Russian Linguistics

, 33:121 | Cite as

Verbal aspect and negation in Russian and Czech

Article

Abstract

This article compares aspectual usage in contexts of negation in Russian and Czech narratives. It examines the four possible aspectual correspondences: Russian imperfective : Czech imperfective (common), Russian perfective : Czech perfective (common), Russian imperfective : Czech perfective (frequent), and Russian perfective : Czech imperfective (infrequent). The data is argued to support the hypothesis that aspect in Czech primarily expresses a distinction in totality, whereas aspect in Russian expresses a distinction in temporal definiteness. Aspectual usage in contexts of negated repetition is also examined. The question of grounding is considered in light of the comparative data, and it is found that previous views of grounding with regard to aspect and negation can be replaced by a more nuanced sense of grounding that accommodates variation across languages. Finally, data from other Slavic languages are adduced, which indicate that the differences discussed between Czech and Russian are symptomatic of the overall east-west division in Slavic aspect established by Dickey (2000).

Глагольный вид и отрицание в русском и чешском языках

Аннотация

В статье сравнивается употребление вида в контексте отрицания в русском и чешском повествовании. Рассматриваются четыре возможные видовые соотношения: русский несовершенный : чешский несовершенный (распространенный вариант), русский совершенный : чешский совершенный (распространенный вариант), русский несовершенный : чешский совершенный (часто встречающийся) и русский совершенный : чешский несовершенный (редко встречающийся). Данные, собранные в статье, поддерживают гипотезу о том, что вид в чешском языке главным образом выражает различие в целостности, в то время как вид в русском выражает различие во временной определенности. В статье также рассматривается употребление вида в контекстах отрицания повторяющегося действия. Рассмотрение вопроса фоновых различий в свете сравнительных данных указывает на то, что предыдущие воззрения на эти различия и их взаимоотношения с видом и отрицанием могут быть заменены на более нюансированное понятие фоновых различий, допускающее языковые вариации. Наконец, в статье приведены данные из других славянских языков, указывающие на то, что рассмотренные выше различия между чешским и русским отражают различия между видом в западных и восточных славянских языках, установленные Dickey (2000).

Sources

  1. DA = Rybakov, A. N. (1988). Deti Arbata. Moscow. Google Scholar
  2. DAu = Rybakov, A. N. (1989). Děti Arbatu (translated by V. Tafelová). Prague. Google Scholar
  3. GPOF = Rowling, J. K. (2005). Garri Potter i orden feniksa (translated by V. Babkova, V. Golyševa and L. Motyleva). Moscow. Google Scholar
  4. HPFŘ = Rowling, J. K. (2004. Harry Potter a Fénixův řád (translated by P. Medek). Prague. Google Scholar
  5. HPOF = Rowling, J. K. (2005). Harri Potter i orden feniksa (translated by V. Morozov). Kiev. Google Scholar
  6. HPOPH = Rowling, J. K. (2003). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York. Google Scholar
  7. HPRF = Rowling, J. K. (2003). Harry Potter i red feniksa (translated by V. Roganović and D. Roganović). Belgrade. Google Scholar
  8. HPZF = Rowling, J. K. (2003). Harry Potter i Zakon Feniksu (translated by A. Polkowski). Poznań. Google Scholar
  9. OV = Kundera, M. (2001). Oproštajni valcer (translated by N. Kršić). Zagreb. Google Scholar
  10. RDžT = Otčenášek, J. (1960). Romeo, Džul’etta i t’ma (translated by V. Petrova). Moscow. Google Scholar
  11. RJT = Otčenášek, J. (1967). Romeo, Julie a tma. Prague. Google Scholar
  12. VNP = Kundera, M. (2001). Val’s na proščanie (translated by N. Šul’gina). Saint Petersburg. Google Scholar
  13. VNR = Kundera, M. (1997). Valčík na rozloučenou. Brno. Google Scholar
  14. VNRd = Kundera, M. (1992). Vals na razdjala (translated by M. Lozkova). Varna. Google Scholar
  15. VZS = Kundera, M. (1978). Valček za slovo (translated by Dušan Baran). Maribor. Google Scholar
  16. WP = Kundera, M. (2001). Walc pożegnalny (translated by P. Godlewski). Warsaw. Google Scholar
  17. XPOF = Rowling, J. K. (2005). Xari Potâr i ordenât na feniksa (translated by E.L. Maslarova). Sofia. Google Scholar

References

  1. Akimova, T. (1992). The perfective aspect and negation in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 16(1), 23–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barentsen, A. A. (1998). Priznak «sekventnaja svjaz’» i vidovoe protivopostavlenie v russkom jazyke. In M. Ju. Čertkova (Ed.), Tipologija vida. Problemy, poiski, rešenija (pp. 43–58). Moskva. Google Scholar
  3. Barentsen, A. A. (2002). O russkix glagolax smoč’ i sumet’. In V. V. Ivanickij (Ed.), Osnovnye problemy russkoj aspektologii (pp. 7–29). Sankt Peterburg. Google Scholar
  4. Bareš, K. (1956). O konkurenci vidů v českém a ruském jazyce. Československá rusistika. Časopis pro slovanské jazyky, literaturu a dějiny SSSR, 1(4), 566–579. Google Scholar
  5. Bondarko, A. V. (1971). Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Značenie i upotreblenie. Moskva. Google Scholar
  6. Brecht, R. D. (1985). The form and function of aspect in Russian. In M. S. Flier & R. D. Brecht (Eds.), Issues in Russian morphosyntax (pp. 9–34). Columbus. Google Scholar
  7. Bulygina, T. V. (1982). K postroeniju tipologii predikatov v russkom jazyke. In O. N. Seliverstova (Ed.), Semantičeskie tipy predikatov (pp. 7–85). Moskva. Google Scholar
  8. Chaput, P. R. (1985). On the question of aspectual selection in denials. In M. S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The scope of Slavic aspect (pp. 224–233). Columbus. Google Scholar
  9. Chvany, C. (1985). Backgrounded perfectives and plot-line imperfectives: towards a theory of grounding in text. In M. S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The scope of Slavic aspect (pp. 247–273). Columbus. Google Scholar
  10. Chvany, C. V. (1990). Verbal aspect, discourse saliency, and the so-called “perfect of result” in modern Russian. In N. B. Thelin (Ed.), Verbal aspect in discourse (pp. 213–235). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  11. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  12. Croft, W. (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes. Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 48–73). London. Google Scholar
  13. De Swart, H., & Molendijk, A. (1999). Negation and the temporal structure of narrative discourse. Journal of Semantics, 16(1), 1–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickey, S. M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic aspect. A cognitive approach. Stanford. Google Scholar
  15. Dickey, S. M., & Hutcheson, J. (2003). Delimitative verbs in Russian, Czech and Slavic. In R. A. Maguire & A. Timberlake (Eds.), American contributions to the thirteenth International Congress of Slavists (pp. 23–36). Columbus. Google Scholar
  16. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  17. Eckert, E. (1985). Aspect in repetitive contexts in Russian and Czech. In M. S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The scope of Slavic aspect (pp. 169–180). Columbus. Google Scholar
  18. Forsyth, J. (1970). A grammar of aspect. Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  19. Galton, A. (1984). The logic of aspect. Oxford. Google Scholar
  20. Galton, H. (1976). The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje. Google Scholar
  21. Givón, T. (1978). Negation in language: pragmatics, function, ontology. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: pragmatics (pp. 69–112). New York. Google Scholar
  22. Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: discourse and syntax (pp. 213–241). New York. Google Scholar
  23. Hopper, P. J. (1982). Aspect between discourse and grammar: an introductory essay for the volume. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 3–18). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  24. Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Israeli, A. (2001). The choice of aspect in Russian verbs of communication: pragmatic contract. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 9(1), 49–98. Google Scholar
  26. Kenny, A. (1963). Action, emotion, and will. London. Google Scholar
  27. Klein, W. (1995). A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language, 71(4), 669–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kresin, S. C. (2000). Aspect, singularization, and pluralization in Czech and Russian. Slavic and East European Journal, 44(3), 393–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Křížková, H. (1962). K ingresívnosti v češtině (In margine Ivančevovy práce o videch v češtině). Slovo a Slovesnost, 23, 286–291. Google Scholar
  30. Kučera, H. (1981). Aspect, markedness and t0. In P. J. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 14: tense and aspect (pp. 177–189). New York. Google Scholar
  31. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin. Google Scholar
  32. Langacker, R. W. (1997). Generics and habituals. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 191–222). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  33. Leinfellner-Rupertsberger, E. (1991). Die Negation im monologischen Text: Textzusammenhang und “foregrounding”. Folia Linguistica, 25, 111–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leinonen, M. (1982). Russian aspect, “temporal’naja lokalizacija” and definiteness/indefiniteness. Helsinki. Google Scholar
  35. Mehlig, H. R. (1999). Kommunikativnaja funkcija obščego i častnogo otricanija. In Z. Greń & V. Koseska-Toszewa (Eds.), Semantyka a konfrontacja językowa (Vol. 2, pp. 181–195). Warszawa. Google Scholar
  36. Merrill, P. (1985). Aspect as evaluation: the case of negation. In M. S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The scope of Slavic aspect (pp. 129–152). Columbus. Google Scholar
  37. Petruxina, E. V. (2000). Aspektual’nye kategorii glagola v russkom jazyke v sopostavlenii s češskim, slovackim, pol’skim i bolgarskim jazykami. Moskva. Google Scholar
  38. Rappaport, G. C. (1985). Aspect and modality in contexts of negation. In M. S. Flier & A. Timberlake (Eds.), The scope of Slavic aspect (pp. 194–223). Columbus. Google Scholar
  39. Richardson, K. (2007). Case and aspect in Slavic. Oxford. Google Scholar
  40. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London. Google Scholar
  41. Stunová, A. (1987). Aspect and iteration in Russian and Czech. A contrastive study. In A. A. Barentsen, B. M. Groen & R. Sprenger (Eds.), Dutch studies in Russian linguistics (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 8) (pp. 467–501). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  42. Stunová, A. (1988). Aspect and sequence of events in Russian and Czech. A contrastive study. In A. A. Barentsen, B. M. Groen & R. Sprenger (Eds.), Dutch contributions to the tenth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 14–22, 1988 (pp. 507–534). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  43. Stunová, A. (1993). A contrastive study of Russian and Czech aspect: invariance vs. discourse. Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  44. Thelin, N. B. (1990). Verbal aspect in discourse: on the state of the art. In N. B. Thelin (Ed.), Verbal aspect in discourse (pp. 3–88). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  45. Timberlake, A. (1982). Invariance and the syntax of Russian aspect. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 305–331). Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  46. Timberlake, A. (1985). The temporal schemata of Russian predicates. In M. S. Flier & R. D. Brecht (Eds.), Issues in Russian morphosyntax (UCLA Slavic Studies, 10) (pp. 35–57). Columbus. Google Scholar
  47. Timberlake, A. (2004). A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge. Google Scholar
  48. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zel’dovič, G. M. (2002). Russkij vid: semantika i pragmatika. Toruń. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Slavic Languages and LiteraturesUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Slavic Languages and LiteraturesUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations