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

2. Overview Theoretical issue: Implications of –Conceptual space (Croft 2001, 2003) –Semantic maps (Haspelmath 1997a&b, 2003) Practical issue: aspectual pairs vs. verb clusters –There are several types of perfective, both semantically and morphologically –The structure of verb clusters is highly constrained

3. Defining Terms Activity (= Process + Repetition) Completion Act (= Accomplishment + Achievement) –Natural Perfective –Specialized Perfective Complex Act (= Aktionsart: Delimitative, Perdurative, Ingressive, Terminative, etc.) Single Act (= Semelfactive)

4. Aspect and the potential for a dynamic semantic map Most semantic maps are synchronically static, though they may reflect historical development Russian aspect, however, rather than giving just a menu of alternatives, combines grams in a dynamic fashion, and produces verb clusters

5. The Conceptual Space of Aspect Three semantic dimensions: –closed vs. open (Smith 1991; Isačenko 1960; Avilova 1976, Jakobson 1957/1971, Padučeva 1996; Talmy 2000; Forsyth 1970; Bondarko 1971; Comrie 1976; Dickey 2000; Maslov 1965; Bondarko 1971; Timberlake 1982; van Schooneveld 1978 ) –completable vs. non-completable (Smith (1991; Mehlig 2003; Croft in preparation) –durative vs. instantaneous (Smith 1991; Čertkova 1996; Bondarko 1971; Padučeva (1996)

6. The Conceptual Space of Aspect open closed completable non-completable durative instantaneous

7. Russian Grams and the Conceptual Space of Aspect Imperf suffixes simplexes prefixes ну suffix Completion Acts Activities Complex Acts Single Acts

8. Proposed Semantic Map of Russian Aspect Activity Specialized Perfective Natural Perfective Complex ActSingle Act

9. But are all verbs like щипать i ‘pinch, pluck i ’ ? Do all verb clusters have the same pathway structure or are there variations? If there are variations, are there patterns? Are there pathways that do not exist? What are the overall implications and constraints of the system?

10. Data: A survey of 283 verb clusters Culled from the simplexes in Townsend’s (1975) verb inventory Simplex Imperfective = Activity; Natural Perfective identified by Ožegov Simplex Perfective = Natural Perfective Specialized Perfective(s) identified by Zaliznjak Complex Act verified on internet Single Act identified in Obratnyj slovar’

11. The Three Dominant Cluster Types Represent most verbs in Russian (each accounts for under 20%, collectively account for 56%) Contain three or four elements = Activity + Specialized Perfective + Natural Perfective and/or Complex Act Exclude Single Acts

12. Uncommon but well-attested cluster types Each accounts for under 10%, collectively account for 35% All attested cluster types that contain a Single Act verb appear in this grouping All cluster types that contain a Single Act verb also contain a Complex Act verb Activity + Natural Perfective is in low end of this group

13. Rare cluster types Each accounts for <1%-2%, collectively account for less than 8% With one exception, all types in this group conform to patterns established by larger groups One cluster type not attested in survey violates restraint requiring Activity to precede Natural or Specialized Perfective

14. Some Generalizations Most possible cluster types are not attested A quarter of the possible types account for over 90% of verbs in survey All attested cluster types contain an Activity Over half of verbs have a cluster type consisting of Activity + Specialized Perfective, with Natural Perfective and/or Complex Act Single Act verb in a cluster requires the presence of Complex Act Clusters that contain a Perfective simplex do not contain a Single Act verb

15. Implicational Hierarchy Implicational hierarchy (completable or non-completable): Activity > (Specialized Perfective/Natural Perfective) > Complex Act > Single Act

16. Comparison with aspectual pair model Cluster types consisting of only two elements are uncommon Activity + Natural Perfective should be predominant cluster type, but less than 10% of verbs have this cluster type, and they are semantically unusual Aspectual pair model denies existence of larger clusters in which “pairs” are almost always embedded Aspectual pair model fails to capture significant patterns and implicational hierarchies