faut pas se limiter à une seule catégorie grammaticale. Nous sommes d'accord avec Vet (2000: 164) quand il dit que les analogies entre des catégories appartenant à des domaines différents sont aussi intéressantes parce qu'elles permettent de découvrir des liens cognitifs plus généraux et peut-être plus profondément ancrés dans l'esprit humain. Comme nous le montrerons dans la suite, il est possible de trouver un lien entre l'aspect verbal et la détermination du complément d'objet direct.

Avant d'analyser la question en croate, nous voudrions montrer comment Leeman et Vet voient, en français, l'analogie entre la valeur aspectuelle du verbe et la détermination du nom.

Longtemps je me suis couché de bonne heure

Mais je vous ai toujours dit qu'il avait beaucoup de goût

Elle ne s'entêta pas d'ailleurs à persuader les soeurs de ma grand-mère

Dugo sam vremena lijegao (IMP) rano

Pa ja sam vam uvijek govorila (IMP) da on ima dobar ukus

Uostalom, nije se previše trudila (IMP) odvratiti sestre moje bake od njihova nauma


__________29

Leeman (2004: 144) affirme que le choix du déterminant a une incidence sur l'interprétation du verbe, plus particulièrement celle de sa valeur aspectuelle. Dans les phrases Cet appareil (te) hache un steak en deux secondes ou Cet appareil (te) hache quelques steaks en trois secondes, l'action est délimitée (on peut la préciser par en deux / trois secondes), d'aspect perfectif et elle aboutit au résultat (un steak haché, quelques steaks hachés – les noms sont comptables). En revanche, dans les phrases L'appareil hacha de la viande pendant trois secondes ou L'appareil hacha des oignons pendant des heures, l'action est montrée en train de s'accomplir, sans que son début ou sa fin soient impliqués ; le procès est imperfectif et les noms sont massifs. Leeman, par conséquent, associe les déterminants du type un (impliquant une délimitation) à l'aspect perfectif, et les déterminants des, du, de la (qui véhiculent l'idée d'une quantité vague, sans limites) à l'aspect imperfectif. Il est intéressant de remarquer que Leeman voit l'aspect imperfectif dans un verbe au passé simple, même si cette forme verbale est en général associée à une action accomplie ou ponctuelle. Dans cet exemple, le passé simple serait traduit en croate par un perfekt à l'aspect imperfectif (comme nous l'avons montré dans le chapitre précédent, cette possibilité existe si c'est l'action qui est mise au premier plan), ce qui pourrait être considéré comme une confirmation de la thèse de Leeman.

Vet, quant à lui, compare les articles et les temps verbaux sur deux plans différents : celui de la référence et celui, de nature pragmatique, du traitement de l'information (Vet 2000: 163).

Sur le plan de la référence, l'article partitif se combine avec un nom qui réfère à une quantité non spécifiée (non bornée) en matière, tandis que l'imparfait se combine avec une portion de procès non spécifiée (non bornée). En revanche, l'article indéfini et le passé simple exigent que le référent du nom et de la phrase soit respectivement un individu (qui est par définition borné) et un procès borné (Vet 2000: 154).

Sur le plan du traitement de l'information, Vet montre une analogie entre l'imparfait et l'article défini, qu'il classe parmi les éléments anaphoriques (2000: 160). En effet, ils donnent tous les deux l'instruction d'ajouter des informations supplémentaires concernant une entité pour laquelle il existe déjà une fiche


__________30

(exemple pour l'imparfait : Hélène prit dans ses bras l'enfant, qui pleurait, Vet 2000: 157 ; exemple pour l'article défini : Mireille a été attaquée par un ours et par un lion. Pierre a chassé l'ours et il a tué le lion, Vet 2000: 155). En revanche, l'article indéfini et le passé simple donnent tous les deux l'instruction d'introduire une nouvelle fiche dans le fichier: dans le cas de l'article indéfini (Mireille a été attaquée par un ours et par un lion. Pierre a chassé un ours et il a tué un lion, Vet 2000: 155), la fiche est utilisée pour noter des renseignements sur un individu dont il n'a pas encore été question dans le discours; dans le cas du passé simple (Hélène prit dans ses bras l'enfant, qui pleura, Vet 2000: 157), il s'agit d'un nouvel intervalle pendant lequel se produit le procès (Vet 2000: 160).

Il est intéressant de comparer les conclusions de Leeman ou de Vet avec des observations que nous pouvons faire en croate. Comme nous le verrons plus loin, nous pouvons trouver une référence non bornée dans les domaines nominal et verbal, de même que les éléments anaphoriques dans le traitement de l'information. Les exemples de Vet Hélène prit dans ses bras l'enfant, qui pleurait et Hélène prit dans ses bras l'enfant, qui pleura ont leurs équivalents en croate Helena je uzela u ruke dijete, koje je plakalo (IMP) et Helena je uzela u ruke dijete, koje je zaplakalo (PERF), qui, eux aussi, expriment un intervalle pour lequel il existe déjà une fiche (IMP) ou un nouvel intervalle (PERF). De même, sur le plan de la référence, l'expression de la partitivité en croate (le génitif partitif), qui, grosso modo, correspond à l'article partitif en français, désigne une entité non bornée, et l'aspect imperfectif, comme l'imparfait en français, se combine avec une portion de procès non bornée.

Voyons maintenant comment l'aspect verbal en croate peut participer à l'expression de la détermination du nom complément d'objet direct.

Comme nous avons expliqué dans des articles antérieurs (Bikić-Carić 2009, Bikić-Carić 2010), en comparant le français et le croate, nous avons trouvé plusieurs équivalents croates de l'article. Même si le plus souvent c'est l'équivalent zéro (d'où une grande importance du co(n)texte), nous avons aussi remarqué jedan (un), parfois les démonstratifs, l'ordre des mots, et, ce qui est important pour notre propos ici, le génitif partitif (comme équivalent de l'article partitif) et l'aspect verbal.


__________31

En effet, l'aspect perfectif peut supposer que le nom complément d'objet direct est défini, et l'aspect imperfectif que le nom est indéfini. Comme nous avons déjà mentionné plus haut, grosso modo, l'aspect imperfectif met l'accent sur l'action, et l'aspect perfectif sur le résultat. C'est pourquoi nous pouvons comparer l'aspect perfectif avec un résultat connu (Napisao je pismo / Il a écrit la lettre). Par contre, Pisao je pismo (Il écrivait une lettre) indique que l'action n'est pas encore terminée et que l'objet de l'action n'est pas encore défini. Il faut pourtant ajouter que le co(n)texte y joue un rôle très important, puisque, à notre avis, il n'y a jamais d'interprétation univoque des exemples qui peuvent être cités pour illustrer cette thèse. En plus, il ne faut pas oublier le fait que certains verbes à l'aspect perfectif doivent avoir un complément d'objet direct, même sous-entendu : Jeo sam IMP / J'ai mangé (et je n'ai plus faim), mais Pojeo sam PERF / J'ai mangé (quelque chose de défini).

Un autre équivalent de l'article est le génitif partitif. Le génitif partitif montre, à peu près comme l'article partitif en français, qu'on parle d'une quantité indéterminée, à savoir d'une partie d'un tout exprimé par un nom massif. Silić et Pranjković (2007: 202) disent que le génitif partitif s'emploie avec les mots qui désignent une quantité (čaša vode (GEN) / un verre d'eau), avec les numéraux (sedam pitanja (GEN) / sept questions), avec les adjectifs (pun vrlina (GEN) / plein de qualités) ou avec les verbes, où le génitif partitif exprime une quantité indéterminée (dodati soli (GEN) / ajouter du sel). Le génitif partitif (noms massifs) peut alterner avec l'accusatif (noms comptables). Pour l'accusatif, les mêmes auteurs (2007: 223) mentionnent, entre autres emplois, l'accusatif du complément d'objet direct (pisati pismo (ACC) / écrire une lettre). C'est pourquoi une phrase comme Ajoutez du sel serait traduite en croate par Dodajte soli (GEN). Par contre, s'il s'agit d'un nom précédé de l'article défini, comme Ajoutez le sel, la traduction sera Dodajte sol (ACC), où le caractère défini du nom en croate est exprimé par l'accusatif.

Maintenant, essayons de voir comment on peut combiner l'aspect verbal et les cas génitif ou accusatif pour exprimer la détermination du complément d'objet direct. Prenons comme exemple les expressions boire du vin ou boire le vin, qui peuvent avoir quatre équivalents en croate :


__________32

piti (IMP) vina (génitif) – boire du vin (le génitif partitif montre que la quantité n'est pas déterminée, l'aspect imperfectif met l'action au premier plan)

popiti (PERF) vina (génitif) – boire du vin (le génitif désigne une quantité indéterminée, mais comme l'aspect perfectif souligne l'accomplissement de l'action, il en résulte l'idée d'une petite quantité)

piti (IMP) vino (accusatif), a ne pivo – boire du vin, et non pas de la bière (ici, on ne parle pas de la quantité, mais on souligne de quelle matière il s'agit – c'est un des emplois possibles de l'article partitif en français et dans ce cas son équivalent croate n'est pas le génitif)

popiti (PERF) vino (accusatif) – boire le vin (mais, l'accusatif combiné avec l'aspect perfectif signifie que le nom est déterminé, ce qui est traduit par l'article défini en français)

Afin de mieux mettre en évidence la différence entre le nom défini et le nom indéfini en croate, il est toujours utile de comparer les expressions en croate à leurs traductions dans une langue avec l'article, en l'occurrence le français. Nous croyons avoir montré que l'aspect verbal peut figurer parmi les expressions de la détermination du nom, mais aussi que la déclinaison du nom en croate peut préciser le sens de l'aspect verbal.

En général, il est évident que l'aspect verbal exprime beaucoup plus que l'accomplissement ou le non-accomplissement de l'action : il peut jouer les rôles du mode verbal ou du temps verbal, il peut exprimer la virtualité, l'antériorité, l'(im)politesse, ou même le caractère défini ou indéfini du nom. Nous sommes d'avis que l'aspect verbal mériterait une étude plus profonde et une meilleure valorisation de la part des auteurs qui se consacrent à la langue croate.

Bibliographie

Babić, Stjepan et al. 1991. Povijesni pregled, glasovi i oblici hrvatskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: Globus.

Barić, Eugenija et al. 1979. Priručna gramatika hrvatskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

Bikić-Carić, Gorana 2009. L’article en français et en roumain avec ses équivalents


__________33

en croate dans un corpus aligné. Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia, vol. LIV, pp. 15-50.

Bikić-Carić, Gorana 2010. L’expression de la détermination du nom en croate, français et roumain”. Romanoslavica, vol. XLVI, pp. 27-39.

Brown, Penelope - Levinson, Stephen. 1994. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delbecque, Nicole 2006. Linguistique cognitive - comprendre comment fonctionne le langage. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

Grevisse, Maurice 1980. Le bon usage. Paris: Duculot.Katičić, Radoslav 1991. Sintaksa hrvatskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: GlobusKerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 2008. Les interactions en site commercial: des

interactions "polies", in: Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C., Traverso, V. (dir.): Les interactions en site commercial - Invariants et variations. Lyon: ENS Editions, pp. 105- 138.

Kwapisz-Osadnik, Katarzyna 2009. Le verbe français dans un cadre cognitif. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Leeman, Danielle 2004. Les déterminants du nom en français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Leeman-Bouix, Danielle 2005. Grammaire du verbe français - des formes au sens. Paris: Armand Colin.

Sémon, Jean-Paul 2006. L'impératif russe – mode de la rupture, in: Soutet, O. (dir.): Etudes de linguistique contrastive. Paris: PUPS, pp. 149-164.

Silić, Josip - Pranjković, Ivo 2007. Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

Težak, Stjepko - Babić, Stjepan 1994. Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

Thomas, Paul-Louis 2006. L'aspect à l'impératif en serbo-croate (bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe), in: Soutet, O. (dir.): Etudes de linguistique contrastive. Paris: PUPS, pp. 165-190.

Vet, Co 2000. Référence temporelle, aspect verbal et les dichotomies massif/comptable et connu/nouveau, in: Moeschler, J. et Béguelin, M.-J. Référence temporelle et nominale – Actes du 3e cycle romand de Sciences du langage, Cluny (15-20 avril 1996). Bern : Lang, pp. 145-166.


__________34

Résumé

Bien qu'il soit généralement admis de considérer l'aspect verbal en croate comme expression de la perfectivité ou de l'imperfectivité du verbe (avec des nuances supplémentaires, où on trouve des verbes pantifs, totifs, inchoatifs, majoratifs, satifs etc.), nous croyons qu'il est possible de mettre en évidence quelques sens supplémentaires dans ce domaine.

En croate presque toutes les formes verbales peuvent revêtir l'aspect perfectif ou imperfectif (les exceptions sont rares, comme l'imparfait qui est toujours à l'aspect imperfectif, et l'aoriste, toujours à l'aspect perfectif). Il s'en suit une situation apparemment contradictoire, à savoir l'existence du présent à l'aspect perfectif, en dépit du fait qu'une action au présent devrait être non-accomplie, donc imperfective. C'est pourquoi nous tenons à souligner que le présent perfectif sert à exprimer d'autres idées, comme la virtualité d'une action, sa répétition etc.

Ensuite, le choix de la forme perfective ou imperfective à l'impératif peut contribuer à l'expression de la politesse ou de l'impolitesse. En effet, la forme imperfective du verbe à l'impératif, où l'on insiste sur l'action elle-même, en général est considérée comme moins polie que la forme perfective.

Quant à l'expression du passé en croate, il est intéressant d'observer dans la langue courante (et même dans la langue littéraire) un certain appauvrissement du nombre de formes verbales. L'imparfait et l'aoriste ont, à de rares exceptions près, pratiquement disparu de l'emploi, et le plus-que-parfait est devenu rare. Ils ont tous été remplacés par le perfekt, aussi bien des verbes perfectifs qu'imperfectifs. Même si ce phénomène ne se retrouve pas dans toutes les langues slaves, nous sommes d'avis qu'en croate il peut s'expliquer par la vivacité de l'aspect verbal.

De plus, l'aspect verbal peut être rapproché à l'expression de la détermination du complément d'objet direct du verbe. Dans certains contextes, la forme perfective implique que le complément d'objet direct est défini, alors que la forme imperfective est suivie d'un complément d'objet direct indéfini. Cela est d'autant plus intéressant que les langues slaves, à l'exception du bulgare et du macédonien, ne possèdent pas la catégorie grammaticale de l'article pour exprimér la détermination du nom.

Afin d'expliquer ces phénomènes, nous avons utilisé un corpus parallèle composé de textes en croate et en français. En effet, la comparaison de deux ou plusieurs langues fait apparaître des situations qui, autrement, pourraient passer inaperçues. Nous croyons que de cette façon nous pouvons approfondir nos connaissances sur l'aspect verbal en croate.

Mots-cléscroate, aspect verbal, temps verbaux, présent des verbes perfectifs, impératif,

détermination du nom, corpus parallèle

Irregular Aorist and Imperfect Forms__________

__________35

Irregular Aorist and Imperfect Forms in Older Upper Sorbian and Upper Sorbian Aspect*

Katja Brankačkec Slovanský ústav Akademie věd České republiky, v. v. i.

1. Introduction

In Old Church Slavic as well as in Bulgarian, there is a system of verbal aspect parallel to the complex system of synthetic preterits with a different meaning for aorist forms and for imperfect forms. Imperfect forms of pf. verbs have usually a special iterative meaning, aorist forms of ipf. verbs are very rare in Old Church Slavic (Dostál 1956, 46; 50; 83; 99).

In Sorbian, on the contrary, the meaning of aorist and imperfect is the same, but while aorist is formed only from pf. verbs, the imperfect can be formed only from ipf. verbs according to the actual codification (see Faßke 1981, 251f.). This seems to be the case for Older Sorbian as well, at least as far as the older grammars of Sorbian are concerned (Wölke 2005, 244). Nevertheless, there are exceptional examples in the Sorbian literature (reported, for example by Werner 1996, 120ff.).

The formal difference between both forms can be seen according to the ending only in the 2./3. person sg. (imperfect –še, aorist –0) and according to the verbal stem in some conjugational classes: about one third of all verbs: two of three classes of i-conjugation as well as in the classes e2, e4, e5. In the other conjugation classes, the forms of the other persons are homonymous (a-conjugation, some e- and i-conjugations, and many athematic verbs) moreover, many aorist forms of the 2./3. person sg. are homonymous with the present form.

* This work is part of the project Distributions and functions of past forms in Older Sorbian, Old Czech and Old Polish (Distribuce a funkce minulých tvarů ve starší lužické srbštině, staré češtině a polštině ) Nr. P406/11/P424 granted by the Czech Grant agentur (GA ČR)

Romano-Bohemica II / Brankačkec__________

__________36

In this paper, I am trying to show that the modern codification of simple past in Upper Sorbian holds for Older Sorbian texts as well. For this purpose, I have examined simple past forms from an Older Sorbian text corpus (see below) with regard to their word formation structure and to their aspectuality. Moreover, I would like to show how irregularities in the simple past forms can give us information about the verbal aspect in Older Upper Sorbian.

In spite of the reported exceptions, we judge the aspectual distribution between aorist and imperfect as widely intact for Older Sorbian for the following reasons:

(1) According to our corpus and to further secondary literature, there are only rare exceptions in Older Sorbian.

(2) In nearly all old Sorbian grammars (17th and 18th century), there are descriptions of this distribution in spite of the fact, that verbal aspect was a largely unknown phenomena by that time (Wölke 2005, 244ff). The only exception is the grammar of Hančka (1768), which claims the ending –še for all simple past forms in the 2./3. person sg. This grammar, however, has a very prescriptive character with many incorrect rules (see Wölke ibid.) and Hančka himself indicates an exception to his own rule (wza).

(3) Most of the exceptions reported by Werner (1996, 120ff.) can be explained as a result of uncertainty in forming simple past forms, which are being lost in Upper Sorbian in present days (Scholze 2007, 210). On the other hand, in Lower Sorbian dialects the simple past was archaic already in the 18th century, while at the same time, it seems that the verbal aspect is more grammaticalized in Lower than in Upper Sorbian dialects.

(4) For the simple past forms of verbs belonging to the e2 group, there is a great amount of uncertainty about the present and past verb stems (-ny- vs. –nje) in Older as well as in modern Upper Sorbian texts. This must be explained with the fonological development in some Upper Sorbian dialects, according to which there is a strong tendency for depalatalization and for the equalization of the former two sounds [e] and [y] (see examples below).

On the other hand, besides the old grammars of Upper Sorbian, there is very little information about the verbal aspect and its grammaticalization in Older Sorbian. For modern colloquial Sorbian, Breu (2003) and Scholze (2007) report a very low grammaticalization of aspect: the opposition seems to be terminative-aterminative, which means that it expresses mainly telicity / atelicity and implicit (not explicit) semelfactivity / iterativity (see Breu 2000a). The evaluation of complex Older Sorbian


__________37

verbs as (proto)perfective or (proto)imperfective (cf. Bermel 1997,8f.) can never be certain, as there are no empirical studies on aspect in Older Sorbian availlable. As also Breu assumes a flective category of aspect in past tense for Older Sorbian (Breu 2000a), we can learn from the irregular simple past forms some new facts about the nature of verbal aspect in Older Sorbian: Are the exceptional forms derived from anaspectual, biaspectual verbs or do they have an aspectual partner? Are the verbs forming exceptional past tense forms belong to a certain lexical class?

Such an analysis certainly makes sense only for those Older Upper Sorbian texts, where simple past forms are still used frequently and not as archaic forms.

2. My corpus of Upper Sorbian

As there is no official corpus of Older Sorbian so far, I have collected and digitalized the following texts:

- the book of Genesis (chapters 1–25) in the Bible translation published 1827 (Brankačkec 2009 and 2009b) as well as selected forms from the rest of this book and four other books (1st book of Samuel, Matthew’s gospel, the book of the prophet Jeremy, the laments of Jeremy)

- in addition, we have searched the book of Genesis (chapters 1–25) in the translation by Swětlik (manuscript from the end of the 17th century)

- the first Sorbian Newspaper by Dejka (1809–1812) (Brankačkec 2008)- the first ten volumes of Jordan’s newspaper “Jutnička” (1842)Further examples were selected from other publications (mainly Kaulfürst

2012). However, these texts were not analysed systematically, the examples are not part of our data base.

As a result, the following data could be gathered for our data base:- 1315 simple past forms from the Bible 1728: 476 imperfect, 235 aorists, 428

aorists homonymous with present forms, 276 preterit forms in other persons- 445 simple past forms from Swětlik’s Bible: 98 imperfects, 123 aorists, 157

aorists homonymous with present forms, 67 preterit forms in other persons- 1236 simple past forms from Dejka’s newspaper: 276 imperfect, 301 aorists,

199 aorists homonymous with present forms, 461 preterit forms in other persons- 995 simple past forms in Jordan’s newspaper: 402 imperfect, 160 aorists, 282

aorists homonymous with present forms, 151 preterit forms in other persons


__________38

3. Regularity of the forms

For all the texts we can claim a wide regularity of the preterit forms according to the actual codification. Furthermore, the fact that in all the texts about half of the preterit forms (or more) in the 2./3. person sg. are aorists, counters the claim, that –še is an universal ending for all verbs in the 2./3. sg. preterit.

As I have showed previously (Brankačkec 2008, 2009, forthcoming), most irregularities in the stem can be explained with the help of dialectological knowledge or by adapting more flexible definitions of ipf. and pf. aspect for Older Sorbian (cf. Bermel 1997 and the development of aspect in Russian).

In the text from the Bible 1728 I have found two exceptions (dosahniše, schowaše, see below) among the 476 imperfect forms, 3 exceptions (so nuh, 2x krany) among the 235 aorist forms and 5 more irregular forms among the aorist forms, which are homonymous with the present forms. In all 5 examples, the historical present was probably used.

Among the imperfect forms are 438 verbs without prefixes, all of them are ipf. according to the actual codification of Upper Sorbian. 41 verbs have a prefix, but 30 of them have a reimperfectivizing suffix (-owa-, -wa-, -a-, -ěra-) at the same time. According to the actual codification they are ipf. verbs. Most of the other imperfect forms are passive constructions with an imperfect form of the auxiliary verb być.

Most of the aorist forms are pf. according to the actual codification as well: 103 forms have a prefix and 120 more examples are forms of pf. verbs such as sydnyć so, sadźić, wzać, stać so and others). There are 11 aorist forms of the verb być (bu) in the sense ‘to become, to come into existence’ and two passive forms.

Among the aorist forms homonymous with present tense, 345 have a prefix and only two of them an imperfectivizing suffix. In both cases, they are used in the summaries given before each chapter. Therefore, it is very probable that these are present tense forms. 80 more forms are derived from pf. (unprefixed) verbs according to the actual codification. The five examples left are used in the summaries given before the chapters as well.

In the data from Swětlik’s translation, I have found exceptional forms only among the imperfect forms. Especially interesting are the two forms přińdźeše (see below).


__________39

There are two more forms (pohladnycze, wowóznjeczy), which could be relevant for this analysis two, but which could be judged as participles as well (see below).

Among the 85 imperfect forms 75 do not have any prefix, 6 of the 10 prefixed verbs have an reimperfectivizing suffix in addition. 74 of the 114 aorist forms have a prefix, all of the unprefixed verbs are derived from verbs, which are pf. according to the actual codification (rjec, ćeknyć, padnyć, sydnyć so, počeć, stać so and others). 137 of the 163 aorist forms homonymous with the present form have a prefix, all of the others are derived of pf. verbs according to the actual codification (e.g. wróćić so, stajić, woblec, narodźić so).

In Dejka’s texts, there are more irregularities. Among the imperfect forms there are two ambivalent ones (poručeše), which could be judged as ipf.: According to the other documented forms of the verb, there could have been an aspectual pair poručić pf. / poručeć ipf. in Older Sorbian. Two irregular forms are documented among the imperfect forms (zadźeržeše, porodźeše). Among the aorist forms there are three irregular ones (2x wordowa, kraže), in 13 cases, an interpretation as historical present is supported by the context.

259 of the 276 imperfect forms have no prefix. However, some of them are pf. according to the actual codification: (daše, namekaše, see below). Eleven of the 17 prefixed verbs have a reimperfectivizing suffix (-owa-) in addition or are ipf. according to the actual codification (2x zachadźeše). Furthermore, there are two passive forms.

155 of the 292 aorist forms have a prefix, 113 more verbs are pf. according to the actual codification. Furthermore there are 27 passive forms with the aorist of być and a participle and one example with buchu + predicative (see below).

124 of the 206 aorist forms homonymous with the present form have a prefix, 69 more forms are pf. according to the actual codification. The remaining 13 forms are formed of ipf. verbs: běži, čini, ćišći, dawa, dźěli, njeńdźe, pomha, stupi, tepi so (3x), woła (2x), the context allows an interpretation as historical present (see below).

In Jordan’s texts there are exceptions only in the choice of the stem (present stem instead of the past stem: sčinještaj instead of sčiništaj, but 16 examples according to the rules), nastróža so instead of nastróži so (3x). It is evident, that this text is already significantly influenced by a puristic attitude, which could have an impact also to the choice of aspect and tense.


__________40

4. Exceptions

In the following part, the irregular forms found and mentioned above will be discussed in more detail. For a better orientation, I will present them in the same order (grouped according to their confirmation in the individual texts) as above. First, I will cite the form in its context and then comment the example.

4.1. Bible 1728 dosahniše(1) 1728: Kojżdy wot tej ſtołpow Dejka bje woßomnacże wochcżow

woßoki, a ſchnura dwanacże wochcżow dołha doßaniſche wokoło njeho, a bje ſchtyri porſty tolſty, a ſnuzka proſny.

(Jer_52.21)

The context clearly demands an ipf. verb in this case. There is a potential ipf. partner for dosahnyć – dosahać, which is also evident in the bible 1728, in one case as an imperfect form dosahaše (Gen_28.12). Further examples of the verb dosahnyć have the suffix –ny- (documented in one simple past form 2.p.dual in Gen_19.16 and some infinitive forms), not –ni-, the present stem of this verb has the suffix –n(j)e- (4x in the corpus), which is often pronounced as –ni- (typically in the evangelic dialects of Upper Sorbian, documented for this verb only in the form in example 1 above), the infinitive and perfect stem should be –ny- (4x) or –nu- (4x) as the older form, which is documented more frequently in the Bible, while –ny- occurs more often in Dejka’s text. In this case, the present stem is used for forming the imperfect form, which allows the proposition that we have an occasional (or rather irregular) reimperfectivization here: dosahnyć – dosahnjeć. For such an interpretation speaks the fact, that this is the only simple past form of that kind at all in the corpus, all other simple past forms use the perfect stem with –ny- (Gen_19.16) or, more typically, the alternative stem –źe- (4x, e.g. 1_Sam_14.23). Moreover, this is the only simple past form of this verb in the book of the prophet Jeremy, otherwise only the present tense form dosaha is documented in that text. It is very probable, that this text was translated by another author than the other texts analysed, which would be a possible explanation for this irregularity. There seem to be no semantic differences between the


__________41

two aspect partners dosahać / dosahnyć according to the examples documented in the corpus, both verbs are used in the sense ‘to reach, to be as long/ high/ wide’ in a pure spatial sense as well as metaphorically. However, dosahać is documented much less often (1x spatially, 2x metaphorically) than dosahnyć (9x spatially, 3x metaphorically) and dosahnyć is also documented in two slightly different meanings in addition: ‘to capture, to catch’ (5x) and ‘to reach a goal, to go somewhere’ in a directional rather than spatial sense (3x). Moreover, in one example dosahnyć has the metaphorical meaning ‘to be enough’, which is more typical for Modern Upper Sorbian.

schowaše(2) 1728: A wonaj ßłyſcheſtaj Boha teho KNESA łoß, kotryż po ſarodżi

chodżeſche, dyż dżen wokłodnuł bjeſche. A Adam ßo ſkowaſe ſe ßwojej żonu, pſched woblecżom Boha teho KNESA pod żtommami teje ſarody.

(Gen_3.8)In this example, the prefix underlines a special part of the verb meaning ‘to go

to a hiding place, so that nobody would see them’ – the imperfect form, on the other hand, underlines the duration of the hiding (cf. Breu 2000, 61). Because the aorist form (homonymous with present) schowa is evident in the bible too, but more examples of the imperfect form can be found as well (Gen_37.11, 1Sam_20.24), it is very likely, that the verb was anaspectual or biaspectual in Older Sorbian. Compare the following aorist form:

(3) 1728: A ſta ßo, dyż ßo ßłonzo ſkowa, ſo twerdy ßon na Abrama panu, a laj, ſtrach a wulka cżemnoſcz napanu jeho.

(Gen_15.12)In this case, possibly an interpretation of the event as incidence was not

wished, but the interpretation as a chain of event was meant to be supported by the usage of the aorist.

There are also examples of the unprefixed verb chować in the text: (4) 1728: Wſchitke mejſta budża pſched wołanjom jyſnikow a ſchippami

czjelerow cżjekacż, a budża ßo whuſtych ljeßach kowacż, a do ſkałow ſaljeſcz, a wſchitke mjeſta budża wopuſchcżene, ſo nichto wnich bydlicż nebudże. (Jer_4.29)


__________42

At least in this case, there seems to be no lexical difference to the prefixed verb, nevertheless, the unprefixed verb is used more rarely in the texts of Old Upper Sorbian, an interpretation of schować as biaspectual in Older Upper Sorbian is therefore still possible.

so nuh(5) 1728: Potom ſo Abram dale nuh, a cżeniſche kpołnju. 1976: Potom pućowaše Abram přeco dale k Negebej.Lutherbibel: Darnach weich Abram ferner / vnd zoch aus gegen dem mittag.(Gen_12.9)This misprint (hnu) shows an archaical usage of the verb hnuć so: older

dictionaries indicate the meaning ‘to move’ (Kral 1927), modern dictionaries only the literal (psychological) meaning, not the directional one (Völkel 1981), in Jentsch (1989) the archaical verb hnuć so ‘to move’ with pf. aspect as in Czech is mentioned.

For the two examples of aorist derived of the verb kranyć, see the discussion of the form kraže in Dejkas text in chapter 4.3 below.

4.2. Swětlik přindźešoIn contrast to the evangelic translation printed in 1728, Swětlik’s translation

seems to be less puristic: the smaller amount of data collected from his translation contains two examples of imperfect forms of the verb přińć. In both cases, the parallel sentences in the evangelic translation contain aorist forms of this verb:

(6) Swětlik: Woni yiżcże rėcżżachu, ha hleycżo {ta} Rachel pżińdżescho ztèmi Wówczami ſwoyoho Wóczza; dokelż wona ſama te Stadwo paſescho.1728: Dyż to hjeſchcże ſnimi recżeſche, pſchindże Rahel ſtymi

wowzami ßwojeho nana, pſchetoż wona paßeſche. (Gen_29.9)(7) Swětlik: Ha hdèż Yakob k Wėtżoru ztóho Pola pżindżescho, dha

wundże yómu ta Lia napżecżo hwon, ha, Kemńe, dżescho wona,[...]1728: Dyż Jakub wecżor ſpola pſchindże, dżjeſche Lea jemu wohn

napſchecżiwo, a dżeſche: […] (Gen_30.16)


__________43

In both examples, the verbs are used in the context of incidence, in (6) přińdźešo is combined with an ipf. form (rěčachu), in (7), on the contrary, with a pf. form (wuńdźe). This seems to confirm Breu’s (2000a, 56f) findings about modern Upper Sorbian, where incidence, chains of events and simultaneity cannot be distinguished with the verbal aspect alone.

The verb přińć is used under the influence of German kommen ‘to come’ in the first place and therefore very probably not to be interpreted as a prefixed verb při- + hić at all. The potential aspectual partner přichadźeć is used very rarely in Older Sorbian (see Brankačkec 2009, 502ff.) However, in the evangelic Bible (1728), přińć forms only aorist forms, and in Swětlik’s translation, the aorist forms (přińdźe) are more frequent (8x) than the imperfect forms (2x přińdźešo). Both texts seem to be quite puristic in this respect, but while the Bible 1728 seems to avoid a total identification of the verb přińć with German kommen and generally uses it in the sense ‘to move to a certain direction’ in the first place (see Brankačkec 2009b), Swětlik’s translation seems to be less puristic in this respect. For the transitional dialect of Slepo-Schleife, Brijnen (2004, 125) makes a similar observation: the form přińdźeše is documented in Nepila’s works as well, which leads her to the judgment of přińć as an anaspectual verb.

pohladnèczè, wowóźnéyczéThese are two more forms in the material of Swětlik’s manuscript, which could

be irregular forms. However, the orthography already allows an interpretation as participles present active, which is supported by the context:

(8) Swětlik: Ha hdèż yare wė`le Dńow zahschwe bėscho, ha wón ſo tam hoŕedżerżescho, dha pohladnèczè Abi'melech Kral tèch Palestinskich pżez Wókno prėdk, wuhlada yóho żortwaczoho{ztėyu} qRebekku ſwoyeyu Żonu.

1728: A ſta ßo, dyż won tam dołhi cżaß bjeſche bydlił, ſo Philiſtiſki kral Abimelech ſwoknom wohn ladaſche, a wulada, a laj Jſaak żortowaſche ſe ßwojej żonu Rebeku.(Gen_26.8)


__________44

There are (at least) two aorist forms zpohladny in Swětlik’s text, in the evangelic translation (1728) –hladać with a prefix forms aorists only, while hladać without a prefix always forms imperfect forms.

(9) Swětlik: Hale yena Studńa ſtupaſche ztéye Zé´me hoŕe, wowóźnéyczé tón czéłe wſchiczki Zwérch téye Zé´me.1728: Ale mha dżjeſche ſe ſemje, a macżeſche zyłu ſemju.(Gen_2.6)

This verb is not evident in the dictionaries – it is a word formation derived from an adjective with the prefix wo-, which could be ipf. as well.

4.3. Dejka

In comparison with the two bible translations as well as with Jordan’s newspaper, Dejka’s texts are different: the author was a craftsman with no higher education, his knowledge of Sorbian was that of a native speaker with a vital interest in his native language and its written form. His orthography was lend from the evangelic translations of religious texts published during the 17th and 18th centuries, but he probably did not study any grammar or orthographic rules very intensively as frequent doublets such as “dawa” vs. “dała” ‘gives’ illustrate.

His texts are, on the other hand, under heavy influence of German, which is natural, as he must have used German newspapers as a source of information for his volumes. As the first Sorbian “journalst” at all, he had to be a pioneer in forming many terms for the Sorbian lexicon, especially in the political, juristic and military sphere. This German influence has an impact also in the usage of aorist and imperfect, as we will see in the following part.

wopytaše(10) Ton 19. Dźen Jul. prußka Kralowna wumrje, jako ßwojeho Nana we

Meklenburg-Strelitz wopytaſche. (Dejka, 1810, nr. 8, p. 64)


__________45

This form is used in the context of incidence, in a position, where we would expect an ipf. verb. On the other hand, in the following expamle (11), an aorist or historical present form of this verb is formed:

(11) Ruſſowſki Kejźor pſchi Spocźatku Nov. prußkeho Krala a naſcheho Kurfjerſchtu wopytta, a ſprußkim Kralom na 3. Nov. we Potsdami, pſchi Fridrichowym Rowi, we Nozy, ton Sslub ſcźiniſchtaj: we Europi ſtajny Mjer wudźjewacź.(Dejka, 1811, nr. 07, p. 52)

It remains an open question, whether Dejka used this verb biaspectually or whether aspect is not essential for it at all and the aorist / imperfect distinction is used to express aspectual features such as incidence instead.

daše(12) Ton Wohen ßo tak moznje bryſchnje wokoło ßo pſchjeſzeraſche, ſo ßo

bojecź daſche, ſo zyłe Mjeſto kGruntu pojndźe.(Dejka, 1810, nr. 11, p. 83)

This form is a so called “indirect active” with the meaning ‘to let somebody do something, give a order to do something’. According to Faßke (2003, 110) the imperfect form of dać is allowed in this case.

namekaše(13) [...] ſo ßu Brittanſzy tu Twerdźiſnu Ziudad Rodrigo (we Leonſkej) na

19. Jan. ſe Sturmom nuzſali, [...] we kotrejź ßo 1400 Franzoſow namekaſche.(Dejka1812, nr. 04 p. 27)

Again, the verb namekać so is used in the context of incidence, an ipf. verb would be expected in this case. But while there is no *namekować so in Upper Sorbian, the verb has a slightly different meaning than indicated in the dictionaries (namakać ‘to find’): it is used under the influence of German sich befinden ‘to be located, to be present’, which explaines the ipf. usage here. However, in other examples Dejka forms aorists of this verb only, although they all have the same meaning as in (13) and have the reflexive pronomen se. Most of the forms could be actually present tense as well (7 in total), but in four cases, they are definitely aorists,


__________46

compare the following example with the adverbs tehdy runje, after which we would expect an ipf. verb as well:

(14) We tym Mjeſzi ßo tedym runje na 200 tawſend Ludźi nameka.(Dejka1812 nr. 3 p. 17)

It seems that Dejka used this calque of German sich befinden biaspectually, although this is implemented in an imperfect form only in one case, while in other imperfective contexts, he uses aorist forms (or the historical present) only.

porodźeše(15) Jako franzowſka Kejźorka porodźeſche, da Napoleon nebje wot nej

pſchinſchoł;(Dejka1811 nr. 05 p. 34)

Again, an ipf. verb in this context of incidence would be expected here. Therefore, the question arises, whether this is an reimperfectivized form with the suffix -a- ? -'e'-: the ending –eše cannot be explained with the pf. verb porodźić (porodźiš, porodźiła). Nevertheless, in other cases, Dejka forms aorists / present forms of this verb only (9x), e.g.:

(16) We tym Mandźelſwi wona dwje Dźjeſzi porodźi:(Dejka 1810 nr. 03 p. 24)

zadźeržeše(17) Turkow won, jich wulkeho cźeſzenja teho Prophety Muhameda dla,

tak ſadźerźeſche, kajź Pſchibojſtnikow a porucźi, kojźdeho bes Schonowanja ſkonzowacź, kiź jeho cźiſziſchu Wjeru ſmolom hohrjewſacź nebudźe etc.(Dejka 1811 nr. 04 p. 26)

Again, lexical influence of German seems to have an impact here. While the verb is used with the meaning ‘to hold up, to arrest’ according to German aufhalten and therefore could be imperfective, biaspectual or anaspectual in this case (example 17), in another example with an aorist form, it has a different meaning:


__________47

(18) Wone ßo ſda, ſo budźa Brittanſzy ſpołnozniſchim Amerika tejź Wojnu doſtacź; potom je ßo jedyn (cźorny) Mohr wot tej weſtindiſkej Kupy Domingo kKralej ſcźinił: ton ßo tejź nepſchecźelſzy pſchecźiwo nim ſadźerźi. (Dejka 1811 nr. 10 p. 78)

This is a calque from German as well, but with the meaning ‘to behave’, the German equivalent is sich verhalten. In this case (example 18) Dejka, on the contrary, uses the aorist, which is possibly caused by his intention to underline an accomplished act.

wordowaThis is a loan word from German (werden – wordować), which is borrowed as

a lexem ‘to become’ (example 20) or as an auxiliary to form passive, as in the following example (19):

(19) Wecźor predy jeju Wotrejźowanja ſPetersburka bu hiſchcźen jimaj kCźeſzi jedyn Wohenjowykumſcht (Feuerwerck) wotpaljeny, pſchi kotrymź kwobſanknenju tehoßameho 32 tawſend Rachetelow na jene dobo do Lofta puſchcźenych wordoła!(Dejka1809, nr. 04, p. 24)

(20) We Turkowſkej potom ton Paſcha Bajraktar (poladajcźe do poßleneho Krucha 13. 14. 15. Stronu) Wulki aby Großvezier (to je, ton najwoſchi ſa Kejźerom) wordowa.(Dejka1809, nr. 03, p. 21)

In both cases, the aorist forms of this verb are used in contexts which express a singular and concluded (terminated) event. Brijnen (2004, 94) also mentions such forms in the handwritings of Nepila. Therefore, we can conclude that wordować was used biaspectually in Older Upper Sorbian as well.

kraže(21) Jeneho Barbarja Źona ßwojemu Muźej na 8000 Tholer Penes we

Słotych kraźe, a potom jeho ſJydom ſawda.(Dejka1812, nr. 03, p. 22)


__________48

While in Dejka’s text there are no more examples of the verb kradnyć or possible prefixations of it, it is evident in the Bible 1728 more often: 2x the infinitive kranucź, 5x the l-form kranul_ (once with the verb particle preč), 3x the participle preterit passive kraneny/a/i, once the form kradźechu (Mt_28.13) and twice the aorist krany as in Dejka, but with a different suffix (ny):

(22) Laban Dejka bjeſche ſchoł ßwoje wowzy zihacż, a Rahel krany ßwojeho nana pſchibohow. Tak krany Jakub Siriſkemu Labanej wutrobu, ſtem, ſo jemu nepowedżi, ſo cżjeka.

(Gen 31.19 and 20)As there are no prefixed forms of the verb in the Bible 1728 either, it seems that

the verb could be perfective or biaspectual in Older Sorbian, althouth according to the actual codification it is ipf. with a prefixed pf. partner pokradnyć. However, the form used in the Bible 1728 is quite unusual: the suffix –ny- is not typical for the aorist forms of the e2 conjugation-class verbs in this text, neither in Dejka’s newspaper: expected would be –nu- or the suffix –(d)źe-, as in the example above (21). The two forms in the Bible 1728 could be present tense (kradnje), which is phonetically identical in the evangelic dialect with e/y-neutralization. This, however, is not the case with Dejka’s form mentioned above.

běži, čini, ćišći, dawa, dźěli, njeńdźe, pomha, stupi, tepi so (3x), woła (2x)These forms are all homonymous with the present form, they can probably be

judged as historical present, compare woła in the following example: (23) Nato Kral poor ßljebyrnych Sswjecźjenkow (Njemz praji, Leuchter)

do nich cźißny, a woła po Pomozy. (Dejka1809 nr. 05 p. 36)The same probably holds for ćisny in this sentence, which is another example

for the phonetical identity with the present form (formally ćisnje) because of the e/y-neutralization: Dejka uses both endings in present as well as in past tense, there are unambiguous examples with the suffix –ni- (present) and –nu- (past) in addition.

However, some of those homonymous forms we find in sentences, where past tense would be expected, for example dawa in the first sentence of a narrative:


__________49

(24) Schmjeſchna Rada, kiź jedyn Bur temu druhemu dała. Dwaj Buraj, kiź pſched Boźimdźjeſzjom na Hjermank dźjeſchtaj rosrycźowaſchtaj ßo duzy po Pucźu, ſchto njedźe buſchtaj ßebi nuznakupowałej.(Dejka1809 nr. 06, p. 44)

Brijnen (2004,133 ff, 136) mentions praesens historicum as a possible cause for the loss of simple past in Sorbian: according to her, the homonymity of many present and aorist forms could have played a role here as well as the historical present as the real competitor of the aorist in narrative texts, which formed a vacuum situation later on. This vacuum was then filled by the perfect tense. What is unusual in this example (24), is the usage of historical present as the first verb form of the narrative: this does not match with the pattern described by Brijnen: In the beginning of the narrative, past tense (simple past or past perfect) and in the following historical present are used, where for descriptional events usually ipf verbs are used, while pf. verbs describe sudden events or changes. At the end, again, a past tense is used (Brijnen 2004, 134).

Does this mean, that in (24) a suffixed ipf. verb (da-wa-ć) is used to form an aorist? In my oppinion, this does not have to be the case, as the telling of a joke is a special narrative situation, which could start with a present form as well: The first sentence serves in this case as a kind of headline and not yet as an initial sentence of the narrative, which could be the following sentence in the example.

As there are no extensive empirical studies on the narrative structures in Older Sorbian so far, such judgements must remain speculations for the time being. At the first glance, it seems that the usage pattern of historical present described be Brijnen does not match with the one used by Dejka. However, such an analysis of the usage of past tenses and historical present in Older Upper Sorbian cannot be part of this study.

5. Conclusions

There are very few irregular simple past forms in the Bible 1728, in Swětlik’s translation, the only exception from the rule is the biaspectual přińć. While these two texts are puristic to a certain level, this is not so much the case with Dejka’s newspaper. The author of theses texts was an autodidact with no higher education. Still, there are few exceptions in his text, the rule “ipf. verbs form imperfect, pf. verbs


__________50

form aorist” is functional to a high degree. Exceptions can be explained as biaspectual verbs (inspite of the modern codification), they are often borrowings or calques from German, they often belong to atelic lexical verb classes (namakać so).

Breu (2000a) describes a frequent lexicalization of certain lexical components of verbs (according to different lexical pairs in German) which form anaspectual lexems in addition to the original aspectual pair: kusnyć/kusać ‘to bite’; kusać ‘to chew’, pisać/napisać ‘to write’; napisać ‘to write down’ popadnyć/łójić ‘to catch’; łójić ‘to hunt’. This could have been the case with some of the mentioned usages in Older Sorbian as well, especially with přińć, namakać so, zadźeržeć (so).

However, for a more detailed description of the verbal aspect in Older Upper Sorbian, a larger corpus of similar examples should be gathered. On the other hand, the method used in this analysis is limited by the number of texts of Older Sorbian: there are very few texts similar to the one by Dejka, some more religious editions from the 18th century or older. Younger texts are of low interest, as the newspaper of Jordan shows: here, a (panslavistic) purism in the formation of aorist and imperfect can be observed, which probably also has an influence on the usage of verbal aspect in general. Irregular simple past forms are nearly impossible here.

References

Bible 1728. Biblija, to je cyłe Swjate pismo Stareho a Noweho zakonja ... do hornjeje łužiskeje serbskeje rěče přełožena. Budyšin 1728, ed. by Serbski institut / Serbska centralna biblioteka, Bautzen 2003

Brankačkec, Katja 2008. Syntetické préteritum v hornolužických novinách J. B. Dejky (1809–1812). Varia XV. Zborník materiálov z XV. kolokvia mladých jazykovedcov (Banská Bystrica – Tajov 7.–9. 12. 2005) ed. by Gálisová, A., Chomová, A, Bratislava, 74–87

Brankačkec, Katja 2009. Verbalpräfixe im Obersorbischen. Verbpartikeln im älteren Sorbischen und ihre Entsprechungen im modernen Sorbischen. unpublished dissertation thesis. Prague

Brankačkec, Katja 2009b. Kontaktnolinguistiske přepytowanje słowjesow přińć a přichadźeć w ewangelskej hornjoserbšćinje 18. lětstotka. E-Sorapis 2 (Folia linguistica). 75–112 (http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sorb/)

http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sorb/


__________51

Brankačkec, Katja forthcoming. Aorist a imperfektum v horní lužické srbštině – čistě morfologický rozdíl? anthology of contributions to the conference „Setkání mladých lingvistů“ in Olomouc 2012

Breu, Walter�2000a. Der Verbalaspekt in der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Rahmen eines ILA-Modells. Slavistische Linguistik 1999. ed. by Walter Breu, München, 37–76

Breu, Walter 2000b. Zur Position des Slavischen in einer Typologie des Verbalaspekts (Form, Funktion, Ebenenhierarchie und lexikalische Interaktion), Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik und Aspekt (ILA). ed. by Walter Breu, Tübingen, 21–53

Breu, Walter 2003. Typ werbalneho aspekta hornjoserbskeje wobchadneje rěče w cyłosłowjanskim wobłuku. Im Wettstreit der Werte. ed. by Dietrich Scholze, Bautzen: Domowina, 143–154

Brijnen, Hélène 2004. Die Sprache des Hanso Nepila. Bautzen: DomowinaDejka, Jan B. 1809-12. Sserbow Kurier. a Powedar [...] Budyſchini, ſałożi a

wohndała: Jan Gottlob Deuka. Lubiju cżiſchcżi: Jan Kryſtijon Schlenkar. BautzenDostál, Antonín 1945. Staroslověnská praeterita, jejich čas a vid. Časopis české

filologie volume III no. 3–5, 65–70; 111–116; 219–225Dostál, Antonín 1956. Staroslověnské sloveso. Účební texty vysokých škol. Prague:

Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Faßke, Helmut 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der

Gegenwart. Morphologie. BautzenFaska, Helmut 2003. Pućnik po hornjoserbšćinje. Bautzen: DomowinaHančka, Jan Jurij Prokop 1768. Grammatica linguae Serbicae. Monastery

Marienstern 1768. Manuscript in the archive of the monastary of the dome in BautzenJordan, Jan Pětr 1842. Jutničžka. Nowina za Serbow. BautzenKaulfürst , Fabian 2012. Studije k rěči Michała Frencla. Bautzen: DomowinaMichalk, Siegfried 1959. Über den Aspekt in der obersorbischen Volkssprache.

Zeitschrift für Slawistik 4, 241–253Michalk, Siegfried 1959b. Der Verlust der synthetischen Vergangenheitsformen im

Norden des obersorbischen Sprachgebietes. Acta Universitas Carolinae – Philologica Suppl. – Slavica Pragensia I. Prague 103–112

Scholze, Lenka 2007. Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache. Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-32217

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-32217

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-32217


__________52

Swětlik, Jurij H. 1688-1707. S´wate Bibliye, To yo: Tón staré ha nówe Testament Bożoho S. Pisma [...]. Manuscript in the archive of the monastary of the dome in Bautzen, 4 volumes, signature T III 6, 7, 8 and T III

Völkel, Paul 1981. Hornjoserbsko-němski słownik. Prawopisny słownik hornjoserbskeje rěče. Bautzen: Domowina

Werner, Eduard 1996. Studien zum sorbischen Verbum. Bautzen: DomowinaWölke, Sonja 2005. Geschichte der sorbischen Grammatikbeschreibung. Bautzen:

Domowina

Abstract

In this study the irregular simple past forms in Older Upper Sorbian are analysed according to their word formation structure and aspectuality. On the one hand, a high degree of regularity in the formation of simple past is found, as most imperfect forms are derived from ipf. verbs and most aorist forms from pf. verbs. On the other hand, there is a number of exceptions from this rule, which can give an insight into verbal aspect in Older Upper Sorbian: calques from German seem to be anaspectual in many cases and some indiginous Sorbian verbs are used anaspectually in a special meaning borrowed from a certain German equivalent. There are also cases, where the aspectual system of Older Sorbian simply differs from the one in the modern language, as the lack of prefixed partners to kradnyć and the perfective usage of this simplex show.

Key wordsUpper Sorbian, Aorist, Imperfect, Verbal Aspect, Language contact, Purism

L’mperfectif dans la narration__________

__________53

À propos de l’usage de l’imperfectif dans la narrationde séquences d’événements en tchèque

François EsvanUniversità degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”

1. Perspective slaveC’est un fait bien connu que la narration au passé d’événements en chaîne

s’effectue très généralement en tchèque à l’aide d’une suite de formes perfectives, comme on peut le constater dans l’exemple (1) suivant :

(1) Viktor vstalP, obléklP se a začalP ji hledat.Victor se leva, s’habilla et se mit à la chercher.

Même s’il s’agit – et de très loin – du schéma le plus utilisé, on peut relever un certain nombre d’exceptions notoires. On doit au linguiste bulgare S. Ivančev (1961) d’avoir remarqué le premier qu’il est ainsi fréquent de rencontrer un verbe imperfectif en fin chaîne, le plus souvent en coordination avec la conjonction a, comme dans les exemples (2) et (3):

(2) UkázalP na židli a já jsem se posadilP. VytáhlP jsem tabák a balilI si cigaretu. Il m’indiqua la chaise et je m’assis. Je sortis mon tabac et me roulai une cigarette.

(3) „Já to taky viděl,“ řeklP Erik a chvatně se oblékalI. Zapnul si kalhoty a pochvalně Stefana poklepal po rameni. „Skvělá reakce.[...]“

Romano-Bohemica II / Esvan__________

__________54

« Moi aussi, je l’ai vu, » dit Eric en s’habillant en toute hâte. Il boutonna son pantalon et tapa sur l’épaule de Stefan en signe de félicitation. « Excellente réaction. [...] »

Ce schéma peut paraître particulièrement intriguant, car le tchèque s’oppose en cela à la plupart des autres langues slaves, qui n’utilisent, dans ce type de contexte, pratiquement que des formes perfectives. Partant d’une comparaison avec le bulgare et le russe, qui ont souvent recours pour traduire ces formes imperfectives tchèques à des verbes préverbés en za- de signification ingressive, Ivančev en a conclu que les énoncés tchèques exprimaient également l’ingressivité. En réalité, comme l’a souligné par la suite la linguiste tchèque H. Křížková, la référence à la traduction en russe et en bulgare tend à fausser la perspective, les énoncés tchèques étant en réalité neutres de ce point de vue (Křížková 1963). Plutôt que d’indiquer le début de l’action, il semble en fait que les formes imperfectives du tchèque nous projettent au milieu, in medias res, pour reprendre l’expression adoptée par Stunová (1993).

Selon S. Dickey (1997), qui a consacré à ces constructions un chapitre entier de son étude comparative sur l’aspect verbal en slave, le fait que la borne initiale de l’action exprimée par le verbe imperfectif ne soit pas marquée consentirait un recouvrement partiel de celle-ci avec l’action indiquée par un verbe perfectif qui précède. Reprenant l’approche de Galton (1976), il considère que les formes imperfectives ont en tchèque dans cette position une « fonction narrative », qui serait de rendre la transition plus « douce », « sans couture », évitant « l’effet de staccato » que provoquerait, au contraire, une suite de verbes uniquement perfectifs1.

Nous allons voir dans ce qui va suivre que cette interprétation ne convient pas vraiment, lorsqu’il y a effectivement recouvrement avec l’action qui précède. Surtout, nous montrerons qu’il n’y a pas nécessairement recouvrement et que la fonction narrative de ces formes imperfective est en réalité plutôt diversifiée.

1 En anglais smooth, seamless transition.


__________55

Auparavant, nous voudrions faire quelques remarques sur la situation en français, qui présente certaines similitudes, mais aussi des profondes divergences avec le tchèque. Cette confrontation nous semble intéressante, car elle permet d’envisager le problème dans une perspective plus large, ce qui peut contribuer à mettre en lumière les fonctions de la construction tchèque, mais aussi d’aborder, ce que nous ferons brièvement en conclusion, le problème de la traduction dans les langues non slaves.

2. Perspective romaneD’une manière générale, on sait qu’il existe une relative correspondance

entre le tchèque et le français, dans la mesure où la narration d’événements en chaîne par une suite de verbe perfectifs trouve très fréquemment un correspondant dans une suite de verbes au passé simple, comme le montre d’ailleurs la traduction en français de l’exemple (1).

Nous venons de voir qu’il existe en tchèque une exception à la règle générale de la suite de verbes perfectifs. Qu’en est-il en français ? Contrairement à l’on pourrait penser, il existe également en français un écart à la règle du passé simple, relativement similaire à l’exception signalée plus haut à propos du tchèque, puisqu’il consiste à insérer en fin de chaîne une forme de l’imparfait.

La différence fondamentale entre les deux langues tient dans ce que la construction française a une fréquence très faible et est fortement marquée sur le plan stylistique, alors que la construction tchèque est, tout à l’opposé, plutôt fréquente et stylistiquement neutre. La construction française est connue dans la littérature sous le nom de zeugme verbo-temporel, terme introduit par le linguiste français B. Verine qui lui a consacré plusieurs articles (Bres Verine 1998, Verine 2000). On sait que le zeugme est une figure de rhétorique qui désigne habituellement des coordinations entre groupe nominaux hétérogènes sur le plan cognitif, ce qui fait qu’elles ont généralement perçues comme anormales, comme dans l’exemple (4) :


__________56

(4) Il sauta dans le train et sur l’occasion. (cité par Bres Verine 1998 : 176)

Par analogie, le zeugme verbo-temporel consiste en l’association, également perçue la plupart du temps comme peu naturelle, d’un verbe au passé simple et d’un verbe à l’imparfait. Voici un exemple de G. Flaubert, qui l’utilise assez fréquemment, notamment dans Bouvard et Pécuchet :2

(5) Des lapins sortirentPS de leur terrier et broutaientIMP le gazon (G. Flaubert, cité par Verine 2000 : 49)

Il ne nous est pas possible de développer le thème ici par manque de place, mais il est intéressant de signaler que les études sur le zeugme verbo-temporel en français permettent de mettre en évidence certaines similitudes avec la construction tchèque homologue, tant dans la typologie des contextes d’utilisation que dans la fonction narrative. La différence substantielle au niveau stylistique, que nous avons soulignée plus haut, rend toutefois difficile, comme nous le verrons en conclusion, l’usage du zeugme verbo-temporel en traduction3.

3. Analyse des donnéesA la différence des études précédentes sur le sujet, qui reposent sur le

dépouillement manuel d’un nombre restreint de textes, nous avons pu disposer pour cette recherche d’instruments beaucoup plus puissants. Le tchèque a la chance, en effet, de pouvoir disposer d’un ensemble de corpus monolingues de grande dimension, mais aussi de corpus parallèles, qui consentent la confrontation avec d’autres langues. Nous avons utilisé ces deux instruments, en l’occurrence

2 Verine, à qui nous avons repris cet exemple, cite également des occurrences chez Maupassant, Boris Vian et d’autres.3 Il serait également intéressant d’approfondir l’analyse en effectuant une comparaison entre les langues romanes. Il ne me semble pas que le zeugme verbo-temporel soit acceptable en italien. Verine avait annoncé une étude sur le sujet basée les traductions de Flaubert en castillan et en catalan, mais elle n’a toujours pas été publiée.


__________57

SYN, corpus non référentiel d’environ 1,3 milliard de mots, et Intercorp, système de corpus parallèles pour les traductions du tchèque et vers le tchèque.

Les résultats que nous présentons reposent sur une série de sondages effectués à partir de la liste de fréquence de verbe imperfectifs dans la position / (prétérit perfectif) + a + prétérit imperfectif /. Nous n’avons examiné que des verbes de couple, afin d’effectuer une éventuelle confrontation avec les énoncés comprenant la forme perfective correspondante, en laissant de coté les lexèmes qui ont un comportement notoirement idiosyncratique, comme les verba dicendi ou percipiendi, qui nécessitent une analyse spécifique4.

Pour les exemples que nous avons analysés, il apparaît, de même d’ailleurs qu’en français pour les exemples de zeugme verbo-temporel, qu’il convient de distinguer deux types de situations : (i) celles où les actions exprimées par le dernier verbe perfectif et le verbe imperfectif qui suit ne sont pas successives, (ii) celles où elles sont, au contraire, successives.

4.1. Non sécutionLa non sécution peut être explicite, comme dans l’exemple (6) avec

l’adverbe přitom:

(6) „Nepočkalo by to do rána?“ řeklaP a zavíralaI přitom dveře.« Cela ne pourrait pas attendre jusqu’à demain ? » dit-elle en tout en refermant la porte.

Le plus souvent la sécution est toutefois seulement implicite. C’est souvent le cas en combinaison avec des verba dicendi, comme dans l’exemple (7). Tout le monde sait, en effet, que l’on peut parler tout en faisant autre chose :

(7) „Kdo to byl?“ zeptal seP Glenn a zapaloval siI cigaretu.« C’était qui, » demanda Glenn en allumant une cigarette.

4 Voir par exemple Dickey 2000, Esvan 2010.


__________58

On voit que la traduction en français la plus naturelle est, dans ce cas, le gérondif. Ces constructions sont très fréquentes, comme on peut le voir avec l’exemple (7) cité, qui est un véritable cliché dans les romans policiers5.

On est ici dans le cas de figure qui avait été signalé par Dickey : la forme imperfective ne marque pas la borne gauche de l’événement et consent donc un recouvrement partiel. Si l’on fait une confrontation avec les suites de verbes uniquement perfectifs, on constate qu’elles indiquent généralement des événements qui sont, au contraire, successifs (on sait qu’il n’y a pas d’implication stricte, mais les exceptions sont rares et confinées à des contextes particuliers). Un exemple classique de sécution avec des formes uniquement perfectives se trouve dans l’exemple (1), déjà cité, ou dans l’exemple (5) (alors qu’il est possible de parler, il est difficile de se verser un verre et d’allumer une cigarette en même temps):

(8) Vytáhl jsem ze zásuvky psacího stolu láhev skotské, nalilP jsem si panáka a zapálil siP cigaretu.Je tirai du tiroir du bureau une bouteille de whisky, me versai un verre et m’allumai une cigarette.

Pour revenir à la fonction des formes imperfectives dans les exemples (6) et (7), que nous venons de citer pour illustrer ce premier type de contexte, à savoir la non sécution, il ne nous semble pas qu’elle soit de rendre la narration plus douce ou moins heurtée, comme le suggère Dickey, mais bien, tout simplement, de souligner une certaine simultanéité entre les actions.

4.2. SécutionOn trouve également des exemples où le co-texte indique clairement que les

événement sont dans un rapport de sécution. Nous avons rappelé avec l’exemple (8) que c’était pratiquement la règle dans le cas des suites de verbes perfectifs. Nous allons voir à présent que c’est également possible, lorsque le dernier verbe est imperfectif.

5 Le segment / dit-il en allumant une cigarette / a ainsi plus de 6000 occurrences sur Google (octobre 2012).


__________59

Dans ce cas de figure, l’usage de l’imperfectif doit être interprété non pas par ce qui précède, comme c’était le cas pour les exemples que nous avons vu jusqu’ici, mais par ce qui suit. L’action exprimée par le verbe imperfectif est présentée dans son déroulement et constitue le cadre d’événements à venir, avec lesquels il pourra y avoir un recouvrement. C’est particulièrement clair avec les verbes de mouvement qui expriment l’éloignement : le verbe exprime le départ d’un personnage, mais l’aspect imperfectif indique qu’il est seulement en train de partir, ce qui fait qu’on peut encore l’appeler (exemple 9), se précipiter pour essayer de le retenir (exemple 10), ou bien que le personnage peut se retourner une dernière fois (exemple 11):

(9) Najednou se od ostatních odtrhl, rozběhl se k tribuně, natáhl si džíny, hodil si tašku přes rameno, sedlP na kolo a odjíždělI. Trenér za ním něco volal, ale Daniel mu nerozuměl.Tout à coup, il se détacha des autres, courut jusqu’à la tribune, enfila son jean, jeta son sac par dessus l’épaule, s’assit sur son vélo et partit. L’entraîneur lui cria quelque chose, mais Daniel ne comprit pas (ce qu’il disait).

(10) Uvěřil jsem, až když jsem uviděl důstojníka s papírem v ruce. Všichni mí známí vězni se ke mně rozeběhli. Loučili se se mnou a mnozí plakali. S Argonem a Alim jsme si slíbili, že se ještě setkáme. Poděkoval jsem a odcházelI za důstojníkem. Ještě naposledy jsem se otočil [...]. J’y crus seulement lorsque je vis l’officier avec un papier à la main. Tous mes camarades prisonniers se précipitèrent vers moi. Ils me disaient adieu e beaucoup pleuraient. Avec Argon et Ali nous nous promîmes de nous revoir. Je les remerciai et suivis l’officier. Je me retournai à nouveau une dernière fois [...].

(11) Na to Dubček řekl, že sem přijel zbytečně a na této půdě není o čem rokovat. Vyšel z místnosti a odcházelI dlouhou chodbou plnou novinářů. Kusý řekl Havlovi, že takhle přece nemůže nechat Dubčeka


__________60

odejít. Ten se rychle rozhodl, vyběhl chodbou za Dubčekem a volal na něj: „Pane Dubček, vraťte se, ještě jsme přece neskončili.“ [...] Dubček répondit à cela, qu’il était venu inutilement et qu’il n’y avait rien à discuter ici. Il sortit de la pièce et s’éloigna en longeant le couloir plein de journalistes. Kusý dit à Havel qu’il ne pouvait tout de même pas laisser partir Dubček comme cela. Havel prit aussitôt une décision, il se précipita dans le couloir derrière Dubček en criant: « Monsieur Dubček, revenez, nous n’avons pas fini. »

La confrontation avec des énoncés comportant la forme perfective odejít est éclairante de ce point de vue. On peut en effet constater que l’action est au contraire présentée comme définitivement close, sans possibilité ultérieure d’intervention. Considérons les exemples (12) et (13) :

(12) Dveře se zavřely. NasedlP jsem do služebního vozu a odjelP do San Bernardina. Zaparkoval jsem, vrátil se vrtulníkem do Los Angeles a letadlem do San Antonia.Le portes se refermèrent. Je m’assis dans ma voiture de service et partis pour San Bernardino. Je garai la voiture, puis rentrai en hélicoptère à Los Angeles et en avion à San Antonio.

(13) „[...] Proč se nechceš usmířit se svým synem?“ Otec na to nic neřekl. „Je to dobrý chlapec. Nemůže si pomoct s tím, co dělá.“ „Jenom zvířata si nemůžou pomoct.“ Otec se otočil a odešelP ven. Nastalo tíživé ticho. Strýček vzdychl a zavrtěl hlavou. „Tvůj otec je hrozně paličatý.“ « [...] Pourquoi ne veux-tu pas te réconcilier avec ton fils ? » Le père ne répondit pas. « C’est un bon garçon. Il ne sait pas se contrôler. » « Seuls les animaux ne savent pas se contrôler. » Le père se retourna et sortit. Un silence pesant s’installa. L’oncle soupira et secoua la tête. « Ton père est terriblement têtu. [...] »


__________61

Le fait que l’aspect imperfectif ne marque pas la borne droite de l’événement peut produire une sorte d’effet d’attente, similaire à ce que l’on observe en français à propos de l’imparfait dit « d’ouverture ». Ainsi dans l’exemple suivant, extrait d’une nouvelle de M. Kundera, le verbe imperfectif otvíral (traduit ici par le passé simple « j’ouvris ») fait basculer la narration de la suite d’événements qui précède, indiqués par des verbes perfectifs, en ouvrant sur un cadre, celui de la perspective d’une bonne soirée, une attente qui sera déçue, comme on va le voir dans la suite :

(14) [...] uprostřed spousty obrazů opřených o stěny, uprostřed nepořádku a bezstarostné malířské špíny vrátily se mi rázem staré pocity blažené svobody. RozvalilP jsem se na gauči, vrazilP vývrtku do zátky a otvíralI láhev vína. Klábosil jsem volně a vesele a těšil se na krásný večer i noc. Jenomže tíseň, která tu spadla ze mne, dopadla plnou vahou na Kláru. Zmínil jsem se již o tom, jak Klára beze všech skrupulí, ba s největší přirozeností se zabydlila kdysi v mé mansardě. Avšak nyní, když jsme se octli na chvíli v cizím ateliéru, cítila se nesvá. Víc než nesvá. „Ponižuje mne to,“ řekla mi. [...] au milieu du désordre et de la saleté insouciante de l’artiste peintre, je retrouvai tout à coup une sensation de liberté béate. Je me vautrai sur le divan, enfonçai le tire-bouchon et ouvrit une bouteille de vin. Je bavardais joyeusement sans retenue, me réjouissant déjà de la bonne soirée et de la nuit à venir. Sauf que les soucis dont je m’étais libéré, étaient tombés de tout leur poids sur Klara. [...] Maintenant, alors que nous trouvions dans cet atelier qui lui était étranger, elle éprouvait de l’embarras. Plus que de l’embarras. « Cela m’humilie, » me dit-elle.

Similairement à ce que l’on peut constater à propos du zeugme verbo-temporel en français, on trouve enfin en tchèque des formes imperfectives en fin de chapitre. Cela peut sembler au premier abord paradoxal, par rapport aux exemples que nous avons examinés jusqu’ici, pour lesquels la forme imperfective définissait le cadre d’événements à venir en générant une certaine attente. En réalité, c’est


__________62

toujours le caractère non conclusif du verbe imperfectif qui est en cause, même si l’effet produit est ici un effet légèrement différent : il met en relief la dernière image. Dans les exemples que nous avons relevés, cette focalisation advient après un discours direct. Il s’agit de la dernière réplique d’une conversation, qui revêt dans le contexte une certaine importance, par exemple un caractère prémonitoire. Cette focalisation exprime, nous semble-t-il un effet de persistance dans la mémoire, une sorte d’écho aux dernières paroles. On pourrait évoquer également l’effet du fondu au noir au cinéma, lorsque l’image s’obscurcit progressivement au lieu de s’arrêter brusquement. Considérons les exemples (15) et (16)

(15) [...] a aniž mu pohlédla do očí, aby z nich nevyčetl opak, poznamenala: „[...] Šťastná se budu cítit teprve tehdy, až vstoupím na anglickou půdu.“ Dřív než se zmohl ji zadržet, otočila se a odcházelaI. KAPITOLA TŘINÁCTÁ Následujícího dně [...][...] sans même le regarder dans les yeux, pour éviter d’y lire une opposition, elle ajouta : « [...] Je ne serai heureuse que lorsque j’aurai mis pied sur la terre d’Angleterre. » Avant même qu’il n’ait pu la retenir, elle se retourna et s’en alla / s’éloigna. CHAPITRE TREIZE Le jour suivant [...]

(16) [...] A potom existuje skutečná erotická krása ženy. Tu ovšem poznat pouhým pohledem není maličkost. To je umění.“ Pak podal mladíkovi ruku a odcházelI. 8 Redaktor upadl do strašného stavu: pochopil, že je nenapravitelný hlupák, [...].[...] Il existe aussi la véritable beauté érotique de la femme. La remarquer d’un simple coup d’oeil n’est pas une chose simple. C’est un art. » Puis il tendit la main au jeune homme et s’en alla. 8. Le journaliste tomba dans un état de terrible dépression : il avait compris qu’il était irrémédiablement stupide [...].


__________63

5. ConclusionEn conclusion, nous voudrions citer deux exemples tirés du système de

corpus parallèles Intercorp, qui montrent comment les traducteurs tentent de rendre les effets de sens que nous avons mis en évidence, en utilisant les possibilités, souvent limitées, de la langue d’arrivée. Et en commettant parfois, comme on va le voir, des erreurs d’interprétation.

Le premier, l’exemple (17), est similaire aux exemples (15) et (16), puisqu’il s’agit d’une fin de chapitre. Ce qui a été dit plus haut s’applique, selon nous, également, au sens où il y une focalisation sur la dernière image, l’éloignement de Teresa dans la nuit avec un effet d’écho sur ses dernières paroles. On voit que le traducteur anglais a interprété l’imperfectif tout autrement, comme exprimant une simultanéité avec l’action du verbe perfectif qui précède. Même si cette interprétation n’est pas théoriquement complètement exclue, elle est dans ce contexte précis très peu probable. Elle signifierait pratiquement que Tereza parle pour elle-même tandis qu’elle s’éloigne, au lieu de s’adresser à l’ambassadeur :

(17) „Ten váš příběh není nijak nebezpečný,“ uklidňoval ji vyslanec. „Snad ne,“ řekla zaškrceným hlasem a odcházelaI s Kareninem do nočních ulic Prahy.

EN “Don't worry,” the ambassador comforted her. “Your story doesn't sound the least bit dangerous.” “I suppose it doesn’t,” she said in a tight voice, as she walked out into the Prague night with Karenin.

IT “Non mi sembra che ci sia nulla di pericoloso, nella sua storia” la tranquillizzava l'ambasciatore. “Forse no” disse lei con voce strozzata, e uscì con Karenin nelle strade notturne di Praga.

FR L’ambassadeur tentait de la tranquilliser : « Votre mésaventure ne me paraît guère dangereuse. – Ça se peut » , dit-elle d’une voix étranglée, et elle sortit avec Karénine dans les rues noires de Prague.

Le traducteur italien interprète au contraire les événements comme successifs et efface ainsi l’effet de sens produit pas l’imperfectif, car l’italien ne


__________64

semble pas le permettre. En français, il y aurait certes théoriquement la possibilité du zeugme verbo-nominal, mais le traducteur préfère avoir recours à deux formes du passé simple.

Considérons à présent un second exemple qui met en évidence les diverses solutions utilisées par les traducteurs en fonction de la langue d’arrivée. A nouveau, il s’agit d’un imperfectif qui focalise l’attention sur l’action en cours et qui est, de plus, répété en ouverture du paragraphe suivant6. On peut voir que les traductions en italien, espagnol, anglais et allemand neutralisent l’effet de l’imperfectif (la traduction pourrait également convenir, si l’on avait dans l’originale tchèque la forme perfective odešli) :

(18) Také slečna Brožová nám podala všem ruce, vzalaP Zemánka pod paží a odcházeliI. // OdcházeliI. Nemohl jsem od nich odtrhnout oči [...]

DE Auch Fräulein Brožová reichte uns allen die Hand, hakte sich bei Zemánek ein, und die beiden gingen. // Sie gingen. Ich vermochte meinen Blick nicht von ihnen loszureißen [...]

EN Miss Broz also shook hands with everyone, and then, arm in arm, they left. // They left. I couldn't tear my eyes off them [...]

SP La señorita Brozova también nos dio a todos la mano, cogió a Zemanek del brazo y se fueron. // Se fueron. Yo no podía quitarles los ojos de encima [...]

IT Anche la signorina Brožová strinse la mano a tutti, prese Zemánek a braccetto e insieme si allontanarono. // Si allontanarono. Non potevo distogliere gli occhi da loro [...].

FR La demoiselle Brozova serra de même la main à tout le monde et, bras dessus, bras dessous, ils s’en allaient. // Ils s’en allaient . Je ne pouvais pas les lâcher du regard [...]

SC Gospođica Brožová se također pozdravila sa svima i uhvatila Zemáneka pod ruku. Onda su otišli. // Otišli su. Nisam mogao odvojiti pogled od njih [...]

6 Le signe // indique ici un changement de paragraphe.


__________65

PL Również panna Brożówną podała nam wszystkim rękę, wzięła Zemanka pod ramię i poszli. // Odchodzili. Nie mogł em oderwać od nich oczu [...]

RU Девица Брожова тоже обменялась со всеми рукопожатиями, взяла Земанека под руку, и они пошли. // Они удалялись. Я не мог отвести от них глаз [...]

On voit qu’ici le traducteur français a eu l’audace d’utiliser un zeugme verbo-temporel, (imparfait « allaient » au lieu du passé simple « allèrent ») dont l’effet peu naturel est tempéré ici par l’insertion de l’expression « bras dessus, bras dessous » qui constitue un « tampon syntaxique ».7 Pour ce qui concerne les langues slaves examinées (serbo-croate, polonais et russe), toutes utilisent une forme perfective pour traduire la première occurrence de odcházet. Pour la reprise, au contraire, vu l’effet d’arrière plan exprimé par le verbe, les traducteurs polonais et russe ont opté pour une forme imperfective, alors que ce n’est pas le cas en croate. Nous ne nous étendrons toutefois pas sur la comparaison à l’intérieur du groupe slave qui a déjà été l’objet de nombreuses études, comme il a été dit en introduction.

Bibliographie

Barbazan, Muriel 2006. Le temps verbal. Dimensions linguistiques et psycholinguistiques. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Bres, Jacques - Verine, Bertrand 1998. D’un zeugme verbo-temporel : l’appariement [PS et IP]. In : A. Englebert, M. Pierrard, L. Rosier et D. van Raemdonck (éd.), La ligne claire : de la linguistique à la grammaire. Mélanges offerts à Marc Wilmet à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Paris – Bruxelles : Duculot : 175-185.

Dickey, Stephen Michael 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. Stanford : CSLI.Esvan, François 2010. Studi di corpus in ceco contemporaneo. Napoli: UNO.Galton, Herbert 1976. The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect, Skopje:

Macedonian Academy of Science and Art.

7 Le terme est de Verine, qui montre que dans ce cas la juxtaposition du passé simple est moins choquante. On peut d’ailleurs comparer la traduction proposée ici avec le cas de zeugme chez Flaubert cité plus haut dans l’exemple (5). Voir également à ce sujet Barbezan 2006.


__________66

Ivančev, Svetomir 1961. Kontekstovo obuslovena ingresivna upotreba na glagolite ot nesvăršen vid v češkija ezik. Godišnik na Sofijskija universitet - filologičeski fakultet, t. 54, 3 (1959/60). Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.

Křížkova, Helena 1963. K ingresivnosti v češtině. Slovo a slovesnost, 23: 286-291.Stunová, Anna 2004. A contrastive Analysis of Russian and Czech Aspects:

Invariance vs Discourse. Amsterdam.Verine, Bertrand 2000. Pour une interprétation aspectuelle des tiroirs du passé: deux

insertions cotextuelles du zeugme [Passé simple et Imparfait]. Cahiers Chronos 6 : 49-57.

Corpus utilisés

SYN: Český národní korpus - SYN. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha. Disponible à l’adresse: <http://www.korpus.cz>.

InterCorp: Český národní korpus - InterCorp. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha. Disponible à l’adresse: <http://www.korpus.cz>.

AbstractIn this paper the Author deals with the usage of verbal aspect in narrated sequences

of events in Czech. Particular attention is given to the so-called “contextually conditioned imperfective past” (Dickey 2000). A corpus based analysis points out that two kinds of contexts are possible: (i) the events can partially overlap, (ii) they are in strict sequenciality. A comparison is made with the so-called temporal zeugma in French. The conclusion provides a brief contrastive analysis of the way the Czech scheme is translated to several Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages.

Key words : Czech language, verbal aspect, corpus linguistics, narration, imperfective past.

Notions aspectuelles__________

__________67

Notions aspectuelles : conceptualisation et terminologie

Zlatka GuentchévaCNRS – LACITO & Université Paris-Sorbonne Nouvelle

IntroductionOn ne peut pas dire qu’il existe à l’heure actuelle une théorie de l’aspect et du

temps. Il y a plusieurs approches des phénomènes aspecto-temporels et les notions qui y sont mises en œuvre, se font concurrence mais ne reçoivent pas toujours la même définition. Les notions d’aspect et de temps transcendent le système grammatical des langues et se réalisent différemment dans chacune d’entre elles, selon des catégories spécifiques et avec des procédés morphosyntaxiques différents, le plus souvent en interaction avec, d’une part, le lexique verbal, la quantification et les expressions adverbiales et, d’autre part, les modes d’action (Aktionsarten) et la modalité. Si, du point de vue méthodologique, il est certain que l’aspect grammatical et l’aspect lexical doivent être soigneusement distingués, il est certain que, d’un point de vue plus conceptuel, ils font l’un et l’autre appel à des notions, à des opérations et à des représentations qui semblent être de nature comparable1.

Dans cet article, je me propose de présenter les principaux concepts mis en œuvre dans le modèle que nous développons depuis plusieurs années avec J.-P. Desclés (1980, 1989)2 qui s’inscrit à la fois dans la perspective énonciative ouverte par les travaux de K. Bühler (1934/2009), M. Buber (1935/1969), E. Benveniste (1966, 1974) et A. Culioli (1980, 1999) et dans une perspective cognitive, modèle qui prend le changement comme notion de base pour traiter aussi bien les problèmes d’aspect que de ceux de temps linguistique. Dans la première partie, je définirai les concepts de base aspectuels (état, processus, événement) et les concepts dérivés d’état résultant et d’état d’activité, accompagnés de représentations sémantiques visualisées

1 Voir entre autres Lyons (1977 : 706), Lindstedt (1985 : 153), Sasse (1990 : 38).2 Ce modèle a été présenté pour la première fois lors du colloque international sur la notion d’aspect à Metz, en mai 1978 (Desclés 1980).

Romano-Bohemica II / Guentchéva__________

__________68

sous forme d’intervalles topologiques d’instants avec des bornes ouvertes et fermées ; dans la deuxième partie, je présenterai les différents référentiels temporels, en particulier le référentiel énonciatif et le référentiel du non-actualisé, dans lesquels s’insèrent les relations prédicatives aspectualisées, en les soigneusement des référentiels temporels externes.

1. La notion d’aspect3

Bien que de nombreux linguistes se réfèrent à B. Comrie (1976), certaines approches théoriques de l’aspect reposent sur deux notions de base4 : état, qualifié par les traits “avec durée” et “sans borne”, et événement caractérisé avec les traits “borné”, et “sans considération de durée”, ce dernier trait étant assimilé parfois à du “ponctuel”. D’autres approches utilisent trois notions aspectuelles de base : état, événement, processus (se Comrie (1976), Lyons (1977), Mourelatos (1978)). Cependant, la notion de “borne” qui à laquelle on recourt, d’une façon ou d’une autre, dans la littérature spécialisée, reste peu précise et elle est employée de différentes façons. Rappelons à ce propos que, dans les travaux sur l’aspect, la notion de “point de vue” qui, introduite par C. Smith (1991) pour traiter le contenu aspectuel des temps verbaux, renvoie à ce qui est ‘visible’ d’une situation et se réaliserait sous la forme d’une opposition perfectif/imperfectif. Dans le cas de l’imparfait en français (Marie fermait la porte), par ex., l’énonciateur ne rendrait ‘visible’ qu’une partie interne

3 Il a souvent été observé que le système slave, qui a donné naissance à la notion d’aspect, n’a pas la « pureté aspectuelle » des langues sémitiques où l’opposition accompli/inaccompli se réalise au sein d’un seul et même verbe et que « l’expression du temps n’y est pas explicitement associée » (Cohen 1989, p.171), ce que E. Benveniste (1961, p.260) avait souligné quelques décennies auparavant : “C’est le verbe slave qui a fourni à la théorie de l’aspect son cadre et ses oppositions. Or quand on envisage les systèmes aspectuels hors du monde indo-européen, on s’aperçoit que le slave ne représente nullement un type commun ; au contraire, c’est un type exceptionnel, fortement grammaticalisé, où aspect et temps sont fortement associés. La réalité de l’aspect se voit bien plus clairement en sémitique où les classes formelles du verbe, représentant des modes d’action, admettent toutes les distinctions d’aspect, dont elles sont formellement indépendantes, et cette distinction d’aspect, non encore temporisée, se réalise comme une corrélation. A partir de cette observation, on se rend compte que les aspects slaves sont en réalité un système tardif et hybride, transféré abusivement par Streinberg en gotique qui continue aujourd’hui encore à dominer toutes les descriptions du verbe germanique. Le problème entier est à renouveler.”4 Cf. Galton (1976), Kamp (1979), Koseska-Toszewa et Mazuerkievicz (1994), parmi beaucoup d’autres.


__________69

d’une situation, alors que dans le cas du passé simple (Marie ferma la porte) la situation serait ‘visible/montré’ dans sa globalité. Considérée comme centrale dans beaucoup de théories aspectuelles actuelles, la notion de “point de vue” est opposée au “type de situations’/‘type de procès” et correspondrait à un autre type d’information aspectuelle qui, elle, implique la télicité et la dynamicité. Bien que cette conception aspectuelle tende désormais à s'imposer, la notion de "point de vue" reste, comme le souligne W. Klein (2009: 56), hautement métaphorique car elle repose sur la métaphore de la ‘visibilité/monstration’ d’une situation qui, elle, ne change pas. Les différentes caractérisations proposées, note l’auteur, ne fournissent pas de définition vraiment opératoire et font appel, explicitement ou implicitement, à la notion de borne qui, à son tour, n’est pas clairement définie (Desclés, 1980; Desclés and Guentchéva 2012). C’est également la critique que formule H.-J. Sasse (2002)5 dans un article qui dresse un état des lieux de la notion d’aspect.

Il est difficile de comprendre aussi l’opposition entre situation borné(e) (généralement identifiée avec le point de vue perfectif) ou situation non-bornée (identifiée avec le point de vue imperfectif ou analysée comme atélique). Si, comme l’affirment de nombreux auteurs, l’état est non-borné, il devient difficile de rendre compte de la différence qui se manifeste linguistiquement dans certaines langues entre, d’une part, état permanent qui est en effet non-borné, car il se réalise sur toute la zone temporelle envisageable et, d’autre part, état contingent, qui se réalise sur une zone temporelle bien déterminée, donc bornée. En effet, de nombreuses langues ont des marques morphologiques spécifiques pour opposer la propriété permanente attribuée à une entité à la propriété contingente. J’y reviendrai.

De même, en caractérisant le “point de vue imperfectif” comme un processus qui a un début et une fin mais dont le schéma temporel exclut les deux bornes (on parle souvent dans ce cas d’intervalle de ‘visibilité’), on est en difficulté de rendre compte de la différence, par exemple, entre un processus inaccompli (Fr. Il traversait la rue, lorsque…) et un état (Fr. Il dormait), ou entre un processus inaccompli (Fr. L’avion (en train de) vole(r) vers Paris) et un état d’activité (Fr. L’avion est en vol) (cf. Desclés et Guentchéva, 1995).

5 “ [a] good case can be made for a distinction between two types of boundedness, which can be associated with the dimensions of Aspect2. Aspect2 involves inherent boundedness (“boundedness2”) while Aspect1 involves grammatically established boundedness (“boundedness1”). This would provide us with an operationalizable distinction with which the traditional incomprehensible defi nitions can be replaced.” (Sasse 2002: 205–206)


__________70

1.1 Concepts aspectuels de base : état, événement, processus

L’aspect est un opérateur qui détermine une relation prédicative en spécifiant comment cette dernière se réalise sur une zone temporelle (un intervalle ‘I’ d’instants successifs) et comment elle affecte (complètement, partiellement …) un des arguments de la relation prédicative. Une relation aspectualisée est reliée aux conditions de son énonciation et peut être appréhendée comme stable ou stabilisé (état), comme une transition (événement) ou au cours de son évolution (processus) (cf. Desclés, 1980 ; Guentchéva 1990 ; Desclés et Guentchéva 2012).

♦ Le concept d’état implique une absence totale de changement. Lorsque la relation prédicative est présentée comme un état, toutes les phases de la situation sont identiques entre elles. D'une façon générale, l’attribution d’une propriété stative à une entité est liée à la valeur aspectuelle d’état :

(1) Bulgare :a. Днес съм в отлична форма

aujourd’hui être.PRES.1Sg dans parfaite forme « Aujourd’hui, je suis en pleine forme »

b. Времето е мрачно temps être.PRES.3Sg ténébreux « Il fait sombre » (litt. le temps est ténébreux)

L’état n’a ni un instant initial, ni un instant final. Si l’état avait un instant initial ou un instant final, il ne pourrait pas être analysé comme stable, car l’instant indiquerait un changement par rapport aux états qui précèdent ou qui suivent. Chaque état se réalise donc sur un intervalle (temporel) ouvert, d’où les bornes ne sont pas prises en compte : •]——[•. Cependant, un état peut être borné lorsque la distance entre les deux bornes peut être mesurée, c’est-à-dire l’intervalle est compatible avec une durée, comme dans :

(2) Luc est (actuellement) dans le parc ; Le soleil est au zénith.


__________71

On distinguera ainsi un état permanent d’un état contingent. De nombreuses langues, comme l’espagnol ou l’hébreu, opposent explicitement une propriété permanente attribuée à une entité à une propriété contingente associé à une entité. En espagnol, cette opposition se manifeste à travers la distinction entre deux formes de la copule ser et estar6 :

(3) Espagnola. Juan es enfermo « Jean est malade » (c.-à-d. il est invalide)b. Juan está enfermo « Jean est malade » (c.-à-d. il est actuellement malade

mais, il y a peu de temps, il était en bonne santé)

En hébreu moderne, Y. Greenberg (1998) signale une telle opposition dans les phrases nominales où l’omission obligatoire de la copule pronominale permet d’opposer les propriétés inhérentes aux propriétés temporaires attribuées à une entité (le sujet) :

(4) Hébreu moderne (Greenberg 1998, p. 127)

a. ha-Samayim hem kxulimthe sky 3ms.Pl blue‘The sky is generally blue, blue by their nature’

b. ha-Samayim kxulim

the sky blue‘The sky is blue now/today’

Un état contingent est actualisé sur un intervalle ouvert ; il est borné à gauche et à droite par des bornes qui n’appartiennent pas à l’intervalle puisque la borne de gauche est le dernier instant de la transition qui fait entrer dans l’état et la borne droite est le premier instant de la transition qui fait sortir de l’état. Dans le cas d’un permanent, les bornes sont rejetées à l’infini.

6 A propos de cet emploi de ser/estar, Comrie (1976 : 104-105) souligne que seul ser est possible avec un nom en fonction predicative.


__________72

♦ Le concept de processus implique un changement en cours d’actualisation. Un processus indique un premier instant de changement ; en revanche, il n’y a pas de dernier instant puisque ce changement est en cours réalisation. Un processus (inaccompli) s’actualise donc sur un intervalle dont la borne gauche est fermée (le premier instant du changement) et la borne droite ouverte car elle signale l’instant qui saisit l’inaccomplissement du processus : [•!→[. On peut l’illustrer par les exemples suivants :

(5) Bulgarea. Нивото на реката се (по)качва. Niveau.ARTdéf de rivière.ARTdéf Pron.Réfl (Prév)monter.PRES.3Sg« Le niveau de la rivière monte »

b. Преписвам текста.recopier.PRES.1Sg texte.ARTdéf

« Je suis en train de recopier le texte. »

(6) Françaisa. Luc est en train de distribuer des tracts. b. Les enfants sont (en train de) corrige(r) leurs devoirs. c. Le ciel s’assombrit.

Lorsqu’un processus atteint un terme, la borne de droite se ferme et marque le dernier instant du changement. Le processus est alors accompli et engendre un événement qui est actualisé sur un intervalle fermé et compris entre les deux bornes gauche et droite: [•—!—•]

♦ Le concept d’événement indique la transition entre deux états successifs. C’est une occurrence d’un changement qui implique une borne initiale, c'est-à-dire la borne de début qui est le premier instant de transition, et une borne terminale, c’est-à-dire une borne de fin qui est le dernier instant de transition. On distingue un événement simplement accompli à cette borne terminale (borne d’interruption du processus) d’un événement achevé (ou complet). L’opposition aoriste imperfectif /


__________73

aoriste imperfectif en bulgare permet d’illustrer l’opposition sémantique accompli/achevé respectivement :

(7) Bulgarea. Тръгнахме много рано тази сутрин.

partir.AOR.pf.1Pl très/beacoup tôt ce matin « Nous sommes partis très tôt ce matin »

b. Сръбско семейство се удави до Китен.serbe famille Pron.Réfl. noyer.AOR.pf.3Sg près-de Kiten« Une famille serbe s’est noyée près de Kiten »

c. Т ой дълго скита из града , докато il longtemps errer.AOR.impf. à-travers ville.ARTdéf jusqu’à намери къщатаtrouver.AOR ;pf.3Sg maison.ARTdéf« Il a erré/érra longtemps avant de trouver la maison. »

d. Вървя , вървя през горатаmarcher.AOR.impf.3Sg marcher.AOR.impf.3Sg à-travers forêt.Artdéf и накрая излезе на една поляна .et enfin sortir. AOR.pf.3Sg sur une prairie« Il a marché//marcha à travers la forêt et enfin il est sorti/sortit sur une prairie. »

En français qui ne marque pas morphologiquement l’opposition perfecti/imperfectif, cette opposition peut se manifester à travers le jeu des articles (comme c’est le cas aussi en finnois avec la distinction entre cas partitif et cas accusatif) ou des expressions adverbiales, comme dans les exemples suivants :

(8) a. J’ai mangé du poissonb. J’ai mangé le poisson

(9) a. Il a peint la chambre pendant deux heures b. Il a peint la chambre en deux heures


__________74

La télicité est liée à un processus qui vise une borne finale (et non plus simplement une borne terminale). Lorsqu’un processus atteint sa borne finale, il est achevé (ou complet) et engendre un événement qui ne peut pas se poursuivre au-delà cette borne finale. L’aoriste en grec, albanais, grec, bulgare, géorgien, par exemple, renvoie à la notion d’événement :

(10) Albanais (Duchet 1995, p. 262)a. P , t h a m e mundim D i n i . y e s , s a y . A o r . 3 S g with e f fo r t D i n i “Yes, Dini said with an effort”

b. E r d h i , më p a q u a d h e i k u come.Aor.3Sg me see.Aor.3Sg cry.Aor.3Sg and go.Aor.3Sg

“H e c a m e , s a w m e , c r i e d a n d w e n t a w a y. ”

(11) Grec7

a. Έτρωγε όταν χτύπησε το ètrojè òtan xtìpisè to manger.IMPARF.3Sg quand sonner.AOR.3Sg ARTdéf..neutr. t i lèfono τηλέφωνο. ACC.Sg téléphone

« Il/Elle mangeait quand le téléphone a sonné. »b. Κ ι έ ζησα ν αυ τ ο ί κα λά

k i è z i s a n a f t ì k a l à et vivre.AOR.3Pl ils.PRO.Ms.Pl.NOM. bien.ADVκ ι εµ ε ί ς κα λύ τ ε ρ α

k i è m ì s k a l i t è r aet nous.PRO.NOM mieux

« Ils vécurent heureux et eurent beaucoup d'enfants »

[litt. Et eux ils ont bien vécu et nous mieux]

7 Sur une analyse du système aspecto-temporel du grec moderne, nous renvoyons à l’ouvrage de H.-J. Seiler (1952) qui n’a rien perdu de son actualité.


__________75

Le diagramme ci-dessous permet de visualiser les trois notions aspectuelles de base

Figure 1. Représentation des trois notions de base

1.2. Quelques concepts dérivés : état résultant et état d’activitéParmi les états résultatifs, l’état résultant occupe une place centrale.8 C’est

un état contigu à l'événement qui lui a donné naissance ; il implique donc nécessairement l'occurrence d'un événement adjacent antérieur. L’état résultant se réalise sur un intervalle ouvert, contigu à l’événement antérieur qui l’engendre (Guentchéva 1989 ; Desclés et Guentchéva 2003).

- Un état résultant est en relation de concomitance avec le processus énonciatif lorsque sa borne droite coïncide avec la borne droite d’inaccomplissement de l’énonciation : c’est la valeur du parfait qui est alors un

accompli présent : _____[____]///////////////////[T°→- Un état résultant n’est pas en relation de concomitance lorsque sa borne

droite ne coïncide plus avec la borne droite d’inaccomplissement de l’énonciation (T1 ≠ T0) : c’est la valeur du plus-que-parfait qui est alors un accompli dans le passé : — [_____]////////////[T1—[T

0

8 Cf. V. S. Nedjalkov (1988).


__________76

L’état résultant est la valeur généralement attribuée à la forme verbale dite ‘parfait’ dans de nombreuses langues du monde, même si le parfait a ses particularités dans chaque langue. Dans les langues balkaniques, on oppose ainsi un événement dénoté par un aoriste à un état résultant dénoté par le parfait :

(12) Albanais (Duchet 1995, p. 266)K a m t r e v j e t c ë s ’ k a m lëvizur n g ahave.PRES.1Sg three years that not have.PRES.1Sg move.Part from T i r a n ë Tirana.INDEF

“I haven’t mouved from Tirana for three years. »

(13) Bulgarea. Т р ъ г н а л с ъ м преди два часа (état résultant) partir.PART.passé actif être.PRES.3Sg avant deux heures « Je suis parti il y a deux heures. »

b. Т р ъ г н а х преди д в а ч а с а (événement) partir.AOR.pf.3Sg avant deux heures

« Je suis parti il y a deux heures. » (13a) et (13b) reçoivent en français la même traduction. En effet, le passé

composé (PC) français qui a deux valeurs fondamentales qui sont liées à l'évolution diachronique de la forme : la valeur d’état résultant d'un événement antérieur auquel il est contigu et la valeur d'événement. C’est le contexte qui met généralement en évidence l’une ou l’autre de ces valeurs, bien que les informations contextuelles puissent ne pas être suffisantes pour lever l'indétermination entre événement et état résultant :

(14) a. Le directeur est sorti il y a une heure (événement)

b. Le directeur est sorti, il ne pourra pas vous recevoir (état résultant)

Figure 2. Représentation de l’événement et de l’état résultant


__________77

♦ La notion d’état d’activité, étroitement liée à celle de processus, représente un état d’évolution (Desclés & Guentchéva 1995) et permet de rendre compte de la différence sémantique de (15) par rapport au processus inaccompli (16), deux valeurs aspectuelles qui sont parfois confondues :

(15) L’armée est en marche vers Paris. (16) L’armée est en train de marcher sur Paris.

Les tests linguistiques montrent que ces deux valeurs doivent être distinguées (l’avion vole de plus en plus vite mais *l’avion est en vol de plus en plus). L’état d’activité est stable et représente non pas une évolution mais un état d’évolution : les phases sont considérées comme équivalentes. Les zones temporelles de réalisation de l’état d’activité et du processus sous-jacent ne coïncident pas: la zone de réalisation de l’état d’activité est un intervalle ouvert qui coïncide avec la zone temporelle de l’intérieur du processus et exclut donc toute transition impliquant le début du processus et la transition finale. En général, les bornes droites de l’état d’activité et du processus sous-jacent coïncident. Si l’état d’activité (respectivement le processus) est déclaré vrai sur l’intervalle sur lequel il est réalisé (respectivement se réalise) alors l’intervalle de réalisation de l’état d’activité est inclus (au sens large) dans l’intervalle de réalisation du processus sous-jacent.

Les différentes valeurs aspectuelles s’articulent dans un réseau, comme il le fait apparaître la carte sémantique ci-dessous (Desclés et Guentchéva 2012, p. 21) :

Figure 3. Réseau sémantique des notions aspectuelles


__________78

2. La temporalité linguistiqueLa temporalité appréhendée par les langues ne se confond pas avec le temps

externe (temps calendaire, temps cosmique, temps technologique, le temps de l’Histoire reconstruite...). Bien que cette conception soit largement partagée par les linguistes (essentiellement francophones), la plupart des modélisations linguistiques n’en tiennent pas vraiment compte et les modèles proposés la présentent généralement sous forme d’un axe totalement ordonnés (passé–présent–futur). Or, la temporalité linguistique n’est pas une temporalité qui se présenterait sous forme d’un axe linéaire où un « passé » réalisé serait séparé de façon symétrique d’un « futur ». C’est un point fondamental sur lequel notre modèle diverge de celui de H. Reichenbach (1947) car, même avec les divers développements proposés (notamment les intervalles), il s’agit bien d’un seul axe temporel sur lequel sont projetés le S (point of Speech), le R (point of Reference) et le E (point of Event). Outre le statut ambigu de R (Comrie 1981, Bertinetto 1986, Binnick 1990), l’acte d’énonciation, du moins du point de vue cognitif, ne peut pas être ramené à un « moment d’énonciation ». L’énonciation engendre un processus particulier, dit énonciatif, et se caractérise par un début (le début de l’acte de parole) marqué par une borne fermée à gauche et, par une borne droite d’inaccomplissement T0

qui constitue la coupure continue entre « le réalisé » et « le non réalisé », c.-à-d. « le premier instant du non réalisé » (Desclés 1980). T0 sert de repère à la construction des relations temporelles dans ce référentiel et à la construction d’autres référentiels temporels.

2.1. La notion de référentiel spatio-temporel Cette notion est essentielle pour la description des valeurs sémantiques

associées aux formes grammaticalisées car toute relation prédicative aspectualisée est nécessairement insérée dans un référentiel temporel (Desclés, 1995 ; Desclés et Guentchéva, 2006/2011). Par manque de place, je me limiterai à une présentation très succincte du référentiel énonciatif et du référentiel non actualisé et je renvoie le lecteur à d’autres publications mentionnées dans la bibliographie.9

9 W. Klein (2009 : 56-7) ne fait pas appel à la notion de référentiel temporel mais recourt au principe d’ancrage temporel des valeurs aspectuelles.


__________79

Un référentiel temporel est un ensemble linéairement ordonné d’instants, structuré par les relations de concomitance (=), de différenciation (¹), d’antériorité (>) et de postériorité (<). Le référentiel fondamental du langage est le référentiel énonciatif (REN) Construit par l’acte énonciatif, il est organisé par rapport à l’énonciateur et conceptualisé comme un processus inaccompli. D’autres référentiels mis en œuvre dans le modèle font appel à une relation de rupture par rapport au REN (ou à d’autres référentiels) ou à une relation de synchronisation entre référentiels. Pour rendre compte de la mise en discours de nombreuses situations (hypothétiques, vérités générales ou gnomiques, discours rapportés…), il est nécessaire de construire d’autres référentiels temporels : référentiels médiatifs ; référentiel des possibles ; référentiel des pensées ou cadre des pensées ; référentiel des commentaires…

2.2. Le référentiel énonciatif (REN)Les relations prédicatives insérées dans ce référentiel représentent des

situations repérables par rapport au processus énonciatif. Le REN est autonome par rapport au référentiel externe (temps calendaires…) mais reste compatible avec lui à condition de préciser les conditions de synchronisation. Dans le REN, T0 constitue un repère fixe mais sa projection sur le référentiel temporel externe tm est mobile (Desclés 1980).

Le REN est composé de deux domaines distincts: le « réalisé » et le « non-réalisé » (Figure 3)

Figure 4. Structure du Référentiel énonciatif

Le « réalisé » comprend les événements, les états et les processus qui sont en cours ou qui ont déjà eu lieu, c.-à-d. avant T0 : le réalisé est un axe orienté qui s’étend


__________80

jusqu’au T0 mais en l’excluant ; il relève donc du domaine de la certitude. Le « non-réalisé » n’est pas le symétrique du réalisé et il a une structuration beaucoup plus complexe représentée sous forme d’un arbre où chaque branche représente l’ouverture d’une possibilité à venir après T0 (visée d’un état, d’un événement ou d’un processus à-venir) ou une possibilité ouverte après l’occurrence d’un événement qui a été visé à partir de T0, interprété comme « le premier instant du non-réalisé » (cf. la structure de ramification chez Martin 1981, Desclés 1995, Vuillaume 2001, Vinzerich 2007).

2.2.1. Processus inaccompli en concomitance avec l’acte énonciatifIl se déploie sur l’intervalle temporel de réalisation dont ‘T0’ est le repère du

processus énonciatif. Bien loin de remettre en question l’importance de l’aspect lexical du verbe, des marqueurs linguistiques contextuels et/ou des indices situationnels, la forme grammaticale du présent (Max marche depuis deux heures) et la périphrase être en train de au présent (Max est en train de chanter une vieille chanson française) sont aptes à exprimer cette valeur. Dans ces exemples, le processus est saisi dans son développement et conçu dans sa relation de concomitance avec l’acte énonciatif qui les a produits. Pour cet emploi du présent, la notion de concomitance qui est généralement mise en évidence par de nombreux linguistes, a un statut bien précis : elle établit une relation d’identification stricte entre la borne droite du processus en cours sous-jacent à la relation prédicative et T0 dans le REN, processus qui peut aussi se réaliser effectivement dans le monde réel et être mis en concomitance avec le référentiel externe (Desclés 1995 ; Desclés & Guentchéva 2011 ; Provôt et alii 2010 ). Il a été souvent affirmé que dans le cas où un procès est vu/perçu au cours de son développement, on fait abstraction, tout comme pour l’imparfait, de ses bornes initiale et finale (Gosselin 1996, 2005 ; Confais 1990/2002). Or, s’agissant d’un processus, il a nécessairement un début même s’il n’est pas grammaticalisé, du moins dans les langues décrites actuellement. Ce début doit donc être pris en compte dans la conceptualisation et validé sur l’intervalle temporel sur lequel se réalise le processus. Dans notre modèle, le début du processus est représenté par une borne fermée à gauche ; la borne ouverte à droite représente son inaccomplissement. Par ailleurs, la concomitance entre le processus sous-jacent à la relation prédicative et le processus énonciatif peut être totale ou partielle. Ainsi en (12), l’acte d’énonciation construit un processus qui a déjà été enclenché10:

10 De même, la construction avec être + gérondif en espagnol : Estoy esperando


__________81

(17) Bulgare Карам бавно заради мъглата

rouler.PRES.1Sg lentement à.cause.de brouillard.ARTdéf« Je roule lentement à cause du brouillard. »

d’où la représentation du processus prédicatif sur un intervalle dont la borne gauche déborde sur la gauche mais dont la borne droite est repérée, par identification, par rapport à la borne gauche (d’inaccomplissement) du processus énonciatif T :

—[//////////////je roule/////////////////[———[processus énonciatif[T

0

Mais l’acte énonciatif peut construire un processus prédicatif qui n’est pas en cours de réalisation mais présenté comme déjà engagé :

(18) BulgareТръгвам.

« Je pars. ».Aussi, comme le montre le diagramme, le processus énonciatif déborde-t-il

sur sa borne gauche le processus prédicatif:

—————[//////je pars/////[———[processus énonciatif[T

0→

2.2.2. Evénements antérieurs à l’acte d’énonciationIls sont repérés par rapport à T0 et situés dans le domaine du réalisé.

Reprenons le cas du passé composé français. Le test en/pendant Ntemps est souvent mis à contribution pour distinguer les processus bornés des processus non-bornés. Cependant, cette distinction ne reçoit pas une interprétation univoque suivant que les auteurs s’appuient sur la distinction verbes téliques vs verbes atéliques (Garey 1957) et/ou sur la classification de Vendler (1957). Ainsi, un énoncé comme Max a marché pendant deux heures est analysé soit comme un procès borné (Kozlovska


__________82

1998: 223), soit comme un procès non-borné ou atélique car compatible avec [pendant + durée] bien que cette compatibilité puisse conduire, « avec certains achèvements, à ne retenir que l’état résultant du procès » comme dans Les magasins ont fermé pendant trois semaines (Gosselin 1996, p.44). En fait, la notion de procès borné/non-borné renvoie tantôt aux propriétés sémantiques des verbes (atélique pour marcher, télique pour fermer), tantôt à la relation prédicative dans son intégralité. Dans Max a marché pendant deux heures, le processus est présenté comme simplement interrompu et enfermé par des bornes temporelles linguistiquement exprimées par le circonstanciel. C’est un processus accompli : la borne droite de la zone de validation temporelle qui lui est associée, se ferme et coïncide avec un repère T1 qui est antérieur à T0. Le procès est donc borné, ce qui lui permet de s’intégrer par ailleurs dans une succession d’événements : Ce matin, Pierre a marché pendant deux heures, puis il est rentré à la maison et s’est très vite remis au travail.

2.3. Le référentiel non actualisé (RNA)11

Il est distinct du REN et se trouve dans une relation de rupture que l’énonciateur établit entre lui et les faits présentés. Au plan formel, en français, par exemple, le passé simple (PS) est la forme verbale qui fonctionne comme signal de ce registre. Ainsi, en (19), les situations exprimées par les relations prédicatives aspectualisées ne sont plus repérables par rapport à l’acte énonciatif initial :

(19) Quand il revint du métro, le boulevard Richard-Lenoir était désert, et ses pas résonnaient. Il y avait d’autres pas derrière. Il tressaillit, se retourna involontairement… (Simenon)

Chaque occurrence du PS encode la valeur d’événement (revint, tressaillit, se retourna) et s’insère dans une structure de succession où chaque événement est repéré par rapport à l’autre. Cependant, le trait [+ succession] n’est pas propre au PS ; c’est la discontinuité créée par l’événement qui permet de générer la

11 La distinction actualisé/non-actualisé introduite dans le sillage du Cercle de Prague, la distinction classique discours/histoire de Benveniste ou des distinctions assez proches comme celle de Seiler (1952), ou d’énonciatif/narratif de Weinrich (1973), de l’aoristique de Culioli, bien que non fondées sur la notion de référentiel, trouveraient une meilleure justification avec la distinction entre REN (domaine de l’actualisation passée, en cours ou à-venir) et RNA (domaine des situations non actualisables).


__________83

succession chronologique. Quant aux occurrences de l’imparfait, elles renvoient à la valeur d’état (était, résonnaient, il y avait) permettant de préciser le cadre temporel de référence narrative.

De nombreux linguistes caractérisent le PS comme un « passé révolu » coupé de l’actualité de l’énonciateur mais ne renoncent pas totalement à l’interpréter à l’intérieur de la sphère du passé. Or, dans le référentiel non actualisé, les événements, les processus et les états ne sont ni passés, ni futurs, ni présents, ni en relation avec une énonciation en cours. La relation entre le le référentiel non actualisé et le référentiel énonciatif est celle de « rupture » permettant d’indiquer que chaque situation localisée dans le RNA ne peut plus être repérée par rapport à l’acte énonciatif d’une part et par rapport à chacune des situations localisées dans le REN, d’autre part.

Résumons-nous. Dans le RNA les événements se succèdent ; chaque occurrence d’un événement s’inscrit dans une structure de succession d’autres événements situés avant ou après ; les événements peuvent s’emboîter les uns dans les autres et même se chevaucher parfois ; les événements sont souvent insérés à l’intérieur d’un état (état de description, marqué le plus souvent par un imparfait en français) ; les processus inaccomplis s’insèrent également souvent à l’intérieur d’un état (constituant une sorte de cadre de référence) et la borne d’inaccomplissement est alors marquée par le début d’un événement qui, lui, est sécant.

2.4. Synchronisation entre REN et le REX : le cas du présentIl est bien connu que, dans les langues indo-européennes, le présent ne

renvoie pas toujours à la réalisation réelle d’un processus au « moment de la parole ». Pour rendre compte des emplois comme (21), on fait appel à la notion de concomitance qui réside dans l’actualisation énonciative du processus prédicatif :

(20) Слизам на следващата спирка « Je descends au prochain arrêt » En (20), l’énonciateur établit une correspondance par synchronisation entre

un événement « passé » déjà réalisé et l’état résultant qu’il a créé, localisés tous deux dans le référentiel externe, d’une part et, un processus prédicatif déjà enclenché mais dont le terme final ne peut être atteint que dans que dans le REN, d’autre part. Nous lui associons la représentation suivante :


__________84

Figure 4 : Synchronisation du présent avec le référentiel externe

ConclusionDans ce qui précède, j’ai essayé de présenter un bref aperçu d’un modèle qui

se veut général de la conceptualisation de l’aspectualité et de la temporalité opérée par les langues. J’ai essayé de montrer qu’il est nécessaire de préciser les principales propriétés caractéristiques des concepts aspectuels de base (état, événement, processus) et les concepts dérivés qui, en s'organisant entre eux par des relations temporelles, ne se situent pas sur un axe linéaire où le « présent » viendrait séparer de façon symétrique « le passé » et « le futur ». Ainsi, la forme dénommée « présent », par exemple, ne renvoie pas toujours à une situation que l’on peut définir par rapport au processus énonciatif. De même, la forme dénommée « aoriste » dans certaines langues n’exprime pas vraiment une situation passée puisque ses emplois peuvent être situés dans un référentiel qui est en rupture avec la situation d’énonciation. Il est évident que toute théorisation des phénomènes aspecto-temporels à travers la diversité des langues du monde implique, comme le revendique J. Perrot (2003, p.513), une réflexion épistémologique permettant de définir avec précision les concepts élémentaires et les concepts dérivés constitutifs, par exemple, des notions d’aspect et de temps et catégorisés par les langues afin d’évaluer la validité des démarches dans laquelle la linguistique s’engage.


__________85

Références bibliographiques

Benveniste, E., 1961. Annuaire du College de France. Paris: College de France. Benveniste, E., 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale (Vol. I). Paris: Gallimard.Benveniste, E., 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale (Vol. I). Paris: Gallimard.Bertinetto P. M., 1986. Bertinetto, P. M.: 1986, Intrinsic and extrinsic temporal

references. On restricting the notion of ‘Reference Time”. In: V. L. Cascio and C. Vet, eds. Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse, Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, Vol. 5. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp.41-78.

Buber, M., 1923. Ich und Du. Leipzig: Insel-Verlag. Traduction française par G. Bianquis (préface de Gaston Bâchelard): Je et Tu. 2009. Paris: Aubier.

Bühler, K., 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. [Das Organon-Modell]. Iéna: Verlag von Gustav Fischer. Trad. Française par D. Samain. Théorie du langage. La fonction représentationnelle. 2009. Marseille: Agone.

Cohen, D., 1989. L’aspect verbal. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related

problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Comrie, B., 1981. On Reichenbach’s approach to tense. Papers from the 17th

regional meeting 17. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.24-30. Confais, J.-P. , 1995. Temps, Mode, Aspect. Les approches des morphèmes verbaux

et leurs problèmes à l’exemple du français et de l’allemand. 2e édition. Toulouse : Presses Universitaires du Mirail.

Culioli, A., 1980. Valeur aspectuelle et opérations énonciatives: l’aoristique. In: J. David and R. Martin, éds. 1980. La notion d’aspect. Paris: Klincsieck, pp.181-193.

Culioli, A. 1999. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Formalisation et opérations de repérage, t. 2, Paris : Ophrys.

Desclés, J.-P., 1980. Construction formelle de la catégorie de l’aspect (essai). In: J. David and R. Martin, eds. 1980. La notion d’aspect. Paris: Klincsieck, pp.195-237.

Desclés, J.-P., 1989. State, Event, Process and Topology. General Linguistics, 3(29). University Park and London: The Pennsylvania University Press, pp.159-200.

Desclés, J.-P., 1995. Les référentiels temporels pour le temps linguistique, Modèles linguistiques, tome XVI, Vol 2 : 9-36.

Desclés, J.-P. and Z. Guentchéva, 1995. Is the Notion of Process Necessary?. In: P. M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, Ö. Dahl, and M. Squartini. eds. Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp.55-70.


__________86

Desclés, J.-P. et Z. Guentchéva, 2003. Comment déterminer les significations du passé composé par une exploration contextuelle ?. Langue française 138, pp.48-60

Desclés, J.-P. and Guentchéva, Z., 2006. Référentiels aspecto-temporels dans les textes. Studia Kognytiwne 7. Warszava: Instytut Slawistyki / Polska Akademia Nauk, pp.11–34).

Desclés, J.-P., and Guentchéva, Z., 2010. Référentiels aspecto-temporels: Une approche formelle et cognitive appliquée au français. In: F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada, et S. Prevost, eds. 2e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2010, pp.1675–1696). Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française. Repris in Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris, CVI (fasc. 1). 2011. pp. 95-127.

Desclés, J.-P., and Z. Guentchéva, 2012. Universals and Typology. In: R. Binnick, ed. 2012. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.123-154.

Duchet, J.-L., 1995. The Albanian Tense system. In: R. Thieroff, ed. Tense Systems in European Languages II, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 253-275.

Galton, H., 1976. The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Scopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Garey, H. B., 1957. Verbal aspect in French, Language 2, vol. 33, pp. 91–110Gosselin, L., 1996. Sémantique de la temporalité en français (Un modèle

calculatoire et cognitif du temps et de l’aspect). Bruxelles: Duculot.Greenberg, Y., 1998. An overt syntactic marker for genericity in Hebrew. In: S.

Rothstein, ed. Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp.125-143.Guentchéva, Z., 1989. Le parfait et la valeur inférentielle : l'exemple du bulgare,

Modèles linguistiques 11(2), pp.75-107. Guentchéva, Z., 1990. Temps et aspect: l'exemple du bulgare littéraire

contemporain. Paris: Presses du CNRS.Kamp, H., 1979. Events, instants and temporal reference. In: R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, et A.

von Stechow, eds. Semantics from different points of view. Berlin: Springer, pp. 131–175.Klein, W., 2009. How time is encoded. In: W. Klein and P. Li, The expression of

time. Berlin: Moutons de Gruyter, pp.39-82. Koseska-Toszewa, V., et A. Mazuerkievicz, A. 1994. Les réseaux de Petri et la

description de la temporalité et de la modalité dans les langues naturelles. Studia kognytiwne 1 Warszava: Instytut Slawistyki / Polska Akademia Nauk, pp. 89-112.

Kozlowska, M., 1998. Aspect, Modes d’action et classes aspectuelles. In: J. Moeschler, ed. Le temps des événements. Pragmatiques de la référence temporelle, Paris: Editions Kimé, pp.101-121.

Lyons, J., 1977. Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.


__________87

Martin, R., 1981. Le futur linguistique : temps linéaire ou temps ramifié ? Langages 64, pp. 81-92

Mourelatos, A. P. D., 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, pp.415-34. Reprinted in, Syntax and Semantics 14: Tense and Aspect (pp. 91–102). New York and London: Academic Press.

Nedjalkov, V. P., 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Translated from the original Russian edition (1983).

Perrot, J., 2003. Concepts et teminologie. In: J. Lentin et and A. Lonnet, eds. Mélanges David Cohen, Etudes sur le langage, les langues, les dialectes, les littératures offertes par ses éléèves, ses collègues, ses amis. Paris : Maisonneuve, pp.513-525.

Provôt, A., .J.-P. Desclés & A. Vinzerich, 2010. Invariant sémantique du présent de l’indicatif en français, Cahiers Chronos 2010, Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.

Reichenbach, H., 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic, London: Collier-Macmillan ; Reprinted in: J.M. Moravcsik, ed. Logic and Philosophy for Linguists, A Book of Readings. The Hague: Mouton, 1974, pp. 122-141.

Sasse, H.-J., 2002. Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just nonprogressive state? Linguistic Typology , 6. Pp.199-271.

Seiler, H-J., 1952. L’aspect et le temps dans le verbe néo-grec. Paris : Maison d’Edition « Les Belles Lettres ».

Smith, C., 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Vendler, Z., 1957. Verbs and times ». Philosophical Review 66, pp.143–160.Vuillaume, M., 2001. L'expression du futur dans le passé en français et en allemand.

In : P. Dendale et L. Tasmowski, eds. Le conditionnel en français. Metz : Université de Metz, pp.105-123.

Vinzerich, A., 2007. La sémantique du possible : approche linguistique, logique et traitement informatique dans les textes, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris IV – Sorbonne.

Weinrich, H., 1973 [1964]). Le temps, Le récit et le commentaire [Traduction de l’allemand par Michèle Lacoste]. Paris: Seuil.


__________88

Résumé

Le modèle présenté dans cet article s’inscrit à la fois dans la perspective énonciative ouverte par les travaux de Bühler, Buber, Benveniste et Culioli d’une part, et dans une perspective cognitive, d’autre part. Partant d’une définition des notions ‘état’, ‘événement’ et ‘processus (inaccompli)’ et des propriétés qui leur sont attachées, l’actualaisation d’une relation prédicative est représentée sur un intervalle topologique d’instants : intervalle ouvert pour un état ; intervalle fermé pour un événement ; intervalle semi-ouvert pour un processus. Nous faisons appel au concept de référentiel temporel qui implique l’énonciateur et où sont localisés les différents états, événements et processus. La distinction entre référentiel énonciatif et référentiel non actualisé prend tout son sens quand on veut décrire les différents emplois des temps verbaux.

Mots clés: état, événement, processus, état résultant, processus énonciatif, référentiel temporel énonciatif, référentiel temporel non actualisé, présent, aoriste

Perfectivity: A three-way distinction__________

__________89

Perfectivity: A three-way distinction1

Galia HatavUniversity of Florida

1 Introduction

1.1 Perfective and Imperfective

The terms Perfective and Imperfective were first used to refer to the morphological distinction found in Russian and other Slavic languages (Hartmann & Stock 1972; Binnick 1991), which later was applied to other languages with similar semantic distinctions. The semantic definitions in (1) seem to be agreed upon by most linguists:

(1) a. Perfective denotes a complete situation with beginning, middle, and end; all parts of the situation are presented as a single whole. (Comrie 1976: 18)

b. Imperfective denotes an incomplete situation (Comrie 1976: 19). As such, it can be characterized as an explicit reference to the internal temporal structure of a situation, viewing a situation from within (Comrie 1976: 24).

Intuitively speaking, complete situations are all alike, but incompleteness can be manifested in different ways. Accordingly, Comrie (1976: 24-5)

1 Thanks to the participants of the workshop on Slavic Aspect at the University of Bucharest and the linguistics colloquium at the University of Florida for their valuable comments.

Romano-Bohemica II / Hatav__________

__________90

subcategorizes Imperfective into a number of distinct categories: habitual and generic, continuous (non-progressive) and (continuous) progressive.

However, it has been observed that while the Perfective, indeed, can only depict complete situations, the Imperfective does not always depict an incomplete one. The examples in (2) illustrate the phenomenon from Greek and Russian:

(2) a. Greek (Giannakidou and Zwarts 1998: 4)Tetja ora xthes pethene o Janissuch time yesterday died-Imperfective.3sg the John‘John died (Imperfective) yesterday at this time.’ b. Russian (Forsyth 1970: 15)2

ja uzhe chital etu knigu. ja bral.I already read that book. I borrowed: Imperfective ee v bibliotekeit from library‘I have already read that book. I borrowed (Imperfective) it from the library.’

c. Russian (Comrie 1976: 122)ja zakazyval/zakazal borščI ordered: Imperfective/Perfective borsch‘I ordered borsch.’

Although both the verbs pethene ‘died’ and bral ‘borrowed’ in (2a) and (2b), respectively, report complete situations, they carry the Imperfective aspect. Similarly, the complete event of ordering in (2c) may be reported not only by the Perfective verb zakazal but also by its Imperfective counterpart zakazyval.

1.2 Markedness and Underspecification

The notion of markedness was first introduced into linguistics by the Prague School phonologists, and later was introduced into syntax and semantics by

2 I thank James Goodwin for the transliteration and the gloss.


__________91

Jacobson (1932).3 The notion is usually used as a distinction between two categories or expressions, where one is considered to be marked and the other unmarked. As summarized by Comrie (1976: 112), Jacobson states that the marked member must contain some feature that is absent in the unmarked member.

Developing Jacobson’s line of analysis for the Russian aspect, Forsyth (1970) claims that the Imperfective is an unmarked form, as opposed to the Perfective. Forsyth seems to be followed by most linguists investigating Slavic aspect (see Andrews 2012 and references therein; in particular Maslov 1984).

In the more recent literature, the term markedness as defined by Jacobson has been replaced by the term underspecifity. The term markedness itself has taken a new characterization as a pragmatic property, where a marked member of two correlates is considered to be less regular, used to elicit some special meaning that the use of the unmarked member may not make clear. This line of analysis has been followed by most linguists who adopt the pragmatic theory of Grice (1975).

Grice (1975) shows that speakers’ interaction with others is guided by four main pragmatic principles he calls maxims. He shows that, unless they do not want to be cooperative, speakers would violate one of the maxims only if they cannot abide by it, e.g., if it is in conflict with another maxim, or in order to elicit some special meaning that otherwise might not be understood. The maxim that is relevant for this paper is the Quantity Maxim4, by which speakers are not expected to give either less or more information than is needed. Accordingly, if there is a category or expression in language that is more specific, conveying more information than its underspecified counterpart, speakers would be expected to use it. That is why upon hearing the sentence John was with a woman, we understand the woman not to be John’s wife. If it turned out to be the case that the woman was John’s wife, we consider the sentence to be marked and try to find a reason for the

3 In this paper, I will only describe the notion of markedness very briefly. For a more elaborated discussion see the excellent overview in Comrie (1976), chapter 6. 4 The other three maxims are Quality, Manner and Relation (= Relevance).


__________92

violation of the quantity maxim (maybe it was dark and the speaker could not identify the woman, or maybe the speaker wanted to start some rumor).

In this paper, I will adopt the more recent terminology. In particular, I will use the term underspecified for the Imperfective to reflect its characteristic to depict any kind of situation, as opposed to the Perfective which is specified to depict complete situations. I will argue that the use of the Perfective to depict complete situations is unmarked, while the use of the Imperfective is marked, showing that speakers would only use the underspecified Imperfective to report a complete situation when the Perfective cannot be used, or for the sake of implying some meaning that may not be understood if the Perfective was used. Similar claims will be made, mutatis mutandis, for the aspects of languages like English and languages like Biblical Hebrew.

1.3 Perfectivity: A three-way distinction

It seems to me that the term Imperfective in languages like Greek and Russian is a misnomer. Moreover, crosslinguistically, I would like to suggest that the traditional binary categorization of Perfective-Imperfective is inadequate, replacing it by a three-way distinction: Perfective – Counter-perfective (= Anti-perfective) – Non-perfective, defined intuitively in (3) below and more formally in (4):

(3) a. Perfective denotes a complete situation with beginning, middle, and end; all parts of the situation are presented as a single whole. (As suggested originally by Comrie)

b. Counter-perfective (=Anti-perfective) denotes an incomplete situation. (As suggested originally for the Imperfective)

c. Non-perfectivedenotes an underspecified situation with respect to Perfectivity, so that it can depict either kind of situation.


__________93

These intuitive definitions may be given more formal characteristics, using the notion of Reference-time (introduced by Reichenbach 1949), as shown in (4) below, where R stands for Reference-time and E for Event (=situation) time:

(4) a. Perfectivedenotes a situation which is included in its respective Reference-time.

E ⊆ Rb. Counter-perfectivedenotes a situation which includes its Reference-time.

R ⊆ Ec. Non-perfectivedenotes a situation that may include its Reference-time or be included in it.

(E⊆ R) ∨ (R ⊆ E)

Since in the case of the Perfective all parts of the situation are presented as a single whole, they must be all included within their respective Reference-time. On the other hand, since a situation denoted by the Counter-perfective is understood to be in progress, or ongoing, at its respective Reference-time, its interval includes the interval denoted by the Reference-time. And finally, a situation denoted by the Non-perfective is underspecified with respect to its relations with the Reference-time, which means that it may include it or be included in it.

Languages may have all three aspects or only some of them.

In section 2, I will discuss languages such as Russian and Greek, which I argue have Perfective and Non-perfective aspects; in section 3, I will discuss languages such as English, which I claim have the Counter-perfective and Non-perfective aspects; and in section 4, I will discuss Biblical Hebrew, showing that it has all three possible aspects. Section 5 will summarize and conclude the points made in the previous sections.


__________94

2. Languages with Perfective and Non-perfective aspects

Forsyth (1970) offers a view of aspect based on a privative opposition, defining only the meaning of the Perfective verb, to which is opposed the Imperfective. The meaning of the Imperfective is defined only negatively as the absence of perfective meaning. My view is compatible in some sense with Forsyth’s. I argue that languages like Russian and Greek have two aspects: (i) the Perfective, which can only report complete situations (whose intervals are included in their respective Reference-time); and (ii) what is traditionally called the Imperfective is actually the Non-perfective that may depict either complete or incomplete situation.

The Russian pairs in (5a-b) from Comrie (1976) illustrate the opposition of Perfective vs. Non-perfective:

(5) a. čitať (Imperfective = Non-perfective) ‘read’ – pročitať (Perfective) ‘read through’b. sideť (Imperfective = Non-perfective) ‘be in a position of sitting’ – seť (Perfective) ‘adopt a sitting position’

As we can see, the perfective verb forms in (a) and (b) report complete events, while their Non-perfective counterparts report incomplete situations. However, as illustrated in (2) above, the Imperfective = Non-perfective can report complete situations as well.

The question arises is of when the Perfective and the Non-perfective are used in languages like Russian and Greek.

In case of incomplete situations, I argue, the underspecified Non-perfective must be used, as the Perfective can only depict complete ones. In case of a complete situation, I suggest that the choice between the Perfective and the Non-perfective is based on pragmatic considerations.


__________95

Complying with Grice’s maxim of quantity (discussed in section 1.2 above), I suggest, speakers would usually use the Perfective in Greek and Russian to depict complete situations, as it is more informative than the Non-perfective. In marked cases, however, the speaker would use the Non-perfective. If the speaker is not sure whether or not the situation is complete, or if s/he wants to convey some special meaning that cannot be conveyed by the Perfective, s/he would use the Non-perfective. For instance, the use of the Non-perfective in the Greek example (2a) (John died yesterday at this time) is explained by Giannakidou and Zwarts (1998: 4) as eliciting a “dramatic” effect. Forsyth (1970: 15) explains the use of the Non-perfective in (2b) (He borrowed it from the library) as having to do with the implication that he has now returned the book. And Comrie (1976: 122) explains the Non-perfective in (2c) as adding some general factual meaning.

3. Languages with Counter-perfective and Non-perfective aspects

In this section, I will analyze English as a case study for languages that have the Counter- and the Non-Perfective aspects.

Comrie (1976) analyses the progressive in English as Counter-Perfective (Imperfective, in his terminology), as it can never depict a complete situation but only an ongoing one. The examples in (6) below illustrate:

(6) a. Mary was eating breakfast (when the phone suddenly rung).b. Mary is reading the paper.

The activity of eating breakfast in (6a) is understood to be going on at the time the phone rung, which means that its interval includes the interval of the ringing. The activity of reading the paper in (6b) is interpreted to be going on at the speech-time, which means that its interval includes the speech-time.

But what usually are referred to as the simple tenses, in particular the simple past, can be used to depict either complete or incomplete situations. Consider the examples in (7) through (10):


__________96

(7) Mary bought a computer.(8) Mary wore a blue dress and held a glass of water in her hand.(9) Mary sat on the chair and watched the birds/fell off.(10) John worked here: (from Comrie 1976: 25)

a. John worked here this morning.b. John used to work here.

While the sentence in (7), with the eventive verb buy, is understood to depict a complete situation, both clauses in (8), with the stative verbs wear and hold, are understood to depict ongoing states. The first clause in (9), with the stative verb sit, is ambiguous between a complete event and an ongoing state, as attested by the fact that it can be continued either by the activity watched the birds or the event fell off. In (10), the Simple past may be interpreted as an episodic complete situation (John worked here this morning), or as habitual (which is a kind of an incomplete situation): John used to work here.

Languages like English, I suggest, have two aspects: the Counter- and Non-perfective, where the progressive, which can only depict incomplete situations, is the Counter-perfective and the Simple tenses constitute the Non-perfective, allowed depicting both complete and incomplete situations.5

The question arises is of when speakers of English use the Progressive and when the Simple tenses.

For a lack of a specific Perfective form, I suggest that in case of complete situations the underspecified Simple tenses must be used (or the underspecified Perfect – see FN 5).

5 The Perfect in English seems to be another underspecified Non-perfective form, as shown in the following examples:

(i) Mary has eaten.(ii) Mary has been here for a long time.

While the Present-perfect sentence in (i) is understood to report a complete event, the sentence in (ii) is interpreted to depict an incomplete state. The Perfect in English has been given a lot of attention in the semantic and pragmatic literature, with many theories trying to determine how it is distinguished from the Simple tenses. I will ignore it in this paper.


__________97

However, we have seen that in case of incomplete situation, either the Progressive or the Simple tenses can be used. My contention is that since the Progressive is specified as the Counter-perfective aspect, it would usually be chosen to depict ongoing incomplete situations in order not to violate Grice’s quantity maxim. But in marked contexts, where the progressive is not allowed or the speaker tries to convey some semantic or pragmatic implication that cannot be conveyed by the Progressive, the Simple tenses would be used. Consider first the sentences in (11) and (12).

(11) a. John knows physics.b. *John is knowing physics.

(12) a. Mary used to go to the beach every Friday. b. Cows eat grass.

Vendler (1967) has shown that a small group of what I label mental state verbs such as know, love, understand and the like cannot come in the progressive, as attested by the ungrammaticality of (11b). Therefore, although they depict incomplete situations, those verbs can only come in the Simple tenses, as in (11a).

Though they depict incomplete ongoing situations, Habitual and Generic statements cannot be expressed by the Progressive, as they carry some special meanings that cannot be depicted by the Progressive. For a lack of specific forms for those Counter-perfectives, the underspecified Simple tenses must be used. The Simple past is used in (12a) to depict Mary’s habit in the past, and the Simple present is used in (12b) to make a generic statement about cows.

Consider now the sentences in (13) below, where both the Simple present and the Progressive are possible:

(13) a. The statue stands at the corner. b. The statue is standing at the corner.


__________98

Goldsmith and Woisetschlaeger (1982), followed by most scholars, argue that the Progressive in (13b) implicates that it is a temporary state. This seems to suggest that the Progressive is the marked case here. Contrary to which seems to be the consensus, I believe that here, too, the underspecified Simple present is the marked form, used to imply the non-temporary meaning.

4. Languages with all three aspects

Finally, I would like to show that there are languages that have all three possible aspects. I argue that Biblical Hebrew is such language, where the form called wayyiqtol and its modal counterpart weqatal can be characterized as Perfective, as they always depict complete situations. The qotel can be regarded as a Counter-perfective form, as it can only depict ongoing situations, similar to the English Progressive. And the form qatal and its modal counterpart yiqtol are Non-perfective, as they can depict complete as well as incomplete situations. In this paper, I will concentrate on the non-modal forms.

Subsection 4.1 will illustrate the non-modal Perfective form wayyiqtol, 4.2 will illustrate the Counter-perfective form qotel, and 4.3 will discuss the uses of the Non-perfective qatal. The best way to illustrate the different forms in Biblical Hebrew seems to be through narrative excerpts, so my illustrations will come mainly from the prose portion of the Hebrew Bible.

4.1 The Perfective form wayyiqtol

As noted by Forsyth (1970: 9) for the Russian aspect, Perfective verbs are in general used to express sequence of events in the narrative discourse. As I show in Hatav (1997 and elsewhere), wayyiqtol is usually the form used to depict sequence of events in a story. The excerpt in (14) illustrates:


__________99

(14) wayyelek reʔuubeen biimee qṣiir ḥittiim go: wayyiqtol Reuben in-days: of harvest: of wheat wayyimṣaa duudaaʔiim baśśaade wayyaabe ʔootaam find: wayyiqtol mandrakes in-the-field bring: wayyiqtol them ʔel leeʔaa ʔimmoo

to Leah his-mother‘At the time of wheat-harvest Reuben went out (wayyiqtol) and found (wayyiqtol) some mandrakes in the field and brought (wayyiqtol) them to his mother Leah.’ (Gen 30: 14-15)

As we can see, the clauses with verbs in wayyiqtol all depict complete situations that are understood to have happened in sequence.

4.2 The Counter-Perfective form qotel

In Hatav (1997) I show that the semantics of the qotel in Biblical Hebrew is similar to the semantics of the English Progressive. Accordingly, if the biblical narrator wants to depict an ongoing situation that includes its Reference-time he would use the form qotel. Consider the examples in (15) and (16) below:

(15) wayyaaboo malʔak yhwh wayyeešeb taḥat haaʔeelaa come: wayyiqtol angel: of God sit: wayyiqtol under the-oak

ʔašer be ʕopraa ʔašer leyooʔaaš ʔabii haaʕezrii that in-Ophrah that to-Joash father: of the-Ezrite

wegidʕoon bnoo ḥoobeeṭ ḥiṭṭiim baggat and-Gideon his-son thresh: qotel wheat in-the-winepress‘The angel of the Lord came (wayyiqtol) and sat (wayyiqtol) under the oak tree at Ophrah which belonged to Joash the Abiesrite, where his son Gideon was threshing (qotel) wheat in the winepress [to hide from the Midianites].’ (Jud 6:11)


__________100

(16) wattoomer mippnee śaaray gbirtii ʔaanookiisay: wayyiqtol from-face-of Sarai my-mistress I booraḥatrun.away: qotel‘[Hagar] said, I am running away (qotel) from my mistress Sarai.’ (Gen 16:8)

The boldfaced clause in (15) depicts a situation that is understood to be on progress when the other reported events took place. Hence its verb is in qotel (and the verb in the English translation is in the progressive). In (16), the situation of being on the run is ongoing at the speech-time of the reported speaker (Hagar), which is why its verb is in the qotel form in Biblical Hebrew, and in the progressive in the English translation.

We can conclude that the qotel in Biblical Hebrew is a Counter-perfective form, like the English Progressive.

4.3 The Non-Perfective form qatal

The underspecified Non-perfective form qatal is found in clauses depicting complete as well as incomplete situations. I will first discuss its appearance in clauses depicting complete situations (section 4.3.1) and then its appearance in clauses depicting incomplete ones (section 4.3.2).

4.3.1 Complete situations

Since there is a specific form wayyiqtol for reporting complete situations, we will find the qatal in clauses denoting complete situations only if the biblical narrator wants to communicate something special that might not be understood if the wayyiqtol form was used. In Hatav (1997), I showed that it is used to explicitly indicate anterior or simultaneous situations, and in Hatav (forthcoming) I show that it is used also to mark the discourse topic of a segment.


__________101

4.3.1.1 Simultaneity

The excerpt in (17) illustrates the use of the qatal form to depict simultaneous situations.

(17) wayyiqra ʔeloohiim laaʔoor yoom welaḥoošek call: wayyiqtol God to-the-light day and-to-the-darkness

qaaraa laaylaa call: qatal night

‘God called (wayyiqtol) the light Day, while/and the darkness He called (qatal) Night.’ (Gen 1: 5)

Note first the English translation. English speakers have the choice between the specific temporal connective while and the underspecified connective and to connect the two clauses. If the specific while is used it is indicated explicitly that the activities of giving the names day and night were in a simultaneous fashion. If the underspecified connective and is used the simultaneity relation can only be understood from the context. In Biblical Hebrew, the underspecified connective and is used, but the temporal relation of simultaneity is indicated specifically by the verb form qatal.

4.3.1.2 Anteriority

The example in (18) below illustrates the use of the underspecified form qatal to depict anterior events.

(18) wayyaabo laabaan beʔoohel yaʕaqob uubeʔoohelcome: wayyiqtol Laban in-tent: of Jacob and-in-tent: ofleeʔaa uubeʔoohel štee haaʔ maahoot weloo maaṣaa Leah and-in-tent: of two: of the-maids and-not find: qatalwayyeṣee meeʔoohel leeʔaa wayyaboo beʔoohel leave: wayyiqtol from-tent: of Leah come: wayyiqtol in-tent: of raaḥeel. weraaḥeel laaqḥaa ʔet haṭṭraapiim Rachel and-Rachel take: qatal Acc the-idols


__________102

‘Laban went (wayyiqtol) into Jacob’s tent and Leah’s tent and that of the two maids, but he did not find (qatal) anything. He came out (wayyiqtol) of Leah’s tent and went (wayyiqtol) into Rachel’s. Now Rachel had taken (qatal) the household gods …’ (Gen 31: 33-34).

As the context suggests, Rachel took the idols before her father Laban went into her tent. Hence the qatal form in BH and the past perfect in the English translation.

4.3.1.3 Marking discourse topic6

Following Kuno (1972), Reinhart (1980, 1982) defines the notion of sentence topic (ST) in terms of aboutness, as what the sentence is “about”. Expanding the definition of ST to discourse topic (Henceforth: DT), Shen (1988: 663) and Giora (1990: xxxiv), among others, define the notion of DT as what the discourse is “about”. However, the property of aboutness has not been given a formal definition in the literature, but only used intuitively, which may pose a problem when trying to determine a DT of a text. As noted by van Dijk (1977: 50-51), our intuitions on what a certain sentence or text is about may be vague and misguided.

A more formal definition of DT is found in studies dealing with discourse structure, where most scholars seem to agree that a DT should be defined in propositional terms.

Keenan and Schieffeling (1976: 338) claim that each discourse has a single proposition which represents its DT. Van Dijk (1972: 37, 1977: 58-59, 1980: 96) scrutinizes this generalization, suggesting that a DT is a complex proposition that is entailed by the joint set of propositions of the text. Within the framework he developed for discourse relations, Asher (1993: 267, 2004a: 182) agrees that a DT is a proposition; however, he believes it to be expressed rather by a simple sentence. In this paper, I will adopt Asher’s framework of discourse relations and his analysis of DT.

6 Much of the discussion in this subsection is taken from Hatav (forthcoming).


__________103

Expanding DRT (Discourse Representation Theory) of Kamp (1979, and Reyle 1993), Asher (1993) developed SDRT (Segmented Discourse Structure Theory), in which he accounts formally for the relations holding between clauses in a (coherent) discourse. Lascarides and Asher (1993) and, in more detail, Asher and Lascarides (2003) develop the analysis of discourse relations further, showing them to be of two sorts: subordinating or coordinating. The relations that concern us in this paper are mainly Topic, Elaboration, and Narration.7 While Narration is a coordinating relation, Topic and Elaboration are subordinating relations.

Asher and Lascarides (2003: 462) define Narration the way Narrative is usually defined in the literature:

(19) Narration is a relation that holds between constituents expressing eventualities that occur in the sequence in which they were described.8

According to (19), if a clause a describes an event that precedes the event reported in the following clause b then b is related to a by Narration.

Since clauses whose relations are Narration are not dependent on each other structurally or causally, they are on the same level, and to form a coherent discourse we require “some sort of thematic continuity” (Asher 2004b: 257). In other words, they must be “glued” together by a common topic, or a DT. Asher’s (1993: 267) definition of the relationship between the DT and the other clauses in the text can be simplified as follows:

(20) If a is the discourse topic of a segment containing b then a dominates b and b elaborates on a.

The discourse in example (21) below from Lascarides and Asher (1993: example 7) may illustrate:

7 Other discourse relations include Continuation, Generalization, Parallel, Contrast, Background, Result, and Explanation.8 Note that the studies of Asher (as a sole author or in collaboration with Lascarides) provide formal definitions and analyses for the discourse relations; in this paper, I only provide simplified versions.


__________104

(21) a. Guy experienced a lovely evening last night.b. He had a fantastic meal.c. He ate salmon.

d. He devoured lots of cheese. e. He won a dancing competition.

The first clause (21a) seems to serve as the DT of the whole paragraph, dominating the rest of the clauses, such that the latter depict situations that can be considered to elaborate on the situation depicted in the DT clause. When we read the second clause (21b) we understand it to elaborate on (21a), as it depicts an event – having a fantastic meal – that is understood to be part of the lovely experience Guy had. (21c) and (21d) are understood to elaborate on (21b), which means that (21b-d) together form a sub-discourse (or theme, in Asher’s terms), which in turn elaborates on the main DT (21a). Since this sub-discourse deals with Guy‘s meal, (21e) cannot be interpreted as part of it; however, it can be interpreted as a lovely event, which means that it elaborates on the DT (21a). (21e is related to 21b by Narration.)

Linguists point to a number of linguistic devices in marking the DT of segments in texts or a digression from it thereof, including tenses (Vet 1998), modal constructions (Spejewsky 1998), position in the text (Giora 1990), semantic connectors (Giora 1990), and phrases like sinon and bon in French (Prevot 2003 as cited in Asher 2004a: 198) or otherwise in English (Asher 2004a: 198).

In Hatav (forthcoming), I show that Biblical Hebrew makes use of its aspect system to mark a DT of a segment. In particular, the underspecified form qatal is used to mark the DT of a narrative segment. The first verse in Genesis 22 given in (22) below illustrates:

(22) wayhii ʔaḥar haddbaariim haaʔeele wehaaʔeloohiim be: wayyiqtol after the-things the-these and-Godnissaa ʔet ʔabraahaamtry: qatal Acc Abraham‘Sometime afterwards, Got put (qatal) Abraham to the test.’ (Gen 22: 1)


__________105

The first verse of chapter 22 in Genesis starts with telling the reader what they are going to read about, namely the test Abraham was put through. The next eighteen verses following this verse constitute the details of the test – how it was carried out. To put it in Asher’s terminology, the first clause dominates all the clauses following it, such that they all elaborate on it. In accord with definition (20), we can conclude that the first clause with the qatal verb is the DT of its respective segment.

What is important to note for the purpose of the points I am trying to make in this paper is that since it depicts a complete situation, the first clause in 22 could have had a wayyiqtol verb. However, in such case the DT would not have been marked, in which case the reader may or may not be able to determine the DT of the first nineteen verses in chapter 22.

4.3.2 Incomplete situations

In section 4.3.1, we saw that the biblical narrator uses the underspecified qatal form instead of the specified Perfective wayyiqtol to depict complete situations in order to imply some special meaning such as simultaneity or anteriority, or for some pragmatic function such as marking the discourse topic of a segment. In this sub-section, I will show that the biblical narrator uses the qatal form to indicate a continuous incomplete situation if he cannot use the specific Counter-perfective qotel.

In section 3, we saw that certain stative verbs such as know and love cannot come in the English Progressive. Since the Biblical Hebrew qotel has the same semantic characteristics as the English Progressive (as shown in section 4.2 above), it is not surprising that those verbs cannot come in the qotel form either. To express a situation of loving or knowing, e.g., the biblical narrator has to resort to the underspecified form qatal, as illustrated in example (23):

(23) wayyoomer qaḥ naa ʔet binkaa Say: wayyiqtol take: Imperative please Acc your-son

ʔet yeḥiidkaa ʔašer ʔaahabtaaAcc your-unique-one that you-love: qatal‘[He] said, Take your son, your only one whom you love (qatal) …’ (Gen 22: 2)


__________106

The boldfaced clause within this verse includes the verb love, depicting an incomplete situation. Since the verb love cannot take the Counter-perfective form qotel, the Non-perfective underspecified form qatal is used.

5. Conclusions

Crosslinguistically, I have shown that the notion of Perfectivity is not a binary distinction of Perfective vs. Imperfective, as it is usually presented in the literature, but rather a three-way one: Perfective, Counter-perfective and Non-perfective. I have argued that the Perfective is a specific form that depicts complete situations, the Counter-perfective is a specific form depicting incomplete situations, and the Non-perfective is underspecified with respect to the property of Perfectivity, which allows it to depict either kind of situation.

I have furthermore shown that languages may pick and choose their respective aspect categories. The aspect systems of languages like Russian and Greek have been shown to include the Perfective and the Non-perfective, while English has the Counter-perfective and the Non-perfective, and Biblical Hebrew has all three possible aspects.

I have not encountered a language that only has the specific aspects. I believe this is not a coincidence, as speakers seem to need, intuitively speaking, underspecified forms to relax the restrictions of the specific ones.

References

Andrews, Edna 2012. Markedness. In: Binnick, Robert (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 212-236.

Asher, Nicholas 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Asher, Nicholas 2004a. Discourse Topic. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 163-201. Asher, Nicholas 2004b. Troubles with Topics: Comments on Kehler, Oberlander,

Stede and Zeevat. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 255-262. Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex 2003. Logics in Conversations. Cambridge,

UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.Binnick, Robert 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York

and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Comrie, Bernard 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


__________107

Forsyth, John 1970. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giannakidou, Anastasia and Zwarts, Frans 1998. (Non)veridicality Constraints on Tense/Aspect Combinations. ILLC-University of Amsterdam and BCN-University of Groningen.

Giora, Rachel 1990. Principles of Segmentation in the Literary Text: The Case of Formally Unsegmented Text. Hebrew Linguistics 28-29-30: XXIII-XXXVII.

Goldsmith, John and Woisetschlaeger, Erich 1982. The logic of English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 79-89.

Grice, Paul 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, Peter and Morgn, J. L. (eds.), Speech acts. Syntax and Semantics 3. New York: Academic Press, Pp. 41-58.

Hartmann, R. R. K. and Stock, F. C. 1972. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Applied Science Publishers.

Hatav, Galia 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hatav, Galia (forthcoming). Marking Discourse Topic in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Language.

Jacobson, Roman 1932. Zur struktur des russichen Verbums. In: Charisteria G. Mathesio. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Pp. 74-84.

Kamp, Hans 1979. Events, Instants and Temporal Reference, in: Baurle, R, Egli, U and von Stechow, A (eds.) 1979. Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 376-417.

Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer.

Keenan, Edward and Schieffelin, Bambi 1976. Topic as a Discourse, in: Li, C (ed.) 1976. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 335-384.

Kuno, Susumu 1972. Functional Sentence Perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 269-320.Lascarides, Alex and Asher, Nicholas 1993. Temporal Interpretation, Discourse

Relations and Commonsense Entailment. Linguistics & Philosophy 16(5), 437-494.Maslov, Yu. S. 1984. Očerki po aspektologu. Leningrad: Leningrad State University Press.Matthews, P. H. 2007. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Prevot, Laurent 2003. Le Question et L’acquiescement dans le dialogue. D.Phil.

dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier, Tolouse, France.Reichenbach, Hans 1949. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.Reinhart, Tanya 1980. Conditions for Text coherence. Poetics Today 1: 161-80.Reinhart, Tanya 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence

Topics. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Shen, Yeshayahu 1988. Schema Theory and the Process of Narrative Texts: The X-Bar

Story Grammar and the Notion of Discourse Topic. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 439-476.Spejewski, Beverly 1998. Real Generic Passages. In Carlotta Smith (ed.), Workshop

Proceedings, Austin: University of Texas, article #8.


__________108

van Dijk, Teun 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars. The Hague: Mouton.van Dijk, Teun 1977. Sentence Topic and Discourse Topic, in: Stolz , B A (ed.)

1977. Papers in Slavic Philology 1; In Honor of James Ferrill. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 49-61.

van Dijk, Teun 1980. Macrostructures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Vendler, Zeno 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Vet, Co (ed.) 1998. The Layered Structure of Discourse, In: Carlota Smith (ed.) 1998. Workshop Proceedings. Austin: University of Texas, article #9.

Abstract

The Perfective and Imperfective aspects, found in Slavic and many other languages, are usually defined as reporting complete and incomplete situations, respectively. However, it has been observed that while the Perfective, indeed, can only depict complete situations, the Imperfective does not always depict an incomplete one.

In this paper, I suggest that the traditional binary categorization of Perfective-Imperfective is inadequate, replacing it by a three-way distinction: Perfective, Counter-perfective (= Anti-perfective) and Non-perfective. The Perfective and the Counter-perfective can only depict complete and incomplete situations, respectively, while the Non-perfective is underspecified, so that it can depict either kind of situation. Languages may have all three aspects or only some of them.

I argue that languages like Russian and Greek have two aspects: (i) the Perfective, which can only report complete situations; and (ii) what is traditionally called the ‘imperfective’ is actually the underspecified Non-perfective that may depict either complete or incomplete situation.

Languages like English also have two aspects: the Counter- and Non-perfective, where the progressive, which can only depict incomplete situations, is the Counter-perfective, and the Simple tenses (especially the simple past) constitute the Non-perfective, allowed depicting both complete and incomplete situations.

Finally, languages like Biblical Hebrew seem to have all three possible aspects. The form wayyiqtol and its modal counterpart weqatal can be characterized as Perfective, as they always depict complete situations. The qotel can be regarded as a Counter-perfective form, as it can only depict ongoing situations. And the form qatal and its modal counterpart yiqtol are Non-perfective, as they can depict complete as well as incomplete situations.

Key Words: perfective, imperfective, counter-perfective, non-perfective, Slavic languages, Greek, English, Biblical Hebrew.

Aspectual and non-aspectual initiality__________

__________109

Aspectual and non-aspectual initiality: on evidence for their differentiation

Nezrin SamedovaAzerbaijan University of Languages

PuzzleSuch classics of Russian linguistics as A.X. Vostokov, F.F. Fortunatov, A.A.

Šaxmatov, V.A. Bogorodickij held the opinion that paradigms like pet’ / zapet’ are grammatical (purely aspectual) [Vinogradov, 396, 406, 425, 428-432]. To put it differently, they treated the semantic element ‘beginning’ (initiality) inherent in the perfective member of these paradigms as aspectual. The linguists proceeded on the assumption that members of these paradigms “only differ in perfectivity and imperfectivity, i.e., more precisely, have one differential semantic element” [Samedov (a), 55].

Meanwhile, in modern Slavic aspectology, the idea dominates that initiality is not aspectual (suffice it to refer to [Anketa]). Initiality is believed to be non-aspectual as it belongs not only to perfectives but also to imperfectives, cf. zapevat’ / zapet’.

Proposed Solution

In the 60s of last century, it was suggested that two kinds of ‘initiality’ should be differentiated [Samedov (b), 117, 118].

One kind is punctual initiality. The semantic element can also be termed ‘initial bound’ (or ‘initial moment’, or ‘initial point’). The seme is aspectual. It is only peculiar to the perfective member of prefixal paradigms like pet’ / zapet’1. If to use a visual metaphor, the meaning of these perfectives can be represented this way: •───────. Here, the point represents the aspectual seme ‘initial bound’ and the line stands for the non-aspectual seme ‘process’.

Romano-Bohemica II / Samedova__________

__________110

The other kind is linear initiality. The semantic element is non-aspectual as it does not constitute the exclusive feature of perfective verbs, cf. zapevat’ / zapet’2. The meaning of the perfective member of these paradigms can be represented as ───────•. Here, the line symbolizes the non-aspectual seme ‘process’ and the point stands for the aspectual seme ‘final bound’.

The paper shows the empirical adequacy of the hypothesis through setting forth the solution for one old semantic problem.

Independent Evidence: The Semantic Peculiarity Of The Synonymous Constructions Načat’+INF And Stat’+INF 1

1. Traditional approach

1.1. It is pointed out that the constructions are intersubstitutable, synonymous,2 cf., e.g. [Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij, 111-112; Tixonov, 59, 64, 67; Kržižkova, 19; Demidenko, 38; Georgijeva, 33; Bojko, 11; Jevgenjeva (b); Jevgenjeva (a); Xrakovskij, 163-165; Nedjalkov, 194; Padučeva 2001, 34; Padučeva 2004, 188; Korotkova, Saj, 96-97. Ušakov; Grammatika, 217, 410; Divjak, Gries, 288]. Thus, according to A. Zaliznjak and A. Šmeljov, “in the sentence On prišjol domoj i srazu stal zvonit’ po telefonu, the expression stal zvonit’ is close with respect to meaning to načal zvonit’” [Zaliznjak, Šmeljov, 222].

Other features of similarity are also mentioned. Thus, both constructions are considered to be entirely identical regarding the circle of verbs that are able to occupy the INF position [Demidenko (a), 35; Demidenko (b), 94; Xrakovskij, 165]. Both are the most frequently used among all the constructions phasal verb+INF the main component of which possesses initiality [Suxotin, 30-31; Bojko, 11; Nedjalkov, 181].

1 It is the perfective construction stat’+INF that is at issue. The thing is that the theory we follow differentiates two homonymous constructions stat’+INF, cf., e.g., [Samedova]. In other words, we believe that, in Russian, there exists the construction stat’+INF the main component of which is an imperfective verb, cf.: On bol’še ne stal s nami rabotat’ ‘He did not work with us any more’; Do kakix por on stanet komandovat’ nami? ‘How long will he boss us?’. In contrast to the perfective homonym, the imperfective construction stat’+INF is not synonymous with načat’+INF.2 To give an idea of their meaning to the reader, we will point out that both constructions are translated into English as to start / begin + to INF/-ing.


__________111

1.2. Researchers also endeavor to reveal the semantic peculiarity of the constructions in question.

D.N. Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij believed that the essence of semantic distinctions is related to the extent to which meanings characterizing the components of the constructions have merged [Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij, 112-113]. Cf. also: “...The auxiliary verb stat’ is merged more tightly with the infinitive than načat’...” [Tixonov, 68]; “...stat’ displays a higher degree of semantic cohesion with the predicate” [Korotkova, Saj, 97].

Meanwhile, the vast majority of investigators use other notions to describe testimony of their linguistic intuition.

Thus, A. A. Fuksman perceives the action referred to by the construction stat’+INF as the one that started at a certain moment and lasts for indeterminate time [Fuksman, 40]. As regards the construction načat’+INF, it “foregrounds initiality. Cf.: Masterskije načnut rabotat’, prizovjom i slesarja Ostapčuka “porabotat’” na nemcev... . One can see from a wider context that it is only the fact of the beginning of the action that matters but the action itself will not take place in the future. Therefore, in this sentence, substituting načnut rabotat’ by stanut rabotat’ is inappropriate; it would distort the whole meaning of the message to some extent” [Fuksman, 41].

In fact, L.P. Demidenko adheres to the same opinion: “...The verb načat’… only indicates the initial moment of an action, whereas the verb stat’ refers to the onset of an action in a wider sense, i.e. it expresses the onset of an action and some part of the action. So the verb načat’ cannot be replaced by the verb stat’ when the context emphasizes exactly the initial moment of an action, for example: Dvadcat’ let Lovengard sobiral material i delal nabroski dlja gromadnoj knigi… On daže ne načal jejo pisat’…” [Demidenko (b), 94]. Describing instances when substitution is possible, the scholar writes that “some semantic shift happens there”. Cf. how she comments on the illustration Aktjor, igravšij negodjaja prezidenta, bojals’a, kak by iz zritel’nogo zala po nemu ne načali streljat’: “If we replace ne načali streljat’ by ne stali streljat’, we will concentrate our attention not only on the initial moment of the action but also on its possible continuation” [Demidenko (a), 38].

M.A. Šeljakin apparently means the same when he observes that the main component of the construction stat’+INF has “a more abstract and categorical meaning of objective reality (without a concrete idea about the process of beginning)


__________112

…” [Sheljakin, 13], while the meaning of načat’ “indicates that an action that was absent has turned… from nonexistence into a real, existing fact since some definite moment” [Sheljakin, 12].

V.P. Nedjalkov points out that his approach is close to the ones set forth above. At the same time, he finds it difficult to pin down differences between the constructions [Nedjalkov, 194]. He uses quite a few of notions for their description. To his mind, the use of the construction načat’+INF marks out the phase that differs from its continuation, or the first signs of the beginning of an action in its evolving phase, or the initial phase of a homogenous action [Nedjalkov, 186]. The example Ja kak-to očen’ lovko načal rasskazyvat’ is interpreted by V.P. Nedjalkov as Načalo rasskaza bylo “lovkim”. As for the correlative illustration Ja kak-to očen’ lovko stal rasskazyvat’, the linguist understands it as Rasskaz byl “lovkim” [Nedjalkov, 186], сf. [Nedjalkov, 194]. He thinks that stat’+INF does not refer to a phase that differs from its continuation. It “simply shows the moment of the appearance, of the emergence of a situation that did not exist before…” [Nedjalkov, 186], сf. [Nedjalkov, 190-191].

According to V.L. Georgijeva, “the verb načat’ in combination with an infinitive can express the initial stage of an action that is conceived as dismembered in this case (načal pet’ i prodolžajet; načal, no brosil, etc). As for the verb stat’, it only means the onset of an action as the whole (stal pet’)” [39, 33].

In Je.V. Padučeva’s opinion, the difference is that načat’ is a phasal verb, whereas stat’ is not [Padučeva (b), 35] (cf. the description of stat’ in [Padučeva (a), 188]). The scholar interprets the example ne načal rubit’ drova as “it is expected that he will start; i.e. it is only sensible if it implies that ‘he has not started yet’”. As regarding the correlative phrase ne stal rubit’ drova, it is described as “he refused either an offer or his own initial idea; nothing is expected” [Padučeva (b), 34]. The linguist supposes that it is exactly because of the difference the example Daje ne načal \ rubit’ drova (the mark \ expresses phrasal stress – N.S.), which she understands as “there is still the supposition that he will start”, does not have the correlate Daje ne stal \ rubit’ drova. She believes that sentences like Daje ne stal \ rubit’ drova are not grammatically correct. The reason is that daje opposes the beginning of an action, i.e. its part, to the action as the whole, it sets off phasal meaning. Daje needs scale structure. However, stat’ does not provide it [Padučeva (b), 35]. Cf. [Padučeva (a), 188].


__________113

A.A. Zaliznjak and A.D. Šmeljov capture the semantic uniqueness sought in the following way: “…The verb načat’ in combination with an infinitive refers to a genuine event, i.e. it shows that the respective process has started (and it is expected to continue)…” In contrast to it, the construction stat’+INF refers “not to an event but to a framed process”, it indicates that “a process did not take a place earlier and takes a place after starting at a certain moment” [Zaliznjak, Šmeljov, 219].

N.A. Korotkova and S.S. Saj believe that načat’ accentuates the phasal structure of an event and, at the same time, it is an independent event predicate that has its own phasal structure. In their opinion, such a description accounts for the availability of the verb načinat’ [Korotkova, Saj, 97]. As for stat’, the phasal structure of an event is not relevant here and attention is accentuated on the contrast between the time zone when the situation takes a place and the preceding zone when the situation does not take a place [Korotkova, Saj, 97-98]. The researchers consider the approach to be explaining the following four semantic and syntactical features they ascribe to the verbs under scrutiny. First, they think that it is preferable to use načat’ in combination with the phrases indicating specific time. In other words, sentences like Programma načala dejstvovat’ pervogo ijunja occur more often than sentences like Programma stala dejstvovat’ pervogo ijunja. Secondly, they believe that stat’ allows ellipsis with more difficulty than načat’. For instance, the example Nujno napisat dissertaciju. On uže načal is grammatical, whereas the example Nujno napisat’ dissertaciju. On uže stal is not. Thirdly, they suppose that stat’ does not occur in contexts where the beginning of a process is opposed to its other phases. The authors think that the illustration Tret’ju simfoniju Mendel’son načal pisat’ v 1830, a zakončil – tol’ko v 1942 godu as distinct from the example Stal pisat’ v 1830, a zakončil – tol’ko v 1942 godu is grammatical. Finally, stat’, unlike načat’, is an intransitive verb. Accordingly, the constructions like stal stroitel’stvo doma are not grammatically correct, cf. načal stroitel’stvo doma [Korotkova, Saj, 98].

To Sh. Flank's mind, stat’, as opposed to načat’, often refers not to the beginning of the nucleus of the action itself, but to a preparatory stage of the action which she calls the onset. This is why stat’ is appropriate in contexts in which an action is interrupted before it is properly begun and, accordingly, stat’ often refers to sudden or unplanned actions, for sudden and unplanned actions are more subject to reversal. The thing is that, in Flank’s opinion, it is appropriate to say On stal kričat’,


__________114

no peredumal i ne kričal as opposed to the grammatically incorrect sentence On načal kričat’, no peredumal i ne kričal (quoted in [Dickey, 29]).

S. Dickey, like Sh. Flank, uses the notion of the onset when he describes the construction stat’+INF. He thinks that the notion enables to explain why the construction, in contrast to načat’+INF, is able to refer to a smooth, seamless flow from one event into the beginning of the next or partial overlap of the actions: Posle ètogo ona kinulas’ k masteru, obxvatila ego šeju i stala ego celovat’ v guby, v nos, v ščjoki. However, Dickey supposes that stat’+INF in most instances refers to both the onset and the beginning of the nucleus of an action [Dickey, 30]. Relying on informants’ responses, he concludes that the construction načat’+INF is preferred to stat’+INF whenever the precise beginning of the action is clearly focused upon as an independent entity. This is why adverbials indicating a specific moment in time (e.g., v pjat’ časov) render the latter inappropriate [Dickey, 30]. For the same reason, the grammatical correctness of sentences like Vse amerikanki načali nosit’ mini-jubki is questionable, whereas examples like Vse amerikanki stali nosit’ mini-jubki are correct [Dickey, 29].

D. Divjak and S.Gries point out that the results they received agree with the interpretations suggested by Sh. Flank, S. Dickey, Je.V. Padučeva. In other words, stat’ and načat’ differ with respect to the phase of an action that is referred to: stat’ defocuses the beginning and expresses a smooth transition into a new state, whereas načat foregrounds the beginning as an independent event. Načat+INF is often found in combination with the preposition s followed by a genitive (‘since’), expressing a situation that has a clear source or begins at a specific moment in time. Stat’ expresses actions in general and communicative activities [Divjak, Gries, 288]. The beginning that načat expresses is ongoing and can be observed, hence it is an action in its own right. Stat’ itself expresses a completed action. Its reliance on a second action backgrounds the beginning while foregrounding the second event [Divjak, Gries, 288-289, 291]. Stat’ highlights the view into the state after the onset of the action [Divjak, Gries, 291].

It should be also noted that some linguists think it necessary to compare the usage frequency of the constructions in question. “According to our data, the combinations of an infinitive with the verb stat’ are the most frequently used…” [Suxotin, 31]; “the combinations of an infinitive with the verb načat’ occur


__________115

somewhat less than the combinations with the verb stat’…” [Suxotin, 32]. Cf. the data in [Tixonov]: “The frequency of the constructions containing načat’ and stat’ in the texts investigated can be expressed through the ratio 1 : 2 in fairy tales and 2 : 3 in fiction” [Tixonov, 67]; «in the constructions that have the meaning of beginning, the impersonal form of the verb stat’ occurs more often than the one of načat’” [Tixonov, 68]. V.S. Xrakovskij holds a contrary opinion: “The verb načat’ is the most frequently used as compared with the other verbs characterized with initiality…” [Xrakovskij, 163]. Cf. also [Divjak, Gries, 287].

1.3. Thus, the existing literature is truly rich with brilliant insights and extremely interesting and fine findings that nourish researcher’s thought. However, one can see that the problem under scrutiny has not received a unanimously accepted solution yet.

2. Non-Traditional Approach

There is no doubt that the constructions in question are synonyms, cf. their ability to always substitute each other:

V 9 let Grigorij stal xodit’ v školu… (Internet) – V 9 let Grigorij načal xodit’ v školu;

V pjat časov utra dneval'nyje stali budit' zaključjonnyx (the Russian National Corpus) – V pjat časov utra dneval'nyje načali budit' zaključjonnyx;

Potom Jesenin stal rabotat' nad poemoj "Anna Snegina" i uže v janvare zakončil rabotat’ nad etoj poemoj i opublikoval jejo (Internet) – Potom Jesenin načal rabotat' nad poemoj "Anna Snegina" i uže v janvare zakončil rabotat’ nad etoj poemoj i opublikoval jejo;

Kak stanu rabotat’, sjedu otsjuda – Kak načnu rabotat’, sjedu otsjuda.The main components of both constructions are perfective. Only are

imperfectives permitted as their non-main components. The circle of verbs that are able to occupy the INF position in both constructions is entirely identical. Both constructions are widely used and found in various types of texts. Thus, we can assert that the areas of their usage fully coincide. It is clear, however, that the semantic identity of these linguistic units cannot be absolute.

Seeking to define the semantic peculiarity of the constructions, we have investigated their usage frequency (the idea was suggested by the founder of the


__________116

theory we follow). For the purpose, we performed calculations in totally selected material both from our own sample and from the Russian National Corpus. To ensure maximal accuracy, we counted the affirmative form of phrases like stal+INF and načal+INF. Thus, we avoided confusing the homonymous constructions stat’+INF. The thing is that the past tense without negation is the sphere where the perfective construction stat’+INF is only used. It should also be noted that we excluded the idiomatic expression stalo byt’.

Let us first consider the data obtained from our own sample that consists of randomly chosen works by Russian writers and playwrights, magazines, newspapers, and non-fiction texts of the twentieth century.

Table 1. Data from the random sample

Source

Amosov N.M.Belov V.I. Borovik G.A.Bulgakov M.A. (a)Bulgakov M.A. (b)Bunin I.A.Grekova I.Zamjatin Je.I.Kaverin V.A. (a)Kaverin V.A. (b)Levšin L.V.Mamčur Je.A., Ovčinnikov N.F., Ujomov A.I.Nabokov V.V.Nekrasov V.P.Okudžava B.Š.Pasternak B.L.Platonov A.P.

Phrases likestal+INF

88143

138106601245767107377629917182145

Phrases like načal+INF

628027163147022663403216289

138


__________117

Pristavkin A.I.Prišvin M.M.Pjecux V.A.Rasputin V.G.Sergejev B.F.Simonov K.S.Trifonov Ju.F.Fersman A.Je.Šmeljov I.S. Šukšin V.I.

Newspaper «Trud-7», 2001,22 February 1 March7 March 15 March 22 March 29 March 5 April12 April 19 April 26 April

Magazine «Fizkul’tura i sport», 2002№ 1№ 2№ 3№ 4№ 5№ 6№ 7№ 8№ 9

1121654710915699434222160

51410991310151311

191320121677713

154436107191271740

2959394762

6886108975


__________118

Note: Publishers' imprints are given after the References.

We can see that in the vast majority of the sources (43 from 49) phrases like stal+INF are used more frequently, and quite often to a considerable extent, than phrases like načal+INF. The total amount of the former (2600) also exceeds the total number of the latter (1017), namely more than twice.

Being unable to research the whole Russian National Corpus due to its size, we have had to limit our search.

First of all, we customized subcorpora in the Main corpus. In one case, we set three different subcorpora of texts created in 1901, 1951, and 2000 (the beginning of the 20th century, its middle, and end) to make sure that the ratio of usage frequencies stays approximately the same over time. In the other case, we searched three randomly chosen sets of non-fiction texts (namely texts that belong to the official and business, technical, and academic spheres of functioning) to rule out the possibility that the ratio is influenced by stylistic differences.

In all subcorpora, the distance between the components of the constructions was set as ‘from 1 to 1’. As for the order of the components, only were phrases with the direct order of words taken into account.

The data obtained (as of mid-June 2011) are given below.

Table 2. Data from RNC across time slices

Table 3. Data from RNC across domains

№ 10№ 11№ 12

171010

61117

Stal+INFNačal+INF

190143169

19511309457

200023381181


__________119

One can see again that in all instances phrases like stal+INF occur more frequently and, as a rule, to a significant extent than phrases like načal+INF.

The established fact requires explanation. We have interpreted the fact in accordance with the Kruszewski - Kuryłowicz

rule. Its most specific wording (among those available) runs as follows: “…The more generalized (poorer) the content of a sign, the wider its sphere of using by speakers; the more special (richer) the content, the narrower the sphere of its not only internal usage (=inside the system) but also external usage (=in the l inguistic community)” [Kuryłowicz, 19].

Relying on the rule, we have concluded that stat’+INF is semantically simpler than načat’+INF. The semantic description of the constructions we present below is in complete agreement with the statement.

The construction načat’+INF has the following semantic structure. Its meaning contains three semantic elements (we ignore irrelevant details). Two of these elements belong to the verb načat’. One is the non-aspectual seme ‘process’, namely the kind of linear initiality that is termed inceptivity. The other is the aspectual seme ‘final bound’ (it can also be termed ‘final moment’ or ‘final point’) as the perfective načat’ designates a non-homogeneous (telic) linear initiality, cf. načinat’ – načat’. The third element belongs to the infinitive. It is the non-aspectual seme ‘process’. If we liken the non-aspectual seme ‘process’ to a line and the aspectual seme ‘bound’ to a point, then the meaning of the construction načat’+INF can be presented visually:

linear initiality ‘process’──────────────────•──────────────────

‘final bound’(perfectivity)

Stal+INF Načal+INF

Official and business domain

7453

Technical domain

12889

Academic domain

30371418


__________120

Let us turn to the meaning of the perfective construction stat’+INF.First of all, it should be ascertained if the meaning of its main component

possesses the seme ‘process’. We believe that the combinative power of the component leaves no doubt about it. The thing is that the component exclusively combines with infinitives and only with imperfective ones. Therefore, we have the right to assert that its meaning contains an element that imposes the combinative limitation. We do not see any reasons not to treat the element as the seme ‘process’.

If to specify further the nature of the seme, it seems natural to qualify it as ‘inchoation’, cf. the semantic resemblance of expressions like stalo xolodat’ – stanovilos’ / stalo xolodno. However, in contrast to the seme ‘non-homogeneous (telic) inchoation’ that belongs to the members of the paradigm stanovit’sja / stat’, the seme in question is ‘homogeneous (atelic) inchoation’. To substantiate the assertion made, we will present evidence to the contrary.

Let us assume that the main component of the construction stat’+INF is characterized with the seme ‘non-homogeneous inchoation’. Hence, the verb has the aspectual seme ‘final bound’.

We can show that such treatment of the meaning of the verb encounters insurmountable difficulties. First, it follows that the constructions načat+INF and stat’+INF are factically identical with respect to their meaning. In fact, not only the quantity of semes is the same but also their nature, as both ‘inchoation’ and ‘inceptivity’ are kinds of linear initiality. Secondly, it follows that the main component of the construction stat'+INF and the perfective member of the paradigm stat’ / stanovit’sja are the same verb. At first sight, the idea appears to be quite proved. However, if we proceed from it, we cannot explain why the verb stanovit’sja is not able to combine with imperfective infinitives.

We suppose that the reasoning adduced corroborates our conclusions about the nature of the analyzed semantic element. In other words, the main component of the construction stat’+INF indeed possesses the seme ‘homogeneous inchoation’.

Let us analyze the results received. One can see that we have faced a paradox. On the one hand, we have established that the meaning of the construction stat’+INF contains fewer that three elements as it is semantically simpler than the construction načat+INF. On the other hand, we have found out that the meaning of its components contains exactly three elements altogether. Two of them belong to the verb stat’ (the


__________121

non-aspectual seme ‘process’ and aspectual seme ‘bound’) and one semantic element characterizes the infinitive (the non-aspectual seme ‘process’).

So, what is the way we see the resolution of the paradox? The theory we follow suggests the following explanation.

The paradox gets its solution only if to admit that two of these three elements have merged into one syncretic element. The merger is possible because the two elements have the same nature. As for the third element, its nature is different and cannot prevent these two elements from merging. Thus, we believe that the construction stat’+INF possesses the syncretic seme ‘process’ and that the perfectivity that characterizes it is the seme ‘initial bound’, or punctual initiality (also termed ingressivity)3. Here is the meaning of the construction represented through visual metaphors:

punctual intiality (perfectivity)

•──────────────────────────────────the syncretic seme ‘process’

One can see that it contains two elements.

Conclusion

We suppose that the result obtained not only corroborates the empirical adequacy of the idea to distinguish between punctual and linear initiality but also sheds new light on the typology of initiality (cf., e.g., approaches in [Vinogradov; Nedjalkov; Mel’čuk; Petruxina; Plungjan; Zaliznjak, Šmeljov]). Besides that, it enables to see that the concept of beginning holds a special place in the model of the world constructed by the Russian language.

3 Cf., e.g., [Samedova] on the explanatory power of the notion of syncretic process.


__________122

ReferencesAnketa aspektologičeskogo seminara filologičeskogo fakul’teta MGU. In: Trudy

aspektologičeskogo seminara filologičeskogo fakul’teta MGU. Vol. 2. Moscow. Izd-vo MGU. 1997.

Bojko, A. A. Sočetanija s infinitivom nesoveršennogo vida v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Leningrad. Izd-vo LGU. 1973.

Demidenko, L .P (a). Grammatičeskaja i semantičeskaja evoljucija slovosočetanij tipa ‘načat’+infinitiv’ i ‘stat’+infinitiv’ v russkom jazyke. In: Učjonyje zapiski. Vol. 25. Vyp. 1. Krasnojarsk. Krasnojarskij gos. ped. in-t. 1963. P. 18-46.

Demidenko, L. P (b). Sposoby vyraženija načala glagol’nogo dejstvija v russkom jazyke. In: Učjonyje zapiski. Leningrad. LGPI im. A.I. Gercena. 1963. P. 85-103.

Dickey, Stephen M. Expressing Ingressivity in Slavic: The Contextually-Conditioned Imperfective Past vs. The Phase Verb stat’ And Procedural za-. In: Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 1999. Vol.7 (1). P. 11-44.

Divjak, Dagmar and Gries, Stefan Th. Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics: A Contrastive Study of Phasal Verbs in English and Russian. In: Katarzyna Dziwirek & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics, 273-296. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 2009.

Fuksman A. A. Sočetanije infinitiva s vspomogatel’nym glagolom stanu v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Kratkije soobščenija. Samarkand. Uzbekskij un-t. 1959. P. 39-43.

Georgijeva, V. L. Istorija sintaksičeskix javlenij russkogo jazyka. Moscow. Prosvješčjenije. 1968.

Grammatika russkogo jazyka. Vol. 2. Sintaksis. Part 1. Moscow. Izd-vo AN SSSR. 1954.

Jevgenjeva, A. P. (ed.). (a) Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscow. Russkij jazyk. 1984.Jevgenjeva, A. P. (ed.). (b) Slovar’ sinonimov. Leningrad. Nauka. 1975.Korotkova, N. A. and Saj, S.S. Glagol stat’ v russkom jazyke: semantika, sintaksis,

grammatikalizacija. In: Tret’ja konferencija po tipologii i grrammatike dlja molodyx issledovatelej. Materialy. Saint Petersburg: Nestor – Istorija. 2006. P. 96-101.

Kržižkova, Je. P. Značenije konstrukcii stanu+infinitive. In: Russkij jazyk v škole. 1962, № 4. P. 16-19.

Kuryłowicz, Je. Lingvistika i teorija znaka. In: Kurilovič Je. Očerki po lingvistike. Moscow. Izd-vo inostr. lit-ry. 1962. P. 9-20.

Mel’čuk, I. A. Kurs obščej morfologii. Vol. 2. Moscow – Vienna. Škola jazyki russkoj kul’tury – Wiener Slavistischer Almanach, Sonderband 38/1. 1998.

Nedjalkov, V. P. Načinatel’nost’ i sredstva jejo vyraženija v jazykax raznyx tipov. In: Teorija funkcional'noj grammatiki. Vvedenije. Aspektual’nost’. Vremennaja lokalizovannost’. Taksis. Leningrad. Nauka. 1987. 180-195.

Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij, D. N. Rukovodstvo k izučeniju sintaksisa russkogo jazyka. Moscow. Izd. T-va I.D. Sytina. 1909.


__________123

Padučeva, Je. V. (a). Dinamičeskije modeli v semantike leksiki. Moscow. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury. 2004.

Padučeva, Je. V. (b). Fazovyje glagoly i semantika načinatel’nosti. In: Izvestija Akademii nauk. Serija literatury i jazyka. Vol. 60. 2001. № 4. P.29-39.

Petruxina, Je. V. Aspektual’nyje kategorii glagola v russkom jazyke v sopostavlenii c češskim, slovackim, pol’skim i bolgarskim jazykami. Moscow. Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta. 2000.

Plungjan, V. A. Obščaja morfologija. Moscow. 2000.Samedov, G. S. (a) O sporax vokrug prefiksal’nyx vidovyx paradigm c načinatel’nym

glagolom. In: Tagijevskije čtenija. Baku. 2000. P. Samedov, G. S. (b) O vidax i podvidax russkogo glagola. In: Materialy 1-oj

Respublikanskoj konferencii po voprosam jazykoznanija i metodiki obučenija inostrannym jazykam. Baku. APIJa im. M.F. Axundova. 1968. P. 116-118.

Samedova, N. G. K voprosu o forme buduščego vremeni glagolov nesoveršennogo vida v sovremennom russkom jazyke. In: Arutjunova, N.D. (ed.). Logičeskij analiz jazyka. Lingvofuturizm. Moscow. Indrik. 2011. P. 263-276.

Suxotin, V. P. Sintaksičeskaja sinonimika v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. Glagol’nyje slovosočetanija. Moscow. Izd-vo AN SSSR. 1960.

Šeljakin, M. A. Funkcii i slovoobrazovatel’nyje svjazi načinatel’nyx pristavok v russkom jazyke (k probleme semantičeskoj motivirovannosti v sintagmatike slov i morfem. In: Leksiko-grammatičeskije problemy russkogo glagola. Novosibirsk. 1969. P. 3-33.

Tixonov, A. N. Sposoby vyraženija načinatel’nogo značenija glagolov v russkom jazyke. In: Trudy Uzbekskogo un-ta. Samarkand. Vol. 95. 1959. P.43-75.

Ušakov, D. N. (ed.) Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Vol. 4. Moscow. Sovetskaja ènciklopedija. 1940.

Vinogradov, V. V. Russkij jazyk. Moscow. Vysšaja škola. 1986.Xrakovskij, V. S. Semantika fazovosti i sredstva jejo vyraženija. In: Teorija

funkcional’noj grammatiki. Vvedenije. Aspektual’nost’. Vremennaja lokalizovannost’. Taksis. Leningrad. Nauka. 1987. P. 153-178.

Zaliznjak, A. A. and Šmeljov, A. D. Semantika ‘načala’ s aspektologičeskoj točki zrenija. In: Arutjunova N.D. (ed.). Logičeskij analiz jazyka. Semantika načala i konca. Moscow. Indrik. 2002. P. 211-224.

Sampled Sources

Amosov, N. M. Golosa vremjon. Moscow. Vagrius. 1999. 430 p.Belov, V. I. Povesti. Rasskazy. Očerki. Moscow. Russkij jazyk. 1989. 380 p.Borovik, G. A. Interv’ju v Buènos-Ajrese. Moscow. Sovetskij pisatel’. 1980. 296 p.Bulgakov, M. A. (a) Master i Margarita. Baku. Azernešr. 1988. 320 p.Bulgakov, M. A. (b) Morfij. Moscow. Molodaja gvardija. 1990. 479 p.Bunin, I. A. Okajannyje dni. Neizvestnyj Bunin. Moscow. Molodaja gvardija. 1991. 335 p.Grekova, I. Kafedra. Moscow. Sovetskij pisatel’. 1983. 544 p.Zamjatin, Je. I. My: Roman, rasskazy, povest’. Moscow. Молодая гвардия. 1990. 365 p.


__________124

Kaverin, V. A. (a) Pered zerkalom. Moscow. Sovetskij pisatel’. 1972. 352 p.Kaverin, V. A. (b) Osveščjonnyje okna. Moscow. Sovetskij pisatel’. 1974. 288 p.Levšin, L. V. Svet – mojo prizvanije. Moscow. Moskovskij rabočij. 1987. 239 p.Mamčur, Je. A., Ovčinnikov, N.F., Ujomov, A.I. Princip prostoty i mery slojnosti.

Moscow. Nauka. 1989. 304 p.Nabokov, V. V. Dar. In: Nabokov, V.V. Sobranije sočinenij. In 4 vol. Vol. 4. Moscow.

Pravda. 1990. 480 p.Nabokov, V. V. Otčajanije. In: Nabokov, V.V. Sobranije sočinenij. In 4 vol. Vol. 4.

Moscow. Pravda. 1990. 480 p.Nekrasov, V. P. V samyx adskix kotlax pobyval… Moscow. Molodaja gvardija. 1991.

446 p.Okudžava, B. Š. Zajezžij muzykant. Moscow. Olimp. 1993. 384 p.Pasternak, B. L. Doktor Živago. Baku. Маариф, 1990. 558 p.Platonov, A. P. Gosudarstvennyj žitel’. Minsk. Mastacka literature. 1990. 702 p.Pristavkin, A. I. Nočevala tučka zolotaja. Moscow. Xudožestvennaja literatura. 1989.

255 p.Prišvin, M. M. Moja strana. Moscow. Gosudarstvennoje izd-vo geografičeskoj lit-ry.

1954. 456 p.P’jecux, V. A. Ja i pročeje. Moscow. Xudožestvennaja literatura. 1990. 335 p.Rasputin, V. G. Povesti. Moscow. Prosveščjenije. 1991. 334 p.Sergejev, B. F. Tajny pamjati. Moscow. Molodaja gvardija. 1974. 272 p. Simonov, K. S. Glazami čeloveka mojego pokolenija. Razmyšlenija o I.V. Staline.

Moscow. Izd-vo APN. 1988. 480 p.Trifonov, Ju. F. Starik, Drugaja žizn’, Oprokinutyj dom. In: Trifonov, Ju.F. Večnyje

temy. Moscow. Sovetskij pisatel’. 1985. 640 p.Fersman, A. Je. Rasskazy o samocvetax. Moscow. Nauka. 1974. 254 p.Šmeljov, I. S. Leto Gospodne. Moscow. Molodaja gvardija. 1991. 653 p.Šukšin, V. I. Rasskazy. Moscow. Xudožestvennaja literatura. 1979. 383 p.

Abstract

The paper deals with the comparative analysis of the synonymous constructions načat+INF and stat’+INF. The author treats the results received as empirical grounding of the suggestion to differentiate between aspectual and non-aspectual initiality.

Key words

Aspectual / punctual initiality, non-aspectual / linear initiality, the synonymous constructions načat+INF and stat’+INF.

Präsensform im heutigen Tschechisch__________

__________125

Zur Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform

im heutigen Tschechisch

Barbara Schmiedtová

University of Heidelberg

0. EinführungIn der Erforschung des slawischen Aspekts wurde bis heute kaum den

Präferenzen verschiedener Formen Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet, die sich auf die tatsächliche Verwendung einer bestimmten morphologischen Verbalform beziehen1. Die Ergebnisse von Schmiedtová und Sahonenko (2008), Schmiedtová et al. (2011), Schmiedtová (i.Dr., 2013) sowie Stutterheim et al. (2012) zeigen deutlich, dass Muttersprachler des Tschechischen und des Russischen trotz der Ähnlichkeiten in den zugrunde liegenden Aspektsystemen unterschiedliche Präferenzen für verschiedene morphologische Verbalformen in der Darstellung eines bestimmten Situationstyps haben.

Tschechische Muttersprachler verwenden präfigierte Verben, die vom grammatischen Aspekt her meistens perfektiv sind, überwiegend für Situationen, in denen es um den Nachzustand2 einer Handlung handelt, also beispielsweise für eine Situation, in der eine Frau ein Glas Wasser ganz austrinkt (man sieht sie das Glas heben, dann das Wasser trinken und schließlich das Glas wieder auf der Tischoberfläche abstellen). Eine charakteristische Versprachlichung einer solchen Szene im Tschechischen ist: tsch. Paní vy-pila – dt. Eine Frau trank (Vergangenheit Perfektiv) ein Glas Wasser aus.

1 Eine Ausnahme stellt die auf qualitativer Analyse basierte Arbeit von Petruchina (2000), in der die Aspektkategorie im Russischen mit der im Bulgarischen, Polnischen, Slowakischen und Tschechischen verglichen wird.2 Ein Nachzustand ist der Teil der Handlung, zu dem eine Zustandsveränderung führt. Zum Beispiel bei dem Prädikat ein Glas Wasser austrinken ist der Nachzustand ein Glas Wasser ausgetrunken haben.

Romano-Bohemica II / Schmiedtová__________

__________126

Die präfigierte Form lässt sich im Tschechischen auch für Bewegungsereignisse vom Typ (-Endpunkt) belegen: tsch. Pán ve-šel do domu – dt. Ein Mann ging (Vergangenheit Perfektiv) ins Haus rein. In Situationen von diesem Typ wird eine Bewegung gezeigt, in der ein potentiell zu enkodierendes Ziel (z.B. ein Gebäude am Ende eines Weges, auf dem sich zwei Menschen bewegen) als nicht erreicht (-END) dargestellt wird. Mit anderen Worten, wenn ein solcher Endpunkt enkodiert wird, muss dieser zuvor inferiert werden. In russischen Daten kommen diese Formen nur in jenen Szenen vor, in denen eine Bewegung von Punkt A zu Punkt B als erreicht gezeigt wird (+Endpunkt), z.B. ein Mann geht in ein Haus und betritt es.

Eine andere markierte Aspektform, die sekundären Imperfektiva, die vom grammatischen Aspekt her immer imperfektiv sind, werden von tschechischen Sprechern für die Beschreibung von Einzelereignissen eher selten gebraucht (etwa 10% aller befragten Sprecher). Dagegen kommen sie in russischen Daten sehr häufig vor und zwar vorwiegend in Szenen mit Ereignissen, in denen das Erreichen des Nachzustands zu erwarten ist bzw. dargestellt wird (z.B. die oben erwähnte Szene, eine Frau trinkt ein Glas Wasser aus).

Der markanteste Unterschied in der Anwendung der Aspektformen bezieht sich jedoch auf den Gebrauch der präfigierten perfektiven Präsensformen, die im Tschechischen auch für die online-Darstellung der hier-und-jetzt ablaufenden Ereignisse gebraucht werden. Die tschechischen Probanden gebrauchen für die Beschreibung der oben erläuterten Szene die präfigierte perfektive Präsensform, während der Stimulus noch läuft (tsch. Paní vy-pije sklenici vody – dt. Eine Frau trinkt (perfektive Präsensform) ein Glas Wasser aus). Manchmal wird in diesem Kontext das temporale Adverb teď, právě (dt. jetzt) verwendet. In den tschechischen Grammatiken ist diese Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensformen als nicht zulässig beschrieben (vgl. Cvrček et al., 2010: 245; Komárek et al., 1986: 1793). Im Russischen werden präfigierte perfektive Präsensformen in Verbindung

3 „Dokonavá slovesa nemohou vyjadřovat děj probíhající v přítomnosti, ale pouze to, že se děj již uskutečnil, nebo ještě nikoliv (koupil jsem, koupím knihu).“ Deutsche Übersetzung: Perfektive Verben können keinen in der Gegenwart verlaufenden Vorgang ausdrücken, sondern nur einen Vorgang, der bereits geschehen ist, oder noch geschehen wird (ich kaufe, ich kaufte ein Buch) (vgl. Komárek et al., 1986: 179).


__________127

mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung nie verwendet. Diese Aspektform hat im Russischen immer eine Zukunftsbedeutung4.

In Bezug auf den Aspektgebrauch in den beiden slawischen Sprachen können also signifikante Unterschiede festgestellt werden: anders als das Russische bevorzugt das Tschechische präfigierte perfektive Verbformen für die Versprachlichung von Ereignissen mit Nachzustand; in manchen Fällen kommt diese Form sogar in der Verbalisierung zielorientierter Bewegungsereignisse vor. Ganz besonders ist dabei der Gebrauch der perfektiven Präsensformen in Verbindung mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung, der im Tschechischen durchaus möglich, im Russischen jedoch ganz ausgeschlossen ist.

Aus Sicht der Forschung stellt sich die Frage, inwiefern sich die Befunde zur Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform (PP-Form) im Tschechischen als Phänomen des Sprachwandels oder als kontextabhängige individuelle ‚Sonderverwendung’ interpretiert werden können? Insbesondere geht es hier um die folgenden Fragen:

(1) Wird die PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation auch unter Verwendung eines anderen Testparadigmas gebraucht?(2) Ist die Benutzung der PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation regional oder dialektal gebunden?(3) Hängt die Verwendung der PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation von der Verbklasse ab, der das gegebene Verb angehört? (4) Welche Implikationen hat die Existenz der PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation für das Aspektsystem des Tschechischen?

4 Die verschiedenen Funktionen und Verwendungsbedingungen der perfektiven Präsensform (PP-Form) im Russischen wurden anhand von Übersetzungsdaten (Russisch-Deutsch und Russisch-Französisch) von Rathmayr (1976) ausgearbeitet. Neben den vielen fakultativen Verwendungsweisen der PP-Form (z.B. Bezeichnung einer atemporalen, modalen und/oder stilistisch-expressiven Handlung) bezeichnet sie, wenn obligatorisch verwendet, eine „konkret-futurische“ non-modale Handlung. Unter dem Begriff „konkret-futurische“ sind sowohl von der Gegenwart aus gesehen zukünftige als auch zum Zeitpunkt in der Vergangenheit nachzeitige Handlungen zu verstehen (Rathmayr, 1976: 169-170). Bei den vielseitigen Funktionen und Verwendungsmöglichkeiten der russischen PP-Form wurde für das Russische keine identifiziert, die in Verbindung mit der hier und jetzt-Interpretation steht.


__________128

Um diesen Fragen nachzugehen, wurde für das Tschechische eine umfangreiche empirische Studie zu Aspektpräferenzen in hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten durchgeführt. Die ersten drei Fragestellungen werden im Abschnitt 3 (Ergebnisse) behandelt, auf Frage 4 wird im letzten Abschnitt (Fazit und Diskussion) eigegangen. Im Folgenden wird die Studie vorgestellt.

1. Design der vorliegenden StudieZur Untersuchung der oben genannten Fragestellungen wurde ein

Präferenztest entwickelt. In Form eines Fragebogens5 wurden den Probanden 35 kurze auf Tschechisch verfasste Szenarien als gedruckter Text präsentiert. Am Anfang jedes Fragebogens stand eine ausführliche Anweisung (siehe Anhang für den genauen Wortlaut). Die Aufgabe der Probanden bestand darin, die Szenarien zu lesen und nach jedem Szenario aus fünf verschiedenen Aspekt-Tempus-Alternativen diejenige auszuwählen, die das präsentierte Szenario am besten wiedergibt. Im zweiten Schritt sollten die Probanden die zweit beste Alternative wählen und auf einer Skala von eins (sehr gut) bis fünf (nicht akzeptable) angeben, in welchem Verhältnis die zweit beste Alternative zur besten Alternative steht. In diesem Aufsatz liegt der Fokus auf der Auswertung der Daten, die sich auf die Wahl der erstbesten Alternative bezieht.

Die Probanden wurden in unterschiedlich großen Gruppen getestet6. Ihnen stand ausreichend Zeit zur Verfügung, um den achtseitigen Fragebogen auszufüllen7. Am Ende jedes Fragebogens wurden Informationen über Alter und Geschlecht sowie über Fremdsprachenkenntnisse abgefragt. Testsprache war Tschechisch.

Parallel zu dieser Studie wurde zusätzlich eine Studie zum Russischen durchgeführt. Der im Russischen verwendete Fragebogen war eine Übersetzung8

5 Die vollständige Version des tschechischen Fragebogens ist dem Anhang zu entnehmen.6 Die Untersuchung wurde an mehreren tschechischen Gymnasien und Universitäten durchgeführt. Eine an einem Gymnasium getestete Gruppe umfasste etwa 30 Schüler, die an den Universitäten getesteten Gruppen waren in der Regel etwas kleiner – zwischen 10 und 15 Personen. Die Erhebungen wurden von fünf verschiedenen Personen durchgeführt, die alle den gleichen Anweisungen folgten, so dass eine formale Vergleichbarkeit der erhobenen Daten gewährleistet ist.7 Das Ausfüllen eines Fragebogens durchschnittlich 20 Minuten in Anspruch genommen.8 Ein großer Dank geht an Elena Petrosyan für ihre Hilfe bei der Übersetzung des tschechischen Fragebogens ins Russische.


__________129

der tschechischen Vorlage und wurde den Probanden elektronisch zugeschickt. Die vorliegende Studie hat das Tschechische im Fokus und zieht das Russische lediglich zum Vergleich heran. Daher wird hier nur das für den tschechischen Fragebogen relevante experimentelle Design detailliert erläutert. Auf das Russische wird in den Abschnitten Probanden sowie Ergebnisse Bezug genommen.

Das folgende Beispiel (1) stammt aus dem Fragebogen (zuerst auf Tschechisch, dann die deutsche Übersetzung). In dem Beispiel wird das Prädikat trinken (tsch. pít) mit Absicht vermieden (siehe unten für weitere Erläuterungen):

tsch.(1) Představte si, že jste v kavárně a někdo vedle u stolečku má v ruce kávu. S pitím je skoro hotový. Jak to s největší pravděpodobností vyjádříte?dt.(1) Stellen Sie sich eine Situation vor, in der Sie in einem Café sind und jemand am Nachbartisch in der Hand einen Kaffee hält. Die Person ist mit dem Trinken fast fertig. Wie drücken Sie mit höchster Wahrscheinlichkeit eine solche Situation aus?

Die Beschreibung des Szenarios war durchgehend in Präsensform gehalten – sie ist also unmissverständlich im hier-und-jetzt-Kontext eingebettet. Alle verwendeten Verben waren imperfektive Simplex-Formen (d.h. keine präfigierten und/oder suffigierten Verben). Dabei handelte es sich immer um andere Verben als die, die in den Aspekt-Tempus Alternativen vorkamen9. Diese Maßnahme dient dazu, eine Beeinflussung der Probanden bei der Wahl der Aspekt-Tempus-Formen durch die in der Beschreibung erwähnten Verben zu vermeiden.

Der Text fing stets mit dem Satz Stellen Sie sich die Situation vor, ... an und endete mit der Frage Wie drücken Sie mit höchster Wahrscheinlichkeit eine solche Situation aus. Abgesehen von diesen zwei Standardsätzen beinhaltete die Beschreibung maximal zwei weitere Sätze.

9 In wenigen Szenarien war die Verwendung der Verbalnomina – in Simplex-Form – aus Kohärenzgründen unumgänglich: z.B. sázení stromů dt. das Pflanzen der Bäume oder pití kávy dt. das Trinken des Kaffees.


__________130

Die auf die Beschreibungen der Szenarios folgenden Alternativen bestanden aus diesen fünf Aspekt-Tempus-Formen10 (Beispiel 2):

tsch.(2) a. Někdo vedle u stolečku do-pije kávu. Perfektiv Präsensb. Někdo vedle u stolečku do-pi-l kávu. Perfektiv Vergangenheitc. Někdo vedle u stolečku pi-l kávu. Imperfektive Simplex-Form

Vergangenheitd. Někdo vedle u stolečku pije kávu. Imperfektive Simplex-Form Präsens e. Někdo vedle u stolečku do-píjí kávu. Sekundäres Imperfektiv Präsens

Da es im Deutschen keine entsprechenden Aspektformen gibt, sind die folgenden Übersetzungen nur approximativ.

(2’) a. Jemand am Nachbartisch trinkt einen Kaffee aus.b. Jemand am Nachbartisch trank einen Kaffee aus.c. Jemand am Nachbartisch trank einen Kaffee.d. Jemand am Nachbartisch trinkt einen Kaffee.e. Jemand am Nachbartisch ist dabei, einen Kaffee auszutrinken (im Sinne

von fertig trinken).

Im Hinblick auf die fünf Aspekt-Tempus-Formen soll angemerkt werden, dass die perfektive Präsensform - z.B. tsch. do-pít; dt. fertig trinken – sowie die perfektive Vergangenheitsform - z.B. tsch. do-pi-l(a); dt. er/sie hat fertig getrunken – mit verschiedenen präfigierten Verben gebildet wurden (aber nicht etwa mit perfektiven Simplex-Formen vom Typ dát – dt. geben). Die Szenarien wurden bezüglich des Geschlechts des Protagonisten so variiert, dass die Verteilung der

10 Die erste Fassung des Fragbogens umfasste eine sechste Aspekt-Tempus-Form, nämlich das sekundäre Imperfektiv in Vergangenheit. In der Pilotphase hat sich jedoch herausgestellt, dass die Wahl aus sechs verschiedenen Alternativen für die Probanden recht schwierig war, was u.a. zu einer deutlichen Verlangsamung führte. Da unsere Untersuchung nicht auf den Unterschied in der temporalen Verwendung des sekundären Imperfektives fokussiert war und da frühere Untersuchungen (z.B. Schmiedtová et al., 2011) zeigten, dass sie im hier-und-jetzt-Kontext nicht gebraucht wird, wurde zugunsten des gesamten Experimentablaufs auf diese Form verzichtet.


__________131

Genusmarkierung am Partizip der imperfektiven Simplex-Vergangenheits- und Präsensform (-l für maskulin; -la für feminin) vergleichbar war (16 Maskulina; 12 Feminina). Darüber hinaus gab es zwei Szenarien im Neutrum (das Partizip endet auf -lo) sowie fünf Szenarien im Plural (das Partizip endet auf -li oder -ly je nach Genus und Belebtheit).

Die Reihenfolge der dargebotenen Aspekt-Tempus-Formen wurde randomisiert, so dass jede der getesteten Situationen eine andere Reihenfolge der Formen beinhaltete. Der einzige Unterschied zwischen den Alternativen (a) bis (e) bestand in der Aspekt-Tempus-Form. Alle anderen Komponenten – wie die Wortestellung, das verwendete Verb – waren identisch.

Insgesamt wurden 35 kurze Szenarien getestet, die sich in 15 kritische Stimuli und 20 Kontrollen gliederten. Die Kontrollen stellten Bewegungsereignisse dar, wie z.B. gehen, laufen, fahren, trampeln, schwimmen, sich nähern, etc. Manche Bewegungsverben wurden wiederholt verwendet, allerdings immer mit verschiedenen Präfixen.

Die kritischen Stimuli stellten verschiedene Situationen mit Zustandsveränderung dar (z.B. etwas austrinken, etwas ablecken, etwas aufwärmen). Bei den für die kritischen Stimuli verwendeten Verben wurde auf die Zugehörigkeit zu den Konjugationsklassen geachtet, in die die meisten tschechischen Verben eingeteilt werden11. Das Tschechische unterscheidet fünf Konjugationsklassen, die sich weiter in verschiedene Muster differenzieren lassen. Die Einordnung zu einer Konjugationsklasse richtet sich nach der morphologischen Endung der Verben in der 3. Person Singular Präsens. Andere Eigenschaften wie beispielsweise die Semantik oder der Aspekt der Verben werden bei dieser Einteilung nicht berücksichtigt.

Da diese Klassifikation die überwiegende Zahl der tschechischen Verben klar einordnet, gilt es für die vorliegende Studie zu überprüfen, ob die Konjugationsklasse des Verbs mit der Wahl der PP-Form in Verbindung steht. In Tabelle 1 sind die Konjugationsklassen zusammengefasst:

11 Die sogenannten regelmäßigen Verben, zu denen die meisten tschechischen Verben gehören, lassen sich einer der Konjugationsklassen zuordnen. Eine kleine Gruppe von hochfrequenten Verben lässt sich dieser Klassifikation nicht zuordnen. Dies sind die sogenannten unregelmäßigen Verben (vgl. auch Cvrček et al., 2010; Komárek et al., 1986).


__________132

Tabelle 1Verbklassen im Tschechischen

Für jede Verbklasse wurden drei verschiedene Verben ausgewählt. Die gewählten Verben waren alle hochfrequent und mit allen fünf Aspekt-Tempus-Formen kombinierbar (siehe Anhang Tabelle 3 - für die Übersicht verwendeter Verben in Kombination mit den entsprechenden Aspekt-Tempus-Formen12). Die Anordnung der kritischen und der Kontrollstimuli wurde randomisiert.

Der Fragebogen wurde in einer Pilotphase mit insgesamt 10 tschechischen Muttersprachlern getestet, die teilweise über linguistische Fachkompetenz verfügten. Auf Basis der Antworten sowie der Kommentare der Probanden wurden minimale Anpassungen des Fragebogens durchgeführt. Die Änderungen betrafen die Anzahl der Aspekt-Tempus-Alternativen (siehe Fußnote 8) sowie stilistische und formale Aspekte.

2. Probanden13

Insgesamt haben an dieser Studie 256 Probanden teilgenommen. Sie kamen aus vier verschiedenen Regionen Tschechiens14: Mittelböhmen – Praha und

Verbklasse

I. Klasse II. KlasseIII. KlasseIV. KlasseV. Klasse

Endung(3.SG.Masc.Präsens)

–e–ne–je–í–á

Beispiel

syp-etisk-nepi-jesed-íděl-á

dt. Übersetzung

er schüttet er druckt / drückt

er trinkter sitzter macht

12 Die Kombinierbarkeit der Verben mit den entsprechenden Aspekt-Tempus-Formen wurde von der Autorin und zusätzlich von zwei Linguisten mit Tschechisch als Muttersprache überprüft. 13 Ich möchte mich ganz herzlich bei den folgenden KollegenInnen für die Unterstützung bei der Erhebung der tschechischen Daten bedanken (in alphabetischer Reihenfolge): Ilona Dvořáková (Hradec Králové), Andrea Germann (Třinec), Alena Hůrková (Hradec Králové), Jan Chromý (Praha), Martin Lachout (Ústí nad Labem, Ostrava), Eva Lehečková (Praha), Věra Pastorková (Třinec). 14 Es wäre sicherlich wünschenswert, auch aus der südmährischen Region Daten zu haben. Leider ist es der Autorin trotz mehrerer Anläufe nicht gelungen, Daten aus dieser Region zu

Ort

P r a h a u . Umgebung

H r a d e c KrálovéÚ s t í n a d Labem

Třinec

Ostrava

Total

Probandenzahl

79

57

25

56

40

256

Geschlecht

weiblich57

31

21

39

33

181

männlich22

26

4

17

7

75

Altersdurch-schnitt

22 Jahre

17.6 Jahre

20.9 Jahre

16.1 Jahre

19.9 Jahre

19.3 Jahre

A l t e r s -spanne

19-30

17-20

19-24

15-17

19-26

17-30

Region

Mittelböhmen

Ostböhmen

Nordböhmen

Nordmähren

Nordmähren


__________133

Umgebung; Nordböhmen – Ústí nad Labem; Ostböhmen – Hradec Králové; Nordmähren – Ostrava und Třinec15. In Tabelle (2) sind alle relevanten Informationen bezüglich der Probanden zusammengefasst:

Tabelle 2Übersicht – Probanden

Der Tabelle (2) lässt sich entnehmen, dass die an der Studie teilnehmenden Probanden im Durchschnitt 19.3 Jahre alt waren. Dabei waren die jüngsten 17 und die ältesten Teilnehmer 30 Jahre alt. In allen Gruppen gab es mehr weibliche als männliche Personen. Alle Probanden waren tschechische Muttersprachler. Sie wuchsen in einer tschechischen Umgebung, mit Tschechisch sprechenden Eltern auf. Alle Teilnehmer verfügten über Fremdsprachenkenntnisse (bei allen Probanden Englisch und/oder Deutsch, bei manchen auch Französisch oder Spanisch).

Die Daten in Hradec Králové sowie in Třinec wurden an den dortigen Gymnasien erhoben. Der Fragebogen wurde den Schülern zu Beginn einer

Ort

P r a h a u . Umgebung

H r a d e c KrálovéÚ s t í n a d Labem

Třinec

Ostrava

Total

Probandenzahl

79

57

25

56

40

256

Geschlecht

weiblich57

31

21

39

33

181

männlich22

26

4

17

7

75

Altersdurch-schnitt

22 Jahre

17.6 Jahre

20.9 Jahre

16.1 Jahre

19.9 Jahre

19.3 Jahre

A l t e r s -spanne

19-30

17-20

19-24

15-17

19-26

17-30

Region

Mittelböhmen

Ostböhmen

Nordböhmen

Nordmähren

Nordmähren

gewinnen. Zugleich sollte betont werden, dass es angesichts der Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Studie plausibel anzunehmen ist, dass Sprecher aus Südmähren vergleichbare Präferenzen aufzeigen wie Sprecher aus den übrigen tschechischen Regionen.15 Obwohl Ostrava und Třinec der gleichen Region angehören, werden in Anbetracht der dialektalen Ausprägung dieser beiden Varietäten die Ergebnisse der Datenanalysen separat präsentiert.


__________134

Unterrichtsstunde als Übungsaufgabe präsentiert. Alle teilnehmenden Schüler kamen aus der jeweiligen Region und befanden sich zum Zeitpunkt der Datenerhebung in der letzten gymnasialen Klasse (Abiturklasse). In den übrigen Orten - Ostrava, Praha und Ústí nad Labem - fand die Datenerhebung an der jeweiligen Universität im Rahmen eines linguistischen Seminars statt. Die Studierenden, die in Ostrava und Ústí nad Labem aufgenommen wurden, stammten auch aus diesen Regionen. In dem Datenset, das in Prag erhoben wurde, waren 21 Studierende dabei, die nicht aus Prag sondern aus anderen Regionen Tschechiens (vorwiegend aus Südmähren und Südböhmen) stammten16. Da die durchgeführte Analyse ergab, dass sich die Antworten dieser Studierenden nicht bedeutend von den Antworten der aus Prag stammenden Studierenden unterschieden, wurden die 21 nicht aus Prag stammenden Teilnehmer zu den Prager Daten gezählt.

An der parallel durchgeführten Studie zur Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform im Russischen haben insgesamt 35 Probanden teilgenommen. Von diesen Probanden waren 23 weiblich und 12 männlich. Das Durchschnittsalter betrug 24.5 Jahre (Altersspanne 18-31). Alle Probanden waren Studenten oder hatten bereits einen akademischen Abschluss und waren erwerbstätig. Sie hatten Russisch als Muttersprache und wuchsen in russischer Umgebung mit russisch sprechenden Eltern auf. Alle bis auf zwei Probanden verfügten über Englisch- und/oder Deutschkenntnisse. Die Fremdsprache wurde erst im Schulalter erlernt.

Das tschechische und das russische Datenset sind also bezüglich der Variablen Alter, sozio-ökonomischer Hintergrund sowie Geschlechstverteilung vergleichbar. Im Gegensatz zu den tschechischen wurden die russischen Daten elektronisch erhoben17. Das heißt, die Teilnehmer bekamen den Fragebogen per E-Mail zugeschickt, füllten ihn am Computer aus und sendeten ihn per E-Mail wieder an die Autorin zurück. Dieses Verfahren war zwar weniger kontrollierbar als das Verfahren für die Datenerhebung im Tschechischen, dafür aber logistisch deutlich einfacher zu bewältigen und zügiger durchführbar. Wie schon erwähnt steht das Russische nicht im Fokus der vorliegenden Untersuchung, sondern dient dem Tschechischen zum Vergleich. Die Verwendung der beschriebenen abweichenden Erhebungsmethode erscheint daher vertretbar, da sie eine signifikante

16 Die Karls-Universität in Prag hat unter den tschechischen Universitäten einen besonderen Stellenwert und zieht auch viele Studierende an, die ursprünglich nicht aus der Hauptstadt kommen.17 Vielen Dank an Elena Grimmer, Natela Karakeshisheva, Valentina Meuren, Julia Napolova, Elena Petrosyan und Ekaterina Travina für die Hilfe bei der Erhebung der russischen Daten.


__________135

Beeinflussung der Ergebnisse nicht erwarten lässt. Dies gilt sinngemäß auch für die Anzahl der russischen Probanden (n = 35): Die Datenanalyse hat gezeigt, dass die Unterschiede zwischen dem Tschechischen und dem Russischen bezüglich der Verwendung der PP-Form in Präsenskontexten auch bei der im Vergleich kleineren Anzahl der russischen Probanden sehr deutlich waren.

3. ErgebnisseDie hier dargestellten Ergebnisse basieren auf den Auszählungen der Aspekt-

Tempus-Formen, die von den Probanden für die kritischen Stimuli als die erstbeste Beschreibung gewählt wurden18. Zu Beginn sollen die in der Einführung formulierten Fragen wieder aufgenommen und anhand von Daten beantwortet werden:

Fragestellung 1: Wird die PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation auch unter Verwendung eines anderen Testparadigmas gebraucht? Abbildung 1 ist Grundlage für die Beantwortung der ersten und zweiten Fragestellung (StAb = Standardabweichung19):

Abbildung 1 Die Wahl der perfektiven Präsensform in hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten von Probanden aus verschiedenen Regionen Tschechiens

18 Die Vorkommnisse der PP-Form in den verschiedenen Verbklassen sind der Tabelle 4 im Anhang zu entnehmen.19 Die Standardabweichung wurde pro Gruppe auf der Basis aller Vorkommnisse der PP-Form über alle vier Verbklassen berechnet.


__________136

In Bezug auf die erste Fragestellung kann festgehalten werden, dass die perfektive Präsensform in Verbindung mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung nicht nur in Sprachproduktionsdaten, sondern auch im schriftlichen Präferenztest gewählt wird. Das heißt der Präferenztest, der auf einer umfangreichen Datensammlung basiert, bestätigt die Befunde aus den Sprachproduktionsdaten (vgl. Schmiedtová/Sahonenko, 2008; v. Stutterheim et al., 2012).

Fragestellung 2: Ist die Benutzung der PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation regional oder dialektal gebunden?

Hinsichtlich der zweiten Frage nach der Korrelation der Verwendung der PP-Form von regionaler bzw. dialektaler Zugehörigkeit der Sprecher zeigt die Analyse (z-Test), dass es hinsichtlich der Verwendung der PP-Präsensform in hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten keine statistisch relevanten Unterschiede gibt (Ostböhmen mit dem höchsten vs. Nordmähren-Ostrava mit dem niedrigsten Prozentwert: z = 0.46, n.s.20). Die perfektive Präsensform in hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten stellt für die Sprecher des Tschechischen also eine Alternative dar, die im aspektuellen System des Tschechischen zur Verfügung steht. Dies zeigt sich auch dadurch, dass diese Form konsistent (im Durchschnitt 12.1%) und in vergleichbarem Maß in den verschiedenen Regionen Tschechiens im hier-und-jetzt-Kontext verwendet wird (vergleichbare Standardabweichungen: Mittelböhmen = 1.3; Ostböhmen = 1.1; Nordböhmen = 1.7; Normähren-Ostrava = 1.2; Nordmähren-Třinec = 1.5).

Bevor auf die Beantwortung der dritten Frage eingegangen wird, soll auf die Verteilung der anderen in dem Präferenztest getesteten Aspekt-Tempus-Formen eingegangen werden. Diese wird exemplarisch anhand der Daten aus Ostböhmen dargestellt (Abbildung 2 – Angaben in Prozenten):

20 Die Abkürzung n.s. steht für ‚statistisch nicht signifikant’.


__________137

Abbildung 2 Die Wahl der verschiedenen Aspekt-Tempus-Formenin hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten von Probanden in Ostböhmen

(N =alle relevanten Datenpunkte (kritische Stimuli x Probandenzahl; n = absolute Zahl der verwendeten Aspekt-Tempus Form )

Aus der statistischen Auswertung wird deutlich, dass die Sprecher die imperfektiven Simplex- sowie die sekundären imperfektiven Präsensformen bevorzugt verwenden. Der Unterschied im Gebrauch des sekundären Imperfektives ist gegenüber der Simplex-Form statistisch relevant (χ2(1) = 8.63, p < .05). Die häufige Wahl der präsentischen Formen, einschließend der perfektiven Präsensform, ist in Anbetracht der Einbettung der getesteten Szenarien in den hier-und-jetzt-Kontext zu erwarten.

Die Präferenz für sekundäre Imperfektiva lässt sich auf die in den Szenarien dargebotenen Situationen zurückführen: Es wurden stets Handlungen mit Zustandsveränderung präsentiert. Gleichzeitig wurde betont, dass sich die Handlung ihrem Ende nähert. Für die Enkodierung solcher Situationen ist das sekundäre Imperfektiv geeignet.

Erwähnenswert ist der Gebrauch der perfektiven Vergangenheitsform, deren prozentualer Anteil trotz der Einbettung der Szenen ins Präsens relativ hoch ist. Der Unterschied zur imperfektiven Vergangenheitsform ist signifikant (χ2(1) = 34.32, p < .


__________138

05). Diese Ergebnisse sind im Einklang mit den Sprachproduktionsdaten: Muttersprachler des Tschechischen haben die perfektive Vergangenheitsform auch für die online-Darstellung von Ereignissen mit qualitativem Nachzustand sowie von Bewegungsereignissen gebraucht (vgl. z.B. Schmiedtová et al, 2011). Die imperfektive Vergangenheitsform dagegen wurde gar nicht verwendet. Es scheint also, dass in hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten die Abgeschlossenheit der dargebotenen Situation (und zwar unabhängig vom Situationstyp) im Fokus der tschechischen Sprecher steht.

Die Verteilung der Aspekt-Tempus-Formen in dem ostböhmischen Set ist auch für die übrigen Datensets repräsentativ. Dies mit der Einschränkung, dass die Differenz in der Verwendung der imperfektiven Simplex-Form im Vergleich zum sekundären Imperfektiv nicht in allen Sets statistisch signifikant ist. Obwohl die Unterschiede in der Formverteilung sehr interessant sind, kann darauf im Rahmen dieser Arbeit nicht näher eingegangen werden.

In der folgenden Abbildung (3) sind die Ergebnisse für die Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform in Bezug auf die fünf Verbklassen dargestellt21.

Abbildung 3 Die Wahl der perfektiven Präsensform nach Verbklasse und Region

21 Eine Übersichtstabelle mit absoluten Zahlen für alle Regionen und Verbklassen befindet sich im Anhang, Tabelle 4.


__________139

Die in Abbildung 3 präsentierten Daten belegen, dass die Wahl der perfektiven Präsensform mit der jeweiligen Verbklasse korreliert. Die größten Attraktoren sind Klasse II. (Ø = 17,2 %) und Klasse IV. (Ø = 25.6 %). Die Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen Regionen in der Verwendung der PP-Form in Klasse II. sind statistisch nicht relevant: Mittelböhmen mit dem höchsten Prozentwert (19 %) gegenüber Nordmähren-Třinec mit dem niedrigsten Prozentwert (14.2 %) z = 1.35, n.s. Das Gleiche trifft auch für Klasse IV. zu: Ostböhmen mit der höchsten Prozentwert (28.1 %) gegenüber Nordmähren-Ostrava mit dem niedrigsten Prozentwert (22.5 %) z = 1.09, n.s.

Die PP-Form wird in Verbindung mit den Klassen I. und III. nicht so häufig gebraucht: sie wird in der Klasse I. in durchschnittlich nur 8 %, in der Klasse III. in nur 2.3 % der Fälle gewählt. Auch hier sind die Schwankungen zwischen den Regionen statistisch nicht relevant: Klasse I. Ostböhmen mit dem höchsten Prozentwert (8.8 %) gegenüber Nordmähren-Třinec mit dem niedrigsten Prozentwert (6.5 %) - z = 0.8, n.s.; Klasse III. Ostböhmen mit dem höchsten Prozentwert (3.8 %) gegenüber Nordmähren-Ostrava mit dem niedrigsten Prozentwert (0.8 %) z = 1.66, n.s. In der fünften Klasse kommt in den ostböhmischen Daten die PP-Form viel häufiger vor als in den anderen Datensets: Ostböhmen mit dem höchsten Prozentwert (13.5 %) gegenüber Mittelböhmen mit dem niedrigsten Prozentwert (6.3 %) z = 12.1, p < .05. Das Vorkommnis der PP-Form in Verbindung mit der fünften Verbklasse ist in den anderen Regionen jedoch gleichmäßig.

Fragestellung 3: Hängt die Verwendung der PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation von der Verbklasse ab, der das gegebene Verb angehört?

Hinsichtlich der dritten Frage lässt sich festhalten, dass der Gebrauch der perfektiven Präsensform im Tschechischen von der Verbklasse abhängt. Am häufigsten kommt die PP-Form im Zusammenhang mit Verben aus der II. und IV. Klasse vor, das niedrigste Vorkommnis wurde für die III. Klasse festgestellt. Es ist wichtig zu betonen, dass die Korrelation zwischen der jeweiligen Verbklasse und der Verwendung der PP-Form in den verschiedenen Regionen vergleichbar ist. Die einzige Ausnahme stellt die Klasse V. in den ostböhmischen Daten dar, in der signifikant mehr PP-Formen vorkommen als in den übrigen Datensets.

Im Folgenden werden die tschechischen Daten mit den Daten aus dem Russischen verglichen. Dieser Gegenüberstellung liegt die Hypothese zugrunde, dass die perfektive Präsensform in den hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten im Russischen keine Option darstellt. Abbildung 4 stellt die Ergebnisse des tschechisch-russischen Vergleichs dar:


__________140

Abbildung 4 Die Wahl der perfektiven Präsensform im

Tschechischen22 und Russischen

Die russischen Daten zeigen, dass die Sprecher in den hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten die perfektive Präsensform nie verwenden. Dies liegt darin begründet, dass sich die Semantik der PP-Form im Russischen mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung nicht verträgt (vgl. z.B. Rathmayr, 1976 oder jegliche Grammatik der Russischen). Das Ergebnis bestätigt darüber hinaus die vorliegenden Sprachproduktionsdaten (Schmiedtová/Sahonenko, 2008). Ferner belegen die Befunde, dass die im Präferenztest verwendeten Szenarien tatsächlich einen hier-und-jetzt-Kontext bei den Sprechern hervorgerufen haben. Mit anderen Worten hat sich der Präferenztest als Instrument zur Überprüfung der Kompatibilität der perfektiven Präsensform und hier-und-jetzt-Interpretation bewährt.

4. Fazit und DiskussionDie vorliegende Studie hat gezeigt, dass Sprecher des Tschechischen die

perfektive Präsensform wählen können, um auf hier-und-jetzt-Kontexte Bezug zu nehmen. Und das obwohl eine solche Verwendungsweise der PP-Form von den

22 Für die tschechischen Daten wurde für den vorliegenden Vergleich der Mittelwert berechnet.


__________141

Grammatiken des Tschechischen als nicht möglich beschrieben wird (vgl. Cvrček et al., 2010; Komárek et al., 1986).

Unsere Studie zeigt darüber hinaus, dass die Wahl der perfektiven Präsensform nicht etwa auf bestimmte Regionen beschränkt ist, sondern auf dem ganzen Gebiet Tschechiens - Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien - vergleichbar häufig verwendet wird. Dabei ist hervorzuheben, dass die PP-Form mit einer durchschnittlichen Verwendungshäufigkeit von 12.1 % die dritthäufigste Aspekt-Form darstellt. Diese Zahl belegt, dass der PP-Form ein fester Status unter den Aspekt-Formen zuzuschreiben ist, die für den hier-und-jetzt-Kontext als Option in Frage kommen.

Die Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform mit hier und jetzt-Bedeutung korreliert mit der Verbklasse. Die PP-Form wird in hier-und-jetzt-Kontexten am häufigsten mit Verben aus der II. und IV. Klasse, am seltensten mit Verben aus der III. Klasse kombiniert. Das hohe Vorkommnis der PP-Form in der IV. Klasse könnte statistisch damit zusammenhängen, dass die meisten tschechischen Verben der vierten Klasse angehören (etwa 30% vgl. Cvrček et al., 2010: 250-251). Wenn wir annehmen, dass die perfektive Präsensform im tschechischen Aspekt-Tempus-System durch einen Wandel geht bzw. gegangen ist, würde sich die IV. Klasse aufgrund ihrer Frequenz im sprachlichen Input sehr eignen, die perfektive Präsensform bei der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung vor allen anderen zu integrieren (siehe auch Kohäsionsparameter, Lehmann 1995). Für diese Hypothese spricht auch die Tatsache, dass die I. Klasse, die statistisch am geringsten gewichtet ist (etwa 7 % Cvrček et al., 2010: ebd.), in unserer Studie zu den weniger starken Attraktoren der PP-Form zählt.

Auch hier hat die Datenanalyse gezeigt, dass die Korrelation zwischen Verbklasse und Häufigkeit der Verwendung der PP-Form nicht regional oder dialektal gebunden ist – die Affinität bestimmter Verbklassen, die PP-Form mehr oder weniger stark anzuziehen, ist in allen Regionen gleich ausgeprägt. Die einzige Ausnahme stellt die übermäßig häufige Verwendung der PP-Form mit Verben aus der V. Klasse in den ostböhmischen Daten dar. Eine Erklärung für diesen Befund steht noch aus, es ist aber beabsichtigt, die Auswirkung der Verbklassen auf die Verwendung der PP-Form im Tschechischen in weiteren Arbeiten näher zu untersuchen.

Im Kontext der Verbklassen stellt sich darüber hinaus die Frage, inwiefern die Einteilung in verschiedene Konjugationsklassen vom grammatischen Aspekt,


__________142

möglicherweise aber auch von der Semantik der Verben abhängig ist. Zu beiden Zusammenhängen liegen aktuell jedoch noch keine Daten vor. In Bezug auf diese Studie wäre interessant herauszufinden, ob die beobachtete Korrelation zwischen der Häufigkeit der Verwendung der PP-Form und den Konjugationsklassen auch mit den aspektuellen Eigenschaften der Verbklassen in Verbindung stehen könnte. Auch dies sollte in weiteren Arbeiten erforscht werden.

Die Daten aus dem Russischen bekräftigen die Unterschiede zwischen dem Tschechischen und dem Russischen hinsichtlich der Kombinierbarkeit der PP-Form mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung: Im Russischen ist diese Kombination für den besagten Kontext nicht zulässig. Dieser Befund ist im Einklang mit den Ergebnissen aus Sprachproduktionsdaten, in denen die russischen Probanden die PP-Form ebenfalls nie verwendet haben, die tschechischen Sprecher aber sehr wohl (Schmiedtová/Sahonenko, 2008: 58 ff.)23.

Die Unterschiede in der Verwendung der präfigierten perfektiven Formen im Tschechischen und im Russischen lassen sich auch für längere narrative Texte dokumentieren. Die Daten aus den Nacherzählungen des Quest-Filmes24 zeigen, dass russische Sprecher perfektive Formen ausschließlich in der Vergangenheit

23 In dem Szenario Nr. 34 wurde ein für beide Systeme relativ neues Lexem getestet. Es handelte sich um das aus dem Englischen entlehnte Verb klikat Impf. / poklinknout Perf. (eng. to click) in einem Kontext, in dem Ware aus dem Internet per Mausklick bestellt werden. Das Verb wird in beiden Sprachen gebraucht, es zeigt jedoch unterschiedliche Tendenzen bezüglich seiner Kombinierbarkeit mit den verschiedenen Aspekt-Tempus-Formen auf: Während in den russischen Daten dieses Verb ausschließlich mit der imperfektiven Simplex-Form im Präsens (88.6 %) oder in der Vergangenheit (8.6 % ) sowie in Verbindung mit dem sekundären Imperfektiv (2.9 %) vorkommt, wird es im Tschechischen nicht nur mit den beiden imperfektiven Simplex-Formen (Präsens durchschnittlich 53.9 %, Vergangenheit durchschnittlich 8.22 %) sondern auch mit der perfektiven Präsensform (durchschnittlich 21.7 %) sowie der perfektiven Vergangenheitsform (durchschnittlich 7 %) kombiniert. Diese Tendenzen lassen vermuten, dass der Prozess der Lexikalisierung eines neuen Wortes direkt von den verfügbaren Aspekt-Formen abhängig ist und somit im Tschechischen anders als im Russischen verläuft.24 Der Film Quest wurde 1996 von Tyron Montgomery und Thomas Stellmach produziert und gedreht. Es handelt sich um die Geschichte einer Tonfigur, die auf der Suche nach Wasser ist. Dabei durchwandert die Figur verschiedene Welten (z.B. Papier- oder Steinwelt), in denen sie unterschiedlichen Gefahren entkommen muss. Im Jahr 1997 wurde Quest mit einem Oscar für den besten Zeichentrickfilm ausgezeichnet.


__________143

verwenden (Perfektiv Präteritum)25. Die perfektive Präsensform wird von den russischen Sprechern in unseren Daten weder in Verbindung mit Präsens- oder Futurbedeutung noch in Form des so genannten historischen (oder narrativen) Präsens26 verwendet. Das Bild im Tschechischen hingegen stellt sich anders dar: In den Quest-Nacherzählungen kommt die perfektive Präsensform relativ häufig vor, z.B. in der zweiten Episode dieses Filmes liegt der Anteil der perfektiven Präsensform für Äußerungen im Vordergrund bei etwa 61% (68 von insgesamt 112 Vorkommnissen)27. Wie lassen sich diese Unterschiede interpretieren?

Zunächst ist zu betonen, dass die Quest-Daten unter Verwendung eines anderen Designs erhoben wurden, als es den bisher betrachteten Sprachproduktions- und Präferenztestdaten zugrunde liegt. Die Sprachproduktions- und Präferenztestdaten wurden in einem online Design erhoben: Die Sprecher haben die Stimuli versprachlicht während sie ihnen präsentiert wurden. Mit anderen Worten, es gab einen direkten Bezug zum deiktischen Jetzt. Alle Quest-Daten wurden dagegen in einem offline-Verfahren erhoben. Das heißt, die Probanden haben den Film zuerst am Stück gesehen, dann wurde der Film sofort nach jeder Episode gestoppt und die Probanden aufgefordert, die jeweilige Episode nachzuerzählen. Der kontextuelle Bezugsrahmen für die Nacherzählungen lag in der Vergangenheit, da die zu beschreibenden Situationen bereits geschehen waren. Dieses Design eröffnet also die Möglichkeit, die PP-Form als historisches Präsens zu verwenden.

Auch bezüglich des historischen Präsens gibt es zwischen dem Russischen und dem Tschechischen wichtige Unterschiede. Dickey (2011: 175) vertritt die Meinung, dass das Russische in Folge von diachronen Änderungen des aspektuellen Systems, die im Rahmen der Abgrenzung der ost- und westslawischen Sprachen stattfanden, die Verwendung der perfektiven Formen im historischen Präsens ganz verloren hat. In der empirisch gestützten Untersuchung von Rathmayr (1976: 128) werden dagegen wenige Belege für die Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform als historisches Präsens

25 Vgl. Sahonenko, 2004: 55 ff.26 Historisches Präsens wird verwendet, um auf vergangene Ereignisse Bezug zu nehmen. Man bezeichnet es auch als das Präsens der belebten Erzählung (vgl. Isačenko,1982; Panzer, 1991).27 Vgl. Placzková, 2009: 85.


__________144

dargeboten. In Anlehnung an die vorgenannte Literatur zum Thema (Dickey, 2011; Rathmayr, 1976) sowie der hier präsentierten Daten kann festgehalten werden, dass im Russischen die Möglichkeit der Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform als historisches Präsens eingeschränkt bzw. sehr selten möglich ist. Im Gegensatz dazu wird für narrative Texte im Tschechischen angenommen, dass neben der imperfektiven auch die perfektive Präsensform zulässig ist (vgl. Berger, 2010; Dickey, 2011). In der kürzlich erschienen korpusbasierten Grammatik des Tschechischen werden in Bezug auf das historische Präsens aber nur Belege mit imperfektiven Formen erwähnt28. Zum Beispiel: tsch. Tak třeba včera mi povídá - dt. So beispielsweise gestern sagt er mir (Cvrček et al., 2010: 240). Zum Vergleich ein Beispiel aus den tschechischen Quest-Daten29. Der Sprecher verwendet durchgehend die perfektive Präsensform:

001 na poušti se probudí hliněný člověkauf Wüste.Lok Ref. aufwachen.3SG.Perf.Präsens Mensch aus Ton.Nomdt. in der Wüste wacht ein Mensch aus Ton auf

002 chce se napítwill.3SGModal Ref. trinken.INF.Perf.Präsensdt. er will einen Schluck trinken

003 nenajde vodufindet.NEG.3SG.Perf.Präsens Wasser.Akku.

dt. findet aber kein Wasser004 a potom začne hrabat v zemi

und dann fangen.3SG.Perf.Präsens Ø graben.Impf.Präsens in Erde.Lokdt. und dann fängt er an in der Erde zu graben

005 a propadne se tekoucím pískemund durchfallen. 3SG.Perf.Präsens Ref. fließender Sand.Instr. dt. und fällt durch den fließenden Sand durch

28 Eine ältere Grammatik aus dem Jahre 1986 nimmt an, dass im Zusammenhang mit historischem Präsens auch perfektive Präsensformen verwendet werden können (Komárek et al., 1986: 179). 29 Vielen Dank an Frau Andrea Germann geb. Placzková für die Möglichkeit, ihre Daten zum Tschechischen verwenden zu dürfen.


__________145

Es stellt sich die Frage, ob die in den tschechischen narrativen Texten häufig verwendeten perfektiven Präsensformen zwingend als historisches (narratives) Präsens interpretiert werden müssen. Die hier präsentierten Daten legen die Vermutung nah, dass die PP-Form möglicherweise auch in Nacherzählungen mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung verbunden werden kann. Dies ist jedoch eine Fragestellung, die in weiteren experimentellen und korpusbasierten Arbeiten zu untersuchen ist.

Zugleich sollte aber betont werden, dass die temporale Interpretation dieser Form von dem zugrunde liegenden temporalen Bezugsrahmen abhängig ist und sich dieser eher unter experimentellen Bedingungen kontrollieren als unter Verwendung von Korpusdaten vorgeben und kontrollieren lässt. Aus den Korpusdaten lässt sich primär auf Häufigkeiten und Korrelationen bzw. Kollokationen schließen. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt ist die Angabe in der korpusbasierten Cvrček-Grammatik (2010) sehr relevant: hier werden nämlich nur die imperfektiven Formen für die Verwendung des historischen Präsens erwähnt.

Unsere Datenlage zeigt, dass die perfektive Präsensform im Tschechischen ein breiteres Bedeutungsspektrum bedient als die russische perfektive Präsensform: Im Tschechischen kann sich die PP-Form nicht nur auf die Zukunft, sondern auch auf die Gegenwart beziehen. Diese besondere Verwendung der PP-Form lässt sich zum einen mit der von Dickey (2000) vorgeschlagenen Abgrenzung der westslawischen (z.B. Tschechisch, Slowakisch, Sorbisch, Slowenisch) und ostslawischen (z.B. Russisch, Bulgarisch) Sprachen zusammen bringen: In den westslawischen Sprachen ist die Wahl einer aspektuellen Form weniger eingeschränkt als in der ostslawischen Gruppe. In der westslawischen Gruppe ergeben sich also viel mehr Kontexte, für die nicht eine bestimmte Aspektwahl zwingend ist, sondern aus mehreren aspektuellen Möglichkeiten gewählt werden kann (vgl. Berger, 2011).

Zum anderen erscheint es nicht unplausibel, dass die Verwendung der perfektiven Präsensform mit hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung auf den langandauernden Sprachkontakt zum Deutschen zurückzuführen ist: präfigierte telische Verben sind mit der hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung im Deutschen ohne Weiteres kombinierbar (dt. Hans isst gerade/jetzt/in diesem Moment einen Apfel auf). Neue psycholinguistische Studien zur Versprachlichung und Konzeptualisierung von


__________146

Einzelereignissen (vgl. Stutterheim et al., 2012; Schmiedtová, 2011, 2012, i.Dr., 2013) sowie diachronorienierte Arbeiten (vgl. Dickey, 2011) lassen vermuten, dass der Kontakt zum Deutschen einen großen Einfluss auf die linguistischen Systeme der westslawischen Sprachen ausgeübt hat. Für das Tschechische könnte dies in besonderem Maße zutreffen.

Abschließend soll Fragestellung 4 diskutiert werden: Welche Implikationen bringen die Befunde über die Verwendung der PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt-Bedeutung für das Aspektsystem des Tschechischen? Die erste Konsequenz ist die Erweiterung des tschechischen Aspektsystems: In hier-und-jetzt Kontexten kann neben der imperfektiven Simplex-Form und der sekundären imperfektiven Form zusätzlich auch die PP-Form gewählt werden. In weiteren Arbeiten soll untersucht werden, welche Faktoren die Wahl einer bestimmten Aspektform bei hier-und-jetzt Kontexten beeinflussen. Vermutlich spielen dabei der Situationstyp bzw. die Proximität der Zustandsveränderung (das Eintreten des Nachzustands) sowie der Sprachmodus (mündlich vs. schriftlich) eine wichtige Rolle. In Bezug auf den Sprachmodus ist anzumerken, dass die Präferenzen im mündlichen Modus viel ausgeprägter sind als im schriftlichen: tschechische Sprecher verwenden in mündlicher Produktion die PP-Formen mit hier-und-jetzt Bedeutung viel häufiger als sekundäre Imperfektiva oder imperfektive Simplex-Formen (vgl. Berger, 2011; Schmiedtová et al., 2011; Schmiedtová/Sahonenko, 2008).

Eine zweite Implikation betrifft die Veränderung der Kategorie Perfektivität. Die Befunde der vorliegenden Untersuchung zeigen, dass die perfektive Präsensform im Tschechischen mehrdeutig ist. Die PP-Form hat nicht nur Futurbedeutung (vgl. Cvrček, 2010; Schmiedtová 2003; Schmiedtová et al., 2011), sondern kann auch mit hier-und-jetzt Bedeutung verwendet werden. Für diese Bedeutung gilt, dass das Eintreten eines Nachzustands assertiert wird, obwohl dieser faktisch gar nicht oder noch nicht eingetreten ist. Mit anderen Worten, der Nachzustand muss unter der hier-und-jetzt Interpretation ‚per default’ inferiert werden. Im Unterschied zur Verwendung der perfektiven Form in der


__________147

Vergangenheit30 wird durch die perfektive Präsensform mit hier-und-jetzt Bedeutung keine Faktizität bezeugt, sondern viel mehr die „Einschätzung“ der Wahrscheinlichkeit, mit der ein Nachzustand eintritt, miteinbezogen.

Aufgrund dieser temporal-semantischen Merkmale ist die PP-Form mit hier-und-jetzt Bedeutung kompatibel mit der sogenannten holistischen Perspektive, die im Tschechischen für die Konzeptualisierung und Verbalisierung unterschiedlicher Ereignistypen bevorzugt gewählt wird. Unter dieser Perspektive wird stets auf das Gesamtereignis Bezug genommen. Das heißt, dass beispielsweise bei Ereignissen mit Zustandsveränderung der Nachzustand, während bei Bewegungsereignissen das Ziel (Endpunkt) der Bewegung inferiert wird.

Die Frage nach dem Verhältnis zwischen der gewählten Konzeptualisierung einerseits und den Veränderungen im tschechischen Aspektsystem andererseits lässt sich anhand der zur Verfügung stehenden Daten (noch) nicht eindeutig beantworten. Dennoch wäre es durchaus denkbar, dass die zugrunde liegende Konzeptualisierung, die sogenannte holistische Perspektive, zu den hier dargestellten Veränderungen der PP-Form geführt oder diese begünstig haben konnte. Diese Position wird im Rahmen der hier vorgestellten Untersuchung vertreten, die darüber hinaus als Arbeitshypothese formuliert, dass die Ausbildung der holistischen Perspektive im Tschechischen auf den sprachlichen Einfluss des Deutschen zurückzuführen ist.

30 Für die perfektive Vergangenheitsform gilt, dass die Sprechzeit und der Nachzustand entweder zusammenfallen, oder der Nachzustand vor der Sprechzeit eingetreten sein muss: tsch. Právě/Včera to dopsala – dt. Gerade/Gestern hat sie es fertig schreiben.


__________148

Bibliographie

Berger, Tilman 2010. Der tschechische Aspekt im Sprachunterricht. Vortrag an der Universität München, 24. April, 2010.

Berger, Tilman 2011. Perfektivierung durch Präfix im Tschechischen Vermeintliche und tatsächliche Besonderheiten. In: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 67, 33-52.

Cvrček, Václav et al. (Hrsg.). 2010. Mluvnice současné češtiny. Praha: Karolinum. Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect. Stanford: CSLI.Dickey, Stephen M. 2011. The Varying Role of PO- in the Grammaticalization of

Slavic Aspectual Systems: Sequence of Events, Delimitatives, and German Language Contact. In: Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 19, 2, 175-230.

Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1982. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. München: Hueber Verlag.

Komárek, Miroslav et al. (Hrsg.). 1986. Mluvnice češtiny, Bd. 1-3. Praha: Academia.Lehmann, Christian 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München: Lincom

Europa.Petruchina, Elena V. 2000. Aspektual'nye kategorii glagola v russkom jazyke: v

sopostavlenii s češskim, slovackim, pol'skim i bolgarskim jazykami. Izd. Moskva: Moskovskogo univ.

Placzková, Andrea 2009. Ereignis-Enkodierung im Tschechischen und Deutschen: eine kontrastive Studie. Unveröffentlichte Magisterarbeit, Universität Heidelberg.

Rathmayr, Renate 1976. Die perfektive Präsensform im Russischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Sahonenko, Natascha 2004. Zeitkonzepte in Nacherzählungen. Eine kontrastive Studie zum Russischen und Deutschen. Unveröffentlichte Magisterarbeit, Universität Heidelberg.

Schmiedtová, Barbara 2003. Aspekt und Tempus im Deutschen und Tschechischen: eine vergleichende Studie. In: S. Höhne / M. Nekula (Hrsg.). Germanistisches Jahrbuch Tschechien – Slowakei: Schwerpunkt Sprachwissenschaft. Praha: Lidové noviny, 185-216.

Schmiedtová, Barbara 2011. Do L2 speakers think in the L1 when speaking in the L2? In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8/2011, 138-179

Schmiedtová, Barbara 2012. Vergleich von deutschen und tschechischen kunsthistorischen Texten: Eine textlinguistische Untersuchung zum deutsch-tschechischen Sprachkontakt In: S. Höhne, et al. (Hrsg.). brücken 2011. Germanistisches Jahrbuch Tschechien – Slowakei; thematischer Schwerpunkt – Sprachwissenschaft, 221-240.

Schmiedtová, Barbara i.Dr. 2013. Zum Einfluss des Deutschen auf das Tschechische: Die Effekte des Zeitdrucks auf die Sprachproduktion [The influence of German on Czech: the


__________149

effects of time pressure on language production]. In Marek Nekula, Kateřina Šíchová & Jana Valdrová (Hrsg.). Bilingualer Sprachvergleich und Typologie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Schmiedtová, Barbara – Sahonenko, Natascha 2008. Die Rolle des grammatischen Aspekts in Ereignis-Enkodierung: ein Vergleich zwischen tschechischen und russischen Lernern des Deutschen. In: P. Gommes / M. Walter (Hrsg.). Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracherwerbforschung. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 45-71.

Schmiedtová, Barbara – v. Stutterheim, Christiane – Carroll, Mary 2011. Implications of language-specific patterns in event construal of advanced L2 speakers. In: A. Pavlenko (Hrsg.). Thinking and Speaking in two languages. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, 66-107.

v. Stutterheim, Chriastiane – Andermann, Martin – Carroll, Mary – Flecken, Monique – Schmiedtová, Barbara 2012. How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data and memory performance. In: Linguistics 4, 833-867.


__________150

Appendix

sypat-vysypat

házet-vhodit

lízat-olízatlehat-ulehnoutškrábat-oškrábnouttiskat-vytisknoutpít-dopítmýt-umýthřát-zahřát (si)sázet-vysaditsedět-posadit (se)dělit-rozdělitklikat-pokliknoutčernat-zčernatdělat-dodělat

Perf Präsens

vysype

vhodí

olíže

ulehne

oškrábne

vytiskne

dopijeumyje

zahřeje

vysadí

posadí

rozdělí

poklikne

zčernádodělá

Perf Verg

vysypal

vhodil

olízl

uleh(nu)l

oškrábl

vytisk(nu)l

dopilumyl

zahřál

vysadil

posadil

rozdělil

poklik(nu)l

zčernaldodělal

Sek. Imperf

vysypává

vhazuje

olizuje

ulehává si

oškrabává

vytiskává

dopíjíumývá

zahřívá

vysazuje

posazuje

rozděluje

poklikává

zčernávádodělává

Imperf Präs

sype

hážeházílíže

lehá si

škrábe

tiskne

pijemyje

hřeje

sází

sedí

dělí

kliká

černádělá

ImperfVerg

sypal

házel

lízal

lehal si

škrábal

tiskal

pilmyl

hřál

sázel

seděl

dělil

klikal

černaldělal

imperf-perf (I)

(I)

(I)

(II)

(II)

(II)

(III)(III)

(III)

(IV)

(IV)

(IV)

(V)

(V)(V)


__________151

Tabelle 3 In den kritischen Stimuli verwendete Verben – nach Verbklassen (I-V)

Tabelle 4 Vorkommnisse der PP-Form in den verschiedenen Verbklassen (N =alle in der jeweiligen Verbklasse gewählten Aspekt-Tempus-Formen; n = perfektive Präsensform)

Fragebogen Tschechisch

Otázky v následujícím dotazníku jsou zaměřeny na Vaše jazykové preference. Nejedná se o žádný test. Všechny odpovědi jsou v principu možné.

Vaším úkolem je přečíst si u každé otázky krátký text popisující určitou situaci a tuto situaci si krátce představit. Pak je třeba, abyste podtrhli tu odpověď, která se Vám zdá pro vyjádření situace nejvhodnější--toto je Vaše preferovaná odpověď. Pak se znovu podívejte na další možnosti a křížkem (x) označte, kterou

absolute Zahlen

I. Verbklasse

II. Verbklasse

III. Verbklasse

IV. Verbklasse

V. Verbklasse

Mittelböhmen N=237

n = 45

n = 3

n = 66

n = 15

Ostböhmen N=171

n = 30

n = 6

n = 48

n = 23

NordböhmenN=75

n = 14

n = 2

n = 19

n = 5

Nordmähren Ostrava N=120

n = 17

n = 1

n = 27

n = 8

Nordmähren Třinec N=168

n = 20n = 15n = 6n = 10n = 11

n = 28

n = 6

n = 41

n = 14


__________152

druhou nejvhodnější odpověď preferujete. Na škále od jedničky do pětky zakroužkujte, jak hodnotíte vhodnost této druhé možnosti.

výborné (1); dobré (2); ujde (3); nic moc (4); nevyhovující (5)jednu z možností zakroužkujte, např:

1 2 3 4 5*************************--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1--Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte někoho na kole, jak se pohybuje po polní cestě. Je to blízko lesa. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Někdo vjel na kole do lesa.Někdo jede na kole do lesa.Někdo vjede na kole do lesa.Někdo jel na kole do lesa.Někdo zajíždí na kole do lesa.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2-- Představte si situaci, ve které jste na výletě v přírodě a na obloze jsou

černé mraky. Vidíte, že začíná bouřka. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Před mými zraky obloha zčerná.Před mými zraky obloha zčernala.Před mými zraky obloha černala.Před mými zraky obloha černá.Před mými zraky obloha zčernává.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-- Představte si situaci, ve které malý kluk sedí na stromě a chce se právě

dostat dolů. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************


__________153

Kluk sleze ze stromu dolů.Kluk slezl ze stromu dolů.Kluk lezl ze stromu dolů.Kluk slézá ze stromu dolů.Kluk leze ze stromu dolů.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4-- Představte si situaci, ve které skupina lidí hraje frisbee. Někdo míří na

vymezenou branku. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Někdo háže frisbee do branky.Někdo vhazuje frisbee do branky.Někdo házel frisbee do branky.Někdo vhodí frisbee do branky.Někdo vhodil frisbee do branky.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5-- Představte si, že jste v kavárně a někdo vedle u stolečku má v ruce kávu.

S pitím je skoro hotový. Jak to s největší pravděpodobností vyjádříte? 1 2 3 4 5*************************Někdo vedle u stolečku pije kávu.Někdo vedle u stolečku dopíjí kávu.Někdo vedle u stolečku pil kávu.Někdo vedle u stolečku dopil kávu.Někdo vedle u stolečku dopije kávu.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6--Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte psa mizet ve dveřích domu. Jak

vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Pes běží do domu.


__________154

Pes vběhl do domu.Pes vbíhá do domu.Pes běžel do domu.Pes vběhne do domu.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte holčičku mířící směrem na prolézačky.

Už je skoro u prolézačky. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Holčička cupitala k prolejzačce.Holčička docupitává k prolejzačce.Holčička cupitá k prolejzačce.Holčička docupitala k prolejzačce.Holčička docupitá k prolejzačce.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8-- Představte si situaci, v které nějaký pán stojí u popelnic a cosi dělá. S

tím, co dělá, je téměr hotov. Jak to s největší pravděpodobností vyjádříte?1 2 3 4 5*************************Nějaký pán vysypává smetí do popelnice.Nějaký pán sypal smetí do popelnice.Nějaký pán vysype smetí do popelnice.Nějaký pán sype smetí do popelnice.Nějaký pán vysypal smetí do popelnice.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9--Představte si situaci ve škole, kdy se žák po zkoušení vrací od tabule na své

místo. Už je opět téměř v lavici. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Žák se posadí na své místo.Žák se posazuje na své místo.Žák sedí na svém místě.


__________155

Žák seděl na svém místě.Žák se posadil na své místo.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10-- Představte si situaci, ve které se nacházíte v jedoucí tramvaji. Jste právě

pod mostem. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Tramvaj projíždí pod mostem.Tramvaj projede pod mostem.Tramvaj jela pod mostem.Tramvaj projela pod mostem.Tramvaj jede pod mostem.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte mladou ženu se pohybovat na

trampolíně. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Slečna poskočila na trampolíně.Slečna skáče na trampolíně.Slečna skákala na trampolíně.Slečna poskakuje na trampolíně.Slečna poskočí na trampolíně.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12--Představte si situaci, ve které jste na obědě u známých. Právě je čas na

zákusek, Vaše známá má ale plné břicho a potřebuje si právě odpočinout. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Moje známá ulehává na gauč. Moje známá ulehne na gauč.Moje známá si lehá na gauč.Moje známá ulehla na gauč.


__________156

Moje známá si lehla na gauč.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte sýkorky na stromě. Jak vyjádříte s

největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************

Sýkorky přéletnuly z větve na větev.Sýkorky přelétávají z větve na větev.Sýkorky přelétnou z větve na větev.Sýkorky létají z větve na větev.Sýkorky létaly z větve na větev. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14--Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte radovat se pejska z příchodu svého

páníčka. Radování pejska už nějakou dobu trvá a je téměř u konce . Jak to s největší pravděpodobností vyjádříte?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Pejsek olízl pánovi obličej.Pejsek olizuje pánovi obličej.Pejsek lízal pánovi obličej.Pejsek líže pánovi obličej.Pejsek olíže pánovi obličej.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15-- Představte si situaci, ve které se nacházíte na atletických závodech.

Bežkyně je na trati skoro v cíli. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Běžkyně doběhla do cíle.Běžkyně běžela do cíle.Běžkyně doběhne do cíle.


__________157

Běžkyně dobíhá do cíle.Bežkyně běží do cíle.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16-- Představte si situaci, ve které jste na jaře ve veřejných sadech.

Pozorujete jejich zaměstnace při práci. Právě jsou téměř hotovi se sázením nového stromu. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Pracovníci vysazují strom.Pracovníci vysadí strom.Pracovníci vysadili strom. Pracovníci sázeli strom.Pracovníci sázejí strom.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte jedoucí auto v blízkosti čerpací

stanice. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Auto jelo k čerpací stanici.Auto zajede k čerpací stanici.Auto jede k čerpací stanici.Auto zajíždí k čerpací stanici.Auto zajelo k čerpací stanici.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18-- Představte si situaci, ve které se nacházíte v kanceláři u tiskárny. Právě

čekáte na tisk posledních pár stránek Vašeho článku. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Tiskárna tiskla můj článek.Tiskárna tiskne můj článek.Tiskárna vytiskne můj článek.


__________158

Tiskárna vytiskla můj článek.Tiskárna vytiskává můj článek.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte lidi se různě pohybovat v parku. Jak

vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Lidé projdou parkem.Lidé procházejí parkem.Lidé prošli parkem.Lidé šli parkem.Lidé jdou parkem.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20--Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte mladého muž spěchat na nádraží. Je

před budovou nádraží. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Mladý muž vbíhá do nádražní budovy.Mladý muž běžel do nádražní budovy.Mladý muž vběhl do nádražní budovy.Mladý muž běží do nádražní budovy.Mladý muž vběhne do nádražní budovy.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21--Představte si situaci, ve které je Vám zima na ruce. Situaci řešíte tak, že

už delší dobu stojíte u kamen, ve kterých plápolá oheň. Už je Vám skoro teplo. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Zahřála jsem si ruce u kamen.Hřeji si ruce u kamen.Hřála jsem si ruce u kamen.Zahřeji si ruce u kamen.


__________159

Zahřívám si ruce u kamen.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22--Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte Vaši kamarádku Ditu ve dveřích

školní budovy. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Dita odešla ze školy.Dita odchází ze školy.Dita šla ze školy.Dita odejde ze školy.Dita jde ze školy.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23-- Představte si situaci, ve které Váš kamarád vaří. K večeři je smažený

sýr a brambory. Váš kamarád právě čistí brambory a je s tím skoro hotov. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Martin doškrábal brambory.Martin doškrábe brambory.Martin škrábe brambory.Martin doškrabává brambory.Martin škrábal brambory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24-- Představte si situaci, ve které se kajakář nachází na řece. Je už v těsné

blízkosti břehu. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Kajakář připluje ke břehu.Kajakář priplouvá ke břehu.Kajakář připlul ke břehu.Kajakář plul ke břehu.Kajakář pluje ke břehu.


__________160

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25--Představte si situaci, ve které nějaký školák sedí u stolu a píše domácí

úkoly. Vidíte, že je s prací téměř hotov. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Školák dodělal domácí úkoly.Školák dodělá domácí úkoly.Školák dělá domácí úkoly.Školák dodělává domácí úkoly.Školák dělal domácí úkoly.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26-- Představte si, že vidíte, jak mladá slečna stojí u poštovní schránky s

dopisem a chce ho v tento okamžik poslat. Jak to s největší pravděpodobností vyjádříte tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Mladá slečna hází dopis do schránky.Mladá slečna vhodí dopis do schránky. Mladá slečna vhodila dopis do schránky.Mladá slečna házela dopis do schránky.Mladá slečna vhazuje dopis do schránky.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte, jak se děti u rybníka koupají. Jak

vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Děti plavou v rybníku.Děti si zaplavou v rybníku.Děti plavaly v rybníku.Děti si zaplavávají v rybníku.


__________161

Děti si zaplavaly v rybníku.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte skupinu sokolů se připravovat na

slet. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Sokolové se na hřišti rozbíhají na všechny strany.Sokolové se na hřišti rozběhnou na všechny strany.Sokolové na hřišti běhali na všechny strany.Sokolové se na hřišti rozběhli na všechny strany.Sokolové na hřišti běhají na všechny strany.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29--Představte si situaci, ve které pozorujete děti na pískovišti. Jedna

maminka má koláč, který je určen pro všechny děti na pískovišti. Maminka se má hned k činu. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Maminka dělí koláč na stejné díly.Maminka rozděluje koláč na stejné díly.Maminka rozdělila koláč na stejné díly. Maminka dělila koláč na stejné díly.Maminka rozdělí koláč na stejné díly.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte vojáka na manévrech. Je v těsné

blízkosti zátarasy. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Voják se pomalu přiblížil k zátarase.Voják se pomalu blížil k zátarase.Voják se pomalu blíží k zátarase.Voják se přibližoval k zátarase.Voják se přiblíží k zátarase.


__________162

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte dítě hrající si v dešti. Je u kaluže.

Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Dítě přeskakuje kaluž. Dítě překočí přes kaluž.Dítě skáče přes kaluž.Dítě skočilo přes kaluž.Dítě přeskočilo přes kaluž.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32--Představte si situaci, ve které stojí někdo už delší dobu u dřezu

s nádobím a je s prací téměř hotov. Jak to s největší pravděpodobností vyjádříte?1 2 3 4 5*************************Někdo umývá nádobí. Někdo umyl nádobí.Někdo umyje nádobí.Někdo myl nádobí.Někdo myje nádobí.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------33-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte tatínka snažícího se svého syna dát spát.

Dítě leží přitom v kolébce. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?1 2 3 4 5*************************Tatínek pohoupe synka v kolébce.Tatínek houpal synka v kolébce.Tatínek pouhoupal synka v kolébce.Tatínek pouhoupává synka v kolébce.Tatínek houpe synka v kolébce. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


__________163

34-- Představte si situaci, ve které společně s Vaším kolegou u počítače objednáváte knížky přes internet. Právě jste u další knižní objednávky. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************

Jarda poklikal myší na symbol pro objednávku.Jarda poklikne myší na symbol pro objednávku.Jarda kliká myší na symbol pro objednávku.Jarda klikal myší na symbol pro obejdnávku.Jarda poklikává myší na symbol pro objednávku. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

35-- Představte si situaci, ve které vidíte psa Vašeho souseda, který se kolem Vás velmi rychle pohybuje. Jak vyjádříte s největší pravděpodobností tuto situaci?

1 2 3 4 5*************************Pes mého souseda se žene kolem mne.Pes mého souseda se prohnal kolem mne.Pes mého souseda se prohání kolem mne.Pes mého souseda se prožene kolem mne.Pes mého souseda se hnal kolem mne.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vyplňte prosím tyto údaje:

Věk Pohlaví Místo, kde žijete:

Jaké cizí jazyky jste se učili nebo se učíte ve škole? Jak dlouho?

VELMI VÁM DĚKUJI ZA SPOLUPRÁCI!


__________164

Abstract: Results from a series of elicitation studies, including linguistic, eye-tracking, memory data, and speech onset times, comparing Czech, German, as well as Russian native speakers producing verbalizations of a set of short video clips, as well as narrations of a longer silent movie, show a consistent pattern: Czech, even though typologically similar to Russian, clusters in all four measures with German. In other words, Czech and German speakers behave similarly when conceptualizing, verbalizing, and recollecting events. Based on these findings, the present paper argues that the Czech aspectual system has been affected by language contact with German. In particular, a re-analysis of the perfective has led to a verbal form, which allows for the integration of endpoints under the perspective of the deictic now that is expressed as the combination of a perfective (event marked as complete) and the present tense, under a present tense reading. In order to further test this assumption and its validity across a range of tasks, regional varieties of Czech as well as different verb classes, a large questionnaire-based study was conducted, which investigated the temporal-aspectual preferences of Czech native speakers (N=256) in a here-and-now context. The results of this study clearly confirm the previously suggested re-analysis of the present perfective form in that they demonstrate that this form is in combination with a present tense reading by all tested speakers, its use is equally frequent in all regions of the Czech republic (on average by 12% of all speakers tested for a particular region) and it is independent of verb class. Moreover, the same questionnaire-based task was administered to Russian native speakers (N=35): there was not a single occurrence of the present perfective form in the Russian data. In contrast to descriptions in reference grammars, the observed compatibility of the perfective and the present tense in Czech shows a marked difference from the other Slavic languages with respect to grammaticalized aspect. The present findings uncover a language change unique in the European context and shed a new light on German as a contact language. Furthermore, they illustrate the importance of comparing actual usage preferences across languages and using experimental methods.

Keywords: grammatical aspect; present perfective from; Czech; language contact; language change; empirical research; linguistic preferences

Upper Sorbian Aspect__________

__________165

Upper Sorbian and Verbal Aspect 1

Eduard Werner University of Leipzig, Germany

State of Research

The most comprehensive overview over the category of aspect in Upper Sorbian (especially for the literary language) can be found in Werner 2003 and the viewpoint presented there still holds true. Only very few works on Upper Sorbian aspect have been written since. This paper, therefore, largely relies on Werner 2003 and some more recent material.

Leńka Šołćic in her controversial PhD on Upper Sorbian colloquial (Scholze 2008), applies the ILA-theory2 to Upper Sorbian (pp. 271-256), unfortunately completely ignoring Werner 2003, and claims that the derivational aspect system of the Upper Sorbian colloquial does not differ significantly from the Russian one.3 This claim is rejected in this paper.

Katja Brankačkec (2008, 1) sees the main difference in the Russian and Upper Sorbian aspect categories in their potential to form analytic future tense from all verbs: “Nejvýraznější rozdíl od ruštiny je, že v ls. dialektech mohou všechna slovesa tvořit analytické futurum, pf. stejně jako ipf.” This is certainly not true. As is shown below, there are verbs which never form an analytic future tense in Upper Sorbian; but all of these are imperfective.

1 I would like to thank Sabine Asmus for her critical input and many suggestions and corrections.2 Interaction of Lexicon and Aspect, Breu 1999.3 “Prinzipiell unterscheidet sich das derivative Aspektsystem der HSR [Hornjoserbska spisowna rěč = Upper Sorbian Literary Language] in seinem Gebrauch nicht vom Russischen.” (Scholze 2008, 226).

Romano-Bohemica II / Werner__________

__________166

The latest work on aspect in Sorbian is Breu 2012, in which the author also tries to fit Sorbian (literary Upper Sorbian, literary Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian colloquial) into the ILA model. This seems to be inappropriate since aspect in literary Upper Sorbian is not really well described by this model as is shown below. In addition, Lower Sorbian seems to feature quite a different type of aspect (probably due to its different tense system), which is currently investigated. This paper, therefore, focuses on the study of aspect in Upper Sorbian.4

Verb Morphology and Aspect

Aspect-related Restrictions on Verb Inflection

According to contemporary grammars, aspect restricts verb inflection in the following ways:

� The future tense with budu is only allowed if the verb is imperfective and if it is not a directed motion verb like hić, jěć, njesć, lězć etc. This restriction on perfective verbs was first described by Smoler in 1859.5 However, this looks rather like an invented rule and has, therefore, never been accepted in the colloquial or dialects (cf. Faßke 1981, 253). In addition, it is not present in older literature either, and even the most arduous purists do not accept it when the verb is in (marked) initial position, as first pointed out by Faßke 1981, 253: “Es gibt Positionen, in denen eine von perfektiven Verben analytisch gebildete Futurform durchaus korrekt gebraucht und durch eine Präsensform ohne Änderung der Satzbedeutung nicht substituierbar ist. Dies ist der Fall, wenn das Verb der Satzperspektive [...] entsprechend als Thema an die Satzspitze gestellt und akzentuiert ist. Vgl. folgende Belege:Zaklepać hakle njebudu (Słodenk) – Přinjesć jemu nichtó ničo njebudźe (Słodenk) – Ja jemu tyzu dam, ale wočinić ju jemu njebudu (Nawka)”

4 For further references and a comprehensive overview over former discussions of aspect in Upper Sorbian, see Werner 2003.5 Interestingly enough, Smoler 1859 accepts the clearly unacceptable budu hić, wjesć, njesć stating that they are not used, although they would be grammatically correct (p. 8). Furthermore, he does not get his own examples right when he wants to make use of the preterite forms to determine verbal aspect while explicitly claiming that his rule would never fail. This confirms the artificial nature of these rules.


__________167

Brijnen's (2000, 67) assertion that “the analytic perfective future appears to be a typically Sorbian phenomenon, attributed by most linguists to the influence of German” is also surprising because, as shown in Werner 1999, we find analytic future forms of perfective verbs in every single Slavic language which has synthetic preterite forms.

This restriction rule, formulated perhaps because it is the easiest to implement in teaching, has always been the one associated the most with “Slavicity” of Upper Sorbian as can be seen from Wowčerk (1951, 142): “[Es] ist [...] einer der schlimmsten Fehler, von perfektiven Zeitwörtern die Zukunft mit budu zu bilden.”6

� The so-called past transgressive (which strongly resembles a gerund) is said to be derived from perfective verbs. A glance onto the Upper Sorbian text corpus, however, reveals forms like čitawši, rěčawši etc. (from very competent writers like Iselt or Šěca), and old fossiled transgressives like bywši or njetrjebawši. They clearly show that this restriction is artificial, as was already made clear by Faßke in 1981.� It is also maintained that the so-called present transgressive can only be

derived from imperfective verbs. Again, Faßke 1981 contradicted this view. � Another claim is that the present participle can only be derived from

imperfective verbs. This restriction is another artificial one, based on rules in other Slavic languages (like Russian), which 19th-century purists regarded as “more Slavic”.� Another popular statement maintains that the preterite stems and endings

differ within some verbal classes, notably the i-stems and some e-stems.7

6 This claim reflects Upper Sorbian post-war language policy guided by Pan Slavic ideology since it is unclear why using forms which are unmarked in everyday language should count as 'one of the worst mistakes possible' while, for instance, using an incorrect case ending or lexeme would be seen as less faulty.7 Breu´s (2012, 249) claim that it affects all verbs with the exception of a-stems is wrong as can be seen from njesech (ipf) “I carried” vs. ponjesech (pf) “I carried (for a while)”, kupowach “I bought” vs. nakupowach “I bought, went shopping”.


__________168

As such we get pijach (ipf) “I drank”vs. wupich (pf) “I drank up”. This is seemingly a genuine and general difference, not tracing back to 19th-century purism, but well reflected in old manuscripts. Notably the (Catholic) Swětlik bible 1688-1711 and the Swětlik pericopes from 1690 display changes in the stem in practically every single preterite form. It should be pointed out that this is the only area of verb morphology where such a distinction is made and that the oldest protestant bible from 1728 contains a number of "mistakes". Contemporary texts regularly show incorrect preterite forms. As a consequence, the latest edition of the Sorbian spelling dictionary (Völkel 2005) lists the preterite for each verb, so that Upper Sorbian teachers have a chance to use them correctly even when using them independently.

Having addressed major issues of Upper Sorbian verb morphology with respect to verbal aspect the following can be stated:

There are no general restrictions on the formation of verb forms which are linked to aspect. Only the variation of preterite forms can be associated with aspect, but from a Sorbian viewpoint this differentiation rather creates two different classes of verbs, similar to noun inflection. Future tense forms can generally be formed analytically with budu with the exceptions of być, měć and the directed verbs of motion (hić, běžeć, njesć, lězć, wjesć, wjezć, lećeć). All these exceptions, however, are imperfective, not perfective.

The cause of the aforementioned invented grammatical rules, which deviate clearly from actual language use is the former attempt of the Maćica Serbska to create an Upper Sorbian literary language modeled on Czech and Polish. As the majority of the speakers was rather uneducated, their tongue was to be improved and made genuine “Slavic”. Since grammatical aspect was, as said before, at that time thought to antedate Proto-Slavic and even Balto-Slavic, Upper Sorbian was now to be equiped with the category of grammatical aspect, too. In light of 20th century linguistic research, such acting does not seem to mirror historical developments. Brauner 1961 showed that Lithuanian has no grammatical aspect,


__________169

thus contradicting the theory of a Balto-Slavic verbal aspect. In 1994, Bermel revealed that the Russian aspect system may not have developed before the Old Russian period.

Indeed, for Old Church Slavonic we can say that it seemed to have regularly used those verbs for the formation of the analytic future with budu, i.e. bǫdǫ (which served as a futurum exactum), which we would nowadays consider to be perfective verbs (Leskien 1969, 19: “jegda bǫdetъ prišьlъ = quando advenerit”).

Basic concepts of aspect

In this chapter, a brief look at some of the commonly accepted concepts of aspect (cf. Chatterjee 1988) is taken.

Telicity

Following Breu 2012, telicity is looked at first. Telicity, i.e. the arriving or not arriving at a certain “threshold” like succeeding or not succeeding in doing something, has been one of the main criteria of grammatical aspect since Maslov 1948. Classical examples are the following Russian ones (cf. Werner 2003, 31f.):

Он открывал окно, но не открыл.He opened_ipf [the] window, but [did] not open_pf [it].He tried to open the window, but did not succeed.

Он сдавал экзамен, но не сдал.He took_part_ipf [in the] exam, but [did] not pass_pf.

In Upper Sorbian, these examples would be completely unintelligible:*Wón je wokno wočinjał, ale njeje je wočinił.

*Wón je eksamen złožował, ale njeje je złožił.


__________170

However, it may be argued that telicity as expressed in the Russian examples could be expressed lexically by establishing verb pairs, such as looking for and to find. These would work in classical non-aspect languages such as German and English, but they have never been suggested as aspect pairs. When narrowing down the definition of aspect pairs to morphological proximity (as done in the most consequent way by Faßke 1981, who only accepts verbs with different suffixes as possible aspect partners, see above), commonly accepted cases of suppletion (in Russian, see below) would have to be excluded:

Кто брал щи, но не взял?

Who took_ipf cabbage soup, but [did] not take_pf?Who ordered cabbage soup, but did not take it?

The lack of such a telicity feature in Sorbian was first noted by Ščerba (1915, 121) for the dialect of Muskau/Mužakow. The auhor stated: “Мне кажется, что перфективность в том виде, как мы ее себе представляем в русском, вовсе не существует в мужаковском.”8 Therefore, it is possible to use the ipf. aspect in Sorbian even though the action has been successfully accomplished, e.g.:

Kopica rozhłosowych a telwizijnych stacijow bě we wsy mikrofony a kamery nastajała_ipf.9

A number of radio and TV stations had put_up_ipf microphones and cameras in the village.

Pětr namaka skedźbnje pytajo hněžko lěsneje tujawki, kiž bě na zemi twarjene_ipf kaž mólička pěc.10

8 “It seems to me, that perfectivity in the sense as we imagine it in Russian, does not exist at all in the Mužakow dialect.” [Orthography changed by E.W.] The examples which led Ščerba to this conclusion are of the type kachle stajeć and are discussed later in this article.9 Jurij Koch, Měrćinowy miksmaks z myšacym motorom, 1710 From the draft version of a guide on orthography by the Upper Sorbian Language Committee.


__________171

Peter found after careful searching a wood dove's nest which was built_ipf on the ground like a tiny oven.

Incidence

The occurrence of incidence alone has been used as a sufficient claim for the existence of grammatical aspect (e.g. Koschmieder 1934, Pollak 1960). It refers to an ongoing action A1 in relation to an action of short duration A2. In a classical setup, grammatical aspect would then require an ipf verb for A1 and a pf verb for A2. If both A1 and A2 use ipf verbs, simultaneous actions are expressed and if both were formed by use of pf verbs, episodical reading would be the result (first A1, then A2).

In many Slavic languages, such distinctions can only be made by means of aspect, i.e. grammaticalised aspect. However, in Upper Sorbian, such differences can be expressed by using different tenses; which other Slavic languages lost long ago (e.g. Czech and Polish, on which, as abovementioned, the Upper Sorbian literary language was modeled in the 19th century). Compare the following Russian examples (cited after Werner 2003, 54ff.):

Когда я пришeл_pf, он уже поливал_ipf цветы.When I came, he already was_watering [the] flowers.

Когда я пришeл_pf, он уже полел_pf цветы.When I came_pf, he already had_watered [the] flowers.

which display the use of verbal aspect to express incidence with Upper Sorbian (below), which makes use of different tense forms of the verb in this case:

Jako přińdźech_pf, wón hižo kwětki krjepješe_ipf.When I came, he already was_watering [the] flowers.

Jako přińdźech_pf, bě wón hižo kwětki krjepił_ipf.When I came_pf, he already had_watered [the] flowers.


__________172

As can be seen, it is the use of a certain tense in Upper Sorbian which expresses incidence, not verbal aspect. Consequently, the subordinate clause can feature an imperfective verb:11

Jako nutř dźěch_ipf, wón hižo kwětki krjepješe_ipf.When I came_in_ipf, he already was_watering [the] flowers.

Jako nutř dźěch_ipf, bě wón hižo kwětki krjepił_ipf.When I came_in_ipf, he already had_watered [the] flowers.

The only restriction here is that wokrjepić_pf cannot be used to render “to be watering”. However,this is a lexical restriction on the verb and cannot be assigned to verbal aspect since other pf. verbs can be used in this context:

Jako nutř dźěch_pf, je sej wón runje wobraz wobhladał.When [I] went_pf in, he was looking_pf at the picture.

This sentence can also be understood as “when I went in, he had just looked at the picture” (again, another tense can be used to enforce this reading: jako nutř dźěch, bě sej wón runje wobraz wobhladał). Therefore, it is not grammatical aspect, but the speech situation, which disambiguates the sentence in Upper Sorbian. To illustrate this context-dependent disambiguation, a look at the following example from the Upper Sorbian orthography guide is given:

Płakajo_ipf běžeše_ipf Hilža, durje za sobu zaprasnywši_pf, ze jstwy.

Crying_ipf_ran_ipfHilža out of the room, having slammed_pf thedoors behind her.

This is a correct sentence, although the order of the actions is seemingly illogical, since normally one has to run out of the door first (crying or not) before one can slam it behind oneself. But this does not seem to matter. The sentence is well-formed and incidence impossible due to shared experiences of the speakers;

11 The added nutř “in” is not necessary for grammaticality, but a simple dźěch would not make clear whether the intended meaning is “to come” or “to go away”.


__________173

though one verb is perfective and the other imperfective. Context-dependent disambiguation would, of course, also allow for

episodical reading (first A1, then A2) if both verbs were imperfective (this is impossible for instance in Russian):

Wón je list čitał_ipf a je šoł_ipf preč.He read_ipf [the] letter and went_ipf away.

Aspect use in Upper Sorbian is largely tied to the verb in question, i.e. it is rather a lexical phenomenon. The two verbs under review here (wokrjepić and wobhladać) do not follow the same combination rules, for instance, when used with adverbs such as dołho “for a long time”, although they are both perfective:

Wón je dołho kwětki krjepił_ipf/*wokrjepił_pf.He has been watering the flowers for a long time.Wón je sej dołho wobraz wobhladał_pf/wobhladował_ipf.He has been looking at the picture for a long time.

From a “Pan Slavic” point of view, as seen in the 19th century, it is tempting to explain the first example as featuring grammatical aspect and to reject the second one as German influence; hoping for conjectured Proto-Slavic features at work in the background instead. This was the prevailing approach among Sorbian linguists for quite some time. However, as aforementioned, this concept was convincingly refuted by Bermel 1994. It is, therefore, much more likely that the Upper Sorbian way of displaying a morphological rather regular way of expressing lexical aspectuality is the original one. If so, simplification of the tense system in other Western and Eastern Slavonic languages may have led to the grammaticalisation of aspect to express incidence and other nuances which had formerly been expressed by varying use of tenses.

Actual present

That perfective verbs cannot be used to express actual present tense is according to Chatterjee (1988, 50) “one of the sacred cows of Slavic aspect lore”.


__________174

A special case are the so-called performative verbs which have recently been investigated by Werner (forthcoming) and which largely support Faßke (1981, 183). The latter states that the verb used is the morphologically least marked whatever its aspect is; the other verbs are usually unacceptable:

Wjela, zakazam_pf/*zakazuju_ipf wam chodźić na serbske schadźowanki.Wjela, I forbid you to go to Sorbian students' meetings.

In this case, zakazuju is not performative, but it would rather mean something like “I have the habit of not allowing you this”. The same holds for non-performative verbs which express an immediate accomplishment in a talk; this has sometimes been termed praesens effectivum (Werner 2003, 42):

To pak je rjenje, zo će tu zetkam_pf/*zetkawam_ipf.That however is nice, that you here I_meet.How nice to meet you here!

Tole ći dam_pf/*dawam_ipf.I give you this (while handing it over).

This has already been noted by Awgust Sykora (notably in his unpublished manuscript of 1904) who, therefore, strongly opposed the language policy of the Maćica Serbska (Werner 2003, 43).

The use of perfective verbs to express actual present can also be found in older literature as is shown in the following example by Jan Radyserb-Wjela, one of the greatest experts on Sorbian, displaying the use of a so-called aktionsart verb (Werner 2003, 39):

„Zapłać Bóh, knježe“, ja stanywši prajach, „poswačće sobu! to njemóžu prajić, hdyž runje pomazki dojěm_pf, a pólki sej njezwěrju skićić!““Thanks a lot, sir”, I, getting up, said, “Eat with me, I cannot say, as I am


__________175

just about to finish_pf my sandwiches, and the bottle I dare not offer!”

This is clearly in line with the contemporary use of aspect in Upper Sorbian where – contrary to what Slavic aspect lore would predict – a perfective verb is expected, e.g. in captions and titles of illustrations (Werner 2003, 41f.).

In addition, there are some imperfective verbs which surprisingly cannot be used to express actual present in spite of the fact that the action to be expressed takes some time and can be watched. These verbs are the indetermined verbs of motion (and contrast with the directed verbs of motion discussed under 'state of research'), e.g., chodźić “to (be able to) walk” or “to go (regulary)”. In neither meaning can the action expressed be performed right now under the eyes of the speaker and, therefore, cannot be watched:

Naš hólc hižo chodźi.Our boy can already walk.

Naša dźowka hižo do šule chodźi.Our daughter already goes to school.

But it would be impossible to say:

*Hladaj, wón runje do šule chodźi!*Look, he is just going to school!

In this case only hić is possible:

Hladaj, wón runje do šule dźe!Look, he is just going to school!

although both verbs, chodźić and hić, are imperfective. Therefore, the possibility of the impossibility of using a verb to express an action, which is performed here and now, cannot be linked to aspect. Again, this does not mean that any verb can be used to express a “real” present; many cannot and many of those


__________176

that cannot are perfective verbs. I merely deny the assumption that these verbs cannot express actual present because they are perfective. The restriction on their use is due to their semantics which allows or disallows for their use in order to express actual present.

Phase verbs

According to common oppinion and tradition, phase verbs, especially “to begin”, normally combine with imperfective verbs.12 Even Chatterjee (1988, 45ff.), who examines diverse contexts for perfective and imperfective verbs systematically and lists counterexamples to common aspect lore, does not comment on combinations with phase verbs (Werner 2003, 44f.)

The abovementioned combination rule is also claimed for Upper Sorbian and thus displayed in its grammars, which consequently require an imperfective verb with phase verbs (e.g. Faßke 1981, 180). Therefore we can hardly expect to find many counterexamples in Upper Sorbian publications since they are proof-read by linguistically trained professionals. However, in Werner (2003, 45ff.), there is a list of quite a number of counterexamples to this rule, compiled from writings of renowned writers like Handrij Zejler, Marja Kubašec, Awgust Sykora, Bjarnat Krawc, Jan Radyserb-Wjela and others. Moreover, examples like

Sym hižo započał přednošk wudźěłać_pf. I have already started to work on (the final version of) my talk.

To pokazuje na to, zo je so aspektowy system w serbšćinje hižo započało rozpušćić_pf.This indicates that the aspect system in Sorbian has already started to

12 Cf. Vaillant (1948, 305): “Il n'existe donc pas de critère rigoreux de l'aspect d´un verbe, si ce n'est que l'aspect imperfectif est obligatoire après ‹ comencer ›.” or Brauner 1961, 254: “Die Position eines Verbs nach den Ausdrücken ,beginnen‘ und ,aufhören‘ gilt in der Aspektforschung als sicherstes Kennzeichen für seinen nichtperfektiven Charakter. [...] In allen slawischen Sprachen wird in dieser Stellung jedes Verb konsequent in seiner imperfektiven Form verwendet.”


__________177

dissolve.13

show that the literary evidence cannot be simply explained as being faulty or idiosyncratic. To further investigate the examples in question, I listed them all (a) in their orginal form and (b) supplemented them with two modified forms using imperfective verbs (when possible). For the first modification, I derived a secondary imperfective verb by suffixation; for the second one, I replaced the perfective form by the non-prefixed verb. Then I showed all the forms to various competent native speakers (men and women of different age, provenience and education) and asked them to assess all the expressions. The result was surprising: I had expected them to prefer at least one of the sentences using imperfective verbs, and be it only due to their knowledge of the language and school education. But instead, there were clear cases where the informants were completely indifferent to the variation and told me that the examples are identical (I had to repeat them several times until they understood that they differed in the forms used), as for instance in the following one:

dokelž bych nětko rady započał uwertěru skomponować_pf (Krawc)dokelž bych nětko rady započał uwertěru komponować_ipf because I would now like to start composing an ouverture

Referring to other examples, I was told that both sentences were correct, but that they differ in meaning:

Nětko pak sym [...] swoje njedostatki najprjedy spóznawać so prócował, ale tež hižo so porjedźić_pf započał. (Bryl)

Nětko pak sym [...] swoje njedostatki najprjedy spóznawać so

13 Both examples are from highly competent Upper Sorbian native speakers; both are renowned linguists and both are convinced that Sorbian has grammatical aspect and that the perfective aspect is never used with a phase verb. This clearly shows how language praxis can differ from theory.


__________178

prócował, ale tež hižo so porjedźeć_ipf započał.14

But now I have first tried to see my insufficiencies, but then I have already started to become a better person.

Here I was told that the first sentence implies that the speaker has already improved (or at least he thinks so), while the second sentence sounds rather like an excuse for not having improved yet. Ascan be clearly seen, aspectuality comes into play here; but not as a grammatical category. Aspect is again linked to the semantics of the verb.

In most cases, however, the native speakers clearly preferred the sentences with the perfective verbs, as is shown in the following example:

[...] ale hdyž to napjate wočakowanje widźeše a tu třepotacunjesćerpliwosć koło wokoło sebje začuwaše, poča so tež sam sćoplić_pf. But when he saw the anxious anticipation and felt the buzzing unrest, he, too, started to get agitated_pf.

Here, the perfective verb is given preference to the alternatives offered, i.e. ćoplićand sćopleć. (Werner 2003, 45ff.) Again, whereas one could think of idiosyncratic language use here, an explanation based on potential use of grammatical aspect would be at fault. Therefore, in spite of the fact that phase verbs are usually combined with imperfective verbs, it is improper to say that perfective verbs are impossible in this context. Indeed, evidence presented suggests that there are cases in which the perfective verb is even preferred.

Semantics of Upper Sorbian Aspect

Having discussed and rejected major important standard guidelines for the use of verbal aspect generally found in Upper Sorbian grammars, some remarks regarding the core semantics of Upper Sorbian aspect are advocated here: In some

14 Theoretically, there are two more possibilities and I offered them, too. But so rjedźić is unacceptable for semantic reasons (it means “to clean oneself”, not “to improve”), and so porjedźować was rejected unconditionally.


__________179

of the example sentences with phase verbs and perfective verbs, the perfective verb was rejected by the native speakers; [...] su započeli wjes sporjedźeć “they started to clear up the village” (Njechorński); two speakers stated that sporjedźeć is impossible because tidying up the village takes a considerable amount of time.

It is interesting to see that this criterion is completely in line with the examples which were problematic for Ščerba 1913 as well as with contemporary Upper Sorbian in cases like:

Sym runje při tym, krótki tekst přełožić_pf.I am just translating a short text.Ja sej runje tutón wobraz wobhladam_pf.I am just looking at this picture.

The choice of aspect here reflects the speaker's subjective estimation of the duration of the action. If the action is expected to be short, then the perfective verb is preferred, while a longer or repeated action is expressed by a (marked) imperfective verb as can be seen in the following examples:

Sym runje při tym, krótki tekst přełožować_ipf.Ja sej runje tutón wobraz wobhladuju_ipf.

These sentences are, therefore, perfectly acceptable (and according to Upper Sorbian grammars, they are the only acceptable ones). However, using the imperfective verb might lead to the question as to why it is taking so long (to translate this little text) or as to what is so special about the picture (that it has to be scrutinised over and over again).

This is also a valid explanation for the use of the imperfective aspect in the example from Jurij Koch:

Kopica rozhłosowych a telwizijnych stacijow bě we wsy mikrofony a kamery nastajała_ipf.15

A number of radio and TV stations had put_up_ipf microphones and cameras in the village.

15 Jurij Koch, Měrćinowy miksmaks z myšacym motorom, 17


__________180

The imperfective aspect simply implies that there were so many microphones and cameras that putting them all up must have taken a considerable amount of time.

The issue of duration also explains the following oppositions analysed in Werner (2003, 52): Looking at a parachute jumper hanging at the parachute one would say:

Hladaj, kak wón pada_ipf.Look, how he is falling.

However, using the perfective verbHladaj, kak wón padnje_pf.Look, how he is falling.could suggest the unfortunate case when the parachute does not open.

Summary

Contrary to other Slavic languages, postulating a grammatical aspect for Upper Sorbian is highly problematic. This finds confirmation by exceptions found in all contexts in which grammatical aspect would, according to “Slavic aspect lore”, normally be used, i.e. when expressing actual present, incidence, and when combining with phase verbs.

It is, however, easy to find examples which do resemble aspect use in other Slavic languages. But dividing these examples into “genuine” ones and those to be rejected because they seem to derive from the influence of German is rather improper. Indeed, there is no evidence that Upper Sorbian ever featured grammatical aspect nor that such an assumed archaic system had been destroyed under the influence of German.

Grammatical verbal aspect emerged in post-Proto-Slavic times from regular morphological developments at that time. In Upper Sorbian this does not seem to have happened, which is at least partly due to its rich tense system. This equips its speakers with an interesting lexical-morphological aspect system, in which the commonly accepted aspect “pairs” like wobhladać/wobhladować exhibit semantic variation similar to those found in aktionsart verbs.

Therefore, it seems more appropriate to talk about a lexico-semantical aspect in Upper Sorbian, which is in many cases formed by use of normal morphological means. With regard to morphology, perfective and imperfective verbs constitute two classes which differ in the way the preterite is formed.


__________181

References

Bermel, N. H. A., 1994. Context and the Lexicon in the Development of Russian Aspect. Ann Arbor/Mich.

Brankačkec, Katja, 2008. Vid v hornolužické srbštině from http://slawisches.verb.slav-verb.org/subdomain.verb.slav-verb.org/Brankackec_files/Brankackec2008a.pdf 15.01.2013

Brauner, S., 1961. Die Position von ,beginnen‘ (bzw. ,aufhören‘) mit präfigierten Verben im Litauischen: Zur Frage des Verbalaspekts im Baltischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 6 (1961), 254-259

Breu, Walter, 2012. Aspect forms and functions in Sorbian varieties. Language Typology and Universals. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 65 (2012) 3, 246-266

Breu, Walter, 2000. Der Verbalaspekt in der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Rahmen eines ILA-Modells. Slavistische Linguistik 1999. Ed. W. Breu. München 2000, 37-76

Brijnen, Hélène, 2000. German Influence on Sorbian Aspect: The function of directional adverbs. Gilbers, Nerbonne and Schaeken (eds.), Languages in Contact (=Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics vol. 28), 67-71. Amsterdam - Atlanta, GA: Rodopi

Chatterjee, R., 1988. Aspect and Meaning in Slavic and Indic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia

Faßke, Helmut, 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart Morphologie. Verfaßt unter Mitarbeit von Siegfried Michalk. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag.

Leskien, August, 1969. Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. 9. Aufl. Carl Winter Universitätsverlag – Heidelberg

Lötzsch, Ronald, 1956. Характер влияния немецкого языка на словоизменение имени и глагола верхнелужицкого языка. Ленинград (unpublished PhD)

Lötzsch, Ronald, 1998. Wliw němčiny : Gramatiska interferenca a purizm we wuwiću serbšćiny. H. Faska (ed.), Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich: Serbšćina, Opole, 77-87

Maslov, Ju., 1948. Vid i leksičeskoe značenie glagola v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Isvestija AN SSSR, Otdelenie literatury i jazyka 7

Scholze, Lenka, 2008. Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Sprachkontakt. Schriften des sorbischen Instituts 45. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag.

Smoler, J. E., 1859. Přichodny čas serbskeho słowjesa. ČMS 12 (1859), 7-14


__________182

Ščerba, L.V., 1915. Восточнолужицое нарҍчие : Der ostniedersorbische Dialekt, 1915, fotomechanischer Nachdruck Bautzen 1973.

Vaillant, A., 1948. Manue de vieux slave, Paris.Völkel, Pawoł, 2005. Prawopisny słownik : wobdźěłany wot Tima Meškanka,

Budyšin.Wowčerk, Pawoł, 1951. Kurzgefasste obersorbische Grammatik. Verlag Volk und

Wissen, Berlin/Leipzig 1951Werner, Eduard, forthcoming. Performativity in Upper Sorbian. I. Žagar (ed.).

Aspect and Performativity in Slavic Languages. Werner, Eduard, 2003. Die Verbalaffigierung im Obersorbischen. Schriften des

sorbischen Instituts 34. Bautzen: Domowina-VerlagWornar, Edward, 1999. [=Eduard Werner]. Analytiski futur perfektiwnych werbow

w hornjoserbšćinje. Lětopis 46 (1999), Wosebity zešiwk, 168-172

Abstract

Verbal aspect has been described controversially and rather emotionally for many years. This is due to the fact that during the national awakening in the 19th century, aspect – which had then been thought to antedate Proto-Slavic and to be at least Balto-Slavic – was identified as one of the hallmarks of “Slavicity”, especially since the Upper Sorbian literary language designed by the Maćica Serbska was modeled on Czech and Polish, which both feature aspect as a grammatical category. However, according to early linguistic descriptions (Ščerba 1915, Lötzsch 1956) Upper Sorbian has no grammatical aspect; a fact which was attributed to the influence of German. Therefore, the puristic approach taken was to divide the examples of aspect provided into “genuine” ones (i.e. those which resembled aspect use in other Slavic languages) and “others” (i.e. those which were assigned to the „destructive“ influence of German). After more recent works (notably Bermel 1994) showed that aspect had largely developed independently in the individual Slavic languages, a new hypothesis was posed, i.e. that Upper Sorbian had not lost the verbal aspect as a grammatical category, but that it had never had it in the first place. The assumed reason is that Upper Sorbian did not undergo those changes which led to the grammaticalisation of an original lexical category as shown in Werner 2003.

Key Words: Upper Sorbian, Sorbian, verbal aspect, purism, panslavic, literary language

Arabic and Russian__________

__________183

Verbal Aspect. A Contrastive Study of Arabic and Russian

Iulia Anamaria Alexandru University of Bucharest

Tense and aspect can be described as being two different ways of looking at time. Tenses can be seen as linear actions that stretch from the past into the future, from the speaker’s point of view, whereas aspect refers to the degree of completeness of an action or state. Consequently, it can be said that when talking in terms of aspects the main concern is if the action is completed, partial, ongoing or yet to occur. Therefore, analyzing a language from the point of view of tenses or aspects is just a matter of perspective, since tenses focus on the point when the action occurs, while aspects deal with the completeness of the action.

The notion of ‘aspect’ (also called ‘viewpoint’ or ‘perspective’) and ‘Aktionsart’ (also called ‘lexical aspect’, ‘aspectual class’, ‘aspectual character’, ‘actionality’, ‘situation type’ as well as few other terms) are concerned with the temporal semantics of an utterance in terms of the time intervals (also termed ‘phases’) conceptualized in the construal of the situation expressed by that utterance. The fundamental criterion is the inclusion or non-inclusion of starting points and / or end-points (‘boundaries’) in the conceptualization of the situation. (Sasse 2006: 535).

On the other hand, Gustave Guillaume offers us his own theory regarding aspects and tenses, by saying that the aspect is the interiorised side of the verb, whilst tenses are what the verb exteriorizes, thus aspects have more to do with semantics and tenses with grammar. (Anghelescu 2004: 390).

Another linguist Dowty points out the traits we look for when we deal with aspects, as well as the differences between aspects and tenses. Thus, she states:

“Aspect is distinguished from tense from the point of view of semantics in that tenses (like the tense operators of standard tense logics) serve to relate the

Romano-Bohemica II / Alexandru__________

__________184

time of a situation described to the time of speaking (as in past, present and future tenses) whereas aspect markers serve to distinguish such things as whether the event is a single or repeated one and whether the event is completed or possibly left incomplete.” (Anghelescu 2004: 390).

In addition to the above, Eugenio Coseriu refers to the aspect as a complex and multidimensional category, which may be considered from a variety of points of view: quantity as in length of process, number, we can have either a unique or a multiple action, extremities, an initial and a final point, the result, the objective phase which refers to the point where the action arrives to, relations with other actions, determination or objective orientation (for example in a certain direction) and determination based on a certain time, for example ‘from now on’ and ‘until this moment’ (Anghelescu, 2004: 391).

Also, Coseriu suggests that there might be languages, which don’t actually have the category of aspect, but can express aspectual values throughout lexical means or other grammatical means. And here, Coseriu gives the example of the Slavic languages, where he remarks ‘l’aspect prévaut sur le temps et se present des qu’il existe une notion verbale.’ This is what he calls a prototype aspect, as opposed to the aspect of the romance languages, where the aspect remains in the shadow of the tenses. (Anghelescu 2004: 392).

When referring to aspectual values, we usually tend to rely on oppositions, amongst them perfective / imperfective, static or dynamic, inchoative, durative, terminative, and so on.

What we above called perfective and imperfective can usually be found in the Slavic languages, where the aspect is expressed at a lexical level, therefore the verb at the infinitive form already carries the value of the perfective or the imperfective.

In Russian, the category of aspect has usually to do with quality and quantity. From the quality point of view, the category of aspect expresses the abstract value of the notion, called ‘internal limit of an action’ (vnutrenij predel), which presents the action as a whole, as something that cannot be divided focusing on the accomplishment of the action, therefore it refers to the perfective aspect. Also, the internal limit can express the limitation or the concentration on a certain moment of


__________185

the action. Thus, we can conclude that all the verbs in Russian show that the action which they express, might have or not an internal limit. (Iurac 2008: 175).

We call the perfective aspect in Russian soveršenyj vid, whilst the imperfective aspect, nesoveršenyj vid.

The internal limit, which we were previously referring to, is a characteristic of the perfective aspect, by reaching the limit, the action comes to an end, stops, obtains a certain result. Opposed to the perfective verbs, come the imperfective ones, which don’t clearly express this value, since they refer to a habitual or general action, an action that is not close to the end, and that is in progress at the moment of speaking, it is an action that occurs on a considerable length of time or a repeated one.

With respect to the Arabic Language, the Arabic verb has a root, usually formed of three consonants, which presents itself, as a simple, primary base or as derived forms, with the help of internal flexion or by attaching affixes. The Arabic verb doesn’t have an infinitive form, and thus in order to be able to refer to a verb, most linguists rely on the third, singular person of the perfective, since it is the form less marked by affixed or internal flexion. However, there are those who prefer the so-called, long infinitive, the verbal name, although this last option is often criticized, because it implies analyzing a verb throughout a noun derived from it.

In Arabic, as in other Semitic languages, the aspect is usually referred to in relation with the two forms of conjugation, the perfective, called by Arab linguists al-māḍī ’past’ and by European linguists perfective or accompli, in French, in order to distinguish it from the Slavic languages and the imperfective, called in Arabic al‑muḍārī ‘similar, resembling’, or in French inaccompli. These two forms are usually illustrated in the Arabic works, throughout the usage of the verb qatala – yaqtulu ‘to kill’. The perfective is formed in Arabic from the root of consonants, with the help of internal flexion and suffixes, while the imperfective is derived from the initial root, with the help of both suffixes and prefixes. The imperfective form is known as similar, as in similar to the noun, since it can change ending as the noun and furthermore there are some common marks between the verb at the imperfective form and a noun. (Anghelescu 2004: 405).

It is important to mention, that unlike Russian, where each verb has its own aspect, perfective or imperfective, and where we usually have aspectual pairs,


formed by two verbs, which carry almost the same meaning, like pisat’- napisat’ ‘to write’, čitať – pročitať ‘to read’, delať – sdelať ‘to do’ and so on, Arabic language forms both the perfective and imperfective stems from the same root; the perfective in Arabic, qatala is mostly linked to the past, while the imperfective has four moods, indicative, yaqtulu, subjunctive yaqtula, jussive yaqtul and imperative uqtul.

On the contrary, in Russian, verbs of perfective aspect have both past (napisal) and simple future (napišu), since they express an action that is sure to be completed, either in the past or in the future, whilst verbs of imperfective aspect can form the present (čitaju) and the compound future (budu čitať).

For example, the sentences On napisal staťju and On pisal staťju have different meanings, even though we might translate them in the same manner ‘He wrote an article’. However, in the first sentence the verb napisal indicates that the action is completed, and we have a result, thus the internal limit of the action was reached, while in the second case, pisal, the result is not very clear, the action is just mentioned, without any hint to its result, thus the internal limit of the action wasn’t reached. (Iurac 2008: 177).

Returning to Arabic, the resemblance between the imperfective and the noun can be noticed both at an external level, since the subjective / nominative case and the indicative have the same grammatical mark at certain persons -u, and so does the accusative and the subjunctive, having the grammatical mark -a.

This resemblance can also be caught in the content, since both an adjective, a participle and a noun derived from a verb and the imperfective express a state, which is not marked from the temporal point of view, and many times only creates the frame, in which the action happens. For example:

ǧā’a ḍāḥikan ‘He came laughing’. ǧā’a wa-huwa yaḍḥaku , which literarily means ‘He came and he was

laughing’, and thus ‘He came laughing’.Kuryłowicz believes that the opposition between the form without prefixes,

and the form with prefixes, usually referred to in Arabic grammars throughout the verb qatala – yaqtulu ‘to kill’, can be defined as an opposition non-preterit / preterit in relation with speech time, but also as an opposition between simultaneity/ anteriority. Kuryłowicz also points out that the imperfective is mostly

__________186


__________187

referred to the present or a linear action, while the perfective is connected to the preterit or to a punctual action. Based on the last observation, we can explain while sometimes we get a verb at the perfective form, when we would be expecting an imperfective one. This feature of the perfective seems to be traced back to its ability of expressing a punctual and a dynamic action. For example the verbs fahima ‘he understood’ and calima ‘he knew’ express a result, an achievement when being used at the perfective form, while they convey a state when being used at the imperfective mood yafham ‘he understand’ and yaclam ‘he knows’ (Anghelescu 2004: 406).

On the other hand, Wright states that the two forms were often designed in the past preterit and future, which doesn’t accurately corresponds to the ideas inherent in them.

Following his opinion, a Semitic perfect of imperfect has, in and of itself, no reference to the temporal relations of the speaker (thinker or writer) and of other actions, which are brought into juxtaposition with it. Thus, he notes that these precise relations tell us in what sphere of time, if either past, present or future, a Semitic perfect or imperfect lies, and by which of the English tenses it could be expressed, as it can convey the meanings of past, perfect, plus-perfect, future-perfect, present, imperfect or future (Wright 1996: 51).

The imperfective generally indicates an incomplete action, continuous or habitual, that is just commencing or in progress and the time reference depends on the context. (Badawi 2007: 364, Wright 1996: 51).

The imperfective form can also describe the idea of a possibility, and this feature when combined with the passive voice can have the same semantic meaning as the adjectives ending in –able, for example manẓarun lā yūṣafu ‘a view

indescribable’ šay’un yu’kalu ‘something eatable’ (Anghelescu 2004: 407). In addition, the usage of particle qad, comes to strengthen the value of the

imperfective that expresses a possibility, a eventuality and emphasizes the actuality and dynamic aspects of the event: wa-qad ya’tī fī l-fuṣūli l-‘uḫrā ‘It can come in the other seasons’ (Badawi 2007: 367).

Also, the future is many times expressed by the simple usage of the imperfective, although we often find in Modern Standard Arabic the particle sawfa


__________188

or just –s, attached to the verb to emphasize on the fact the action will occur in the future. On the other hand, it is known that the future in many Arabic dialects, is expressed with the usage of the verb of movement rāḥa ‘to go’, which becomes a grammatical morpheme.

Although the imperfective alone cannot express other than future and present actions, when used with the particle lam and the jussive mood it can form the negative past:

lam taǧid ǧawāban ‘You have not found an answer’ (Badawi 2007: 363).As in many other languages, the perfective can convey certain modal

values, that are not real, amongst them: optative: cāšat suriyā l-‘assad ‘Long Live

Assad’s Syria!’ raḥimahu allāh ‘May God forgive him!’, conditional ‘iḏa ḏahabta,

ḏahabtu macak ‘if you go, I will go with you.’. In addition, the usage of the perfective, where we would expect an imperfective form, helps to emphasize, for example kaḏibta! ‘You lie!’, literally ‘You lied!’ (Anghelescu 2004: 410).

Furthermore, there are many examples of this usage of the perfective in the Koran allaḏīna ‘amanū ‘those who believe’, literally ‘those who believed’, and allaḏīna kafarū ‘those who sin’, literally ‘those who sinned’ (Anghelescu 2004: 410).

In addition, Comrie points out in his work that in written Arabic the two sets of form whether we refer to them as aspects, tenses or states can be seen as combined tense/ aspect oppositions (Comrie 2001: 78).

In Comrie’s example fa-llāhu yaḥkumu baynahum yawma l-qiyāmati ‘But God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection’, he states that although the verbal form in this sentence has future time reference, since the Day of Resurrection is to take place, however the sentence is not (or at least, not necessarily) interpreted as having imperfective meaning, indeed it could correspond to a sentence in a Slavic language with Perfective Aspect (Comrie, 2001: 79).

As mentioned before, there is only one perfect stem, with no moods. Thus the compound tenses and modalities are created with both perfect and imperfect forms of the verb kāna ‘to be’. We can say that the perfect corresponds in many situations to both the English simple past and perfect (Badawi 2007: 363).


__________189

The perfective, similar to the imperfective can be preceded by the particle qad, but in this it won’t express the possibility as it does with the imperfective form, but it will denote a specifically past and complete event, in other words, qad reinforces the perfective aspect of this verb form:

qad ḥaqqaqtu ‘I have actually achieved.’

la-qadi ntahat dumūcī…la-qad yabisat ‘My tears just stopped...they just dried up.’ (Badawi 2007: 366).

Focusing again on Russian, our last idea was related to the fact that many Russian verbs tend to form aspectual pairs. However, the opposition can be defined as a ‘pure’ one only when both of the parts carry the exact same lexical meaning of the verb, like gotoviť – prigotoviť ‘to prepare’, radovať – obradovať ‘to be happy’. This feature is not valid in the case of all the verbs of Russian, hence even though each verb is defined by a certain aspect, it is not said that it will have an aspectual opponent. As a result, besides the verbs with a complete paradigm, there are those who only have one form, either perfective or imperfective (Iurac 2008: 176).

Thus, we can conclude that the aspectual system of the Russian verbs is made out of pairs of verbs, formed by a perfective one and imperfective one, biaspectual verbs, meaning the verbs which have one form for both perfective and imperfective aspects, and monoaspectual verbs, referring to the verbs that have only one aspect, either perfective or imperfective (Iurac 2008: 177).

Although, the aspect matter in Arabic doesn’t resemble the Russian aspectual system, both languages encounter many similarities when referring to aspectual values. These values are commonly referred to as Aktionsart, which is traditionally defined as a lexically inherent semantic property of the simple verb, characterizing the phase time structure of the event it denotes, i.e., the various intervals of its development (beginning, end, repetition, etc.) (Sasse, 2006: 535).

The first attempt to differentiate between grammatical aspect and the lexically inherent time-constitutional characteristics of verbs is Agrell’s (1908), who exploited, for that purpose, the presence of the competing synonymous terms ‘aspect’ and ‘Aktionsart’ by distinguishing them in much the same manner as we do today (Sasse 2006: 536).


__________190

These inherent features are known in Russian as sposoby glagolnogo dejstvja and are strongly connected to the category of aspect. They refer to different groups of verbs, which convey different semantic meanings related to the progress of the action. Thus, these values refer to the possibility of the verb in Russian to change its initial lexical meaning by adding different affixes, resulting into diverting the focusing from the general action, on to do the different phases of it, the beginning, the end, certain moments or on its increase in intensity or decrease or on its interrupted character and so on (Avilova 1980: 601).

For example the perfective verbs, formed with the prefixes za-, po-, vz-, voz- express the inchoative, while the prefixes po-, pro- (poguliať pogovoriť, postojať) refer to a certain moment of the action, and the verbs with the prefixes pod-, pri- (podščitať, podgotoviť, prinesť) indicate the final result of the action:

Petuh vdrug zakričal i hlopotlivo zahlopal kryljiami‘The rooster suddenly started to yell and restless started to beat its

wings’ (Turgeniev apud, Avilova: 603).On the other hand, there are verbs that already have in their semantic

structure these aspectual values, for example the inchoative aspect is found in the verbs načinať – načať ‘to begin’, stať ‘to become, to start’, bratsja / vzjaťsja za ‘to begin to’, prinimaťsja / prinjatsja za ‘to begin to’ hvataťsja / hvatiťsja za ‘to start’:

‘Korupciju možno pobedit, prosto ejo nužno načať pobejdať, poka eščë ne stalo sliškom pozdno. V Indii uže načali, uspeli, konečno, v poslednii moment, no – pusť hot tak’ (Mihail Budaragin, VZ, February 1st 2011).

‘Corruption can be defeated, only it must start to be defeated, until it’s not too late. In India, they already started, of course in the last moment, but at least like this.’

In Arabic, the aspectual features can be both included in the semantic structure of some verbs, patterns of derived forms or can be obtained with the help of verbs that lose their initial value, and they gain a new semantic meaning that will help other verbs express different moments of their actions, usually the beginning or a certain moment during the process.

For example, we can include in the first category verbs that have as a second vowel in the perfective form i- as a second vowel in the imperfective one


__________191

a-. These verbs are mostly verbs that express different states for example ḥazina – yaḥzanu ‘to be sad’ fariḥa – yafraḥu ‘to be happy’. Other aspectual features will be expressed by the derived verbal forms. We recall here the ninth form, which created from colors means to start getting that precise color, thus we can say it conveys an inchoative meaning: iḥmarra ‘to blush, become red’.

As for the verbs that lose their initial meaning in order to form structures with other verbs, verbal names or agents, expressing different moments of the action (beginning, duration, end/results), we can say that they can convey inchoative, durative, terminative, iterative values. The inchoative verbs can be divided in a few stable categories depending on their initial meaning and / or on similar traits. One of the categories comprises verbs that were formed from a precise moment of the day. For example, ‘aṣbaḥa ‘to enter the morning’, initially

transforms itself into a verb of becoming, as in ‘aṣbaḥa ṭāliban ‘he became a doctor’, and then comes to express the beginning of an action, as a result to a prior one, or to a process ‘aṣbaḥa yacrif kulla šay’in ‘He came to know everything. It’s worth mentioning that the verbs in this category that are connected to the evening or to the night will most likely appear in negative contexts, amongst them bāta ‘to spend

the night somewhere’ and ‘amsā ‘to arrive into the evening’:

al-muškilatu bātat mucaqqadatun. ‘The problem got complicated.’ aṭ-ṭālib bāta yusī’u l-mucallima . ‘The student arrived to insult the teacher.’ Another category of inchoative verbs are those formed from initially

dynamic verbs amongst them rāḥa ‘to leave’ ‘aḫada ‘to grab’ qāma ‘to get up’. These verbs when used as inchoative, can only be followed by verbs expressing actioned performed by humans.

The durative aspect in Modern Standard Arabic is expressed with the help of verbs that mean ‘to remain’ ‘to stay’ as baqiya, ‘to continue’ mā ẓalla, maḍā, istamarra, labita. The durative features in Arabic refer to the continuation of the existence, the continuation of the possession or of an action, the persistence of a quality, as in the following example:


__________192

al-mas’alatu tabqā qa’imatan. ‘The problem still exists’ (Anghelescu 1981: 129). Furthermore, there are verbs in Modern Standard Arabic that convey the meaning of the terminative aspect, pointing out the final result of the action or to its degree of completeness. Amongst these verbs we have faraġa ‘anhā intahā ‘to finish doing something’, tamma ‘to be completed’ ‘atamma ‘to complete’:

fī cami 1561 kamā dakarnā tamma ḥtilāl sūriyā ‘In 1516, as mentioned, Syria was occupied’, literally, ‘The occupation of Syria was completed in 1516’. (Anghelescu 1981: 138).

Conclusion

The aspect system in the Russian language refers mostly to an aspectual opposition marked at a lexical level, whilst in Arabic we deal with a system of oppositions combined of tenses and aspects. Although, the aspect matter in Arabic doesn’t resemble the Russian aspectual system, both languages encounter many similarities when referring to aspectual values, amongst them the most frequent encountered are those that characterize the phasal time structure.


__________193

References

Anghelescu, Nadia 1981. Semantica modalităților în limba arabă. Bucharest: Universitatea din București.

Anghelescu, Nadia 2004. La langue arabe dans une perspective typologique. Bucharest: Universitatea din București.

Avilova, N.S. 1980. ‘Morfologiceskie kategorii glagola’. Shvedova Nataliia Iuliena et al. (editor). 1980. Russkaya grammatika, vol. I. Moscow: Nauka. 583 – 646.

Badawi, Elsaid & Carter M.G. & Gully, Adrian 2007. Modern Written Arabic. Bodmin: Routledge.

Budaraghin, Mihail. 2011. ‘Indijskij Urok’. Vzglead. http://vz.ru/columns/2011/2/1/465371.html (consultat pe data de 1.02. 2011).

Comrie, Bernard 2001. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Iurac, Simion 2008. Limba rusă contemporană. Bucharest: Universitatea din

București.Sasse, H.J. 2006. ‘Aspect and Aktionsart’, edited by Keith Brown. 2006.

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier.Wright, W. 1996. A grammar of the Arabic Language, vol. I. Beirut: Librairie du

Liban.

Abstract

Tense and aspect can be described as being two different ways of looking at time. Tenses can be seen as linear actions that stretch from the past into the future, from the speaker’s point of view, whereas aspect refers to the degree of completeness of an action or state. Consequently, it can be said that when talking in terms of aspects the main concern is if the action is completed, partial, ongoing or yet to occur. Therefore, analyzing a language from the point of view of tenses or aspects is just a matter of perspective, since tenses focus on the point when the action occurs, while aspects deal with the completeness of the action.

Sometimes the difference between tense and aspect can be subtle. It is theorized that Classical Arabic was more aspect-specific than tense-specific. The verbal system of Arabic is based on two conjugations, a suffix one, traditionally called ‘perfect’ and a prefix conjugation, widely known as ‘imperfect’. These two conjugations are applied to different roots in order to form tenses. The base form of the verb is identical with the past third person singular masculine. The imperfect involves four moods, morphologically marked by different prefixes; these are the indicative, the subjunctive, the jussive and the energetic, the last of which almost went out of use. Regarding the aspect, it can be observed that the perfect conjugation serves for the perfective, a completed action, while the prefix-based


__________194

one reveals the imperfective aspect, a non-completed, ongoing, habitual, continuous or progressive action. However, the combination of the negation lam and the jussive mood is considered to be an exception, amongst many others, since it refers to a past, completed action.

When dealing with the question of aspects in the Slavic languages, it is generally noticed that the aspects here form an independent grammatical category that characterizes all verbs. The category of aspect in Russian is deeply connected with an internal limit which presents the action as a wholesome. This limit represents the moment when the action comes to an end or it’s completed, which implies obtaining a certain result. This trait characterizes verbs of perfective aspect. The internal limit can also express the limitation or the concentration of the action on a certain point of its developing. On the opposite side come the verbs of imperfective aspect, that can relate to a general action, an action, which hasn’t been completed yet, an ongoing action, a long-term one that is most likely to repeat itself.

The current paper intends to briefly present and analyze the perfective and imperfective aspects in both Arabic and Russian languages, while also focuses on the similarities and differences between the two.

Keywords: Arabic, Russian, Aspects, Tenses, Perfective, Imperfective, Inchoative, Durative, Terminative.

Czech and Slovak__________

__________195

Some Difficulties of Czech and Slovak Students of Romanian in Working with the Verb Aspect and Its Use in Bilateral Translations

Mircea Dan DuțăDirector of the Romanian Cultural Institute, Prague

1. Introduction

Because we cannot presuppose that the reader has had the chance to become acquainted with the aforementioned material, dedicated to phonetic issues when teaching Romanian to Czech and Slovak natives, we are have to review some of the information mentioned thereof, stating that the whole project, including the chapter on phonetics and the present paper, dedicated to the verb aspect, is based on the monitoring, by the author, of 100 Czech and Slovak students of those that had attended Romanian language courses organized by the Romanian Studies Department of the Charles University of Prague, the ones organized by the Romanian Cultural Institute in Prague or individual or group courses organized by various Prague-based language schools. The first of the students attended an individual Romanian language course from 2000 to 2002, and the newest generation started their studies (in one of the aforementioned formats) in 2011. The criteria used in the final selection phase of the students (the number of initial monitored students was much higher) were the following:

Completion and graduation (in a specific form) of a Romanian language course organized within the Czech Republic (or at least the first year of said course, with the intent to continue studying)

Course attendance The level of interest shown by said student for Romanian culture and language.

Note:In this context, it would be interesting to compare (in terms of completion/

graduation/drop-out rates, attendance, interest in learning, complexity of acquired

Romano-Bohemica II / Duță__________

__________196

knowledge etc.) the level of motivation within the various categories of Czech and Slovak students for studying Romanian, but this could only be the object of a different study. We will only mention that, contrary to expectations, the most motivated students were the potential investors in businesses in Romania, followed by persons who, due to work obligations or opportunities, are forced to spend time in Romania. The students of Charles University came third (again, with the most motivated of these being the ones that had study opportunities in Romania). Fourth place is taken by people attending the Romanian Cultural Institute courses, followed by philologists running comparative studies which include Romanian examples, students of language school courses, people with a Romanian

life-partner or in a relationship with such a person, people of Romanian descent.

We are fully aware of the limited aspects of our analysis and of the fact that, in selecting the students, we have not followed the criteria required by statistics (age, sex, level of education, profession etc.). Had we insisted on such details, however, the final number of students would have been much lower, making a statistic analysis impossible.

Note:Some of the reviewers of this work have considered the final number of 100

students selected over a period of 12 years f this study to be either exaggerated (subscribing

to the idea that 100 people interested in Romanian, even over a period of 12 years, in a

country as the Czech Republic, is not possible), or insufficient (for a statistical study of

such length). Regarding the first concern, we would like to mention that only the courses

organized by the Romanian Cultural Institute in Prague is attended, every year, by 30-35

beginner students (half of which graduate), 15-20 second year students (10-15 of which

graduate), and 8-10 advanced students, attending a conversation course. Taking into

account only the graduates, as well as the 10 students of Charles University, there will be a

number of around 45 students per year interested in Romanian language and culture. A final

number of 100 over a period of twelve years is, thus, not exaggerated it all. The argument

that the number is insufficient was answered above and, while right from a strictly


__________197

statistical point of view, it bears mentioning that, after the absolutely necessary criteria

mentioned above, the number of monitored students was reduced by a considerable amount

(especially because of the drop-out rate).

2. Verb aspect and issues arising from it in learning Romanian as a Czech or Slovak native

2.1. Presentation of the issue. Initial explanations.It would be a useless truism to mention the well known fact that, formally,

there is no verb aspect in Romanian, the language having only “element of verb aspect”1, i.e. remnant elements that show a perfective or imperfective comportment of similar to that of Slavic verbs.

Note:However, the 2005 edition of the Romanian Grammar changes the perspective on

this issue, pronouncing a grammatical category of aspect ”specific to the verb that relates the timeframe of the process communicated through the verb group” (GLR I 2005: 449).

This piece of information is, however, the first that teachers of Romanian as a second language must give to foreign students when explaining verb aspect. The first reaction of Czech and Slovak students (and probably of other Slavic origins) is shock, which soon turns to panic: verb aspect is part of the elementary education of Czech and Slovak youth, being “raised” to use verb aspect in everyday situations; “it’s in their blood” and thus perceive its absence in a language (be it foreign or not) as a striking “amputation”, a privation of a familiar and, apparently, irreplaceable tool. The torrent of questions following this “shocking” moment (without even waiting for follow-up explanations) can be summarised, essentially, into two major inquiries: “How can Romanians communicate without a verb aspect present in the language?” and “How can we actually learn Romanian under these circumstances?” We encountered such reactions in 82% of the monitored students. The other 18% were students of the Romanian Studies Department of Charles University or of other philological fields, philology graduates or with a deep knowledge of a Romance or Germanic foreign language.

1


__________198

2.2 How to react; initial explanations vs. first compromises In order not to “lose” the students from the very start, we are forced to react

by “retreating,” mitigating somewhat the “gravity” of the initial statement and informing the students that, actually, “this are not quite like that” and that certain elements of verb aspect also work in Romanian. Nevertheless, we will pay dearly for this “compromise” because, according to our experience, Czech and Slovak students will “cling” to these fringe elements of the language which remind them of the verb aspect present in Slavic languages. They will try to reduce the issue of verb aspect and its use in bilateral translation to these few elements, will force unconvincing, but familiar to them, equivalents between Czech and Romanian, trying to “invent” a Romanian theory of verbal aspect that is similar, if not similar to the Czech and Slovak one. On average, 63% of monitored students showed such reactions to the presentation of verb aspect elements in Romanian. This created subsequent complications in explanations concerning verb aspect. Let us, however, discuss things in order: which elements of verb aspect in Romanian baring resemblance to verb aspect in Slavic languages can we present (and not only) to Czech and Slovak students.

2.2.1 Romanian verbs whose meaning resembles the imperfective aspect in Czech

These are verbs that, though their meaning, express long-term or frequently and long-term repeated actions:

a frecventa (going somewhere regularly and long time; variants: a vizita (un curs - to visit a course), a umbla (la şcoală - to go to school regularly / frequently) (it is an archaism)); this verb reminds Czechs and Slovaks imperfective verbs as:

chodit (do školy) / to go to school regularly / frequently navštěvovat (kurz) / to visit a course chodit (za někým), navštěvovat někoho / to visit someone frequently / usually

(maybe there's an affective relationship there too) in a figurative sense, chodit s někým / to be someone's girlfriend or boyfriend / lover, to frequently

or regularly go to someone as such a umbla (to walk / ride / just be present frequently or long time in a certain

area: Umbla noaptea prin oraş - He / she used to walk through the city in the night.); this verb reminds Czechs and Slovaks imperfective verbs as:


__________199

chodit (po městě v noci) / to regularly or frequently walk through the city during the night

postávat / to be standing, to hang around (frequently or long time within the same area)

procházet se / to have a (slow and long) walk a se plimba a locui, a şedea, a sta (mult timp în aceeaşi locuinţă sau în acelaşi loc - to

live long time at the same place or residence); this verb reminds Czechs and Slovaks imperfective verbs as

bývat / to be long time or frequently somewhere, to use to be somewherebydlet / to live (long time), to reside, to lodgepobývat (nějakou dobu) / to be present some time or to frequently show up

within a certain area or residence a zăbovi (a rămâne mai mult timp într-un loc, adesea însoţit de conotaţia

pierderii timpului, aşadar a rămâne mai mult timp într-un loc unde se presupune că nu trebuie să se rămână şi a nu fi acolo unde trebuie sau a nu face ceea ce trebuie - to stay / remain long time within a certain area; usually it is associated with the idea of losing time, of staying long time in a place where one shouldn't be and not doing what one is supposed to do); this verb reminds Czechs and Slovaks imperfective verbs as:

zdržovat se / (to be very late, to retain someone long time)meškat / (to be late) ztrácet (čas) / to lose time (figuratively) flákat se, potloukat se, potulovat se / being somewhere else but at

the place one should be in order to do something one is supposed to do; to lose time a otrăvi (în sensul de a plictisi în permanenţă pe cineva printr-o insistenţă

neîntreruptă), a bâzâi, a cihăi /to long time and repeatedly bother or annoy someone; this verb reminds Czechs and Slovaks imperfective verbs as:

otravovat / to annoy, to bother obtěžovat / insistently and repeatedly bother someone with something vtírat se / to (insistently) intrude, to (repeatedly) creep, not leave someone alone a itera (a repeta de un număr mare de ori aceeaşi operaţiune) / to iterate

(repeat something many times); this verb reminds Czechs and Slovaks imperfective verbs as:


__________200

opakovat (víckrat) / to repeat more times procvičovat, nacvičovat, trénovat / to train something long time and

assiduously, to practise iterovat / to iterate There are, of course, various other examples, that follow the general rule of

expressing a frequently repeated action or an action that continues/lasts a long time.

2.2.2. “Side-effects”2.2.2.1. The mimetic tendency to translate the Czech imperfective using

the Romanian “imperfective” The results show that 71% of monitored students tried, for over two

semesters after the explanation mentioned above, to translate any imperfective Czech verb using one of the verbs present in the relatively short list of Romanian verbs that, through their meaning, remind the student of the Czech imperfective. In order to counter this tendency, we continuously stressed the idea that the main criterium for translation of Czech verbs into Romanian must be the meaning, not the perfective or imperfective aspect and that it is important that the Romanian translation must have the same meaning as the Czech text, but not necessarily based on a correspondence of the type – imperfective verb – verb with an imperfective nuance and, respectively, perfective verb – verb with perfective nuance – a situation which we will analyse in a subsequent chapter. Moreover, it is not very often that a Czech imperfective verb can be translated by just one word (verb) into Romanian, so it is often needed to create the respective Romanian context using supporting words (generally, adverbs of time), roundabout phrases, idioms or explanatory expressions.

Jezdívám vlakem z Prahy do Brna / Obişnuiesc să merg cu trenul de la Praga la Brno sau Merg des cu trenul de la Praga la Brno (I use to go by train from Prague to Brno or I frequently go by train from Prague to Brno)

respectivelyChodím s Katkou / Katka este prietena mea. (Kathy is my girlfriend.)After a 2-semester-long and intense training, an average of 41% of the

students (especially young people with philological training) started to search for the translation of the Czech verb (perfective or imperfective) into Romanian


__________201

according to its meaning or context (or by creating the needed context) and not using forced “parallel” between the verb aspect in the two languages. After the summer break before the second year of studies, however, only 20% manage to perform this feat. Once again, it is proven how quick some difficult elements of a foreign language are forgotten when not in contact with a native speaker or the living language.

2.2.2.2 “(Pro)longating” the verbs

Another frequent error of Czech and Slovak learners when using imperfective verbs is a certain kind of mimetism they practice under the influence of the model – vávat (spotřebo(vá)vat, pocho(vá)vat, opako(vá)vat etc.): as each added –vá syllable intensifies, for Czechs and Slovaks, the imperfective character of the verb, learners get the impression that this model is transferable to Romanian. Due to this, especially when unsure of how to express an imperfective idea in Romania, learners exhibit a tendency to “pro”longate Romanian verbs, in order to make them sound “imperfective” or even “(more) than perfective”. This can be done by:

The addition of improvised suffixes: încerc mâine (I will try this tomorrow - which, for Czechs, sounds convincingly perfective) vs. încercesc (sau încerchez) în fiecare zi (I will "tryate this every day")

The addition of prefixes (especially re): re-re-muncesc (I am re-re-working) instead of muncesc în fiecare zi (I am working every / each day)

The addition of intermediary sounds or the prolongation of a vowel: vreau s-o iubiresc toată viaţa pe prietena mea (I want to "loveate" my girlfriend my whole life), ale-e-erg de trei ore prin tot(ul) oraşul (I have been ru-u-uning three hours through the whole city).

Even if a relatively small number of students (14% of the monitored group) manifested this tendency, the fact that it even appeared shows the level of confusion among the students (especially beginners) when they need to express the verb aspect (in this case, the imperfective) in Romanian. Because of this, we tried to correct as quickly as possible this type of error and the source of the reasoning came from the nature of the confusion itself: the students tend to ”derive” the hypothetical form of the imperfective from what they perceive as its perfective


__________202

form (încerc → încerchez / try → "tryate", muncesc → re-re-muncesc / work → re-re-work, iubesc → iubiresc / love →"loveate" ), because in Czech and Slovak the perfective and imperfective forms of the same verb are often quite similar (zpívat – zazpívat / dozpívat to sing / end singing, navštěvovat – navštívit to visit etc.); Thus, the basic explanation we need to give is that in Romanian this principle does not function: even in the case of Romanian verb pairs what could be identified with Czech and Slovak pairs of the type perfective verb – imperfective verb, the formal resemblance of the Romanian “perfective” and “imperfective” is very rare: a dormi (to sleep) – a adormi (to fall asleep)

a ţine minte (to not forget something for a long period of time) – a reţine (to „introduce new information into the memory”)

a se drăgosti (archaism – to make love, to pet, to cuddle) – a se îndrăgosti (to fall in love)

a ţine (pe cineva prizonier - to hold sb. captive) vs. a reţine (aresta pe cineva - to arrest someone)

a vieţui (a trăi, a exista pe termen lung - to live / exist long time) – a supravieţui (unui accident - to survive to an accident) etc..

In time (after two semesters of study and sustained work), this principle was learned by two thirds of the students that manifested the initial tendency to “prolong” Romanian verbs (i.e. around 10% of monitored students) due to forgetfulness caused by the summer break.

2.2.3. The Romanian imperfect and the imperfective

The imperfect is another element of the Romanian grammar that, in a certain way, could sound familiar to Czech and Slovak students regarding verb aspect. As we know, the imperfect describes a past unfinished / interrupted action or long-lasting, continuous or habitually repeated action in the past, which took place in the far into the past. The second situation is an almost perfect definition of the Czech past imperfective verb. Due to this we recommend that it be translated into Czech and Slovak using a past imperfective verb. However, the first case of the Romanian imperfect should also be translated using a past imperfective verb, even if the situation does not mirror the definition of the imperfective as strongly as in the second case. Let us analyse them separately:


__________203

2.2.3.1. Unfinished / interrupted past action

If there is no explicitly mentioned verb expressing the action that interrupted the action expressed by the imperfect verb (Ce făceai? Cântam - What where you doing? I was singing), the argument for translating it into Czech and Slovak using the imperfective was that the action of the Romanian imperfect verb lasted, probably, some time before being interrupted, thus it can be considered a long-term action (Cos dělal? Zpíval jsem - What where you doing? I was singing). 52% of the students showed a positive reaction to this argument, while 37% (of the rest) objected to it, stating that a finished action (albeit interrupted) should be translated suing a perfective verb (Dozpíval jsem, Zazpíval jsem - I ended singing). We explained that the Romanian verb does not express, in this case, neither the idea of a termina de cântat / a termina cântecul (to finish singing / to finish the song), neither the idea of a fi cântat o singură dată (to be sung only once) or a fi terminat acţiunea de a cânta (to have finished the singing action), but strictly the idea that the (past) action of singing was not finished or was interrupted and the translation should mirror this meaning. After six weeks on intense work and numerous examples, out of these 37%, two thirds showed a positive reaction to these explanations, but even these continued to have problems in applying this principle.

If, however, there is an explicitly mentioned verb that depicts the action that interrupted the imperfect verb, we recommend that students translate the first using the perfective and the second (the imperfect), using an imperfective verb, due to the assumption that the interrupted action had lasted a long time before the appearance of the disruptive factor. In turn, it can be compared to a short-term action (at least in comparison to the interrupted action) and which takes place just once, a situation which is very close to the definition of the past perfective verb: Când a venit (ea), cântam. / Když přišla, zpíval jsem (maybe, právě jsem zpíval) (I was (just) singing when she arrived). 47% of the monitored students reacted positively to this explanation, but, as a negative “side-effect”, more than a third of them drew the conclusion that the Romanian compound perfect (perfectul compus) is always translated into Czech using a past perfective verb. The counter argument (accepted eventually by half of the “rebels”) were examples such as Am cântat (ani de zile) (I have played for years), (acum) nu mai cant (I don’t play anymore now). /


__________204

Zpíval jsem (celá léta), (teď už) nezpívám, with the explanation that the compound perfect (past action, finished at an unspecified time) does not necessarily express a single action (If I have played for years, it follows that I have performed this action frequently.)

2.2.3.2 Frequently repeated or long-term action, taking place in the far past As mentioned above, this is almost a textbook definition of the past

imperfective verb and practically all students accepted that the translation should be done this way: Pe vremea aceea ieşeam cu toate frumoasele din oraş – Tehdy jsem chodival se všemi kráskami ve městě (In those days I used to go out with all the beauties in the city). What was more problematic was the recognition of the actual Romanian imperfect, which, after two semesters of intensive work, only 64% of the students managed, and around two thirds of these forgot rules concerning the imperfect during the summer break. But that is another topic altogether.

2.2.4. Pairs of the type verb with imperfective nuance – verb with perfective nuance in Romanian

Another element of Romanian grammar that resembles the Czech and Slovak verb aspect and can contribute to the understanding of Czechs and Slovaks of the ways in which this grammar category, typical for Slavic languages, is reflected in non-Slavic languages. In Romanian it appears under the form of verb pairs of the type verb with imperfective nuance – verb with perfective nuance.

Note:Romanian verbs with an imperfective nuance generally correspond to a higher

degree to the imperfective verb model in Czech and Slovak, rather than the perfective nuance verbs to the perfective verb model. In the case of the latter, the main difference is that in Czech and Slovak, the present perfective verb expresses a future action that will take place only once, in Romanian, the formal present expresses a present action, irrelevant of the perfective or imperfective nuance of the verb. Of course, in colloquial phrases such as Mâine mă duc la doctor (Tomorrow I am going to the doctor) or Sâmbătă zugrăvesc de dimineaţa până seara (On Saturday I’m painting all day), the formal Romanian present also expresses a future action, but such situations are not the norm. And it is this ambiguity of the Romanian “perfective“, together with the situations where the present expresses a future action, that is an endless source of errors and confusion for the Czech and Slovak students. We will discuss this further in 3.1.1.2.


__________205

As described in 2.2.2.2., unlike Czech and Slovak, the formal resemblance between the Romanian “perfective” and “imperfective” is very rare. The more common situations are the pairs formed when the formal resemblance is dropped and we accept (especially in order to describe perfective nuanced actions) instead the replacement of a single verb with a periphrase, an idiom or helping words/phrases:

a fugi / alerga (to run) – a o lua / rupe la fugă / goană (to start running) a se bâlbâi (to stutter, stammer, falter) – a da în bâlbâială (to start stuttering

at once, for example following a shock) a tăcea (to not talk for a long period of time) - a amuţi (to stop takling,

singing, producing sounds etc.), a vorbi (to continuously talk for a long time) – a tăcea2 (to stop speaking, to

get silent, to stop making noises) a se desfăşura (to take place - about a process, an action etc.) - a începe / a

se termina / a se întrerupe / a se relua (to start, to end, to be interrupted, to restart - about the same process, action etc.)

a se întinde / culca (to lie down) – a sta culcat / întins (be lying) a fierbe / clocoti (to boil) – a da în clocot (to start boiling) a avea (to own something long term) – a primi / a pierde / a înstrăina (to

get / to lose / the respective item) a merge (to go) – a se opri / a porni (to stop / start)a şti (to know something) – a afla / a uita (to find out smth. / forget about

smth.) etc. The presence of such verbs in Romanian and the possibility of associating

them following the aforementioned method represent an essential aspect for Czechs and Slovaks, because it facilitates the familiarization with some of the possibilities of of transposing the mechanism of Czech and Slovak verb aspect to Romanian. It also stimulates their capacity to identify and “fabricate” examples that illustrate these possibilities, thus rounding their skills as potential translators and enriching their knowledge of Romanian. The reaction to the presentation of this element of Romanian grammar was almost entirely positive (98%). However,

2 The same Romanian verb (here, a tăcea (to keep silent)) can have in different contexts

perfective or imperfective nuances, which is another source of confusion for Czech and Slovak students.


__________206

the side effects of this explanation were to match: the confusions, errors and the transfer into Romanian of Czech and Slovak models without any processing. On the one hand they were influenced by the resemblance in form of the Czech imperfective verb and its perfective “pair” (or its derived perfective pairs, if there are more of them), and on the other hand they were animated by a feeling of self-confidence in the knowledge that Romanian also has pairs of verbs of the type imperfective-perfective that resemble the ones in their own languages. More than 70% of students tried to derive or improvise verb forms (non-existent in Romanian), presumably perfective, using Romanian verbs with an imperfective nuance as a starting point, and vice-versa. Thus, we noted “perfective” improvisations such as:

a demerge (used as “to start going”, “to start” or even “to take steps”)3, a remerge (“to start moving again after having stopped”) or a comerge (“to go to the same destination”, “to meet”) using as a starting point the verb with an imperfective nuance a merge (to go)

a predansa (for “to invite to dance” or “to open the ball”) or a îndansa (for “to finish dancing” or “to stop dancing”)4 starting from the “imperfective” a dansa (to dance)

a transvorbi (for “to interrupt”, “to interrupt someone’s speech”) and a prevorbi (for “to convince”, “to make someone change their mind”)5 from the verb a vorbi (to talk)

a subzbura (for “to begin descent in order to start landing procedures”) or a dezbura (for „to takeoff”)6 from the verb a zbura (to fly)

a deziubi (for “to stop loving”) or a răsiubi (for “to fall in love with someone else”, “to find a new love”) from the verb a iubi (to love) etc.

To a lower degree (54%), we noted a complementary tendency of deriving imaginary “imperfectives” from Romanian verbs with a perfective nuance (or ones

3 An important role was also played here by the confusion starting from the noun demers

(step, as in ”to take steps”).4 Coarse copy from czech – v. dotančit, which actually means “to end your dancing career“

or “the ending of a dance festival“5 Coarse copy form Czech – v. přemluvit

6 A copy from Czech to a certain extent – v. odlétat or odletět (to take off).


__________207

that students perceive as such), the “technique” being, in this case, to mainly chose verbs with prefixes and consequently to remove the prefix:

a brăca (for “to be or to stay dressed”) from the verbs a (se) îmbrăca (to get dressed) and a (se) dezbrăca (to undress)

a punge (for “to suffer for a long time due to a sting”) from the verb a împunge (to sting / to prick)

a verge (for “to go on parallel ways, without getting closer or further away from each other”) from the verbs a converge (to converge) and a diverge (to diverge),

a taşa (sometimes pronounced, though contamination, a tasa, for “to remain for a long time part of a single unit, without disintegrating or becoming part of a more complex structure”) from the verbs a ataşa (to attach) and a detaşa (to detach)

a pinge (with a meaning that even the authors of the improvisation had trouble defining, and which they described in a very convoluted manner, as “to not take any action upon an object, stationary or in motion, near us – pram, door etc. – which we could potentially relocate further by pushing / repelling or relocate closer through pulling”) from the verbs a împinge (to push) or a respinge (to pull) etc.

Note: Similar to how, in the previous case, the “fabrication“ of perfectives was based also

on adding a prefix to a verb with an imperfective nuance. It is again, to a certain extent, a case of transferring a Czech and Slovak model into Romanian: in these two languages, the difference between an imperfective and a perfective verb often means just a prefix added to the latter: dělám – udělám (I am doing - I will do it), jím – dojím (I am eating - I will eat all my meal) etc.

Other tendencies similar to the aforementioned ones also manifested. One was the use of prefixes imported directly from Czech or Slovak (roz-, od-, do-, u-, před-, po-, za- etc.), but, due to the small number of student (6%) over 45 years of age and with no linguistic background, we did not consider it relevant to discuss this aspect in detail. However, another confusion (caused by the existence in Romanian of verb pairs of the type imperfective nuance-perfective nuance) wreaked havoc: 65% of monitored students improvised pairs of imperfective-


__________208

perfective verbs using Romanian verbs with similar forms, but with different meaning (very often, the difference being the prefix):

a trage – a contrage / a retrage (to pull - to contract (syncopate) / to withdraw)

a rupe – a întrerupe (to break - to interrupt) a tinde – a întinde (to aspire, to incline to - to expand, extend, elongate) a mina – a termina (to mine, sap - to end) a mâna – a înmâna (to drive horses - to hand over)a feri – a oferi / conferi (to keep away from, beware of - to offer / to award,

bestow on) or even a prefera (to prefer to, to have a fancy for)a menaja – a demenaja (to coddle, spare - to move out of) a trece – a petrece / a întrece etc. (to get through, to go by - to party / to

exceed)Examples: Mâine contrag şifonierul la perete. Tomorrow I'll "syncopate" the wardrobe

towards the wall. Dacă nu lucrezi atent, rişti să-ţi întrerupi mâna. If not paying attention, you

may "interrupt" your hand. Ne-am certat la început, dar ieri a întins să-mi dea dreptate. Initially we

didn't agree, but yesterday he "extended" to admit I was right. Armata de ocupaţie a terminat terenurile strategice. The occupation army

"ended" the strategic zones. etc. What are then the solutions available to combat or correct the adorementioned

undesired “side effects” and, at the same time, to profit from the presence in Romanian of verb pairs with imperfective-perfective nuance? Taking into account the complexity of the problem, we believe it necessary to open a new chapter.

3. Possible solutions to the “side-effects” mentioned in 2.2.4. Differences between Czech and Slovak imperfective/perfective verbs and Romanians verbs with imperfective/perfective aspects. Other errors and confusions connected to verb aspect that Czech and Slovak students of Romanian and possibilities of correcting said errors.

3.1. Methods of combating the “side-effects” (not only) mention in 2.2.4.


__________209

3.1.1 Presentation, following conjugation similarities, of the fundamental differences

Firstly, after the presentation of those elements of Romanian grammar that resemble verb aspect in Czech and Slovak, it is necessary to once again stress the fact that these similarities or more or less circumstantial and that no real structural parallel exists. Contrary to all these similarities, the verb aspect category in Romanian does not actually exist. And after mentioning the similarities, we will stress the differences:

3.1.1.1. The imperfective and the future Even though Romanian verbs in the present or imperfect tense act almost the same as imperfective Czech and Slovak verbs in the present or past tense, the future tense exhibits essential differences. If the imperfective Czech or Slovak verb in the future tense7 expresses a future action that will last a long time or will be repeated frequently,

Budu snídávat doma – Voi lua micul dejun acasă (I will start taking breakfast at home) (every day, frequently, a lot, for a long time, starting now etc.),

none of the Romanian future verb forms make any mention regarding the length or frequency of the action expressed thought the verb in the future tense. Consequently, in order to convey in Romanian the imperfective meaning of the Czech verb, it is often necessary to add to the translation certain helping phrases (see the aforementioned objects of time, in the case of the example above). In the absence of helping phrases, the Romanian imperfective meaning is lost:

Voi lua micul dejun acasă (I will take breakfast at home) (with no other additions) can mean that this action will take place just once (for example, immediately

or the day after or on a day previously mentioned in the context etc. – which is closer to the perfective aspect than to the imperfective) or that this activity will be repeated in the future every day, for a long time etc.

To conclude, there is no way to deduce elements of verb aspect from the future forms of Romanian verbs8 and the imperfective nuance of a Romanian verb in the future tense must usually be stressed using helping words of phrases.

7 We are refering to the future of the type budu + infinitive, valid for imperfective verbs.

8


__________210

Note:Of course, in the case of a romanian verb with an imperfective nuance, this nuance

can also be kept in the future: Budu navštěvovat tento kurz – Voi frecventa acest curs (I will attend this coruse) (regularly, multiple times in the future,we are forced to etc). But the imperfective nuance of the verb a frecventa (to frequent/attend) is not deduced from the future form, but by the very meaning of the verb itself, so it is not an exception to the rule.

After two semesters of intensive work, 52% of the monitored students accepted and understood this principle.

3.1.1.2. The Czech and Slovak perfective verb and the Romanian verb with a perfective nuance. In this case, the differences are more pronounced that in the case if imperfectives, and the biggest on is that (3.1.1.2.a) in Czech and Slovak, the present tense of a perfective verb expresses a future action that will take place once

(Posnídám později – Voi lua / o să iau micul dejun mai târziu (I will take breakfast later)

(once, today, after which I will make no further refenece to the future repetition of this activity)),

while the Romanian present always expresses a present action, regardless of the presence of a perfective or imperfective nuance of the verb. Of course, there are in Romanian, as mentioned before, colloquial variants of expressing the future with the help of the present tense

(Iau micul dejun mai târziu) (I am taking breakfast later) but this situation again does not result in a clear perfective characteristic:

depending on the context, Iau micul dejun mai târziu (I am taking breakfast later) can mean, as in Czech, an action taking place once in the future (today,

later), but also a habbit: Iau micul dejun mai târziu (I am taking breakfast later), meaning not very early, usually, every day, which is closer to a resent

imperfective verb than to a perfective one. Translating using a future tense Romanian verb

Voi lua / o să iau micul dejun mai târziu (I will take breakfast later)


__________211

does not guarantee the perfective character of the action, thus the ambiguity persists:

Voi lua micul dejun mai târziu (I will take breakfast later) can mean today, later, only once, but also the starting point of a habit: (from now on) Voi lua micul dejun mai târziu (I will take breakfast later). To conclude, as in the case of verbs with an imperfective nuance, expressing

the perfective character in Romanian depends mainly on context and this must be stated using helping words or phrases

Astăzi (de data asta, prin excepţie etc.) voi lua micul dejun mai târziu (Today, as opposed to usually, I am taking breakfast later).

After two semesters, only 47% of students accepted and understood these explanations, which have, however, helped in the significant reduction of serious confusions, specific to Czech and Slovak students. The first one (3.1.1.2.b) is the tendency to identify one of the two Romanian future tenses (o să + conjunctive, respectively voi + infinitive) with the classical future (budu + infinitive) of imperfective verbs, and the other with the “future” expressed by the formal present tense of perfective verbs (uvidím, dodělám to).

Note:Most often, students identify the future form voi + infinitive with the Czech/Slovak

perfective “future“ and the form o să + conjunctive with the future of imperfective verbs, thought the opposite tendency was also noted in some cases.

The second confusion (3.1.1.2.c) is the identification of the Czech perfective with the colloquial use of the Romanian present to express a future action

(Mâine plec la Praga – Zítra pojedu do Prahy) (Tomorrow I leave for Prague).

The correction percentage is comparable with the one above (48%). Another essential difference between verbal aspect in Czech/Slovak and

Romanian is the fact that (3.1.1.2.d) the Romanian verb with a perfective nuance is a coarser approximation of the Czech and Slovak perfective verb than in the case of imperfectives: the relationship between Romanian verbs with imperfective nuance and, respectively, with an perfective nuance, is more like a difference


__________212

between state verbs (long term actions, with a slow evolution and tempo) and action verbs (short term actions, with a fast evolution and tempo, a kind of activity that disturbs / affects the action of the corresponding action verb).

Avionul zboară –The plane flies (“state” / long term action and without any spectacular evolutions), but it took off (a decolat) before this (visibly a shorter and faster action,

whose finalization generated the “state” of long term flight) and afterward it will land (va decola), (another fast process and

incomparably shorter than the flight, that will affect the “state” of flight by putting an end to that activity).

That, of course, is not a case of imperfective-perfective aspects. We must, however, explain to students that we do not have in Romanian (at least for perfective verbs) a better approximation. After two semesters, 44% reacted positively to this explanation (especially the under 40 age group and / or the ones with a linguistic background, or intellectuals with humanities as background.)

3.1.2. Detailed presentation of the situation when Romanian permits the translation of a Czech or Slovak verb using a single word. Use of helping words and phrases, idioms and periphrases.

In Czech there are numerous situations when a verb (a single word) describes an action or state for which in Romanian there is no equivalent, and thus must be expressed using periphrases, idioms, explanative descriptions and/or helping words. Sometimes, periphrases and additional explanations in Romanian are necessary to explain the very meaning of the verb:

marodit – a zăcea bolnav mult timp / a „boli” (archaic) (to be unhealthy for a long time)

šéfovat – a fi şeful unui birou sau al unei instituţii (to be the boss of an office or institution)

kamarádit se – a fi prieten cu (to be friends with)postrádat – a duce lipsa a ceva sau cuiva (to miss or lack something or

someone)úřadovat – a presta muncă de funcţionar (to work or do the work of a clerk

etc., to explain its imperfective aspect:


__________213

jezdivat – a călători adesea cu un vehicul pe un anumit traseu (to travel often by a vehicle by a certain route)

spotřebovávat – a consuma în mod curent / a obişnui să consume / a consuma (o anumită cantitate într-o unitate de timp) conform parametrilor tehnici (to conume regularly / to usually consume / to consume a certain quantity in a certain unit of time according to the technical parameters)

snídávat – a obişnui să ia micul dejun / a lua micul dejun în fiecare zi, timp îndelungat (to usually take breakfast, to have breakfast every day, for a long period of time)

vydělávat – a câştiga în mod curent (o anumită sumă pe lună) / a avea salariul de / a se întreţine din (to repeteadly earn a certain sum a month / to have a wage of / to live off, to make a living out of) etc.

or to explain its perfective aspectudělat – a face ceva o singură dată în viitor (to do something once in the

future)dojíst – a termina de mâncat (to finish eating) usnout – a adormi o singură dată în viitor (to get asleep once in the future)přečíst (si) – a citi toată cartea (to read the whole book) zatančit si – a face un dans / a dansa o dată cu cineva (to dance once with

someone) etc.. Thus it becomes necessary to explain to students that linguistic

improvisations in Romanian following Czech and Slovak models (as presented in 2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.4, 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2) are generally doomed to failure and that, in order to express the correct meaning in Romanian, or to express the perfective or imperfective verb aspects from Czech and Slovak it is necessary to use dictionaries or ask professors or native speakers, preferably with linguistic background. After two semesters, these explanations were accepted and understood (both in the case of imperfective and perfective verbs) by 45% of monitored students. (In comparison with 3.1.1.1, we observe a higher percentage in the case of imperfective verbs / with an imperfective aspect).

3.1.3 Explanations regarding the role of meaning and context when expressing the imperfective or perfective nuance of a Romanian verb. The independence of verb aspect elements from verb forms in Romanian


__________214

The imperfective or perfective nuance of the Romanian verb is, in most situations, imposed by the meaning of the verb in question or by the context in which it appears, but practically never by the verb form. Though not a rule, in Czech and Slovak a “mark” of the perfective verb is sometimes the prefix, which, as shown in 2.2.4 and footnote 10, determines an almost general tendency of Czech and Slovak students to use verb form (and especially the presence or absence of the prefix) to show the imperfective or perfective nuance of the Romanian verb. It is thus necessary to repeatedly explain to students until they understand and to present a convincing number of varied examples to argue that the main criteria in expressing verb aspect elements / nuances in Romanian are the meaning of the verb and the context in which it appears, not the form (in particular, the presence or absence of the prefix). Will we explain that Romanian verbs with an imperfective nuance given by their very meaning, as the ones presented in 2.2.1., will always be translated into Czech and Slovak using imperfective verbs, if they are in the present or imperfect tenses, but that in all other cases (Romanian verbs with an imperfective nuance in the future, or Romanian verbs with perfective nuance) there is need for a very clear understanding of the context in order to provide a good translation into Czech and Slovak. For the sake of simplicity, we will exemplify using the same sentence proposed in 3.1.1.2 (the use of which helped most students understand the explanations contained in this paragraph), but this time we will focus mainly on the translation from Romanian into Czech and Slovak:

Iau / Voi lua micul dejun mai târziu (I take/will take breakfast later). The presence of a determiner of the type mâine, astăzi, în ziua aceea (today,

tomorrow, that day) will permit a clear mention of the perfective nuance of the sentence and its consequent translation using a perfective verb into Czech and Slovak:

(Zítra) posnídám později (According to context, the Romanian determiner can or should not be

translated into Czech: for example, Astăzi voi lua micul dejun mai târziu (Today I will take breakfast later) can be translated into Czech by Posnídám později).


__________215

Meanwhile, determiners such as întotdeauna, de acum încolo, de mâine, de obicei, în general (always, from now on, beginning with tomorrow, usually, in general) etc. will show the imperfective nuance of the Romanian sentence and as such will allow the Czech/Slovak translation using an imperfective verb, with or without the translation of the Romanian determiner, according to context:

(Už, od zítra etc.) Budu snídat později. Of course, the context can be depicted in other ways than though helping

words or phrases in the same sentence: it can be made known though preceding sentences, deduced from the traits of the evolution of the character etc. What remains the most important is the essential role of context and meaning in expressing elements of verb aspect and the way in which that particular verb will be translated into Czech and Slovak. We can also add to these explanation the statement (anticipated in the example above) that the same Romanian verb, without any change in form, can be in some contexts perfective, while imperfective in others

Mâine voi merge la doctor – Tomorrow I will go to the doctor vs. Dimineaţa voi merge la facultate – In the morning (eventually each morning) I will go to the college),

which once again proves the role played by context in the expression of aspect elements in Romanian verbs and the way in which these must be translated into Czech and Slovak. Overall, the reaction of the students to these explanations was comparable to that in 3.1.1.2 (46% after two semesters of study).

3.2 Other errors connected to verb aspect made by Czech and Slovak students of Romanian

The errors and confusions of Czech and Slovak students that we will briefly present in the following paragraphs are less frequent (and also less predictable) than the ones presented and analysed thus far. They do, however, show on the one hand the reality that verb aspect in bilateral translations and especially its transposition in Romanian represents a real tough problem to Czech and Slovak students, which the native Romanian lecturer must address seriously and, on the second hand, the fact that the “imagination” of students when it comes to errors and confusions is inexhaustible and that these can appear at any moment, from the most surprising of directions. Especially due to this last reason (but not only), the


__________216

lecturer must be ready to find (sometimes on the spot) explanations that will combat errors and erroneous interpretations of the students, even when these “hit” from the unlikeliest of places.

3.2.1 Association of the perfective with the definite article 3.2.1.1 Description of the confusion. 18% of students (mainly people with

non linguistic background) imagined an unexpected association between the Czech perfective verb (and, respectively, the Romanian verb with a perfective nuance) and the Romanian definite article, and, by analogy, between the imperfective verb and the indefinite article in Romanian or the zero article. Their argumentation (and rationale) was the association between the “uniqueness” of the definite article noun (acela despre care vorbim, pe care îl cunoaştem, aşadar, unic - the one we are talking about, the one we know, and thus unique) and the “uniqueness” of the action described by the perfective verb in Czech and Slovak (in the present tense, it describes an action that will take place only once in the future, and in the past, a process that took place only once in the past). Strange as it may seem, students concluded that “the one identified as unique” (definite article noun – or the subject thus expressed) should, in principle, perform an action that, as itself, is also characterised as unique, thus expressed through the use of a perfective verb (or with a perfective nuance in Romanian – or thusly interpreted or understood by the student). On the other hand, a noun with no article (unknown, of which we have not talked before, is not mentioned and thus not unique) should be associated, according to a similar rationale, with an action that does not take place just once, but repeatedly, or more precisely, an indefinite number of time, and thus expressed using the imperfective (or with an imperfective nuance in Romanian – or thusly interpreted or understood by the student). Briefly, we had to deal with examples such as the following:

Student aşteaptă tramvai (Student waiting tram); The explanation of the student was that to wait is a long term and/or daily

repeated action, and thus expressed using a verb with an imperfective nuance. The action “normally” associated with both a subject and a direct object expressed though nouns without articles because, taking into account the imperfective characteristic – and thus lacking “uniqueness” – of the process, neither the subject,


__________217

not the direct object can be “unique” and thus cannot be expressed using nouns with articles, because any student can wait anytime, any tram.

On the other hand, after the tram comes, Studentul se urcă / va urca în tramvaiul (The student gets on, will get on the

tram);

Note:This type of confusions were almost always (17 out fo 18 students) associated with

the error of identifying the Romanian coloquial present expressing a future action with the Czech perfective (see 3.1.1.2.c).

As expected, this explanation complements the one above: to get on expresses a “unique” action that will take place in the future.

Note:In this context “to get on the tram“, because in other contexts (Am urcat toată ziua

pe munte şi tot n-am ajuns la vârf – I climbed all day and still have not reached the top), the same verb presents an evidently imperfective nuance.

The students’ way of thinking would not have changed even if the action had taken

place in the past. We were also given examples of the type:

(after the tram came), Studentul s-a urcat în tramvaiul - The student got on the tram,

the only difference being that the action expressed by the presupposed perfective

verb took place in the past. So we are dealing with a perfective verb that can only be associated with the

subject (the student) and an object (on the tram) expressed by nouns with definite articles, because the action is concrete, perfective, “unique”, can only be performed by a “unique” subject (a clearly identified and mentioned student got on the tram, the one we see getting on the tram and thus “unique”) and it is determined by a “unique” object (the student got on the clearly identified tram, the tram which had previously arrived, and thus, itself, “unique”).

3.2.1.2 Methods of dealing with the error. Things can be corrected easier than expected, due to the fact that the confusion is so coarse and that it would be difficult for a person that graduated (even if only) middle school to persist in this


__________218

error, after explaining why this is wrong and counter-arguments are presented. Briefly, the explanation proves a clear dissociation of the “uniqueness” of the action expressed though a perfective verb: in the first case, we are talking about determining univocally the person or object determined by a noun (we can touch upon the rules of the definite article in Romanian), and in the second case we are talking about performing an action only once. There is no logical link between the two types of “uniqueness”:

- a subject expressed though a noun with no article can perform a “perfective” action:

(when the tram arrives/is going to arrive), Un student se va urca în tramvai (a student will get on the tram) (any student, undetermined, whom we do not know, and thus a subject

expressed though a noun with no article, will get on the tram “only once”, “in the future”, and thus perform a “perfective” action, following the criteria of the Czech language or a with a “perfective nuance”, in the case of Romanian grammar).

Note:Even more convincing was the variant loaded with a certain subjective

expressivity S-o urca vreun student şi-n tramvai! - A student might get on a tram finally!

- a subject expressed though a noun with an article can perform an “imperfective” action:

Studentul (The student) (already mentioned, clearly determined, whom we know, and thus, “unique”) aşteaptă (waits) (for a long time, every day) either tramvaiul (the tram) (with a definite article, mentioned, “unique”), or un tramvai (a tram) (with no article, any etc.)

- the most productive were, as usual, parallels to the mother tongue of the students that were subjects to these confusions: after arguing with Czech and Slovak examples

((Tento) student čeká na tramvaj vs. (Nějaký) student nastoupí do tramvaje)practically all subjects understood their error and were surprised to have

made it. 3.2.2. Verb aspect and the presence of determinatives (objects)


__________219

3.2.2.1 The error. 16% of students (half of them “clients” of 3.2.1) reached the conclusion that the perfective verb (with a perfective nuance) in Romanian does not admit determinatives / objects (true, three of them, university graduates of fields other than philology, admitted less “radical” variants: the Romanian perfective verb / with a perfective nuance does not admit determinatives or admits them less than the verb with an imperfective nuance). On the other hand, we can feel a certain influence (strictly empirical) of Czech and Slovak, because some of the most frequently used perfective verbs in these languages are used very frequently without determinatives (or at least retain their meaning in their absence):

Uvidíme – (Mai) vedem (noi) (We’ll see), Usnu – Voi adormi (I’ll get asleep), Zatančíme si? – Dansăm? (Shall we dance?) (I’m inviting you to dance) Dojedl – A terminat de mâncat (He finished eating) etc. On the other hand, it seemed very strange that all students that formulated

this “rule” considered it valid only for Romanian, considering it obvious that it would not work for Czech and Slovak. Because of this the lecturer’s explanations could be based less on parallels to the mother tongue, but, eventually, they were accepted “even” with these parallels.

3.2.2.2 Methods of dealing with the error. Same as in 3.2.1, the confusion was coarse, so it could not continue or resist logical explanations. We explained to students that there is no link between the verb aspect and the presence or absence of objects and that there are imperfective verbs / with an imperfective nuance, as well as perfective verbs / with a perfective nuance that retain their meaning in the absence of determinatives, without, however, making their presence impossible:

Doarme. Doarme adânc (He sleeps. He sleeps deeply)Voi adormi. Voi adormi repede / în curând (I’ll fall sleep. I’ll fall asleep quickly /

soon )Also, we will argue using as examples verbs with an imperfective and

respectively perfective nuance, its meaning is dependent on the existence of a determinative:

Asta îmi face bine (This is good for me)Şoferul va apăsa pe buton (îndată, imediat, „o singură dată”) (The driver will

push the button – in a moment, immediately, “just once”).


__________220

Even though, as mentioned in 3.2.2.1, the parallel to Czech and Slovak was used less efficiently in this case, it still worked, because we were able to formulate through direct translations, starting from examples in Czech and Slovak, the corresponding Romanian example that helped students overcome their confusion:

Spí. Hluboce spíUsnu. Brzy usnu respectivlyTo mi dělá dobřeŘidič stiskne tlačítkoAs in 3.2.1, eventually all students understood their error and, in time, it

dissapeared. 3.2.3 Verb aspect and the presence of determinatives / objects preceeded

by prepositions. Another, less “radical”, variant of the aforementioned confusion is the presupposition that a Romanian verb with a prefix (“and thus perfective”) cannot admit determinatives / objects preceded by prepositions. 10% of students fell “victim” to this error, almost all (nine tenths) being “partisans” of hypothesis 3.2.2 and limiting it to verbs with prefixes, respectively to prepositional objects. The confusion can be eliminated as quickly using the same methods described in the previous paragraph, taking into account the specificity of the error and choosing examples based on verbs with prefixes. Additionally, students ill be reminded that not all Romanian verbs with prefixes have a perfective aspect:

Cum îl cointeresăm în democraţie pe locuitorul din mediul rural? (How shall we raise the interest in democracy of inhabitants of rural zones?)

I-am recunoscut în permanenţă superioritatea – I have always recognised his superiority (Here, the verb with a prefix actually has an imperfective aspect)

What is interesting in the case of this particular confusion is its origin, as explained by the students themselves:

3.2.3.1 On the one hand, it is the case of a partial influence/contamination from czech combined with a wrong interpretation of a typically Czech stylistic phenomenon and its partial transposition into Romanian. It is the case of expressions in which a Czech verb with a prefix is used together with a determinative / object preceded by the same preposition that acts as the verb’s prefix:


__________221

dojíždím do Brna (I use to travel - from somewhere - to Brno) sejdu se s ní (I will meet her) před nimi předstírá hovor s milenkou (Before them he pretends talking to his

girlfriend) dodělám to do příštího týdne (I will finish this until next week) zajdu za Luckou (I'll go see Lucy) etc. Even though such expressions are used in Czech, and grammar does not

forbid them, from a stylistic point of view they are not considered proper, due to the argument that the repetition determined by identifying the verb prefix with the proposition preceding the determinative creates a pleonasm effect.

Note:We are not even dealing with perfective verbs in all mentioned examples, and still

the “rule“ deduced by the students for Romanian strictly reffers to perfective aspect verbs.

Through a process of contamination and superficial takeover, combined with the influence of hypothesis 3.2.2 they were partisans of, the Czech and Slovak students reached the conclusion that only to Romanian verbs with a prefix (and thus, from the students’ perspective, perfective) should be applied a limitation similar to the one described above, but at the same time more restrictive, forbidding their determination using any prepositional objects.

3.2.3.2 On the other hand, there are clearly pleonasm constructs in Romanian and the students were cautioned about them before:

a urca (în) sus – to climb up a înainta înainte – to advance forward a (re)itera din nou – to reiterate again (here we are actually dealing with a

“double pleonasm“) a ieşi afară – to exit outside a se înşirui în rând – to string in a row etc. Starting from here and though contamination by the idea that using Czech

verbs with prefixes followed by prepositions identical to those respective prefixes can lead to pleonasm (see 3.2.3.1), in an initial phase students drew the conclusion that in Romanian it sounds pleonastic (and are thus “forbidden”) constructions such as a deraia de pe linie – to derail from the rails,


__________222

a introduce (un obiect) în(tr-o) cutie – to introduce (an item) in a box a (se) cuminţi cu timpul – to mellow (come to reason) in time (or a se

cuminţi cu duhul – to come to reason with one's mind9)a se perinda pe acolo – to go that place one after another etc. The following phase was the generalisation (“no Romanian verb with a

prefix can be used with a preposition / with a prepositional object”), somewhat expected from a certain category of students, since it eases their work and their life.

3.3. „Second degree side-effects” of explanations dealing with the differences between Czech/Slovak and Romanian verb aspects

3.3.1 Romanian – “language of imperfectives”An unexpectedly high number of students – 19% – fell victim to the

confusion described below. Another initial cause of surprise for the author was the reality that, without exception, all these students reacted positively to the explanations in 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2 regarding the similarities and differences between Czech imperfective / perfective verbs and Romanian verbs with an imperfective / perfective nuance. This determined us (actually, it forced us) to define, to determine and to present these so called “second degree side-effects” of the lecturer’s explanations regarding the differences between Czech/Slovak and Romanian regarding verb aspect.

Note:We are talking about “a second degree“ because the explanation in 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and

3.1.3 were especially meant to remove the side-effects of 2.2.4, which we can now call ”first degree side effects” and which, we should not forget, appeared as a reaction tot he presentation of the few elements of resemblance between Czech /Slovak and Romanian verb aspects in 2.2.

3.3.1.1 The error. A first such “second degree side-effect” is the “deduction” by the students of the “rule” according to which in Romanian there is no perfective and no perfective nuance and that everything, without exception, must be seen, understood and translated using the imperfective. The source of the confusion is mainly the explanation in 3.1.1.2 regarding the differences between

9 V. „Nămetenia de om se cuminţise cu duhu”, Petre Ispirescu – Aleodor Împărat. Poveşti

nemuritoare 11, Bucureşti, Editura Ion Creangă, 1975


__________223

Czech / Slovak perfective verbs and Romanian verbs with a perfective nuance, more pronounced that in the case of the imperfective, and the lack of a numerous number of parallel elements between the Czech/Slovak perfective and the Romanian verbs with a perfective nuance (while the imperfective offers numerous and obvious parallel elements – see 2.2. and 3.1.1.1). Especially the impossibility of formulating a viable rule to follow when translating a perfective Czech verb into a single Romanian word (verb) caused the students to, “in a moment of despair”, quit searching for possibilities of bilateral translations using the perfective, respectively of verbs with perfective nuances supported by periphrases and explanations, and to use the imperfective in all cases. The consequences are clear: Voi face aceasta mai târziu becomes Budu to dělat později instead of Udělám to později (even though the perfective nuance is also evident in Romanian – I will do this later, in the future, once),

O să vedem – we’ll see (meaning we’ll think about it, we’ll ponder some more) was translated Budeme vidět instead of Uvidíme,

Usnu becomes Voi dormi / O să dorm (I will sleep) instead of Voi adormi / O să adorm (I will fall asleep)

Poletím was translated Voi zbura / O să zbor (I will fly) instead of Voi decola – I will take off,

especially because of the fear of using “non-existing” Romanian verbs with a perfective aspect that, in these cases, would have clearly explained the meaning of the Czech verb.

3.3.1.2 Correcting the error. Again, we are dealing with a confusion too coarse to resist logic arguments. It is enough to explain that it is not the case to be “more Catholic than the Pope” and to fear complications of the perfective to such a degree that we avoid them completely appealing permanently to the imperfective. Practically, there is no need for new explanation, it is sufficient to refer and make clear the ones in 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 regarding the use of the perfective in bilateral translations and to use, perhaps, a greater number of examples. Also, it must be repeated and stressed that each translation situation between Czech / Slovak and Romanian must be treated individually, the criteria of finding the right variant in the target language being exclusively the meaning of the expression in


__________224

the source language and not a hypothetical general rule, in this case non-existent and impossible to formulate. After two semesters, all students became aware of the confusion and, slowly, stopped practicing its exagerations.

3.3.2 Hypercorectness; exacerbation and entrenchment of periphrases 3.3.2.1 The error. Another “second degree side-effect” of the explanations in 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 is the exaggerated use of the periphrase,

explanations and helping words in bilateral translations involving verb aspect (especially in the case of perfective verbs or with perfective nuances). No less than 35% of monitored students fell into this trap (and more than half of them – 20% from the total number – reached the entrenchment phase of this error, using the periphrase and explanations in their translation even when they were not needed). Similar to 3.3.1, we are dealing with, without exception, the students that reacted positively to the explanation in the aforementioned paragraphs regarding the similarities and differences between Czech imperfective/perfective verbs and romanian verbs with an imperfective/perfective aspect and regarding the need to mention the context (for example, with the help of periphrases, explanations and helping words) when translating verb aspect (which is the reason why we consider 3.3.2 as a “second degree side-effect”). Due to this, simple translation such as

Zítra navštivím rodiče své přítelkyně (Mâine îi voi vizita / o să-i vizitez / îi vizitez pe părinţii prietenei mele – Tomorrow I’ll visit the parents of my girlfriend)

or Řeknu Vám to (I’ll tell you) become, by virtue of trying to superfuously stress the perfective character of

the action, Mâine îi voi vizita / o să-i vizitez / îi vizitez pe părinţii prietenei mele o

singură dată / o singură dată în viaţă / pentru foarte scurt timp / cu un singur gest (!) / şi nu voi repeta aceasta (!) / şi n-o voi mai face niciodată (Tomorrow I will visit the parents of my girlfriend only once, once in a lifetime, for a very short time, with a single gesture (!)) etc.,

respectively Vă spun, dar n-o să repet / Vă voi spune o dată şi să ţineţi minte / O să vă zic

numai prima oară, că nici popa nu toacă de zece ori pentru o babă surdă (!) (I will


__________225

tell you and not repeat myself / and remember, I will tell you only the first time, because the priest also does not toll the bell ten times for a deaf lady) etc.

The confusion persists also in the case of translations involving the imperfective: Od zítra budu vstávat ráno (De mâine mă voi trezi de dimineaţă – Starting from tomorrow, I will wake up in the morning)

or Budu se vyjadřovat v mezích slušnosti (Mă voi exprima în limitele decenţei –

I will express myself within the limist of common decency) were “enriched” by students by additions such as: De mâine mă voi scula în fiecare dimineaţă / Începând de mâine o să mă

trezesc de dimineaţă multă vreme / Jur că (!) începând de mâine mă scol de dimineaţă / Mă voi trezi de dimineaţă de fiecare dată / mereu / fără încetare / toată viaţa / până la loc comanda (!) (Starting from tomorrow, I will get out of bed in the morning every day, I will get out of bed in the morning for a long time / I swear I will wake up in the morning beginning tomorrow / I will get out of bed in the morning every time / always / ceaselessly, all my life, until I drop) etc.,

respectivelyPromit că de acum încolo o să mă exprim frumos / Voi vorbi decent mult

timp de azi înainte (!) / O să vorbesc decent şi discursul meu va dura mult / De-acum nu mai vorbesc urât în ruptul capului (!) (I promise that from now I will express myself nicely, I will speak properly a long time from now on / I will speak properly and my discourse will last a long time / From now I will not speak badly may lightning strike me) etc.

Useless explanations of the context were also observed in the opposite direction translations: the sentence

Îi voi scrie / îi scriu (lui) mâine – I’ll write him tomorrow (Napíšu mu zítra) was translated (also in order to superfluously stress the perfective aspect of

the action) by Napíšu mu zítra jednou navždy (Îi voi scrie mâine o dată pentru totdeauna /

I will write him once for ever) / Napíšu mu zítra a ať mi už dá pokoj (Îi scriu mâine şi pe urmă să mă lase-n pace – I’ll write him once and then he’d better leave me alone (!)) / Napíšu mu zítra ale to se opakovat nebude (Îi voi scrie mâine, dar asta nu se va repeta – I will write him tomorrow but this will never happen again) etc.


__________226

and the statement Trebuie să mă ocup mai bine de copii (I must take better care of the kids)

(Musím lépe pečovat o deti) became after translation a form of pathetic covenant or apocalyptic promise

meant to stress its imperfective nuance: Přísahám, že ode dneška budu lépe pečovat o děti (Jur că de azi mă voi

ocupa mai bine de copii – I swear from now on I will take better care of the kids) / Slibuji, že budu lépe pečovat o děti každý den (Promit că în fiecare zi mă voi ocupa mai bine de copii – I promise to take better care of the kids every day from now on) / Od teď budu pečovat o děti výrazně lépe než dosud (De acum încolo mă voi ocupa de copii vizibil mai bine decât până acum – From now on I will visibly take better care of the kids than I have until now) etc.

3.3.2.2 Correcting the error. As in 3.3.1, not being the case of specific errors, but more or less exaggerations resulting from the fear of making mistakes and the scrupulosity in applying some self-taught rules, in order to correct the confusion dealt with in this paragraph, it is not necessary to invent new explanation, but to repeat, stress and detail (perhaps with more examples) the ones in 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. We will repeat and exemplify as often as needed that each translation situation involving verb aspect must be treated separately and that no viable general rules can be formulated. We will stress the fact that the defining and individualization of the context it not necessarily made by the useless addition of an exaggerated number of explanatory expressions and help words, but, on the contrary, this procedure can easily create a distance from the context which we want to express in out translation: if is enough, for example, that the statement

Îi voi scrie mâine (I will write tomorrow)be translated as Napíšu mu zítra without any additions context elements (of course, if they are not present in

the original Romanian text, in previous or following statements) and that, despite any relativity of the notion that verb aspect in Romanian, in the statement

Îi voi scrie mâine


__________227

it is clearly evident that the action will take place in the future (tomorrow) and, probably, only once, for which reason the proposed translation, using a single perfective verb, is justified.

Note:We will explain that the Romanian statement will not refer to the amount of time the

writing action will take the following day and to whether it will be abandoned or reenacted a sufficient number of time in order to translate the statement using the imperfective, so any such speculations are useless.

If needed, this detailed analysis of the context will be repeated in more translation situation involving verb aspect. As in 3.3.1 after two semesters of intensive work with the aforementioned methods, all students became aware of the confusion and, in time, it stopped appearing. Again, however, three months of no contact with a native speaker or the “living” language, can cancel the results of this work: both in the case of 3.3.1 and in the case of 3.3.2. more than a quarter of students who initially displayed these errors showed a recurrence.

4. Instead of conclusionsAs initially mentioned (and as in the case of he first part of the current

project, dedicated to the errors in learning Romanian by Czech and Slovak students in the field of phonetics), we did not propose to formulate or demonstrate theories or original results from a scientific point of view, just to show the problems we encountered in the field mentioned in the title, without assuming generalizations or recommendations. However, using the experience gained by us in future activity proved the methods were efficient in raising the quality of the work. We thus hope that our experience will prove useful to other colleagues dealing with teaching Romanian as a foreign language and allow ourselves to formulate some suggestions, in order to facilitate work and increase its efficiency:

4.1. Specific conclusions regarding the topic of the present paper 4.1.1 There is a need for careful attention in defining, formulating and

presenting possible similarities between Romanian and Czech or Slovak when it comes to verb aspect (see 2.2), because students have the tendency to generalise parallel element and “invent” based on the structures that do not exist in Romanian,


__________228

“copied” or “incorporated” directly from Czech and Slovak. We must take into account the possibility that our efforts to correct the confusions will weigh more than the advantages of the existence of certain similarities between Romanian and Czech/Slovak. Experience has taught us that it is more efficient, after presenting each element in parallel or possible similarity of verb aspect between Romanian and Czech / Slovak, to detail the corresponding differences, in order to avoid the possibility or at least reduce it, of students imagining the existence of a degree of similarity bigger than reality between the two languages in the field to which this study is dedicated. Maybe things mentioned here contain even a certain potential for generalization: similar precautions can be taken, perhaps, in presenting any future parallels or similarities, in any field, between Romanian and a second language.

4.1.2 The Romanian native lecturer must be ready every year with answers to those errors and confusions regarding verb aspect that occur in students of Romanian, that occur constantly every year (see. 2.2.2, 2.2.4, 3.2). However, we must also be prepare for the possibility that verb aspect student errors appear even where we least expect it and to try and find immediate viable answers and efficient reactions to the confusions that initially surprise or even shock us. In other words, we must be aware constantly that we cannot appear in front of students with pre-prepared answers to all questions that might arise regarding verb aspect, and must always be able to react spontaneously (or even improvise) to the unexpected observations or confusions of our disciples. We believe that this observation can also potentially be generalised, similar to 4.1.

4.1.3 (Not only) regarding verb aspect, the most “dangerous” tendency on behalf of the students, which we must combat using other methods, are linguistic or structural “ticks”, the automatic transfer of structures and rules from Czech/Slovak to Romanian10. The most frequent ways these manifest themselves are: the tendency to look for find “perfect” equivalents between Romanian and Czech/Slovak verbs (translating “a word to one word”), the tendency to apply in translation the criteria of verb aspect (translating “perfective to perfective, imperfective to imperfective”), the tendency to identify Romanian verbs with an imperfective/perfective nuance by their form structure (presence of the prefix etc.)

10 Tendency which, as shown in 4.1., stimulates, among other, the idea of the existence of

relatively similar or parallel elements between the two languages in the specific field.


__________229

and the tendency to “invent” Romanian perfective or imperfective verbs by arbitrarily manipulating their form structure (adding prefixes or repeating syllables)

4.1.4 Especially important seem the stress and argumentation using as many examples as possible the idea that the translation in which elements of verb aspect appear, must be done using as main criteria the meaning of the expression in the source language and not following a hypothetical rule of “equivalence” of verb aspect between the two languages (meaning the automatic tendency to translate perfective to perfective and imperfective to imperfective). And the meaning in the target language is rendered better if the meaning in the source language was well understood, based on the context in which the translated statement is found. It must be repeatedly stressed and explained with multiple examples that, in Romanian – Czech/Slovak translations involving verb aspect, the key to accurate translations (taking into account the impossibility of identifying an “equivalence” of verb aspect in the two languages) is the reconstruction in the target language of the accurate context understood from the source language, and that in order to do this, periphrases, explanations and helping words are often needed.

4.1.5 Experience taught us that, from among all errors and confusions involving verb aspect, the hardest to deal with are the ones mentioned in 4.3, respectively the so called first degree errors (resulting from the tendency to “invent” non-existent Romanian structures – similar to ones in Czech/Slovak). Once becoming aware of the essence of these confusions and overcoming them, new errors (“of the second degree”) that appear as a side-effect of the explanations meant to deal with the first degree errors, are much easier to combat than the initial ones because they arise mainly from a tendency for hypercorection (otherwise typical for Czech and Slovak students in all fields) and trying not to make errors “of the first degree”, from the honest wish to apply and use with good-faith the explanations of the lecturer regarding these aspects. Because of this, not to minimise the errors “of the second degree”, we believe that, despite their shocking and unexpected aspect (see 3.2 and 3.3), there is no need to panic and it is good to be aware that the worst has passes with the correction of the “first degree” errors. “Second degree” errors require, in general, minor corrections, based on repeating and possible detailing of explanations already given and on intense work with a big number of examples, picked in such a way as to


__________230

clearly contradict the fantasy “rules” imagined by students and to illustrate as well as possible the principle that every situation of Czech/Slovak and Romanian translation involving verb aspect is, in its own way, individual and unique, impossible to include in any formal system of rules.

4.2. Conclusions common to the present paper and the one regarding learning Romanian phonetics as a Czech /Slovak student

Taking into account the fact that, as previously mentioned, the present paper represents the second part of a project dedicated to problems in studying Romanian as a Czech/Slovak student, another series of conclusions will be common with the ones drawn in the first part of this project, dealing with problematic aspect in learning phonetics. We will mention then below, with the observation that they are also mentioned in the conclusion of our paper presented at the symposium Româna ca Limbă Nematernă (Romanian as a second language) that took place in Cluj on

September 21st and 22nd, 2012:4.2.1 Taking into account the relatively low level of knowledge of foreign

languages (even international ones) among Czechs and Slovaks, it is not recommended to use parallels with an intermediary language in order ro explain, based on parallels with it, certain phenomena specific to Romanian. We consider it preferable that the native Romanian lecturer of Czech and Slovak students know not only one of the two languages, in order to facilitate communication with the students, but also elements of Czech/Slovak culture and civilization, in order to understand the historical and social origins of their students’ psychology.

4.2.2 The lecturer must show tact when drawing parallels between Czech and Slovak, avoiding the situation in which he would explain to natives elements of their own language and culture, so that he does not embarrass or offend them.

4.2.3 The Romanian lecturer must take into account the fact that the difficult problem of verb aspect in Czech/Slovak and Romanian bilateral translations will be difficult to grasp and apply for Czechs and Slovaks and that three months of no contact with a native or living language will be enough for students to forget a large amount of knowledge that was difficult to teach and learn.

4.2.4 Also, the native Romanian lecturer should take into account that, similar to phonetics, when it comes to verb aspect mnemotechnical “tricks” and pedagogical “shortcuts” have a limited effect, both in time and regarding the


__________231

complexity and depth of knowledge gained by Czech and Slovak students; thus, there is almost no practical alternative to the classical intensive work of the teacher, consisting of explanations, exercises, repetition, individual and group work etc.

NOTE

Tento článek vznikl v rámci vědeckého výzkumného záměru "Program rozvoje vědních oblastí na Univerzitě Karlově č. 12; podprogram č. 205 605 Historie v interdisciplinární perspektivě."

This paper has been elaborated within the project "Program # 12 of developing scientific fields, Charles University, subprogram # 205 605, History from an interdisciplinary perspective.


__________232

References

Academia Română, 2008, Gramatica Limbii Române, Ediţia Academia RomânăArchive Prima TV, 2007, březen, 1445 / 26, courtesy Prima TVBorş, Monica 2005. Categoria gramaticală a aspectului în limba română, In:

Transilvania, 2006, nr. 7, pp 51-55, online version Coteanu, Ion, 1982, Gramatica de bază a limbii române, Bucureşti, Editura

Albatros.Felix, Jiří 1983. Rumunština pro samouky, Praha, CarolinumGramatica Limbii Române, 2005Hrdlička, Milan. Slovesný vid a výuka češtiny pro cizince, online: http://www.c2j.cz/

images/stories/C2J/prednasky/aspekt_c2j.pdfHristea, Th. 1984, Sinteze de limba română, Ed. Albatros, Bucureştihttp://www.ff.upol.cz/kalendar-akci/cal/2012/04/18/event/view-list|page_id-8409||

view-month|page_id-13052||view-day|page_id-13052/tx_cal_phpicalendar/2848/ http://www.revistatransilvania.ro/arhiva/2006/pdf/numarul7/p51-55.pdfKopečný, František 1961. Slovesný vid v češtině, Nakl. Československé Akademie

vědMargan, Manuela Luminiţa 2010. Abordarea Contrastivă a Verbului în Limba

Română şi în Limba Engleză. Teză de doctorat. Universitatea Aurel Vlaicu din Arad; online la http://www.uav.ro/files/doctorat/Rezumat_teza_Margan.pdf

Novotná, Petra 2009. Slovesný vid (aspekt), 24. listopadu, VMS; online: http://www.google.cz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CCQQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjulie.ff.jcu.cz%2Fstructure%2Fdepartments%2Fub%2Fdoc%2Fnovotna.ppt&ei=0WyEUMvtOerj4QSqo4DQDA&usg=AFQjCNFDzJwTTK6r_RXdxVbStixiij3YMQ

Paliga, Sorin 2012. Slovesný vid v češtině ve srovnání s ostatními slovanskými jazyky, Přednáška na FFUP v Olomouci, 18. dubna; online:

Platon, Elena, Sonea, Ioana, Vîlcu, Dina, 2012, Manual de limba română ca limbă străină, A1-A2, Cluj, Casa Cărţii de Ştiinţă

Plíšek, Jaromír 2000. Rumunština do batohu, Praha: ArgoPologea, Mona, 2007, Romanian for Foreigners, Bucureşti, Editura ICRRácová, A., 1999, Kategória aspektuálnosti v slovenčině a rómčině, In: S.

Ondrejovič /ed./ Slovenčina v kontaktoch a konfliktoch s inými jazykmi. Sociolinguistica Slovaca 4, Veda, Bratislava, 172-177

Romalo, Valeria Guţu 1960, Repetiţia, procedeu sintactic de exprimare a aspectului în limba română, In: Studii şi Cercetări Lingvistice, anul XI, nr. 3, pp. 485-493

Romalo, Valeria Guţu 1961. Semiauxiliare de aspect?, In: Limba română, anul X, nr. 1 pp. 3-15.

Roubalová E., 1996: Učíme se česky. Praha, Karolinum Šára, M. a kol., 2001: Prahová úroveň – Čeština jako cizí jazyk, Strasbourg, Council

of Europe Publishing

http://www.c2j.cz/images/stories/C2J/prednasky/aspekt_c2j.pdf

http://www.c2j.cz/images/stories/C2J/prednasky/aspekt_c2j.pdf

http://www.uav.ro/files/doctorat/Rezumat_teza_Margan.pdf


__________233

Šlosar, Dušan 1981. Slovotvorný vývoj českého slovesa, Univerzita J.E. Purkyně v Brně

Šmilauer, Vl.: Slovesný vid a způsob slovesného děje, In: Druhé hovory o českém jazyce. Praha, Nakladatelství ing. Mikuta 1947, s. 65-79

Trávníček, František 1923. Studie o českém vidu slovesném, Nákladem České Akademie věd a umění

Zacordoneţ, A. 1961, Problema existenţei aspectului verbal în limba română, In: Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii „Al.I.Cuza” din Iaşi, serie nouă, secţiunea III (Ştiinţe sociale), tomul VII


__________234

Abstract:

The following paper is part of a bigger project, which summarizes the author’s experience in the field of language teaching, specifically teaching Romanian to Czech and Slovak natives. A first part of this work, dedicated to phonetic difficulties, was presented during the international symposium Româna ca limbă nematernă – noi metode şi perspective (Romanian as a second language – new methods and perspectives), which took

place in Cluj, September 21st-22nd, 2012, and was also published in the symposium dedicated volume. The present material is part of a different chapter of the same project, and it deals with the problems Czech and Slovak natives encounter when learning Romanian, specifically the verb aspect issues, when translating it from Czech to Romanian, when using it in Romanian to Czech translation, when trying to identify linguistic elements in Romanian that date back to verb aspect and when working with these elements. Similar to the material presented in Cluj, we will not formulate or demonstrate theories or original results from a scientific point of view, but only to present issues encountered in the aforementioned field, without making generalizations or recommendations of any kind.

Probably, at least part of the difficulties concerning verb aspect we have encountered when teaching Romanian to Czech and Slovak natives is found in the experience of other educators, dealing with students of other Slavic origins. However, being aware that each didactic experience is, in its own way, unique and unrepeatable and taking into account that, on the second hand, there are specific issues arising when reaching Romanian to Czechs and Slovaks, we have decided to try and share our experience in working with students belonging to these two groups, hoping that colleagues dedicated to teaching Romanian as a second or foreign language will find these useful.

Keywords:Verb aspect, perfective verb, imperfective verb, elements of verb aspect in

Romanian, translation of verb aspect, context, parallel

Bilingual Dictionaries__________

__________235

The verbal aspect in bilingual Romanian− Slavic dictionaries

Anca Irina IonescuUniversity of Bucharest

Romanian students learning Slavic languages are faced with many difficulties, much more than those threatening their colleagues who want to learn Romanic or Germanic languages. Thus they have not only to learn and memorize a great number of new word, phrases and grammatical rules which differ from those of their mother tongue, but when approaching Slavic languages Romanian students have to understand the functioning of several new grammatical categories, which do not exist in their native language.

Here are some of the difficulties the Romanian student is confronted with when learning Slavic languages:

a) The use of the Instrumental case (where it exists) without preposition and as subject of the action in the passive construction − píšeme tužkou “We write with a pencil”, and most byl postaven Karlem IV “The bridge was built by Karel IV.”, where Romanians are tempted to insert a preposition.

b) The use of the possessive reflexive pronoun svůj with the same forms in all persons but with different meanings (and different equivalents in Romanian): miluju svou matku “I love my mother”, miluješ svou matku “you love your mother” miluje svou sestru “he/she loves his/her sister (his own sister), but miluje jeho sestru “he/she loves his sister” (someone else’s sister, not his sibling).

c) But by far the greatest difficulty for the Romanian students is the Slavic verbal aspect, which is fundamentally alien to the Romanian language. And that is the reason the bilingual dictionaries should give here a more substantive help. As almost all dictionaries, without notable exception indicate the gender of the nouns,

Romano-Bohemica II / Ionescu__________

__________236

the bilingual Slavic-Romanian and Romanian-Slavic should also help differentiate verbal aspects.

It should be stressed that in no case can we rely on the students’ “intuition”, which will finally guide him in the correct use of the aspectual forms. This works only in very young children, maybe until the age of 10-12, and only if the child lives in the respective language environment. The two hours weekly of grammar teaching are not sufficient to this purpose.

The verbal aspect is a specific category of all the Slavic languages and, in the great lines it can be said that most of the verbs have both the perfective and imperfective aspect. As a rule, there are two verbs in a Slavic language for one in Romanian, e.g. (el) a scris = Czech psal/napsal. There are also verbs which, for different reasons have only one aspect, but they are not the purpose of our research.

To put it in a nutshell (as we try to teach our students) imperfective verbs express an unfinished action, in progress or repeated. Perfective verbs express a finished, concluded, punctual action. This is why they have no present tense. As a rule, perfective verbs are derived from the imperfective ones by means of prefixes.

Verbal prefixes are of two main categories− prefixes which change only the aspect without changing the meaning: psát

− napsat “to write”;− prefixes which change both the aspect and the meaning ceh. psát (ipf.) −

přepsat (pf.); in this case the imperfective verb of the same aspect is formed with a suffix: přepsat − přepisovat.

Imperfective

psát →

+ pře- →

Perfective

napsat

přepsat →

Sense

a scrie (to write)

a transcrie

(to transcribe)

Imperfective

přepisovat


__________237

And there are, of course, different special cases, such as verbs derived from different roots: brát (ipf.) − vzít (pf.) “to take”; or verbs which are both perfective and imperfective, depending on the context: obětovat, informovat etc.

For the purpose of this study we have researched approximately 50 bilingual Slavic-Romanian and Romanian-Slavic languages, published from 1909 until a few years ago: (Arbure, Zamfir, Българско румънски речник, Bucharest, 1909) and (Keranova, Snejana, Dicţionar român-bulgar, First edition. Naouka i Izkoustvo, Sofia, 2008. Dobriţoiu-Alexandru, Teodora, Česko-rumunský slovník. Dicţionar ceh-român, 3rd revised and completed edition. Editura Semne, Bucharest, 2008), in an attempt to highlight the main trends.

1) If we look at the list we can see that the first to feel it necessary to mark the verbal aspect were the Romanian authors Dorin Gămulescu and Mirco Jivcovici in their Dicţionar sârbocroat-român, Pančova − Bucharest, 1970, unlike its counterpart authored by Radu Flora, where there is no mention of the verbal aspect.

The same applies for Gh. Bolocan and his Dicţionar bulgar-român, published in Sofia and Bucharest two years later (1972).

2) Another category is made up of the dictionaries where not only is the verbal aspect marked constantly, but the aspectual pair is given every time when this is possible.

The first dictionary conceived according to this rule was authored by Gh. Bolcan: Academia Republicii Populare Române. Institutul de Lingvistică. Dicţionar rus-român. Redactor responsabil Gh. Bolocan, Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1964. In every entry the verbal aspect is marked and the opposite verb is given in brackets: взорвáть vb. pf. (ipf. взрывáть) a exploda “to explode”. The imperfective verb is not developed; the user is referred to the perfective one: взрывáть vb. ipf. v. взорвáть. And the same applies to the other bilingual Russian-Romanian dictionaries on our list, published afterwards.

We will find the same approach in all the other Russian-Romanian and Romanian-Russian dictionaries published under the coordination of Gh. Bolocan: Dicţionar rus-român, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1985;


__________238

Bolocan, Gheorghe, Medvedev, Tatiana, Voronţova, Tatiana, Dicţionar român-rus, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică − Limba rusă, Bucharest − Moscow, 1980: arăta […] покáзывать − покaзáть, with the imperfective verb always coming first, to avoid confusion.

The second dictionary where the two verbal aspects are clearly and constantly marked is Dicţionarul ceh-român worked out by a team of linguists under the coordination of Sorin Stati issued in 1967 in the Academia Publishing House. The verbal aspect is marked in every entry and reference is made to the opposite aspect e.g.: oddávat ipf. v. oddati a cununa; přestřihovat ipf. v. přestřihnouti. There is no preference for treating mainly the perfective or imperfective verb.

All the other Romanian authors of Czech dictionaries have observed the same rule. Thus, Dicţionarul ceh-român, by Teodora Alexandru-Dobriţoiu published by Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică in 1978 puts the opposite verb immediately after the entry in Czech: docílit vb. pf.; docilovat ipf. a reuşi să realizeze ceva “to achieve something”; dodat vb. pf.; dodávat ipf. a adăuga “to add”. The same rule is observed in the following editions of the same dictionary: Ed. Semne, 2008: přepisovat ipf.; přepsat pf. a copia, a transcribe “to transcribe”; přerůst pf.; přerůstat ipf. a depăşi în înălţime “to outgrow”.

The same way of approaching the aspect is to be found in the Romanian-Czech Dictionary by Anca Irina Ionescu of 1982, Dicţionar român-ceh, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1982, where the Czech equivalent of the Romanian verb is almost always a pair of aspectually opposite verbs: scrie vt. psát − napsat “to write”; primi vt. dostávat − dostat. If the Czech verb has no opposite or is used in both aspects, this situation is also made visible: intenţiona zamýšlet ipf. To avoid confusing the user, the imperfective verb comes always first. The same approach is observed in the following editions of the dictionary. (Leda, Praga, 2002)

The following author who felt it necessary to mark the verbal aspect by using verbal pairs was Mirco Jivcovici in his Mic dicţionar sârbocroat-român, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1981. He uses 3 ways to do this: by putting the


__________239

two verbs one after the other: pozdraviti perf., pozdravljati imperf.; by referring to the opposite aspect: konakovati vi. imperf. vezi (“see”) konačiti; by marking the aspect without mentioning the opposite verb: končati vt. imperf. a broda; and there are also cases when the aspect is not at all marked, but we know from the foreword that they can be used both perfectively and imperfectively: koncentrirati vt. koncentrisati vt. a concentra “to concentrate”.

In his most recent edition of the Dicţionar bulgar-român (Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1994) Tiberiu Iovan chose to mark the verbal aspect and he did so in two ways: a) he specifies the verbal aspect without referral to the opposite aspect: летя ipf. a zbura “to fly”; b) includes both verbs in the entry: опразвам şi опразням ipf. опразня pf. a goli “to empty”; определям ipf. определя pf. a determina “to determine”.

The verbal aspect is constantly marked in the Dicţionar român-slovac şi slovac-român, by Anca Irina Ionescu Universal Dalsi, Bucharest, 1999. In the Romanian−Slovak section the Slovak equivalent is given as a pair of two verbs with the imperfective one coming always first and when the Romanian verb has Slovak equivalents which are not seen as pairs their aspect is also given: azvârli “to throw” vt. hádzať ipf., hodiť ipf., vrhať-vrhnúť.

In the Slovak-Romanian section, the opposite aspect is given at the end of the entry in rectangular brackets: odbaviť pf. 1 a termina, a sfârşi “to finish, to end”; 2 a face de mântuială, a răscoli “to scamp (one’s work)”; 3 a respinge, a refuza “to reject, to refuse” [odbavovať].

NOTE We can see lately a greater attention attached to the verbal aspect in other

dictionaries meant for non-Slavic users. Thus in Wielki Słownik angielsko-polski. The Great English-Polish Dictionary, Ed. Philip Wilson, Warsaw, 1999 (first edition from the 20s of the 20. century) its author Jan Stanislawski, felt it necessary to give indications about the verbal aspect, which made the dictionary a much more useful instrument for the English speaking world. expectorate […] odkaszl-nąć/iwać: plu-nąć/ć, splunąć/wać; in the Polish-English Dictionary we find the


__________240

opposite verb immediately after the entry: usadowić v perf − usadawiać v imperf. Both verbs are in bold letters, making it more obvious that they constitute a single semantic unit.

Conclusions

1. The general conclusion resulting from the examination of the above mentioned dictionaries is that in the Romanian-Slavic and Slavic-Romanian dictionaries only the Romanian authors have been interested in the verbal aspect, which is easy to understand and in line with the statement made at the beginning of the paper, namely that the most difficult problem for a non-Slavic speaker wanting to learn a Slavic language is the verbal aspect, which puts no difficulty whatsoever to the native speaker who “feels” its correct use.

This is the reason why the Slavic authors of bilingual dictionaries pay little or no attention to the verbal aspect. Sometimes the aspect is specified, but in a way which generates a lot of confusion in the mind of a non-native speaker:

strica… (“to spoil”) (z)kaziti; (z)ničiti, (z)mařiti; strănuta … (“to sneeze”) kých׀nouti, -ati; (Jiří Staca, Rumunsko-český slovník, SPN, Prague, 1961). Or: cădea (“to fall”) (u)padać; and arăta (“to show”) pokazywać ipf. (Dicţionar român-polon. Sub redacţia prof. dr. Jan Reychman, Wiedza Powszechna, Warsaw, 1979). In their foreword the authors say: As a Polish equivalent of a Romanian verb, we give as a rule only the imperfective verb, e.g. scrie (“to write”) 1. pisać (and not the perfective napisać).” This information is quite satisfactory for a Polish speaker, who will know when he is supposed to use pisać and when napisać but of no real use to the Romanian student, who should first have good knowledge of the Czech/Polish grammar to decipher what is hidden in ceh. (z)osnovati, (z)kaziti, obveseliti, -ovati; pol. (u)padać, or to choose the correct verb (înveşmânta – Czech obléci, oblékati “to put on”). But even if the Romanian user has found out what the verbal aspect is, still he will not be able to say in Polish that he wrote a letter if the Dictionary gives him only the form pisać.


__________241

2. The best way to handle the verbal aspect in bilingual Romanian-Slavic and Slavic-Romanian dictionaries is to use them in pairs of opposite aspects, where there is no semantic difference between the two aspects. Moreover, there are cases when it also helps differentiate the senses of the verb as we can see in an example from the Romanian-Slovak Dictionary: imprima vt. […] 2 (ţesături) tlačiť-potlačiť “to imprint”; 3 (a tipări) tlačiť-vytlačiť “to stamp, to print”.

References

BINNICK, R. I., Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect, Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.

GUILLAUME, Gustave, Temps et verbe. Théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps suivi de l'architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques, Paris, 1984.

KOPEČNÝ, Fr., Slovesný vid v češtině, Prague, 1962.MIŞAN, A., Categoria gramaticală a aspectului verbal (I), „Cercetări de

lingvistică”, XIV, 2, 1969; II, XV, 1, 1970.PALIGA, S., Devenir et aspectualisation. Encore une fois sur le verbe slave,

„Romanoslavica”, XXXV, Ed. Universităţii din Bucureşti, 1997.SALONI, A., Czasownik polski, Wiedza Powszechna, Warsaw, 2002.ŠMILAUER, Vl. Nauka o českém jazyku, Prague, 1972.TRÁVNÍČEK, Fr., Mluvnice spisovné češtiny, Prague, 1951.VINŢELER, O., Cu privire la nuanţele de aspect ale verbelor româneşti de origine

slavă, „Studii şi cercetări lingvistice”, 1, Ed. Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1969.

ZACORDONEŢ, A., Problema existenţei aspectului verbal în limba română, „Analele Universităţii din Iaşi”, Secţiunea III (Ştiinţe Sociale), VII, 1961.


__________242

Abstract

The author attempts at a comparative study and explores several Romanian-Slav and Slav-Romanian Dictionaries issued in Romania in the last 50 years (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, Slovak) and the way the verbal aspect is illustrated in the grammatical indicators accompanying the headwords. Special emphasis is laid on the comparative presentation of the communication tools in the two languages highlighting the main differences between the two linguistic systems. The interaction between Romanian lexical, syntactic and situational specific features and the Slavic ones is highlighted based on the different ways of editing bilingual dictionaries in Romania.

Key words: verbal aspect, bilingual dictionaries, aspectual markers, aspectual correspondence

APPENDIX

Bilingual Slavic-Romanian And Romanian-Slavic Dictionaries

BULGARIAN

Arbure, Zamfir, Българско румънски речник, Bucharest, 1909. Marcinkov, I., Пълен румъно-български речник, Sofia, 1914.Arnaudov, Valentin, Mişu, Lukreţiia, Pумъно-български речник, Sofia, Nauka i

Izkustvo, 1954.Българска академия на науките. Институт за български език. Румъно-български

речник. Întocmit de Ivan Penakov, Jeleazko Rainov, Georgi Pauncev, Издателство на Българскатa академия на науките, Sofia, 1962.

Bolocan, Gheorghe, Dicţionar bulgar-român, Editura Ştiinţifică − Nauka i Izkustvo, Sofia − Bucharest, 1972.

Kanurcova, Spasca, Dicţionar român-bulgar, Editura Ştiinţifică − Nauka i Izkustvo, Sofia − Bucharest, 1972.

Iovan, Tiberiu, Mic dicţionar bulgar-român, Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1983; 1988. Iovan Tiberiu, Dicţionar bulgar-român, Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1994. Keranova,

Snejana, Dicţionar român-bulgar, Ediţia întâi. Naouka i Izkoustvo, Sofia, 2008.

CZECH

Křečan, Antonín, Felix, Jiří, Rumunsko-český a česko-rumunský kapesní slovník, SPN, Praga, 1963.


__________243

Staca, Jiří, Rumunsko-český slovník, SPN, Praga, 1961.Academia Republicii Socialiste România. Institutul de Lingvistică din Bucharest.

Dicţionar ceh-român, Red. resp. Sorin Stati, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, Bucharest, 1967.

Křečan, Antonín, Felix, Jiří, Blaha, Jaroslav, Rumunsko-český a česko-rumunský kapesní slovník, SPN, 1971.

Dobriţoiu-Alexandru, Teodora, Dicţionar ceh-român, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1978.

Dobriţoiu-Alexandru, Teodora, Dicţionar român-ceh, Ed. Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1982. Ionescu, Anca-Irina, Dicţionar român-ceh, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1982. Dobriţoiu-Alexandru, Teodora, Dicţionar ceh-român, Ed. Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1983.Ionescu, Anca-Irina, Rumunsko-český slovník. Dicţionar român-ceh, Leda, Prague, 2002. Dobriţoiu-Alexandru, Teodora, Česko-rumunský slovník. Dicţionar ceh-român, ed. a III-a

revizuită şi completată, Editura Semne, Bucharest, 2008.

MACEDONIAN

Tomici, Mile, Македонско романски речник. Dicţionar macedonean-român, Makedonska Kniga − Editura Enciclopedică şi Ştiinţifică, Skopje − Bucharest, 1986.

POLISH

Dicţionar polonez-român, Słowniczek polsko-rumuński, Bucharest, 1939. Dicţionar polonez-român. Słowniczek polsko-rumuński i mała gramatyka, Cernăuţi, 1939. Strungaru, Diomid, Słownik rumuńsko-polski, Bucharest, 1939.Iliescu, Vladimir, Mic dicţionar polon-român, Wiedza Powszechna, Warsaw, 1963. Skarzynski, Zdzisław, Mały słownik polsko-rumuński, Wiedza Powszechna, Warsaw, 1963. Skarzyński, Zdzisław, Mały słownik rumuńsko-polski, Wiedza Powszechna, Warsaw, 1963.Dicţionar român-polon. Sub redacţia prof. dr. Jan Reychman, Wiedza Powszechna,

Warsaw, 1979. Mareş, Anda, Mareş Nicolae, Dicţionar polon-român, Editura Enciclopedică şi

Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1980. Iliescu, Vladimir, Mic dicţionar polon-român, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1981.Bytnerowicz, Alexandra, Mic dicţionar român-polon, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1981.

RUSSIAN

Academia Republicii Populare Române. Institutul de Lingvistică. Dicţionar rus-român. Redactor responsabil Gh. Bolocan, Editura Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, 1964.

Vascenco, Victor, Mic dicţionar român-rus, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1966; 1968; 1972; 1975.


__________244

Medvedev, Tatiana, Mic dicţionar român-rus, Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1969; 1989. Bolocan, Gheorghe, Medvedev, Tatiana, Voronţova, Tatiana, Dicţionar român-rus,

Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică − Limba rusă, Bucharest − Moscow, 1980. Bolocan, Gheorghe, Voronţova, Tatiana, Şodolescu-Silvestru, Elena, Dicţionar rus-

român, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucharest, 1985.Noveanu, Eugen, Dicţionar român-rus şi rus-român, Redacţia Principală a

Enciclopediei Moldovei, Kishinev, 1991.

SERBIAN AND CROATIAN

Rumunsko-srpskohrvatski rečnik, Dicţionar român-sârbocroat, Red. princ. Radu Flora, Libertatea, Panciova, Ed. Şt B 1969.

Gămulescu, Dorin, Jivcovici, Mirco, Dicţionar sârbocroat-român, Novinsko Preduzeće „Libertatea” − Editura Ştiinţifică, Pancevo − Bucharest, 1970.

Jivcovici, Mirco, Mic dicţionar sârbocroat-român, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1981. Jivcovici, Mirco, Mic dicţionar român-sârbocroat, Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1986.

Tomici, Mile, Dicţionar român-sârb, Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvistică „Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti”, Ed. Academiei Române, Bucharest, 2005.

Jivcovici, Mirco, Dicţionar român-sârb (croat), Helicon, Timişoara, 1994. Jivcovici, Mirco, Dicţionar sârb-român şi român-sârb, Teora, Bucharest, 1999.

SLOVAK

Křečan, Antonín, Staca Jiří, Hušková, Jindra, Koverzačna příručka rumunčiny. Rumunsko-slovenský slovník ku slovenskému vydaniu, Pripravil Vladimir Halenar, SPN, Bratislava, 1961. Breazu, Monica, Barborică, C., Mic dicţionar român-slovac, Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1978.

Ionescu, Anca Irina, Dicţionar român-slovac şi slovac-român, Editura Universal Dalsi, Bucharest, 1999.

UKRAINIAN

Dicţionar român-ucrainean, red. princ. Gh. Cocotailo, Rumunsko-ukrainski slovnik, Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică, Bucharest, 1963.

Dicţionar român-ucrainean, Rumunsko-ukrainski slovnik, Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică – Editura „Alexandru cel Bun”, Bucharest − Chernivtsi, 1996.

Narration and Discourse__________

__________245

The Verbal Aspect between Narration and Discourse

Marilena Felicia Luţă (Ţiprigan)University of Bucharest

In the Romanian language, attention has focused on essential questions relating

to the (non)existence of the verbal aspect in Romanian, its Latin or Slavic origin, the differentiation between the verbal aspect and the verbal action mode, the way of rendering the verbal aspect in Romanian. Beyond our consideration for these studies, there is obviously a need to exceed the diachronic approaches and the issues strictly relating to the above mentioned matters in order to focus on the pragmatic impact the verbal aspect may have on a non-Slavic language such as Romanian.

In this paper, we strive to analyze the way aspectuality is reflected in Romanian, taking into consideration E. Benveniste’s (1966: 237-250) fascinating theories. Given the fact that in Romanian the verbal aspect category does not exist as such, and aspectuality is reflected only at the lexico-semantic level, we shall opt for a confrontative approach, in which by aspectuality we understand both the opposition between the various tense forms and the different lexical nuances which, connected to the verb’s semantics, contributes to closely specify the verbal action. We shall analyze the way tenses combine in Romanian in order to render the Slovak verbal aspect, as well as the relevant tense oppositions such as: Present-Compound Perfect Indicative (the equivalent of the Romanian “perfect compus”), Present-Aorist (the equivalent of the Romanian “perfect simplu”), and Aorist- Past Perfect (the equivalent of the Romanian “mai-mult-ca-perfect”). Our analysis starts from the very distinction E. Benveniste makes between story (“histoire”) and discourse (“discours”).

The linguist starts from the premise that, to a certain extent, the tense system becomes redundant due to the way of expressing the past tense by various tense

Romano-Bohemica II / Luță__________

__________246

forms: the Compound Perfect Indicative (in spoken language) and the Aorist (in written texts). E. Benveniste notes that tenses do not form a unique system in French, but, on the contrary, they are distributed in two separate and, at the same time, complementary systems, competing each other and containing only a part of the tenses existing in French. These two systems would correspond, in E. Benveniste’s (1966: 242) opinion, to two different levels of utterance and subsequently, two types of discourse; on the one hand, the so-called “histoire”, i.e. the history, the narration, is only specific of written texts and is used only in the narration of past events without the narrator getting involved in the story itself and, on the other hand, the so-called “discours”, i.e. the discourse, represents “every utterance assuming a speaker and a listener, and in the speaker the intention of influencing the other in some way, […] every variety of oral discourse of any kind and any level […] also the mass of writing that reproduces oral discourse or that borrows its manner of expression and its purposes […] in brief, all the genres in which a person addresses another person, proclaims themselves as the speaker and organizes what they say in the category of person.” In other words, by discourse, E. Benveniste understands any form of dialog either in written or in spoken language.

Benveniste stresses the main linguistic characteristics of each level of utterance. Thus, the narration is characterized by the following:

1. It is restricted only to written language. 2. It excludes any autobiographic form such as: "here", "now", "me", "you"

and only makes use of the 3rd person forms, which, however, may not be opposed to the 1st or the 2nd person, as it happens when it comes to discourse, but rather suggests the absence of the person category, because the narrator aims at presenting the events as they are outlined in their expectation, as if the narration had been told all by itself, without any narrator getting involved in the storytelling.

3. The tenses that may be used in a narration are: the Aorist, the Past Imperfective (the equivalent of the Romanian “imperfect”), the Past Perfect and a substitute for the Future Tense, the so-called Prospective, expressing imminent actions, fatality. Present tense is excluded except for its a-temporal meaning that is


__________247

still used in definitions. The Future Tense and the Compound Perfect Indicative are also excluded.

In contrast to the narration, the discourse is characterized by the following features:

1. The discourse may be used both in written and in oral form.2. The discourse makes use of all person forms of the verb from "me", "you"

to “him/her " with the difference that the 3rd person acquires a different value at the level of discourse for here the non-person he/she is opposed to me/you.

3. In a discourse, all tenses are possible except for the Aorist that is specific of the narration, the past imperfective being used both in narration and in discourse. The Compound Perfect Indicative renders the vivid connection between the past event and the present moment when it is evoked, and it is the tense of the one who tells the story in his capacity as a witness or participant in the experienced events, making them seem closer to our present tense reference. With the Compound Perfect Indicative, the temporal reference is identified with the speech time while, with the Aorist, the temporal reference is the very moment when the event took place.

However, E. Benveniste considers that there is a third type of utterance in French, where both the discourse and the story are to be found together in the sense that the discourse is rendered as if had been a passed event, transposed to the narration level. This is the so-called “free indirect discourse”. The linguist also analyzes the distribution of simple and compound tenses within the verb system and notes that simple tenses are opposed to the compound ones, offering them a correspondent in the perfective form. Thus, on the one hand, the Compound Perfect Indicative forms correspond to the Simple Present Tense forms, the Past Perfect Tense forms correspond to the Past Imperfective forms, the Perfect Aorist compound forms correspond to Simple Aorist, and the Perfect Future compound forms correspond to the Future Simple Tense forms in French.

We can notice a similar conception in Maurice Grevisse’s work, where the verbal aspect, meant to express the progress, the evolution and the completion of an action, is mirrored "particularly in the opposition between the past imperfective and the Aorist, the action being considered as not completed in one case and completed in


__________248

the other one.” (Grevisse, Goose 1993) In other words, the past imperfective is associated with the Slavic imperfective aspect, and the Aorist is associated with the Slavic perfective aspect. Just like E. Benveniste, Grevisse considers that the compound tenses expressing a completed action may also contribute to expressing the aspectual opposition.

In pursuit of this approach, we expect that, at the discourse’s level, both Slovak imperfective and perfective verb forms to be translated into Romanian by any verb tense except for the Aorist that is only characteristic of the narration according to the theory of E. Benveniste. On the other hand, in the narration, the Slovak perfective and imperfective verbs should be rendered in Romanian by any verb tense except for the Present Tense, Future Tense and the Compound Perfect Indicative forms. E. Benveniste considers that the compound forms also indicate the anteriority, being used together with the simple forms belonging to the same temporal level. In other words, a tense anterior to the one used in a temporal clause rendering anteriority will match as follows: the Compound Perfect Indicative in the temporal clause matches with the Present Tense used in the main clause, the Past Perfect Tense in the temporal clause matches with the Past Imperfective used in the main clause, and the Future Perfect Tense in the temporal clause matches with the Future Tense in the main clause. We find it interesting that the compound tenses share the same distribution as the simple tenses regardless of the type of utterance and regardless, whether we deal with a completed action or with anteriority.

In French, the distribution of the verb tenses either at the narration level or at the discourse level may obviously not be argued (Benveniste 1966: 242):

1. Quand il a fini son travail, il rentre chez lui. cf. 2. Quand il eut fini son travail, il rentra chez lui.

(discourse) (narration)După ce termină treaba, se întoarce acasă. cf. După ce termină treaba, se

întoarse acasă. (discourse) (narration)After he has finished his work, he will go back home. cf. After he had finished

his work, he went back home. (discourse) (narration)


__________249

Hypothetically speaking, in Romanian, where there is no sequence of tenses, we have a much greater freedom of choice when it comes to rendering anteriority in one clause or another either in a narration or in a discourse. Thus, the Compound Perfect Indicative in the first example may also be rendered in Romanian by the so-called “viitor II” (corresponding to the French Future Perfect): După ce va fi terminat treaba, se întoarce acasă. In the temporal clause in the second example, in Romanian, the Past Perfect Tense may be used, as well: După ce terminase treaba, se întoarse acasă. We therefore face two major challenges. First of all, to what extent may the theory of E. Benveniste be applied in the context of the Romanian language, where the sequence of tenses does not exist? Secondly, what will determine and decide on the translator’s option for one tense or another if, for instance, we analyze the translation of two Slovak utterances into Romanian, one of them belonging to the narration level, the other one- to the discourse level.

Moreover, given the fact that Romanian does not have the same system of compound and over-compound verb forms as French, in this chapter, we shall analyze the distribution of the tense forms both in a discourse and in a narration, taken into consideration the way they are used in our translations from Slovak into Romanian. Of course, this approach would be limited to mere, hardly relevant findings unless we reconsidered the relationship between the Slovak verbal aspect and the Romanian tense forms. We start from the idea that, in a discourse, the Slovak imperfective and perfective verbs will be translated into Romanian by the Present Tense, the Future Tense, the Compound Perfect Indicative or the Past Imperfective while in a narration the Slovak verbs will be translated into Romanian by the Aorist, the Past Imperfective, the Past Perfect and the Future Perfect Tense. In addition, we expect that, regardless of the translator’s option for one tense or another, the verb form in the temporal clauses should stick to its anteriority meaning in order not to come into conflict with the distribution of the verb forms that are specific either of the discourse or of the narration.

At the same time, since, unlike English or French, in Romanian there is no sequence of tenses, we expect that, at the syntagmatic syntactic level, the Perfect Tense in the main clause will no longer be used with its both meanings.


__________250

Moreover, we shall take into consideration the regionally conditioned use of the Aorist.

Let us analyze the following examples:1.(...) Bol to strašný rok. Vtedy ešte nikto nepočul o vampíroch. (...) Era un an groaznic. Pe atunci, nimeni nu auzise de vampiri. ( ... ) That was a terrible year. At that time, nobody heard of vampires.1.(...) Bol to strašný rok. Počul si o vampíroch? (...) A fost un an groaznic. Ai auzit de vampiri?( ... ) That was a terrible year. Have you heard of vampires?

In the first example, the verb’s role is to project the action in illo tempore, which is specific of the narration, and the simple past perfect is the tense of the past events, marking "a breaking out in relation with the utterance moment." (CHUQUET, Hélène, PAILLARD, Michel 1987: 93). The temporal co-ordinates shape an event that happened earlier than the moment when it was reported on, but is contemporary with the time when the narrated events occurred. The adverbial vtedy (at that time) anchors these events on the time axis as if they had been almost simultaneous with their temporal reference, strašný rok (a terrible year). This temporal reference, however, is mistaken with the far away past, refusing being reported to the narration present moment and loses any connection with "now" and "here"; it has its own history which the impassible storyteller misses as the narrator is not involved in the narrated event in any way and is not interested in the reported events, hence the impression of temporal indefiniteness, which is stressed by the indefinite article a. Thus, the narrator becomes a mere tool, meant to report on an event that is not contemporary with him and relates to a moment that is much more remote from the present and, at the same time, almost simultaneous with the time when the narrated events happened.

As one can notice, in the narration, the imperfective verb byť (to be) no longer remains stuck in a long smooth duration, specific of the Romanian imperfective, but manages to render a past event and, still more, to shape the temporal dimension where the narrated event is situated. This is a descriptive imperfective verb, aiming at introducing us in the scenario the narrator has already


__________251

prepared and, in particular, in its temporal co-ordinates. Given its double role, the imperfective in the first sentence becomes the most appropriate verbal form in this context. In the narration, the imperfective therefore disguises itself in a kind of descriptive value imperfective just for the sake of setting up the temporal reference and shapes the events’ chronology. In other words, in the narration, a Slovak imperfective verb may borrow the morphological characteristics of a perfective verb and, in addition, requires a comprehensive range of Past Perfect Tense forms. The very option for the narration determines the option for Aorist and past perfect verb forms despite the fact that the Slovak verb byť (to be) is a imperfectivum tantum. In other words, it is not the verbal aspect as such, but the action’s setting either in a narration or in a discourse that is the essential factor determining the option for verb tenses when it comes to translating the Slovak verbs into Romanian.

In the second example, there is a shift to the discourse level. Although the two sentences relate to the same time reference on the time axis, to the speech time, however, they describe different events in comparison with the first example, where events were presented like sequences of a unique consistent and fluid story. In the second example, the narrator is no longer an entity separated from the reported events, but is one of the interlocutors, deeply involved in the act of narration and anchored in the narration’s present tense reference. The only past tense form that stays in contact both with the present tense reference and with the narrator is the Present Perfect Tense, i.e. the Present Compound Perfect Indicative. That is why one and the same Slovak imperfective verb is translated, when shifting to the discourse level, by another tense, i.e. the Present Perfect Tense. The conclusion is obvious: for the Romanian verb system, it is the temporal function, not the aspectual one that is predominant.

These findings are meant to lead to a different approach: from function to meaning and not the other way around (as most of the Romanian linguists did), given the fact that the Slovak verbal aspect forms may not be rendered as such in a genetically different language as Romanian. Before accepting domination by Romanian tense logic, the Slovak verbal aspect forms must first be able to withstand the “tyranny” of the discourse-narration distinction that mutilates their


__________252

aspectual content, preparing them to cope with a language for which the issue concerning the (non)existence of verbal aspect in its own language system is almost irrelevant since, for the Romanian verbs, the aspectual function is peripheral and subject to the temporal one.

Starting from these conclusions, in the following paragraphs, we shall examine the following oppositions: Present – Compound Perfect Indicative, Compound Perfect Indicative – Past Perfect, Aorist – Past Perfect, and Future – Romanian 2nd Future (i.e. the Future Perfect Tense). Let us suggest the following examples:

1. a) Píšem priateľovi. Splnil sa mi najkrajší sen: podarilo sa mi dokončiť báseň.

(Scriu prietenului. Mi s-a împlinit cel mai frumos vis: am reuşit să termin poezia.)

(I'm writing to my friend. My most beautiful dream has come true: I succeeded in finishing the poem.) cf.

1. b) Písala som priateľovi. Splnil sa mi najkrajší sen: podarilo sa mi dokončiť báseň.

(I-am scris prietenului. Mi se împlinise cel mai frumos vis: reuşisem să termin poezia.)

(I have written to my friend. My most beautiful dream had come true: I had succeeded in finishing the poem.) cf.

2. V roku 1930 písala priateľovi. Splnil sa jej najkrajší sen: podarilo sa jej dokončiť báseň.

(În anul 1930, îi scrise prietenului. I se împlinise cel mai frumos vis: reuşise să termine poezia.)

(In 1930, he wrote to his friend. His most beautiful dream had come true: he had succeeded in finishing the poem.)

The first two examples illustrate the discourse level and the third example- the narration level. For the beginning, we can notice the quantitative disproportion between examples 1 a and b, where, in Romanian, there are the following oppositions: Present – Compound Perfect Indicative, Compound Perfect Indicative


__________253

– Past Perfect, and example 2, where there is a single opposition: Aorist – Past Perfect. There may be one single and simple explanation for that: since, in the narration, the narrator only renders the events that another person has experienced or reported, the Present Tense may not be used unless it expresses the so-called “Historical Present Tense”. Furthermore, any another tense relating to the speech time is excluded from a narration’s logic. Beyond the quantitative disproportion, however, there is also a qualitative disproportion: in the first two examples, it is only the verb tenses relating to the speech time that are used while the verb tenses used in the second example refuse any connection with "here" and "now" and are only related to the moment when the event itself took place.

After this succinct analysis of the impact that the discourse - narration distinction has upon the translator’s option for one tense or another, we would like to consider A. Zacordoneţ’s opinions on the role of the Romanian verb tenses in rendering the aspect category. He only refers to the discourse level and argues that almost all the Romanian tense forms may render the imperfective aspect; the Present Tense, the Past Imperfective and the Future Tense are, however, most appropriate, given the fact that the imperfective aspect expresses an action in progress. At this level, we shall note that in Romanian the choice of the tenses obviously depends on the level at which we find ourselves. Thus, if we are in a situation specific of the discourse level as defined by E. Benveniste, then, the Aorist might render a Slovak imperfective verb only in dialectal Romanian, not in the written language. On the other hand, we should clearly specify what kind of future tense A. Zacordoneţ has in mind because suffice is to make up a complex sentence containing a temporal clause preceding the action expressed by the main clause, and, in this case, the Future Tense is expected to render a perfective verb rather than an imperfective one, as in the example:

Povedal, že príde po tom, ako sa náje. (A spus că vine după ce va mânca/va fi mâncat.) (He said he would come after he had eaten up.)A. Zacordoneţ (1961: 89-98) argues that the Aorist, the Compound Perfect

Indicative and the Past Perfect Tense render the perfective aspect, and the Aorist


__________254

best renders the perfective aspect of momentary verbs. We feel entitled to remark that the Aorist may render a perfective verb at the discourse level especially if we find ourselves in a peripheral, dialectal linguistic register specific of Oltenia, Banat, and Western Wallachia. Let us suggest the following examples:

1. Zmizla som v budove gymnázia, zobrala som knihu a odišla som. A to nebolo všetko. O chvíľu som sa vrátila a rozbila som všetko, čo som tam našla. cf.

(M-am făcut nevăzută în clădirea liceului, am luat cartea şi am plecat. Şi nu numai atât. După o clipă, m-am întors şi am distrus tot ce-am găsit acolo.)

(I have disappeared in the building of the high school, I have taken the book, and I have left. And that was not all. After a moment, I have turned back, and I have destroyed everything I could find out there.)

2. Zmizla v budove gymnázia, zobrala knihu a odišla. A to nebolo všetko. O chvíľu sa vrátila a rozbila všetko, čo tam našla.)

(Se făcu nevăzută în clădirea liceului, luă cartea şi plecă. Şi nu numai atât. După o clipă, se întoarse şi distruse tot ce găsi acolo.)

(She disappeared in the building of the high school, took the book, and left. And that was not all. After a moment, she turned back and destroyed everything she could find out there.)

In the first example, we find ourselves at the discourse level, the reference time is the speech time relating to "here" and "now", the subject represents the 1st person singular (an autobiographical pronoun form), and the Compound Perfect Indicative sets up a bridge between the narrator (as a direct participant in the narrated events) and the events themselves which the narrator brings closer to our present tense reference. In the second example, we find ourselves at the narration level, where the story is conveyed to us with an impersonal tone, the reference time is no longer the speech time, but the very moment when the event took place, the narrator uses the 3rd person and is totally detached from the event evoked. Thus, we can notice again that the discourse- narration distinction may condition the option for one tense or another in Romanian.

We believe that the Romanian tense forms can adequately render the aspectual differences (ŢIPRIGAN, Marilena Felicia 2007: 97-112) as long as there


__________255

is a clear distinction between the narration level and the discourse level (following E. Benveniste’s theory), as long as there are sufficient linguistic indices to shape up exactly either of the two tense systems in which the reported events fit. Thus, it is not sufficient to say that the Present Tense is neutral as for the verbal aspect and that one can perceive the contrasting aspectual subtleties between the Present Tense and the Future Tense, respectively, between the Present Tense and the Past Imperfective according to the time reference considering the speech time. The Present Tense loses its neutrality1 once it becomes simultaneous with the moment when the events took place. Let us suggest the following examples:

1. A hľadá a hľadá a nič. A vráti sa domov, ako by sa nič nestalo.(Şi caută, şi caută şi nimic. Şi se întoarce acasă ca şi cum nu s-ar fi întâmplat

nimic.)(And he searches for it, and he searches for it and he hardly finds anything.

And he would go back home as if nothing had happened.) cf.2. A hľadal a hľadal a nič. A vrátil sa domov, ako by sa nič nestalo. (Şi căută, şi căută şi nimic. Şi se întoarse acasă ca şi cum nu se întâmplase

nimic.)(And he searched for it, and he searched for it and he hardly found anything.

And he went back home as if nothing had happened.)In the first case, we deal with the Historical Present Tense, a stylistic

compromise between the discourse level and the narration level, since the Present Tense and the Romanian Perfect Conditional (replacing the Compound Perfect Indicative) formally configure the discourse level while the time reference is obscured, hidden just to create the false illusion of bringing events closer to us and even involving us, the readers, in these events. The involvement of subject receiver in event reported. Here, the utterance moment denies its own calling. In the second example, however, the Aorist simply relates to "when", to the time when the event took place, the storyteller's intention is not to force the reader to emotionally get

1 In Slovak, the Present Tense forms of the perfective verbs are used not only to express a future action, but also to express the Historical Present Tense, or unique general actions or definitions of scientific items, instructions, demonstrations, recipes.


__________256

involved in the event, but to act as an impassible go-betweener in an event in which his voice seems to be a random option lacking in any strategic meaning. Yet, we can notice that the Romanian Perfect Conditional form in the first example becomes Past Perfect Tense form in the second example, and this passage is done naturally, following our storytelling logic, not the morphological logic; it may be explained by the fact that the Perfect Conditional forms disappeared from the Slovak language and are now perceived as archaic and exclusively bookish and therefore the translation of a such verb forms only depends on the discourse-narration distinction. In other words, the Present Tense is certainly not neutral in terms of verbal aspect as it may render either a Slovak imperfective verb when it occurs at the discourse level or a Slovak perfective verb when it occurs at the narration level.

In isolated sentences lacking in a broader context, the discourse-narration distinction becomes even more relevant in terms of translation. The following example just points out the importance of the above-mentioned distinction.

Čo by kúpil, keby mal veľa peňazí?(1. Ce ar cumpăra dacă ar avea mulţi bani?) (1. What would he buy if he had more money?) or (2. Ce ar fi cumpărat dacă ar fi avut mulţi bani?)(2. What would he have bought if he had had more money? Such a conditional clause may have, in Romanian, two possible translations,

both of them being equally valid. The Present Conditional, however, alludes to a Slovak imperfective verb while the Past Conditional alludes to a Slovak perfective verb. Thus, when it comes to a translation from Slovak into Romanian, it is obviously not the verbal aspect that decides on the Romanian verb tenses. On the one hand, if the event, the process, the action relates to the speech time, then, we find ourselves at the discourse level and therefore the Present Conditional most adequately meets the discourse’s need to bring the action closer to the message receiver. On the other hand, if we are in the context of a narration, impersonally told by an impassible narrator, it is obviously the second translation that best matches the narrator’s Olympian intention the abandon the narrated event for the


__________257

sake of the concrete moment when it had taken place. In both cases, the verbal aspect remains unchanged in Slovak. Moreover, in a playful attempt, we could substitute the perfective verb kúpiť with the imperfective verb kupovať and we shall be surprised to notice that the modification of the verbal aspect has not clarified at all our translation-related dilemma (ŢIPRIGAN, Marilena Felicia 2007: 159-168). It means that, in some cases, the discourse-narration distinction is essential for the tense forms to express the aspectual meaning. It is only after this distinction has been made that the perfective-imperfective distinction becomes relevant.

We do hope that such an approach to verbal aspect in Romanian opens the way for a multidisciplinary analysis, in which Linguistics, Literary Theory and Translation Theories work together.

References:

Benveniste, Emil. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale 1. Paris: Collection Tel, Gallimard, 237-250.

Grevisse, Maurice, GOOSE, André. 1993. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 13th edition. Louvain: Duculot.

Chuquet, Hélène, Paillard, Michel. 1987. Approche linguistique des problèmes de traduction anglais-français. Paris: Orphys.

Zacordoneţ, Alexandru. 1961. Problema existenţei aspectului verbal în limba română. In AUI, section III (social science) VII. Iasi: "Al. I. Cuza" University Publishing House.

Ţiprigan, Marilena Felicia. 2007. Verbul românesc în context slav. In Philologica LXIII. Bratislava: “Comenius” University Publishing House, 97-112.

Ţiprigan, Marilena Felicia. 2007. Aspectul verbal în percepţia lingviştilor cehi şi slovaci. In Romanoslavica XLII. Bucharest: University of Bucharest Publishing House, 159-168.


__________258

AbstractIn Romanian, as a Romance language, the category of verbal aspect does not exist as

such. Thus, the Slovak perfective and imperfective verbs may be adequately rendered by the Romanian verb tenses once the discourse-narration distinction has been made following E. Benveniste’s theory, according to which tenses do not form a unique system in French, but, on the contrary, they are distributed in two separate and, at the same time, complementary systems, competing each other and containing only a part of the tenses existing in French. These two systems would correspond, in E. Benveniste’s opinion, to two different levels of utterance and subsequently, two types of discourse.

Yet, unlike French, in Romanian, where there is no sequence of tenses, we have a much greater freedom of choice when it comes to rendering the verbal aspect either in a narration or in a discourse. We therefore face two major challenges. First of all, to what extent may the theory of E. Benveniste be applied in the context of the Romanian language, where the sequence of tenses does not exist? Secondly, what will determine and decide on the translator’s option for one tense or another in two types of utterances: one of them belongs to the narration level, the other one- to the discourse level.

Keywords: verbal aspect, verb tenses, Slovak verb, perfective verbs, imperfective verbs, narration-discourse distinction, E. Benveniste’s theory

Aspect in Bulgarian__________

__________259

Verbal Aspect in Bulgarian. From Theory to Practice

Mariana MANGIULEAUniversity of Bucharest

If we consider its forms and meanings, the verb is the richest and most developed part of speech in contemporary Bulgarian language. Linguist Al. Teodorov-Balan was right when he suggestively called it “an elephant in the kingdom of Bulgarian grammar”, a phrase which has since gained currency among Bulgarists.

According to traditional grammars, including the one edited under the aegis of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1983), the verb is analyzed from the perspective of the morphological categories of person, number, voice, manner, aspect and tense. The situation has only partly changed in some grammars published in the last decade. For instance, according to Ivan Kutzarov, the author of a recent theoretical grammar of the Bulgarian language (2007), the verb has the following morphological categories: person - лице, number and gender – число и род (for participles), mood - наклонение (the locutor’s attitude with respect to the action), voice - залог (the subject-action relationship), tense - време (9 verb tenses, the category expressing the relationship between the action and the report of the action), the mood of the verbal action - вид на действието (the category expresses the relationship between the action and its result), taxis - таксис (introduced by R. Jakobson in order to designate the category which expresses the relationship between two actions/the supplementary orientative moment in the case of doubly oriented tenses), the reporting manner or, as has become ingrained in

Romano-Bohemica II / Mangiulea__________

__________260

Romanian Bulgaristics, the indirect speech manner - вид на изказване (the locutor’s attitude with respect to reported speech), status - статус (the relationship between the action or its result with reality, a self-characterizing action with negative and affirmative forms); to which is added the lexical-grammatical category of verbal aspect - вид на глагола (the way in which the action is perceived).

Verbal aspect has long been the object of further research and remains a scholarly topic for scientific discussion, for the category has not yet been fully clarified. It is worth mentioning that three PhD dissertations that have been defended within the Department of Bulgarian in the past ten years deal with verbal aspect in Bulgarian (Silvia Mihăilescu), in Croatian (Clara Căpăţână) and in Slovak (Marilena Ţiprigan Luţă), to which we add some morphology courses which analyze comprehensively the verb in Czech (Tiberiu Pleter, Sorin Paliga) and in Polish (Cristina Godun).

I should start by succinctly presenting a few theoretical references before approaching the problematic from a didactic perspective, that is, from the point of view of the Bulgarian language in practice.

In the literature, Bulgarian scholars speak about verbs, not verbal forms, about the perfective and imperfective aspect. Indeed, in the first grammar books (written by Neofit Rilski, 1835, I. Gruev, 1858 or G. Mircovich, 1860) aspect fails to be analyzed as a special category or it is mistaken for the mood of the verbal action. In his 1868 grammar book of the Bulgarian language – considered to be the best before the Liberation – Iv. Momchilov is the first to use the terms свършен/несвършен вид – the perfective and imperfective aspect. Also, in his grammar book we find the most elaborate (at that time) analysis of the way in which perfective and imperfective verbs are formed. Today the terms перфективен/имперфективен are used in parallel.

Bulgarian grammars have long failed to distinguish between verbal aspect and the lexical category of the mood of the verbal action (вид на глагола – начин на глаголното действие). This is why some grammars speak about three, even four verbal aspects. The first scientific grammar written by P. Kalkandjiev (1936)


__________261

presents three aspects: начинателен - inchoative, свършен - finished, несвършен - unfinished, whereas others refer to траен - durative, нетраен - non-durative, повторителен – iterative (Al. Teodorov-Balan, 1940).

In a well-argued and accurate manner, L. Andreichin (1938) was the first to differentiate aspect from the action mood, as well as the category of aspect from that of the verbal tense: "Видът на глагола определя действието откъм неговата вътрешна завършеност или незавършеност независимо от неговото място във времето. Глаголите от несвършен вид изказват действието в неговото последователно извършване; глаголите от свършен вид изказват действието изцяло, в цялото му извършване. (...) Глаголните видове изказват по същината си не различни действия, а само различни изгледи или 'проекции' на действията" (Основна българска граматика, 1944: 189).

К. Kostov (1939) and, later on, St. Stoianov (1964) backed this approach. The latter points out that "Двойки глаголи като напиша-написвам, прочета-прочитам, събера-събирам и пр. имат различни основи и принадлежат към различни спрежения, т.е. имат отделни парадигми. Поради това в българската граматика и лексикографска литература те се разглеждат като отделни думи, като отделни лексеми" (Граматика на българския книжовен език, 1964: 319).

Iuri Maslov (1952, 1953, 1963, 1981: 196-211) is a firm supporter of the morphological character of the category of verbal aspect. After remarking that the Bulgarian language developed a unitary and complete imperfectivation system (an imperfective verb can be derivative from each perfective verb with the help of the suffixes -a , -я, -ва), the Russian linguist considers the aspectual opposition of this type as a morphological category, primary imperfective verbs (e.g. пиша, чета, говоря) being separate words which do not generate perfective verbal forms. Therefore, they are aspectually defective. Напиша – написвам, почна – почвам, дам - давам are viewed as aspectual forms of the one and the same verb. Though Maslov's position cannot be entirely refuted, the morphological he determines puts aside an important lexical component of the verb. His opinion can partially be found in the academic edition of Bulgarian Language Grammar, in which the chapter on the verb is written by Kalina Ivanova (1983: 258-288).


__________262

Interesting from this point of view is also Sv. Ivanchev's theory (1971: 24-25), according to which two oppositions with a well-delimited content and use semantically correspond to the morphological opposition between the perfective and imperfective aspect. "На единственото значение на свършените форми при всички употреби (актуални и неактуални) – комплексност-непроцесност – съответствуват две значения на несвършените форми: некомплексност-процесност и комплексност-непроцесност, разграничавайки се по своята употреба: първото (некомплексност-процесност) – предимно в актуален план, второто (комплексност-непроцесност) – изключително в неактуален план". The former opposition is characterised as lexico-grammatical, whilst the latter as purely grammatical (morphological). In the first case, the perfective aspect opposes the imperfective aspect I, whereas in the second case it opposes the imperfective aspect II. The Bulgarian researcher opines that the imperfective aspect I and II are homonymous forms (or lexemes), which makes the opposition between perfective and imperfective aspect be deemed as a morphological opposition. More specifically, преписвам is both the non-actual form of the verb препиша and a separate lexeme which, in its actual form, expresses non-complexity.

In light of Sv. Ivančev's theory, Iv. Kutzarov (1999; 2007:547) claims that it is not verbal aspect that is grammaticalized, but the category behind the iterative - non-iterative opposition that is usually considered a lexical category within the moods of the verbal action.

As regards the nature of the semantic opposition between the two aspects, I have noticed that all the researchers in the field share the same opinion, according to which this is a privative opposition in which the perfective aspect is the marked element.

A basic conclusion derives from this brief and quite lacunary account of views on verbal aspect, namely that the prevailing opinions are expressed by those Bulgarian linguists who characterize the category of verbal aspect as a lexico-grammatical category.

I think it is no less significant to mention that, unlike the other Slavic languages, in contemporary Bulgarian tense is a category that is fully independent


__________263

from aspect: the aorist and the imperfect can be formed both with the help of perfective (прочетох, прочетях) and non-perfective verbs (четох, четях). Also, the analytic future forms derive both from perfective (ще прочета) and imperfective verbs (ще чета).

Much more could be said about the relationship aspectuality-temporality, about the temporal or modal character of the so-called opposition between the aorist and the imperfect in Bulgarian. Suffice to mention Zlatka Guentcheva’s substantial contributions in this domain of research for the last three decades (e.g. Temps et aspect : L'exemple du bulgare contemporain, Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1990). Yet space constraints and the purpose of my paper do not allow me to expound on that in what follows.

In so far as my didactic approach is concerned, in teaching the Bulgarian practical seminar and course, I aim to make a gradual shift from theory to practice, from purely linguistic matters to the finding of certain appropriate solutions meant to enable our students, native Romanian speakers, to learn and appropriate this complex and uncommon linguistic phenomenon. The impossibility to find identical structures in the mother tongue augments the difficulty to understand and, implicitly, to use verbal aspect in Bulgarian correctly.

Consequently, we must start by marking clear oppositions between the perfective and the imperfective under the form of patterns, though we run the risk of leaving nuances aside and of overlooking certain linguistic realities.

The perfective aspect is characterized in the following terms: "finished", "made complete", "compact", "concrete", "singular", "non-durative", "limited in time", "resultative", "non-iterative", expresses "the photo-like action". To be even

more suggestive, I illustrate it by means of a graphic symbol (I have added other meanings to the circle borrowed from L. Andreichin).

The imperfective aspect is defined in terms like: "unfinished", "durative", "unlimited in time", "iterative", expresses "plurality", "actuality", "the tendency to reach a result", "the film-like action". Its graphic symbol is an arrow (a sign initially chosen by L. Andreichin), to which I have added a row of straight lines in


__________264

order to mark its iterativity . Thus, imperfective verbs express a fragmentary, durative, present-time action, they describe an action in the making, an action done in stages, repeated for an indefinite number of times, whilst perfective verbs express a unitary action regarded as a homogeneous whole, finished, concretized in a result, a singular, concrete action. Such compelling syntagms (like "the film-like action" and "the photo-like action" introduced by B. Comrie), easy to understand and bear in mind, the clear distinctions between the perfective and the imperfective, as well as their corresponding symbols provide a substantial help to the student in understanding the semantics of the two verbal aspects and in discriminating between them appropriately.

Аз ще събера (pf.verb) румънски марки и ще ги изпратя (pf. v.) на моите приятели в България. (the action of collecting stamps and of sending them occurs only once)

Аз ще събирам (ipf. v.) румънски марки и ще ги изпращам (ipf. v.) на моите приятели в България. (the action of collecting stamps and of sending them is in the making, it is done with a certain frequency and an infinite number of times)

Аз ще ти давам (ipf. v.) румънски марки – често получавам (ipf. v.) писма.

Аз ще ти дам (pf. v.) румънски марки, когато получа (pf. v.) писмо.

In my didactic approach I insist upon the use of adverbial determinants, all the more so as they endorse different valences of the action (iteration, limited/unlimited duration of the action, distribution, attenuation etc.) or contribute to making the meaning assigned by the verbal prefix more nuanced.

Adverbs and adverbial phrases which may accompany imperfective verbs: често, всеки ден, всяка сутрин, всяко лято, всяка година, всеки път, винаги, никога, отново и отново, дълго, в момента.

Adverbs which may accompany perfective verbs: веднъж, един път, след един час, когато, щом, ако, като.

Винаги ти купуваш (ipf. v.) хляб. Утре ще купя (pf. v.) аз./ От сега


__________265

нататък аз ще купувам хляб (ipf. v.).Also, students can keep in mind some clear rules related to the content of the

category: in Bulgarian, perfective verbs are bereft of an autonomous present tense (самостойно сегашно време), they have no forms of actual present, so they cannot form active present participles (*напишещ), gerunds (*напишейки) and negative imperative forms (*не напиши, недей написа). Perfective aspect verbs can be used in the present tense only after the conjunctions като, ако, the particle дa and modal verbs such as трябва, мога:

Откъде купуваш марки? (ipf. v.) / Откъде мога да купя марки? (pf. v.)Getting familiar with the semantics of the Bulgarian verbal prefixes is a

major problem, a difficulty reinforced by their multifunctional nature (a phenomenon occurring in all Slavic languages). The way in which the action takes place, the kind of action (Aktionsart) is marked by the verbal prefix, whereas one and the same prefix can designate different kinds. For instance, verbs designating different, and even opposite, Aktionstart modalities are formed with the prefix за-:

1. – ingressive function (the action only charcaterized in terms of quantity marks a change in intensity from zero to plus): завикна, закрача, запея, захапя, зацъфтя, затопя;

2. – general-resultative function: заангажирам, заключа, застрелям, започна;

2. – resultative-incursive function (the action takes place until a result is achieved and it is centre-oriented): забия, забода, закова, заседна;

3. – resultative-excursive function (the action takes place until a result is achieved and spreads): закрия, захврля, затрупна;

4. – comitative-resultative function (the action brings two objects close to each oher): зашия, залепя, завинтя, закопча, замеся;

5. – attenuative function (the action is fulfilled in a low degree): забърша, замия, замета, запържа;

6. – augmentative function (the action is unfolding during a long time span and is intense, the subject being deeply involved in it): заговоря се, заприкажа се, заслушам се, застоя се.


__________266

Understanding the semantic content of the category must parallel the acquisition of the paradigm of perfective and, respectively, imperfective verb formation, which is also a difficult issue.

Perfective / imperfective verb formation in current Bulgarian (a model proposed by L. Andreichin)

Imperfective aspect I →

1.

правя (a face)

2.

правя

3.

cедя

Perfective aspect →

+ prefix + new meaning(a new verb is formed)

поправя (a repair; to fix)изправя (to straighten )подправя (to dress, to season)

+ prefix на-(without a new lexical meaning)

направя

+ suffix –н-а(verb with a new lexical meaning – momentary or delimitative action)cедна

Imperfective aspect II

+ suffix (-a, -я, -вa, -ава, -ява, -ува)(the aspectual pair of the newly formed verb)поправямизправямподправям

+ suffix (-a, -я, -вa, -ава, -ява, -ува)(the aspectual pair of the newly created verb)направям

+ suffix (-a, -я, -вa, -ава, -ява, -ува)(the aspectual pair of the newly formed verb)сядам


__________267

We find here the horizontal and vertical axes that are part of S. Agrell’s theory (1908). Of course, they are adapted to the specificity of the Bulgarian language. Besides, the thesis posited by the Swedish researcher had a great impact upon Slavic linguistics, in so far as aspectuality and modality are concerned.

We can elaborate on the table and opt for another presentation:Secondary imperfective verb formation by imperfectivationPerfective verb + suffix (-a, -я, -вa, -ава, -ява, -ува) = imperfective verbнаем-а + а-м = наемамхвърл- я + я-м = хвърлямда-м + ва-м = давамнауч-а + ава-м = научавам куп-я + ува-м = купувам

Perfective verb fomation by perfectivationimperfective verb + prefix (or the suffix -н-а) = perfective verbпиша + за- = запишабия + у- = убияпия + -н-а = пийна

My didactic experience clearly shows that students prefer the foregoing table.

Observations: 1. In Bulgarian, all verbal prefixes and the suffix – н-а carry a lexical and a

grammatical meaning. Therefore, the imperfective verb I, the source verb, and the perfective verb do not form any aspectual pair, as is the case of the pair formed by a perfective verb and an imperfective verb II (suffixes carry a grammatical, aspectual meaning, not a lexical one).

2. In the literary Bulgarian there are 18 prefixes with which perfective verbs are derived from primary imperfective verbs.

3. In Bulgarian the group of secondary imperfective verbs is the largest, as


__________268

any perfective verb can lead to the formation of an imperfective one.4. Other prefixes can be added to perfective aspect verbs which lead to the

formation of a new verb with a different lexical meaning. But in this case we speak about derivation, not perfectivation (раз-прикажа, из-почупя, до-напиша, пред-начертая).

5. Imperfectivation suffixes (-a, -я, -вa, -ава, -ява, -ува) are formal indicators which can easily be identified and learned.

Our students find it difficult to identify the primary verb to form perfective verbs, to conjugate them and especially to form the aorist, which also implies numerous phonetic alternations. The learning of the semantics of prefixes and their correct use is what seems to be almost insurmountable. As there are no miraculous solutions, emphasis is laid upon the long practice of a number of contexts that should be as large as possible.

Какво правиш? (What are you doing?)Подправям яхнията с червен пипер. Ти какви подправки слагаш? (I

dress the baked beans with thyme. What spices (herbs) do you use?Какво правиш? (What are you doing?)Чета. До утре трябва да прочета пиесата. (I am reading. By tomorrow

I have to finish reading the press.)The communicative approach, which prevails today in foreign-language

teaching, is predicated on an explicit grammar which requires students’ sense of observation, reflection and analytical capacity. Helped by the teacher’s explanations and appropriate exercises, they must be able to identify the mechanism of the language phenomenon they study (verbal aspect, in our case). Nevertheless, we must admit that this category of the Bulgarian verb, of the Slavic verb in general, is a challenge for native Romanian speakers deprived of linguistic intuition whereby they can acquire high-performance communication skills. They cannot find equivalent structures in their mother tongue, in which the aspectual function is grammaticalized and subordinated to the temporal function.

Apart from more or less classic grammar exercises, I have also found a


__________269

few attractive solutions in the field of didactic games.Here are some:“Is it or not?“ With the help of prefixes, students are asked to provide their

own examples of perfective verbs formed out of a given imperfective verb. Then, they will look them up in the dictionary in order to prove that they really exist. For instance, from минавам, they can provide the correct form of преминавам, попреминавам, заминавам, изминавам, надминавам, разминавам, отминавам, but also the wrong one, *наминавам, *доминавам.

“Finding the intruder” (students use the dictionary from the start). I will also insert a non-existent form which students have to identify in a row of (pf. and ipf.) verbs formed with different prefixes of the same primary impf. verb. For example, зачета, дочета, разчета, надчета, изчета, почета, начета.

“Solving crosswords”: the teacher tells students what the Bulgarian verbs mean in Romanian, explaining to them the way in which the action unfolds (e.g. изям = to eat up; поговоря = to chat a little) whereas students have to find out the Bulgarian equivalent in order to be able to fill in the crossword.

“Incomplete dialogues” (on ordinary topics) students have to fill in correctly: - Ще дойдеш ли с нас до факултета?- ___________________________- Защо?- ___________________________- Запиши си тогава моя телефон.- ____________________________

In the last years I have applied a different learning and checking method. In each semester I prepare a list of the most frequently used perfective verbs formed with prefixes accompanied by a model sentence. I give the list to every student in order to learn the verbs. Students take a 5-minute test twice a week. Starting from the verb given (five in number), they are required to use it in an appropriate context (a sentence different from the one given as a model). I repeat the 5-verb test for a month in order for students to fully consolidate their knowledge about the semantics of the verb as


__________270

well as of the forms specific to different tenses. At the end of the third year, students manage to learn 100 verbs which are very frequently used in standard and colloquial Bulgarian.

To conclude, the definition of verbal aspect in Bulgarian and the explanation of its functioning mechanism are extremely important for all those who learn this language.

Finally... one more reflective theme – a stanza from the famous poem Hagi Dimităr by Hristo Botev and its versions in Romanian, English and French.

The above-quoted lines contain six short sentences, four of which have only a subject and a predicate, only two attributive adjectives and a regular word order. They convey an extreme yet powerful simplicity. Indisputably, the most important role is played by perfective aspect verbs uncommonly used in the present tense. The result is a special effect, which blends the awareness of the completion of the action and the feeling that everything is happening now, in front of our eyes, that

BulgarianНастане вечер – месец изгрее,Звезди обсипят свода небесен;Гора зашуми , вятър повее- Балканът пее хайдушка песен!

RomanianSpre seară, când luna pe creste răsare,Când stelele ceru-mpânzesc,Balcanii – un cântec de vremuri amareÎngână cu glas haiducesc. (trans. by Victor Tulbure)

EnglishThe moon comes out and day grows dim,On Heaven’s vault the stars now throng,The forest rustles, quiet stirs the wind,The mountains sing an outlaw song!(trans. by Kevin Ireland)

FrenchVoici que le soir t o m b e e t qu’apparaît la lune,Le ciel va se remplir d’étoiles, goutte à goutte.La forêt bruit, le vent imperceptible souffle.Tout le Balkan chante le chant des haïdouks.(trans. by Paul Eluard)


__________271

we are certain that this has happened many times, that it always happens like that. It is a sample which attests, once again, to the complexity of the Bulgarian verb.

Undoubtedly, the transposition of Botev’s lines into the three languages may be the subject of another paper.

References

Comrie B., Aspect, Cambridge University Press, 1976.Андрейчин Л., Основна българска граматика, Второ издание, София, 1978.Бояджиев Т., Куцаров Ив., Пенчев Й., Съвременен български език, София,

1999.Граматика на съвременния български книжовен език, гл. ред. Ст. Стоянов,

том 2. Морфология, БАН, София, 1983.Иванова Калина, Начини на глаголното действие в съвременния български

език, БАН, София, 1974.Куцаров Ив., Теоретична граматика на българския книжовен език.

Морфология, Унив. Изд. „Паисий Хилендарски“, Пловдив, 2007.Пашов П., Ницолова Р., Помагало по българска морфология. Глагол, София,

1976. Пашов П., Българска граматика, София, 2005.


__________272

Abstract

The whole verbal system in Bulgarian is extremely rich and complex, especially when compared to the other Slavic languages. Among its many grammatical categories, the aspect has a special position, as it is viewed as a lexical-grammatical category by the majority of Bulgarian linguists. In the paper we make a brief presentation of the way the aspect is perceived and theorized, from the first Bulgarian grammar (1835) until nowadays, drawing also the attention to the distinction between the verbal aspect and the verbal action mode (Aktionsart). Teaching the Bulgarian verb to Romanian students requires a special approach, since in Romanian language there is no such category and the Romanian speakers don’t have the necessary linguistic intuition. We propose some solutions, types of exercises in order to help students identify the verbal aspect, clarify the content of the perfective/imperfective aspect, understand and learn the semantics of the verbal prefixes.

Кеy-words: Bulgarian language, Bulgarian grammar, verb, verbal aspect, perfective/imperfective verbs, verbal prefixes, Aktionsart.

Aspect in Czech__________

__________273

Aspect in Czech and other Slavic Languages:

How Shall We understand and define verbal action? 1

Sorin PaligaUniversity of Bucharest

Bene docet qui bene distinguitsive veritas simplex oratio

Introduction

The author of this paper is not—in current terms—an aspectologist. Our field of investigation has rather been etymology and the archaic civilizations of southeast Europe, and their heritage in modern languages. Nevertheless one of our first linguistic attempts referred to the relations between aspect and tense in Czech and represented out license upon graduating the college (in 1980). The same topic was later approached in a more coherent—and maturer— way on the occasion of the symposium in semiotics in Limoges (December 1993). The contribution was later published in Romanoslavica, in French, see Paliga 1997).

The problem of aspect in Czech also has an important place in our more recent work dedicated to the verb in Czech (Paliga 2011: 101 sq.) On that occasion we also attempted to resuming the main views on aspect, also included in older works published in the 1950’s, and some even earlier. Some very valuable analyses have been seemingly lost meanwhile.

1. This paper is built, to a large extent, on its initial version in Romanian as printed in Romanoslavica 2011. It also includes more recent research, as well as the large chapter on aspect in Czech in Paliga 2011, analyzed in the main text.

Romano-Bohemica II / Paliga__________

__________274

One crucial detail is that the term aspect is used in order to reflect very different realities in different languages. A comfortable example is offered by aspect in English, Spanish or Portuguese as compared to the aspect in Slavic. In our work on the verb in Czech the coined formula ‘verbal architecture’ (in Romanian ‘arhitectura verbală’) was used, with the note that aspect and its architecture is radically different in the two groups mentioned above: English, Spanish, Portuguese, on the one hand, v. Slavic languages. Whereas the English aspect is temporal-descriptive, achieved via analytic means (the verb to be and -ing construction), Slavic aspect is synthetic and defining action, non-descriptive and symmetrical: prefix has a perfective role and, in most cases, also a semantic role (in rarer cases a purely aspectual role). The suffix applied to an already prefixed verb, turns it into an imperfective verb, but preserving the semantic component added by the prefix. We shall revert to these details below.

The last decades have witnessed some remarkable contributions to the study of verbal aspect. I would quote two of them: Comrie 1998 (the first edition was published in 1976, and it has had many reprints and revisions ever since) and Richardson 2007. Comrie analyzes aspect in several linguistic families, including the Slavic languages; Richardson stresses the importance of the relations between case and aspect. Both authors underline the complexity of the problem, and also noting the difference in using the term aspect for very different linguistic realities. Comrie writes:

[…] Aspects are different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation.Other problems connected to understanding and, of course, teaching aspect

to students whose mother tongues do not have aspect (Romanian students are such an example), were pointed out during the discussions organized at the Department of Slavic Languages in May-June 2011. It was, in fact, a symposium in embrio, which determined us to organize a larger debate. The pedagogical issues of verbal aspect are also important, of course, as they have implications in what we may label conversion of aspect: we must use aspect in Slavic language whereas we must convert aspect-tense relations into tense-tense relations in language lacking aspect. To note that we must convert aspect when translating to/from languages having aspect, but based on different ‘aspect architectures’, e.g. from/to English to/from


__________275

Slavic languages. Within the Slavic area, the problem is more or less symmetrical only when translating from a Slavic language into another Slavic language, noting that situations may not be identical everywhere in Slavic.

Pedantic as it may seem, we would note the ‘terminological disorder’ in aspectology, which of course triggers adjacent problems. After a century of research we may be now happy to note that aspect has been defined differently from Aktionsart, yet the problem is not solved at all. One of the problems consists of the various views on aspect in Slavic as shared by Slavists themselves. We may all agree that aspect is somewhat connected to the Latin verb aspicio, aspicere ‘to look at’, past participle aspectūs < ad- + specio, specere, with the same meaning: ‘to look at’. Aspect means, therefore, the way or mode in which we, the speakers, look at verbal action or how we analyze it. This may seem obvious and simple, just that the specific modalities to grammatically render this way of looking at action are extremely diverse. The problem may be specifically this one: to identify what is indeed specific in the context of a general terminology, which leads to confusion just because it is too general, and covering very diverse realities indeed. Of, if we are allowed, too diverse architectures.

Verbal Aspect: a Brief Comparative Analysis

Without any attempt of course to compete with ample and complete analyses of verbal aspect, like those of Comrie or Richardson, I would just briefly note that many European and non-European languages include the category of verbal aspect, but that its internal structure (or ‘architecture’, if maintaining the term I once used) may be different, often radically different. Aspect is specific to languages like English, Spanish or Portuguese2. Hungarian, even if the term aspect is not used in all the grammars of Hungarian—but let us note the ‘objective’ v. ‘subjective’ conjugation, see Tompa 1972; Szita and Görbe 2009; a useful list of verbs is in

2. We speak of aspect as a well defined grammatical category. Comrie (loc. cit., see the main text) offers examples of aspect in French too, even if French grammars do not usually mention verbal aspect. It is, of course, a conceptual or semantic aspect, e.g. il lut / il lisait / il a lu.


__________276

Hoffmann 20053. Among the non-European languages, we may note aspect in languages like Persian or Bantu group, Korean or Japanese. The list is longer. The term aspect should be therefore defined or redefined for each such linguistic group, or per linguistic groups, if sharing similar features. Comrie already did that in his book, even if he did not stress the problem of terminology, but was rather inclined towards a correct definition of aspect as grammatical structure from the point of speakers.

Another issue is that in various languages, disregarding their origin or location, aspect was gradually developed starting from a pre-aspectual status based on elements of a given language, which were later used in order to build up a new structure (or a new ‘architecture’).

In Slavic, the perfective aspect mainly developed by extending the function of prefixes—this is the most frequent situation. In rare cases, we witness suppletivism and infix as both derivational and having perfectivization role. The role of a prefix is, in fact, double: it turns an imperfective verb into a perfective one but it also changes meaning, therefore it has a lexical role, which may vary from zero (purely perfectivization function of a prefix) to a radical change in meaning. In a conventional 10-degree scale, the lexical function varies from zero to 10. The reverse role, i.e. to turn an already perfective verb derived by prefixation into a new imperfective verb is achieved by suffixation, sometimes, in are cases, by infix as well.

The aspectual derivation is therefore, in most case, symmetrical: prefix—i.e. the anticipative element—has perfectivization and lexical role, in which the lexical component may have zero function; suffix—the belated component—has a reverse role, turns a perfective verb into a new imperfective one, but retaining the lexical change. The system, almost regular, has some exceptions, not numerous, but relevant for the reconstruction of a historical process. This derivational mechanism has parallels in Baltic and Hungarian. German, too, has a rich derivational mechanism by prefixation, but not the aspectual derivation. Such similarities are normal as long as these linguistic groups—two of them of Indo-European descent, one of Uralic descent—developed in neighboring areas over long periods of time.

3. The situation in Hugarian has many similar points with the situation in Slavic, see also Rounds 2001 chap. 4.6.3, p. 67 sq.


__________277

Many grammars published in the Slavic countries dedicate very few pages to aspect as if it were a clear, normal process. Most Czech grammars, for example, usually dedicate 2–3 pages to aspect. We shall not insist on this detail, see further discussions in Paliga 2011: 101 ff. Aspect is indeed crucial in achieving a good level of linguistic competence in a Slavic language or in any language, in which verbal aspect plays an important role. Achieving a good linguistic level is a difficult task anyway, with or without referring to aspect. Therefore, the anticipated level B 2 for the Romanian students in a Slavic language is a target quite difficult to achieve, but feasible for some of them, approx. 15 % in our experience. Verbal aspect in any Slavic language is not an easy chapter even to speaker of another Slavic language, even if the level of difficulty is not severe as in the case of non-Slavic speakers.4

If aspect, as a grammatical term, is usual in many languages we should clarify or at least attempt to clarify what is specific to the Slavic aspect, what is its modality of expressing the verbal action.

Zlatka Genčeva wrote a long time ago: ‘Le désordre terminologique en aspectologie’ (see her study in Fontanille 1991). Indeed, the use of a correct, unambiguous, clear terminology would be a first step towards clarifying this issue. The specific problems related to the Slavic aspect would be:

– Terminology: terms used, definitions, explanations;– Didactical definition: how should aspect be taught so that students may

grasp its functions faster and better.We are indeed far from having a clear, uniform terminology, mainly because

each author had his/her view on this topic, often with personal interpretations, which is normal in such cases. Even a furtive look at the problems connected to aspect suffices for our purpose in this brief paper. Aspect is not, in our view,

4. During the summer course in Czech I attended in 2008 at the University Masaryk in Brno, the group I was included in was represented mainly by native Slavic (Polish, Serbian-Croatian, Russian) speakers. Verbal aspect in Czech was not a very obvious chapter to them either, as each Slavic language has its peculiar realization of the category of aspect, even if—all in all—aspect is something familiar to them, more familiar than to a non-Slavic speaker.


__________278

difficult in itself, but rather analyzed and interpreted in various ways, which leads to many, not rarely conflicting views. We had several attempts in clarifying this problem in the case of Czech, we resume only the main data here. Therefore, the verbal aspect (slovesný vid, aspekt) would be a feature (vlastnost) or a concept (pojetí, koncepce) of the verbal action ((slovesný děj). It may also be a modality by which the verbal action develops (vid je způsob, kterým se slovesný děj vyvíjí). Aspect also is a part of the verbal root, which shows the way (mode) in which action develops (vid je stránka slovesného kmene, která ukazuje, jak se děj vyvíjí). Aspect may be evolution or, on the contrary, finality of the verbal action (vid je rozvití nebo, naopak, ukončení slovesného děje) – the discussion is long and refers to telicity. Aspect is also the way or mode in which the speaker perceives or describes the verbal action (ve vidu jde o pohled mluvčího na děj slovesa) – this would be, therefore, aspect of verbal action (vid slovesného děje).

The list is longer and other examples may be added. To note that aspect and Aktionsart were considered one and the same category, an attempt which directed discussions towards a wrong direction. Discriminating aspect against Aktionsart was achieved ‘on the fly’, without necessarily having positive results. On the contrary, newer and newer data, newer and newer views added more confusion and more indecision in an already confuse field.

The purpose of this brief study is not to identify reasons for reproaches, but rather to underline the difficulty of the topic, not because aspect were a difficult issue in itself, but because we have a rich choice among various views. Authors who analyzed perfectivity as durativity (durativnost), as finality or telicity (skončenost), as punctuality (bodovost) etc. are of course right, nevertheless these are particular realizations of aspectuality, not its essence. These terms obviously refer to not only aspect, but also to the meaning of these verbs, placing discussions in the field of semantic issues rather than the grammatical category of aspect. Of course, aspect and meaning go hand in hand, as they both refer to verbs or, generically, to words. We should perhaps add that the Czech terminology, i.e. the use of dokonavý / nedokonavý ‘perfective / imperfective’ is closer to the newer approaches to aspect (i.e. in the works of Comrie or Richardson); they are derived from the verb konat ‘to achieve, to do’ and its perfective derivative dokonat ‘to


__________279

achieve doing, to finalize doing’. Prefix do- is one of the 19 prefixes with perfective role in Czech, and has the generic meaning ‘to finalize action’.

Aspect has many common points all over the Slavic area, but also has some peculiar developments in each language of the family. In our view, and in agreement with two outstanding Czech linguists, Fr. Kopečný și Vl. Šmilauer (see also appendix I), Czech aspect has developed towards a ternary structure, i.e. towards three aspects: imperfective (unmarked) – perfective (marked of first level) – imperfective iterative (marked of second level). Considering the ternary structure of aspect (Czech trojitost) has meanwhile become more usual than several decades ago, e.g in the case of Bulgarian (Bavčarov 1980; see also the study of our colleague Mariana Mangiulea in this volume). The trojitost of the Czech aspect was recently approached in our book Paliga 2011: 114 ff., therefore we do not feel the need to insist on this detail. As about Czech itself, see the study of Kopečný 1977, for the criterion of defining aspect as referring to the use ~ non-use of auxiliary verb být in order to build grammatical future. Following such a definition, iterativa cannot have a specific place as long as they also build the future by means of auxiliary verb být.

To note that 3 + 3 imperfective verbs for future by means of prefix po-, out of these future by means of the prefix po- is mandatory, in the other 3 cases optional5. They are imperfective as well. The process of perfectivization developed from Indo-European derivational means, which gradually aquired new functions.

– tendency towards perfectivization (tendence perfektivační), achieved by prefixes;– tendency towards iterativity (tendence iterativační), achieved by a suffix, often by

a double suffix.In agreement with some linguists or semioticians, e.g. Herbert Galton in the

1960’s and Zlatka Genčeva [Guentchéva] in the 1980’s, the situation of verbal aspect is clarified, or at least gets new dimensions, if we consider it as defining the verbal action, just as we analyzed the opposition definite v. indefinite article, in its turn a historical evolution of the demonstrativa. In other words, defining nouns in

5. In contemporary literary or spoken Czech, the use of auxiliary být with the verbs lézt, nést and růst is very limited, practically inexistent in Prague and neighboring area, and rare in texts too. Thanks to our colleague Hana Herrmannová, lecturer of Czech at the University of Bucharest, for these notes and for improving our initial text.


__________280

some languages was counterbalanced by defining verbal action in other languages, the Slavic group in our case—but not only Slavic. To note that some languages, at various degrees, witness both types of definition, in the case of nouns and verbs, e.g. Hungarian and Bulgarian.

Considering verbal aspect as defining action, just as we define nouns, may represent a good reference point. Comrie (1998: 112 ff.) speaks of ‘markedness’, which may be another term for the same situation.

A historical view

The history of the verbal aspect in Slavic probably began by the gradual specialization of prefix po-, which—at a given moment—got a specific grammatical function, as evidenced in the case of some archaic forms like jít ~ půjdu, jet – pojedu, letět – poletím etc. In these cases, forms created by prefix po- are, in fact, the perfective pair (‘marked’ or ‘defined’) of the imperfective forms, even if these derived forms are never quoted in the infinitive as they do not exist as such.

Had the derivational process stopped here, i.e. the use of prefix po- with this specific function in creating the perfective aspect, the situation would have been clearer and simple to analyze. In fact, ALL the prefixes—most of them prepositions as well—got a perfectivization role, which means that a ‘marked’ or ‘defined’ verb may have as many markers or definers as the number of prefixes. Czech has 19 such prefixes, the number in other Slavic languages varies around this value, i.e. 18 in Bulgarian; Hungarian, a non-Slavic language, but with a similar (but not identical ‘architecture’) has only 8 such prefixes, therefore the derivational process is clearer.

In the light of these data, most verbs undergo a process of defining action according to the scheme:

1. prefix has a perfectivization role, also2. has a semantic or lexical role, i.e. it also modifies the basic meaning of the verb; in

some rarer cases the semantic role is null, e.g. psát ~ napsat ‘to write’ (imp. ~ pf.) but may get a maximum level in the case of a pair like vědět – povědět/povídat ‘to know – to tell a story’.


__________281

Once using the prefix, and thus creating a perfective form, often with a new meaning, the system became asymmetrical, as the new derived forms, of perfective aspect but also with a new meaning, lacked an imperfective counterpart. This new derived form was created by suffixation, as in the cases:

psát – napsat; pure aspectual pair, in which prefix po- has no semantic role, but:psát ~ dopsat – dopisovat ‘to finish writing’ –> dopis „a letter”; psát ~ přepsat – přepisovat ‘to transcribe’ –> přepis „a transcription” etc.In rare cases, suppletive forms played also a certain role, e.g. brát ~ vzít ‘to take

(over)’; a new symmetry is achieved by derivational means: přebrat ~ přebírat ‘to take over’dobrat – dobírat ‘to use completely, to exhaust’vybrat – vybírat ‘to choose’ – výběr ‘a choice’ etc. Also rare, some forms witness internal alternance, e.g. říct ~ říkat ‘to tell, to say’. In

such cases, we may suppose a zero-prefix, in which case aspect is marked by the flexional paradigm.

The proposed scheme is the following, by noting:P = any verbal prefix, and Σ = any suffix, we get the derivational scheme:

P – R - Σ1 [Σ2]

in which prefix P has two functions: 1. grammatical, i.e. it marks (in Comrie’s terms) or defines the verbal action and 2. lexical-semantic, i.e. changes the meaning of the verb; in some cases,

there are double suffixes as there are double prefixes (i.e. do•z•vědět se, po•po•vídat si etc.) . The second, lexical-semantic component may be null or zero, in the cases in which the prefix has a pure aspectual role, e.g. psát / napsat, vidět / uvidět etc.


__________282

The suffix, conventionally noted by Σ, cancels component x > Ø, but not component y:

The overwhelming majority of the derivatives follows the schemes above. There are some rare cases in which the scheme is different, highlighting that the process, in its historical evolution, did not follow a strict symmetrical scheme, mainly in the case of some very frequent verbs, e.g.

říci, říct (perfective) / říkat (imperfective) / říkávat (imperfective iterative)in which case there is no prefix (zero or null prefix), but we may witness two levels

of suffixation, for the simple imperfective and then for the iterative. The derivational scheme remains the same, though. Also, there is no semantic-lexical meaning of the forms. A zero semantic component is found in the case of some forms like vzít / brát ‘to take’ or založit / zakládat ‘to create, to found’. Derived forms also follow this pair, e.g. položit / pokládat, vyložit / vykládat, naložit / nakládat etc. Forms derived on the model P-kládat are based, in fact, on root klást, klade, kladl ‘to set, to put’.

A suppletive pair is represented by vzít (perfective) / brát (imperfective) as well as the symmetrical derivatives

převzít – přebrat, both perfective, but with symmetrical derivatives inpřebrat / přebíratdobrat / dobíratnabrat / nabíratvybrat / vybírat – výběr


__________283

Comparison with English, if to be done, is limited to the term aspect, as the structure (or ‘architecture’) of aspect is completely different in the two linguistic areas. For English, the situation, as compared to the one above, is:

[TO BE] [indicative present/past/past perfect] + verb + -ing formSlavic aspect was developing while the definite article was developing in the

West European languages. It gradually got a similar character of defining (or marking) action, just like the article defines/non-defines nouns. We may say that verbal aspect in Slavic has the role of a verbal article, if we are allowed to extend to use of the term article. The process was evolutive, starting from prefix po-, then gradually developing into a sophisticated, generally symmetrical structure, with exceptions represented by some suppletive forms. The double—grammatical and semantic—role of prefixes developed in time together with suppletivism. As prefixation led to an asymmetrical process, suffixation played its role in re-equilibrating the mechanism.

Defining Iterativa

Slavic languages are marked by verbs denoting a repeated, a potentially repeated or repeatable action as well as by verbs denoting habituality (used to… constructions in English). All these are, in our interpretation, iterativa or iterative verbs, i.e. verbs which mark a repeated, repeatable or habitual actions. They form a less frequent situation, but have become more and more frequent in contemporary Czech, and with a special ‘markedness’, as we shall try to show in just a few words.

A double suffix has an iterative character, to which we may add the rare case of double iteratives like chodit ~ chodívat, in which case the second form just stresses the iterative character ‘to walk (repeatedly, very often)’. In usual situations, an iterative is derived from the imperfective form, e.g. mluvit – mluvívat ‘to speak’; dělat – dělávat ‘to make’ etc. Even if the third, iterative aspect is not accepted by most linguists, even if this respects the general theory of aspect as described in detail by Comrie, one may note its clear delimited situation within the aspectual tableau of Czech. The argument against accepting iterative as a third


__________284

aspect may be possibly connected to the general definition of Czech imperfective as building the future with the auxiliary být ‘to be’, which is—in our view—an erroneous definition of the imperfective aspect. To note that Slovene, as an example, admits the future with the auxiliary ‘to be’ of both perfective and imperfective verbs, which brings Slovene closer to the situation of South Slavic group, even if this language has other feature putting it closer to West Slavic, mainly to Slovak.

Methodology of teaching aspect

During the discussions regarding aspect, I was reproached that such a scheme may seem too abstract for students. My feeling was that, on the contrary, students did understand the essence of aspect, as they also understood the discussions around a good definition of aspect, in general, and of Slavic aspect, in particular. In other words, my view is that considering students unprepared to understand aspect in its complexity is not a good strategy as this places them at a would-be lower level of understanding. They are mature enough, and with a quite developed linguistic sense, so that discussing more subtle sides of aspect is not a difficult task for them, on the contrary, this helps them understand aspect better and faster. Errors in the use of aspect do occur, of course, but this is normal with any acquisition of a new language at a good level, and not only referring to aspect.

So said, the view expressed in this analysis is that, in the way towards a good explanation of aspect, the students must be presented the various hypotheses expressed, i.e.

– A brief history of the topic, with the various views and hypotheses. See Paliga 2011: 101 ff., with a quite detailed analysis, anyway a lot more detailed than in most available books.

– The role of prefix po- in the process of developing Slavic perfectivization, then the role of all other prefixes as they led to contouring a specific architecture.

– A comparative analysis of aspect in some languages, e.g. Slavic v. English or Spanish or Portuguese or Hungarian. This allows students to understand why the term aspect is used for situations completely different from Slavic. The students


__________285

are also suggested to read other studies on aspect, mainly the works of Comrie and Richardson, but also studies of various Czech authors. The students should be therefore suggested to discover aspect by themselves, which seems a better way to introduce them to the topic instead of offering them ready-prepared explanations. This volume will also be used for analyzing various views.

Once this achieved, we may proceed further. One problem is whether terminology related to aspect should be reformed or, at least, clarified. One such discussion refers to the very term aspect with its very different ‘architectures’ in various languages. A second discussion should refer to the differences among the Slavic languages themselves. A third discussion should refer to the often spread truism that ‘Slavic aspect is difficult’. In fact, it is not more difficult than Latin or Old Greek or Slavic flection in general

Some interim conclusions

A symposium dedicated to the situation of aspect in Slavic as compared to other languages is called to bring together various views, and also to try identifying a common denominator of various views, as far as this may be ever possible.

The most difficult step seems to refer to the ‘terminological reform’, as using the same term—aspect—for very different realities is perhaps an impediment. On the other hand, attempting to change terminology may prove naïve or useless as long as the linguists and semioticians fail to agree on a compromise. That is what I suggested in my recent book on the Czech verb (Paliga 2011, mainly the chapter dedicated to aspect, p. 101 ff.). Our general view is that Slavic aspect should be analysed in the category of defining ~ non-defining verbal action, a view advocated a long time ago by Herbert Galton and Zlatka Genčeva (Guentchéva), see also her contribution in this volume, p. 67 ff.


__________286

Appendix

I. A brief survey of Czech aspect

1. The prefix has a purely perfective role, no semantic value (zero value), e.g.vidět / uvidět ‘to see’psát / napsat ‘to write’končit / dokončit ‘to end, to finalize’hrát / zahrát ‘to play’

2. Prefixation then suffixation reflect a rich derivational process. This is the typical, most frequent situation. As an example, choosing the verb psát, we get a series like:

psát / napsat – nápis ‘to write – writing, note’dopsat / dopisovat – dopis ‘to write to the end, to finish writing – letter’nadepsat / nadpisovat – nadpis ‘to write above, to superscribe – inscription

(above)’přepsat / přepisovat – přepis ‘to transcrib – transcription’vypsat / vypisovat – výpis ‘to write out, to excerpt – extract, abstract’

an iterative form may be further derived from the imperfective form:dopisovat / dopisovávatpřepisovat / přepisovávat

3. Iterative as a third, differently marked aspect, is quite clear in the case of some verbs with asymmetrical derivational scheme, e.g.

říci, říct (perf.) / říkat (imperf.) / říkávat (iterative) ‘to tell, to say’ The still largely spread hypoethesis that iterative is not a third, differently

marked, aspect is based on the (in our view wrong) definition of the imperfective aspect as using the auxiliary být ‘to be’ in order to build the future tense. Nevertheless some basic, archaic imperfective verbs form the future with the prefix po-, which is, in fact, a perfective form derived from the basic imperfective one, e.g.


__________287

jít – půjdu ‘to go to walk – I shall go’ – iter. chodit, and iter. of 2nd degree chodívatjet – pojedu ‘to go (by vehicle or on horse) – I shall go’ – iter. jezditletět – poletím ‘to fly – I shall fly’ – iter. létat, lítat (coll.)also optionally the verbs lézt – polezu and budu lézt ‘to creep, to crawel – I shall creep’nést – ponesu and budu nést ‘to carry – I shall carry’ – iter. nosívatrůst – porostu and budu růst ‘to grow’

In all these situations, we may assume that, in an initial phase, there were also infinitives like *pojít, *pojet, *poletět, *polézt, *ponést, *porůst, and prefixed forms have been preserved only in the indicative. Contemporary Czech records pojít ‘to die’ (cf. Rom. s-a dus ‘he/she died’) and porůst, a simple derived form of růst.

The verb jít, as typical for the verbs of motion, has 3 aspects:jít / chodit / chodívat: imperfective / iterative 1 / iterative 2also the verbnést / nosit / nosívat

Indeed, not all Czech verbs follow this ternary scheme, but—in various stylistic contexts—any verb may get a third, iterative aspect, even if not usual. Other examples of double iteratives are:

být / bývat / bývávat (colloquial Czech bejvat / bejvávat), as in the folk verseBejvávalo, bejvávalo dobře, za našich mladejch let bejval svět jako květThere was a world like a flower during our years of youth

jít (imperf. non-iterative) ~ chodit / chodívat / chodívávat (3 levels of iterativity)

štěknout (perf.) ‘to bark’ ~ štěkat / štěkávat / štěkávávat (imperf. with 2 levels of iterativity)

Když jsem já k vám chodívával, pejsek na mě štěkávával, já mu házel z kapsy kůrky...

[Always] when I used to go to you, the dog used to [always] bark me, [so] I took from my pocket a loaf of bread.


__________288

In contemporary Czech, the iterative is well consolidated for the verbs of the 3rd class (conjugation) in -ovat.

The discussions whether Czech has or not 3 aspects are in course, see Paliga 2011: 116 (also note 1); also Kopečný 1977, but the discussions are older. See also the study of Mariana Mangiulea, in this volume (regarding the situation in Bulgarian).

II. Situation in Hungarian

A brief comparative analysis shows that, out of the non-Slavic languages, Hungarian is closest to the Slavic ‘architecture’. There are 8 derivational prefixes, in the context of a more complicated system to indlude an indefinite conjugation (alanyi ragozás) and a definite conjugation (tárgyas ragozás). Examples like ken / beken ‘to spread’ / ‘to spread, to smear’, köt / beköt ‘to tie’ / ‘to tie up, to tie solidly’etc. show a derivational system quite close to Slavic. Finnish does not witness such a derivational scheme, which may suggest that this derivational mechanism developed at a newer historical stage, when proto-Hugarians were closer to the Proto-Slavic homeland.


__________289

References

A comprehensive list of references is in our volume Paliga 2011. The following list is selective.

Bavčarov, Janko 1980. Rozsah sekundární imperfektivace v bulharštině, češtině a ruštině. Materiály z II. sympozia o bohemistice v zahraničí ed. de Jaroslav Tax și colectiv. Praha: Universita Karlova.

Comrie, Bernard 1998 [prima ediție: 1976]. Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fontanille, Jacques éd. 1991. Le discours aspectualisé. Actes du colloque

LINGUISTIQUE ET SEMIOTIQUE tenu á l’Université de Limoges du 2e au 4e février 1988. Limoges: Pulim/Benjamins.

Galton, Herbert 1969. Slovesný vid a čas. Slovo a slovesnost 30: 1–10.Hoffmann Zsuzsa 2005. Ragozó. 66 magyar igeragozási táblázat. Debrecen: Nyári

egyetem.Kopečný, František 1977. Nový výměr nedokonavosti českých sloves? Naše řeč 4,

ročník 60.Mangiulea, Mariana 2013. Verbal Aspect in Bulgarian. From Theory to Practice.

(in this volume pp. 259 ff.)Paliga, Sorin 1997. Devenir et aspectualisation. Encore une fois sur le verbe slave.

Romanoslavica 35: 313–325 (the final form of the paper for the symposium in Limoges, December 1993).

Paliga, S. 2011. Morfologia limbii cehe. I. Verbul – Structură, derivare, utilizare. București: Editura Universității din București.

Richardson, Kylie 2007. Case and Aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rounds, Carol 2001. Hungarian. An Essential Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.

Szita Szilvia – Görbe Tamás 2009. A Practical Hungarian Grammar. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Šmilauer, Vladimír 1943. Slovesný čas. Naše řeč 8 / 27 și 9 / 27Tompa, József 1972. Kleine ungarische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag

Enzyklopädie.


__________290

Verbal Aspect in Czech and in Other Slavic Languages: How We Understand and How We Define Verbal Action

The paper briefly presents the main tendencies in aspectology as developed over the last decades, and also the specific situation in Czech as compared to English or, very briefly, with Hungarian. The author approached the topic on several occasions, quite extensively in Paliga 2011, especially pp. 101 sq., but also on previous occasions beginning with 1980. The situation is Slavic aspectology lacks a clear definition, is still chaotic and would require consensus in what may be labeled a terminological reform or, at least, a clarification of terms used in particular situations v. general situations. The authors shares the little spread view that Czech has three, not two aspects, and discusses some relevant examples. The tendency of the language will probably towards a larger tri-aspectual structure, a process in full development.

Key WordsAktionsart, Bulgarian, Czech, evolution, Hungarian, Slavic, structure, terminology,

terminological reform, Verbal aspect.

romano-bohemica ii - university of...

Documents