Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:14:25.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Verbal prefixes in Russian: Conceptual structure versus syntax1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2014

INNA K. TOLSKAYA
INNA K. TOLSKAYA*
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL), Tromsø University
*
Author's address: CASTL, Tromsø University, Rypevei 13, Tromsø, 9015, Norwayinna.k.tolskaya@uit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At first glance, the variety of possible denotations of a given prefix in Russian might appear a chaotic set of idiomatic meanings, e.g. the prefix za- may refer to the beginning of an action, movement to a position behind an object, a brief deviation from a path, or completion of an action. I propose a unified analysis of Russian prefixes, where the differences in meaning are claimed to arise from different syntactic positions, while the lexical entry of a prefix remains the same. The main focus is on the verbs of motion due to the consistent duality displayed by the prefix meanings when added to directional and non-directional motion verbs. It turns out that prefixes modify path when added onto a directional motion verb and refer to movement in time with non-directional motion verbs. This semantic distinction corresponds to distinct sets of syntactic properties, characteristic of the lexical and superlexical prefixes. Furthermore, a tripartite division emerges in each set of prefixes, corresponding to goal, source and route of motion (TO, FROM, VIA, respectively) for lexical prefixes and to beginning, completion and duration for superlexical prefixes. This leads to the suggestion that the same prefix with a consistent conceptual meaning, shared with the corresponding preposition receives part of its denotation from its position in the syntactic representation. The separation of conceptual meaning from the structural meaning allows the polysemy to arise from position, rather than from arbitrary homophony. Thus, conceptual structure is unified with syntax.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 213 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am grateful to my supervisor Peter Svenonius for his advice and suggestions, to the two anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees and Marina Pantcheva for comments on previous versions of this paper, and to the participants in the Spring (2008) Seminar on Cross-categorial Scales and Paths and the audience at New Approaches to Russian Syntax, Groningen (June 2010) for their comments.

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: 1, 2, 3 = first, second, third person; acc = Accusative; Asp = Aspect; dat = Dative; dir = Directional; fut = Future; gen = Genetive; impf = Imperfective; impf2 = Secondary Imperfective; Inf = Infinitive; init = Initiation; instr = Instrumental; non-dir = Non-directional; p = Perfective; pl = Plural; proc = Process; ref = Reflexive; res = Result; sg = Singular. The superscripts dir and non-dir mark directionality of the root.

References

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Babko-Malaya, Olga. 1999. Zero morphology: A study of aspect, argument structure and case. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Beliakov, Vladimir & Guiraud-Weber, Marguerite. 1997. O nekotoryx svojstvax vtorichnyx glagol'nyx pristavok.. Russian Linguistics 21.2, 165–175.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. I: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga. 2006. Aspect and reference time. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11.1, 55–101.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in motion: On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka. Morfologija. Častj vtoraja. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akadémie vied.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 2006. Totally normal chaos: The aspectual behavior of Russian motion verbs. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28, 183–193.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Markovskaya, Evguenia. 2006. Goal-source asymmetry and Russian spatial prefixes. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Adpositions, special issue of Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics) 33.2, 200–219. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Ožegov, Sergei Ivanovich. 2001. Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Rossijskaja akademija nauk.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2007. Bulgarian spatial prefixes and event structure. In Son, MinjeongBašic, Monika, Pantcheva, Marina & Svenonius, Peter (eds.), Space, motion, and result, special issue of Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers on Language & Linguistics) 34.2, 320–344. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24, 433–500.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Richardson, Kylie. 2007. Case and aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanova, Eugenia. 2004. Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. In Svenonius, (ed.), 255–278.Google Scholar
Romanova, Eugenia. 2007. Constructing perfectivity in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1995. Participial passive and aspect in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Součková, Kateřina. 2004. Measure prefixes in Czech: Cumulative na- and delimitative po-. MA thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Švedova, N. 1980. Russkaja grammatika, vol. 2. Moscow: Academy of Sciences, Nauka.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004a. Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. In Svenonius, (ed.), 205–253.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter (ed.). 2004b. Slavic prefixes, special issue of Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics) 32.2. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1991. How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29, 591–621.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Joost. 2005. Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 739–779.Google Scholar