Abraham Kulikov 1999 Tense-Aspect Transitivity and Causativity

TENSE-ASPECT, TRANSITIVITY
AND CAUSATIVITY
slcs.50.vw.p65 1 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS)
The SLCS series has been established as a companion series to STUDIES
IN LANGUAGE, International Journal,
sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of language”.
Series Editors
Werner Abraham Michael Noonan

University of Groningen University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Netherlands USA
Editorial Board
Joan Bybee (University of New Mexico)
Ulrike Claudi (University of Cologne)
Bernard Comrie (Max Planck Institute, Leipzig)
William Croft (University of Manchester)
Östen Dahl (University of Stockholm)
Gerrit Dimmendaal (University of Leiden)
Martin Haspelmath (Max Planck Institute, Leipzig)
Ekkehard König (Free University of Berlin)
Christian Lehmann (University of Bielefeld)
Robert Longacre (University of Texas, Arlington)
Brian MacWhinney (Carnegie-Mellon University)
Marianne Mithun (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Edith Moravcsik (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee)
Masayoshi Shibatani (Kobe University)
Russell Tomlin (University of Oregon)
John Verhaar (The Hague)
Volume 50
Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov (eds.)
Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity

Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov
slcs.50.vw.p65 2 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

TENSE-ASPECT,
TRANSITIVITY AND
CAUSATIVITY
Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov
Edited By
WERNER ABRAHAM
University of Groningen
LEONID KULIKOV
Leiden University
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
slcs.50.vw.p65 3 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
8
of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of

Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity : essays in honor of Vladimir Nedjalkov / edited by
Werner Abraham, Leonid Kulikov.
p. cm. -- (Studies in language companion series, ISSN 0165-7763 ; v. 50)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Verb. 2. Typology (Linguistics) 3. Causality
(Linguistics) I. Abraham, Werner. II. Kulikov, L. I. III. Nedialkov, V. P.
(Vladimir Petrovich) IV. Series.
P281.T377 1999
415--dc21 99-40613
ISBN 90 272 3053 6 (Eur.) / 1 55619 936 8 (US) (alk. paper) CIP
© 1999 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other
means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
slcs.50.vw.p65 4 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

Vladimir Nedjalkov
Table of Contents
Addresses ix
Introduction xi
Vladimir Nedjalkov: List of main publications xix
P 
Transitivity, causativity and tense-aspect: interdependencies
Aspect and transitivity of iterative constructions in Warrungu 3
Tasaku Tsunoda
Split causativity: remarks on correlations between transitivity, aspect,
and tense 21
Leonid I. Kulikov
Conceptualization and aspect in some Asian languages 43
Kazuyuki Kiryu
Evidentiality, transitivity and split ergativity: evidence from Svan 63
Nina Sumbatova
On the semantics of some Russian causative constructions: aspect,
control, and types of causation 97
Tatiana V. Bulygina and Alexei D. Shmelev
P 
The trade-off between aspect and tense as typological parameters
Some notes on the Georgian resultative 117
Winfried Boeder
Preterites and imperfects in the languages of Europe 141
Rolf Thieroff
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
The qualitative meaning of Russian imperfective verbs in passive

constructions 163
Youri Poupynin
Typological notes on aspect and actionality in Kipchak Turkic 171
Lars Johanson
Distributivity: more than aspect 185
Inga B. Dolinina
The past perfect in Armenian 207
Natalia A. Kozintseva
Aspects of aspect in Korean psych-predicates: implications for
psych-predicates in general 223
Chungmin Lee
P 
Events and their componentiality
How descending is ascending German? On the deep interrelations
between tense, aspect, pronominality, and ergativity 253
Werner Abraham
Verbal temporalization in Russian and English 293
Georgij Silnitsky
A typology of phasal meanings 311
Vladimir A. Plungian
Degrees of focality in Kalmyk imperfectives 323
Karen H. Ebert
Aspectual classification of nouns: a case study of Russian 341
Ekaterina V. Rakhilina
Subject Index 351
Addresses
Editors
Werner Abraham Leonid Kulikov

University of Groningen Leiden University
Faculty of Letters, Dept. of German Faculty of Arts, Dept. of
PO Box 716, NL-9700 AS Comparative Linguistics (VTW)
Groningen, The Netherlands PO Box 9515, NL-2300 RA Leiden,
fax: +31–50–3635821 The Netherlands
abraham@let.rug.nl fax: +31–71–5277569
kulikov@rullet.leidenuniv.nl
Contributors
Abraham, Werner Dolinina, Inga B.

University of Groningen McMaster University
Faculty of Letters, Dept. of German Department of Modern Languages
PO Box 716, NL-9700 AS Togo Salmon Hall 626
Groningen, The Netherlands Hamilton, Canada L8S 4M2
abraham@let.rug.nl dolinina@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
Boeder, Winfried Ebert, Karin
University of Oldenburg University of Zürich
Fachbereich Literatur- und Seminar für allgemeine Sprach-
Sprachwissenschaften wissenschaft
D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany Plattenstr. 54
wboeder@hrz1.uni-oldenburg.de CH-8032 Zürich, Switzerland
ebert@spw.unizh.ch
Bulygina, Tatiana V.
Institute of Linguistics, Moscow Johanson, Lars
(Russian Academy of Sciences) Universität Mainz
B.Kislovskij per. 1/12 Seminar für Orientkunde
103009 Moscow, Russia D-55099 Mainz, Germany
johanson@mail.uni-mainz.de
x ADDRESSES
Kiryu, Kazuyuki Rakhilina, Ekaterina V.

Mimasaka Women’s Junior College VINITI, Moscow
Kamikawara 32, Tsuyama City, (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Okayama, 708–8511 Japan ul. Usieviča 20
kiryu@mimasaka.ac.jp 125219 Moscow, Russia
katia@plu.mccme.ru
Kozintseva, Natalia A.
Institute of Linguistic Researches, St. Shmelev, Alexei D.
Petersburg Moscow State Pedagogical
(Russian Academy of Sciences) University
Tučkov per. 9 Dept. of Philology
199053 St. Petersburg, Russia M.Pirogovskaja 1
119435 Moscow, Russia
Kulikov, Leonid I. alexei@shmelev.mccme.ru
Leiden University
Faculty of Arts, Dept. of Silnitsky, Georgij
Comparative Linguistics (VTW) Smolensk State Pedagogical University
PO Box 9515, NL-2300 RA, Leiden, ul. Prževal’skogo 4
The Netherlands 214000 Smolensk, Russia
kulikov@rullet.leidenuniv.nl gsil@shu.smolensk.su
Lee, Chungmin Sumbatova, Nina R.

Seoul National University, Dept. of Institute of Oriental Studies, Dept. of
Linguistics Languages, Moscow
Shinrimdong, Kwanak-ku (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Seoul 151–742, Korea ul. Roždestvenka 12
clee@snu.ac.kr (clee@humnet.ucla.edu) 103031 Moscow, Russia
nina@sumbat.mccme.ru
Plungian, Vladimir A.
Institute of Linguistics, Moscow Thieroff, Rolf
(Russian Academy of Sciences) University of Bonn
B.Kislovskij per. 1/12 Germanistisches Seminar
103009 Moscow, Russia Am Hof 1d
plu@plu.mccme.ru D-53113 Bonn, Germany
thieroff@uni-bonn.de
Poupynin, Youri
Institute of Linguistic Researches, Tsunoda, Tasaku
St. Petersburg University of Tokyo, Graduate
(Russian Academy of Sciences) School of Humanities and
Tučkov per. 9 Sociology
199053 St. Petersburg, Russia Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113–0033, Japan
youri@ling.hop.stu.neva.ru tsunoda@tooyoo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp
(poupynin@bubble.yonsei.ac.kr)
Introduction
A brief look back into the recent history of typological linguistics shows that
studies on the three closely related verbal categories of tense, aspect and mood
(often labelled TAM) underwent an independent revival in the work of Western
researchers such as Östen Dahl, Joan Bybee, Rolf Thieroff, and others; see
Hopper (ed.) 1982; Dahl 1985; Bybee 1985; Bybee & Dahl 1989; Ehrich &
Vater (eds.) 1988; Abraham & Janssen (eds.) 1989; Thieroff & Ballweg (eds.)
1994; and Thieroff (ed.) 1995, part of which were written against the institution-
al background of EUROTYPE, a large typological project focusing on the
structures of European languages; cf. König 1997; Dahl (forthc.) (ed.).
The present collection of papers extends the original tense-aspect research to
cover non-European languages such as Kalmyk, Kipchak Turkic, Korean, Newari,
Vedic, and Warrungu (an aboriginal Australian language). It also addresses
seminal questions of a sort that appear necessary in the face of languages which
merge so intricately the grammatical components of tense and aspect — as is, for
instance, the case of Russian. In what follows we shall take up the nature of this
particular appeal ‘back to the roots’ of tense and mood by way of aspect.
In doing so we are aided by studies on the relationship between tense,
aspect, and modality in the context of other, more generally lexico-syntactic
features of the predicate and its arguments in the clause, among which transitiv-
ity and its claimed ‘squishy’, or gradient, categorial nature figure prominently.
The point of departure was undoubtedly the well-known article by Hopper &
Thompson (1980) (incidentally, one of the quotation index champions of the
80’s). Extensive research triggered by this article has yielded rich cross-linguistic
material (see, among others, Verhaar 1990). Although these studies about the
gradient nature of transitivity in specific languages have provided us with
evidence in outright contradiction with Hopper & Thompson’s postulates (see
e.g. Abraham 1983, 1984, among others), and despite the fact that it is difficult,
if not impossible, to come by hard evidence for other of their generalizations,
there is no denying the empirical and methodological fruitfulness that this new
xii INTRODUCTION
perspective has opened for us, particularly as regards the interdependence

between tense-aspect, on the one hand, and causativity and transitivity, on the
other.
It is precisely in this spirit that the present collection takes up a line of
individual research that has gained a great deal of respect and following in the
modern tradition of Russian typological linguistics, but has remained, until very
recent times, less well known within Western linguistics. Bringing together
articles dealing with a variety of TAM-aspects and furnishing new evidence for
the study of TAM-systems, this volume has been designed as a Festschrift in
honour of Vladimir Petrovič Nedjalkov, academic teacher and eminent researcher
at the Institute of Linguistic Researches (St.Petersburg) of the Russian Academy
of Sciences. The choice of the general topic of the Festschrift is by no means
accidental. It is to the study of verbal categories that the linguist honoured here
has contributed (and, we hope, will continue to contribute) so much. In each of
the individual papers contained in the present volume the Festschrift takes up
seminal work of the honoree in the areas of verbal valence, transitivity and
causativity, on the one hand, and tense, aspect/Aktionsart and mood, on the
other. V. Nedjalkov’s writings on valence and valence-changing categories
(causatives, passives, reciprocals, etc.) are now well-known to Western linguists
(a comprehensive survey can be found in Litvinov & Nedjalkov 1995). Less
widely known are his studies on TAM-forms in Chukchee (Nedjalkov 1993) and
Evenki (V. Nedjalkov & I. Nedjalkov 1988), as well as his writings on mood and
modality (Nedjalkov 1988a, 1990). Perfect and perfective forms and their rich
semantics are discussed by Nedjalkov mostly in connection with the typology of
resultative constructions (cf. Nedjalkov 1980; 1983/1988b). In the domain of
Aktionsarten, Nedjalkov has paid most attention to the meaning of inceptivity,
which has resulted in a series of articles on the typology of inchoative and
inceptive verbs (Nedjalkov 1984; 1986; 1987).
In what follows we will briefly summarize the topics and conclusions of the
contributions to the present volume.
Part 1. Transitivity, causativity and tense-aspect: interdependencies
T. Tsunoda investigates the intricate link between aspect and transitivity in his
article “Aspect and transitivity of iterative constructions in Warrungu”. Warrungu
is an Australian aboriginal language that was once spoken in the Upper Herbert
region of North Queensland. It is morphologically split-ergative and syntactically
strongly ergative. The paper focuses on the verbal suffix -karra-Y, which has
INTRODUCTION xiii
typically imperfective interpretations such as iterative, distributive (‘here and

there’), continuous, and habitual. It is generally attached to intransitive roots,
with no change in transitivity. It is also added to a small number of transitive
roots, and in some of these cases it has the syntactic effect of turning transitive
constructions into antipassive constructions. Tsunoda’s paper thus demonstrates
a close tie between imperfectivity and intransitivity.
Relying upon evidence from Vedic Sanskrit, L. Kulikov (“Split causativity:
remarks on correlations between transitivity, aspect, and tense”) approaches a
similar assumption about the link between transitivity and tense/aspect distinc-
tions. In Vedic, several verbs display a functional asymmetry of different tense
systems. Forms belonging to the present tense system mostly occur in transitive-
causative constructions, whereas forms of the perfect tense are typically intransi-
tive. It is important to note that the old Indo-European perfect is closely related
to the category referred to as stative. Thus, the predominant intransitivity of the
Vedic perfect may be a kind of remnant of the predominant intransitivity of the
Proto-Indo-European stative.
In a third contribution to this subtopic of the volume, K. Kiryu (“Concep-
tualisation and aspect in some Asian languages”), exploiting evidence from
English, Japanese, Korean and Newari, arrives at the conclusion that transitivity,
voice and aspect are conceptualized differently, depending on how the speakers
of a given language understand events and encode similar concepts mapping
these onto the formal systems of grammar. The author argues that the fact that
a language has productive distinctions in voice categories is closely related to
how the language organizes verb systems in terms of transitivity. Furthermore,
it is argued that the organisation of verbs in terms of the transitivity parameter
is not constant across languages; that is, there are at least two types of languages
with regard to whether transitive events are basic. The author concludes that
transitivity is closely related to the aspectual dimension of verbs and that in the
languages under consideration the same aspectual expression gives rise to
different construals of aspect.
N. Sumbatova (“Evidentiality, transitivity and split ergativity: evidence from
Svan”) investigates the system of evidential forms in Svan (in the Kartvelian
language family). The author gives a description of the syntax and semantics of
imperfective and perfective evidential forms and attempts to capture inter- and
intra-sentential elements of cohesion and coherence that cause a native speaker
to choose either the evidential or non-evidential morphology.
T. Bulygina and A. Shmelev (“On the semantics of some Russian causative
constructions: aspect, control, and types of causation”) demonstrate that it is
essential to include information on the causative components of the meaning of
xiv INTRODUCTION
the verb, such as the type of causation (e.g. controllable/uncontrollable), into its
corresponding dictionary entries. They show that the individual properties of
concrete causative verbs are by no means idiosyncratic; on the contrary, most of
them are semantically motivated. The authors develop a taxonomy for a lexico-
graphic description of Russian causative verbs in terms of their aspectual
properties and other semantic and syntactic features.
2. The trade-off between aspect and tense as typological parameters
The second group of papers are concerned with what can be called The trade-off
between aspect, tense and resultativity. W. Boeder (“Some notes on the Georgian
resultative”) shows how Georgian, a language that possesses a morphological
category ‘perfect tense’ with both evidential and existential meanings, developed
a separate analytic resultative construction from a nucleus of possessive com-
pounds and possessive resultatives, which, after V. Nedjalkov’s findings, seem to
provide a universal basis for the rise and expansion of resultative constructions.
R. Thieroff touches on another typological theme in his article “Preterites
and imperfects in the languages of Europe”. In the northern part of Europe there
is only one past tense form, usually called Preterite, whereas in the South there
are two, an imperfective past, or Imperfect, and a perfective past, or Aorist. The
Aorists turn out to cover only a small, well-defined portion of the uses of
Preterites, while the rest of Preterite uses is covered by Imperfects. The author
arrives at the conclusion that, whereas the Aorist is indeed a perfective past, the
Imperfect should be qualified as a default past rather than an imperfective past.
When full-fledged aspect paradigms and tenses meet, as is the case in
Russian, and when, in addition, two morphological types of passive co-exist
within a verbal system, overlaps are bound to emerge. Y. Poupynin (“The
qualitative meaning of Russian imperfective verbs in passive constructions”)
discusses such a border case where the imperfective aspect, on the one hand, and
the periphrastic and reflexive passives, on the other, meet, and it is not always
clear whether the composed form is a (true) passive or a “quasi-passive”.
Viewpoint categorizations play an important role in Turkic languages, e.g.
in those of the Kipchak branch investigated by L. Johanson (“Typological notes
on aspect and actionality in Kipchak Turkic”). Constructions consisting of
converbs plus auxiliary verbs are used both as actional markers (specifying
“Aktionsarten”) and as viewpoint markers signalling the aspectual notions of
intraterminality (presents, progressives, and imperfects) and postterminality
(perfects and resultatives). The precise interactions of these distinct actional and
INTRODUCTION xv
aspectual categories are generally blurred in translations into European languages

lacking the corresponding distinctions.
I. Dolinina (“Distributivity: more than aspect”) discusses a category
belonging to the domain of quantificational (Number) categories. It is shown that
the semantics of Distributivity, its typological encoding, and the oppositions it
deals with are broader than those of Aspect. Within quantification, Distributivity
is characterized as a category having a dual (nominal-event) nature, since it
displays the combined meanings of nominal plurality and event-plurality. The
author distinguishes three types of distributives, in all of which quantification
operates in different ways upon the actions and objects referred to.
The functions of the Past Perfect in Old Armenian and in Modern Eastern
Armenian have not been compared so far. N. Kozintseva (“The past perfect in
Armenian”) shows that the Past Perfect in Modern Eastern Armenian differs
from the corresponding Old Armenian form by being used more widely in the
independent clause and in indirect speech. In these contexts, it has an absolute
time meaning and relates a past action of the second degree of remoteness to the
moment of speech.
Aspects of psych-verbs are not distinctly represented in many languages,
and Korean displays the progressive in psych-verbs while English does not.
Ch. Lee (“Aspects of aspect in Korean psych-predicates: implications for psych-
predicates in general”) scrutinizes the aspectual distribution of psych-predicates in
Korean, clarifies the nature of the progressive form in psych-verbs, and discusses
the relations between cognitive verbs and emotional/sensory/perceptual verbs, as
well as their position with regard to the achievement/accomplishment distinction.
3. Events and their componentiality
The generative school of linguistics has had a deep impact on syntactic-typolog-

ical theories, inter alia, by introducing what it terms the ‘ergative’ paradigm,
identified in purely syntactic distributional terms even in languages traditionally
taken as belonging to the nominative-accusative type. W. Abraham partly
contests this view in his article “How descending is ascending German? On the
deep interrelations between tense, aspect, pronominality, and ergativity”. He
contends that a language that has preserved aspectual or paradigmatically and
semantically manifest, pervasive Aktionsart distinctions manifests the syntactic
type of ergativity as lexical or phrasal perfectives — something clearly attested
by languages displaying split ergativity. It is demonstrated that in languages
without such solid aspect or Aktionsart distinctions, other distributive phenomena
xvi INTRODUCTION
such as VP-internal subjects blur the picture, to the extent that ergativity and
other, clearly a-ergative characteristics are no longer clearly distinguishable from
truly ergative ones. This investigation is conducted through several unrelated
languages.
G. Silnitsky (“Verbal temporalization in Russian and English”) makes an
original attempt at atomizing verbal actionality in terms of ‘temporalization’, at
the base of which is a tripartite division of semantic types of verbal meaning,
types of temporal correlations, and the grammatical means of ‘temporalization’.
The approach establishes deep-structure relations underlying means of expressing
temporal orientation in a number of Indo-European languages.
In the same methodological vein, though with a different terminology and
framework, V. Plungian (“A typology of phasal meanings”) considers several
components of phasal semantics in order to formulate an algebra of phasal
meaning. Special emphasis is laid on the frequently ignored phasal value of ‘not
beginning’ (termed ‘cunctative’), typical, among others, of Bantu languages.
K. H. Ebert (“Degrees of focality in Kalmyk imperfectives”) sheds light on
the specific functions of Kalmyk forms that are usually listed as “presents” or
“imperfect(ive)s” in the framework of the aspect theory developed by L. Johanson.
The various imperfective forms exhibit different degrees of focalisation and
represent a developmental continuum, in which high-focal forms tend to be used
in less focalised contexts, pulling in new high-focals from the domain of durative
actional periphrases.
Very much in the spirit of transcategorial rule setting, E. Rakhilina (“Aspec-
tual classification of nouns: a case study of Russian”) proposes a semantic
classification of Russian nominals, which parallels the verbal classification used
in Slavic aspectological studies. One interesting result is that it predicts the
semantic interpretation of attributive constructions with the Russian “inner-
temporal” adjective staryj ‘old’, which is discussed in detail. It is argued that this
interpretation directly depends on the semantic class which the noun belongs to.
*****
This collection has had, somewhat infelicitously, a long history burdened by the
awareness that it should have been completed much earlier. We as editors had
solidly underestimated the meanderings of the communicative paths extending
into all corners of this linguistic world. On the other hand, the fact that this truly
global participation of contributors pays homage to an outstanding linguistic
researcher and typologist, to his personal polyglotism and resulting versatility
with research traditions in different linguistic cultures and their literatures, to his
school in St. Petersburg, and his Russian collaborators at the Academy of
INTRODUCTION xvii
Sciences and the Russian universities — all this has encouraged us to continue
with this venture even to this late date.
As always in such a venture of international allure, the editors of this
collection have had to ensure that the lingua franca of today’s linguistic enter-
prise was up to native quality. In doing so, they have had the valued support of
Nick Nicholas (Melbourne/Irvine, California) for the Russian contributions.
Without his linguistic competence, professional dedication and editorial delicacy
the present editors would not have succeeded. One holds a faint, though insup-
pressable hope that, some day, when Judgement is meted out, a good genius will
recompense non-English speaking linguists for the pains they have taken to
express in English matters that could have readily remained in Russian, German,
Japanese or Korean — but needed to be rendered in a foreign tongue for the
benefit of linguistic and intellectual transparency.
References
Abraham, Werner. 1983. “Bemerkungen zum semantischen Transitivitätsbegriff”. In: J.O.

Askedal, Chr. Christensen, A. Findreng, O. Leirbukt (eds.). Festschrift für L. Saltveit.
Oslo — Bergen — Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget, 15–29.
Abraham, Werner. 1984. “Transitivity — a variable in concept formation”. In: J.J. van
Baak (ed.). Signs of Friendship. To Honour A.G.F. van Holk. Slavist, Linguist,
Semiotician. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1–28.
Abraham, Werner & Janssen, Theo (eds.). 1989. Tempus — Aspekt — Modus: Die
lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. & Dahl, Östen. 1989. “The creation of tense and aspect systems in the
languages of the World”. Studies in Language 13 (1), 51–103.
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dahl, Östen (forthc.) (ed.). Tense and aspect systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin —
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ehrich, Veronika & Vater, Heinz. 1988 (eds.). Temporalsemantik: Beiträge zur Linguistik
der Zeitreferenz. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hopper, Paul J. 1982 (ed.). Tense-Aspect: between semantics & pragmatics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”.
Language 56 (2), 251–299.
König, Ekkehard. 1997. “Préface générale”. In: J. Feuillet (ed.). Actance et valence dans
les langues de l’Europe. Berlin — New York: Mouton de Gruyter, v-vii.
xviii INTRODUCTION
Litvinov, Viktor P. & Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. “The St Petersburg/Leningrad

typology group”. In: M. Shibatani & Th. Bynon (eds.). Approaches to language
typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 215–271.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1980. “Zametki po tipologii rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij (perfektiv,
rezul’tativ, perfekt, passiv)”. In: I.P. Susov et al. (eds.). Kommunikativno-pragmati-
českie i semantičeskie funkcii rečevyx edinstv. Kalinin: Kalininskij gos. universitet,
143–151.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1983 (ed.). Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij (rezul’tativ, stativ,
passiv, perfekt). Leningrad: Nauka.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1984. “Zametki po tipologii načinatel’nyx konstrukcij”. In: I.P.
Susov et al. (eds.). Pragmatika i semantika sintaksičeskix edinic. Kalinin: Kalininskij
gos. universitet, 46–54.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1986. “Osnovnye tipy načinatel’nyx glagolov: inxoativy, ingres-
sivy, inceptivy”. In: I.P. Susov et al. (eds.). Jazykovoe obščenie i ego edinicy.
Kalinin: Kalininskij gos. universitet, 124–134.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1987. “Načinatel’nost’ i sredstva ee vyraženija v jazykax raznyx
tipov”. In: A.V. Bondarko et al. (eds.). Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Personal’-
nost. Zalogovost’. Leningrad: Nauka, 180–195.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1988a. “Imperativ v čukotskom jazyke”. In: L.A. Birjulin et al.
(eds.). Imperativ v raznostrukturnyx jazykax. Tez. konferencii “Funkcional’no-
tipologičeskoe napravlenie v grammatike. Povelitel’nost’”. Leningrad: LO Instituta
jazykoznanija, 89–91.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1988b (ed.). Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam:
Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language; 12).
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1990. “Kondicionalis v čukotskom jazyke”. In: L.A. Birjulin et al.
(eds.). Funkcional’nye, tipologičeskie i lingvodidaktičeskie aspekty issledovanija
modal’nosti. Tez. Irkutsk: LO IJa; Irkutskij pedagogičeskij institut inostrannyx
jazykov, 75–76.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1993. “Tense-Aspect-Mood forms in Chukchi”. Sprachtypologie
und Universalienforschung 47 (4), 278–354.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Nedjalkov, Igor V. 1988 [1990]. “Meanings of tense forms in
Evenki (Tungus)”. Lingua Posnaniensis 31, 87–100.
Thieroff, Rolf & Ballweg, Joachim (eds.). 1994. Tense systems in European languages.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Thieroff, Rolf (ed.). 1995. Tense systems in European languages II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Verhaar, John. 1990. “How transitive is intransitive?” Studies in Language 14 (1), 93–168.
Vladimir Nedjalkov
List of main publications
1957. (with Il’ja N. Gorelov)

Za novye metodičeskie i organizacionnye osnovy prepodavanija inostrannyx
jazykov v škole (v svjazi so stat’jami I.E. Aničkova i I.V. Karpova). [On
new methods and fundamentals of the teaching foreign languages in the
school (reply to the articles by I.E. Aničkov and I.V. Karpov)”]. Inostran-
nye jazyki v škole, N 6, 42–47.
1961a. O termine “glagoly s otdeljaemymi pristavkami” v grammatike nemecko-
go jazyka. [On the term ‘verbs with detachable prefixes’ in German
grammar]. In: Tatišvili, Ju.G. (ed.). UZ Pjatigorskogo GPI 23 (Voprosy
germanskoj filologii), 3–15.
1961b. Strukturnye osobennosti glagolov tipov auskommen, herauskomen. [Struc-
tural peculiarities of verbs of the type auskommen, herauskommen]. Ibid.,
17–27.
1961c. Samostojatel’noe upotreblenie narečij heraus i hinaus. [Independent use
of the adverbs heraus and hinaus]. Ibid., 29–44.
1961d. Smyslovye rjady složnosostavnyx glagolov s mestoimennymi pristavkami-
narečijami heraus i hinaus v sovremennom nemeckom jazyke. [Semantic
classes of complex verbs with the preverbs heraus and hinaus in Modern
German]. Ibid., 45–123.
1961e. Obzor pervyx komponentov nemeckix neprostyx glagolov. [A survey of
the initial components of German complex verbs]. Ibid., 125–163.
1961f. Smyslovye rjady nemeckix glagolov s komponentami aus-, heraus-, hinaus-.
[Semantic classes of German verbs with the prefixes aus-, heraus-, hinaus-].
Diss. … kand. filol. nauk. Leningradskij GPI im. A.I. Gercena. Kafedra
germanskoj filologii.
1963a. Neskol’ko zamečanij o strukture nemeckogo glagola. [A few notes on the
structure of the German verb]. In: Žirmunskij, V.M. & Sunik, O.P. (eds.).
xx VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
Morfologičeskaja struktura slova v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva —

Leningrad: Nauka, 274–278.
1963b. (with Tamara N. Nikitina & Viktor S. Xrakovskij)
K tipologii sootnositel’nyx konfiguracij raznostrukturnyx jazykov (Tipy: ja
zastavil ego leč’ / ja položil ego). [Towards a typology of the correlated
configurations of structurally different languages (types ‘I made him lie
down’ / ‘I laid him down’)]. In: Soveščanie po tipologii vostočnyx jazykov.
Tez. Moskva: Institut narodov Azii, 78–80.
1964a. (with Il’ja N. Gorelov)
Obučenie nemeckomu jazyku ustnym aktivnym metodom na načal’noj stadii.
Iz opyta raboty učitelej. [The oral active method in teaching German at the
beginners’ stage: teachers’ experience]. Moskva: Prosveščenie.
1964b. Glagoly s suffiksom -ier- romanskogo proisxoždenija v nemeckom
jazyke. [Verbs of Romance origin with the suffix -ier- in German]. In:
Borodina, M.A. et al. (eds.). Koordinacionnoe soveščanie po sravnitel’nomu
i tipologičeskomu izučeniju romanskix jazykov. Tez. Leningrad: IJa, 82–83.
1964c. O svjazi kauzativnosti i passivnosti. [On the connection between causativ-
ity and passivity]. In: Skrebnev, Ju.M. et al. (eds.). UZ Baškirskogo universi-
teta XXI. Serija filol. nauk, N 9 (13) (Voprosy obščego i romano-germans-
kogo jazykoznanija), 301–310.
1965a. (with Tamara N. Nikitina & Viktor S. Xrakovskij)
O tipologii pobuditel’nyx konstrukcij. [On the typology of causative con-
structions]. In: Nikol’skij, L.B. (ed.). Lingvističeskaja tipologija i vostočnye
jazyki. Moskva: Nauka, 217–228.
1965b. O naborax otličitel’nyx priznakov dlja funkcional’no sootnositel’nyx
konstrukcij. [On the sets of distinctive features for functionally correlated
constructions]. In: Kolšanskij, G.V. et al. (eds.). Naučnaja konferencija
“Problemy sinxronnogo izučenija grammatičeskogo stroja jazyka”. (7–10
dekabrja). Tez. Moskva: 1-j Moskovskij GPIIJa, 138–140.
1965c. (with Tamara N. Nikitina)
O priznakax analitičnosti i služebnosti (na materiale kauzativnyx konstruk-
cij). [On the parameters of analyticity and auxiliarity: causative construc-
tions]. In: Žirmunskij, V.M. & Sunik, O.P. (eds.). Analitičeskie konstrukcii
v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva — Leningrad: Nauka, 170–193.
1966a. Iz istorii francuzskix i latinskix zaimstvovanij v nemeckom jazyke
(glagoly na -ieren). [From the history of French and Latin borrowings in
German (verbs in -ieren)]. In: Borodina, M.A. & Guryčeva, M.S. (eds.).
Metody sravnitel’no-sopostavitel’nogo izučenija sovremennyx romanskix
jazykov. Moskva: Nauka, 343–352.
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxi
1966b. Priznaki obosoblenija kauzativnyx konstrukcij tipa Sie liess ihn schlafen
ot sootnositel’nyx tipa er schläft. [Parameters of the differentiation of caus-
ative constructions of the type Sie liess ihn schlafen from corresponding con-
structions of the type Er schläft]. In: Skrebnev, Ju.M. et al. (eds.). Teorija
i praktika lingvističeskogo opisanija razgovornoj reči. Tez. Gor’kij, 103–106.
1966c. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj)
Labil’nye (“perexodno-neperexodnye”) glagoly v čukotskom jazyke. [Labile
(transitive-intransitive) verbs in Chukchee]. In: Rojzenzon, L.I. et al. (eds.).
Materialy vsesojuznoj konferencii po obščemu jazykoznaniju “Osnovnye
problemy ėvoljucii jazyka”. 9–16 sentjabrja 1966. Part 2. Samarkand: Fan,
323–327.
1966d. Ob areal’nyx universalijax (na materiale kauzativnyx glagolov). [On areal
universals: causative verbs]. In: Konferencija po problemam izučenija
universal’nyx i areal’nyx svojstv jazykov. Tez. Moskva: Nauka, 55–58.
1967a. Napravlenie derivacii i smysl. [The direction of derivation and meaning].
In: Bazilevič, L.I. et al. (eds.). Urovni jazyka i ix vzaimodejstvie. Tez. naučnoj
konferencii (4–7 aprelja 1967). Moskva: 1-j Moskovskij GPIIJa, 112–115.
1967b. Nemeckaja kauzativnaja konstrukcija tipa jmdn. zum Lachen bringen. [The
German causative construction of the type jmdn. zum Lachen bringen]. In:
Levit, Z.N. et al. (eds.). Problemy leksikologii i grammatiki (materialy
simpoziuma “Analitičeskie konstrukcii v leksike”). Vyp. II. Minsk: Minskij
GPIIJa, 112–124.
1967c. (with Galina A. Otaina)
Opisanie glagol’nogo slovoobrazovanija metodami poroždajuščej grammatiki
(na materiale nivxskogo jazyka). [Describing verbal derivation by means of
generative grammar: evidence from Nivkh]. In: Rjatsep, X. (ed.). Mežvuzov-
skaja konferencija po poroždajuščim grammatikam. Kjaėriku, 15–25 sen-
tjabrja 1967. Tez. Tartu: Tartuskij GU, 72–76.
1967d. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj)
Iz nabljudenij nad ėrgativnoj konstrukciej v čukotskom jazyke. [Observa-
tions on the ergative construction in Chukchee]. In: Žirmunskij, V.M. et al.
(eds.). Ėrgativnaja konstrukcija predloženija v jazykax različnyx tipov
(Issledovanija i materialy). Leningrad: Nauka, 246–260.
1967e. Xarakteristika nemeckoj kauzativnoj konstrukcii tipa er gab ihr etwas zu
trinken / zu verstehen. [Characteristics of the German causative constructon
of the type er gab ihr etwas zu trinken / zu verstehen]. In: Kokla, V.I. et al.
(eds.). Materialy mežvuzovskoj naučnoj konferencii po voprosam romano-
germanskogo jazykoznanija. 27–29 ijunja 1967. Pjatigorsk: Pjatigorskij
GPIIJa, 106–109.
xxii VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
1967f. K metodike izučenija sintagmatičeskix podklassov glagolov (Na materiale

nemeckix kauzativnyx glagolov tipa befehlen i zwingen). [On the methods
of study of syntagmatic subclasses of verbs: German causative verbs of the
type befehlen and zwingen]. In: Kaspranskij, R.R. et al. (eds.). UZ Gor’kov-
skogo GPIIJa 32 (Voprosy germanskoj filologii), 165–179.
1968a. Vyraženie smyslovogo sub″ekta infinitiva v konstrukcii s lassen. [Expres-
sion of the semantic subject of the infinitive in constructions with lassen].
In: Skrebnev, Ju.M. et al. (eds.). Teorija i praktika lingvističeskogo opisanija
razgovornoj reči. Tez. Gor’kij: Gor’kovskij GPIIJa, 113–116.
1968b. Ustojčivye sočetanija s glagolom geben v nemeckom jazyke. [Fixed
collocations with the verb geben in German]. In: Avaliani, Ju.Ju. et al.
(eds.). Materialy XXV naučnoj konferencii professorsko-prepodavatel’skogo
sostava Samarkandskogo GU (20–25 marta 1968). Sekcija frazeologii.
Aktual’nye voprosy frazeologii. Samarkand, 17–21.
1968c. Ustojčivye sočetanija s glagolom lassen v nemeckom jazyke. [Fixed
collocations with the verb lassen in German]. Ibid., 28–34.
1969a. (with Georgij G. Sil’nickij)
Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij. In: Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.). Tipologija
kauzativnyx konstrukcij. Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 5–19.
[German translation is 1973d]
1969b. (with Georgij G. Sil’nickij)
Tipologija morfologičeskogo i leksičeskogo kauzativov. Ibid., 20–50.
[English translation is 1973e]
1969c. (with Irina O. Gecadze)
Morfologičeskij kauzativ v abxazskom jazyke. [Morphological causatives in
Abkhaz]. Ibid., 61–77.
1969d. (with Irina O. Gecadze & Aleksandr A. Xolodovič)
Morfologičeskij kauzativ v gruzinskom jazyke. [Morphological causatives in
Georgian]. Ibid., 131–152.
1969e. (with Galina A. Otaina & Aleksandr A. Xolodovič)
Morfologičeskij i leksičeskij kauzativy v nivxskom jazyke. Ibid., 179–199.
[English translation is 1988r / 1995]
1969f. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj & Aleksandr A. Xolodovič)
Kauzativ v čukotskom jazyke. [Causatives in Chukchee]. Ibid., 260–269.
1969g. Zametki ob universalijax. [Notes on universals]. In: Radžabov, N. (ed.).
Trudy Samarkandskogo GU. Novaja serija 169 (Voprosy filologičeskoj
nauki), 20–32.
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxiii
1969h. Nekotorye verojatnostnye universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii.

[Some statistical universals in verbal derivation]. In: Vardul’, I.F. (ed.).
Jazykovye universalii i lingvističeskaja tipologija. Moskva: Nauka, 106–114.
1969i. (with Galina A. Otaina)
Tipy derivacionnyx gnezd nivxskix glagolov. [Types of derivational classes
of Nivkh verbs]. In: Rjatsep, X. et al. (eds.). UZ Tartuskogo GU 232
(Problemy modelirovanija jazyka; 3.3), 120–130.
1970a. O svjazi smyslovyx i formal’nyx oppozicij (k voprosu ob universalijax).
[On connections between semantic and formal oppositions (towards the
problem of universals)]. In: Graur, A. et al. (eds.). Actes du Xe congrès
international des linguistes. Bucarest, 28 août — 2 septembre 1967. Vol. III.
Bucarest: Éditions de l’Académie de la République Socialiste de
Roumanie, 593–597.
1970b. On the typology of the polysemy of verbal affixes. In: Dezső, L. &
Hajdú, P. (eds.). Theoretical problems of typology and the Northern Eurasian
languages. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó / Amsterdam: Grüner, 95–97.
1970c. Zametki o passivnoj i kauzativnoj konstrukcijax v nemeckom jazyke.
[Notes on passive and causative constructions in German]. In: Il’iš, B.A.
(ed.). XXII Gercenovskie čtenija. Vyp. 10. Inostrannye jazyki. Leningrad:
Leningradskij GPI, 33–37.
1970d. O kolebanijax v upotreblenii morfemy zu pered infinitivom. [On varia-
tions in the use of zu with infinitives]. In: Avaliani, Ju.Ju. et al. (eds.).
Tezisy dokladov po romano-germanskoj filologii. Vyp. 1. Samarkand:
Samarkandskij GU, 90–98.
1971a. O sinonimii kauzativnyx konstrukcij v nemeckom jazyke (sie zwangen ihn
zum Schweigen / zu schweigen). [On the synonymy of causative constructions
in German (sie zwangen ihn zum Schweigen / zu schweigen)]. In: Fridman,
L.G. et al. (eds.). Nekotorye voprosy nemeckoj filologii. Pjatigorsk:
Pjatigorskij GPIIJa, 88–114.
1971b. Kauzativnye konstrukcii v nemeckom jazyke. Analitičeskij kauzativ.
[Causative constructions in German. Analytical causatives]. Leningrad:
Nauka. [German translation is 1976c]
1973a. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj)
Glagoly čuvstva v čukotskom jazyke. [Verbs of sensation in Chukchee]. In:
Kacnel’son, S.D. (ed.). Lingvističeskie issledovanija. 1972. Part 1. Moskva:
IJa, 175–203.
1973b. (with Irina O. Gecadze)
Konstrukcii s ob″ektnym masdarom v gruzinskom jazyke. [Constructions
with object masdar in Georgian]. Ibid., 223–242.
xxiv VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
1973c. K teorii nemeckogo pristavočnogo glagol’nogo slovoobrazovanija.

[Towards a theory of German prefixal verb derivation]. In: Kacnel’son, S.D.
(ed.). Lingvističeskie issledovanija. 1972. Part 2. Moskva: IJa, 165–174.
1973d. (with Georgij G. Sil’nickij)
Typologie der kausativen Konstruktionen. Folia Linguistica 6 (3 / 4),
273–290. [German translation of 1969a]
1973e. (with Georgij G. Sil’nickij)
The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In: Kiefer, F. (ed.).
Trends in Soviet theoretical linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel (Foundations of
language. Supplementary series; 18), 1–32. [English translation of 1969b]
1974a. (with Galina A. Otaina & Aleksandr A. Xolodovič)
Diatezy i zalogi v nivxskom jazyke. [Diatheses and voices in Nivkh]. In:
Xolodovič, A.A. (ed.). Tipologija passivnyx konstrukcij: Diatezy i zalogi.
Leningrad: Nauka, 232–251.
1974b. (with Leonid A. Birjulin, Inga B. Dolinina et al.)
Problemy universal’noj teorii zaloga (o specifike form s vozvratnym i
vzaimnym značeniem). [Problems in the universal theory of voice (peculiar-
ities of forms with the reflexive and reciprocal meaning)]. In: Jarceva, V.N.
et al. (eds.). Vsesojuznaja naučnaja konferencija po teoretičeskim voprosam
jazykoznanija (11–16 nojabrja 1974). Tez. dokladov sekcionnyx zasedanij.
Moskva: IJa, 66–70.
1974c. (with Aleksandr A. Xolodovič & Viktor S. Xrakovskij)
Diatheses and voice. In: Heilmann, L. (ed.). Proceedings of the eleventh
International Congress of Linguists. Bologna — Florence, Aug. 28 — Sept. 2,
1972. Vol. I. Bologna: Il Mulino, 631–635.
1975a. Podležaščee i prjamoe dopolnenie, oboznačajuščie semantičeski neobjaza-
tel’nye aktanty. [The subject and direct object denoting semantically
optional arguments]. In: Pečerkin, I.A. & Levickij, Ju.A. (eds.). Materialy
seminara po teoretičeskim problemam sintaksisa (2–5 marta 1975). Part 2.
Perm’: Permskij GU, 259–264.
1975b. Tipologija recessivnyx konstrukcij. Refleksivnye konstrukcii. [Typology
of recessive constructions. Reflexive constructions]. In: Diatezy i zalogi.
Tezisy konferencii “Strukturno-tipologičeskie metody v sintaksise raznosistem-
nyx jazykov” (21–23 oktjabrja 1975). Leningrad: LO IJa, 21–33.
1976a. Diathesen und Satzstruktur im Tschuktschischen. In: Lötzsch, R. &
Růžička, R. (eds.). Satzstruktur und Genus verbi. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag
(Studia grammatica; XIII), 181–211.
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxv
1976b. Tipologija deagentivnyx refleksivnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of deagent-

ive reflexive constructions]. In: Problemy sintaksičeskoj semantiki. Moskva:
Moskovskij GPIIJa, 171–173.
1976c. Kausativkonstruktionen / Aus dem Russischen übersetzt von V. Kuchler
und H. Vater. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik; 4).
[German translation of 1971b]
1977a. Posessivnost’ i inkorporacija v čukotskom jazyke (inkorporacija podležaš-
čego). [Possessivity and incorporation in Chukchee (subject incorporation)].
In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.). Problemy lingvističeskoj tipologii i struktury
jazyka. Leningrad: Nauka, 108–138.
1977b. Ėrgativnost’ v čukotskom jazyke. [Ergativity in Chukchee]. In: Tezisy
dokladov I meždunarodnogo simpoziuma učenyx socialističeskix stran na temu
“Teoretičeskie problemy vostočnogo jazykoznanija”. Part 2. Moskva:
Nauka, 5–8.
1978a. Zametki po tipologii refleksivnyx deagentivnyx konstrukcij (opyt isčisle-
nija). [Notes on the typology of reflexive deagentive constructions: a
tentative calculus]. In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.). Problemy teorii grammatičes-
kogo zaloga. Leningrad: Nauka, 28–37.
1978b. Iz nabljudenij nad sootnositel’nymi nemeckimi pristavočnymi glagolami.
[Observations on correlated German prefixed verbs]. In: Nušarov, M.M. et
al. (eds.). Trudy Samarkandskogo GU. Novaja serija 349 (Voprosy obščego
jazykoznanija i strukturno-tipologičeskogo issledovanija jazykov), 65–73.
Stativy ot intranzitivov v nivxskom jazyke. [Statives derived from intrans-
itives in Nivkh]. In: Sem, L.I. et al. (eds.). Kul’tura narodov Dal’nego
Vostoka SSSR (XIX-XX vv.). Vladivostok: Dal’nevostočnyj naučnyj centr,
134–141.
1979a. O refleksivnom glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii. [On reflexive verbal
derivation]. In: Slovoobrazovanie i frazoobrazovanie. Tez. Moskva: Moskov-
skij GPIIJa, 59–61.
1979b. Degrees of ergativity in Chukchee. In: Plank, F. (ed.). Ergativity: Towards
a theory of grammatical relations. London etc.: Academic Press, 241–262.
1979c. Zametki po tipologii dvupredikatnyx konstrukcij. Opyt isčislenija. [Notes
on the typology of biclausal constructions. A tentative calculus]. In: Susov,
I.P. et al. (eds.). Značenie i smysl rečevyx obrazovanij. Kalinin: Kalininskij
GU, 35–47.
1979d. Čukotskij antipassiv i vtoričnaja tranzitivacija. [The Chukchee antipassive
and secondary transitivization]. In: Širokov, G.K. et al. (eds.). XIV Tixookean-
skij naučnyj kongress. Xabarovsk, avgust 1979. Komitet L. Social’nye i
xxvi VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
gumanitarnye nauki. Sekcija III. Ėtno-kul’turnye problemy izučenija narodov

Tixookeanskogo regiona. Sekcija IV. Jazyki bassejna Tixogo okeana. Tez.
Tom II. Moskva, 266–268.
1980a. Zametki po tipologii rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij (perfektiv, rezul’tativ,
perfekt, passiv). [Notes on the typology of resultative constructions (perfec-
tive, resultative, perfect, passive)]. In: Susov, I.P. et al. (eds.). Kommunika-
tivno-pragmatičeskie i semantičeskie funkcii rečevyx edinstv. Kalinin:
Kalininskij GU, 143–151.
1980b. Reflexive constructions: a functional typology. In: Brettschneider, G. &
Lehmann, Chr. (eds.). Wege zur Universalienforschung. Sprachwissenschaft-
liche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen: Narr
(Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik; 145), 222–228.
1981a. (with Galina A. Otaina)
Nivxskie refleksivnye glagoly i tipologija smyslovyx refleksivov. [Nivkh
reflexive verbs and a typology of semantic reflexives]. In: Xrakovskij, V.S.
(ed.). Zalogovye konstrukcii v raznostrukturnyx jazykax. Leningrad: Nauka,
185–220.
1981b. O tipologii konstrukcij s predikatnym aktantom. [On the typology of
constructions with clausal arguments]. In: Semantika i sintaksis konstrukcij
s predikatnymi aktantami. Materialy vsesojuznoj konferencii “Tipologičeskie
metody v sintaksise raznosistemnyx jazykov”. 14–16 aprelja 1981. Leningrad:
LO IJa, 24–40.
1981c. Tipologija dvupredikatnyx konstrukcij (isčislenie i materialy dlja ankety).
[Typology of biclausal constructions: a calculus and materials for a ques-
tionnaire]. Studia gramatyczne IV. Wrocław etc.: Zakład Narodowy im.
Ossolińskich; Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk (Prace Instytutu je˛zyka
polskiego; 38), 83–106.
1981d. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj)
O svjazjax posessivnogo, “komparativnogo”, kauzativnogo i affektivnogo
značenij glagola (na materiale konstrukcij s glagolom l6n6k v čukotskom
jazyke). [On connections between the possessive, “comparative”, causative
and affective meanings of verbs: constructions with the verb l6n6k in
Chukchee]. In: Ubrjatova, E.I. et al. (eds.). Jazyki i fol’klor narodov Severa.
Novosibirsk: Nauka, 133–146.
1981e. K tipologii sootnošenija rezul’tativa i passiva: Na materiale nemeckogo
jazyka. [Towards a typology of relations between resultatives and passives:
evidence from German]. In: Susov, I.P. et al. (eds.). Semantika i pragmatika
sintaksičeskix edinstv. Kalinin: Kalininskij GU, 27–40.
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxvii
1981f. Tipologija derivacii rezul’tativov. [Typology of resultative derivation]. In:

Murzin, L.N. et al. (eds.). Naučno-teoretičeskaja konferencija “Problemy
derivatologii”. Tez. Vyp. II. Perm’: Permskij GU, 161–164.
1981g. Tipologičeskaja xarakteristika rezul’tativa (statal’nogo passiva). [A
typological sketch of the [Russian] resultative (statal passive)]. In: Buranov,
D.B. et al. (eds.). Voprosy sravnitel’noj tipologii (germanskie, romanskie,
russkij, tjurkskie jazyki). Respublikanskaja naučnaja konferencija (24–26
nojabrja 1981). Tez. Taškent: Taškentskij GPIIJa, 156–159.
1981h. Sub″ektnyj rezul’tativ i perfekt v nemeckom jazyke (stativ ot intranzi-
tivov). [Subject resultative and perfect in German (statives derived from
intransitives)]. In: Kacnel’son, S.D. et al. (eds.). Lingvističeskie issledova-
nija. 1981. Grammatičeskaja i leksičeskaja semantika. Moskva: IJa, 153–162.
1982a. Čukotskie glagoly s inkorporirovannym podležaščim (tip: ]egn6 ‘6l-6-
mle-g‘i ‘s gory obvalilsja sneg’, bukv. «gora snego-obvalilas’»). [Chukchee
verbs with incorporated subject (type: ]egn6 ‘6l-6-mle-g‘i ‘snow slid from
the hill’, lit. «the hill snow-slid»)]. In: Kacnel’son, S.D. et al. (eds.).
Kategorija sub″ekta i ob″ekta v jazykax različnyx tipov. Leningrad: Nauka,
135–153.
1982b. Čukotskij jazyk. [The Chukchee language]. In: Kasevič, V.B. & Jaxontov,
S.E. (eds.). Kvantitativnaja tipologija jazykov Azii i Afriki. Leningrad: Izd-vo
Leningradskogo universiteta, 217–226.
1982c. (with Jurij P. Knjazev & Irina A. Petunina)
Russkij rezul’tativ v sopostavlenii s nemeckim i anglijskim. [The Russian
resultative in comparison with German and English resultatives]. In: Susov,
I.P. et al. (eds.). Sintaksičeskaja semantika i pragmatika. Kalinin: Kalininskij
GU, 65–75.
1982d. Ėrgativnost’ i nominativnost’ v čukotskom glagol’nom soglasovanii.
[Ergativity and nominativity in Chukchee verbal agreement]. In: Solncev,
V.M. et al. (eds.). Teoretičeskie problemy vostočnogo jazykoznanija. Part 2.
Moskva: Nauka, 99–106.
1983a. (ed.) Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij (rezul’tativ, stativ, passiv,
perfekt). [Typology of resultative constructions (resultative, stative, passive,
perfect)]. Leningrad: Nauka. [cf. 1988a]
1983b. (with Sergej E. Jaxontov)
Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij. In: Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.) (1983a),
5–41. [English translation is 1988b]
Rezul’tativ i kontinuativ v nivxskom jazyke. Ibid., 80–89. [English transla-
tion is 1988c]
xxviii VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
1983d. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj & Vladimir G. Raxtilin)

Rezul’tativ i perfekt v čukotskom jazyke. Ibid., 101–109. [English transla-
tion is 1988d]
1983e. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)
Stativ, rezul’tativ, passiv i perfekt v ėvenkijskom jazyke. Ibid., 124–133.
[English translation is 1988e]
1983f. (with Ėmma Š. Geniušienė)
Rezul’tativ, passiv i perfekt v litovskom jazyke. Ibid., 160–166. [Revised
English translation is 1988g]
1983g. Rezul’tativ, passiv i perfekt v nemeckom jazyke. Ibid., 184–197. [English
translation is 1988h]
1983h. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj & Vladimir G. Raxtilin)
Čukotskie konstrukcii s sub″ektnym infinitivom. [Chukchee constructions
with the subject infinitive]. In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.). Kategorii glagola i
struktura predloženija: Konstrukcii s predikatnymi aktantami. Leningrad:
Nauka, 221–234.
1983i. Zametki o nemeckix glagolax finitivnogo sposoba dejstvija (tip: Die
Blumen haben schon ausgeblüht ‘Cvety uže otcveli’). [Notes on German
verbs of the finitive Aktionsart (type: Die Blumen haben schon ausgeblüht
‘The flowers have already shed their blossoms’)]. In: Klimov, V.V. et al.
(eds.). Sposoby dejstvija germanskogo glagola v sinxronii i diaxronii. Kalinin:
Kalininskij GU, 59–70.
1983j. Russkij rezul’tativ (stativ, statal’nyj passiv): nekotorye tipologičeskie
paralleli. [The Russian resultative (stative, statal passive): some typological
parallels]. In: Susov, I.P. et al. (eds.). Soderžatel’nye aspekty predloženija i
teksta. Kalinin: Kalininskij GU, 83–92.
1984a. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj, Igor’ V. Nedjalkov & Vladimir G. Raxtilin)
Značenie i upotreblenie čukotskix vido-vremennyx form. [The meaning and
usage of Chukchee tense-aspect forms]. In: Bondarko, A.V. (ed.). Teorija
grammatičeskogo značenija i aspektologičeskie issledovanija. Leningrad:
Nauka, 200–260. [cf. 1994]
1984b. Zametki po tipologii načinatel’nyx konstrukcij. [Notes on the typology of
inceptive constructions]. In: Susov, I.P. et al. (eds.). Pragmatika i semantika
sintaksičeskix edinic. Kalinin: Kalininskij GU, 46–54.
1984c. Tipologičeskoe izučenie grammatičeskix kategorij. [A typological study
of grammatical categories]. In: Jarceva, V.N. (ed.). III Vsesojuznaja konfe-
rencija po teoretičeskim voprosam jazykoznanija “Tipy jazykovyx obščnostej
i metody ix izučenija”. Tez. Moskva: IJa, 108–110.
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxix
1985a. Čukotskie deagentivnye konstrukcii s sub″ektnym infinitivom. [Chukchee

deagentive constructions with the subject infinitive]. In: Xrakovskij, V.S.
(ed.). Tipologija konstrukcij s predikatnymi aktantami. Leningrad: Nauka,
82–90.
1985b. Osnovnye tipy načinatel’nyx glagolov. [Main types of verbs of begin-
ning]. In: Vasil’ev, L.M. et al. (eds.). Semantičeskie kategorii jazyka i
metody ix izučenija. Tez. Part 1. Ufa: IJa; Baškirskij GU, 60–61.
1985c. (ed.) Refleksivnye glagoly v indoevropejskix jazykax. [Reflexive verbs in
Indo-European languages]. Kalinin: Kalininskij GU.
1985d. (with Ėmma Š. Geniušienė)
Refleksivnye konstrukcii v baltijskix jazykax i tipologičeskaja anketa.
[Reflexive constructions in the Baltic languages: a typological question-
naire]. In: Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.) (1985c), 3–19.
1985e. (with Jurij P. Knjazev)
Refleksivnye konstrukcii v slavjanskix jazykax. [Reflexive constructions in
the Slavic languages]. Ibid., 20–39.
1986a. Osnovnye tipy načinatel’nyx glagolov: inxoativy, ingressivy, inceptivy.
[Main types of verbs of beginning: inchoatives, ingressives, inceptives]. In:
Susov, I.P. et al. (eds.). Jazykovoe obščenie i ego edinicy. Kalinin: Kalinin-
skij GU, 124–134.
1986b. Zametki po tipologii zavisimogo taksisa. [Notes on the typology of
subordinated taxis]. In: Bondarko, A.V. et al. (eds.). Funkcional’no-tipolo-
gičeskie problemy grammatiki. Tezisy naučno-praktičeskoj konferencii “Funk-
cional’noe i tipologičeskoe napravlenija v grammatike i ix ispol’zovanie v
prepodavanii teoretičeskix disciplin v vuze”. Vologda, 12–13 ijunja 1986.
Part 2. Vologda: LO IJa; Vologodskij GPI, 93–94.
1986c. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)
Deepričastija v karačaevo-balkarskom jazyke. [Converbs in Karachay-
Balkar]. In: Andreev, N.D. et al. (eds.). Lingvističeskie issledovanija. 1986.
Social’noe i sistemnoe na različnyx urovnjax jazyka. Moskva: IJa, 164–171.
1987a. Načinatel’nost’ i sredstva ee vyraženija v jazykax raznyx tipov. [Inceptiv-
ity and means of its expresion in languages of different types]. In: Bondar-
ko, A.V. et al. (eds.). Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Vvedenie. Aspek-
tual’nost’. Vremennaja lokalizovannost’. Taksis. Leningrad: Nauka, 180–195.
1987b. (with Galina A. Otaina)
Tipologičeskie i sopostavitel’nye aspekty analiza zavisimogo taksisa (na
materiale nivxskogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s russkim). [Typological and
contrastive aspects of the analysis of subordinated taxis: evidence from
Nivkh in comparison with Russian]. Ibid., 296–319.
xxx VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
1987c. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)

On the typological characteristics of converbs. In: Help, T. & Murumets, S.
(eds.). Symposium on language universals. “Estonian data contributing to the
theory of Language Universals” & “The Hierarchical Nature of Language”
(Tallinn, July 28–30, 1987). Tallinn, 75–79.
1987d. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)
Karačaevo-balkarskaja glagol’naja forma na -b/-p tur-a- so značenijami
nastojaščego i prošedšego vremeni (v sravnenii s formami na -b tur-a- / tur-
ib- v uzbekskom jazyke). [The Karachay-Balkar verbal form in -b/-p tur-a-
with the meanings of the present and past tense (in comparison with Uzbek
forms in -b tur-a- / tur-ib-)]. In: Muxin, A.M. et al. (eds.). Lingvističeskie
issledovanija. 1987. Funkcional’no-semantičeskie aspekty grammatiki.
Moskva: IJa, 113–121.
1987e. (with Marija S. Polinskaja)
Contrasting the absolutive in Chukchee. Syntax, semantics and pragmatics.
In: Dixon, R.M.W. (ed.). Studies in ergativity. Amsterdam: North-Holland
(= Lingua 71 (1–4)), 239–269.
1988a. (ed.) Typology of resultative constructions. Engl. transl. ed. by B. Comrie.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Typological Studies in Language; 12). [cf. 1983a]
1988b. (with Sergej E. Jaxontov)
The typology of resultative constructions. In: Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.) (1988a),
3–62. [English translation of 1983b]
Resultative and continuative in Nivkh. Ibid., 135–151. [English translation
of 1983c]
1988d. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj & Vladimir G. Raxtilin)
Resultative and perfect in Chukchee. Ibid., 153–166. [English translation of
1983d]
1988e. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)
Stative, resultative, passive, and perfect in Evenki. Ibid., 241–257. [English
translation of 1983e]
1988f. (with Agus Salim & Aleksandr K. Ogloblin)
Resultative, passive and neutral verbs in Indonesian. Ibid., 307–326.
1988g. (with Ėmma Š. Geniušienė)
Resultative, passive, and perfect in Lithuanian. Ibid., 369–386. [Revised
English translation of 1983f].
1988h. Resultative, passive, and perfect in German. Ibid., 411–432. [English
translation of 1983g]
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxxi
1988i. Comparison with Icelandic. (= Section 7 in: Berkov, V.P. Resultative,

passive and perfect in Norwegian). Ibid., 444–448.
1988j. Typological appendix (= Section 5 in: Plungian, V.A. Resultative and
apparent evidential in Dogon). Ibid., 491–493.
1988k. (with Vladimir D. Kaliuščenko)
Tipologičeskaja xarakteristika russkix otymennyx glagolov. [A typological
sketch of Russian denominal verbs]. In: Osipov, B.I. et al. (eds.). Obščie
problemy derivacii i nominacii. Slovoobrazovanie v aspekte vzaimodejstvija
raznyx urovnej jazyka. Oblastnaja naučnaja konferencija “Problemy derivacii
i nominacii v russkom jazyke”. Tez. Omsk: Izd-vo Omskogo GU, 92–94.
1988l. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)
Narrativnye deepričastija v karačaevo-balkarskom, mongol’skom,
man’čžurskom i nivxskom jazykax. [Narrative converbs in Karachay-Balkar,
Mongolian, Manchu and Nivkh]. In: Bogdanov, V.V. et al. (eds.). Predlo-
ženie i tekst: semantika, pragmatika i sintaksis. Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningrad-
skogo universiteta (Problemy sovremennogo teoretičeskogo i sinxronno-
opisatel’nogo jazykoznanija; 3), 137–142.
1988m. (with Isaak Š. Kozinskij & Marija S. Polinskaja)
Antipassive in Chukchee: oblique object, object incorporation, zero object.
In: Shibatani, M. (ed.). Passive and voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Typolog-
ical Studies in Language; 16), 651–706.
1988n. Imperativ v čukotskom jazyke. [The imperative in Chukchee]. In:
Birjulin, L.A. et al. (eds.). Imperativ v raznostrukturnyx jazykax. Tez.
konferencii “Funkcional’no-tipologičeskoe napravlenie v grammatike.
Povelitel’nost’”. Leningrad: LO IJa, 89–91.
1988o. (with Viktor P. Litvinov)
Resultativkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur Deut-
schen Grammatik; 34).
1988p. (with Viktor P. Litvinov)
Dialog o lingvističeskoj xarakterologii. [A discourse on linguistic character-
ology]. In: Litvinov, V.P. et al. (eds.). Xarakterologičeskie issledovanija po
germanskim i romanskim jazykam. Pjatigorsk: Pjatigorskij GPIIJa, 3–26.
1988r / 1995. (with Galina A. Otaina & Aleksandr A. Xolodovič)
Morphological and lexical causatives in Nivkh / Translation and notes by
J.M. Knott. In: The Leningrad Group for the Typological Study of Languages.
London: School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS Typological Project;
1), 1988, 26–56. [Also in: Bennett, D.C.; Bynon, Th. & Hewit, B.G. (eds.).
Subject, voice and ergativity: Selected essays. London: School of Oriental
xxxii VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV
and African Studies, University of London, 1995, 60–81]. [English transla-

tion of 1969e]
1988s [1990]. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)
Meanings of tense forms in Evenki (Tungus). Lingua Posnaniensis 31,
87–100.
1990a. Osnovnye tipy deepričastij. [The main types of converbs]. In: Xrakovskij,
V.S. et al. (eds.). Tipologija i grammatika. Moskva: Nauka, 36–59. [English
translation is 1995a]
1990b. Tipologija polisemii pokazatelej reciproka. [Typology of the polysemy of
reciprocal markers]. In: Solncev, V.M. et al. (eds.). Vsesojuznaja konferen-
cija po lingvističeskoj tipologii. Tez. Moskva: Nauka, 118–120.
1990c. Kondicionalis v čukotskom jazyke. [The conditional in Chukchee]. In:
Birjulin, L.A. et al. (eds.). Funkcional’nye, tipologičeskie i lingvodidaktičes-
kie aspekty issledovanija modal’nosti. Tez. Irkutsk: LO IJa; Irkutskij pedago-
gičeskij institut inostrannyx jazykov, 75–76.
1991a. Reciprok i smežnye glagol’nye kategorii. [The reciprocal and adjacent
verbal categories]. In: Birjulin, L.A. et al. (eds.). Kategorii grammatiki v ix
sistemnyx svjazjax (v teoretičeskom i lingvodidaktičeskom aspektax). Tez.
Vologda, 13–14 ijunja 1991. Vologda: LO IJa; Vologodskij GPI, 70–72.
1991b. O tipologičeskoj ankete dlja opisanija reciprokal’nyx konstrukcij. [On a
typological questionnaire for a description of reciprocal constructions]. In:
Birjulin, L.A. & Xrakovskij, V.S. (eds.). Tipologija grammatičeskix katego-
rij. Tez. (Leningrad, maj 1991). Leningrad: LO IJa, 33–35.
1991c. (with Ėmma Š. Geniušienė)
Tipologija refleksivnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of reflexive constructions].
In: Bondarko, A.V. et al. (eds.). Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki. Perso-
nal’nost’. Zalogovost’. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 241–276.
1991d. Tipologija vzaimnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of reciprocal constructions].
Ibid., 276–312.
1992a. (with Leonid I. Kulikov)
Questionnaire zur Kausativierung. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissen-
schaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45 (2), 137–149.
1992b. (with Leonid I. Kulikov)
Die Typologie der kausativen Konstruktionen: Probleme und Perspektiven
(zu definitorischen und terminologischen Aspekten des Questionnaires zur
Kausativierung). AKUP (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts) 87,
39–58.
1992c. Istorija pervoj lingvističeskoj raboty I.E. Aničkova. [The history of the
first linguistic paper by I.E. Aničkov]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, N 5, 136–140.
VLADIMIR NEDJALKOV xxxiii
1994. Tense-aspect-mood forms in Chukchi. Sprachtypologie und Universalien-

forschung 47 (4), 278–354. [Also in: EUROTYP Working Papers, Series VI,
1993, Nr. 4, 1–99]. [cf. 1984a]
1995a. Some typological parameters of converbs. In: König, E. & Haspelmath,
M. (eds.). Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of
adverbial verb forms — adverbial participles, gerunds. Berlin — New York:
Mouton de Gruyter (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology; 13),
97–136. [Also in: Converbs. EUROTYP Working Papers, Series V, 1993,
Nr. 7, 40–57]. [English translation of 1990a]
1995b. (with Vladimir M. Alpatov)
Isaak Šaevič Kozinskij. Voprosy jazykoznanija, N 1, 141–143.
1995c. (with Viktor P. Litvinov)
The St Petersburg / Leningrad Typology Group. In: Shibatani, M. & Bynon,
Th. (eds.). Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
215–271.
1997a. (with Dmitrij S. Lixačev & Sergej S. Zilitinkevič)
I.E. Aničkov. Biografičeskij očerk. [I.E. Aničkov. A biographical sketch].
In: Aničkov, Igor’ E. Trudy po jazykoznaniju. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 5–48.
1997b. (with Irina A. Muravyova & Vladimir G. Raxtilin)
Plurality of situations in Chukchee. In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.). Typology of
iterative constructions. München — Newcastle: LINCOM Europa (LINCOM
studies in theoretical linguistics; 04), 310–328.
forthc. Resultative constructions. In: Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds.). Language
typology and language universals. Berlin — New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Acknowledgments
The editors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Natasha Rodina (Moscow) for her assistance in
the preparation of this bibliography.
Abbreviations
GPI(IJa) – Gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut (inostrannyx jazykov)

GU – Gosudarstvennyj universitet
IJa – Institut jazykoznanija Akademii nauk SSSR
LO – Leningradskoe otdelenie
Tez. – Tezisy dokladov (i soobščenij)
UZ – Učenye zapiski
Vyp. – Vypusk
P 
Transitivity, causativity and tense-aspect:

interdependencies
Aspect and transitivity of iterative constructions
in Warrungu
Tasaku Tsunoda
University of Tokyo
Abstract
This paper aims to document as many details as possible of the iterative

constructions in the Warrungu language of northeast Australia, which became
virtually extinct in the early 1980s. Specifically, it looks at the morphology,
syntax and semantics of these constructions. Employing the framework
proposed by Comrie (1976), it shows that these constructions have typically
imperfective interpretations. Also, it shows that they have a strong tie with
intransitives, demonstrating a close association between aspect and transitivity.
1. Introduction
1.1 General notes
Warrungu (also spelt Warungu) is an Australian Aboriginal language once

spoken in the upper Herbert River area of north Queensland. Most of the data on
this language was collected by myself, during three field trips — which were
supported by the then Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and by Monash
University — on Palm Island, from 1971 to 1974, from the late Alf Palmer
(hereafter, Alf Palmer) (Warrungu name: Jinpilngkay), one of the last two fluent
speakers. The present work is based on a finite corpus (which includes six hours
of running texts), and it contains many points that can no longer be answered.
These points are shown with a question mark.
Since submitting my MA thesis on Warrungu (Tsunoda 1974), I have
published or written aspects of Warrungu grammar: Tsunoda (1976a, 1976b,
4 TASAKU TSUNODA
1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1997, 1998, forthcoming). I plan to rewrite a Warrungu
grammar, incorporating these works.
1.2 Outline of the language
The Warrungu phoneme inventory, written in a practical orthography, is as

follows: /p, t, j, k, m, n, ny, ng, rr, r, l, w, y, a, i, u, aa/.
Warrungu has the following cases: ergative (for a transitive subject),
nominative (for an intransitive subject), accusative (for a direct object), dative,
genitive, locative, ablative, comitative, and instrumental. The case system
exhibits a kind of split ergativity, roughly as follows. With pronouns, the ergative
and the nominative are identical, in distinction from the accusative, while with
nouns, the nominative and the accusative share the same form (zero form), as
opposed to the ergative. This is, however, an oversimplification. For instance, the
third person dual and plural pronouns can take an ergative suffix, e.g. jana-ngku
‘-’ in (17) and (20). See Table 1.
Table 1. Case-marking patterns
pronouns nouns
‘’ ‘’ ‘man’
ergative ngaya jana-Ø, jana-ngku pama-ngku
nominative ngaya jana-Ø pama-Ø
accusative nganya jana-nya pama-Ø
There are three conjugational classes: L-class, Y-class, and Ø-class. The
differences among the three classes can be seen, for example, in certain non-
future forms: palka-l ‘hit-’, nyina-y ‘sit-’, and watali-Ø ‘run-
’. I shall indicate the class membership of verb roots and derivational
suffixes, wherever information is available. An uncertain class membership is
indicated by a question mark. Word order is not rigid (Tsunoda 1990).1
2. The formation of iterative verbs
Warrungu has the verbal derivational suffix -karra-Y ‘iterative’, which belongs
to the Y-class and which has typically imperfective readings: distributive (‘here
and there’), iterative, continuous, and habitual. (I am grateful to Peter Austin and
Bernard Comrie for suggesting the term “distributive”.) It is used most commonly
with intransitive verb roots. It is also attested with intransitive stems (containing
ITERATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN WARRUNGU 5
a derivational suffix), transitive roots, and exceptionally with one transitive stem
and one noun (and possibly one more; see below). (-karra-Y ‘ITER’ shows a
contrast with certain derivational suffixes such as -wa-Y ‘reciprocal’ (Tsunoda,
forthcoming), which apparently cannot be added to a derivational suffix.) A full
list of the verbs and noun(s) attested with -karra-Y are listed below, except for
three apparent errors.2 The numbers of the instances from the running texts are
indicated in the parentheses. Other examples were mainly obtained during
elicitation sessions. Only those uttered by Alf Palmer are listed below, and those
which were made up by me and approved by Alf Palmer are excluded.
[1] Intransitives.
(a) Roots.
(a-i) Y-class (14 roots?): nyina-Y ‘sit’ (122), jana-Y ‘stand’ (82), waympa-
Y(?) ‘walk about’ (43), nyampa-Y ‘dance’ (37), wuna-Y ‘lie, sleep’ (25), punpa-Y
‘cry’ (10), ralmpa-Y(?) ‘be crippled’ (1), wama-Y(?) ‘get lost’ (1), walngka-Y(?)
‘float’ (1), kawa-Y (?) ‘vomit’ (0), juyma-Y ‘crawl’ (0), kalngka-Y ‘fall’ (0),
janta-Y(?) ‘wade’ (0), nyita-Y (?) ‘sneeze’ (0).
(a-ii) L-class (13 roots?): wumpi-L ‘have a rest’ (12), puni-L ‘be dizzy’ (10),
ngapa-L ‘bathe’ (5), wara-L ‘jump’ (4), waka-L ‘rise’ (3), wata-L(?) ‘play’ (0),
wanti-L(?) ‘rest, live’ (0), wuji-/wuyi-L(?) ‘grow up’ (0), yampi-L(?) ‘fly’ (0),
tuti-L(?) ‘swing’ (0), panta-L ‘crack (of skin)’ (0), kuyi-L(?) ‘cry (?)’ (0), waju-
L(?) ‘burn’ (transitive?) (0).
(a-iii) Ø-class (4 roots?): yaji-Ø ‘laugh’ (15), yuti-Ø(?), -L(?) ‘swim’ (14),
raki-Ø(?) ‘hide’ (1), wuyji-Ø (-L?) ‘burn’ (transitive?) (0).
(a-iv) Others (5 roots): pati- ‘cry’ (2), yani-L/Y ‘go’ (1), jampa- ‘leap’ (0),
wurri- ‘dance’ (0), kuta- ‘cough’ (0).
(b) Stems (Ø-class only?; 5 stems?): watali-Ø ‘run’ (0), kawali-Ø ‘call out’
(0), makuli-Ø(?) ‘work’ (0), jakuli- ‘be sad, sorry’ (0), yimirri-Ø ‘be glad’ (0).
[2] Transitives.
(a) Roots (L-class only?; 20 roots): paja-L ‘bite’ (2), palmpi-L ‘smell’ (2),
wapa-L (1) ‘look for (honey?)’, wurrngku-L(?) ‘bark at’ (0), yaymi-L(?) ‘spread’
(0), puypu-L(?) ‘spit on’ (0), yimpa-L(?) ‘wear’ (0), yilmpu-L ‘pull’ (0), wuta-L
‘take out’ (0), panju-L ‘ask’ (0), puya-L ‘blow’ (0), paya-L ‘sing’ (0), jingka-L
‘punch’ (0), papa-L ‘stab’ (0), nyaka-L ‘see, look at’ (0), yurrmpi-L ‘suck’ (0),
palka-L ‘hit’ (0), jaynyja-L ‘copulate with’ (0), kanyji-L ‘carry’ (0), kimpi-L(?)
‘blow (of wind)’ (0).
(b) Stem (L-class; one stem): mira-nga-L ‘make’ (0). (-nga-L is a transitive-
stem-forming suffix. The bound morpheme mira- seems to mean ‘existing’.)
6 TASAKU TSUNODA
[3] Nouns (1 noun and possibly one more): wunaja-karra-Y ‘camp about’
(2) from wunaja ‘camping about’, and possibly also jawa-karra-Y ‘vomit’, ‘open
one’s mouth all the time’ (0) from jawa ‘mouth’ (see 5.1).
If we look at the examples from the texts only, -karra-Y is attested with 19
intransitives, but with only two transitives. That is, -karra-Y seems reasonably
productive with intransitives, but not so with transitives.
The verbs which contain -karra-Y — hereafter “iterative verbs” — have the
following inflectional categories: nonfuture (-karra-n, -karra-y, -karra-Ø),
purposive (-karra-yal), apprehensional (‘might happen’) (-karra-yngka, -karra-
ngka (?)), and imperative (-karra-ya, -karra-Ø (?)). Like certain other derived
verbs such as antipassives (Tsunoda 1988), iterative verbs lack other categories,
such as the two participles (-nyu, -nji).
Further discussions of formation of iterative verbs are in 5.1 and 5.2.
3. The syntax of iterative constructions
Affixation of -karra-Y does not affect the transitivity of intransitives, but it

affects that of some of the transitives, producing intransitive stems.
3.1 Intransitive + karra-Y
As mentioned above, the resultant stems remain intransitive. As a pair of

examples, compare:
(1) nyula nyina-n yampa-ngka.
. sit- camp-
‘He sat in the camp.’ (TT)
(“TT” following the translation means that this sentence was made up by me for
the purpose of this paper and has not been checked with a Warrungu speaker.)
(2) nyula nyina-karra-n.
. sit--
‘He sat here and there.’
Alf Palmer’s translation of (2) is ‘just sit here and there.’ As another pair of
examples:
(3) pirku-Ø yinu jana-n yampa-ngka.
wife- . stand- camp-
‘Your wife stood in the camp.’ (TT)
(4) pirku-Ø yinu jana-karra-n

wife- . stand--
‘Your wife stood about.’
Alf Palmer’s translation of (4) is ‘stand about’. An additional example:
(5) rayi-wu yinta watali-karra-n.
girl- . run--
‘You run after (literally, for) girls here and there.’
3.2 Transitive + karra-Y
The transitivity changes involved can be classified as follows.

(a) - → -.
(b) - → -, -.
(c) - → -.
Only three iterative verbs are attested for the type (a), and only one for the type
(b). Some others do, and the rest seem to, belong to the type (c), which involves
no transitivity change.
[1] - → -.
palmpi-karra-Y ‘smell-’, wapa-karra-Y ‘look for (honey?)-’, and wurrngku-karra-
Y ‘bark at-’ are attested. A pair of examples containing palmpi-L ‘smell’:
(6) (‘I have washed myself before hunting.’)
kapura-Ø nyawa palmpi-n yuri-ngku.
body smell-  smell- kangaroo-
‘Kangaroos don’t smell [my] body smell.’
(7) nyula (or, TT pama-Ø) palmpi-karra-n juka-wu.
. ( man-) smell-- smoke-
‘He (or, the man) is smelling for the smoke.’
(Alf Palmer approved pama-Ø for (7). As seen in 1.2, a pronoun has the same
form for the ergative and the nominative. But the approval of pama-Ø clearly
indicates that the subject in (7) is nominative, and not ergative.)
A set of examples involving wapa-L ‘look for (honey?)’:
(8) yinta nguni ngarra wapa-Ø kurja-Ø.
. there up look for- native bee-
‘Look for native bees (or native bees’ honey?) up there.’
8 TASAKU TSUNODA
(9) ngaya kurja-wu wapa-karra-n.

. native bee- look for--
‘I am looking for native bees (or native bees’ honey?).’
(10) pama-Ø wapa-karra-n.
man- look for--
‘The man is looking [sc. for native bees/native bees’ honey?].’
(The nominative marking of pama-Ø in (10) shows that ngaya in (9) is nomina-
tive, and not ergative.)
A pair of examples involving wurrngku-L ‘bark at’:
(11) kantu-ngku wurrngku-n ngali-nya.
dog- bark at- -
‘The dog is barking at us.’
(12) kantu-Ø wurrngku-karra-n (TT ngali-ngu-n-ku).
dog- bark at-- ( ---)
‘As (11).’
(ngali-ngu-n-ku was added with Alf Palmer’s approval.)
[2] - → -, -.
Only yaymi-karra-Y ‘spread-’ is attested. It may remain transitive (-), e.g.
(14), and can become intransitive (-), e.g. (15).
(13) pama-ngku pilangkirr-Ø yaymi-yal.
man- blanket- spread-
‘The man will spread a blanket.’ (TT)
(pilangkirr is a loan from the English blanket.)
(14) nyula (or, TT warrngu-ngku) rapa-Ø yaymi-karra-n.
. ( woman-) fork- spread--
‘She (or, the woman) spread [her] fork.’
(warrngu-ngku was approved by Alf Palmer. Its approval shows that nyula in
(14) is ergative, and not nominative.)
(15) yinta=kuli rapa-ngku yaymi-karra-n.
.=alone, by oneself fork- spread--
‘You [a man] spread [her] fork by yourself.’
(rapa generally means ‘a fork-shaped part of a branch’, but in (14) and (15) it
refers to the fork-shaped part of a woman’s body, i.e. crotch.)
Warrungu has (productive) antipassive constructions (-, -),

the formation of which involves affixation of -kali-Ø ‘antipassives’ to transitive
roots/stems. One of the semantic differences regarding the two case frames is
that the instrumental object is impinged upon or affected by the action, while the
dative object is not (Tsunoda 1988: 600–01). Now, the - and the -
 clauses with an iterative verb illustrated above may be considered as
antipassives. Note that the instrumental object in (15) is impinged upon or
affected by the action, while the dative object in (7), (9) and (12) is not. This
semantic difference parallels that mentioned above regarding -kali-Ø antipassives.
[3] - → -.
yimpa-karra-Y ‘wear-’, puypu-karra-Y ‘spit on-’, and wuta-karra-Y ‘take off-’
belong here. The following verbs, too, seem to belong here: yilmpu-karra-Y
‘pull-’, paja-karra-Y ‘bite-’, papa-karra-Y ‘stab-’, nyaka-karra-Y ‘see-’, paya-
karra-Y ‘sing-’, kanyji-karra-Y ‘carry-’, kimpi-karra-Y ‘blow- (of wind)’. A pair
of examples involving yimpa-L(?) ‘wear’:
(16) yarru-Ø yinta … yimpa-n.
this- . wear-
‘You wear this….’
(17) jana-ngku ngayku palkupalku-Ø yimpa-karra-n.
- . hat- wear--
‘They wear my hat.’
A pair of examples involving puypu-L ‘spit on’:
(18) ngaya nyunya puypu-n karnyja-ngku.
. . spit on- saliva-
‘I spat on him with [my] saliva.’
(19) pama-kuman-tu puypu-karra-n pama-Ø.
man-another- spit on-- man-
‘Another man spat on the man.’
Additional examples include the following:
(20) (Alf Palmer described as follows how the workers carried the
cartons of food from the barge onto the jetty, at Palm Island.)
wuta-karra-n jana-ngku (TT manyja-Ø).
take out-- - ( food-)
‘They are taking [the food off the boat onto the jetty].’
(manyja-Ø was added with Alf Palmer’s approval.)
10 TASAKU TSUNODA
(21) (TT kantu-ngku) nganya paja-karra-n.

( dog-) . bite--
‘[My] dog kept biting me [as a gesture of affection].’
(kantu-ngku was added by me, too late to be checked by a Warrungu speaker.)
I have illustrated the case frame of yimpa-karra-Y ‘wear-’, puypu-karra-Y
‘spit on-’, and paja-karra-Y ‘bite-’. The case frames of the other iterative verbs
listed above are not known for certain, but the examples approved by Alf Palmer
suggest that they take the - frame, with no transitivity change.
4. The meanings of iterative constructions
4.1 Aspectual meanings: the imperfective
-karra-Y is aspectual, and it has typically imperfective interpretations (as defined

by Comrie 1976: 24–40) such as (a) distributive (‘here and there’), (b) iterative,
(c) continuous (including progressive), and (d) habitual.
A pair of examples of a distributive reading: Alf Palmer explained the
meaning of -karra-Y as follows:
(22) yuti-Ø is ‘just swim.’ (TT: swim-)
yuti-karra-n is ‘swim about.’ (TT: swim--)
An example of yuti-karra-n from a myth in the texts:
(23) nguna-Ø jana-Ø kamu-ngka yuti-karra-n.
that- - water-LOC swim--
‘They, those [animals], are swimming about in the water.’
Other examples of a distributive interpretation include (2), (4) and (5).
A pair of examples of an iterative reading (‘repeatedly’): Alf Palmer gave
the following pair and glossed them as follows:
(24) wuna-n ‘one night’ (TT: ‘lie,sleep,stay-’)
wuna-karra-n ‘every night’ (TT: ‘lie,sleep,stay--’)
An example of wuna-karra-n:
(25) yarru-n-ta ngaya wuna-karra-n.
this,here-- . sleep--
‘I camp here (repeatedly).’
Alf Palmer’s gloss for (25) is ‘sleep every night’. Another example of an
iterative interpretation:
(26) (“That boy is clumsy” was translated as follows.)
kalpiri-Ø nguna-Ø kalngka-karra-n.
child- that- fall--
‘That child falls over repeatedly.’
Alf Palmer’s translation of (26) is ‘fall down again’.
Examples of a continuous reading include the following:
(27) (‘I found a kangaroo, and fetched a spear from the camp.’)
yarru-Ø nyula karpu wuna-karra-n.
this- . still lie--
‘It, this [kangaroo], was still lying [there].’
(28) (“I am dancing” was translated as follows.)
ngaya nyampa-karra-n.
. dance--
The ex. (28) is an example of progressive, a subtype of continuous (Comrie
1976: 25).
An example of habitual — “a situation which is characteristic of an
extended period of time” (Comrie 1976: 27–28):
(29) yarru-n-ta jana-Ø wuna-karra-n kanpa-mara.
this-- - lie,stay-- ago-very
‘They used to live here long ago.’
Perhaps, as a subtype of a distributive reading, when the subject has plural
referents, the sentence can mean ‘many actors do here and there -
’:
(30) (‘You are a bit of a playboy. You have women everywhere.’)
nguni=rru nguni=rru kalpiri-Ø yinu wuna-karra-n
there=again there=again children- . stay--
kulpila kungkarri kuwa wangkarri.
in south in north in west in east
Literally: ‘Your children are staying here and there, in the south, in
the north, in the west and in the east’, that is, ‘you have children
here and there, ….’
(Note that the subject kalpiri-Ø ‘children-’ has plural referents. nguni=rru
nguni=rru means ‘here and there’.)
12 TASAKU TSUNODA
There is a non-productive verbal derivational suffix -rV-, whose vowel

copies the last vowel of the preceding root. This suffix means ‘many do
together’ or ‘one does something to many’. (Its affixation does not affect the
transitivity of the verbs.) It seems that Alf Palmer recognized a semantic
similarity between a verb with -rV and the corresponding iterative verb with a
plural subject. Thus, when I requested a Warrungu translation of “many stand”,
Alf Palmer said as follows. (The glosses are by me.)
(31) pama-Ø jana-Ø jana-karra-n or jana-ra-n.
(man- - stand-- stand-rV-)
‘Stand around, you know.’
(A translation for (31) will be ‘They, [the] men, stood about.’) Similarly, Alf
Palmer gave both nyina-karra-n ‘sit--’ and nyina-ra-n ‘sit-rV-
’ for ‘many people sit’; and both wuna-karra-n ‘stay--’ and
wuna-ra-n ‘stay-rV-’ for ‘many people live’.
The four interpretations of iterative verbs are obviously closely related. A
given iterative verb may have more than one reading. Thus, wuna-karra-Y ‘lie,
sleep, stay’ is iterative in (25), continuous in (27), habitual in (29), and distribu-
tive in (30).
The distributive reading (‘here and there’) is spatial, while the other three
readings are temporal. K.L. Hale (p.c.) suggests that the distributive reading is
the spatial equivalent to the temporal iterative.
4.2 Obligatory vs. non-obligatory use of -karra-Y
In terms of the obligatory as against non-obligatory use of -karra-Y, the verbs listed
in Section 2 can be classified as follows, as far as the available data are concerned.
[1] Intransitives. (a-i) The following roots are not used by themselves as
verbs, and they are always attested with -karra-Y: ralmpa-Y(?) ‘be crippled’,
walngka-Y(?) ‘float’, juyma-Y(?) ‘crawl’, nyita-Y(?) ‘sneeze’, puni-L ‘be dizzy’,
tuti-L(?) ‘swing’, kuyi-L(?) ‘cry’, pati- ‘cry’, wurri- ‘dance’, kuta- ‘cough’.
Furthermore, this may not be relevant, but they are attested in the non-future
form -karra-n only.
(a-ii) The following roots are generally or almost always attested with
-karra-Y: waympa-Y(?) ‘walk about’, nyampa-Y ‘dance’, punpa-Y ‘cry’, wama-
Y(?) ‘get lost’, wuyi-/wuji-L(?) ‘grow up’, yaji-Ø ‘laugh’, yuti-Ø(?), -L(?) ‘swim’.
Again, some of them are attested in the non-future form -karra-n only.
(a-iii) Other intransitive roots are generally or more frequently attested
without -karra-Y.
[2] Transitives. They are only rarely attested with -karra-Y.

It seems that -karra-Y is semantically empty for the intransitives of (a-i),
which are always attested with it. An example:
(32) ngaya puni-karra-n.
. be dizzy--
‘I feel dizzy.’
Admittedly, however, it is difficult to prove that -karra-Y is semantically
vacuous, and it may be possible to assign one of the readings, for instance, a
continuous reading for (32): ‘I am feeling dizzy’.
It might be thought that there is a semantic basis for this close association
between intransitives of (a-i) and the iterative suffix -karra-Y. However, these
verbs are not homogenous in terms of their inherent aspectual properties, such as
punctual, durative, dynamic and static (see 4.3), and it has not proved possible
to ascertain such a semantic basis.
-karra-Y also seems semantically somewhat vacuous for the intransitives of
(a-ii), which are generally or almost always attested with it. (It may appear that
this contradicts Alf Palmer’s comment cited in (22) that yuti-karra-n means
‘swim about’. Probably he was emphasizing the meaning of -karra-Y.) When
such verbs occur without -karra-Y, they generally take the non-future form -n
and furthermore the non-future form is repeated. (Naturally, an iterative verb,
too, can be repeated.) An example involving punpa-Y ‘cry’ and punpa-karra-Y,
from the running texts:
(33) nguna-ngumay ngaya punpa-karra-n.
that-after . cry--
‘Then, I cried [continuously].’
ngaya punpa-n punpa-n punpa-n punpa-n.
. cry-
‘I kept crying.’
Note that punpa-n, which does not contain -karra-Y, has the non-future suffix -n
and that it is repeated. An example concerning yuti-Ø(?), /-L(?) ‘swim’, from the
running texts:
(34) ngali-Ø malan-ta yuti-karra-n kuyay-ngal.
- creek- swim-- on/to the other side-to
‘We kept swimming across the creek, to the other side.’
ngali-Ø yuti-n yuti-n.
- swim-
‘We swam on and on.’
14 TASAKU TSUNODA
-karra-Y no doubt has a meaning for the intransitives of (a-iii) and the
transitives of [2].
It seems that the use of -karra-Y is not obligatory for expressing the
aspectual readings listed above, that is, given an appropriate context these
aspectual readings can be expressed without -karra-Y. Thus, the following
examples seem to have a habitual reading:
(35) kanpa-mara ngaya yarru-n-ta yani-n.
before-very . this-- go,walk-
‘I used to walk around in this [place] long ago.’
(36) yuwu ngana-Ø yama-nga-n yampa-ngka
yes - thus,so-- camp,country-
wara-yi-ta.
one’s own--
‘Yes, we used to do so in our own camp/country.’
Furthermore, there appear to be ways to make a given aspectual reading
clear (without using an iterative verb). Thus, a repetition of the same verb
produces a continuous (or possibly iterative) reading, e.g. (33) and (34). Addition
of nguni=rru nguni=rru ‘here and there’ (cf. (30)) yields a distributive reading
(‘here and there’), e.g.:
(37) (‘That man has diarrhoea.’)
kuna-Ø panta-n nyungu nguni=rru nguni=rru.
faeces- come out- . there=again there=again
‘His faeces are coming out here and there’, that is, ‘he is defecating
here and there’.
The same probably applies, for instance, to karri-kuman-kuman ‘everyday’ (‘sun-
another-another’) for an iterative reading, and karpu ‘still’ (see (27)) for a
continuous reading, and so on.
4.3 Inherent aspectual properties of verbs
Ignoring the iterative verbs based on transitives, of which there are not many
examples, the intransitives listed in Section 2 can be classified in terms of their
“inherent aspectual properties” (Comrie 1976: 41–44, 48–51):
(a) punctual (always dynamic), e.g. nyita-Y(?) ‘sneeze’, kuta- ‘cough’,
kalngka-Y ‘fall’.
(b) durative:
(b-i) dynamic, e.g. waympa-Y(?) ‘walk about’, nyampa-Y ‘dance’.
(b-ii) static, e.g. nyina-Y ‘sit’, wuna-Y ‘lie, sleep’.
Now, I stated in 4.1 that a given iterative verb may have more than one
reading. Nonetheless, due to their inherent aspectual properties, certain verbs
seem to have a close association with a particular meaning.
Static verbs “are typically continuous” (Comrie 1976: 51). A representative
static verb is wuna-Y ‘lie, sleep, live’. Of the 25 examples of wuna-karra-Y from
the texts, almost all have a continuous reading, as expected, e.g. (27).
Punctual verbs would be expected to have an iterative reading when affixed
with -karra-Y (see Comrie 1976: 28, 42). Now, kuta- ‘cough’ and also nyita-Y (?)
‘sneeze’ are always attested with -karra-Y, presumably with an iterative meaning.
There is just one example of the -karra-Y form of kalngka-Y ‘fall’. As expected,
it has an iterative meaning; see (26).
The intransitives of (b-i), which are both durative and dynamic, seem
impartial regarding the different readings listed above. Thus, for all of the 37
examples of nyampa-karra-Y ‘dance-’ from the texts, the following three
interpretations seem equally likely: distributive, iterative and continuous. Indeed,
it is difficult to select just one reading for a given instance of nyampa-karra-Y.
I should note here that of the four readings of -karra-Y listed above, the
habitual appears to have by far the smallest number of examples. Thus, wuna-
karra-Y ‘lie, sleep, stay-’, which would be more likely than other iterative verbs
to have a habitual reading, has perhaps at most only four examples that appear
to have a habitual reading. (The other 21 examples have a continuous reading, as
noted above.)
The number of examples of transitives with -karra-Y is small, and it is
difficult to make a generalization. Most of the examples seem to have a
continuous reading, although an iterative reading and a distributive reading, too,
would be possible. For examples, see 3.2.
5. More on the formation of iterative verbs
5.1 Iterative verbs based on nouns
At least one and possibly another such verbs have been found: wunaja-karra-Y
‘camp about-’ from wunaja ‘camping out’, and possibly jawa-karra-Y ‘vomit-’,
‘open the mouth all the time-’ from jawa ‘mouth’. Needless to say they cannot
16 TASAKU TSUNODA
be used as verbs without -karra-Y. (This may not be significant, but they occur
in the non-future form -karra-n only, with one exceptional example. The only
exception contains the non-future karra-Ø; see (38).) No doubt wunaja-karra-n
was used on the analogy of wuna-karra-n ‘lie--’, e.g. (25). An
example from the texts:
(38) ngali-Ø wunaja-karra-Ø.
- camping out--
‘We camped about.’
An example of jawa-karra-Y ‘vomit-’:
(39) pama-Ø jawa-karra-n.
man- mouth--
‘The man vomited.’
Alf Palmer had uttered three examples of jawa-karra-n, but later he denied the
existence of this verb. I am not certain if this is a bona fide Warrungu verb.
5.2 Non-future -n-karra-n
In a small number of examples, the non-future -karra-n is added to what appears

to be the non-future -n form of a verb rather than to its root or stem. Thus, for
‘jump again and again’ (wara-L ‘jump’), Alf Palmer gave in succession on one
occasion both wara-karra-n and wara-n-karra-n, and said the latter form about
three times. Similarly, involving watali-Ø ‘run’, Alf Palmer gave both watali-
karra-n and watali-n-karra-n (in succession on one occasion). For the following
verbs, Alf Palmer gave only the forms that involve -n:
(a) jakuli-n-karra-n. Alf Palmer’s gloss: ‘very sad, everybody, here and there’.
(jakuli-Ø ‘be sorry, sad’)
(b) yimirri-n-karra-n. Alf Palmer’s gloss: ‘very glad’. (yimirri-Ø ‘be glad’)
(c) mira-nga-n-karra-n. (Alf Palmer said this verb twice.) (mira-nga-L ‘make’.
-nga-L is a transitive-stem-forming suffix.)
(All of these iterative verbs are included in the list in Section 2 above.)
Etymologically, this -n is probably one of the non-future suffixes, e.g.
wara-n ‘jump-’. However, synchronically it will have to be analyzed as
a linking suffix, although elsewhere -karra-Y (and, for that matter, all other
verbal derivational or inflectional suffixes) is not preceded by -n. (The linking
suffix -n often occurs with pronouns and demonstratives, e.g. yarru-n-ta ‘this-
-’ in (29), and ngali-ngu-n-ku ‘---’ in (12).)
6. Aspect and transitivity of -karra-Y: summary and conclusion
This paper has looked at the morphology, syntax and semantics of the iterative
(-karra-Y) constructions of Warrungu. -karra-Y has aspectual meanings and it
also has a syntactic effect; when it is attached to transitives, it forms anti-
passives.3 Iterative constructions have typically imperfective interpretations. The
distribution of -karra-Y is heavily skewed in terms of transitivity; it is fairly
productive with intransitives, but it is decidedly uncommon with transitives. That
is, here is a close link between aspect (i.e. imperfectivity) and transitivity (i.e.
intransitives).4
Now, how can this close tie between -karra-Y ‘iterative’ and intransitives
can be accounted for? A clue to this appears to lie in Hopper and Thompson’s
transitivity hypothesis. (I owe this observation to Leonid Kulikov, p.c.) Hopper
and Thompson (1980) list ten pairs of semantic parameters, and claim that in
each pair one member crosslinguistically correlates with high transitivity and the
other with low transitivity. Out of those ten parameters, the one that is the most
relevant to the present discussion is the one concerning punctuality, in which the
member “punctual” correlates with high transitivity and “non-punctual” with low
transitivity. There appears to be crosslinguistically a strong association between
punctuality and perfectivity, and between non-punctuality and imperfectivity (see
Comrie 1976: 41–42). Then, although they do not use the term “imperfectivity”,
Hopper and Thompson indirectly predict that imperfectivity, or, at least non-
punctuality, correlates with low transitivity rather than with high transitivity. This
is exactly what we have observed regarding -karra-Y, which has imperfective
interpretations and also has a close tie with intransitives.
Acknowledgments
It is an honour to dedicate this paper to Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, in my deep appreciation of his

guidance and friendship. I am grateful to Peter Austin, Barry Blake, Tamsin Donaldson, K.L. Hale,
the participants in the Postgraduate Seminar in Linguistics, the University of Tokyo (15th April
1996), and also to the editors of this volume — Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov — for
commenting on a earlier draft of this paper and/or providing information. Special words of thanks go
to Bernard Comrie, who provided very detailed comments on an earlier draft.
Notes
1. Enclitics are preceded by an equation sign, while other morpheme boundaries are shown by a
hyphen. In the case of fusion, morpheme boundaries are not indicated and glosses are given as
18 TASAKU TSUNODA
in ngaya ‘.’. The abbreviations which may not be obvious are the following: ,
imperative; , iterative; , linking suffix; , non-future; p.c., personal communica-
tion; and TR, transitive-stem-forming suffix.
2. The three apparent errors are the following:
(a) pirpa-karra-Y. The verb pirpa- ‘jump’ is Wargamay (Dixon 1981: 113), and does not
seem to be Warrungu.
(b) warrumpil-karra-Y. This is based on the noun warrumpil ‘whistle’. This noun is
Wargamay (Dixon 1981: 120), and does not seem to be Warrungu.
(c) wurrpa-karra-Y. The verb wurrpa- ‘say, speak, talk’ is Dyirbal (Dixon 1972: 408), and
does not seem to be Warrungu.
3. It is interesting to note that the distribution of -karra-Y is almost complementary to that of the
suffix -kali-Ø, which is productively used with transitives, and only rarely with intransitives
(only two intransitives?). When used with transitives, it generally forms antipassives and
occasionally reflexives, the former often with an aspectual meaning such as continuous or
habitual (see Tsunoda 1988). When used with intransitives, it seems to have a continuous
meaning: wata-kali-Ø ‘play-’ and kawa-kali-Ø ‘vomit-’.)
4. A close association between aspect and transitivity does not seem uncommon. Thus, Nedjalkov
and Jaxontov (1988: 22) point out that the resultative is more common with transitives than with
intransitives. (I am grateful to Vladimir P. Nedjalkov for drawing this observation to my
attention.) This applies to Japanese (cf. Takahashi 1976: 128–29), for instance. Note that the
Warrungu -karra-Y ‘iterative’ exhibits the opposite situation, being more common with
intransitives than with transitives.
References
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1976, ed. Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1981. “Wargamay”. In: Handbook of Australian languages Vol. 2, ed. by
R.M.W. Dixon and Barry J. Blake, 1–44. Canberra: Australian National University
Press.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”.
Language 56.251–99.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. and Sergej Je. Jaxontov. 1988. “The typology of resultative
constructions”. In: Typology of resultative constructions, ed. by Vladimir P.
Nedjalkov, 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Takahashi, Taro. 1969. “Sugata to mokuromi” (‘Aspect and intention’). In: Nihongo no
doshi no asupekuto (‘Aspect in Japanese verbs’), ed. by Haruhiko Kindaichi, 117–53.
Tokyo: Mugi Shobo.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1974. A grammar of the Warungu language, North Queensland. MA
thesis. Melbourne: Monash University.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1976a. “The derivational affix ‘having’ in Warungu”. In: Dixon 1976:
214–25.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1976b. “The bivalent suffix -ku in Warungu”. In: Dixon 1976: 456–64.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1987. Coreference and related issues in Warrungu discourse. In: A
world of language: papers presented to Professor S.A. Wurm on his 65th birthday, ed.
by Donald C. Laycock and Werner Winter, 683–94. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1988. “Antipassives in Warrungu and other Australian languages”. In:
Passive and voice, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 595–649. Amsterdam & Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1990. “Typological study of word order in languages of the Pacific
region (5): Warrungu (Australia)”. The Journal of the Faculty of Letters Nagoya
University, No. 106: 13–47.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1992. “Position of Warrungu interrogative words”. In: The language
game: papers in memory of Donald C. Laycock, ed. by Tom Dutton, Malcom Ross
and Darrell Tryon, 483–90. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1997. “Expression of possession in Warrungu of Australia”. In: Studies
in possessive expressions, ed. by Tooru Hayasi and Peri Bhaskararao, 11–115.
Tokyo: Institute for The Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1998. “Applicative constructions in Warrungu of Australia”. In: Case,
typology and grammar, ed. by Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, 343–73.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. Forthcoming. “Reciprocal constructions in Warrungu”. In: Typology of
reciprocal constructions, ed. by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. München: Lincom Europa.
Split causativity
Remarks on correlations between transitivity,
aspect, and tense
Leonid I. Kulikov
Leiden University
Abstract
This paper deals with some typologically remarkable features of the early
Vedic verbal system. Forms belonging to the present tense system are mostly
employed in transitive-causative constructions, whereas forms of the perfect
tense system are typically intransitive. Similar correlations between tense/
aspect and transitivity can also be found in some other, genetically unrelated
languages, such as Yukaghir and Aleut.
The aim of the paper is threefold. First, attention is drawn to correlations
between the two groups of apparently unrelated grammatical categories, i.e.
tense, aspect, and aktionsarten, on the one hand, and transitivity and causa-
tivity, on the other (sections 1–3). In section 4 correlations will be discussed
between the transitivity/causativity and present/perfect oppositions in the Vedic
verbal system, and in section 5 the parallel phenomena in Ancient Greek,
within a broader Indo-European perspective. This correlation (labelled ‘split
causativity’ in the present paper) provides us with further evidence for an
approach to transitivity as a set of independent features and, additionally, can
clarify the status and function of some “hybrid” formations, such as forms
derived from perfect stems with present tense endings (section 6).
1. Introductory remarks
The last two decades have been marked by the rise of interest in interdependen-
cies and correlations between two groups of verbal categories, namely
22 LEONID I. KULIKOV
tense/aspect, on the one hand, and transitivity and related syntactic features, on
the other. By now, our views on transitivity as a linguistic phenomenon have
crucially changed, and the starting point of this evolution was no doubt the well-
known article by Hopper and Thompson “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”
(1980), which has evoked both positive and negative responses and triggered a
variety of studies on transitivity. Within this new approach, transitivity is not
regarded anymore as a binary opposition (transitive/intransitive), but rather as a
continuum which can be described in terms of a complex set of features, all of
which are concerned with the effectiveness of the action denoted by the verb:
the more effective the action, the more transitive the corresponding clause.
Among these features are, for instance, the agentivity of the subject, the referent-
iality and degree of affectedness of the object, the telicity and aspectual features
of the verb.
One of the parade examples of the tense/aspect/transitivity correlation is
‘split ergativity’, attested, for instance, in Hindi-Urdu, Burushaski, Samoan, some
Australian and Amerindian languages: the ergative construction is limited to
perfective and preterite environments whereas its non-ergative counterpart is
restricted to imperfective or non-preterite (cf. e.g. Dixon 1979: 71, 93–96). Cf.
the following examples from Kalkatungu (Australian) (Hopper & Thompson:
1980: 272f.):
(1) a. kupa]uru-t» a caa kalpin lai-na
old.man- here young.man hit-
‘The old man hit the young man.’
b. kupa]uru caa kalpin-ku lai-mina
old.man here young.man- hit-
‘The old man is hitting the young man.’
On the one hand, the ergative construction, as in (1a), can be shown to be more
transitive than the antipassive one (cf. (1b)), since one of the arguments is in an
oblique role; on the other hand, the past tense and perfective aspect can be
characterized as referring to more effective action than the imperfective. Thus,
the phenomenon of split ergativity was adopted by Hopper & Thompson
(1980: 271–274) as one of the main pieces of evidence for their hypothesis.
Further evidence for the correlation between transitivity and tense/aspect
oppositions was taken from Finnish (Hopper & Thompson 1980: 271). In Finnish,
the object appears in the accusative or partitive depending on the aspect (perfec-
tive/imperfective), whereby clauses with partitive objects can be shown to be less
transitive than those with the accusative ones — again, the partitive being an
oblique role. Consider (2):
SPLIT CAUSATIVITY 23
(2) a. Liikemies kirjoitti kirjeen valiokunnalle

businessman wrote letter. committee-to
‘The businessman wrote a letter to the committee.’
b. Liikemies kirjoitti kirjettä valiokunnalle
businessman wrote letter. committee-to
‘The businessman was writing a letter to the committee.’
After (or nearly simultaneously with) Hopper & Thompson’s article, a range of
studies appeared which considered transitivity in a new perspective, namely in its
relationships with semantic parameters of the clause; cf. Comrie 1981, Tsunoda
1981, DeLancey 1982, Lemaréchal 1983, Abraham 1983, 1984. Very soon
Hopper & Thompson’s hypothesis was severely and, it seems, rightly criticized
in a number of details (cf., especially, Abraham 1983; 1984: 24–25; 1996: 32,
note 10).1 Although much remains unclear about the intricate inner structure of
the semantic concept of transitivity, we owe a lot to these pioneer studies of the
80’s, written both by proponents and opponents of the hypothesis in question. At
any rate, we can no longer treat transitivity as a purely morpho-syntactic
phenomenon. In what follows, I will provide further evidence for the ‘semanti-
cally-oriented’ approach to transitivity, by bringing to light a particular type of
transitivity opposition, the causative alternation. It will be argued that scrutinizing
the semantic features correlated with transitivity and, in general, types of syntactic
constructions, can shed light on several morphological phenomena and account for
some, at first glance, abnormal features in verbal systems, such as the dissimilarity
in the syntactic behaviour of forms belonging to different tense systems.
2. Transitivity and causativization
The syntactic alternations under discussion within Hopper & Thompson’s ap-
proach to transitivity mostly belong to the type that can be termed ‘subject-
preserving’. In other words, the alternating constructions, albeit differing in
morphosyntactic transitivity (cf. ergative vs. absolutive, transitive with an object
in the accusative vs. partitive, etc.), share their subject (cf. kupa]uru- ‘old man’
in both (1a) and (1b)). Another class of transitivity-affecting derivations,
represented by causativization and passivization, might be labelled ‘subject-
changing’ class. Causativization introduces a new subject (a causer), which ousts
the original (embedded) subject, the causee; in passive constructions the subject
corresponds to the object of the non-passive sentence. Both derivations affect the
original valency of the clause: causativization increases it by introducing a new
subject, so that, for instance, intransitive clauses become transitive; passivization,

when applied to transitive clauses, intransitivizes them. Although causativization
was mentioned among transitivity-affecting phenomena by Hopper & Thompson
(1980: 264), it was paid less attention than subject-preserving derivations and
passivization, perhaps because it suggests more substantial changes in the meaning
of the underlying verb, namely, the incorporation of the predicate .
In what follows I will focus on interdependencies between causativization
and semantic transitivity features. Leaving aside most of the semantic parameters
discussed by Hopper & Thompson, I will only concentrate on those related to the
tense/aspect opposition. The term ‘aspect’ will be used in the broader sense,
referring to both aspectual oppositions proper (perfective/imperfective) and
aktionsarten (lexical modes of action).
3. Causativity and aspectual meanings: polysemy of causative morphemes
The intimate relationships between causativity and aspectual meanings can be

illustrated by morphemes which can function both as causative and aspectual
markers. Such a polysemy was repeatedly noticed in typological studies; cf. e.g.
Nedjalkov 1966; Nedjalkov & Sil’nickij 1969: 38 [= 1973: 19–20]; Li 1991:
349–351. One may distinguish between several types of this polysemy, depend-
ing on which parameter determines the choice of the function.
First, the choice between the causative and aspectual functions of a given
marker can depend on the verb which takes it. For instance, in Arabic, the
geminate second consonant of the verbal base marks causatives with some verbal
roots, as in (3a–b), and intensives with others, as in (3c–d), cf.:
(3) a. fariha ‘be glad’ – farraha ‘make glad’;
b. ‘alima ‘learn’ – ‘allama ‘teach’;
c. kasara ‘break’ – kassara ‘break in (small) pieces’;
d. daraba ‘hit’ – darraba ‘hit strongly’ (cf. Premper
1987: 89–90).
In Boumaa Fijian, the prefix vaá- forms causatives with some verbs and
intensives (verbs meaning ‘do smth. intensively, with a special effort’) with
others (Dixon 1988: 50f., 185ff.). Consider the following verbal pairs:
(4) a. vuli(-ca) ‘learn, study’ – vaá-.vuli-ca ‘teach’
b. mate ‘die’ – vaá-.mate-a ‘kill’
c. taro-ga ‘ask’ – vaá-.taro-ga ‘ask many times’

d. rai-ca ‘see’ – vaá-.rai-ca ‘watch, inspect,
look after’.
Furthermore, the causative and aspectual functions of a morpheme can be
distributed morphophonologically, for instance, depending on the allomorph of
the root (stem) to which it applies. In early Vedic Sanskrit, the causative suffix
-áya- can form present stems either with the long root syllable (ā, o, e, etc. in the
root, i.e. the lengthened or full degree), or with the short root syllable (a, u, i,
etc. in the root).2 Formations of the former type function as causatives, while the
-áya-presents with the short root syllable are intransitives and mostly display an
intensive, frequentative or iterative semantics. Examples are given in (5):
(5) a. pat- ‘fly’ – pāt-áya-ti ‘makes fly’ / pat-áya-ti ‘flies’;
b. śuc- ‘gleam’ – śoc-áya-ti ‘makes shine, gleam’ / śuc-áya-ti
‘gleams’;
c. śubh- ‘be beautiful’ – śobh-aya-ti ‘makes beautiful’ / śubh-áya-
ti ‘is / becomes beautiful’.3
Both formations are likely to be genetically related, but little has been said on how
the causative meaning may have developed from the intensive, frequentative, or
iterative, or vice versa (cf. Delbrück 1897: 109–119 for some suggestions).
Finally, both causative and aspectual interpretations of a given form can be
acceptable in precisely the same context. In some Turkic languages double
causatives may refer either to double causative chains (‘’ + ‘’) or to
intensive/iterative causation, cf.:
(6) Turkish (Zimmer 1976: 411f.)
Müdür-e mektub-u ač-tïr-t-tï-m.
director- letter- open----
‘I had someone make the director open the letter.’ (standard double
causative) or
‘I made the director open the letter [forcefully] (perhaps against his
wish).’ (intensive causative)
In all of the aforementioned cases one morpheme functions either as a causative
or as an aspectual marker. Less frequent are the cases where one marker serves
for the cumulative expression of two meanings, causative and aspectual, or, to
put it differently, a causative marker “automatically” evokes additional aspectual
meanings. This is the case in Yukaghir and Aleut. In Yukaghir, the verbal suffix
-t- (-dê-) expresses both causative and multiplicative/distributive meanings. In
order to form a non-multiplicative/non-distributive causative, the semelfactive

marker -j- has to be added, as in (7):
(7) a. šel’gê-j- ‘break (intr.)’ → šel’gê-t- ‘break (tr.) (several
distinct things)’
→ šel’gê-dê-j- ‘break (tr.)’;
b. jogê-j- ‘open (intr.)’ → jogê-t- ‘open (tr.) (several times)’
→ jogê-dê-j- ‘open (tr.)’
(Maslova 1993: 275)
The Aleut causative suffixes -dgu- and -ya- instantiate a similar phenomenon:
the former cumulates the causative and distributive meanings, while the latter
expresses both causativity and multiplicativity (Golovko 1993).
In order to account for the causative/intensive (causative/iterative etc.)
polysemy, let us have a closer look at the semantics of causatives. Causing
someone to do something implies channelling extra force from outside into the
situation. The meaning ‘more forcefully’, ‘more effectively’ may be thus the
common semantic denominator shared by the causativity, on the one hand, and
intensivity, iterativity etc., on the other. It is for that reason that these aspectual
meanings can become associated with causativity and, in a sense, appear as its
side effects. This account (presented, for instance, by Li (1991: 349–351)), albeit
quite autonomous and self-sufficient, is also perfectly appropriate within a more
general framework, namely within the approach to transitivity as a set of features
related to the effectiveness of an action taking place.
Similar interdependencies between, at first glance, unrelated categories can
be found in some ancient Indo-European languages, like Vedic Sanskrit. This
will be taken up in the subsequent sections.
4. Correlations between transitivity/causativity and tense in Vedic

Sanskrit
The Vedic verbal system consists of three major tense subsystems: (1) that of the
present, which includes the present proper (present stem plus the primary endings
-mi, -si, -ti, etc.), the imperfect (augment + present stem + secondary endings -m,
-s, -t, etc.), the injunctive (= unaugmented imperfect) and irreal moods (impera-
tive, subjunctive); (2) the perfect system, with the perfect tense as its main
representative (perfect stem + perfect endings -a, -tha, -a, etc.), and (3) the aorist
system, which I leave out of discussion. In order to avoid confusing the two
distinct senses of the terms ‘present’ and ‘perfect’, I will use small capitals to
refer to the tense systems in general (, ) and regular font to
denote the present and perfect tenses proper. It will be argued that the syntactic
properties of the forms belonging to the  and  systems are not
identical, at least for some verbs.
To begin with, let us consider the verb tan- ‘stretch, spread, extend’. An
examination of constructions with  and  forms attested in the
most ancient Vedic text, the R® gveda (hereafter, RV),4 reveals the following
syntactic asymmetry. On the one hand, forms belonging to the  system
mostly occur in transitive-causative uses, as in (8–9).
(8) raØ trı̄ vaØ sas tanu-te (RV 1.115.4)
night. clothes. spread.-.
‘The night spreads her clothes.’
(9) ahám» rudraØ ya dhánur aØ tano-mi (RV 10.125.6)
I. Rudra. bow.  stretch.-.
‘I stretch the bow for Rudra.’
Intransitive presents occur less than ten times in the RV. Most of these are
compounds with the preverb aØ ‘to, towards’, cf. (10):
(10) úd agne tis» t» ha práty aØ
up Agni. stand.... against 
tanu-s» va (RV 4.4.4)
stretch.-..
‘Stand up, o Agni, extend (yourself) toward [us] (with your flames)…’
By contrast,  forms are well-attested both in intransitive and transitive
constructions; whereby intransitive uses (as in (11–12)) are twice as common as
transitive-causative uses, as in (13):
(11) dūraØ t suØ ryo ná śocís» ā tatān-a (RV 6.12.1)
from.afar sun like flame. stretch.-.
‘From afar [Agni] has extended, like the sun, with [his] flame.’
(12) ágne … br® hát tatan-tha bhānúnā (RV 6.16.21)
Agni. high stretch.-. ray.
‘You, o Agni, have extended upwards with your ray.’
(13) saptá tantuØ n ví tatn-ire kaváya
seven threads.  stretch.-. seers.
ó-tavaØ u (RV 1.164.5)
weave- 
‘The seers have stretched seven threads, in order to weave.’
The ratio of syntactic constructions is schematized in Table 1 (characters refer to

the total numbers of occurrences in the RV):
Table 1
intransitive transitive
 ≈ 07 ≈ 40
 ≈ 25 ≈ 15
Thus, the transitive usages of  forms are nearly 6 times as common as
the intransitive, while for  forms the ratio is approximately 1:2.5 This
remarkable imbalance of syntactic patterns attested with tan- (: mostly
transitive-causative, : mostly intransitive) has never been the subject of
a special discussion and, to my knowledge, has only been mentioned in passing
by Haudry (1977: 312), though in different terms (‘théorie des deux modèles’).
One even might suppose that this disproportion is random, i.e. that intransitive
s and transitive s are rare merely by accident. However, the case
of tan- is not isolated in the Vedic verbal system. A similar ratio is attested for
the verb r® - ‘move, set in motion’. Six of the seven occurrences of the 
forms in the RV are intransitive, cf. (14):
(14) yásmād yóner ud-aØ ri-thā yáj-e
which. womb. up-move.-. worship.-..
tám (RV 2.9.3)
him
‘I worship the womb from which you have arisen.’
By contrast,  forms are typically transitive, as in (15):6
(15) r® n» ó-r apáh» (RV 1.174.2)
move.-.. waters.
‘You set the waters in motion.’
Yet another verb which may belong to this class is uks» -/vaks» - ‘be/make strong’;
cf. Kulikov 1989.
Further evidence is provided by a group of Vedic verbs like vr® dh- ‘grow,
make grow’ studied by Renou (1924; 1925: 144–148). While  forms can
be used both intransitively and transitively, depending on the diathesis (active:
transitive-causative, middle: intransitive; cf. várdha-ti ‘makes grow’ ~ várdha-te
‘grows’),  forms most commonly occur in intransitive constructions,
regardless of the diathesis, consider (16):
(16) pūrvıØr hí gárbhah» śarádo vavárdh-a (RV 5.2.2)

many. because embryo. years. grow.-.
‘… because the embryo has been growing for many years.’
Renou discovered some ten Vedic verbs which exhibit such a distribution, in
particular: jr̄® - ‘grow old’, nam- ‘bend’, pı̄- ‘swell’.
The syntactic asymmetry within the Vedic verbal system sketched above has
never received a satisfactory explanation. Why are  forms most often
employed intransitively, while their  counterparts are not? Is this
distribution an Indo-Aryan (Indo-Iranian) innovation or a trace of an old Indo-
European feature? In order to answer these questions, let us have a closer look
at evidence from another Indo-European language.
5. Intransitivity of the Indo-European perfect in a diachronic and

typological perspective
5.1 The perfect in Ancient Greek
While the intransitivity of the Vedic perfect (and, in general, syntactic dissimilar-
ities of different tense systems) has never been the subject of a special study
(not counting the short note by Renou), the prevailing intransitivity of the
 forms in Ancient Greek is a well-known phenomenon repeatedly noted
in grammars and special studies on the Greek verb. The fact that active perfects
behave intransitively and syntactically belong with middle presents (as is the case
with Vedic vr® dh-) has been mentioned and discussed, for instance, by Chantraine
(1927: 26ff.) and Bader (1972); for the predominant intransitivity of the perfect
in Greek, see also Wackernagel (1904: 13). Compare a few typical examples
from the Iliad and Odyssey quoted by Chantraine (1927):
(17) a. iÎ kaiÈ min ÎOluÈmpioV auÎtoÌV eÎ g iÈ r- i (Il. N 58)
if and him Olympian.. self.. awake.-.
‘and if the Olympian self awakes him…’
b. oiÏ d’ eÎ grhgo
grhgoÈ r-J
Jasi (Il. K 419)
they awake.-.
‘They awoke.’ (see Chantraine 1927: 29f. for this passage and
verbal form)
(20) a. paÈntaV meÈn rÏ’e eÑ lp-
lp i (Od. b 91)
all.. verily hope.-.
‘She holds out hope to all.’ (lit. ‘makes all hope’)
b. hÕ dhÈ pou maÈl’ eÑ olp-a

olp aV eÎniÌ jr siÈ (Il. F 583)
hope.-. in mind..
‘Certainly you hope in your mind …’
(21) a. auÎtaÌr mhÍla kakoiÌ jJ iÈ r-ousi
ousi
while sheep.. bad.. ruin.-.
nomhÍ V (Od. r 246)
herdsman..
‘… while bad herdsmen ruin the sheepflocks.’
b. mainoÈm n , jreÈnaV hÎleÈ, die
dieÈ jJor-a
or aV (Il. O 128)
madman mind.. deranged ruin.-.
‘Madman, deranged in wits, you are ruined.’
Thus, Ancient Greek displays basically the same type of the syntactic dissimilari-
ty of the  and  forms as attested in Vedic Sanskrit.
5.2 Perfect, middle, and stative
From the fact that the predominant intransitivity of  forms is typical of
several verbs both in early Vedic and Ancient Greek, one may conclude that the
opposition ‘intransitive  vs. transitive ’ may go back to some
older Indo-European dialect(s) or even to Proto-Indo-European; cf. especially
Kortlandt (1984: 319ff.). In their pioneer studies, Kuryłowicz (1932) and Stang
(1932) have demonstrated a striking similarity of the perfect and middle endings
in ancient Indo-European languages and suggested a genetic relationship between
these two categories (see Di Giovine 1996: 236ff. for a survey). Assuming this
hypothesis and bearing in mind that the middle diathesis typically expresses
valence-decreasing derivations, such as anticausative, passive and reflexive, we
arrive at additional, albeit indirect, evidence for the predominant intransitivity of
the Indo-European . Further studies have appended one more verbal
category to this pair, the ‘stative’, for which only 3rd person singular and plural
forms can be safely reconstructed; see especially Oettinger 1976, Jasanoff 1978,
Gotō 1997, Di Giovine 1996: 243ff. and the recent monographic treatment of the
Indo-Iranian stative Kümmel 1996 (with a rich bibliography). The exact relation-
ships between stative, perfect and middle within the Proto-Indo-European verbal
system is far from clear and requires further research, but the hypothesis of a
genetic relatedness of these three categories7 appears quite plausible, notwith-
standing the fact that they belong to three different classes: the perfect is a tense,
the stative is usually considered an aspectual category, and the middle partici-
pates in the voice, or diathesis, opposition. In contemporary Indo-European
studies these three categories are taken as associated with each other so intimate-
ly that some scholars even treat the perfect as one of the members of the
diathesis opposition (active vs. perfect[−middle]),8 although, at first glance, the
expression ‘perfect diathesis’ makes no more sense than, say, ‘nominative
number’ or ‘feminine case’.
5.3 The Indo-European perfect in a typological perspective
Let us return to typological issues. How can the aforementioned syntactic

features of Indo-European perfect be interpreted in terms of the intercategorial
correlations and semantic transitivity discussed in the beginning of the present
paper? At first glance, the intransitivity of  forms contradicts Hopper and
Thompson’s generalisations, since perfectivity is supposed to be associated with
a high degree of transitivity. One has to bear in mind, however, that perfect tense
(in particular, in Indo-European) and perfective aspect cannot be identified with
each other. In fact, the semantics of the  has two facets. One of them
relates to an event in the past resulting in a certain state in the present. This part
of the perfect semantics (‘actional perfect’) implies high effectiveness of an
action and therefore must correspond to a high transitivity degree. It is in this
area that we typically find overlappings with the meaning of perfective.
The other facet is the meaning of an achieved state of affairs (resulting
from some action in the past), which belongs to the sphere of the present.9 It has
become commonplace in Indo-European studies that the latter aspect (stative)
was prevalent within the semantic content of the ancient Indo-European perfect,10
while the actional perfect (preterite), equally attested in many Indo-European
languages, results from later developments; cf. Wackernagel 1904; Schmidt
1973: 120f.; Jasanoff 1978: 14ff.; Di Giovine 1996: 249 et passim. The formal
similarity of the Indo-Iranian endings of perfect and stative can serve as addition-
al evidence for the original stative semantics of the Indo-European perfect. Note
also an interesting typological parallel in Semitic: the Akkadian infix -ta- could
express both the perfect and resultative (stative) meaning (see Kouwenberg
1997: 72ff. for details).11 On the nature and commonness of the transition from
stative to perfect and from perfect to perfective in the languages of the world,
see especially Bybee & Dahl 1989: 68ff.
Obviously, the stative perfect has to be placed lower than the (actional)
present on Hopper & Thompson’s transitivity scale, which accords with its
prevalent intransitivity. Incidentally, several attempts to account for the intrans-
itivity of the perfect through its stative semantics were already made in earlier
Indo-European studies.12 Within a new typological perspective, such explanations

can be formulated more correctly and adequately.13
6. Split causativity and its “side effects”
In order to settle the aforementioned correlation between the present/perfect

opposition and (in)transitivity with reference to typologically similar phenomena,
I will recall the correlation mentioned in the beginning of the present article,
split ergativity. In languages like Hindi-Urdu, some tenses (e.g. perfect) or
aspects select the ergative construction, while some others require the absolutive
(antipassive), so that the correlation between these two oppositions can be
represented as follows:
present : absolutive
perfect : ergative
The interdependency between the / opposition and transitivity
attested in Vedic and Ancient Greek can be schematized in a similar way:
present : transitive-causative
perfect : intransitive
The similarity of the above two schemes suggests a term to refer to this correla-
tion: ‘split causativity’.14 The same term can also be applied to the aforemen-
tioned phenomena in Yukaghir and Aleut (cf. Golovko 1993; Maslova 1993):
distributive : transitive-causative
non-distributive : intransitive
Of course, the parallelism between these two kinds of split is by no means
complete. Split ergativity is a strict syntactic rule, which typically has no
exceptions, while split causativity is nothing but a tendency, which may be valid
for some verbs only. Nevertheless, despite its marginal position in the verbal
system (as in Vedic), split causativity can affect the structure of a verbal system
as well as the inventory of forms and their functions. In what follows I will
focus on some features of the Vedic verbal system which can be accounted for
as such side effects of split causativity.
Let us return to the verb tan- as a typical representative of verbs with split
causativity. The general ratio of syntactic patterns attested for  and
 forms of tan- can be schematized in the following table:
Table 2


present … subjunctive
intransitive tanóti etc. … subju– tataØ na etc.
transitive-
tanóti etc. … tanavāvahai etc. tataØ na etc.
causative
The difference in the size of letters symbolizes that transitive-causative s

and intransitive s are more common than the reverse combinations, i.e.
intransitive s and transitive-causative s. Furthermore, notice that
 subjunctives are unattested in intransitive usages, which may represent
yet another gap in the paradigm. Such disproportions might have caused some
paradigmatic developments, in order to balance out the asymmetric system
outlined in tables 1–2.
One of the opportunities could be merely using some forms in the function
of others. For instance, s might take over the function of the intransitive
s. The use of  forms in the sense of  is indeed quite
common in early Vedic (the so-called ‘perfecto-presents’), especially for verbs
like cikéta ‘appears’, jāgaØ ra ‘is watchful’, uvóca ‘is accustomed’; see Renou
1925: 11ff.; Neu 1985: 278ff.; Cardona 1992; Euler 1993: 8ff. (with a bibliogra-
phy); cf. also Meltzer 1909 (especially p. 346 on the intransitivity of perfecto-
presents). Likewise, the perfect tataØ na can be employed in the present sense.
A rarer, but morphologically more drastic solution can be creating ‘hybrid’
formations. By ‘hybrid’ I mean, for instance, forms derived from a  stem
(e.g. tatan-) by attaching  endings (e.g. the secondary ending of the 3rd
person plural -an, which is used in imperfect, injunctive and subjunctive). One
may assume that the stem is “responsible” for the transitivity of the form
(: transitive, : intransitive), whereas the endings express its tense
and mood characteristics (imperfect, injunctive, subjunctive, etc.). Given this
assumption, forms like tatán-an might function as intransitive injunctives or
subjunctives.
P subjunctives of the type tatánan are indeed attested in the RV. The
following forms are encountered: 2 sg.act. tatanah» (RV 7.2.1), 1 pl.act. tatánāma
(RV 1.160.5, 5.54.15), 3 pl.act. tatánan (RV 1.166.14, 4.5.13, 7.88.4, 10.37.2),
3 pl.med. tatánanta (RV 1.52.11).15 Thus far the status of such forms has not
received a satisfactory explanation. In particular, it was unclear why the regular
 subjunctives (like *tanavan etc.) could not be used instead.
Reconsidering such forms from the ‘split causativity’ perspective may shed
more light on their functional value. Without making any universal general-
isation, valid for all such formations, I would assume that at least one of the
possible functions of such formations might be supplying additional forms in
order to fill gaps in the paradigm. Forms like tatánan could function as intransi-
tive subjunctives, that is as intransitive counterparts of  subjunctives,
which are typically employed transitively. The existence of such forms might be
most likely for those verbs whose perfects could function as presents (‘perfecto-
presents’), which diminished the ‘semantic distance’ between the  and
 parts of the paradigm.16
An examination of the RVic perfect forms with secondary endings based on
the root tan- reveals that all of the eight occurrences are intransitive,17 see
(20)–(21):
(20) áhāni víśvā tatán-anta kr® s» t» áyah» (RV 1.52.11)
days. all stretch.-.. tribes.
‘The tribes will expand for all the days.’
(21) yaØ n nú dyaØ vas tatán-an
inasmuch.as  days. stretch.-..
yaØ d us» aØ sah» (RV 7.88.4)
inasmuch.as dawns.
‘… inasmuch as the days and the dawns will continue (lit.: spread) …’
Thus, the status of forms like tatánan, tatánanta etc. within the systems with a
split causativity tendency can be schematized as follows:
Table 3


present … subjunctive
subjun–;
tanóti etc.;
intransitive
tataØ na etc.
… (pf.subj.) tatánan tataØ na etc.
etc.
transitive-
tanóti etc. … tanavāvahai etc. tataØ na etc.
causative
I leave out of consideration other  forms with secondary endings, the so-
called pluperfects (augmented  stem + secondary ending) and 
injunctives (= unaugmented pluperfects). Regarding their temporal semantics,
Vedic pluperfects do not differ from ordinary imperfects (= augmented 
stem + secondary endings),18 and, as in the case of  subjunctives, much
is unclear about their exact functional value. It cannot be ruled out that at least
some of them were built on the same model as the  subjunctives
discussed above, i.e. as intransitive counterparts of forms derived from the
corresponding  stems. The evidence is too scant, however, and the
problem requires a separate study.
It is worth mentioning that, although the concept of ‘split causativity’ was
not yet implicitly formulated in earlier Indo-European studies, it was sometimes
used as a criterion for distinguishing  forms with secondary endings from
other reduplicated formations, such as reduplicated aorists or s, in
accordance with presumptions like “transitive, hence cannot belong to the
 system”, and vice versa. See, for instance, Thieme’s (1929) comments
on forms made from the reduplicated stems mumuc- and pı̄æpi-19 and Chantraine’s
(1927) arguments for taking the reduplicated form aÑraron ‘they fit’ (Il. P 214)
as a pluperfect, rather than as an aorist.20
To conclude, one has to emphasize once again that the above account for
forms like tatánan can hardly be valid for all Vedic  forms with
secondary endings. There are verbs which do not follow the split causativity
tendency and obviously require a different explanation. What I suggest here is
only one of the possible raisons d’être for the existence of such forms. No doubt,
these formations must also have had some other functions,21 which await future
investigators.
Acknowledgments
This article is essentially a revised and enlarged version of the paper submitted to the Soviet Union-
wide Conference on linguistic typology, held in January 1990 in Moscow Institute of Linguistics (cf.
Kulikov 1990). I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the audience (in
particular, to V.P. Nedjalkov) for critical remarks. Some parts of the paper were also presented at the
16th International Congress of Linguists (Paris, July 1996) and to the Departments of General and
Comparative Linguistics of Leiden University (November 1998); I want to thank all participants of
the discussion, particularly, E. Skribnik, F. Kortlandt, T. Schadeberg, N. Kouwenberg, E. Carlin, S.
Elders. My gratitude also goes out to P. Hook, E. Maslova, V. Plungian, N. Sumbatova, Ja. Testelets
and H. Vater for discussing with me several points of this paper. Last but not least, I am much
indebted to W. Abraham, M. Kümmel, A. Lubotsky, I. Nikolaeva and N. Nicholas for their criticism
and valuable comments on earlier drafts of the paper.
Abbreviations
 — ablative,  — accusative,  — active,  — causative,  — dative,  —
ergative, Il. — Iliad,  — imperfect,  — imperfective,  — imperative,  — injunctive,
 — instrumental,  — intransitive,  — middle,  — nominative, Od. — Odyssey, 
— partitive,  — particle,  — perfect,  — plural,  — present,  — preverb, RV
— R® gveda,  — singular,  — subjunctive,  — transitive,  — vocative.
Notes
1. In particular, it has been demonstrated by Abraham (1983, 1984) that the semantic features of
transitivity, as proposed by Hopper & Thompson, quite often do not match or are even in
contradiction with morpho-syntactic transitivity.
2. For simplicity, I leave out of consideration a few -áya-causatives with short a in the root, such
as janáyati ‘begets’ (root jan-). The short a in such cases is likely to be due to the etymological
laryngeal (*janH-), which made the root syllable long.
3. There is no consensus in Indo-European and Vedic scholarship on whether the primary function
of the -áya-presents with the short root syllable (a, u, i, etc. in the root) should be qualified as
iterative, intensive or frequentative; for a survey, see e.g. Redard 1972, Deroy 1993.
4. The RV consists of 1028 hymns containing, in total, 10.402 stanzas. The counting of occurrenc-
es of forms derived from the roots under discussion was done by myself on the basis of two
concordances, Grassmann 1873 and Lubotsky 1997, which has enabled me to locate every form
attested in the RV.
5. I do not give the exact numbers of intransitive and transitive-causative occurrences, since the
syntactic analysis of some constructions is unclear. Most serious difficulties are posed by
formulaic expressions of the type aØ dyaØ m» TAN-, as, for instance, in (22–23):
(22) aØ dyaØ m» tano-s» i raśmíbhir (RV 4.52.7)
 heaven. extend.-: rays.
aØ antáriks» am urú priyám
 air. broad. dear.
ús» ah» śukrén» a śocís» ā
Us» as. bright. light.
‘You, O Us» as, extend () / extend () through heaven with [your] rays, [you
extend () / extend () through] the broad dear air with [your] bright light.’
(23) yó bhānúnā pr® thivıØm» dyaØ m utá imaØ m (RV 10.88.3)
which. light. earth. heaven. and this.
ā-tataØ n-a ródası̄ antáriks» am
-extend.-. two.worlds. air.
‘… [the one] who has extended () / has extended () through earth and this
heaven, the two worlds, air with [his] light.’
In such uses aØ -tan is constructed with accusative nouns referring to some of the three worlds:
heaven, earth and the intermediate space between heaven and earth. It is unclear which kind of
metaphor underlies such usages, and there is no consensus among the interpretators of the RV
on whether these constructions are to be rendered transitively or intransitively. Consider, for
instance, the following four translations of (22):
‘Du durchziehst den Himmel mit Strahlen, den weiten lieben Luftraum, o Us» as, mit
deinem hellen Feuerschein’ (Geldner 1951: vol. I, 453);
‘Tu tends le ciel de rayons, le vaste cher domaine aérien, Aurore, avec ton clair éclat’
(Renou 1957 [EVP III]: 76);
‘tu étends tes rayons sur toute l’étendue du ciel (ou: jusqu’au ciel) …’ (Haudry 1977: 309);
‘Ty pronizyvaeš’ nebo (svoimi) lučami, širokoe slavnoe vozdušnoe prostranstvo, o Ušas,
čistym plamenem.’ (Elizarenkova 1995: 417)
From the purely syntactic point of view, both intransitive (‘you extend [through heaven]’:
Geldner, Elizarenkova) and transitive-causative (‘you extend [heaven]’: Renou) interpretations
appear to be possible. Correspondingly, the accusative dyaØ m ‘heaven’ can be understood either
as a goal accusative or as a direct object.
In a special study dealing with these constructions, Christol (1986: 200) arrives at the
conclusion that aØ dyaØ m» TAN- has to be rendered transitively (‘tendre (TAN) en tirant vers soi (aØ )
le ciel lumineux’), thus regarding heaven in (22) as a movable object. However, in my opinion,
this interpretation is untenable for the following two reasons. First, the self-beneficiant sense
(‘en tirant vers soi’) would most likely be expressed by the middle diathesis (*tanus» e in (22),
*-tatné in (23)), which is not the case here. Second, we do not find corresponding passive
constructions (like *dyaúr aØ tāyate/aØ tatah» ‘heaven is being spread/is spread’). Since only
constructions with direct objects (‘stretch a thread’ etc.), but not with goal accusatives passivize
in Vedic, the lack of passives makes Renou’s and Christol’s interpretation less plausible.
6. Not counting the middle root present Øı rte ‘moves’, which is employed, as a rule, intransitively.
Historically, this formation goes back to the reduplicated present made from the root r® - (*Hi-
H(e)r-toiÛ), but, synchronically, it belongs to a separate root ı̄r.
I abstain from a discussion of the diachronic relationships between the presents r® n» óti,
r® n» vati ‘sets in motion’, r® ccháti ‘reaches’ and the perfect aØ ra. Even provided that the transitive-
causatives r® n» óti, r® n» vati do not historically belong with the intransitive perfect aØ ra, representing
rather a different root (thus M. Kümmel, p.c., pace Mayrhofer 1987: 105f.), synchronically
these formations are too close to each other both in form and meaning for one to simply ignore
their (perhaps secondary) paradigmatic links.
7. For the relationship between stative, perfect and middle in Proto-Indo-European, see especially
Kuryłowicz 1964: 56ff.; Kortlandt 1979: 66ff.; 1981.
8. See, foremost, Neu 1985 and Di Giovine 1996: 237 et passim.
9. For a discussion of this dichotomy in terms of the ascending/descending opposition, see
Abraham 1999.
10. Cf.: “… es besteht <…> ein Konsens darüber, daß man dem idg. Perfekt von Hause aus
Zustandscharakter zuzuschreiben habe” (Neu 1985: 278f.).
11. I would like to thank M. Kümmel and N. Kouwenberg for having drawn my attention to this
parallel.
12. Cf. “Wie wir <…> wissen, war das altidg. Perfekt eine Kategorie, mit deren Hilfe ein Zustand,
der aus einem vorangegangenen Vorgang (oder aus einer vorangegangenen Handlung)
resultierte, angezeigt wurde <…> Diese Bestimmung impliziert prinzipiell die Intransitivität
der Kategorie …” (Schmidt 1973: 120). Cf. also the following remarkable note made by Velten
(1931: 239, fn. 32): “Active perfect forms with an intransitive meaning — often used as a
present like deÈdorka ‘I see’ — occur commonly beside medio-passive presents <…> This is
not surprising since the perfect itself is of durative character and serves as a device of
durativation.” [emphasis everywhere mine — LK]
13. I should emphasize that in the present article I am concerned with the syntactic features of the
perfect in certain ancient Indo-European languages only (Vedic, Greek). I do not claim that the
genesis of the prevalent intransitivity of perfect must have been the same in all languages where
similar phenomena occur nor, correspondingly, that an account in terms of Hopper & Thomp-
son’s hypothesis must hold true for all such languages. For alternative explanations of the
intransitivity of perfect forms, see e.g. Comrie (1981), Abraham & Klimonow (1999: 24f.).
14. Not to be confused with ‘split intransitivity’ (the term introduced by Van Valin (1990)), which
refers to the distinction between two main semantic classes of intransitive verbs, unaccusatives
and unergatives.
15. For these forms, cf. Neisser 1883: 238 [= Kl.S., 39].
16. I would like to emphasize that the term ‘hybrid’ does not necessarily implies that all forms of
the type tatánan are secondary. Chronologically, many of them could be of the same age as the
corresponding ‘non-hybrid’ forms ( stem +  ending, etc.). Rather, this term
refers to their peculiar position within the verbal system, from the point of view of the basic
compositional principle valid for the majority of Vedic verbal forms:  stem + 
ending,  stem +  ending, etc.
17. Except, perhaps, for the syntactically unclear tatanah» at RV 7.2.1.
18. Cf. e.g. Macdonell 1910: 364; Thieme 1929, passim.
19. “Das Präteritum amumuktam ([RV] 1.116.4), mumucas (maØ ) ([RV] III.41.8) “ihr ließet frei”
dürfte dagegen kaum zu einem präsentischen Perfekt gehören: das zeigt der ausgesprochene
faktitive Sinn. Es ist ein altes Imperfekt, dessen Präsens-Indikativ nicht belegt ist.” (Thieme
1929: 42).
Yet another passage nicely illustrates how two similar reduplicated forms are treated by
Thieme as belonging to different tense systems ( vs. ) on purely syntactic
grounds (transitivity): “pipyatam im [RV] II.39.6 ist intransitiv, wird also zu [pluperfect] apı̄pet
gehören [but not to the present *pipyate postulated by Thieme, ibid. — LK] <…> Größere
Schwierigkeiten macht apı̄pema (VIII.66.7). Die Form verlockt dazu, es zu [pluperfect] apı̄pet
zu stellen. Aber apı̄pet ist intransitiv, apı̄pema faktitiv.” (Thieme 1929: 49).
20. “On considère généralement aÑraron comme un aoriste. Mais ce cerait le seul exemple de sens
intransitif pour cet aoriste. Il faut plutôt voir là un plus-que-parfait thématique, avec la seconde
voyelle brève.” (Chantraine 1927: 27).
21. Cf., in particular, Cardona’s (1992: 7ff.) account of some Vedic pluperfects like ábibhet ‘was
afraid’. As in the case of tatánan, they are likely to fill yet another paradigmatic gap, providing
preterite counterparts to the perfects like bibhaØ ya, commonly used in the present sense (‘is
afraid’).
References
Abraham, Werner. 1983. Bemerkungen zum semantischen Transitivitätsbegriff. In:

Askedal, J.O. et al. (eds.) Laurits Saltveit zum 70. Geburtstag am 31. Dezember 1983.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 16–29.
Abraham, Werner. 1984. Transitivity — a variable in concept formation. In: van Baak,
J.J. (ed.) Signs of friendship. To honour A.G.F. van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Semiot-
ician. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1–28.
Abraham, Werner. 1995–1996. Kasus, Aspekt und nominale Referenz: Komplexe kausale
Zusammenhänge in der Diachronie des Deutschen und ihre formale Darstellung auf
vergleichender typologischer Grundlage. In: Brandner, Ellen & Ferraresi, Gisella
(eds.) Language change and generative grammar. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag,
22–70. (Linguistische Berichte; Sonderheft 7).
Abraham, Werner. 1996. The aspect-case typology correlation: perfectivity triggering split
ergativity. Folia Linguistica 30 (1–2), 5–34.
Abraham, Werner. 1999. How descending is ascending German? On the deep interrela-
tions between tense, aspect, pronominality, and ergativity. In this vol.
Abraham, Werner & Klimonow, Wladimir. 1999. Typologisch-kontrastive Miszellen. In:
Wegener, Heide (ed.) Deutsch kontrastiv. Typologisch-vergleichende Untersuchungen
zur deutschen Grammatik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag, 1–32. (Studien zur
deutschen Grammatik; 59).
Bader, Françoise. 1972. Parfait et moyen en grec. In: Mélanges de linguistique et de
philologie grecque offerts à Pierre Chantraine. Paris: Klincksieck, 1–21.
Bybee, Joan L. & Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the
languages of the world. Studies in Language 13 (1), 51–103.
Cardona, George. 1992. On the development of presents like bibhéti. In: Srivastava, R.N.
et al. (eds.) Language and text: Studies in honour of Ashok R. Kelkar. Delhi: Kalinga
Publications, 1–13.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1927. Histoire du parfait grec. Paris: Champion.
Christol, Alain. 1986. De joÈwV eÎreÈwn à ā dyām tanos» i. Bulletin de la Société de Linguist-
ique de Paris 81 (1), 181–204.
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Aspect and voice: some reflections on perfect and passive. In:
Tedeschi, Philip J. & Zaenen, Annie (eds.) Tense and aspect. New York: Academic
Press, 65–78. (Syntax and semantics; 14).
Comrie, Bernard and Polinsky, Maria (eds.). 1993. Causatives and transitivity. Amsterdam
— Philadelphia: Benjamins.
DeLancey, Scott. 1982. Aspect, transitivity and viewpoint. In: Hopper, Paul J. (ed.)
Tense-Aspect: between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam — Philadelphia:
Benjamins, 167–183.
Delbrück, Berthold. 1897. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2.Teil.
Strassburg: Trübner.
Deroy, Louis. 1993. Sur les verbes fréquentatifs et causatifs en indo-européen. In:
Brogyanyi, Bela & Lipp, Reiner (eds.) Comparative-historical linguistics: Indo-
European and Finno-Ugric. Papers in honor of Oswald Szemerényi III. Amsterdam
— Philadelphia: Benjamins, 91–101.
Di Giovine, Paolo. 1996. Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo. Parte II. Roma: Il Calamo.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55 (1), 59–138.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago — London: University
of Chicago Press.
Elizarenkova, Tat’jana Ja. 1995. Rigveda. Mandaly V-VIII. Perevod i kommentarii

Tat’jany Ja. Elizarenkovoj. Moskva: Nauka.
Euler, Wolfram. 1993. Moduskategorien der Perfektopräsentien im Indogermanischen.
Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Geldner, Karl F. 1951. Der Rig-veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt… Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Golovko, Evgeniy V. 1993. On non-causative effects of causativity in Aleut. In: Comrie
and Polinsky (eds.), 385–390.
Gotō, Toshifumi. 1997. Überlegungen zum urindogermanischen “Stativ”. In: Crespo,
Emilio & García Ramón, José Luis (eds.) Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indo-
europea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft. Madrid —
Wiesbaden: Uam — Reichert, 165–192.
Grassmann, Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Haudry, Jean. 1977. L’emploi des cas en védique. Introduction à l’étude des cas en indo-
européen. Lyon: Édition l’Hermès.
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Language 56 (2), 251–299.
Jasanoff, Jay. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprach-
wissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1979. Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system.
Lingua 49, 51–70.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1981. 1st sg. middle *-H2. Indogermanische Forschungen 86,
123–136.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1984. Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 12, 307–324.
Kouwenberg, Norbertus J.C. 1991. Gemination in the Akkadian verb. Assen: Van Gorcum.
(Studia Semitica Neerlandica; 32).
Kulikov, Leonid I. 1989. Split causativity? (k paradigmatike vedijskogo uks» /vaks» ) [On
paradigmatic properties of Vedic uks» /vaks» ]. In: V Vsesojuznaja škola molodyx
vostokovedov. Tezisy. T. II. Jazykoznanie. Moskva: Nauka, 202–209.
Kulikov, Leonid I. 1990. K tipologii rasščeplennoj kauzativnosti [Towards a typology of
split causativity]. In: Vsesojuznaja konferencija po lingvističeskoj tipologii. Tezisy
dokladov. Moskva: Nauka, 91–93.
Kümmel, Martin. 1996. Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1932. Les désinences moyennes de l’indo-européen et du hittite.
Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 30 (1), 1–4.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1983. Pour une révision de la notion de transitivité. La Linguistique
19 (1), 95–118.
Li, Fengxiang. 1991. An examination of causative morphology from a cross-linguistic and

diachronic perspective. In: Dobrin, Lise M. et al. (eds.) Papers from the 27th
regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Pt 1: The General Session.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 344–359.
Lubotsky, Alexander M. 1997. A R® gvedic word concordance. 2 parts. New Haven:
American Oriental Society. (American Oriental Series; 82).
Macdonell, Arthur A. 1910. Vedic grammar. Strassburg: Trübner.
Maslova, Elena S. 1993. The causative in Yukaghir. In: Comrie and Polinsky (eds.),
271–285.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1987. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. I. Lief.
2. Heidelberg: Winter.
Meltzer, H. 1909. Gibt es rein präsentisches Perfekt im Griechischen? KZ 25 (Festschrift
K. Brugmann), 338–356.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1966. Ob areal’nyx universalijax (na materiale kauzativnyx
glagolov) [On areal universals: causative verbs]. In: Konferencija po problemam
izučenija universal’nyx i areal’nyx svojstv jazykov. Tezisy dokladov. Moskva, 55–58.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. and Sil’nickij, Georgij G. 1969. Tipologija morfologičeskogo i
leksičeskogo kauzativov. In: Xolodovič, Aleksandr A. (ed.) Tipologija kauzativnyx
konstrukcij: Morfologičeskij kauzativ. Leningrad: Nauka, 20–50. (English translation:
The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In: Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.) 1973.
Trends in Soviet theoretical linguistics. Dordrecht etc.: Reidel, 1–32).
Neisser, Walter. 1883. Zur vedischen verballehre. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen
sprachen, hrsg. von A. Bezzenberger [BB] 7, 211–242. [= Kleine Schriften, 12–42].
Neu, Erich. 1985. Das frühindogermanische Diathesensystem. Funktion und Geschichte.
In: Schlerath, Bernfried (ed.) Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte.
Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert,
275–295.
Oettinger, Norbert. 1976. Der indogermanische Stativ. Münchener Studien für Sprach-
wissenschaft 34, 109–149.
Premper, Waldfried. 1987. Kausativierung im Arabischen. Köln. (Arbeiten des Kölner
Universalien-Projekts [AKUP]; 66).
Redard, Georges. 1972. Sur les prétendus causatifs-itératifs en -eÈw. In: Mélanges de
linguistique et de philologie grecque offerts à Pierre Chantraine. Paris: Klincksieck,
183–189.
Renou, Louis. 1924. Védique vāvr® dhé, vāvr® dhúh» . Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris 24 (3), 185–188.
Renou, Louis. 1925. La valeur du parfait dans les hymnes védiques. Paris: Champion.
Renou, Louis. 1957. Études védiques et pān» inéennes. Tome III. Paris: Boccard. (Publica-
tions de l’Institut de civilisation indienne; 4).
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1973. Transitiv und Intransitiv. In: Redard, Georges (ed.) Indo-
germanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Akten der IV. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 107–124.
Stang, Christian S. 1932. Perfektum und Medium. Norsk tidskrift for sprogvidenskap 6,
29–39.
Thieme, Paul. 1929. Das Plusquamperfektum im Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguis-
tics 19 (5/6), 389–438.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66
(2), 221–260.
Velten, H.V. 1931. On the origin of the categories of voice and aspect. Language 7 (4),
229–241.
Wackernagel, Jacobus. 1904. Studien zum griechischen Perfektum. Göttingen.
Zimmer, Karl. 1976. Some constraints on Turkish causativization. In: Shibatani, Masa-
yoshi (ed.) The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press,
399–412. (Syntax and semantics; 6).
Conceptualization and aspect
in some Asian languages
Kazuyuki Kiryu
Mimasaka Women’s Junior College
Abstract
This paper focuses on periphrastic expressions that carry a progressive

meaning in some Asian languages, from a cognitive point of view. The
languages in question are Japanese, Korean and Newari. The progressive
expressions in these languages in general have both progressive and perfect
meanings. The data from the languages seem to show that the aspectual
systems in these languages are different in nature from European languages.
Although still at a preliminary stage of research, it will be argued that such an
aspectual difference is a reflection of the pattern of conceptualization of
events, and the way of interpreting aspectual expressions closely interacts with
transitivity.
1. Introduction
Previous work on aspectual categories (among others, Comrie (1976) and Dahl
(1985)) tell us that we can distinguish some aspectual categories such as
perfective, imperfective, progressive, perfect, and so on, including resultative
proposed in Nedjalkov (1988).1 These are widely recognized in many languages
of the world, if not the case that a single language accommodates all of them.
When we look into respective languages, it is the case that they employ one
or two categories that are cross-linguistically observed as the main aspectual
category in their grammar. In the case of Russian, the significant difference in
aspect marked by morphology is the opposition between Perfective and Imper-
fective; in English, the opposition between Progressive and Non-Progressive is
44 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
one of the major distinctions to be made, although Progressive is only peri-

phrastically expressed.
Although languages illustrate different types of aspectual categories, it is
important to know what kind of concept is crucial in the distinctions of them.
For example, the taxonomical distinction between Perfective and Imperfective in
Russian and between Progressive and Non-Progressive in English are treated in
different ways. Although it is natural to treat them as such, the two aspectual
oppositions seem to be rooted in the same concept. The opposition between Progres-
sive and Non-Progressive in English is based on whether an event is completed
or incomplete, especially when the tense of the event is past. This is pointed out
by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985) as in the following contrast:
(1) a. John sang a song well.
b. John was singing a song well.
This semantic distinction is the same as observed in the opposition between
Perfective and Imperfective aspect, as is the case with other European languages.
When it comes to Japanese, however, the situation is different. It has a
contrast between Progressive and Non-progressive similar to English.
(2) a. Taro wa joozuni uta o utat-ta
Taro  well song  sing-
‘Taro sang a song well.’
b. Taro wa joozuni uta o utatte i-ta
Taro  well song  sing-te stay-
‘Taro was singing a song well.’
Progressive is expressed by means of the V-te iru construction. This construction,
however, does not only imply an on-going action, but a resultant state as well:
(3) Sono tokee wa koware-te iru.
that clock  break-te exist-
‘The clock is broken.’
The above two examples show that the V-te iru construction makes use of both
progressive and resultative aspects, which is not the case with European languages.
It is obvious that the aspectual expressions in English and Japanese differ
in the range of meanings that they carry. What is unclear from a typological
point of view is whether this contrast is widely observed among other languages,
and what parameter underlies the two types of aspectual expressions in English
and Japanese. In this paper, we consider Japanese, Korean and Newari. In the
next section, we will briefly summarize the framework employed in this paper.
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND ASPECT IN SOME ASIAN LANGUAGES 45
1.1 Basic terminology and theoretical basis
1.1.1 Transitivity
Much attention has been paid to the notion of transitivity in the literature of
typology. From the viewpoint of the Prototype approach, it is difficult to
formulate a single prototype of intransitivity as opposed to a prototype of
transitivity. Some recent research by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1992)
recognizes two types of intransitive verbs: one is an unergative verb and the
other is an unaccusative verb.2
The relationship between prototypical transitive and the two types of
intransitive clauses can be captured in terms of the image schemata (4):
(4) high a)
X Y Z
action change
b)
X Y( Z)
action change
e) X = Y
c) X Y Z
X Y action change
action
f)
d) X = Y Y Z
change
X Y
low action
Action axis Change axis
Figure 1. Relational schemata of transitivity gradient

In the schemata, X represents an agent, Y represents an undergoer and Z
represents a state. The first two entities, X and Y, are NPs in a clause, and Z is
usually incorporated as a semantic part of a predicate. The unergative type of
intransitive verb belongs to the action axis (on the left) and the unaccusative type
belongs to the change axis (on the right). The action axis shows the degree of
affectivity. The highest degree involves the external transmission of force from
one participant to another, and the internal transition of force that induces change
of state in the target to which it is directed. Examples of verbs with the highest
affectivity are transitive verbs of change of state such as kill, break and drop
46 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
(4a). If the internal transition of force is lost, the degree of affectivity decreases.
Verbs that have this feature are verbs of contact such as hit and touch (4b), and
verbs of cognition such as see and understand (4c). The lowest degree on the
action axis shows that the affector and affectee are the same participant; verbs
with these feature are unergatives, such as walk and run (4d). The transition of
force is carried out internally in the single participant.
The change axis shows the opposition between causality and spontaneity.
The highest degree of causality entails that a certain change in an entity Y is
brought about by force directed from a different entity X. If there is no entity X
that can be the external source for a change in an entity in question, the change
occurs spontaneously. Verbs with the lowest degree on the change axis are
unaccusative verbs such as die and fall. There are some verbs in between, such
as reflexive verbs (ex. verbs of dressing). In the case of verbs of dressing such as
put on, take off and so on, the affector and affectee are the same participant;
they conflate into a single NP: the affector appears as the subject and the
affectee as a reflexive object.
1.1.2 Aspect
Aspect is a way of viewing an event from a cognitive point of view. For
example, the opposition between Perfective and Imperfective is explained in
terms of a cognitive mechanism that shifts our focus of attention to a situation by
“focusing and defocusing on” a profiled area as in the schema (5). This is
indicated by the dotted line linked between the perfective schema and the
imperfective schema.
We assume here that basically there are two types of situation reflected by
verbs. One type of situation is the durative, whose internal structure consists of
consecutive phases that form a situation as a whole. We can recognize two
aspectual points where an action begins and ends. The wavy line plus thick
straight line between the two points indicates a dynamic transition of phases.
The other type of situation is the punctual, whose internal structure consists
of a single point where a certain type of change takes place. The newly acquired
state is represented by a thick line after the point. Typical verbs are intransitive
verbs of change of state (break, die).
(5)
Figure 2. Cognitive mechanism of viewing situation and situation types

Aspectual expressions in languages interact with these schemata to express a
given aspectual meaning. How they interact, if there is more than one way to do
so, will give rise to a different aspectual meaning in the same expression. We
will see this later in the discussion of aspectual expressions in each language.
2. Japanese -te iru construction
Progressive in Japanese is represented by the combination of a main verb in the

gerundive form (te-form) and an auxiliary verb iru (henceforth the -te iru con-
struction). The plain form of a verb cannot express an on-going situation, hence
it contrasts with the -te iru construction in aspect. The -te iru construction, how-
ever, does not only express a progressive meaning but also a resultative meaning.
(6) a. Taroo ga hon o yon-de iru.
Taro  book  read-te be-
‘Taro is reading a book.’ (progressive)
b. Kabin ga ware-te iru.
vase  break-te be-
‘The vase is broken.’ (resultative)
Furthermore, in the case of activity verbs, the -te iru construction, with the
support of perfectivity in terms of aspectual adverbs, can also receive a perfect
interpretation:
48 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
(7) Moo sono hon wa yon-de iru kara hituyoo nai.

already that book  read-te be- because necessity no
‘Since I have already read it, I don’t need the book.’
The co-occurrence of progressive, resultative and perfect aspects in a single form
appears to be contradictory. These aspectual meanings are encoded in distinctive
grammatical expressions in English and other European languages. However, when
we realize that the progressive in Japanese is different from that in English and
other European languages, the uniformity of progressive and perfect in a single
form in Japanese may be accommodated. The function of the -te iru construction
in Japanese will be conceived as ‘anchoring a cognitive viewpoint on’ a certain
internal point of a situation and making a reference to the following state:
(8)
Figure 3. Anchoring mechanism of -te iru
The interpretation of the -te iru construction is basically subject to the aspectual
opposition between durative and punctual. In the case of a durative type of
situation, when the cognitive viewpoint is anchored on the inceptive point, the -te
iru construction expresses a progressive meaning, as in (6a). Conversely, when
it is made on the terminal point, the -te iru construction expresses a perfect
meaning, as in (7). In the case of a punctual type of situation, another parameter
comes into play in the interpretation of the -te iru construction. These are the
distinctions of the action axis and the change axis on the transitivity schemata in
(4). Punctual verbs on the change axis — typically intransitive verbs — receive
a resultative meaning, as in (6b). On the other hand, punctual verbs on the action
axis — both transitive verbs like tataku ‘hit’ and unergative verbs like matataku
‘blink’ — receive in the -te iru construction a repetitive meaning, as in the
following examples:
(9) a. dareka ga to o tatai-te iru.
someone  door  hit-te be-
‘Someone is knocking the door.’
b. hosi ga matatai-te iru.
star  blink-te be-
‘The stars are blinking.’
In the next section, we will take a closer look at the relationship between
transitivity and the -te iru construction.
2.1 Transitive and intransitive verbs with -te iru
As discussed above, the -te iru construction has two basic meanings, progressive and
resultative. Yoshikawa (1973) discusses the interpretation of the -te iru construction
with transitive and intransitive verbs, and argues that if a verb has a semantic
distinction between transitive and intransitive, the transitive counterpart is interpreted
as progressive or repetitive in the -te iru construction, whereas the intransitive
counterpart is interpreted as resultative. Here are some examples. The a-examples
are transitive verbs and the b-examples are their intransitive counterparts.
(10) akeru (vt)/aku (vi) ‘open’
a. Taroo ga huutoo o ake-te iru.
Taro  envelope  open-te be-
‘Taro is opening an envelope.’
b. Huutoo ga ai-te iru.
envelope  open-te be-
‘The envelope is open.’
(11) kesu (vt)/kieru (vi) ‘put out/go out’
a. Hanako ga hi o kesi-te iru.
Hanako  fire  put out-te be-
‘Hanako is putting out the fire.’
b. Hi ga kie-te iru.
fire  go out-te be-
‘The fire is out.’
(12) otosu (vt)/otiru(vi) ‘drop/fall’
a. Kodomo-tati ga nikai kara mizuhuusen o
child-  the 2nd floor from water balloon 
otosi-te iru.
drop-te be-
‘The children are dropping water balloons from the second floor.’
b. Hon ga tukue no ue kara oti-te iru.
book  desk  above from fall-te be-
‘The book is off the table.’
The construal of the -te iru construction based on the transitive-intransitive
distinction do not always work, however. As Okuda (1978) points out, some
50 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
pairs of transitive-intransitive verbs do not show the contrast between progressive

and resultative:
(13) nagasu/nagareru ‘float(vt)/(vi)’
a. Kawa ni tooroo o nagasi-te iru.
river  paper lantern  float-te be-
‘They are floating paper lanterns on the river.’
b. Tooroo ga kawa o nagare-te iru.
paper lantern  river  float-te be-
‘Some paper lanterns are floating on the river.’
What is relevant here is that the interpretation of the -te iru construction does not
depend on whether a verb is transitive or intransitive, but rather on whether the
verb involves a change of state. Verbs of manner of motion in Japanese like
nagareru do not inherently involve any change of state, or more precisely,
change of position. The transitive-intransitive opposition between nagasu and
nagareru is not on the change axis, but rather on the action axis, and the
opposition is the one between schema-b and schema-c in (4).
The distinction between action and change, however, is not sufficient to
cover all the possibilities of interpretation of the -te iru construction. The
intransitive verb kieru in (11b) in reality can be ambiguous between resultative
and progressive, although it is understood to be a verb of change of state, and
the change is regarded as punctual. Especially when an adverb that focuses on
gradual transition of state like yukkurito ‘slowly’ is added to it, kieru can indicate
an on-going change of state at the time of reference, as in (14):
(14) Hi ga yukkurito kie-te iru.
fire  slowly go out-te be-
‘The fire is going out slowly.’
This fact illustrates that we can focus on the event frame of kieru which has
internal phases of change of state, even though we conceptualize it as a single
punctual event.
If a verb does not have such internal phases of change of state, the -te iru
construction does not give rise to an interpretation of progressive. Such a verb is,
for example, sinu ‘die’. The verb denotes the moment of the change of state, i.e.
the boundary between being alive and being dead. Sin-de iru, therefore, can only
mean the resultant state after the transition takes place. When we want to depict
the on-going transition toward the state of being dead, we have to make recourse
to a different auxiliary verb that refers to the state immediately before the action
(or change) takes place, as in (15):
(15) Sono otoko wa sin-i kake-te ita.

that man  die- hang-te be-
‘The guy was dying.’
Let us now consider the case of semantically reflexive verbs of dressing. These
verbs have the transitivity schema of (4e) discussed in Section 2. Unlike other
verbs, verbs of dressing in the -te iru construction are ambiguous: (16) is
ambiguous between a progressive meaning and a resultative meaning without any
contexts. This is due to the fact that both the affector and affectee are realized
as a single participant which appears in the subject position.
(16) Taroo ga shatu o ki-te iru.
Taro  shirt  put on-te be-
‘Taro is putting on a shirt.’ / ‘Taro wears shirt.’
Of course, the existence of adverbs also affects the interpretation of the above
sentence. If an adverbial phrase occurs that denotes a manner of action, yukkurito
“slowly” or a place where the action takes place, hai-te iru is exclusively
interpreted as progressive as in (17a) and (17b). On the other hand, if a sentence
contains an adverbial phrase that focuses on the state of the subject, it is
exclusively interpreted as resultative (17c):
(17) a. Taroo wa yukkurito shatu o ki-te ita.
Taro  slowly shirt  put on-te be-
‘Taro was putting on a shirt slowly.’
b. Taroo wa tonari no heya de shatu o ki-te iru.
Taro  next  room  shirt  put on-te be-
‘Taro is putting on trousers in the next room.’
c. Kyoo wa Taroo wa shatu o ki-te iru.
today  Taro  shirt  put on-te be-
‘Today Taro is wearing a shirt.’
2.2 Passive and -te iru construction
When -te iru is combined with a change of state passive verb, it is likely to have
a resultative meaning:
(18) a. Taisetuna kabin ga kowas-are-te iru.
important vase  break--te be-
‘The vase which I treasure is broken (by someone).’
52 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
b. Kabe ni rakugaki ga kak-are-te iru.

wall  graffiti  write--te be-
‘There are some graffiti written on the wall.’
Generally speaking, passive assigns more prominence to the patient, and this gives
rise to a resultative interpretation, although it is possible to get the progressive
interpretation when an adverb focuses on the action component of the verb:
(19) a. Taisetuna kabin ga me no mae de kowas-are-te iru.
important vase  eye  front  break--te be-
‘The vase which I treasure is being broken in front of me.’
b. Kabe ni rakugaki ga suunin no gakusee niyotte
wall  graffiti  some  student by
kak-are-te iru.
write--te be-
‘Some graffiti are being written by some students on the wall.’
This is because it does not reduce the number of arguments in the conceptual
structure, unlike intransitivization — although the passive voice puts more
prominence on the patient than the agent. We are thus still able to access the
action component of the transitive verb in the passive construction — and derive
the progressive interpretation.
3. Two aspectual auxiliary verbs in Korean
Korean has two distinctive aspectual constructions expressed by an existential

verb preceded by two different conjunctive verb forms. One is the -ko issta
construction, which allegedly denotes imperfective aspect, and the other is the
-e issta construction, which gives a resultative interpretation. The -ko issta
construction in most cases denotes the on-going action of the event.3
(20) a. Chelsoo-ka chayk-ul ilk-ko issta.
Chelsoo- book- read-ko be-
‘Chelsoo is reading a book.’
b. Thayphwung-i icchoguro o-ko issta.
typhoon- straight come-ko be-
‘A typhoon is coming straight.’
c. Cangmi-kkoch-i phi-e issta.
rose-flower- bloom-e be-
‘Roses are in bloom.’
Lee (1993) notes that the two suffixes before the aspectual auxiliary verb, that
is, -ko and -e, are a partitive marker and a goal marker respectively. The
combination of these suffixes with the existential verb gives rise to resultative
and progressive meanings.
It should be possible that the verb cukta ‘die’ could appear in the -ko issta
construction in order to express the gradual change of state toward death, like
English ‘be dying’. However, if such a meaning is to be expressed, one has to
make recourse to another construction that exclusively denotes a gradual change
of state, as in (21).
(21) a. *Kay-ka cuk-ko issta.
dog- die-ko be-
‘A dog is dying.’
b. Kay-ka cuk-e ka-ko issta.
dog- die-e go-ko be-
Cukta, unlike ota ‘to come’, does not contain a certain period of time before the
change of state takes place.4 This is because the verb is not compatible with the -
ko issta construction. By the same token, ota is able to appear in the construction
because it may take a certain period of time before the change of location is
completed. Thus, the -ko issta construction seems to mean ‘continuation after the
initiation of an event.’
Now let us turn to the -e issta construction. The -e issta construction is
sensitive to transitivity and voice. Basically, intransitive verbs that denote a
change of state occur in the construction with a resultative meaning:
(22) kay-ka cuk-e issta.
dog- die-e be-
‘A dog is dead.’
The interpretation of the resultant state of the patient caused by an action cannot
be obtained by simply putting the verb in this construction; a suffix used to
change transitivity must also be added to the main verb:5
(23) a. Cey ilum-i yeki-ey ssu-i-e issta.
- name- here- write-i-e be-
‘My name has been written here.’
b. Ceyksang wi-ey chayk-i noh-i-e issta.
desk top- base- put-i-e be-
‘A vase has been put on the table.’
If a transitive verb is derived from its intransitive counterpart by suffixation of
54 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
the -i- morpheme, it may be further passivized with cita auxiliary, and the whole
phrase is then able to appear in the -e issta construction.
(24) I sipi-ey-nun ywumeynghan si-ka sayki-e
this monument-- famous- poem- engrave-e
ci-e issta.
become-e be-
‘There is a famous poem engraved on the monument.’
The above data also illustrates that the resultative meaning is closely related to
the passive, as discussed in Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988), and to the change
axis of the transitivity schemata in (4).
Finally, we will discuss verbs of dressing in Korean. These verbs do not
appear in the -e issta construction. Since they are activity verbs, they have a
progressive meaning in the -ko issta construction, but at the same time they can
denote a resultant state which is brought about by the act of dressing:
(25) Ku-nun paci-lul ip-ko issta.
- trousers- put on-ko be-
‘He is putting on a pair of trousers.’ / ‘He wears a pair of trousers.’
The above sentence is ambiguous between progressive and resultative. Besides
verbs of dressing, there is another verb that expresses a resultant state due to the
action. When the verb talda ‘hang’ appears in the -ko issta construction, not only
can it have a progressive meaning but also an objective resultative meaning.6
(26) Chelsoo-nun kapang-ey kom inhyeng-ul tal-ko issta.
Chelsoo- bag- bear doll- hang-ko be-
‘Chelsoo is hanging a bear doll on his bag.’ / ‘Chelsoo has a bear
doll hung on his bag.’
How are these cases to be interpreted? At first glance, what these sentences
depict seems to be the resultant state of the subject in (25), and that of the object
in (26). What the -ko issta construction refers to is, nevertheless, the perfect of
the actions. Given that the basic meaning of the -ko issta construction is imper-
fective, it is surprising that it also expresses perfect aspect, yet the following
example also illustrates this point:
(27) Yangswu-nun cey-ga wa-ss-ul-tay chayk-ul pelsse ta
Yangswu- - come--ul-time book- already all
ilk-ko iss-essta.
read-ko be-
‘When I came, Yangswu had already read the whole book.’
Ilk-ko iss-essta denotes the completion of the action of Yangswu’s reading the
entire book. It seems to be the case that the function of -ko issta is not limited to
imperfective, but it can also express perfect aspect. It functions like the Japanese
-te iru construction, and makes reference to either the point of inception or the
termination of an action. Bearing this in mind, it is natural that the -ko issta
constructions in (25) and (26) express a perfect meaning, and that the resultative
meaning is derived through an inference based on whether the action is complet-
ed and some sort of result is understood.
The above data show that the Korean -ko issta construction essentially
functions like the Japanese -te iru construction in that it anchors the viewpoint on
one of the aspectual points in the internal structure of a situation and that it can
express both a progressive meaning and a perfect on. The obvious difference
between the two is that the Korean -ko issta construction cannot express a
resultative of change of state, unlike the Japanese -te iru construction. The reason
the Korean -ko issta construction does not express an objective resultative
meaning is that this is expressed by another construction, the -o issta construc-
tion, which blocks the -ko issta construction from having the function.
4. Cwan-e construction in Newari
The Newari verb cwan-e ‘stay’, ‘sit’ or ‘remain’ is used to express both progres-
sive and resultative aspect.7 In this respect, the cwan-e construction is similar to
the te-iru construction in Japanese. Here are two examples of the interpretation:
(28) a. Rām-ã saphu: bwanā cwan-a
Ram- book- read- stay-
‘Ram is reading a book.’
b. Thwa khā sinā cwan-a
this hen die- stay-
‘The hen is dead.’
A gradual change of state, however, cannot be expressed by the cwan-e construc-
tion. Such a meaning is attained by the use of wa-ye ‘come’ as an auxiliary verb.
(29) a. Pwapwacā ta:-gu-wae-ka phwãgānā cwan-a.
balloon- big--come-- blow up- stay-
‘The balloon is blown up.’
b. Pwapwaca jhanjhan phwãgana wa-la.
balloon- more and more blow up- come-
‘The balloon is becoming larger and larger.’
56 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
The range of meanings covered by the cwan-e construction, however, is more

limited than its Japanese counterpart. Te iru can refer to the inceptive and the
terminal points of an event structure, if any, and expresses the state after these
points. This gives rise to a progressive or a perfect meaning in the case of an
activity verb. In the case of an activity verb, on the other hand, the gerundive
form of a verb plus cwan-e focuses on the action component, and anchors the
viewpoint only on the inceptive point. It cannot anchor on the terminal point,
hence only the progressive meaning is obtained. In the case of change of state
verbs, since they have a single aspectual point, the anchoring is made naturally
on it, hence a resultative meaning is obtained.
Let us now consider the correspondence of transitive-intransitive verbs with
voice in the cwan-e construction. In fact, Newari does not have any grammatical
means of expressing passive voice. A similar kind of effect, however, is
obtained either by moving the patient NP to the front of the clause or by
omitting the agent ergative NP; the morphology of the verb does not change at
all and no auxiliary is added to it.
On the other hand, there is an interesting fact about the transitivity opposi-
tion of verbs. Verbs of change of state in Newari are by default intransitive (they
are morphologically unmarked); and their transitive counterparts are derived
either by adding the causative marker -k- or by changing the voiced consonant
in the first syllable of the stem into its voiceless/aspirated counterpart (Malla
1985).8
When they appear in the cwan-e construction, these transitive verbs
invariably mean progressive aspect, whether they denote activity or change of
state. By omitting the agent phrase from the clause, the cwan-e construction
receives a meaning like a passive progressive in English.
(30) a. Bāburājã jhyā cae-k-ā cwan-a.
Baburaja- window open-- stay-
‘Baburaja is opening the window.’
b. Jhyā: cāe-k-ā cwana
window open-- stay-
‘The window was being opened.’
The resultant state brought about by the act of opening the window is expressed
by another aspectual auxiliary ta-ye.
(31) Jhyā cae-k-ā tal-a.
window open-- keep-
‘The window has been opened.’
It is possible to add an agent in the ergative case to (31), yet the meaning of ta-
ye — which still implies the resultant state of the object — changes slightly. It
means that the action of closing the door is deliberately done for a future
purpose, and the focus is now on the action itself, rather than the resultant state.
It is more like an actional perfect.9
(32) Rāmã jhyā cae-k-ā tal-a.
Ram- door open-- keep-
‘Ram got the door opened (for a future purpose).’
The auxiliary ta-ye with this meaning can appear with almost any verb regardless
of transitivity, if the subject controls the event. In the ta-ye construction the choice
of interpretation between resultative and actional perfect depends on the structur-
al existence of the agent. If the agent phrase is not omitted, the focus of attention
is drawn to the action component and the ta-ye construction receives a perfect
interpretation. If the agent phrase is omitted, on the other hand, the focus of
attention is drawn to the change component and it receives a resultative meaning.
As discussed above, the objective resultative cannot be expressed by the
cwan-e construction. Although in Japanese and Korean, verbs of dressing in the
progressive forms can simultaneously express the resultative meaning, those in
Newari only express progressive in the cwan-e construction. Only in the ta-ye
construction can the objective resultative meaning be obtained:
(33) a. Gitã ā: nāpā cwan-gu kwatha-e lã phinā:
Gita- now next stay- room- dress- put on-
cwan-a.
stay-
‘Gita is putting on a dress in the next room now.’
b. Gitã ta:-pā-gu lã phinā: tal-a.
Gita- big-- clothing- put on- keep-
‘Gita is in a large dress.’
It would seem that, with verbs that encode both the action and the change compo-
nents, the cwan-e construction focuses on the action component only, whereas the
change component is focused on by the ta-ye construction. This binary opposi-
tion between the cwan-e construction and the ta-ye construction in the case of
such verbs might be related to the fact that intransitive verbs of change of state are
morphologically unmarked, while their transitive counterparts are morphologi-
cally marked. Furthermore, causative verbs do not necessarily entail a change,
although they can be analyzed morphologically as X CAUSE Y TO BECOME Z.
It follows that this language focuses only on the action component, whereas the
58 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
change component is only implied. In the next section, we will discuss further
the relationship between conceptualization and aspectual recognition.
5. Conceptualization and aspect
The data of progressive auxiliary expressions in Japanese, Korean and Newari

show that the aspectual systems in these languages are motivated by different
factors than those of European languages. The Japanese -te iru construction, the
Korean -ko issta construction and the Newari cwan-e construction express both
a progressive meaning — associated with Imperfective in Slavic languages and
Progressive in English — and a perfect meaning.
In this sense, it may be plausible to describe the aspectual opposition in these
languages as an opposition based on the notion of continuity: continuation of a
state, whether it is static or dynamic, which comes into existence after an event
begins or ends. We call the -te iru construction in Japanese, -ko issta construction
in Korean and cwan-e construction in Newari ‘continuous constructions.’
When these three languages are compared with a language like English,
there is difference in how an event is conceptualized in the meaning of a verb.
In English, verbs lexically entail the completion of the event, and if there is
another proposition that denies the completion of the action the whole sentence
becomes a contradiction (Ikegami 1981):
(34) a. *He opened it but it didn’t open.
b. He killed it but it didn’t die.
The counterparts in Japanese, Korean and Newari are all accepted when the
focus of attention is on the verbs and not their arguments.
(35) Japanese:
a. Ake-ta-ga aka-nak-atta.
open--though open--
b. Korosi-ta-ga sina-nak-atta.10
kill--though die--
(36) Korean:
a. Yel-ess-nundey an yel-i-e ji-essta.
open--though  open--e become-
b. Cwuki-ess-nundey an cwuk-essta
kill--though  die-
(37) Newari:
a. Cāe-k-ā: ma cāla.
open--  open-
b. Syanā: ma si-ta.
kill-  die-
These instances show that semantically causative verbs in Japanese, Korean and
Newari do not conceptually encode the change component, or in other words, the
change component is there but inactive. This character of these languages, in
other words, suggests that they are less ‘terminative-oriented’, while English is
more ‘terminative-oriented.’ If a language makes use of the terminative-oriented
conceptualization, it will pay more attention to whether a certain situation in
question has reached the terminative point or not, which in turn gives rise to the
aspectual opposition between Progressive and Non-Progressive in English.
Progressive in English is thus based on a mechanism that views the internal
structure of a situation from the terminal point. This is schematized in the
following figure.
(38)
On the other hand, if a language does not view a situation on the basis of the
terminative conceptualization, it cannot view a situation as having both the action
component and the change component with equal focus. When a verb conceptu-
alizes both action and change, the focus of attention is by default directed to the
action component, hence anchoring the viewpoint on the inceptive point.
Therefore, the continuous construction with these verbs receives a progressive
meaning. This is represented as follows. The dotted change component means
that it can be understood by pragmatic implication.
(39)
This does not exclude the change component at all, however, and if there is
contextual support that shifts the focus of attention to the terminative point, it
too becomes understood.11 In this case, the continuous construction has an
60 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
actional perfect meaning with the presence of an agent, or a resultative meaning

without one.
(40)
If a situation has only a terminative point — as in the case of many intransitive

verbs of change of state — the interpretation is naturally understood as a
resultant state in the continuous construction (except for Korean on the ground
discussed in Section 3.).
(41)
6. Conclusion
In this paper we have discussed progressive forms and their related meanings in
Japanese, Korean and Newari, and argued that the aspectual systems in these
languages are rather different from those of the European languages.
The main point of this paper can be summarized by presenting two extreme
types of languages in terms of conceptualization and aspectual expressions. As
for verbs of change of state, it is plausible to distinguish two types of language
in terms of a parameter ‘terminative-orientedness.’ A terminative-oriented
language conceptualizes both action component and change component in a
single verb, and views the transition of event from the terminal point. This
relates to the aspectual distinction Progressive and Non-Progressive in English.
On the other hand, a non-terminative oriented language basically conceptualizes
either action component or change component and conflates them in a single
verb. In this type of language, a transitive verb that can imply a change of state
induced by the action of the verb has recourse to a pragmatic alternative bearing
the meaning of change of state. This results in the fact that transitive verbs of
change of state leads to contradiction, even when their intransitive counterparts
— including the change component — are negated. Examples of this type of
language are Japanese, Korean and Newari.
Acknowledgments
This paper would not have been completed without the help of two Korean informants, Chung Sung-
Yeo and Lee Hyang-Sook and a Newari informant, Sujeet Pradhan, to whom I express my gratitude.
I would also like to thank the two editors, Werner Abraham and Lonja Kulikov, as well as Masayoshi
Shibatani, John Haig, Mark Campana, Ikuko Matsuse, and Ichiro Umata for their comments.
Abbreviations
 — Absolutive;  — Accusative;  — Adverbial suffix;  — Attributive form;  —
Causative;  — Classifier;  — Dative;  — Ergative;  — Genitive;  — Gerundive
form;  — Infinitive;  — Locative;  — Negation;  — Nominalizer;  — Nomina-
tive;  — Passive;  — Past Conjunct;  — Past Disjunct;  — Plural;  — Present; 
— Topic.
Notes
1. Following the convention in Comrie (1976), the name of aspectual categories with a large
capital refer to aspectual categories in an individual language. Those with a small captical refer
to general aspectual categories.
2. Unergative verbs take an agent subject, like run. On the other hand, unaccusative verbs take an
undergoer object and have their transitive counterparts, like break.
3. Unlike Japanese, the present finite form of the above verbs does not contrast with the -ko issta
construction, and can have a progressive meaning:
(i) a. Chelsoo-ga chayk-ul ilk-nun-ta.
Chelsoo- book- read-
‘Chelsoo reads/is reading a book.’
b. thayphwung-i ichoguro o-n-ta.
typhoon- straight come-
‘A typhoon comes/is coming straight.’
4. The verb stem in Korean is obtained by removing the final -ta suffix from the verb. The
aspectual suffixes -e and -ko then attach to the verb stem.
5. This suffix -i- (phonological variants are -hi-, -ki-, -ri-) functions both as a detransitive suffix
and a causative suffix. The meaning of verbs with the suffix depends on the grammatical status
of the patient. For discussion of the suffix, see Chapter 5 in Lee (1993).
6. The term ‘objective resultative’ is taken from Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988). Talda can appear
in the -e issta construction when it is suffixed with the detransitivizing morpheme, hence tal-i-
e-issta (‘be hung’ or ‘hang (intransitive)’).
7. Newari is an indigenous language spoken in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. It has ergative-
absolutive morphology and the basic word order is SOV. The phonological transcription used
here follows Newari-English Dictionary by T.L. Manandhar & A. Vergati, 1986) except for the
nasalization and vowel lengthening, which are represented by « and : respectively.
62 KAZUYUKI KIRYU
8. Based on my survey, there are some verbs which are used both intransitively and transitively
without any morphological changes, like mun-e ‘gather/collect’. Another type of transitive-
intransitive opposition is achieved through the use of auxiliary verbs ju-ye ‘become’ and ya-ye
‘do’ as in lwap-ju-ye ‘vanish’ and lwap-ya-ye ‘make disappear’.
9. See Maslov (1988) for ‘actional perfect.’
10. In reality the judgment varies from speaker to speaker. My intuition is that in the case of killing
a cockroach it seems to be acceptable.
11. The lack of terminative-oriented viewing would seem to motivate new forms that focus on the
terminative point. In Japanese, Korean and Newari, there are more aspectual expressions that
exclusively focus on the terminative point of a situation, but an investigation of these will be
set aside for future research.
References
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ikegami, Y. 1981. ‘Suru’ to ‘Naru’ no Gengo Gaku [Linguisitics of ‘Do’ and ‘Become’].
Tokyo: Taishuukan Shoten.
Lee, K. 1993. A Korean Grammar on Semantic-Pragmatic Principles. Seoul: Hankwuk
Mwunhwasa.
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. 1992. Lexical semantics of Motion: the perspective
from unaccusativity. In Roca, I. (ed.), Thematic structure: its role in grammar.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Malla, K.P. 1985. The Newari Language: A Working Outline. Tokyo: Institute for the
Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Maslov, J.S. 1988. Resultative, Perfect and Aspect. In Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.), The
Typology of Resultative Constructions, 63–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.). 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Nedjalkov, V.P. & Jaxontov, S.Je. 1988. The Typology of Resultative Constructions. In
Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.), The Typology of Resultative Constructions, 3–62. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Okuda, Y. 1978. Asupekuto no Kenkyuu o Megutte [Concerning the Study of Aspect].
Kyooiku Kokugo, 53.33–44; 54.14–27.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of
the English Language. London: Longman.
Yoshikawa, T. 1973. Gendai Nihongo Doosi no Asupekuto no Kenkyuu [Research on the
Aspect of Verbs in Modern Japanese]. In Kindaichi, H. (ed.), (1976) Nihongo Doosi
No Asupekuto [Aspect in Japanese Verbs]. Tokyo: Mugi Shoboo.
Evidentiality, transitivity and split ergativity
Evidence from Svan
Nina Sumbatova
Institute of Oriental Studies, Moscow
Abstract
This article provides a description of the evidential forms in Svan (morpholo-

gy, syntactic properties, semantic variants). The most interesting phenomenon
concerning the evidential forms in Svan is their special case-marking patterns.
The perfective evidentials form an “inversive”, or dative, construction (the
subject in the dative case, the direct object in the nominative). A diachronic
account for this may be the origin of the evidentials from resultative/perfect
forms. Synchronically, syntactic peculiarities of the evidentials can be ex-
plained through the correlation of evidentiality and transitivity in the sense of
Hopper and Thompson’s transitivity hypothesis.
1. Introduction
Evidentiality and related categories have been the subject of extensive and
fruitful research for the last 10–15 years (see, for example, Chafe & Nichols
1986; Guentchéva 1996). As DeLancey noticed in his recent paper, “the gram-
matical marking of evidentiality, long regarded as an exotic phenomenon found
only in a few obscure languages, has in recent years come to be recognized as
a widespread and significant typological parameter” (DeLancey 1997: 33). We
even speak of an “Old World evidential belt” covering Turkish, Kartvelian,
Bulgarian-Macedonian and Albanian. A part of this belt is the Kartvelian
language family.
Kartvelian verbal systems are well-known for their complexity and impres-
sive syntactic properties. Their most striking characteristic is split ergativity. In
64 NINA SUMBATOVA
the Kartvelian case split ergativity means that the choice of accusative/
ergative/dative actant coding depends on the tense form of the verb.
This paper deals with the most archaic language of this family, Svan.1 Both
Svan and the “main” language of the family — Georgian — have an evidential
“perfect” which together with the pluperfect and the subjunctive perfect consti-
tutes the so-called “perfect” series of verbal tense/mood/aspect paradigms (in this
series, the subject of transitive verbs is marked by the dative case, the direct
object by the nominative). But only Svan has another evidential group of
paradigms, an imperfective one, with nominative case marking.
The narrow task of my paper is a description of Svan evidentials: their
position in the verbal system as a whole; semantics and usage; syntactic proper-
ties of different evidential forms. But at the same time this paper is aimed at two
remoter goals: suggesting and explaining a typologically correct hypothesis about
the origin of the evidential forms and providing a functional explanation of their
syntactic “inconsistencies”.2
2. Svan verbal system: necessary information
Svan verbal morphology is complex and highly “synthetic”. It consists of 15

“tenses”, i.e. tense-mood-aspect paradigms (see Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986;
Testelets 1989),3 or, as they are called in the Kartvelian tradition, “screeves”
Table 1. Svan verbal system: tenses6

Aspect Imperfective Perfective
Evidence Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Time
Present Present Narrative Perfect
present
Past Imperfect Narrative Aorist Pluperfect
imperfect
Subjunctive Subjunctive 1 Narrative Subjunctive 2 Subjunctive
subjunctive perfect
Future Imperfective Perfective
future future
Conditional Imperfective Perfective
conditional conditional
EVIDENTIALITY, TRANSITIVITY AND SPLIT ERGATIVITY 65
(see, e.g. Harris 1991: 46–56).4 All the tenses can be characterized as either
imperfective or perfective. Most perfective forms are marked with a preverb.5
The Svan verbal system is presented in Table 1.
The tenses are grouped into three series that are distinguished according to
the type of actant coding. Three syntactic cases are used to code the nuclear
participants of most situations; their traditional7 labels are nominative, ergative
and dative.8 Most tenses belong to the first series with nominative actant
marking. The aorist and subjunctive 2 tenses form the second series, whose
actant marking is most often considered as ergative (in Table 1, the second series
is shaded light-grey). The third series contains three tenses (dark-grey in Table 1)
and is dative, or inversive (for details see Sec.5).9 Thus, the indicative tenses are
distributed as follows:
(1) a. Series I: present, imperfect, perfective and imperfective future,
narrative (evidential) present and imperfect;
b. Series II: aorist;
c. Series III: perfect and pluperfect.
One more verbal category to be mentioned here is the “object version”,10 i.e. a
valency-changing derivational category marking the addition of a dative actant to the
verbal frame. Below, if not noted otherwise, the forms of “neutral version” are meant.
3. Evidentials in Svan
3.1 Evidential sub-system: remarks on the morphology and formal structure
The “evidential” component of the whole verbal system includes six tenses: these
are three imperfective paradigms labelled by Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis (1986) as
“narrative” and three perfective paradigms that are traditionally called (eviden-
tial) perfect, pluperfect and subjunctive perfect. Below (3.1.2 and 3.2) I shall try
to show that in this case the term “perfect” is only historically appropriate.
Table 2. Evidentials in Svan

Imperfective Perfective
Present Narrative present Perfect
Past Narrative imperfect Pluperfect
Subjunctive Narrative subjunctive Subjunctive perfect
66 NINA SUMBATOVA
The three imperfective and three perfective tenses show clear formal parallels:
both the “imperfective” and “perfective” column consist of a present, a past and
a subjunctive. The evidential tenses are the only paradigms that contain peri-
phrastic verb forms.
3.1.1 Imperfective evidentials

Usually imperfective evidentials denote imperfective (i.e. habitual or durative)
situations or events that were not directly observed by the speaker.
(2) (a story about avalanches that had fallen down in the winter of
1986–1987 told by a young man from the village of Mulaxi)
amčikka mi mam xwardäs šwäns, mare kä¯ mumbwex
at.that.time I  be.: Svania. but tell.:
mäj xola dwrew l6mä¯ r mulaxs i mtlijänd šwäns…
say bad time be.: Mulaxi. and whole Svania.
‘I was not in Svania at that time, but I heard (=they told) that it
was11 a bad time for Mulaxi and the whole of Svania’.12
In Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986 this group of tenses is labelled “Narrative
Present/Past/Subjunctive”, obviously because it is often used in narrative
discourse, for example in folklore. The term “narrative” is not quite adequate,
because the forms in question are not always narrative and almost never present:
usually they refer to the past.13 Neither is this term traditional, because there is
no corresponding tense in Georgian, and there is no common tradition of
labelling Svan forms. That is why I shall keep using the term “imperfective
evidential” (though it is a little awkward); if not marked otherwise, the “present”
tense is referred to.
Imperfective evidentials consist of a special “participle”14 (prefix l6m- and
in most cases suffix -(w)in/-ün) and the copula,15 which is present (: xw-i,
: x-i, : l-i, etc.), past (xw-äsw, x-äsw…) and subjunctive (xw-esw…) for
the present, the past and the subjunctive evidentials, respectively. Cf. the second
person singular evidential forms of the verb ligem ‘build’:
(3) a. l6m -gäm- ün (xi)16
-build (be::)
‘you () were/have been apparently building’
b. l6m -gäm- ün xäsw
-build be::
‘you () had apparently been building’
c. l6m -gäm- ün xesw

-build be.:
‘you () would apparently have been building’
In the present, the copula is optional in the third person plural forms (it can be
reduced to plural suffix -x):
(3) d. l6m -gäm- ün lix / l6m -gäm- ün-x
-build be: -build-
‘they were/have apparently been building’,
and is usually omitted in the third person singular:
(3) e. l6m -gäm- ün (*li)
-build (*be::)
‘he/she has apparently been building’.
This means that the most common imperfective evidentials are not periphrastic
any longer.
Imperfective evidentials share the nominative case marking of all first series
tenses, but differ from the other tenses as to their verbal agreement. Generally,
the Svan verb agrees both with the subject and the object. There are two rows of
agreement markers, accordingly. There are suffixal and prefixal markers whose
choice is determined by a simple person hierarchy: 1, 2 > 3 (first and second
person actants are equally high and are both higher than any third person actant,
see Kibrik 1996).17 But in periphrastic imperfective evidentials only the copula
can agree. That is the reason why for these only the subject agreement is
possible, even if the verbs are transitive (whereas all verbs possessing objects,
direct and indirect, can agree both with subject and object), cf.:
(4) a. si eŠ¦ l6mbärwin xi
you he wash: be::
‘you were apparently washing him’
(the copula xi marks the second person singular of the subject), but
b. eŠ¦ si l6mbärwin
he you wash:
‘he was apparently washing you’ (no second person marker).
Cf., for example, a present non-evidential form:
68 NINA SUMBATOVA
(4) c. eŠ¦ si Š¦-abrä¯ li

he you .-wash:
‘he is washing you’
(the prefix ¦Š- marks the second person of the object).
3.1.2 Perfective evidentials

In Georgian grammatical tradition, the third series of tenses is called the “perfect
series”, and its three tenses are “(evidential) perfect”, “pluperfect” and “perfect
subjunctive”. The same terminology is usually applied to Svan. Though I am
trying to show here that, from a typological point of view, these tenses should
not be treated as a proper perfect,18 I shall still use the term “perfect” (more
precisely, evidential perfect) sometimes, as it has been done traditionally.
I mentioned above that the Svan “perfect” is essentially an evidential form.
In most cases the components of the “perfect” semantics, if present at all, are
accompanied by an additional semantic burden: that of indirect evidence or
mirativity (see below): in the most neutral case, the perfect denotes a completive
action that was not observed by the speaker in the real world.
For perfective evidentials, there are two productive morphological patterns:
the perfect of “active” verbs (transitive verbs and intransitive verbs with an
agent) is marked by the suffix -a and the object version prefixes -i-/-o, cf. the
forms of (5) ligem ‘build’:
(5) a. m-i-g-a
.--build-
‘I have apparently built’,
b. x-o-g-a / otga (morphonologically, *ad-x-o-g-a)
:--build- / *-:--build-
‘he/she has apparently built’.
Perfective evidentials of passive verbs are treated as periphrastic: they consist of
the passive participle with the confix l6---e or the intransitive participle with the
confix me----e and the copula (present, past or subjunctive):
(6) a. algēli (morphonologically, *ad-l6?-g-ēl-?e li)
*-.-build be::
‘(it) has apparently been built’
b. ämqedēli (morphonologically, *ad-me?-qed-ēl-?e li)
*-.-come be::
‘(he) has come’
c. algēl-läsw
build:.-be::
‘(it) had been built’
d. algēl-lesw
build:.-be::
‘(it) would apparently have been built’.
The periphrastic perfect shows a tendency similar to the one we observed for the
“present” imperfective evidentials: it tends to become synthetic; in the perfect,
the third person copula merges with the participle:
(6) a. algēli (see above)
e. algē(l)-lix
build:.-be::
‘(they) have apparently been built’.
Most perfects are marked with a preverb (here in all examples ad-).19
Perfective evidentials show dative marking of the “subject” for all transitive
and active intransitive verbs. The direct object of transitive verbs is marked by
nominative, as in the “ergative” series II, see Table 1 and (1b) above (the
indirect object either remains dative or becomes an oblique NP usually marked
with the postposition -d ‘for’ or with the transformative case):
(7) medukän-d xä¯ kw: alj-är-s eser lezweb-letre
20
dukhaner - say. this-- said food-drink.
loxwmamax i otšxamūnax…
eat::./. and spoil::./.
‘The dukhaner said: these () have eaten and spoiled (a lot of)
food and drink ()…’ (Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986: 124)
(8) ču l6mbže lix, mäj käŠ¦ rok ämt’q’wepēli!
 astonished be. what. devil. said burst.:
‘(They) were astonished: what the hell happened there!’ (lit. ‘what
devil () burst’) (Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986: 115)
(9) …loxt’ūla, xola Š¦a, txēr-ä¯ l eser
exclaim.:./. bad self wolf- said
axč’wādax…
beset.:./.
‘…(The archangel)… exclaimed “Poor me!”, wolves () had
beset (him)…’ (‘beset’ is an intransitive verb with an indirect object)
(Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986: 111)
70 NINA SUMBATOVA
(10) čott6̄ra al xälx säwj-är-d

recognize.:./. this peolpe. Kabardian--
‘(He) recognized this people to be Kabardians.’ (‘recognize’ is an
inversive21 verb) (Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986: 115)
As in other verbal forms, the dative NP controls object agreement irrespective of
its syntactic function (these in (7), omitted he/him in (9) and (10)). The nomina-
tive NP controls subject agreement (food-drink in (7), devil in (8), archangel and
wolves in (9), people in (10)).
If the syntax of the third series were considered on its own, it could be called
ergative. Usually, the subject of an intransitive verb as well as the direct object
of transitives is coded as nominative (Sitr/O → ), whereas the transitive
subject takes dative marking (Str → ). However, as far as I know, nobody
has ever used this terminology. The reasons are quite obvious, though some of
them are rather extralinguistic. First, ergative status is ascribed to the second
series, which uses a distinct ergative case. Second, the case of Str in the third
series (dative) is widely used in Svan to mark another core NP, which makes it
undesirable to treat it as a “second ergative” case. Third, the case marking in the
“perfect” series is in principle the same as the marking of the so-called “inver-
sive” verbs across all series, which provides the seemingly convenient term
“inversive”, witness (10) and (11).
(11) eŠ¦as xesmi her
he- hear::. voice:
‘He () hears a voice ()’.
Nevertheless, I find it useful to note the principal similarity of the second and
the third series to the extent that their main typological characteristics (from the
point of view of ergative/nominative/active structure) is principally the same,
though the concrete morphological cases marking Str are different.22
Among the six evidential forms, only “present” tenses are common in
modern Svan. “Past” forms tend to be substituted by the present:
(12) (ašxw-ägis l6mzig ešxu māre. eŠ¦a l6mzelä¯ l l6txwijarte, xočamd
xaxlēna litwep i lumumgwin xoča c’ignäls.)
atxad eŠ¦a l6mšijä¯ l (läsw) usurman-äl-caxän.
before that: fight: (be::) muslim--with
‘(There was a man in a place. He used to go hunting, he could shoot
well and used to tell good fairy-tales.) Earlier he had been fighting
₍:₎ with the muslims.’
Omitting the copula in the brackets (which is possible) makes the evidential form
“present”.
Subjunctives are used in certain types of complex sentences only:
(13) ?o tawrob äxč6̄d al gwešs i ser
then governement. intervene. this affair. and already
čwakwäc, ē (hädı̄ši läjr) šwänjä muzeum-isga
decide. that (Hadish. book.) Svania. museum-in
alšxunēl-lesw, i čwädjä¯ n mest’ja-te
be.kept::, and take. Mestia-to
‘Then the governement intervened into this affair, and it was
decided that the Book of Hadishi23 should be kept (subjunctive
perfect) in the museum of Svania, so it was taken to Mestia.’
Our further discussion will be limited to “present” evidentials.
3.2 Semantics of Svan evidentials
The main types of indirect evidence are “reported” and “inferring” evidence
(Willett 1988; Kozinceva 1994). Reported evidence can be further subdivided as
to its source (second-hand and third-hand evidence, hearsay, folklore, etc.). In
turn, inferences can be drawn from trivial and non-trivial results of events or
from general regularities met in the world. For Georgian, Willett describes the
meaning of the “perfect” as “non-narrative reported evidence and inference from
results” (Willett 1988: 75). The meaning of Svan evidentials seems to be even
more general: both perfective and imperfective evidentials can be used in case of
inference as well as reported evidence of different types.
Evidentials are used, if the speaker wants to stress the fact that he did not
witness the situation/event in question and does not want to be held responsible
for its truth. It is even possible for the speaker not to believe it at all. See (14)
as an illustration.
(14) gärglix ere Dato kor-s l6mgämün, mare
say:: that Dato: house: build:: but
ala bäk li
that: false be::
‘They say that Dato was building a house, but that is not true.’
If the speaker just wants to tell a story, without any special stress on its “second-
hand” origin, he is not obliged to use evidentials, even if the story is obviously
72 NINA SUMBATOVA
fantastical. Thus, Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis (1986: 132–137) adduce two variants
of a “nonsense” story taken from a collection of Svan texts (Svanuri Enis
Krest’omatia 1978). One of the variants provides a number of evidential forms24
(though not in the whole text, see example 16), while the other variant shows not
a single evidential. For some narrative texts one can observe an “evidential loss”
effect: the speaker begins with evidentials, but then “forgets” to use them and
uses some neutral forms, for example the aorist or the imperfect. Then, at the
beginning of a new episode or after mentioning the source of the story, the
speaker may remember again that the story is not of his own and return to
evidentials. He may also use an evidential at the very end of the story to remind
the reader of its “reported” status.
The difference between imperfective and perfective forms is generally the
same in the evidential subsystem of the Svan verb as in other, non-evidential,
tenses: the imperfective covers durative (progressive) and habitual usages,
whereas the perfective is left for completive events. A few more difficult cases
(perfect, resultative, experiential) will be discussed presently.
3.2.1 Indirect evidence

The two main information sources of indirect evidence are inference and verbal
information. Svan does not keep apart these two principal sources (or any subtler
divisions) in its grammar. Both perfective and imperfective evidentials are
possible in either case.
3.2.1.1 Reported evidence. Verbal information can be obtained from another

person, hearsay, in written texts, folklore, etc.
(15) (following (2) in the same story)
xwae mus-i bädšw mankana-le lazelāl mama
much snow- because.of car- place.to.go: 
l6mä¯ r i merme sopl-är-xän čušx-wš l6mmäzx
be:: and other village--from foot- go::
žamišw-te lamarŠ¦w-te
Zhamushi-to help-to
‘Because of much snow, there were no passage for the trucks, and
(people) were walking from other villages to Zhamushi to help.’
Since a natural source of evidentials is verbal information, they are quite usual
in folklore and any type of stories about remote past events.
(16) ašxw Šu?wä¯ p’il-s qän l6mgen i ašxw

one sea: shore:/ ox: stand:: and one
p’il-xän sgwebne č’6šx-är xägnēna i mērme
shore-from front leg- stand::: and other
p’il-xän — ?wešgmeš…
shore-from back:
‘An ox was standing at a sea shore, and his front legs were standing
on one shore, and his back (legs) — on another shore.’
(17) eč zaw l6cobı̄ gun l6mä¯ r i kor girk’id
that year: flood:-and many be:: and house round
gim mäg kātt’q’eca.
soil: all: wash.away::./.
‘There were many floods that year, and they washed away all the
soil around the house.’ (Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis 1986: 128)
3.2.1.2 Inference. Both perfective and imperfective evidentials are freely used in
cases of inference as well: the speaker infers the fact of a situation/event having
or having not taken place from some indirect data, and in the most usual case
these data are results of the situation or event. In the case of imperfective
evidentiality, the inference is made from a non-trivial, indirect result: since the
forms in question are imperfective, the component of an achieved (direct) result
is not a part of their meaning:
(18) (about a person with red eyes)
eŠ¦a lumgwä¯ nin
he/she cry:
‘She/he has been crying.’
(19) (said to somebody who looks tired and sleepy)
si des lumwı̄z-xi
you  sleep:-
‘You haven’t been sleeping (at night).’
With perfectives, which refer to a completive event, the situation is different: if
the result is indirect, there is no striking difference from the imperfective forms:
74 NINA SUMBATOVA
(20) (approaching his house the speaker sees light in his windows and
guesses that his wife has probably come home)
Nona ämqedēli
Nona. come::
‘Nona has come.’
In case we are dealing with a trivial result (following directly from the semantics
of the verb), which is still present at the moment of the speech (otherwise no
inference could be made), we observe a kind of combination of evidentiality and
a resultative (perfect) meaning:
(21) a. (the speaker comes home and finds ready dinner on the stove)
xexw-s oxmāra sädil
wife- prepare::.⁄. dinner:
‘The wife has (apparently) prepared dinner!’
This sentence could not be used if the speaker had been sitting in the kitchen and
observing the process of preparing dinner — in that case he would have used a
sentence with an aorist:
(21) b. xexw-d anmāre sädil
wife- prepare::.⁄. dinner:
‘The wife has (already) prepared dinner!’
Evidentials presuppose that the speaker does not possess direct knowledge of the
situation. Even if the speaker participated in the referential situation, but cannot
remember it himself and uses information about it obtained from some indirect
source, the perfect can be freely used. For example, the perfect tense can be used
when speaking about the speaker’s early childhood that he “remembers” only
through the words of other, older people:
(22) xoxrob-ži mi lumgwä¯ nin-xwi;
childhood-in I cry:-
mi ämbina lig6rgäli dōsg;
I begin:: speak: early
mišgu mä¯ nq’wi sit’q’wa l6mä¯ r dede
my first word: be:: mummy.
‘When I was a baby, I used to cry; I started talking early; my first
word was “mummy”.’
The evidential is also possible when speaking about actions fulfilled by the
speaker in some unconscious state (being drunk, sleeping, unconscious, in
hypnotic sleep, etc.):
(23) (said by a person who wakes up after being drunk and sees that the
door is broken)
mi lēti q’or čwamq’učūra
I at.night door. break.:.⁄.
‘At night I (apparently) broke the door…’
(24) (after being drunk, the speaker was told what he was doing in this state)
mi lum?irāl-xwi i l6mc6rāl-xwi
I sing:- and swear:-
‘I was singing and swearing.’
3.2.2 Dreams
A dream is a case of direct evidence of some events that are later realized as
being not real: the speaker remembers what he has “seen”, but understands that
this was not a real-world event. It is interesting that in Svan only perfects, but no
imperfective evidentials can be used when retelling dreams.
(25) a. mi lämı̄snaw ēre txēre ämdagra
I dream:: that wolf: kill::./.
‘I dreamt that I killed a wolf.’
b. …ēre mulax-ži-kānka xwipēriāldäs (*l6mpēriāl-xwi)
…that Mulaxi-upward-along fly:: (*fly::)
‘…that I was flying over Mulaxi.’
(26) ala-s läxı̄snaw, esnär tāringzel eser ämqedēli
this: dream:: as-if archangel said come::
hädı̄š-žikānte-ka i loxt’ūla, xola Š¦a,
Hadishi-upward-through and exclaim::.⁄. bad self
txēr-ä¯ l eser axč’wādax…
wolf- said beset::./.
‘He dreamt as if the archangel had come through over Hadishi and
exclaimed “Poor me!”, wolves had beset him…’
“Imperfective” events in a dream are expressed by the imperfect (as in (25b)).
In this case a semantic difference between imperfective evidentials and
perfective evidentials can be noticed: the latter points out that the situation has
not been attested by the speaker in reality. The imperfectives stress the fact that
it is not part of the “immediate” knowledge of the speaker, i.e. knowledge based
on the speaker’s own experience.
76 NINA SUMBATOVA
3.2.3 Mirative meaning

Mirativity is a semantic category expressing the opposition of new, surprising
information (situations for which the speaker provides “no psychological
preparation”, DeLancey 1997: 35) and the old, mastered, accepted one. Since
mirativity is often expressed by the same grammatical devices as evidentiality,
it has often been treated as a variety of indirect evidence, though in some cases
mirativity markers are combined with situations of the most direct evidence
possible; DeLancey (1997: 39) gives some examples from Hare (Athabaskan):
(27) Heee, guhde daweda! Ch’ifi dach’ida lõ!
hey up.there sit guy sit
‘Heey, he is sitting up there! The guy is sitting up there!’
(said in a situation when the speaker suddenly notices it; lõ is the
mirativity marker).
As DeLancey has shown in general, mirativity is an independent semantic
category that sometimes possesses grammatical marking of its own. In Kartvel-
ian, as in some other languages (Turkish, Korean, etc.), mirativity is bound
together with evidentiality.
A mirative component is an optional, but frequent part of many usages of
evidential forms. (28) and (29) are from Svan again.
(28) (The speaker sees the addressee’s certificate of the institute graduation:)
si institut ¦ŠiŠg6ra-ja!
you institute: finish::./.-
‘You have graduated from an institute!’
(29) (The speaker hears the addressee is playing the guitar)
isgowd xočāmd oxwtorax gitara-ži
your: good: teach::./. guitar-up
lišwme
play::
‘You (apparently) have been well taught to play the guitar!’
But there also exist certain situations when the mirative appears as a nuclear
component of the meaning of a verbal form. This happens when the speaker
faces a highly surprising situation — a situation that he did not, and could not,
expect to come about. This is probably the only case when the so-called “narra-
tive present” (in the form of the imperfective evidential present) is not past, but
really present, or at least not time-bound (“general present”):
(30) (The speaker hears a friend of him is playing the guitar — the
speaker did not expect him to be able to)
si gitara-ži lumšwemin-xi!
you guitar-up play.-
‘You (surprisingly) can play the guitar!’
This situation type (present and therefore not completive) can of course be
marked by imperfective evidentials only.
3.2.4 Mirative resultative and evidential perfect

In some cases, perfective evidential forms can express a resultative or perfect
meaning. This variant of meaning has already been touched upon (3.1.2).
The dimension of the perfect is covered in Svan by the aorist tense and the
evidential perfect. By using the perfect the speaker stresses the fact that he
observes the existing result of a completive event, but has not observed the
process as such. The perfect, thus, still retains its evidential meaning. The aorist,
which is a simple form of the past perfective, is used in neutral situations, in-
cluding those when the speaker has observed both the event and its result (21b).
The intransitive perfect can also be used as a resultative, but in this case it
stresses unexpectability and surprise being therefore mirative:
(31) (the speaker tries on a dress that she has not been wearing for a long
time and finds that now it is too loose)
mi čwamčxepēl-xwi
I lose.weight:-
‘I (seem to) have lost weight!”
3.2.5 Experiential
Perfects (as in (32) and (33)) and sometimes also imperfective evidentials (34)
can be used with experiential meaning. Experiential meaning stresses the fact of
the situation/event being attested at some indefinite time in the past: the very
action having taken place is important, not its temporal reference or any accom-
panying circumstances. Experiential meaning is the only variant of those we have
treated here that cannot be called evidential or mirative at all.
(32) a. si šomwale Š¦ima esa k’ubdär?
you ever eat.:./.  kubdar
‘Have you ever eaten kubdar25?’
b. mi dējšoma mima k’ubdär.
I never eat::./. kubdar
‘I’ve never eaten kubdar.’
78 NINA SUMBATOVA
(33) mi al läjr (ješdin) ka26 mič’wdāna.

I this book: (ten.times)  read::./.
‘I’ve read this book (ten times).’
(34) si moskow-s l6mä¯ rd-xēsa?
you Moscow- be:-+
‘Have you ever been to Moscow?’
As illustrated in (32) and (33), only non-preverbials forms of the perfect are used
with experiential meaning. At the same time they were not possible with the pure
evidential meaning treated above (3.2.1–3.2.2).
It means that non-preverbial perfect forms are not evidential at all. In many
languages the experiential tends to be expressed by forms of the perfect (the
simplest example of it is English). That is why the experiential meaning of the
Svan non-preverbial perfects may be treated as a link between the traditional
label of the forms in question (“perfect”) and the most frequent semantic
interpretation of the other “perfect” forms (evidential).
Frequently, non-preverbial perfects refer to repetitive situations/events with
the same shade of experientiality. See (35)–(36).
(35) di-s gezläš-d xwäin xobca
mother- child:-for many.times promise::.⁄.
sačkwär
present.
‘Mother has many times promised her child a present’ (but, quite
probably, didn’t buy it).
(36) (said about a person who has many times, insistantly invited people
to his dukhan)
ala alj-är-s at6mbaž6nx: dos ēser
this: this-- surprise.:./. nobody said
xasma amžı̄n, čik ēser ka xoc’sa i atxe
hear::/ thus time said  invite::. and now
pasw xešgwem
money. request.:
‘They were amazed at this: “Nobody has ever heard that — he has
first invited (people) and now requires money!”’
In such cases, the plurality of situations/events correlates with the absence of a
preverb, which is a usual signal of imperfectivity. At the same time, being a part
of the perfect series, the non-preverbial perfect refers to a completed situation/
event. Nevertheless, the non-preverbial perfect can not be called a true perfect
(even if we accept iterative perfects), since it does not imply the presence of the
action’s result.
The non-preverbial perfect of transitive verbs is no doubt an independent
tense. Both its morphological structure and its meaning are different from that
of the preverbial perfect. This is one more tense of the third series.
The intransitive non-preverbial perfect is a simple combination of the
passive participle and the copula — a syntactic construction with resultative
meaning (see section 4).
4. Historical connotations: evidentials as grammaticized resultatives
The typical historical sources of evidentials are perfects and, more generally,
resultative constructions (Willett 1988, Bybee & Dahl 1989). This development
is explained by the ambivalence of the perfect. On the one hand, the perfect
refers to a completed (hence, past) event. On the other hand, the perfect implies
some state resulting from completion of an action or an event. The first, actional,
component of the perfect is a source of changing perfects to perfectives and
simple past forms. Emphasizing a connection between an (existing) result and a
(completed) past action leads to evidentials with primarily an inferential meaning.
A similar origin is traced for evidential perfects in Georgian (Natadze 1955,
Mačavariani 1988). The (evidential) transitive perfect in Georgian originates from
the object version of the stative/resultative forms as a result of preverb adjust-
ment and structural reinterpretation. Cf. from modern Georgian (example from
Mačavariani 1988: 275):
(37) a. Bebia-s t’axt’-ze pardag-i ug-i-a
grandmother- ottoman-on carpet- spread--
‘Grandmother has a carpet spread on the ottoman.’ (in this
sentence, the dative NP bebia-s ‘at grandmother’s, to grand-
mother’ is added as a result of the object version derivation)
b. Turme bebia-s es pardag-i tviton
apparently grandmother- this carpet- self
da-ug-i-a
-spread--
‘Grandmother has apparently spread this carpet herself.’
The stative verb in (37a) differs morphologically from the evidential perfect in
sentence (37b) only by the presence of the preverb da-. Case marking is the
80 NINA SUMBATOVA
same in both sentences, but for (37b), the dative NP is the syntactic subject
(which can be established through the usual syntactic tests; see, e.g., Harris 1981).
Intransitive perfects in Georgian result from merging participles with the
auxiliary in resultative construction (Mačavariani 1988: 275):
(38) da-mal-ul-i var → da-v?-mal-ul-?var
-hide-.- be: pv--hide-
‘I am hidden’ ‘I have apparently hidden (itr)’
The development of evidentials in Svan should be similar. The resultative origin
of evidentials is supported by the morphological structure of evidentials as well
as their syntactic properties and semantics.
Indeed, the usage of evidentials shows some remnants of the perfect
semantics (see sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4). Another semantic argument connecting
evidentials with the perfect is the experiential meaning of non-preverbial perfects
(see 3.2.5).
Turning to the morphological structure of the evidentials, we find some
structural indications such as the following ones:
(39) a. some of the perfect forms are periphrastic (or, at least, were
periphrastic in the recent past) consisting of a participle and the
copula; the participle of the intransitive perfect is a resultative
(past passive) participle;
b. the forms of the transitive perfect are connected with the object
version of stative verbs in the present (Natadze 1955; in Svan,
the stative differs from perfect by the presence of the suffix -a);
c. the pluperfect and subjunctive perfect show structural parallel-
ism with the forms of the intransitive aorist (they use the aorist
suffixes -ä¯ n for the pluperfect and -ēn for the subjunctive. See
the forms of the verb ‘build’ (40).
(40) a. atgēn-ä¯ n
build: :
b. atgēn-ēn-s
build::- (Natadze 1955)
The clearest parallels with resultative constructions, however, are syntactic. In
modern Svan there exist several types of resultative “participles”.27 The simplest
case is the “passive”, i.e. resultative participle of the type l6----e referring to the
object of a completed transitive action (l6rme ‘caught’, l6kwe ‘said’). With the
copula these participles form a usual object resultative construction:
(41) lezweb l6māre li

food prepare:. be::
‘The food is prepared’
(42) lerkwel lušq’wed li
clothes wash.up:. be::
‘The clothes are washed up’, etc.
This construction is analogous to that in Georgian (see above in this section) and
structurally differs from clauses with an intransitive perfect only by the absence
of a preverb and a higher degree of the copula’s independence (in nominal
sentences including the type of (41) and (42) the copula can neither be reduced
nor omitted).
Furthermore, in Svan there exists a “secondary” resultative construction with
the object version of the verb ‘to be’:
(43) mi lerkwel ču lušq’wed m-ar
I clothes:  washed: -be:
‘I () have the clothes () washed.’ (Cf. German ‘Mir sind die
Kleider gewaschen.’)
Constructions of the latter type have been called “secondary possessive resul-
tatives” by Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988: 25–26). These constructions often
develop into transitive perfects (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 25–26) as a result
of their syntactic reinterpretation. It is very probable that the already existing
“perfect” emerged in a similar way.
On the other hand, participial constructions of this type are a common
source of arising ergativity. This is the case with Indo-Iranian split ergativity, for
example, where Old Persian constructions of the type
(44) mana kartam astiy
I: done is
‘I have (it) done’
were reinterpreted in Middle Persian as ‘done by me’ an then as ‘I did’. Thus,
the indirect case of ‘I’ originates from the genitive28 (Pirejko 1979). In many
languages a similar development creates ergative constructions where the ergative
case derives from the former genitive, dative, or locative. A prerequisite of this
development is that the language does not have a verb ‘have’ (or, at least, does
not use it in these constructions). Recall that I stressed the principal similarity of
“ergative” and “dative” case marking in Kartvelian. In this case, the dative plays
in Svan the role of a new ergative.
82 NINA SUMBATOVA
As far as imperfective evidentials are concerned, they still consist of a

participle plus the copula. A natural presumption on the original meaning of the
corresponding participle will be that of subject resultative. This could also be a
simple explanation of their nominative syntax. If perfective evidentials can be
compared with resultative participles of the type l6----e, imperfective evidentials
are comparable to another participle type: these are “resultative” participles29
(marked with the prefix na-) with a rather difficult semantics that can be roughly
formulated as “what is left after the situation/event having taken place”. These
derivates, thus, deal with indirect results of the situation/event and in this sense
are “imperfective” resultatives (cf. 3.1.1):
(45) a. ligwni → na-gwän
‘cry’ ‘somebody who has traces of tears on his/her face’;
b. liq’wre → nä-q’win
‘lie’ ‘a place (a bed) where somebody has been lying
(and one can see this)’.
In some cases, the difference between l6----e and na- participles is very slight,
but for most transitive verbs it is clear:
(45) c. libeč’k’w → l6bč’k’we
‘explode (tr)’ ‘something that has been exploded’
→ näbič’k’w
‘remnants of the explosion’.
It looks quite probable that the “old” resultatives in Svan drifted from resultat-
ive/perfect meaning to expressing evidentiality. As a result, the vacant “resultat-
ive” area has been occupied by the new resultatives, i.e. periphrastic construc-
tions with participles, which are to a certain degree structurally analogous to the
evidentials. In speaking of the Svan evidentials we therefore are dealing with
very old resultatives that are now forming quite new ergative constructions.
Wrapping up, in Svan we register three or even more different steps of
grammaticization of resultative constructions:
(46)  less grammaticized
 “true” resultative constructions
 experiential (non-preverbial) perfect
 perfective evidentials — retaining a resultative meaning

 — “pure” evidentials (narratives)
 and imperfective evidentials
↓ more grammaticized
5. Synchronic problems and explanations: inversion and transitivity
As already mentioned above, the grammaticization of perfective transitive

evidentials is accompanied by syntactic reanalysis: the former indirect object
(dative) becomes the subject, whereas the former subject comes to be the direct
object. An analogous development is observed for Georgian. But in Svan the
syntactic changes are not so crucial, since the formal properties of the subject
and the direct object are not very clearly expressed in this language at all. The
status of the dative as “subject” is supported by reflexivization rules in the first
instance. See (47).
(47) eŠ¦a-s otdagra miča txwim (*eŠ¦a otdagra miča txwim-s)
he- kill: his head- (*he: … … head-
‘He has apparently killed himself (lit. ‘his head’, )’.
However, other rules (such as causativization or conjunction reduction) show no
predominance of the putative subject. It is the role properties of the participants
that are immediately reflected by these syntactic rules. In previous work (Sumba-
tova 1993) it was shown that looking at Svan we are dealing with a highly role-
dominated (rather than syntactically-driven) language. This characteristic of the
language is to a certain degree supported by its verbal classification, which can
be characterized — with certain reservations — as role-based. In this language
the dative is not just a label of some opaque syntactic relation: it has rather clear
semantic contents expressing the traditional roles for indirect objects (exper-
iencer, benefactive, recipient: a person affected by the situation or interested in
its results). This is the usual semantic contents of the object version dative.30
Therefore, the very existence of the third series transitive verbs, where the
dative rather than a typically agentive case marks an agent, looks rather strange.
I believe that if this construction had violated the major structural principles of
the language to such a high degree, it would have made the evidential develop-
ment of resultatives impossible, or it would have changed its syntactic properties.
That is why we need to explain how it is possible for a dative to express agents
in Svan.
Before suggesting any ideas explaining the functioning of the dative case,
we have to return to the main types of actant marking in Svan (see Table 3).
Traditionally, four syntactic verbal classes are differentiated:
Class 1: transitive verbs (including ditransitives), e.g. lidgäri tr ‘kill’, lihwdi
‘give’;
84 NINA SUMBATOVA
Class 2: active intransitives (also called “medial” verbs) including bivalent

verbs with a dative object, e.g. lig6rgäli ‘speak’, libce ‘promise’;
Class 3: monovalent and bivalent “passive” verbs (also called deponent
verbs), e.g. lidgäri itr ‘die’, lihne ‘melt’, lisgdi ‘look’; and, finally,
Class 4: inversive verbs, e.g. lipeš ‘be tired’, liter ‘see’.
Each class has its own actant marking strategy in three verbal series.
Witness Table 3.
Table 3. Strategies of actant marking.
Series I II III
Class
1   ()   ()   ()
2   ()   ()   ()
3   ()
4   ()
From Table 3 one can deduce that there exist two principal types of Svan verbs
as far as their syntactic properties are concerned: the verbs changing their case
frames (Classes 1 and 2) and those retaining the same actant marking throughout
all series (Classes 3 and 4). Generally speaking, agentive verbs (those with an
agent-like participant) are frame-changing, while non-agentive verbs are stable.
This conclusion is not without exceptions, though, since some verbs of class 3
(e.g., some formally reciprocal verbs with the suffix -(j)ēl-, like liq’ärjēl ‘fight’
or limkarä¯ l ‘compete’) are highly agentive. Nevertheless, there exists a strong
correlation between the agentivity/ non-agentivity of a verb and its syntactic class.
If we take into account the case marking of core arguments only, we will be
able to differentiate five types of core arguments as shown in Table 4:
Table 4. Argument types.
Series I Series II Series III
Type 1   
Type 2   
Type 3   
Type 4   
Type 5   
The first type of argument can be characterized as the most agent-like NP. It is
the first actant of transitive and agentive intransitive verbs (for example, verbs of
speech and sound production, verbs with an addressee like liqwämjēl ‘thank’,
libce ‘promise’, limarŠ¦wi ‘help’, some verbs of motion). Let us label this type of
argument ‘effectors’.
Arguments of type 2 are the most patient-like ones in the system. This
group includes the most effected participants of transitive verbs only; they are
labelled ‘patients’.
Groups 3 and 4 are both semantically heterogeneous and, at the same time,
similar to each other. Group 3 includes indirect objects of ditransitive verbs
(‘give’), recipients, all NPs being introduced into the verbal frame by the object
version derivation (most of them can be characterized as benefactives). Group 4
contains mostly experiencers (which are typical of inversive class 4 verbs like
liter ‘see’, lisme ‘hear’, lipeš ‘be tired’) as well as some benefactives and
recipients. The common property of these two groups is that the arguments are
neither very agentive nor patient-like. They neither effect, nor are they effected
by other arguments. Rather, they are often affected: many of them are animated
and even personal. Type 3 and 4 arguments we label here ‘goals’.
Finally, group 5 includes, on the one hand, patients of intransitive verbs
(which are not strongly “patientive”, in the first place, since they do not undergo
any overt influence of another participant and change only because of their inner
properties or general laws of nature) and, on the other hand, participants that can
be characterized as stimuli and objects of perception and reflection (the names of
objects that are seen, felt, thought about). I would add here the single argument
of some states and properties expressed by a nominal predicate. This role is
called theme.
The four semantic roles differentiated here can be ordered according to
their agentivity/effectedness (see also Foley & Van Valin 1984: 59):
(48) Effectedness increasing Agentivity increasing
Patient Theme Goal Effector
In the series II and III, this scale is shared by different cases like this in (49ab):
86 NINA SUMBATOVA
(49) Effectedness increasing Agentivity increasing

Patient Theme Goal Effector
a. Ser. II
NOM DAT ERG
b. Ser. III
NOM DAT
It will be a commonplace remark if I say that case marking is determined by the

interaction of certain semantic and pragmatic factors. In Svan, semantics (and
more precisely, role semantics) of arguments is at least as important as their
pragmatic weight.
Semantic factors are principally sufficient to explain case marking in the
second and third series. If we assume that the ergative is a case that marks the
highest agentivity degree of a NP, whereas the nominative reflects the lowest
degree of agentivity and a high degree of effectedness, and the dative refers to
the middle of this scale, this will be enough to explain the marking in series II:
only actors are agentive enough to be marked by the ergative, whereas goals get
a dative marking, and the nominative covers themes and undergoers. From the
three series of tenses, the second series can be regarded as basic. This series
separates three types of core arguments. The case marking of the other series can
be predicted from the case marking in the second series (but not vice versa).
Besides, the main tense of the second series, the aorist, shows the highest degree
of transitivity in the sense of Hopper & Thompson (1980). It is the only past
perfective verbal tense.
The average transitivity of the third series should be regarded as somewhat
lower, because its verbal forms are evidential or at least iterative (non-preverbial
perfect). Indirect evidence is not included in the list of Hopper and Thompson’s
transitivity parameters. But it is obvious that evidentiality (the source of informa-
tion about some situation or event) is closely connected to the parameter of
reality. According to Hopper and Thompson (1980), the irreality of a situation
decreases its transitivity. Indirect evidence situations are treated as “less real”
than “really unreal” ones; the speaker does not affirm that they have not been
attested in the real world, but, at the same time, he cannot prove their truth
because he has not witnessed them. That is probably why even the actor in the
third series is not agentive enough to be marked by the ergative. In the third
series, the actor conjoins the roles typical of dative marking. Thus, the dative in
the third series is not so extraordinarily unnatural as it seemed at first sight.
Let us now turn to the first series as in (49c).
(49c) Patient Theme Goal Effector

c. Ser. I
DAT NOM DAT NOM
To be sure, the description and explanation of the first series is not a part of our
task. However, since it seems to strongly undermine the general “role-express-
ing” tendency of Svan, an explanation should at least be sketched out. I believe
that the first series (a relatively young paradigm) illustrates the growing role of
pragmatic factors. The nominative tends to be the most pragmatically marked
case. It is used in the “naming” function. It is able to control both subject and
object agreement under certain circumstances. And, in most cases, it controls
reflexivization as well. In the first series, its pragmatic force comes to play a
major role: the nominative is the case of the first core argument, which could
even be called a syntactic subject. The pragmatic markedness of the actor in the
first series is more important than its high agentivity. This is even more plausible
if we recall that the first series shows the lowest degree of transitivity in general,
because it contains only imperfective (atelic) and future tenses including
imperfective evidentials (not to mention the conditionals).
It is pragmatic factors that determine the choice of a dative NP in case of
conflict. In the third series (classes 1 and 2), both the logical subject and the
indirect object can get dative marking. But the logical subject, being more
important pragmatically, occupies the dative position. This is why the semantical-
ly close argument types 3 and 4 have been consistently distinguished in Series 3.
A similar situation prevails with the case marking of reciprocal verbs. All
of them belong to class 3 (intransitive passives) even if their symmetric partici-
pants are highly agentive (like lib6rgjēl ‘wrestle’, liq’hä¯ l ‘kiss’). They are used
either as monovalent verbs with the single stable nominative actant (a plural or
coordinative NP) as in (50a);
(50) a. Vano i Givi ib6rgjēl-x
Vano. and Givi. wrestle.-
‘Vano and Givi are wrestling’;
or they are used as bivalent stable verbs with a nominative and a dative actant,
like
(50) b. Vano Givi-s xeb6rgjēl
Vano. Givi- wrestle.::
‘Vano is wrestling with Givi’.
88 NINA SUMBATOVA
It is possible that the agentivity of symmetric counter-agents is never high

enough to “deserve” ergative marking. Thus, they are prototypically treated as
goals. However, at least one of them should be chosen as the subject and marked
with the nominative. If they are equally important for the speaker, a monovalent
verb will be used.
Pragmatic factors are more consistent for verbal agreement. The logical
subject (the argument mentioned first in Table 3) controls subject agreement in
all cases, but with two major exceptions: inversive (mostly experiential) verbs in
all series, and all changing verbs in series 3. For these verbs, the logical subject
(in the dative) controls object agreement, whereas the nominative NP (if any)
controls the subject agreement.
It is interesting that in series 3 the strict rules of agreement become much
looser (Kibrik 1996). Whereas the agreement prefixes follow the standard
agreement rules, the suffixes tend to erase the distinction between subjects and
objects. Usually, subjects are preferred suffix agreement controllers (see 3.1.1
and footnote 17). In the third series, if the dative and the nominative actant are
equally high in the hierarchy, the choice of the agreement suffix is, at least in
theory, controlled by the nominative NP that is treated as a subject. But in many
cases the dative actant optionally takes control over the suffix. See again (7).
(7) … alj-är-s … lezweb loxwmamax
… this-- … food. eat.:./.
(morphonologically, *la-x-o-mam-a-x)
-.--eat--.
‘… these () have eaten (a lot of) food ()…’
The theoretically predicted form would be loxwmama with the zero sufix of the
third person singular subject. Analogous deviations are also observed in examples
(29) and (36). This tendency can be interpreted as a signal of the growing
pragmatic role of the “logical” subject (actor, effector) that is expressed by the
dative in the third series.
6. Conclusions
In the foregoing sections, we have discussed different questions connected with

the evidential forms in Svan, including their formal morphology, syntactic
patterns, semantic variants as well as some points of their evolution.
Evidentials constitute a special subsystem of the Svan verbal system. More
than that, the evidential subsystem is more regular than the verbal system taken
as a whole (Tables 1 and 2). Most lines and both columns of Table 2 have their
specific semantic features and morphological markers (3.1).
Morphologically, the evidential subsystem looks like the newest develop-
ment of the verbal system. Thus, only the evidential segment of Table 1 contains
periphrastic verbal forms. However, at the same time one can observe a clear
tendency to avoid the periphrastic forms: “past” evidential forms tend to be
substituted by the “present”, while the “present” tends to become synthetic (the
copula being omitted or morphologically merged).
Evidentials in Svan have a rather general semantics (see a short summary
of it in Table 5 below): they cover both reported and inferred evidence as well
as the mirative. We have observed an unexpected difference between imper-
fective and perfective evidentials: only the latter can be used to narrate dreams.
We have observed that only the preverbial perfects have an evidential semantics,
whereas the non-preverbial forms are mainly used with an experiential meaning,
which has made us distinguish the preverbial and non-preverbial perfect as two
distinct tenses.
Table 5. Semantic variants of evidential and perfect forms

Semantic variant Imperfective Perfective evidential (Non-preverbial
evidential (preverbial perfect) perfect)
Reported evidence + + –
Inferred evidence + + –
Inferred evidence + – + –
perfect
Dreams – + –
Mirative (present) + – –
Mirative + inferred + + –
evidence (past)
Mirative + resultative – + –
Experiential – – +
The evidentials in Svan move along a typical grammaticization channel result-

ative → perfect → inferred evidence → (inferred and reported) indirect evidence.
New resultative constructions (Sec. 4) have come to replace old resultatives,
which have changed their original meaning. They are now probably at the
beginning of such a long path.
Imperfective and perfective evidentials in Svan are crucially different as to
90 NINA SUMBATOVA
their syntax: whereas the imperfectives belong to the first series of tenses with
nominative case marking, the perfective evidentials (series 3) show a specific
case marking pattern traditionally called dative, or inversive. This case marking
pattern, which is essentially equivalent to the ergative type, allows a diachronic
explanation. If we assume that the perfective (transitive) evidentials in Svan
originate from a certain type of resultative constructions, namely “secondary
resultatives” (Sec. 4), this will account for the dative case of the agent in the
third series (inherited from the dative of the benefactive in the resultative
construction). With some reservations, imperfective evidentials can be supposed
to originate from subject resultatives.
A diachronic explanation of the syntactic peculiarities of the evidential
forms does not seem to be sufficient. It would be useful to find synchronic
principles explaining the numerous case marking patterns and the obscure verbal
classifications in Svan. I suggested that an explanation could be provided by the
transitivity hypothesis suggested by Hopper and Thompson (1980). Suppose that
the three nuclear cases in Svan correspond to certain degrees of the actant’s
agentivity ( >  > ). This could account for case marking in the
second and the third tense series. The ergative case is used in the second series
only, because the degree of transitivity of the verb (and the agentivity of the first
actant) is higher in the second series. The first series is more pragmatically
oriented: the subject is in the nominative case, which is the pragmatically most
important case in Svan (used as the case of nomination as well). The high
pragmatic status of the nominative case is supported by its semantically motivat-
ed use in nominal and stative sentences.
Diachronically, the second series is the oldest, while the perfect series is the
youngest. This means that the syntactic and semantic development of the verbal
system in Svan follows a kind of spiral in the following sense. See (51a–c).
(51) a. the oldest series 2 is typologically ergative (see footnotes 9 and
22); case marking and many syntactic processes are governed
by the role domination principle (Foley & Van Valin 1984);
b. series 1 is typologically accusative and more pragmatically
oriented;
c. series 3 shares its main typological characteristics with series 2
(though the concrete morphological devices are different: the
dative is used as the case of the transitive subject). However,
for series 3, we already observed that the role of pragmatic
factors is growing also (Sec. 5).
Abbreviations
 — aorist
 — dative
 — emphatic particle
 — ergative
 — evidential
 — genitive
 — imperfective evidential
 — instrumental
 — indirect object
 — intransitive
 — masdar
 — locative
 — negative
 — nominative
 — noun phrase
 — object
 — oblique case (different from nominative, ergative, and dative)
 — object version
 — participle
 — past
. — passive participle
 — perfective evidential
 — perfect
 — plural; , ,  — 1st, 2nd, 3d person plural
 — pluperfect
 — present
 — preverb
 — interrogative particle
 — subject, Str — subject of a transitive verb, Sitr — subject of an intransitive verb
 — singular; , ,  — 1st, 2nd, 3d person singular
 — stative
 — subjunctive
 — transformative
tr — transitive
Notes
1. Svan is a language of the Kartvelian family spoken by more than 30 000 people in the North-
West of Georgia. Svan is traditionally divided into two main dialect clusters including four
dialects: Upper-Bal and Lower-Bal are the Upper-Svan dialects, Lentekh and Lashkh are Lower-
Svan. This paper deals with the most archaic Svan dialect, the Upper-Bal.
2. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to David and Nona Kochkiani whose kindness,
fine feel for the language and love of their mother tongue, Svan, helped me to prepare this
paper. I owe a lot to the editors of the present volume, Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov,
92 NINA SUMBATOVA
who did hard work to improve both the contents and the style of this paper. I am also grateful
to George Hewitt and Nick Nicholas, who read a preliminary version of this paper, for their
important notes and useful criticism.
3. Below I shall try to show that there exist one more tense.
4. This word is a transliteration of the Georgian term mc’k’rivebi, which denotes a verbal
conjugation paradigm characterized by a certain tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality/non-
evidentiality. In this paper I used the term “tense” instead.
5. Preverbs originally had a directional meaning, but in most verbs they are desemanticized and
used just as grammatical markers of the perfective aspect.
6. The Svan verbal system is presented here after Gudjedjiani & Palmaitis (1986: 29–33, 65–91)
and Testelets (1989). Topuria (1985: 125–126) and, subsequently, Schmidt (1991: 525)
differentiate two forms of the evidential (imperfective) present, cf. (3f) xägmina (Evidential I)
and (3a) l6mgämün (Evidential II) ‘(he) was apparently building’. Both forms are covered by
the “Narrative Present” in Table 1 and are treated here as the object and neutral version of the
imperfective evidential present, respectively. At the same time, the descriptions by V.Topuria
and K.H.Schmidt lack past and subjunctive imperfective evidentials.
7. The “tradition” is the tradition in Georgian.
8. There is no accusative in Kartvelian: in nominative constructions its functions are covered by
the dative. Both the direct and the indirect object receive dative marking, cf. (52):
(52) Vano apxneg-s läjr-s xahwdi
Vano: friend- book- give::.⁄.
‘Vano gives/is giving (his) friend the book.
9. The words ‘nominative’, ‘ergative’ and ‘dative’ are used here as commonly accepted and rather
convenient labels, though the real character of the corresponding tenses as nominative
(accusative), ergative or active remains to this day a subject of discussion. We shall not
consider the topic (see footnote 22).
10. Another term for this category, more common outside Russia, is “applicative”. I keep using the
term “version” because it is traditional for Kartvelian studies.
11. Italics in transcriptions, glosses, and translations correspond to evidential forms.
12. Svan possesses a rather intricate morphophonology. Explaining its details for each form would
extend the scope of this paper. That is why some morphemes and morphemic alterations
irrelevant for the goals of the present paper are not explained here. For abbreviations see the list
at the end.
13. Cf. the ‘Narrative Past’, which is a relative tense: it refers to an action preceding another past
action.
14. This formative is not really a participle because it is used only as a part of the verbal evidential
forms (no attributive or other independent usage is possible).
15. For the forms of the object version, evidentials are synthetic (-in-a): cf.
(3f) x-ä-gm-in-a
‘he was apparently building for him’.
16. Lower halves of brackets mark two parts of a circumfix (glossed under its first part).
17. The choice of agreement markers is determined by the following rules (according to Kibrik
1996):
Prefix Suffix
S<O O O
S=O O S
S>O S S
This small table shows what actant controls the choice of the agreement morphemes. If, for
example, the subject is third person and the object is second person (the object is higher in the
hierarchy, S<O), then both the prefix and the suffix are taken from the object agreement row
and show agreement with the second person. If the subject is first preson and the object is
second person (equally high in the hierarchy, S=O), then the second person prefix of the object
row is also taken, but the suffix shows agreement with the first person of the subject, etc.
18. According to Nedjalkov, “perfect” is understood as “an action (process, or state) in the past
which has continuing relevance for the present” (cf. Nedjalkov & Jaxontov 1988: 15).
19. From this point on ‘perfect’ be understood to mean ‘perfect marked with a preverb’, unless
noted otherwise.
20. Dukhaner is a keeper of a dukhan, a little restaurant in Caucasus.
21. In the Kartvelian tradition, the verbs that code their subjects with the dative case in all series
(the second actant, if any, receives a nominative marking) are called inversive. These are mostly
verbs of perception, cognition, physiological states, feelings, etc. (see section 5).
22. The similar situation in Georgian evoked a discussion on the real nature of the second tense
series: Harris (1981: 228–274) finds the principal features of an active typology, whereas Hewitt
(1987: 326–339) regards it as ergative. Whatever point of view may be true (for Svan, I would
side with Harris), no doubt the second and the third series are alike.
23. It goes about one of the old Georgian books, The Gospel of Hadishi, (897).
24. The beginning of this text is as follows: ‘An ox was standing by a sea, so that its front legs
were standing on one bank and its back legs on the other, so big was this ox. An eagle came
down from somewhere, seized the ox and carried it away… There was a goat somewhere. It
was so big that an ox herd with the herdsman all together hid under its beard to keep the rain
out in bad weather. The eagle sat down on the horns of this goat and ate the ox there…”
25. Kubdar is a local pie.
26. This preverb is not part of the verbal form (which can be shown by way of morphophonological
rules).
27. Participles and deverbal nouns are highly lexicalized. That is why meanings of concrete
derivates can deviate quite far from the prototype.
28. See also the paper by Trask in the same book (Trask 1979), where this type of emergent
ergativity is analyzed on the basis of some broader typological data.
29. These derivates are traditionally called participles, but are usually used as deverbal nouns.
30. In Testelets 1984, its semantics is described through the notion of “involvedness”: the object
version dative is an actant that is involved in the situation less than the patient, but nevertheless
to a fairly comparable degree.
94 NINA SUMBATOVA
References
Bybee, Joan and Östen Dahl. 1989. “The creation of tense and aspect systems in the
languages of the world”. Studies in language 13–1. 51–103.
Chafe, Wallace and Johanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of
epistemology. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. “Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected informa-
tion”. Linguistic Typology 1–1. 33–52.
Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal
Grammar (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gudjedjiani, Chato and Mykolas L. Palmaitis. 1986. Upper Svan: Grammar and texts
(Kalbotyra XXXVII (4)). Vilnius: Mokslas.
Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.). 1996. L’énonciation médiatisée. Louvain–Paris: Peeters.
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian Syntax: a Study in Relational Grammar (Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics 33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Alice C. 1991. “Overview on the History of the Kartvelian Languages”. In Harris,
A.C. (ed.), The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus. Vol.1 — The Kartvelian
Languages, 7–84. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
Hewitt, B.George. 1987. “Georgian: ergative or active?” Lingua 71. 319–340.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A.Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”.
Language 56–2. 251–299.
Kibrik, Andrej A. 1996. “Jazyk ne tak nelep, kak kažetsja (lično-čislovoe soglasovanie v
svanskom jazyke)”. [“The language is not as absurd as it seems to be (person and
number agreement in the Svan language)”]. In Gippius, A.A. et al. (eds.), Rusistika.
Slavistika. Indoevropeistika. Sbornik k 60-letiju A.A. Zaliznjaka, 478–493. Moscow:
Indrik. [Russian, Slavic, Indo-European philology. Festschrift on the occasion of the
60th birthday of A.A. Zaliznjak].
Kozinceva, Natalija A. 1994. “Kategorija ėvidencial’nosti (problemy tipologičeskogo
analiza)”. [“The category of evidentiality: problems with the typological analysis”].
Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1994–3. 92–104.
Mačavariani, Maja V. 1988. “Stative, resultative, passive and perfect in Georgian”. In
Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions, 259–275. Amster-
dam–Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Natadze, N.R. 1955. “K voprosu ob obrazovanii vremen i naklonenij tret’ej serii v
kartvel’skix jazykax”. [“On the formation of tenses and moods of the third series in
the Kartvelian languages.”]. Iberijsko-kavkazskoe jazykoznanie 7. 99–100.
constructions”. In Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions, 3–62.
Amsterdam–Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pirejko, L.A. 1979. “On the Genesis of the Ergative Construction in Indo-Iranian”. In
Plank, F. (ed.), Ergativity: Toward a Theory of Grammatical relations, 481–488.
London–New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1991. “Svan”. In Harris, A.C. (ed.), The Indigenous Languages of the
Caucasus. Vol.1 — The Kartvelian Languages, 473–556. Delmar, New York:
Caravan Books.
Sumbatova, N.R. 1993. “Causative constructions in Svan: further evidence for role
domination”. In Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Causatives and transitivity,
253–270. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Svanuri Enis Krest’omatia [A Reader Of The Svan Language]. 1978. (Dzveli kartuli enis
k’atedris šromebi). Tbilisi: Metsniereba.
Testelets, Jakov G. 1984. “Ob”ektnaja versija v kartvel’skix jazykax”. [“The object
version in the Kartvelian languages”]. In Lingvističeskie issledovanija. Tipologija.
Dialektologija. Ėtimilogija. Komparativistika,130–140. Moscow: Nauka. [Studies in
linguistics. Typology. Dialectology. Etymology. Comparative linguistics].
Testelets, Jakov G. 1989. Svanskij jazyk. Materialy kavkazskoj lingvističeskoj ėkspedicii.
Ms. [The Svan language. Materials of the Caucasian linguistic expedition].
Topuria, Varlam T. 1985. “Svanskij jazyk” (“The Svan language”). Ežegodnik iberijsko-
kavkazskogo jazykoznanija XII. 100–147.
Trask, R.L. 1979. “On the Origins of Ergativity”. In Plank F. (ed.), Ergativity: Toward a
Theory of Grammatical relations, 385–406. London–New York: Academic Press.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. “A cross-linguistic survey of evidentiality”. Studies in language
12–1. 51–98.
On the semantics of some Russian causative
constructions
Aspect, control, and types of causation
Tatiana V. Bulygina Alexei D. Shmelev

Institute of Linguistics, Moscow Moscow State Pedagogical University
Abstract
In earlier work (Bulygina 1982) it was observed that the interpretation of many
of the causative imperfective verbs in Russian depends on whether the
situation involved is controlled or not: Mat’ budila ego, no on ne prosypalsja
‘Mother was wakening him (= was trying to wake him up), but he wouldn’t
wake up’ vs. anomalous *Zvonok budil’nika budil ego, no on ne prosypalsja
‘The sound of the alarm was wakening him, but he wouldn’t wake up’. A
number of differences in the aspectual behavior of controllable and uncontrol-
lable causative verbs are connected with the above observation. Yet, the analysis
of causative verbs from the point of view of the feature “control” reveals the
opposition under consideration cannot be reduced to a single dichotomy.
The evidence presented in the paper seems to show that it is essential to
include the information on the causative components of the meaning of the
verb, the type of causation, etc. into the corresponding dictionary entries. The
existing lexicographic descriptions of Russian verbs often give a wrong idea of
the ontology of the involved states of affairs. Together with the nomenclatorial
and conceptual inconsistency of current aspectological studies, this leads to the
result that many of the interdependencies in question have been overlooked or
described inexactly. That is not to say that all the individual properties of
concrete causative verbs are idiosyncratic. Most of them are semantically
motivated. However, in order to be explained those peculiarities are to be
thoroughly explored and registered.
98 TATIANA V. BULYGINA AND ALEXEI D. SHMELEV
1. On the interdependency between the aspectual behavior, controllabili-

ty, and the type of causation of Russian verbs
In earlier work (Bulygina 1982), it was observed that the interpretation of many
of the causative imperfective verbs in Russian depends on whether the situation
described is controlled or not. It was argued that for many verbs, as long as the
situation is uncontrollable (e.g. when the causer is inanimate), an imperfective
verb denotes the achievement of the caused state of affairs:1 (1a) ≈ (1b);
(2a) ≈ (2b).
(1) a. Ivana budit zvonok budil’nika
Ivan: wakes: sound of-alarm
‘The sound of the alarm wakes Ivan.’
b. Ivan prosypaetsja ot zvonka budil’nika
Ivan wakes-up:. from sound of-alarm
‘Ivan wakes up at the sound of the alarm’
(2) a. Ego ljubeznost’ vsex pokorjala
his graciousness all:. charmed:
‘His graciousness charmed everybody.’
b. Vse byli pokoreny ego ljubeznost’ju
all: were charmed his with-graciousness
‘Everybody was charmed by his graciousness.’
If, however, the causing activity (i.e. the activity directed to the caused event) is
controled, an imperfective verb may express merely an attempt to obtain the
result which is not necessarily successful:
(3) a. Mat’ budila ego
mother woke: him
‘Mother was wakening him (= was trying to wake him up).’
One could add:
(3) b. …no on ne prosypalsja
…but he not woke-up:.
‘…but he wouldn’t wake up.’
Cf. the anomalous:
RUSSIAN CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS 99
(3) c. *Zvonok budil’nika budil ego,

sound of-alarm woke: him
no on ne prosypalsja
but he not woke-up:.
‘The sound of the alarm was wakening him, but he wouldn’t
wake up.’
A number of differences in the aspectual behavior of controllable and uncontrol-
lable causative verbs can be attributed to the above observation. The imperfective
member of an aspectual pair may denote the same event as its perfective
counterpart and additionally express the aspectual sense of repetition (unbounded
seriality), potentiality, reportedness, “vividness” (as in praesens historicum), etc.
In other words, it may have “trivial”2 aspectual readings:
(4) a. Ego razbudil zvonok budil’nika
him woke: sound of-alarm
‘The sound of the alarm awakened him.’
b. Tut ego budit zvonok budil’nika
now him wakes: sound of-alarm
‘Now the sound of the alarm wakes [praesens historicum] him up.’
(5) a. Ego razbudila mat’
him woke: mother
‘Mother woke him up.’
b. Po utram ego budila mat’
in mornings him woke: mother
‘In the mornings, mother used to wake him up.’
The non-trivial3 aspectual readings, however, often involve reference to the
feature of control. As noted above, the imperfective member of controllable pairs
may express a mere attempt, an activity directed to a certain result (not necessar-
ily obtained):
(6) Ona ego budila (no ne razbudila)
she him woke: but not woke:
‘She was waking him (but failed).’
(7) On menja pugal, da ne ispugal
he me frightened: but not frightened:
‘He was frightening me (i.e. he tried to frighten me), but I was not
afraid.’
Consider Leo Tolstoy’s well-known words about Leonid Andreev: On menja

pugaet svoimi proizvedenijami, a mne ne strašno ‘He tries to frighten me by his
works, but I am not afraid’. In other words, such aspectual pairs can be “accom-
plishments” according to Vendler’s classification (Vendler 1967). As for the
imperfective member of uncontrollable causative aspectual pairs, it may express
(beside the trivial ‘event’ sense) the (non-trivial) sense of state (e.g. Menja
pugaet odinočestvo ‘Loneliness frightens me’; consider the impossibility of
*Menja pugalo odinočestvo, no ne ispugalo ‘Loneliness frightened me, but I was
not afraid of loneliness’). In other words, such aspectual pairs are “states” or
“achievements” according to Vendler’s classification (Vendler 1967).
However, the analysis of causative verbs from the point of view of the
feature of control reveals the opposition under consideration cannot be reduced
to a single dichotomy. The distinction between fully uncontrollable events (8)
and partly controllable events (9) appears to be relevant.
(8) Šum mašiny za oknom razbudil otca
noise of-car behind window woke: father:
‘The sound of a car outdoors awoke father’
(9) Mal’čiki gromko razgovarivali i razbudili otca
boys loudly talked: and woke: father:
‘The boys talked too loudly and woke up father’
The latter class comprises actions that cannot be involuntary, but the result of
which (the caused state of affairs) is neither under the referent’s control nor
within his or her intention. In fact, we are dealing with two independent contrasts:
1) controllability vs. uncontrollability of the causing situation and 2) the presence
vs. the absence of the intention to bring about the caused situation. It may be
added that the causation by means of a controlled activity may be either inten-
tional or unintentional, while non-agentive causation is always non-intentional.
The distinctions made explain the choice of perfective or imperfective
causative verbs in the negated imperative. In Bulygina (1980; 1982) it was
argued that in imperative constructions with negation the imperfective verb is
employed in case of controlled actions, while the perfective verb may be used in
such constructions only if reference is made to an event that is beyond the
subject’s control. As for causative verbs, certain shifts are possible just in the
case of situations involving controllable action bringing about an event, if the
causation of this event had not been previously intended. Consider (10a), stated
as a warning not to perform the corresponding controllable intentional action, and
(10b), expressed as a caution against uncontrollable unintentional accidence:
(10) a. Ne budite otca

not wake:. father:
‘Don’t wake dad’
b. Ne razbudite otca
not wake:. father:
‘Don’t wake dad up’
‘Be careful not to wake dad’
However, both (10a) and (10b) can be said to the boys who are talking too
loudly: (10a) is more likely a warning not to go on talking, that is, an order to
stop talking, while (10b) is rather advice not to talk so loudly. Consider also an
example suggested by Anna Zalizniak:
(11) Ne svari kašu vmesto supa
not cook:. porridge instead of-soup
‘Be careful not to make porridge instead of soup’
In fact, action described by means of the phrase svarit’ kašu ‘to cook porridge’
is normally intentional and controllable. Still it is possible to imagine a situation,
when a controllable action of cooking is performed with an intention other than
cooking porridge (svarit’PERF kašu) (for instance with the intention to cook
(svarit’PERF) soup), while an unexpected result of porridge being cooked has
emerged due to violation of culinary conventions. The employment of the “non-
causative” perfective verb in negated-imperative form (Ne svari kašu) is possible
just in such cases.
Thus, the generalizations reached do not hold for all types of causative
verbs. The observations made above reveal the necessity of using information
about the type of causation while selecting the form of a causative verb in
Russian. Note that for some predicates the type of causation appears to be
“selectional”, while for other predicates the same feature is (semantically)
inflectional (Bulygina 1980). In both cases, we have to address the question of
treating the causative verbs in the dictionary.
2. Idiosyncratic properties of some verbs
2.1 Differences between semantically close verbs
It should be noted that general characteristics of an “extra-linguistic” situation

are far from being always sufficient to predict the type of causation that is
embodied in a verb describing the situation in question. Consider, e.g., perfective

verbs semantically as close as soblaznit’ (‘seduce; entice; allure’) and prel’stit’
(‘fascinate; lure; be enticing, attractive’). The first of the pair (soblaznit’) may
express an intentional action as well as fully uncontrollable event. Cf.:
(12) a. Don Xuan soblaznil etu nepristupnuju damu
Don-Juan seduced: this unapproachable lady:
‘Don Juan seduced that unapproachable lady’
b. Ja poexal vo Franciju, potomu čto menja soblaznila
I went in France: because me seduced:
vozmožnost’ popraktikovat’sja vo francuzskom jazyke
possibility to-practice in French language
‘I went to France because I was attracted by the possibility of
having some practice in French’
The aspectual pair in the first case belongs to the accomplishments-type, while
in the second case it belongs to the achievements-type).4
Accordingly, the imperfective soblaznjat’ in (14a) expresses an unbounded
series of the caused (successful for Don Juan) events, while in (14b) it denotes
an intentional activity, not necessarily causing the desired event, and in (14c) it
denotes an unintentionally caused inner state.
(14) a. Don Xuan soblaznjal samyx nepristupnyx i
Don-Juan seduced: most unapproachable and
dobrodetel’nyx dam
virtuous ladies:
‘Don Juan seduced the most unapproachable and virtuous ladies’
b. Don Xuan soblaznjal samuju nepristupnuju i
Don-Juan seduced: most unapproachable and
dobrodetel’nuju damu (i vpervye v žizni ne byl
virtuous lady: and first-time in life not was
uveren, čto soblaznit ee)
sure that will-seduce: her
‘Don Juan was seducing a most unapproachable and virtuous
lady (and for the first time in his life, he was not sure that he
will succeed)’
c. Menja soblaznjaet vozmožnost’ poexat’ v Italiju
me seduces: possibility to-go in Italy:
‘The possibility of going to Italy is an attraction to me’
The verb prel’stit’ as opposed to soblaznit’PERF always denotes an uncontrollable
event, though potentially a desired one (cf. (15a)), while prel’ščat’IMPF in

addition to trivial senses of the imperfective may express the sense of the caused
state (cf. (15b)):
(15) a. Krasotoj-to svoej už očen’ zanjat… Vse
with-beauty with-his indeed very occupied all:
sčast’e sebe xočet sostavit’, prel’stit’ kogo-nibud’
happiness: to-self wants to-make to-allure someone:
‘He is too engaged in his appearances… He is always thinking
of making happiness for himself, of alluring some girl’ (A.
Ostrovsky)
b. Čem on vas prel’stil? = Čem on
with-what he you: allured: = with-what he
vas prel’ščaet?
you: allures:
‘What has he attracted you with?’ = ‘What does he attract you
with?’
2.2 “Aspectual triplets”
One would reasonably presume that a dictionary entry of a causative verb should
contain all the necessary information about the type of causation. Unfortunately,
the information contained in currently available dictionaries is quite insufficient
to render a reliable idea of how Russian causatives function. Compare the
phenomenon of so-called “aspectual triplets” — such as (16):
(16) a. žeč’ — sžeč’ — sžigat’
burn: — burn-up: — burn-up:
b. est’ — s”est’ — s”edat’
eat: — eat-up: — eat-up:
This has become a considerable problem due to the fact that current descriptions
ignore the causative component in the content of the verbs sžeč’ — sžigat’ and
s”est’ — s”edat’. In fact, the meaning of sžeč’ — sžigat’ is something like ‘by
means of burning X, cause X to no longer exist’. These verbs constitute a
genuine aspectual pair that belongs to the accomplishment-type: sžigat’ has
(besides trivial senses of the imperfective aspect) an additional sense of an
intentional attempt — i.e., it means ‘to be burning X with the purpose to cause
X to no longer exist’. In other words, in case sžigat’ has a processual (that is,
not ‘event’) sense, it is always an activity directed toward destruction. By
contrast, the imperfective verb žeč’ expresses an activity that pursues some other
goal (e.g. for heat or light). That is why one says žeč’ about wood (žeč’ drova),
but sžigat’ about a love letter (sžigat’ ljubovnuju zapisku). Naturally both the
action of žeč’ and the action of sžigat’ can bring about absolutely identical real
results (the object is destroyed by fire). Consequently, it is possible to use the
verb sžeč’ when speaking both about the billet-doux and the wood: sžeč’ zapisku
and sžeč’ (vse drova). The result is an impression of parallelism between the
pairs žeč’ — sžeč’ (drova) and sžigat’ — sžeč’ (zapisku) and tempts some writers
to try to formulate rather complicated rules of the selection between the two
imperfective verbs žeč’ and sžigat’. However, an explicit mention of the caus-
ative component in the meaning of the verbs sžeč’ and sžigat’ (as opposed to the
absence of such a component in the semantics of the imperfective žeč’) leads to
a simple semantic motivation of the rules in question. Native speakers of Russian
have an intuitive sense for the observed difference between the aspectual pair
sžeč’ — sžigat’ and the verb žeč’ (which is an imperfectivum tantum). That is
reflected in the following dialogue from a play by E.Schwartz:
(17) Kniga moja “Vot kak nužno gotovit’, gospoda” pogibla. — Kak!
Kogda? — Kogda prišla moda sžigat’ knigi na ploščadjax. V pervye
tri dnja sožgli dejstvitel’no opasnye knigi. A moda ne prošla. Togda
načali žeč’ ostal’nye knigi bez razbora. Teper’ knig vovse net. Žgut
solomu (E. Schwartz, Dragon)
‘My book “Here’s how to cook, Gentlemen” was destroyed. —
What! When? — When it became fashionable to burn [impf. caus-
ative] books in the public squares. They burnt [perf. causative] all
the really dangerous books in the first three days. But the fashion
did not go out. Then they took to burning [impf. tantum] all the
other books, regardless. Now there are no books left. They burn
[impf. tantum] straw’
It is clear that sžigat’ knigi means ‘burn the books in order to have them go out
of existence’, while žeč’ knigi (like žeč’ solomu) refers to a ritual act that does
not pursue any special goal of destroying the object.
Observe that sžeč’ (and sžigat’ in trivial senses) may refer both to intention-
al and unintentional causation. By contrast, sžigat’ in a processual sense is
always an intentional activity.5 The pair sžeč’ — sžigat’ belongs in this respect
to a different variety of accomplishments than another aspectual pair razbudit’
— budit’ (‘wake up’ — perf. and imperf.). In fact, as has been already observed,
budit’ in a processual sense may denote either an intentional action (being
performed with a goal: razbudit’, that is ‘to wake X up’) or an activity which is
within the control of the subject but may have as an unforeseen effect the event
described by its perfective correlate (i.e. razbudit’). As an illustration of this
reading, see the example (10a) ne budite otca. Recall that it expresses the
warning not to talk too loudly, even though the talking had no special goal to
wake the father up. A parallel to this use of the verb budit’ is žeč’ rather than
sžigat’. Cf.:
(18) Ne žgite [impf. tantum] popustu drova, nado ostavit’ ix
not burn: in-vain wood one-must leave them
do konca zimy
till end of-winter
‘Don’t consume the wood in vain, it should be left till the end of the
winter’
Such a use of žeč’ explains why the alleged semantic parallelism between
aspectual pairs such as budit’ — razbudit’ and žeč’ — sžeč’ has caused lexicog-
raphers (e.g. Evgen’eva 1981: 480) to consider the relation between the members
of the last pair as “strictly aspectual”. But the conclusion appears to be inade-
quate, for the basic guideline in deciding whether the two verbs belong to the
same aspectual pair is when an imperfective verb expresses the same “event”
sense (except for “trivial”6 aspectual semantic “surpluses”) as its alleged
perfective counterpart. As for the verb žeč’, it not only has no event reading
which would correspond to sžeč’ (a perfective causative), but no event reading
at all.
Wierzbicka (1988: 352) has pointed out that in sentences like (19), a
partitive object may be taken by the verbs in the perfective aspect, whereas the
imperfective pit’ requires an accusative object.
(19) a. On vypil moloka
he drank-up: milk:
‘He drank some milk.’
b. On pil moloko (*moloka)
he drank: milk: (milk:)
‘He was drinking milk.’
That is undeniably true since pit’ ‘drink:’ can never be used as a trivial
counterpart of vypit’ ‘drink up:’. Consider, however, the imperfective verb
vypivat’ which is a trivial correlate of vypit’ and forms an aspectual pair with it.
One expects that it can collocate with a partitive object (since the collocational
properties of the two members of the same aspectual pair should be the same),
and that is indeed the case. See (20):
(20) Na drugoj den’ Vasilij Pankov vypivaet kon:jaku na

on other day Vassily Pankov drinks-up: some-cognac on
kakoj-to stancii
some station
i vozvraščaetsja v vagon veselyj
and returns: in car: cheerful
‘The next day, Vassily Pankov drinks [praesens historicum] a little
cognac at some station and returns to his car in good spirits’ (Yu.
Kazakov, Easy Life)
The triplet est’ — s”est’ — s”edat’ (‘eat: — eat up: — eat up:’)
has only partial resemblance with the one just discussed (pit’ — vypit’ —
vypivat’). The verbs s”est’ and s”edat’ form a genuine aspectual pair with a
causative meaning: ‘by eating X cause X to no longer exist’. Exactly like
vypit’/vypivat’, the pair in question belongs not to the class of accomplishments,
but rather to achievements: s”edat’ can normally have only the trivial readings
of imperfective verbs, i.e. refer to the event caused (in context of seriality, of
praesens historicum, etc.) and does not have any non-trivial readings (such as
e.g. activity). For this restriction we can identify a semantic motivation: one can
hardly imagine a person who would deliberately be engaged in the activity of
eating with the single goal to cause the object to no longer exist. However, this
very reading should have been expressed by the verb s”edat’, should it be
possible for it to refer to a process, or an activity (which is not the case).
The causative component in the semantics of the verbal pair s”est’ —
s”edat’ explains a number of idiosyncrasies that distinguish them from e.g.
English eat or French manger. Thus, (21a) is a warning not to eat even the
smallest part of pie; while (21b) reads as an order (or a request) to leave a part
of it uneaten:
(21) a. Ne eš’ pirog
not eat:. pie
‘Don’t eat (≈Don’t touch) the pie’
b. Ne s”edaj (ves’) pirog
not eat-up:. (all pie
‘Don’t eat up the whole pie’
In contrast to vypit’, the verb s”est’ cannot be used in combination with a
partitive object. So, (22) is hardly acceptable:
(22) ?On s”el kaši
he ate-up: some-porridge
Therefore, the French (23a) is to be translated into Russian as (23b) rather than
(23c) (as observed by J. Groën) notwithstanding the fact that usually the French
passé composé corresponds to Russian perfective verbs, and phrases with a
partitive article correspond to Russian phrases with “genitivus partitivus”:
(23) a. Qui a mangé du gateau?
b. Kto el pirog?
who ate: pie?
c. *Kto s‘el piroga?
who ate-up: some-pie?
It is now clear from what has been said why in the Russian folk-tale Kolobok
(“The little Round Bun”) the titular character, answering the Wolf’s threat to eat
him up (Kolobok, Kolobok, ja tebja s”em: ‘I shall eat you up’) with a request
not to do so, uses the imperfective verb est’ (24a) rather than the verb s”edat’
(24b), the imperfective correlate of s”est’ used by the Wolf:
(24) a. Ne eš’ menja, seryj volk
not eat:. me grey wolf
‘Don’t eat me, grey wolf’
b. Ne s”edaj menja, seryj volk
not eat-up:. me grey wolf
‘Don’t eat me up, grey wolf’
The fact is that (24b) could have been understood as an invitation: ‘eat me
partially, but don’t eat the whole of me’.
2.3 Some lexicographic implications
The observations made above force the conclusion that the corresponding
dictionary entries should contain information about the causative components of
verb semantics, the conditions of their use, the type of causation, etc. The fact
that dictionaries fail to give information of that kind is felt especially acutely
when constructions with the meaning of causation of inner states are being
described. To illustrate this point, we will cite only a small set of examples.
For the verb l’stit’ (‘flatter’) at least three types of use may be distin-
guished. Accordingly, the utterance Vy mne l’stite can have three kinds of
interpretation. The first of them reads: ‘to praise X insincerely with the goal to
please X and gain favor’. This interpretation is illustrated by an example cited in
the Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary of Modern Russian, or ECD (Mel’čuk
& Zholkovsky 1984: 412):
(25) Nu, doktor, vy mne l’stite — i pritom očen’ neumelo

well doctor you to-me flatter and furthermore very clumsily
‘You are flattering me, doctor, and furthermore rather clumsily’
It should be noted that even if we agree with the treatment of the example in
ECD, the interpretation of the utterance Vy mne l’stite given there is extremely
rare and depends heavily on the context. The markedness of this reading has a
semantic motivation: the speaker accuses his interlocutor of insincerity and self-
interested motives in a rather impolite way, assuming the right to judge the
interlocutor’s intentions. Another interpretation of the verb l’stit’ appears to be
more plausible in the utterance under consideration: ‘to pay compliments’, i.e. ‘to
praise X not quite sincerely with the goal of pleasing X’. As a consequence, the
reply cited above would no longer contain an accusation of self-interested
motives and the emphasis lies on the fact that the praise is exaggerated and is
made only with the purpose to please.
The most natural interpretation of the utterance discussed seems to be ‘to
show as more attractive than is actually the case’: vy mne l’stite means ‘What
you are saying does not fit the facts, showing me in a better light than is actually
the case’ and is a sort of figura modestiae. In this case causation of the corre-
sponding inner state of X (giving him pleasure) is beyond the subject’s intentions
and is uncontrollable by him.
Observe that none of the three interpretations of the verb l’stit’ mentioned
above tells us anything at all about whether the caused state is realised. Only in
case of the “fully uncontrollable interpretation” of l’stit’ (when the name of the
causing situation plays the role of the subject of a sentence) is the achievement-
sense included in the content of the verb:
(26) Vaše predloženie mne l’stit
your proposal to-me flatters
‘Your proposal gratifies my vanity and gives me pleasure’.
However almost every verb of the group of “causation of inner states” displays
a non-standard relation between the type of causation, controllability, other
semantic components and its aspectual behavior. Therefore an adequate lexico-
graphic description of verbs of that kind can be made only after a context-
sensitive analysis.
Let us mention in this connection the verb napominat’ “remind”, which has
been recently explored by V. Turovsky (1991). One can distinguish three
readings of this verb (1. “to cause to remember”; 2. “to say something to X with
the goal to make X remember”; 3. “to resemble”). In the last reading, the verb
belongs to the imperfectiva tantum, whereas in the first and the second readings,
the verb is an imperfective correlate of the perfective napomnit’. The first
reading corresponds to an unintentional causation, while the second reads as an
intentional causation (not to any kind of causation but rather causation by
speech). This latter peculiarity explains the possibility of performative use
(Napominaju, čto… ≈ ‘I hereby remind you that…’). Both in the first and in the
second senses the verb napominat’ refers to a successful causation of an inner
state; the sense of unsuccessful attempt to bring about an inner state is impossi-
ble for it.
A complete description of Russian constructions with the reading of
causation of inner states also requires lexicographic mention of a number of
other features, sometimes rather exotic. Let us mention a number of mental
predicates with the meaning of causation of inner states, used in the imperative
form in a quasi-performative way (Bulygina & Shmelev 1989: 35):
(27) Znaj, čto p
know: that p
‘I cause you to know that p’;
a more precise interpretation:
‘Thinking that you don’t know that p and wanting to stress that p is
not unimportant to you, I tell you: p’
(28) Pojmi, čto p
understand: that p
‘I cause you to understand that p’;
a more precise interpretation:
‘Thinking that p may influence your behavior or views and seeing
that you don’t know that p or undervalue p, I tell you in an insistent
way: p’
(29) Vspomni, čto p
remember: that p
‘I remind you that p’ ≈ ‘I cause you to remember that p’
One of the important characteristics of (27–29) is a constraint extended to the
social roles of interlocutors: most of those constructions cannot be used “from an
inferior to a superior”. Since the property of imperative forms being used as
described above does not characterize every mental verb, the corresponding
information should be inserted into the lexicon.
Distinctions necessary for an adequate description of the complicated
interrelations between controllability/uncontrollability of the caused situation, the
aspect-form of the verb in question, the type of the causing situation, etc. should
be stated in the dictionary as well. Those interrelations are partly illustrated by
the contrast between the utterances (30a) and (30b):
(30) a. Ja bojus’ budit’ otca
I fear to-wake: father:
‘I am afraid to wake my father up’
b. Ja bojus’ razbudit’ otca
I fear to-wake: father:
‘I am afraid of waking my father up’
Each of these two utterances presupposes two causations at once: causation of
the situation ‘Father is awake’ and causation of the speaker’s inner state ex-
pressed by the verb bojus’ (‘I am afraid’) (the “causer” of the state is the very
thought about a possible perspective “budit’/razbudit’ otca”). An adequate
description of the relation between the two utterances should be based on lexico-
graphic interpretation of both the verb bojat’sja and the verb budit’/razbudit’.
There are quite a few aspects of use of causative constructions in Russian,
directly connected with lexicographic idiosyncrasies of specific verbs. Thus, in the
case of “indirect causation” (Comrie 1985: 335; Wierzbicka 1988: 248–249) some
causative verbs can be used freely, while other causative verbs cannot. Thus, the
verb ubit’ ‘to kill’ is used in the following fragment from Chekhov’s The Miscre-
ant despite the fact that the causation of the derailment (should the event have
actually happened) would have been indirect or unintentional. The investigator
says (31) to a man who had unscrewed one of the nuts with which the rails were
affixed to the sleepers — and the answer of the man who tries to justify himself
by reference to the unintentional character of his action (32) is felt inadequate:
(31) …Poezd mog sojti s rel’sov, ljudej by ubilo! Ty ljudej by ubil!
‘…A train could have run off the rails and people would have been
killed! You would have killed people!’
(32) …vek svoj prožili i ne tokmo čto ubivat’, no i myslej takix v golove
ne bylo
‘I’ve lived my whole life without killing anybody or without such
thoughts ever entering my mind’
Yet if a person had left a cup on the edge of a table, and it fell down and got
broken, this would not be described as (33):
(33) On razbil čašku
he broke: cup
‘He broke the cup’
Also, the semi-agentive constructions (most of them include the semantic

component of “indirect causation”) deserve mention:
(34) a. postrigsja
‘(he) had his hair cut’
b. zapisalsja v biblioteku
‘had subscribed to a library’
c. obvenčalsja
‘got married’
d. sšil sebe kostjum
‘had a suit made’
e. sdelal operaciju
‘went through an operation’
f. leg v bol’nicu
‘went to hospital’
Here the subject takes the initiative causing other people do some work for him
or her. If, say, a baby’s hair was cut or he or she was taken to hospital, one
could not describe the situation as (35) (Bulygina 1980: 335):
(35) a. ?Rebenok postrigsja
b. ?Rebenok leg v bol’nicu
This constraint seems to be semantically motivated. There are some other verbs,
however, which are used in similar constructions despite an apparent absence of
intentionality; consider: sest’ (v tjur’mu) [‘go to jail’] and osvobodit’sja (iz
tjur’my) [‘discharge oneself’]. The possibilities and the restrictions of use of at
least some verbs in constructions of that kind seem to be lexical properties.
One should not conclude that all the individual properties of concrete
causative verbs are irregular. Most of them, as observed above, are semantically
motivated. Even those peculiarities that have not yet found a natural explanation
may find it in the future. But to be explained, those peculiarities need to be
thoroughly explored.
Acknowledgments
A preliminary version of this paper was originally presented and discussed at a seminar organised by
Ju.D. Apresjan in May 1992. We would like to express our gratitude to the participants of the
seminar and particularly to Ju.D. Apresjan and E.V. Padučeva.
Notes
1. We are guided by the approach to the causal link developed in Nedjalkov & Sil’nickij (1969).
According to this view, the causal relation holds between two situations, the causing and the
caused.
2. We use the term trivial to mean absolutely regular, inherent in every aspectual pair (Bulygina
& Shmelev 1989).
3. We use the term non-trivial to mean ‘specific to certain types of verbs’.
4. Observe that the difference in question does not coincide with the difference between sentences
with human and non-human subjects. Consider unintentionality as expressed in the following
example with a human subject:
(5) Krasota-to ved’ pogibel’ naša! Sebja pogubiš’, ljudej
beauty you-see ruin: our self: will-ruin:: people:
soblazniš’ (A. Ostrovsky)
will-seduce::
‘Beauty, you see, is the ruin of us! You will ruin yourself, you will tempt other people’
5. Metaphorical senses (such as in Ego sžigala strast’ ‘He burned with passion’) are ignored.
6. Recall that we use the term trivial to mean regular (see above).
References
Bulygina, Tat’jana V. 1980. “Grammatičeskie i semantičeskie kategorii i ix svjazi”

[Grammatical and semantic categories and their relations]. Aspekty semantičeskix
issledovanij ed. by Nina D. Arutjunova and A.A. Ufimceva, 320–355. Moscow:
Nauka.
Bulygina, Tat’jana V. 1982. “K postroeniju tipologii predikatov v russkom jazyke”
[Toward the derivation of a typology of the Russian predicates]. Semantičeskie tipy
predikatov ed. by O.N. Seliverstova, 7–85. Moscow: Nauka.
Bulygina, Tat’jana V. and Aleksej D. Šmelev. 1989. “Mental’nye predikaty v aspekte
aspektologii” [Mental predicates (aspectological aspects)]. Logičeskij analiz jazyka:
Problemy intensional’nyx i pragmatičeskix kontekstov ed. by Nina D. Arutjunova,
31–54. Moscow: Nauka.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. “Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology”.
Language typology and syntactic description ed. by Timothy Shopen, 3. 309–348.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evgen’eva, A.P., ed. 1981. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. [Dictionary of Russian]. Vol. 1.
Moscow: Nauka.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. and Aleksandr K. Zholkovsky, eds. 1984. Explanatory Combinatorial
Dictionary of Modern Russian. Semantico-Syntactic Studies of Russian Vocabulary.
(= Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 14). Vienna.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. and Georgij G. Sil’nickij. 1969. “Tipologija kauzativnyx konstruk-

cij” [Typology of the causative constructions]. Tipologija kauzativnyx konstrukcij.
Morfologičeskij kauzativ ed. by A.A. Xolodovič, 5–19. Leningrad: Nauka.
Turovskij, Vladimir V. 1991. “Pamjat’ v naivnoj kartine mira: zabyt’, vspomnit’, pomnit’”
[Memory in the naive world model: forget, recall, remember]. Logičeskij analiz
jazyka. Kul’turnye koncepty ed. by N.D. Arutjunova. Moscow: Nauka.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
P 
The trade-off between aspect and tense

as typological parameters
Some notes on the Georgian resultative
Winfried Boeder
University of Oldenburg
Abstract
In addition to what is known as a ‘perfect tense’ (with evidential and other

meanings), Modern Georgian has resultative constructions with to be and to
have plus ‘passive’ past participle, which, in spite of their constructional
similarity and functional overlap, differ from “Standard European” perfect
constructions. This paper singles out ‘possessive resultatives’, which were
recognized by V. Nedjalkov as a core group occurring in many languages.
These Georgian core group resultatives (of the type: s/he has her/his mouth
opened) are shown to be related to participial compounds that incorporate their
subject or direct object (as in (literally): mouth-opened dragon in the sense of:
‘a dragon who has his mouth opened’). Some semantic and formal restrictions
on this formation are discussed, and it is suggested that they may have served
as a basis for the historical development of resultative constructions.
1. Introduction
Reading the St. Petersburg “encyclopedia” of resultatives (Nedjalkov (ed.) 1988)

one cannot help being impressed by the amazing wealth of insights offered by
Vladimir Nedjalkov and his colleagues, and many questions and classifications
based on systematic data collection and sound knowledge of the languages
involved can be used as guide-lines for future research. The following notes try
to supplement Maia Mač’avariani’s description of Georgian resultatives (1988)
with a few tentative observations that a non-native speaker might venture.1
The paper is organized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 discuss the main
properties of resultatives with “to be” and “to have”, respectively. From the latter
construction, “possessive resultatives” are singled out as a “core group” and
118 WINFRIED BOEDER
distinguished from its extensions (section 4). In section 5, the relation between
the Georgian resultative and the “European perfect” is considered, while section
6 investigates the relation between “core group” resultatives and incorporating
participial compounds. A final observation on the diachronic development of
resultative constructions terminates the paper.
2. Prerequisites
Grammars of Georgian usually concentrate on the rich system of its “synthetic”

verb forms with its many tenses, aspects, moods and diatheses. Some of these
forms that are relevant in the present context have to be distinguished from
resultatives: these are the “dynamic” synthetic passives as in (1), the stative
passives as in (2), and and the dynamic analytic passive as in (3):2
(1) i-c’er-eb-a
-write-thematic.suffix-
‘it is being written (present)’
(2) s-c’er-i-a
-write--
‘it is written (present state)’
(3) da-c’er-il-i i-kn-a
-write-- -do-
‘it was/became written (aorist)’
Resultatives, on the other hand, are analytic forms with “to be” and “to have”
plus passive perfect participle (PP):
(4) a. našrom-i da-c’er-il-i aris / da-c’er-il-i-a
work- -write-- it.is / -write---it.is
‘the work has been written’
b. ma-s našrom-i da-c’er-il-i akvs
s/he- work- -write-- s/he.has.it
‘s/he has written it’
Before I concentrate on the analytic forms with “to have” + PP (type b), a few
words on “to be” + PP (type a) are in order. Consider:
(5) aravin gagvigos k’ia da es alvis xe gvelis t’q’avze-a amosuli (G 38)
‘but nobody shall understand that this aloe-tree has (“is”) grown on
a snake’s skin’
SOME NOTES ON THE GEORGIAN RESULTATIVE 119
(6) kmris tavi Šmas moeba da Šmisa kmars […] imis coli ikneba, vis
t’anzedac kmris tavi-a mibmuli (G 63)
‘The husband’s head was attached (synthetic form with “dynamic”
meaning) to (his) brother and (his) brother’s head to her husband
[…] She will be the wife of him on whose body the husband’s head
is attached (resultative).’
(7) q’vela igrŠino mašinve rom ragac šemc’vari iq’o šenaxuli (Bl 78)
‘Everybody noticed that something roasted was kept (preserved)
there.’
(8) švaze erti boŠi iq’o dasobili (Bl 80)
‘In the middle a pillar was inserted.’
(9) tetrs Šuas gaxsni, tetri t’anisamosit, iaragit da cxenit iknebi gamo-
c’q’obili (Bl 122)
‘The moment you detach the white hair, you will be arrayed in white
clothes, a weapon, and a horse.’
(10) Zurabis da gač’orili-a
‘Zurab’s sister is being gossiped about.’
(Harris 1981: 115 (28e); her translation; lit.: ‘… gossiped-is’)
This type of resultative seems to occur with agent phrases (with the postposition
mier) and other phrases appropriate for “dynamic” verb forms if the correspond-
ing “source”, “direction” etc. is still of current relevance. A sentence like:
(11) bavšvi dak’benilia Šaglis mier
‘The child is bitten by the dog’
(Harris 1981: 102 (2b); her translation)
is considered as rather artificial and stilted (“administrative style”) by some
Georgians — but is perhaps appropriate in an expertise: “The child is the victim
of a dog-bite” (i.e. the bite is such that it must be that of a dog). — Similarly:
(12) es kvebi gadaq’rilia panŠ¦ridan
‘These stones were thrown from the window.’
(Harris 1981: 104 (4b); her translation; lit.: ‘… are thrown …’)
could be used by a detective: “These stones have obviously been thrown from
the window.”
(13) c’erili mic’erilia Šmistvis
‘The letter is written to his/my brother.’
(Harris 1981: 110 (18a); her translation)
120 WINFRIED BOEDER
means that the letter is addressed to my/his brother. In:

(14) axali šarvali šek’erilia šentvis
‘New trousers are made for you.’
(Harris 1981: 116 (29); her translation)
the result still preserves the act of producing it, and it is of current interest for the
destinee, e.g. in a context like: “There are two trousers, one is for you”, while in:
(15) vašli micemulia masc’avleblistvis
‘The apple is given to the teacher.’
(Harris 1981: 102 (1b); her translation)
the result normally does not preserve a trace of the act of giving, and (15) seems
to be less acceptable than (13)–(14). Time adverbials can refer to “the moment
at which a property is observed” (Mač’avariani 1983: 134; 1988: 262):
(16) k’ari dilit daxuruli iq’o ‘Dver’ utrom byla zakryta.’
(Mač’avariani 1983: 134);
‘In the morning the door was closed.’
(Mač’avariani 1988: 262).
But they may also be used to categorize a result (Rezo K’ik’naŠe):
(17) es p’rograma 1918 c’els Leninis mier aris šemušavebuli
‘This program was (‘is’) worked out by Lenin in 1918.’
This means that it is Lenin’s program and that it is the one of 1918 (contrasting
e.g. with another program proposed in a different year).3 The following sentence,
however, seems to exclude both meanings of time adverbials in resultative
clauses, and is unacceptable for some speakers:4
(18) Šagli axlaxan aris daxat’uli mamis mier
‘Sobaka nedavno otcom narisovana.’ (Mač’avariani 1983: 135);
‘The dog has recently been drawn by father.’ (Mač’avariani 1988: 264).
These resultatives with “to be”, then, require a persistence of the underlying
event’s result in the subject and the current relevance or categorizing quality of
the other constituents.
3. Constructions with “to have”
Turning now to the construction with “to have” + PP (type b), first consider the
properties of “to have” in Georgian.5 The Georgian verbs for “to have” are
suppletive variants of “to be”, differing from the latter in that they have an
additional “possessor” argument which is coded as a dative noun phrase (i.e. like
an indirect object), the “possessum” argument being coded as a nominative noun
phrase.6 In ŠaniŠe’s (1973: 295, §365) terms, “to have” supplies the “relative
form” of the verb “to be” (i.e. the form with an object). Otherwise “to have”
behaves like “to be” in that it has a nominal predicate construction:
(19) a. tvalebi aris cisperi
eyes is blue
‘(his/her) eyes are blue’
b. coli aris č’k’viani
wife is clever
‘(his) wife is clever’
(20) a. tvalebi akvs cisperi
eyes s/he.has.them blue
‘his/her eyes are blue’
b. coli hq’avs č’k’viani
wife s/he.has.her clever
‘his wife is clever’
(21) a. rogora xar?
‘How are.you?’
b. rogora gq’avs oŠ¦axi?
how you.have.it family
‘How is your family?’
(22) am xnis ganmavlobaši Ninoc mouvleli mq’avda (MD 5/1/79)
‘During that time I couldn’t take care of Nino, too.’
(lit. ‘I had Nino uncared for’)
A possible translation of “to have” in English is a corresponding possessive
pronoun with the “possessed” argument: (20a) ‘her eyes are blue’ (but French:
elle a les yeux bleus), (20b) ‘his wife is intelligent’, (21)b. ‘how is your family’.
Even ‘my Nino’ may be appropriate in (22) (similar to colloquial our Jimmy for
a family member), but the dative subject of “to have” in (21)–(22) is not
primarily a possessor but an experiencer or beneficiary who is somehow affected
by the state of affairs expressed by the clause. As we will see, most, but not all,
subjects of “to have” are systematically related to dative indirect objects.
122 WINFRIED BOEDER
Constructions with “to be” + PP are related to “to have” + PP as (19a) and
(b) are related to (20a) and (b), i.e. “to be” + PP has a paradigmatically complete
counterpart “to have” + PP:
(23) tu xelebi daxetkili gakvt, daibanet q’avis nalekit (from a calendar,
3/6/1982)
‘If you have cracked hands, wash them with coffee-grounds.’ (lit.:
‘if hands cracked (PP) you.have.them …’) (present)
(24) mivige tkveni bolo barati, saertod, tkveni q’vela barati, c’igni da
amanati migebuli makvs (MD 10/7/80)
‘I (have) received (aorist) your last letter, in general, I have received
(PP) all your letters, the book and the parcel.’ (present)
(25) mic’uri saxlebi iq’ven. mic’aši iq’o čadgmuli. zeidan erdo konda,
mic’a konda c’aq’rili (I 90)
‘These were houses made of earth. They were set into the earth.
From above, they had a flat roof, and were covered with earth.’ (lit.:
‘earth they.had.it thrown.on’) (imperfect)
(26) mic’uri saxli iq’o gat’ixruli […] sakonels konda gak’etebuli bagai
(I 90)
‘The earth house was partitioned (PP) […] there was a manger made
for the cattle.’ (lit.: ‘the cattle had made a manger’) (imperfect)
(27) an pexebi ekneba damt’vreuli da an mxrebio (G 59)
‘[He thought:] Probably either its (sc. the goose’s) feet are broken or
its shoulders.’ (lit.: ‘or feet it.will.have.them broken (PP) or …’)
(future)
(28) axla agar č’amso. imas šeč’muli erti t’aroc ar ekneba (I 77–78)
‘Now it (sc. the bear) will not eat it (sc. the maize) any more, they
say. It probably hasn’t eaten even one cob.’ (lit.: ‘… it eaten one
cob.too not it.will.have.it’) (future)
(29) amastan čartuli unda gvkondes t’oršeri (medical advice from a
calendar, 17/8/83)
‘In doing this (sc. watching television), we must have a torch
switched on (PP).’ (present subjunctive)
(30) martlis mtkmels cxeni šek’azmuli unda q’avdeso (proverb)
‘The teller of (the) truth must have (his/a) horse saddled (PP).’
(present subjunctive)
(31) arc me mkonia guli mattan mindobili (Ilia Č’avč’avaŠe apud Imn
204)
‘Nor have I poured out my heart to them.’ (lit.: ‘nor I.have.had.it
heart at.them entrusted’) (perfect)
For the rest of this paper I will concentrate on this construction. Following
Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988), I call it “possessive resultative”.
4. Possessive resultatives
It is one of Vladimir Nedjalkov’s merits to have provided for us a list of concepts

that make up the universal, semantically homogeneous core group of possessive
resultatives (Nedjalkov & Jaxontov 1988: 23) and which are exemplified below:
1) verbs meaning ‘to take’, ‘to receive’, ‘to lose’ (see (24) and (32)–(34));
2) verbs meaning ‘to put on (clothes)’ (see (35)–(36));
3) verbs describing motion of body parts, cf. to lower one’s head, to open
one’s mouth (see (37)b.);
4) verbs […] describing actions upon body parts by the agent, cf. to break
one’s leg (see (23) and (27));
5) verbs of “self-attaching”, cf. to surround, to follow (sb) ((38));
6) verbs meaning ‘to eat’, ‘to drink’ (see (28) and (39));
7) verbs of the type to see, to learn, to study (sth), etc. (see (40)–(42));
8) verbal collocations to perform (a deed), to make (a mistake), to win (a
victory), etc. (I have no material illustrating this group.)
(32) a. iq’o gamočenili sazogado mogvac’e. minič’ebuli hkonda mecnier-
ebis damsaxurebuli mogvac’is c’odeba.
b. daŠ¦ildoebuli iq’o mravali ordenita da medlit. (biographical note
from a calendar, 22/5/1982)
‘He was a distinguished social activist. The title of an activist of
merit in the sciences was/had been bestowed on him (lit. ‘bestowed
he.had.it of.science merited activist’s title’). He was/had been
rewarded (PP) with many orders and medals.’
(33) amat exla davic’q’ebuli hkondat tavianti varami (Šio Aragvisp’irveli
apud Imn 204)
‘They had forgotten (PP) now their misery.’
124 WINFRIED BOEDER
(34) šen rom cixeši damc’q’vdeuli Q’aramani gq’avda, is me gaušvio

(Bl 118)
‘Qaramani (a hero), who you had locked up (PP) in your fortress, I
have freed (aorist), he said.’
(35) erti moxuci kali zis dids ormoši, rumelsac tavi daxuruli akvs (Bl 24)
‘an old woman is sitting in a big pit, the opening of which is
covered.’ (lit.: ‘… which head covered (PP) it.has.it’)
(36) [ŠiŠias] zeidan c’amogdebuli hkonda šali (Aleksandre Q’azbegi apud
Imn 204)
‘Dzidzia had put on a shawl from above.’ (lit.: ‘… put.on she.
had.it’)
(37) a. mok’led šek’reč’ili tma mtlad gač’agaravebuli akvs …,
b. tvalebi daxuč’uli akvs (Ek’at’erine Gabašvili apud Imn 204)
‘His short-cut hair had completely turned grey … his eyes were
closed.’ (lit.: ‘… he.had.it turned.grey … he.had.them closed’)
(38) sasaplaos kvis lamazi q’ore akvs šemovlebuli (RK)
‘the churchyard has a beautiful mound of stones around it.’ (lit.:
‘…it.has.it surrounded’)
(39) erts droši is c’amali imasac daleuli hkonda […] radganac met’i
c’amali dalia (Bl 70)
‘Once, he too drank/had drunk (PP) that medicine. [Therefore he
considered himself strong, but the other king was twice as strong]
because he drank/had drunk (aorist) more medicine.’
(40) čems p’at’araobaši bevri ram mkonda gagonili am cixis šesaxeb (Šio
Aragvisp’irveli apud Imn 204–5)
‘In my childhood, I had heard (PP) much about this fortress.’
(41) kveq’nierebis avk’argi, ueč’velia, gacnobili geknebat (Soprom
Mgaloblišvili apud Imn 205)
‘You will, no doubt, have got acquainted (PP) with the good and
bad things of the world.’
(42) zapxulis gegmac ara makvs xeirianad mopikrebuli (VG 7/4/79)
‘I haven’t properly made a plan for the summer, either.’ (lit.: ‘…
I.have.it properly thought.out’)
(43) rodesac “Vepxist’q’aosnis” musik’as vc’erdi […] c’armodgenili
mkonda adamiani da samq’aro (Samšoblo 26/12/1987)
‘When I wrote (imperfect) the music for “Vepkhistqaosani”, I had
man and the world before me.’ (lit.: … had represented.to.me …’)
These possessive resultatives denote a contact with the “affected” subject of “to
have” (or a reversal of this contact, as with “to lose”), or even “incorporation”
in a literal or metaphorical sense (as in subgroup 6) and 7)). The subgroups are
of course semantically related to each other: 2) is a kind of attaching related to
5), 7) is a mental counterpart of 6), and 3) is an internal counterpart of 4) with
its external effects upon body parts. Notice, however, that the assignment e.g. to
group 4) is often undecidable: without a context, you cannot tell if the goose in
(27) broke her feet or if somebody else injured it. In subgroup 1), on the other
hand, the subject of “to have” is not an agent. Subgroup 1) also has a converse
variant with verbs like “to bestow” (32). Similarly, a subgroup may have
intransitive converses: e.g. (48) below is related to 1).
However, there are possessive resultatives that do not fit neatly into the
semantic subgroups of V.P. Nedjalkov and S.E. Jaxontov, and which we consider
as “extensions” of the core group.
Firstly, there are cases in which the object of “to have” is not in “contact”
with its subject, but only belongs to it or simply falls into its “sphere of interest”.
Let us call these examples the “sphere of interest group”:
(44) txa txilnarši mq’avs dasak’lavad dabmuli (Demna Šengelia apud Imn
205) ‘I have a goat fastened in the hazel-wood ready for slaughter.’
(‘… I.have.it for.killing fastened (PP)’)
(45) xrmlisa nat’exi dasvrili akvs, sisxli čamosdioda (Rustaveli: Vepxis-
t’q’aosani 591(593),3) ‘His sword was broken and soiled, blood
flowed down.’ (transl. M. Wardrop) (lit.: ‘sword’s broken.piece
soiled he.has.it …’)
(46) semest’ri […] amŠ¦erad aračveulebrivad dat’virtuli makvs (RQ 2/8/83)
‘this time my semester is burdened more than usual’ (lit.: ‘…
burdened I.have.it’)
We will certainly be inclined to consider the goat and the sword as a possession
of the subject of “to have”, and this is the normal interpretation with body parts
(as e.g. in (37)). But in examples like (29)–(30), it is not necessarily your own
horse or your own lamp that is ready for you. (Compare (25)–(26), (39), (41)
etc., where the concept of possession is doubtful, to say the least.) What we do
have, however, is an extension of the core group where the subject of “to have”
is a beneficiary or experiencer.
Second, there are other examples where both the contact and the beneficiary
or possessive meaning is more or less absent, and which thus form a further
extension. Let us call these examples the “non-possessive group”:
126 WINFRIED BOEDER
(47) gadac’q’vet’ili gvakvs čvenc čamovidet (DV-G 14/4/78)

‘We have decided to come down, too.’
(48) c’q’evsebsa q’andat mouravi c’akceuli (I 84)
‘The herdsmen had thrown down the mouravi (feudal steward).’ (lit.:
‘… they.had.him mouravi thrown.down’)
(49) c’liuri tema ar mkonda dac’erili (MD 18/12/80)
‘I had not (yet) written my annual research paper.’ (lit.: ‘… not
I.had.it written’)
(50) tkven k’argad gakvt gamok’vetili […] q’vela p’roblemat’uri mxare
(IM 9/5/79)
‘You have well elucidated every problematic aspect.’ (lit.: ‘…
you.have.it worked.out …’)
(51) sapost’o ganq’opilebaši mitxres rom q’velaperi gagzavnili gvakvso
(VG 7.4.79)
In the post-office department, they told me: “We have posted
everything”.’ (lit.: ‘… everything sent we.have.it, they said’)
(52) am bat’on-s eg ambav-i misul-i konda: ama da am k’acs kali ro
moq’ams… (I 80)
‘This news had come to the ears of this lord: when such and such
man will marry a wife…’ (lit.: ‘this lord- this() news-
come- () he.had.it: …’)
What the core group, the sphere of interest group and the non-possessive group
have in common, however, is a resultative meaning in the sense already de-
scribed for “to be” + PP; there is a visible state of affairs in (48): the feudal lord
is on the ground. In some examples, however, the existence of a resultant state
is less obvious in the object of “to have”: although the parcel is away in (51),7
“to send” is not a good example of a “terminative verb” with a resultant state of
its object (Nedjalkov — Jaxontov 1988: 5). On the other hand, the subject of “to
have” in (51), although far from contracting a current “contact” or possessive
relation with the object, is still currently involved in the result. It is not altogeth-
er clear to me what the difference between (51) and its event counterpart is:
(51’) q’velaperi gavgzavnet
‘we sent/ have sent (aorist) everything’
But (51) seems to imply a current responsibility of the subject of “to have”,8 a
current relevance of its agenthood which is not necessarily part of the meaning
of (51’). In addition, the subject of “to have” in all three groups seems to be
restricted in a way remotely reminiscent of the English perfect: even a third

person variant of (49) or (51) (‘s/he had written the paper’, ‘s/he has posted the
parcel’) can only be predicated of someone who is still alive at the reference
time or for whom the result somehow continues to be relevant. For example, the
fact of having staged an opera is a persistent feature of relevance for the director
— even after his death:9
(53) rogorc režisors, dadgmuli akvs Verdis “Aida” (from a biographical
note, 25 years after director’s death)
‘As a director, he has staged Verdi’s “Aida”.’
Does this mean that the Georgian possessive resultative has become a “perfect”10
of the common “European” type?
5. Resultative and “perfect”
One typical feature of the “European” perfect is a correspondence between the

subject of “to have” and the subject of the other forms of the same verb: in
English, the shepherds bears the same syntactic and semantic relation to the rest
of the clause in: the shepherds have thrown him down (cp. (48)) as in: the
shepherds threw him down. It is subject and agent in both clauses, and have
thrown and threw are parts of one and the same paradigm. So let us look at the
properties of the subject of “to have” in Georgian possessive resultative clauses.
In many examples, the subject of “to have” has an obvious beneficiary or
experiencer counterpart in the corresponding event clause, and this counterpart is
not the agent subject: There is no doubt in (26) that somebody else made the
manger for the cattle as a beneficiary. In other words, (26) corresponds to an
action clause with the beneficiary coded as an indirect object noun phrase:
(26’) sakonel-s baga-i ga-u-k’etes
cattle- manger- --they.made.it
‘they made a manger for the cattle’
Similarly, the subject of “to have” with intransitive resultatives has a non-agent,
non-subject counterpart in the corresponding event clause. Compare (52) with:
(52’) ambav-i mi-u-vid-a ma-s
news- --go-.(Aorist) he-
‘the news had come to his ears’.11
And again, (37) corresponds to:
128 WINFRIED BOEDER
(37a’) tma ga-u-č’aragda ma-s

hair() --it.turned.grey(Aorist) he-
‘his hair turned grey’ (lit.: ‘… turned grey to/for him’)
Most subjects of “to have” are beneficiaries, but it can bear other case roles, in
particular a types of locative:
(54) xula, romelsac zed hkonda modgmuli caltvala sasiminde (Ilia Č’av-
č’avaŠe: K’acia adamiani?)
‘a hut, which had a one-eyed maize-granary put on/against it’
All these beneficiaries/experiencers and locatives are coded as indirect objects in
Georgian (and are further specified by the “version vowels” u, i, a, e in the verb;
see Boeder 1968).
In other examples, the subject of “to have” can have an agent counterpart
in a corresponding event clause, if the agent is identical to a reflexive beneficiary
noun phrase; this is a possible, but by no means necessary, interpretation of (30):
either the teller of the truth saddled the horse for himself or somebody else did
it for him. Only the former interpretation fulfills the correspondence criterion.
Similarly, in (29) you simply can’t decide who lit the lamp, although it might
seem plausible that you did it for yourself, and it is probable in (45) that the
blood on the hero’s sword is a result of his own fighting. Out of context, it is
undecidable if somebody else broke the goose’s feet in (27). And (44) can mean
both that somebody fastened the goat for the speaker or that he did it for himself.
On the other hand there are examples, that meet the correspondence
criterion of the European perfect. Firstly, the semantic structure of “to receive”
in subgroup 1) requires a beneficiary subject, and indeed the subject of “to have”
has a beneficiary subject counterpart in the corresponding action clause (cp.
(24)). Second, the subject of “to have” has an agent subject counterpart in the
corresponding event clauses with verbs from the subgroups 2)-4) and 6)-7). But
while subjects of “to drink, eat, think out, devise” might be conceived of as
agents and experiencers at the same time, other examples allow no beneficia-
ry/experiencer interpretation: in a sense, the subject of “to have” is only an agent
in sentences like (49) and (51).
But notice that correspondence is not identity. It is not simply the beneficia-
ry or agent relation of the event clause itself that matters in resultative clauses.
As with the non-possessive resultatives we considered in the first section, the
relational characteristics of the constituents of the resultative construction must
persist or at least be of current relevance: those who have received a letter, put
on their clothes, opened their mouth, broken their legs, are surrounded by
something, have a goat fastened for them, a semester burdened with duties etc.,
continue to have a beneficiary/experiencer relation of current relevance; and if
people say they have sent the letters, they are not at that moment agents of the
act of sending, but their agenthood seems to be of current relevance in an
example like (51).
Still, possessive resultatives show some overlap with what we might call the
“European perfect”. In particular, it shares its resultative and current relevance
meaning. Also, the subject of “to have” corresponds to an agent subject in some
examples (to write, to send…) or to an agent that is at the same time a beneficia-
ry or experiencer (to receive, drink, eat, get to know, forget…). But in many
cases, it does not necessarily correspond to the subject of its event clause
counterpart, and some verbs even require a non-subject beneficiary (to bestow,
to entrust, to go…).
6. Possessive compounds
In the classification given above we considered the core group established by

V.P. Nedjalkov and S.E. Jaxontov as an essentially universal concept. Let us
look now at some independent evidence for the “reality” of this concept in a
different part of Georgian grammar. Consider the following compound:
(55) a. sircxvil-dak’argul-
shame-lost-
‘(one) who has lost his/her shame’
b. ma-s sircxvil-i akvs dak’argul-i
s/he- shame- s/he.has.it lost-
‘s/he has lost his/her shame’
(55a) is a word; the bare stem sircxvil- contrasts with the nominative noun
phrase sircxvil-i in clausal constructions like (55b). Constructions like (55a)
match the pattern of adjectival compounds like: p’ir-gia mouth-open ‘with open
mouth’, t’an-c’vrili body-thin ‘slim’, q’el-tetri neck-white ‘with a white neck’,
gul-tbili heart-warm ‘warmhearted’, gul-c’rpeli heart-sincere ‘sincere’ (ŠaniŠe
1973 §194). Broadly speaking, both formations have a possessive meaning
(heart-sincere = whose heart is sincere; shame-lost- = whose shame is lost),
although only the participial variety is called “possessive compound” by ŠaniŠe
(1973 §196). Compounds of this type have core group constructions with “to
have” + PP as their counterparts: (a) corresponds to (b) in (55). Below are some
additional examples ordered according to the core group subgroups:
130 WINFRIED BOEDER
1) (56) ¦Šildo-minič’ebuli mogvac’e

prize-bestowed activist
‘an activist who has been awarded a prize’ (cp. (32))
2) (57) axalux- da šalvar-čacmuli (Ilia Č’avč’avaŠe apud Š §196)
‘who has put on an Akhalukh (Caucasian coat) and trousers’
(58) tavsapar- uk’an- c’ak’ruli kal-is tav-i (Davit K’ldiašvili: “Saman.
dedin.” apud Š §196)
‘the head of a woman with a scarf fastened from behind’ (lit.:
‘head.kerchief-behind-fastened woman-Gen head-Nom’)
3) (59) p’ir-dagebuli vešap’i (G 31)
‘a dragon with a wide-open(ed) mouth’ (lit.: ‘mouth-opened dragon’)
(60) k’bileb-dak’reč’ili (Aleksandre Q’azbegi apud Š §196)
‘gnashing, showing one’s teeth’ (lit.: ‘teeth-gnashed’)
(61) mt’k’aveli — cer- da nek’-gašlili (Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani apud Š
§196)
‘with his/her span, thumb and little finger stretched’ (lit.: ‘span-
thumb- and little.finger-stretched’)
4) (62) q’ovelnive ertbamad ŠaŠa-štacumuli da nacar- tav-sa -gardasxmul
ikmnebodes (from the Old Georgian ms. Sinuri Mravaltavi 107,38
apud Š §196)
‘all together shall have put on sackcloth and sprinkled their heads
with ashes’ (lit.: ‘…sackcloth-put.on and ash- head- sprinkled
they.shall.become’)
(63) naxa rom misi gagzavnili mocikulebi tav-dač’rilebi iq’vnen šit (Bl 68)
‘he saw that the messengers he had sent were inside with their
throats cut’ (lit.: ‘… his sent messengers head-cut.off were inside’)
(64) naxa rom misi coli mt’irali zis tma-gac’ec’ili (Bl 68)
‘he saw his wife sitting there weeping and with dishevelled hair’
(lit.: ‘… hair-dishevelled’)
(65) zroxa rka-dagma-dadrek’ili (Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani apud Š §196)
‘a cow with horns curved downwards’
5) (66) vercxl-, t’q’via da sp’ilenŠ-narevi madani (Š §196)
‘ore mixed with silver, lead and copper’ (lit.: ‘silver-lead and
copper-mixed ore’)
(67) garšemo šav q’aitan-movlebuli (G. Sunduk’ianci: “P’ep’o” apud Š

§196)
‘encircled with black silk-lace’ (lit.: ‘around black silk.lace sur-
rounded’)
6) (68) Terg-daleuli (Š §196)
‘one who has drunk from the Terek (name of a group of intellectuals
who had studied in Russia)’ (lit.: ‘Terek-drunk’) (cp. (39))
All these compounds can be transformed into constructions in which the incorpo-
rated noun (or rather the nominal group: see (57)–(58), (61)–(62), (65)–(67),
(87)a.) becomes the nominative “object” of “to have”, and the head noun of the
attributive compound its dative “subject”.
There are some exceptions with lexicalized compounds. E.g. the compound:
(69) q’ur-moč’rili (Š §196)
‘ear-cut’
has a counterpart if used in a literal sense: q’uri moč’rili akvs ‘he has his/her
ear/s cut off, his/her ear/s is/are cut off’. But the normal meaning is metaphori-
cal: q’ur-moč’rili q’ma/mona ‘obedient servant/slave’, which has no counterpart:
monas q’uri moč’rili akvs in the sense of e.g. ‘the servant is obedient’. Idiomat-
icity could also be the reason why the following compounds have event clause
counterparts (b), but lack resultative clause counterparts (c):
(70) a. sul-gasuli
soul-gone.off
‘fainted’
b. sul-i c’a-u-vida
soul- --it.went.off
‘s/he fainted’
c. *suli c’asuli akvs
(71) a. tav-da-vic’q’ebuli
head--forgotten
‘enraptured’
b. tav-i da-i-vic’q’a
head- --s/he.forgot.it
‘s/he was carried away’
c. *tavi davic’q’ebuli akvs
What is more important, however, are the systematic gaps. Many details remain
132 WINFRIED BOEDER
to be established and theoretical implications must be omitted, but the following

constraints seem to be valid:
1) The referent of the incorporated noun must have the autonomy property
“independent existence” (Keenan 1976: 312–313), i.e. be independent of the
action expressed by the participle. The following compounds seem to be
ungrammatical because the incorporated noun is a resultant object:
(72) *gegma-mopikrebuli kali
‘plan-thought.out woman’ (cp. (42))
(73) *baga-gak’etebuli sakoneli
‘manger-made cattle’ (cp. (26))
Similarly,
(74) sk’ola-damtavrebuli gogo
school-finished girl
‘a girl who has finished school’ (subgroup 7)
is possible, but not:
(75) *našrom-damtavrebuli gogo
paper-finished girl
‘a girl who has finished her paper’ (cp. (49))
2) The counterpart of the incorporated noun is the subject of intransitive verb
forms or the direct object of transitive verb forms in the corresponding event
clause. As noted by ŠaniŠe (1973 §196, note 2),
(76) c’q’al-c’agebul-i (xavs-s eč’ideboda-o)
water-taken.away- (moss- he.clung.to.it-they.say)
‘the man taken away by the water clung to the moss’ (proverb)
is an exception.12
3) The head noun of the modifying possessive compound must always bear a
beneficiary/experiencer or a locative relational role. There are two subgroups:
a) The reflexive subgroup: the beneficiary etc. is at the same time an agent who
does something for or to him/herself: the action affects the agent’s body, clothes
etc. The following compound is an example from subgroup 3) of the core group:
the subject of its event counterpart in b. is an agent and experiencer at the same
time, i.e. the meaning is reflexive, although the verb form has no formal
exponent of reflexivity:
(77) a. xel-gašlili kali

hand-extended woman
‘a woman who has extended her hands’ (cp. (61))
b. kal-ma xel-eb-i gašala
woman- hand-- she.extended.them
‘the woman extended her hands’
Examples of this type belong to the core group, but some of its members from
subgroup 1) have no compound counterparts:
(78) a. *barat-migebuli megobari
letter-received friend
‘the friend who has received the/a letter’
b. megobar-ma barat-i miigo
friend- letter- he.received.it
‘the/a friend received the/a letter’
(79) *bevr-gagonili k’aci
much-heard man
‘a man who has heard much’ (cp. (40))
In these examples, the subjects of the event clause counterparts are not agents.
— Now compare the following ungrammatical compound with (71)a.:
(80) *varam-davic’q’ebuli gogo
‘misery-forgotten girl’ (cp. (33))
(71a) and (b) possibly contain an element of agentivity which is absent from
(33)/(80): ‘s/he let her/himself be carried away’.
b) The non-reflexive subgroup: the beneficiary etc. and the agent are not co-
referential; that is to say, the beneficiary is a non-reflexive indirect object. This is why
(56) ¦Šildo-minič’ebuli mogvac’e is possible, in contrast with its converse verb in
(78): the activist is an indirect object in (81), but the friend is a subject in (78b):
(81) ¦Šildo mi-a-nič’es ma-s
prize() --they.bestowed.it he-
‘they awarded him a prize’
Similarly, the head-noun corresponds to a beneficiary/experiencer indirect object in:
(82) švil-mok’luli deda
child-killed mother
‘a mother whose child was killed’
134 WINFRIED BOEDER
(83) švil-ganebivrebuli deda

child-spoiled mother
‘a mother whose (‘to/for whom’) child was spoiled’
(84) cxen-šek’azmuli k’aci
‘horse-saddled man’ (cp. (27))
These sentences have no reflexive reading: (82) cannot mean that the mother
killed her child, and in (83) it was not she who spoiled her child.
For locative indirect objects cp. (85a) and (b) with (54):
(85) a. sasiminde-modgmuli xula
maize.granary-put.on hut
‘a hut with a maize-granary leaning against it’
b. xula-s sasiminde mo-a-dges
hut- maize.granary() --they.put.it
‘they put the maize-granary on/against the hut’
For intransitives see (55) and:
(86) a. švil-gardacvlili
child-deceased
‘whose child has deceased’
b. švil-i garda-e-cvala ma-s
child- --he.deceased
‘the child deceased “to” her/him’
(87) a. tav-ze p’ap’-is cxvr-is t’q’av-is kud-čamopxat’uli
head-on grandfather- sheep- skin- hat-pulled.down
‘with his grandfather’s sheepskin hat slid down on his head’
(Ek’at’erine Gabašvili apud Š §196)
b. kud-i čamo-e-pxat’a
hat- --it.slid.down
‘his hat slid down’ (lit.: ‘the hat slid down “to” him’)
c) The following compounds are ungrammatical. Maybe the head noun has to be
interpreted not as a beneficiary but as an adressee:
(88) *ambav-misuli bat’oni
‘news-gone.to lord’ (cp. (52))
(89) *c’eril-gamogzavnili megobari
letter-sent friend (cp. 47)
(in the sense of ‘a friend to whom a/the letter was sent’)
The compounds considered so far all belong to the core group or the “sphere of
interest group”. The non-possessive group is different: the sentences (47)–(52)
have no possessive compound counterparts:
(90) *mourav-c’akceuli mc’q’emsebi
steward-thrown.down herdsmen (cp. (48))
(91) *c’ign-dac’erili p’ropesori
book-written professor
‘the professor who has written the book’ (cp. (49))
(92) *p’roblema-gamok’vetili mk’vlevari
problem-worked.out researcher
‘a researcher who has worked out the problem’ (cp. (50))
(93) *amanat-gagzavnili mosamsaxure
parcel-sent official
‘an official who has sent the parcel’ (cp. (51))
We conclude that participial possessive compounds correspond to a subset of the
possessive resultative constructions. As usual, lower-level word-formation is
more restricted than its clause level counterpart.
7. The genesis of possessive resultatives: a proposal
A comparison between possessive resultative clauses and participial possessive

compounds is instructive.
Firstly, it yields a semantically relevant classification:
a) Resultative constructions with a possessive compound counterpart correspond
to V.P. Nedjalkov’s core group plus my extension, the “sphere of interest group”
(as described in section 3). On the basis of the properties of the head noun
modified by the possessive compound (constraint 3) above) we get a further
subdivision: With some exceptions (subgroup 1) and 5): “to receive”…, “to
surround”…), the core group corresponds to the reflexive subgroup, while the
sphere of interest group corresponds to the non-reflexive subgroup.
b) Possessive resultative constructions without possessive counterparts are the
exceptions in group a) on the one hand and the non-possessive group on the other.
Second, we may speculate about the development of the resultative con-
structions.
Taking adjectival compounds of the type p’ir-gia open-mouth ‘with open
mouth’ as a point of departure, we may assume that participial possessive
136 WINFRIED BOEDER
compounds of the type p’ir-dagebuli mouth-opened ‘with opened mouth’ (cp.

(50)) from group a) were formed after their model. Both compounds have
resultative counterparts: p’ir-gia > p’iri gia aris ‘the mouth is open’ and p’iri gia
akvs ‘s/he has his/her mouth open’ have an analogon in: p’ir-dagebuli ‘mouth-
opened’ > p’iri dagebuli aris ‘his/her mouth is opened’ and p’iri dagebuli akvs
‘s/he has his/her mouth opened’. But how did the possessive resultative without
possessive compound counterpart arise?
One possible model of analogy are the reflexives in the core group, where
the benefactive etc. is at the same time an agent-subject. The moment the
benefactive case role is dropped as a constraint, the core group can serve as a
model for any agent-subject clause: man p’ir-i daago ‘s/he(Erg) mouth-Nom
s/he.opened.it’: ma-s p’iri dagebuli akvs ‘s/he has the mouth opened’ = man
mouravi c’aakcia ‘s/he threw down the steward’ (cp. (48)): X; X = ma-s mouravi
c’akceuli akvs ‘s/he has thrown down the steward’.
A second source of analogic extension could be the constructions that
syntactically belong to group b), but which semantically are converses of group
a) constructions. Such are the verbs of “receiving” etc., i.e. the exceptions
mentioned above (subgroup 1) of the core group; cp. (24)) which we grouped
together with their converses, the verbs of “giving” (cp. (32)–(34)), but which
contrast with the latter in allowing no compound counterpart (cp. (78a) vs. (56)).
If this analysis is correct, constructions like (24): “I have received your letters”
are formed after the semantic pattern of (32) “Prizes were bestowed on him”
(lit.: “He had prizes bestowed”). In both constructions, the subject of “to have”
is a benefactive, but only “to receive” has a subject counterpart in the corre-
sponding event clause. Disregarding the non-reflexivity constraint of the “sphere
of interest group”, “to receive” can be used in a resultative construction after the
model of “to give”.
The relevance of the core group in the discussion of two different forma-
tions of Georgian grammar lends additional support to V.P. Nedjalkov’s semantic
core group as a well-motivated universal concept.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my gratitude to Rezo Kiknadze (Lübeck/Tbilisi) for his generous and patient
assistence as a native speaker consultant. I have to say, however, that my observations do not do
justice to his subtle interpretations, and that he should not be held responsible for their misrepresenta-
tion, or for any mistake. — I am indebted to Robert McLaughlin for correcting the English of this
paper.
Abbreviations
Bl = Robert Bleichsteiner 1931; Dat = dative; Erg = ergative; EV = version vowel e; G = Aleksandre
Glont’i 1974; Gen = genitive; I = Grigol Imnaišvili 1974; Imn = Ivane Imnaišvili 1948; IO = indirect
object marker;  = nominative;  = neutral version vowel;  = objective version vowel;  =
participle marker;  = plural;  = paradigm marker;  = perfect participle;  = preverb;  =
Subject; Š = ŠaniŠe 1973;  = singular;  = subjective version vowel; 3 = 3rd person. Other
abbreviations are initials of letter writers.
Notes
1. Information on resultative constructions is rather scanty in grammars of Georgian; see ŠaniŠe

1973 §365; Basilaia 1974: 74–76; 85; Hewitt 1995: 501–502. Č’abašvili (1988), who offers
interesting examples of complex possessive compounds, came to my attention only after
completion of this article.
2. These forms supply dynamic passives where a synthetic form does not exist; see ŠaniŠe 1973
§365. In general, they have specific stylistic connotations; see GvinaŠe 1989: 106–140.
3. This sentence is modelled on: q’rilobaze miiges p’art’iis p’rograma, romelic Leninis mier iq’o
šemušavebuli ‘Na s”ezde prinjali programmu partii, kotoraja byla razrabotana Leninym.’
(Mač’avariani 1983: 139); ‘The congress adopted the party program which was worked out by
Lenin’ (Mač’avariani 1988: 270). This is a result already existing in the past, which gives it the
meaning of a specifically “remote past” (information received from Lamara GvaramaŠe,
Institute of Georgian Literature at the Academy of Sciences, Tbilisi).
4. Similarly, the following example is a problem: k’ari dilit daxuruli iq’o, magram ar vici, rodis
iq’o daxuruli [mat mier] ‘Dver’ utrom byla zakryta, no (ja) ne znaju kogda (ona) byla zakryta’;
Mač’avariani 1983: 134; ‘in the morning the door was closed, but I don’t know when it got
closed [by them]’ (Mač’avariani 1988: 262). While the first clause is impeccable for all
speakers, the second clause is not: iq’o daxuruli means ‘was closed’ and not: ‘got closed’. rodis
‘when’ cannot refer to “the moment at which a property is observed”, and a categorizing
reading is not possible, either.
5. Georgian has two verbs for “to have” which differ according to animacy of the possessed
argument (for more details see Boeder 1980): cisperi tvalebi akvs ‘s/he has blue eyes’ vs.
č’k’viani coli hq’avs ‘he has a clever wife’.
6. The “object” properties of the nominative noun phrase X and the “subject” properties of the
dative noun phrase Y in the Georgian equivalent of “X has Y” cannot be discussed here.
7. Being removed is sometimes categorized as a state. See the Homeric Greek perfect form in
ouÎdeÈ se […] mh̃tiV’ ’Odussh̃oV p oleÈloipen ‘(nor) has the skill of Ulysses left (you)’
(Wackernagel 1904: 5).
8. Compare this with Lohmann’s (1953: 193) comment on a dialogue in Aeschylus’ Eumenids
587–8: the choir of the Eumenids ask Orest: thÌn mhteÈr’ eiÎpeÌ prw̃ton eiÎ kateÈktonaV; (‘First
tell us if you have killed (perfect) your mother?’). Orest answers: eÑkteina. (‘I killed (aorist)
her.’). “Für die Eumeniden handelt es sich um ein “Urteil”: “du bist ein Mutter-Mörder” — Orest
aber entweicht in das rein faktische Ereignis, das er ja nicht leugnen kann: “ich tötete”.
“Allmählich tritt […] das Perfektum aus der Beschränkung auf die Verwendung für das objektiv
138 WINFRIED BOEDER
gegenwärtige Resultat (d.i. also ein SEIN des “Subjektes”: sie ist tot) heraus, und wird damit zur
Bezeichnung eines “konstatierenden” Urteils über ein Kausal-Verhältnis […]: DU HAST deine
Mutter getötet.”
9. One comment I got was: “His staging is immortal, there is something that survives (“contin-
ues”) (misi režisori uk’vdavia, ragac grŠeldeba)” (Valeri Gaprindašvili).
10. Georgian has a tense called “perfect”, but this tense mostly has an evidential meaning in
Modern Georgian, and cannot be discussed here.
11. Unlike (52’), many speakers find (52) somewhat awkward or unusual. It is taken from a dialect
text from Kartli.
12. ŠaniŠe explicitly adds that it does not mean: ‘who has taken away (the) water’. I wonder if this
compound would allow such an interpretation even if it conformed to the regular pattern.
References
Basilaia, Nik’andre. 1974. Šemasmeneli da šemasmenluri damok’idebuli c’inadadeba

Kartulši. Soxumi: Alašara.
Bleichsteiner, Robert. 1931. “Beiträge zur Sprach- und Volkskunde des georgischen
Stammes der Gurier”, Caucasica 7: 87–110; 9: 63–87.
Boeder, Winfried. 1968. “Über die Versionen des georgischen Verbs”, Folia Linguistica
2: 82–152.
Boeder, Winfried. 1980. “‘Haben’ in den Kartwelsprachen’, in: Gunter Brettschneider and
Christian Lehmann (eds.) Wege der Universalienforschung. Sprachwissenschaftliche
Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (= Tübinger Beiträge zur
Linguistik 145). Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 207–217.
Č’abašvili, Mixeil. 1988. “K’utvnilebiti k’omp’ozit’eb martlc’erisatvis”, Kartuli sit» q̇vis
k’ult’uris sak» itxebi 8: 93–105.
GvinaŠe, Tinatin. 1989. Kartuli zmnis vnebiti gvaris pormata st’ilist’ik’a (Sakartvelos SSR
Mecnierebata Ak’ademia, Enatmecnierebis Inst’it’ut’i). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
Glont’i, Aleksandre. 1974. Kartuli zgap’rebi. Šeadgina, šesavali da šenišvnebi daurto
Aleksandre Glont’ma Tbilisi: Ganatleba.
Harris, Alice C. 1981. Georgian Syntax. A study in relational grammar (= Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics 33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hewitt, Brian George. 1995. Georgian. A structural reference grammar (= London
Oriental and African Library 2). Amsterdam — Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Imnaišvili, Grigol. 1974. Kartluri dialekt’i II: T’ekst’ebi (Sakartvelos SSR Mecnierebata
Ak’ademia, Enatmecnierebis inst’it’ut’i). Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
Imnaišvili, Ivane. 1948. “Šedgenili šemasmeneli Kartulši”, A.S. P’ušk’nis saxelobis Tbilisis
saxelmc’ipo P’edagogiuri Inst’it’ut’is Šromebi 5: 187–215.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. “Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’”, in: Charles N. Li
(ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 303–333.
Lohmann, Johannes. 1953. “Gemeinitalisch und Uritalisch (Ein Beitrag zur sprachwissen-
schaftlichen Methodenlehre)”, Lexis 3,2: 169–217.
Mačavariani, Maja P. 1983. “Stativ, rezul’tativ, passiv i perfekt v gruzinskom jazyke”, in:
V.P. Nedjalkov (ed.) 1983: 133–142.
Mačavariani, Maja P. 1988. “Stative, resultative, passive, and perfect in Georgian”, in:
V.P. Nedjalkov (ed.) 1988: 259–275.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 1983: Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij (rezul’tativ, stativ,
passiv, perfekt). Leningrad: Nauka.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 1988: Typology of Resultative Constructions (= Typological
Studies in Language 12). Amsterdam — Philadelphia: Benjamins [translation of
Nedjalkov, V.P. (ed.) 1983].
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Je. Jaxontov. 1988. “The typology of resultative
constructions”, in: V.P. Nedjalkov (ed.) 1988: 3–62.
ŠaniŠe, Ak’ak’i. 1973. Kartuli enis gramat’ik’is sapuŠvlebi I: Morpologia. Meore gamo-
cema (= Txzulebani III; = Šveli Kartuli enis k’atedris šromebi 15). Tbilisi: Tbilisis
universit’et’is gamomcemloba.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1904. “Studien zum griechischen Perfectum”, in: Programm zur
akademischen Preisverteilung Göttingen 1904: 3–32 [= J.W.: Kleine Schriften.
Herausgegeben von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953, 1000–1021].
Preterites and imperfects
in the languages of Europe
Rolf Thieroff
Universität Bonn
Abstract
Whereas in the northern half of Europe there is only one past tense form (the
preterite), in the southern half there are two, an imperfective past or imperfect
and a perfective past or aorist. However, a closer look at the uses of imperfects
reveals that they are not only used with imperfective events, but that they
behave in many contexts like preterites, regardless of whether the event is
perfective or imperfective. Thus, whereas the aorist is indeed a perfective past,
I argue that the imperfect is the default past rather than an imperfective past.
After a brief (and necessarily incomplete) definition of the notions
preterite, imperfect and aorist in section 1 and a look at the verbal paradigms
of different European languages in section 2, the use of preterites and imper-
fects with non-past time reference is investigated in some detail (section 3). In
section 4, some peculiarities of the so-called “false past” are presented, in
section 5 I discuss the use of the imperfect with past time reference, and in
section 6 the findings are summarized.
1. On the notions Preterite, Imperfect, Aorist and Anterior
In the literature on tense and aspect, the difference between the preterite, on the
one hand, and the imperfect:aorist opposition, on the other hand, is often
demonstrated with the so-called “incidental scheme”. For example, Comrie
(1976: 3) gives the following sentences:
(1) a. French Jean lisait () quand j’entrai ().
Spanish Juan leía () cuando entré ().
142 ROLF THIEROFF
Italian Gianni leggeva () quando entrai ().

‘John was reading when I entered’
Comrie then explains the difference between the two forms as follows:
In each of these sentences, the first verb presents the background to some
event, while that event itself is introduced by the second verb. The second verb
presents the totality of the situation referred to (here, my entry) without
reference to its internal temporal constituency: the whole of the situation is
presented as a single unanalysable whole […]
The other forms, i.e. those referring to the situation of John’s reading, do
not present the situation in this way, but rather make explicit reference to the
internal temporal constituency of the situation. […] (Comrie 1976: 3f)
Comrie goes on to say that the first verbal forms have imperfective meaning,
while the second have perfective meaning. I shall call verb forms with perfective
past meaning such as entrai etc. aorists (), the others, like lisait etc. imper-
fects (). If we now compare the sentences in (1a) with the German transla-
tion in
(1) b. German Hans las (), als ich eintrat ().
we find that in German a formal difference between perfective and imperfective
past is not made — for both situations the same past form is used, which I call
preterite ().
It should be added that the incidental scheme is, as Comrie remarks in a
footnote, “a well established pedagogical technique for introducing the concept
of aspect in teaching individual languages with oppositions of this kind” (Comrie
1976: 3); but this scheme cannot explain every detail of that opposition. So if we
translate (1a/b) into English, we get
(1) c. English John was reading ( ) when I entered ().
where we have two different forms too. Nevertheless both was reading and
entered are preterites. One reason for the analysis of both forms as preterites is
the fact that the opposition progressive () vs. non-progressive is not
restricted to the past (as is the opposition  vs. ); another reason is the
fact that many languages with the : opposition have a progressive form
in addition to  and  (cf. French être en train de faire, Italian stare
facendo etc.).
In the “incidental scheme” the distinction between imperfective and
perfective situations is also made in the Slavic languages, as in
(1) d. Russian Ivan čital ( ), kogda ja vošel ( ).
PRETERITES AND IMPERFECTS 143
However, in these languages, too, the opposition perfective () vs. imperfect-
ive () is not restricted to past time reference. Consequently, the perfective
past in the Slavic languages does not belong to the cross-linguistic category ,
although, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that both  and the Slavic
perfective past are in fact forms denoting notional perfectivity. In comparing
perfective forms of 45 languages, Dahl (1985: 85) has shown
that the Slavic categories differ from the majority on several parameters, but
that on each separate parameter there are also other languages that behave like
the Slavic. Furthermore, the correlations between the Slavic categories and the
hypothesized distribution of  [i.e. our ] are still fairly high; in particu-
lar, if we compare the past tenses of the Slavic Perfectives, we obtain very
high correlations.
Furthermore, the East and West Slavic languages belong to a group of languages
lacking the category anterior (), commonly called perfect.1 For these reasons,
the Slavic languages are not taken into consideration in the present paper.
On the basis of the tense forms used to refer to situations in the past and/or
to anterior situations, the languages of Europe can be divided into three groups,
which form three coherent areas: 1) languages with the opposition :, 2)
languages with the oppositions ::, and 3) languages with neither of
these oppositions.2
Table 1. The sample
Alb Albanian Fin Finnish Pol Polish
Arm Armenian Fr French Prt Portuguese
Blg Bulgarian NFrs North Frisian Rum Rumanian
Blr Belorussian Grk Greek Rus Russian
Ctl Catalan Grm Standard German SGrm Southern German
Cz Czech Hng Hungarian Slve Slovene
Dan Danish Ice Icelandic Spn Spanish
Dut Dutch It Italian Swd Swedish
Eng English LSrb Lower Sorbian Ukr Ukrainian
Est Estonian Nor Norwegian Yid Yiddish
From a sample of thirty European languages, listed in table 1, ten languages

belong to each area, as shown on map 1.
144 ROLF THIEROFF
ANT:PRET ANT:AOR:IMPF
Map 1. Three past-areas

In the following I discuss only the languages of the two areas with the :
opposition (henceforth called “preterite languages”) and the ::
oppositions (henceforth “imperfect languages”). In the examples, the abbrevia-
tions of languages in table 1 will be used.
2. Verbal paradigms of Preterite and Imperfect languages
If we compare again
(1) a. Fr Jean lisait () quand j’entrai ().
and
(1) b. Grm Hans las (), als ich eintrat ().
we find that both (1a) and (1b) have the same meaning. In both sentences John’s
reading is (notionally) imperfective and the speaker’s entering is (notionally)
perfective, but only in (1a) is the verb marked for (im)perfectivity, whereas in
(1b) the same form is used for both the perfective and the imperfective event. If
we consider the behaviour of the forms only in this incidental scheme,  and
 seem to be two equal categories, with  being an equivalent of an
imperfective preterite and  being the equivalent of a perfective preterite.
However, in many descriptions of imperfect languages, the forms which I
call aorist are referred to as “preterite”. For example, in contributions to Har-
ris/Vincent (eds.) (1988) the Spanish aorist is called “preterite” (Green 1988:
98ff), as are the aorists in Portuguese (Parkinson 1988: 153ff), in French (Harris
1988: 224f) and in Italian (Vincent 1988: 293ff). In other words, many authors
regard the Romance aorist as the proper equivalent of the (Germanic) preterite,
whereas the imperfect is conceptualized as an additional form. In contrast to this
view, I shall attempt to show that it is rather the imperfect which on the whole
corresponds to the preterite, while the aorist is in a sense an “extra” form in the
imperfect languages.
Table 2. Verbal paradigms of preterite languages3
− 
−  − 
Eng − sings will sing sang would sing
Ice kallar mun kalla kallaði mundi kalla
Swd köper skall köpa köpte skulle köpa
Nor kjøper skal kjøpe kjøpte skulle kjøpe
Dan taler vil tale talte ville tale
Dut vertrekt zal vertrekken vertrok zou vertrekken
Grm singt wird singen sang würde singen
Fin vetää tulee vetämään veti tuli vetämään
Eng  has sung will have sung had sung would have sung
Ice hefur kallað mun hafa kallað hafði kallað mundi hafa kallað
Swd har köpt skall ha köpt hade köpt skulle ha köpt
Nor har kjøpt skal ha kjøpt hadde kjøpt skulle ha kjøpt
Dan har talt vil have talt havde talt ville have talt
Dut is vertrokken zal zijn vertrokken was vertrokken zou zijn vertrokken
Grm hat gesungen wird gesungen haben hatte gesungen würde gesungen haben
Fin on vetänyt — oli vetänyt —
3rd person singular indicative of Eng sing, Ice kalla ‘call’, Swd köpa ‘buy’, Nor kjøpe
‘buy’, Dan tale ‘talk’, Dut vertrekken ‘leave’, Grm singen ‘sing’, Fin vetää ‘pull’
146 ROLF THIEROFF
If we look at the paradigms of the verb in the preterite languages and in the
imperfect languages, it becomes immediately clear that at least in this respect it
is indeed the imperfect which functions like the preterite. As can be seen from
table 2, the preterite marker can be combined with any other tense-aspect marker,
that is to say with the future (as in would sing), with the perfect (as in had sung)
and with both (would have sung). Furthermore it can be combined with the
progressive (as in was singing), and even with all three categories (as in would
have been singing). In other words, there are no restrictions as to the combin-
ability of the preterite marker.4
The structure of the paradigms in table 2 holds true for all Germanic
languages except for the Southern German dialects and Yiddish as well as for
Finnish and Estonian.
Table 3. Verbal paradigms of imperfect languages

non-past  
-  − 
Fr − chante chantera chantait chanterait chanta
Ctl canta cantarà cantava cantaria cantà
Spn canta cantará cantaba cantaría cantó
Prt canta cantará cantava cantaria cantou
It canta canterà cantava canterebbe cantò
Rum cântă va cânta cânta — cântă
Blg xodi šte xodi xodeše šteše da xodi xodi
Arm gnum em gnalu em gnum ēi gnalu ēi gnaci
Fr  a chanté aura chanté avait chanté aurait chanté eut chanté
Ctl ha cantat haurà cantat havia cantat hauria cantat hagué cantat
Spn ha cantado habrá cantado había cantado habría cantado hube cantado
Prt tem cantado terá cantado tinha cantado teria cantado —
It ha cantato avrà cantato aveva cantato avrebbe cantato ebbe cantato
Rum a cântat va fi cântat cântase — —
Blg xodil/xodel e šte e xodil beše xodil šteše da e xodil —
Arm gnacel em — gnacel ēi — —
3rd person singular indicative of Fr chanter, Ctl, Spn, Prt cantar, It cantare, Rum cântă
‘sing’, Blg xodja, Arm gnal ‘go’
If we now turn to the imperfect languages, we find, among others, the forms
presented in table 3. In these languages it is the imperfect marker which can be
combined with any other tense-aspect marker: the pluperfect and the future-in-
the-past or Conditional are formed with the imperfect-marker; in the case of the
Romance languages, there is also an aorist perfect, but in all Romance languages
these forms have a rather marginal status — they are generally restricted to 1)
subordinate clauses and 2) the written register. In contrast to ,  cannot
be combined with , nor, in most cases, with the progressive periphrases. The
only exceptions to these rules are the Italian Conditional, which is formed with
the aorist-marker (though the corresponding forms are by no means restricted to
perfective meaning), and the system of Modern Greek, where we find an aorist
of the future, or rather a perfective future.5
Thus, with respect to the compositionality of the categories, there is no
difference between preterite and imperfect, whereas the aorist cannot normally
be combined with any other tense-aspect category, except for the marginal aorist
perfect in the Romance languages.
3. Preterites and imperfects with non-past time reference
Whereas the evidence for the special status of the aorist in the paradigms is quite
straightforward, it is somewhat more difficult to answer the question of the
syntactic and the semantic status of  and  with regard to . The
reason why many authors, such as those mentioned above, choose to call the
aorist a “preterite” is doubtlessly the fact that in sentences with past time
reference, the aorist is probably more frequent than is the imperfect.6 However,
as a rule preterites are not only used with past time reference — on the contrary,
in all preterite languages of the sample, preterites are also used in a number of
non-past-time contexts. Thus in order to establish whether it is the imperfect or
the aorist which corresponds to the preterite, we must investigate contexts where
preterites appear with non-past time reference and pursue the question which
tense corresponds to these preterites in the imperfect languages.
3.1 Counterfactual conditionals
The most widespread use of preterites with non-past time reference is in

counterfactual conditionals as in
(2) a. Eng If it rained ( ) now, I would stay at home.
In imperfect languages, it is the imperfect which is regularly used in counter-
factual conditionals, as in
(2) b. Fr S’il pleuvait ( ) maintenant, je resterais à la
maison.
148 ROLF THIEROFF
Whereas in (2a/b) the past is in the indicative, there are other languages which
can only use their past tense with non-past time reference if it is combined with
a subjunctive marker. Examples are German and Italian:
(3) Grm Wenn jetzt die Sonne schiene ( ), ginge (
) ich spazieren.
‘if the sun was shining now, I would go for a walk’
(4) It Se potessi ( ), lo farei. (Dardano & Trifone
1985: 304)
‘if I could, I would do it’
Other examples from preterite languages with the preterite indicative in counter-
factuals are:
(5) a. Dan Hvis Carina havde ( ) penge nok, ville hun
købe en computer.
(Fabricius-Hansen 1994: 56)
b. NFrs Wan Caren nooch jil hed ( ), keeft (
) hat en computer.
‘if C. had enough money, she would buy a computer’
(6) Dut Als je echt van mij hield ( ), zou je dat niet
zeggen. (Janssen 1994: 111)
‘if you really loved me, you would not say that’
With the exception of North Frisian, in such sentences the preterite is only used
in the protasis, whereas in the apodosis the past future (or Conditional) is used.
Only in North Frisian do we have the preterite in both clauses. In addition to
German (see (3)), the preterite subjunctive is used in the following languages:7
(7) Ice Ef ég væri ( ) yngri skuldi ég fara til Vester-
heims. (Kress 1982: 257)
‘if I was younger, I would go to America’
(8) Fin Jos nyt aurinko paistaisi ( ), jäisin ( )
kotiin.
‘if the sun was shining now, I would stay at home’
(9) Est Kui ma rohkem õpiksin ( ), saaksin ( )
ka paremaid hindeid. (Metslang/Tommola 1995: 319)
‘if I learned more, I would get better marks’
In addition to French (see 2b), examples for the imperfect in counterfactual
conditionals are sentences (10) to (15). Note that in all these examples, the
imperfect is used irrespective of whether the event is perfective or imperfective.

Only in Bulgarian is the distinction made, although not by the imperfect vs.
aorist opposition, but by the general aspectual opposition perfective () vs.
imperfective () typical of the Slavic languages.
(10) Ctl Si jo cantava ( ), actuaria en algun conjunt. (Ari-
many 1978: 312)
‘if I sang, I would act in some ensemble’
(11) Prt Se eu a via ( ), não a reconhecia ( ).
‘if I saw her, I would not recognize her’
(12) Blg Ako se obarneše (  ), šteše da gi vidi. (Lind-
stedt 1985: 241)
‘if (s)he turned around, (s)he would see them’
(13) Blg Ako imax (  ) vreme, štjax da dojda. (Lind-
stedt 1985: 241)
‘if I had time, I would come’
(14) Grk An íxa ( ) tóra aftá ta leftá aghóraza ( )
éna spíti. (Hedin 1995: 249)
‘if I had that money now, I would buy a house’
(15) Alb Të mos kisha ata kalamaj, shkoja ( ) edhe unë
atje. (Buchholz/Fiedler 1987: 126)
‘if I didn’t have the children, I would go there too’
In Portuguese, the indicative in the apodosis is used only in “popular speech”
(Hundertmark-Santos Martins 1982: 173), while the standard requires the
subjunctive, as is the rule in Spanish and Italian, but also in Armenian:
(16) Prt Se eu a visse ( ), não a reconheceria. (Hundert-
mark-Santos Martins 1982: 250)
‘if I saw her, I would not recognize her’
(17) Spn Si estuvieras ( ) de acuerdo, lo contrataría. (Car-
tagena 1994: 181)
‘if you agreed, I would employ him’
(18) It Se potessi ( ), lo farei. (Dardano/Trifone 1985:
304)
‘if I could, I would do it’
(19) Arm Et’e xoser ( ), kmatner ir huzum6. (Kozintseva
1995: 293)8
‘if he spoke, he would reveal his alarm’
150 ROLF THIEROFF
In addition to counter-factual conditionals, preterites (and imperfects) with non-

past time reference occur in a number of further contexts, as illustrated in the
following sections 3.2–3.5.
3.2 Contrary-to-fact wishes
In contrary-to-fact wishes, the preterite is used in the indicative as in (20a/b)

and (21):
(20) a. Eng If only they were coming ( ).
b. NFrs Wan jo doch kaam ( ).
(21) Dut Vertrok ( ) hij nu maar! (Janssen 1994: 111)
‘if only he would leave’
and in the subjunctive as in (20c/d):
(20) c. Grm Wenn sie nur kämen ( ).
d. Fin Kunpa he nyt tulisivat ( )!
In the imperfect languages we have both the indicative e.g. in Greek (as in (22))
and the subjunctive e.g. in Spanish, as in (23).
(22) Grk As erxótan ( ) ki aftós.
‘if only he came too’
(23) Spn ¡Ojala llegaran ( )! (Fleischman 1989: 7)
‘if only they were coming’ (cf. (20))
3.3 Attenuative uses
Fleischman (1989: 8) notes that “many languages use  to soften or attenuate
the directness of statements or requests”, and Squartini (1995: 123) speaks of an
“attenuative imperfect” in Italian. In fact, attenuative uses of preterites and
imperfects can be divided at least into polite request and polite advice.
Examples for polite requests in preterite languages are given in (24). In
North Frisian, the preterite is again in the indicative; in the German example it
is not possible to decide whether the verb is in the indicative or in the subjunc-
tive, since the verb wollen has no distinct forms for the two moods in the
preterite. In the Finnish sentence, the traditional “Conditional” is again analyzed
as a preterite subjunctive (cf. footnote 7).
(24) a. NFrs Ik wul ( ) di hal spreeg.

b. Grm Ich wollte Sie () sprechen.
c. Fin Haluaisin ( ) puhua kanssanne.
‘I would like to talk to you’
In the imperfect languages, the attenuative imperfect in polite requests is again
in the indicative in Greek, Rumanian and French, but also in Italian, and in the
subjunctive in Spanish, though in this case in Spanish, too, the indicative is
possible.9
(25) Grk Ithela ( ) na se rotíso káti.
‘I would like to ask you something’
(26) Rum Voiam ( ) să vă întreb de părinţii dumneavoastră.
(Beyrer et al. 1987: 150)
‘I would like to ask you about your parents’
(27) It Volevo ( ) sapere se stasera eri libera. (Squartini
1995: 123)
‘I would like to know whether you are free tonight’
(28) a. Fr Je voulais ( ) vous parler.
b. Spn Quería ( ) hablar con usted.
c. Spn Quisiera ( ) hablar con usted.
‘I would like to talk to you’ (cf. (24))
Examples of polite advice are given in (29).
(29) a. Dut Nou, maar ik vertrok ( ) morgen! (Janssen
1994: 111)
b. NFrs Ik keerd ( ) maaren [wan ik di wiar].
c. Fin Minä kyllä lähtisin ( ) huomenna.
‘Well, but I would leave tomorrow [if I were you]!’
3.4 Affective uses
A fourth use of preterites with non-past time reference is what Fabricius-Hansen

(1994: 58) calls the “affective” use of the past, as in (30)–(33), again with the
indicative in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and North Frisian, and with the
subjunctive in German (and Finnish). In North Frisian and German this use
seems to be restricted to certain idiomatic expressions, but there is no such
restriction in the Scandinavian languages. (33b) is colloquial.
152 ROLF THIEROFF
(30) a. Dan Det var ( ) da en herlig udsigt. (Fabricius-

Hansen 1994: 58)
b. Swd Detta var ( ) en härlig utsikt. (Dahl 1995: 61)
‘This is a gorgeous view!’
(31) a. Nor Dette smakte ( ) godt! (Fabricius-Hansen
1994: 58)
b. Swd Det här smakade ( ) bra! (Dahl 1995: 61)
‘This tastes good!’
(32) NFrs Det wiar ( ) jo doch bööz net.
‘that is really nice’
(33) a. Grm Da wären ( ) wir!
b. Fin Perillä oltais ( )!
‘Here we are’ [we’ve finally arrived]
In contrast to counterfactuals, contrary-to-fact wishes and the attenuative uses,
identifying affective use of the imperfect with non-past time reference is less
straightforward in the imperfect languages. A possible candidate for an affective
use of an imperfect is however the so-called “hypocoristic” use of the imperfect
in French, which is subsumed under the attenuative uses by Fleischman (1989:
12f). This use “occurs in a marked variety of discourse addressed by adult
French speakers (mainly women) to young children and pets with whom they
have a certain familarity” (Fleischman 1989: 12). An example is (34), with
Fleischman’s translation:
(34) Fr Comme il était ( ) sage! comme il aimait (
) bien sa maman! (Grevisse 1986: 1292)
‘isn’t he a good boy! And doesn’t he love his mommy!’
On the other hand, a “hypocoristic” use of the preterite which is clearly distinct
from the use in (31b) also exists in Swedish:
(35) Swd Det var ( ) en stor pojke!
‘oh, what a big boy you are!’
This would suggest that the “hypocoristic” uses probably have to be distin-
guished from other affective uses.
3.5 Preludic uses
The fifth and last use of preterites with non-past time reference to be treated in
this paper is the so-called “preludic use”, which Fleischman (1989: 15f) explains
as children’s use of the past “to set up make-believe scenarios”. According to

Fleischman the term ‘preludic’ was coined because this use of the past “occurs
characteristically — and exclusively — in the role negotiation preceding the
games themselves” (Fleischman 1989: 16).
The preludic use of the preterite indicative occurs e.g. in Swedish:
(36) a. Swd Nu var ( ) du Asterix och jag var ( )
Obelix och stora rummet var ( ) romarlägret.
(cf. 39)
‘now you are Asterix and I am Obelix and the living
room is the Roman camp’
In German, the same use with the preterite subjunctive is attested, though it is
restricted to certain regional varietes. In other varieties of German, the present
indicative is used in this context. In Finnish, the preludic use of the so-called
Conditional is quite common in children’s speech.
(36) b. Grm Du wärst ( ) der Asterix und ich der Obelix
und das Wohnzimmer wär’ ( ) das Römer-
lager.
(37) Fin Nukke ois ( ) vauva. (Kauppinen 1996: 113)
‘the doll would be a baby’
The preludic use of the imperfect is best described for the Romance languages.
Here are examples from French, Spanish, Italian, and Rumanian:
(38) Fr Moi, j’étais ( ) le gendarme, et tu volais (
) un vélo. (Grevisse 1986: 1292)
‘I’ll be the policeman and you’re gonna steal a bike’
(39) Spn Tú eras ( ) Asterix y yo Obelix y la sala de estar era
( ) el campamento Romano. (Cartagena 1994: 178)
‘you are Asterix and I am Obelix and the living room is
the Roman camp’
(40) It Giochiamo che tu eri ( ) la guardia ed io il ladro.
(Bertinetto 1987: 74)
‘let’s pretend that you are the policeman and I am the
thief’
(41) Rum Acum eu eram ( ) tatăl şi tu erai ( ) mama
şi aici era ( ) casa noastră (Beyrer et al. 1987: 149)
‘now I am the father and you are the mother and here is
our house’
154 ROLF THIEROFF
Kauppinen (1996: 115ff) argues convincingly that in Finnish this use is indeed
restricted to children’s speech, as it is in the other languages mentioned (see
Kauppinen 1996 and the literature cited there).10
To summarize this second stage of our comparison between the preterite and
the imperfect languages: in contexts with non-past time reference where a past
tense is used, the imperfect has exactly the same distribution as the preterite,
regardless of whether the event referred to is perfective or imperfective. Aorists
never occur in such contexts.
4. “False past”
Whereas the sentences in 3. clearly have non-past time reference, the time
reference of the preterites and imperfects in the following examples is less clear.
The past in such sentences has been called “false past” or it has been said that
“reference to past utterances” is made. A sentence like
(42) a. Grm Wer erhielt ( ) das Bier? (Wunderlich 1970:
139)
‘who got the beer?’
can be interpreted as referring at the same time to the past (Who ordered the beer
[in the past/before]) and to the present (Who is getting the beer now). The use of
the preterite or imperfect in these “false past” sentences differs from the past
uses in 3. in that here the “subjunctive” languages use the indicative too.
Examples from the preterite languages are, in addition to (42a):
(42) b. Fin Kenelle tuli ( ) olut?
(43) Eng Who was ( ) the chicken sandwich?
(44) a. Grm Was gab ( ) es eigentlich morgen im The-
ater? (Wunderlich 1970: 139)
b. Fin Mitä siellä teatterissa meni ( )?
‘what’s on tomorrow at the theatre?’
(45) a. Eng What was ( ) your name again?
b. Grm Wie war ( ) doch Ihr Name? (Wunderlich
1970: 139)
In “false past” contexts in the imperfect languages — as in all previous examples
for this group — only the imperfect is possible, again regardless of whether the
event is perfective or imperfective.
(46) It Che cosa c’era ( ) domani al cinema? (Squartini

1995: 122)
‘what’s on tomorrow at the movies?’
(47) Spn ¿Para quién era ( ) la cerveza? (Cartagena 1994:
178)
‘who got the beer?’ (cf. (42)
5. Imperfects with past time reference and perfective meaning
Finally, if we take a brief look again at the uses of imperfects with past time
reference, it emerges that even there imperfects are by no means restricted to
imperfective meaning. On the contrary, there are quite a few contexts where
imperfects can be used with perfective aspect meaning.
5.1 Dream narrations
It is a well known fact that “in recounting the contents of dreams, hallucinations,
and other non-conscious states, speakers of a number of languages (Spanish,
French, Italian, Rumanian, Dutch, and no doubt others) rely on the 
( […]) as the basic reporting tense” (Fleischman 1989: 14).
What is important for the imperfect languages is that “we see in dream
narrations a neutralization of the conventional discourse contrast between
perfective and imperfective aspect”, as Fleischman (1989: 42 n.25) puts it.
Fleischman quotes a dream narration and remarks that, “if the passage given […]
were a conventional narrative, all the predicates […] would presumably be
reported as ‘narrative events’, and therefore in the perfective past” (ibid.).
5.2 Free indirect discourse
A second context where the contrast between perfective and imperfective aspect
is neutralized at least in the Romance languages is the so-called free indirect
discourse, where, according to Weinrich (1985: 179) the French Passé simple
(and likewise the aorist forms in the other Romance languages) “is not allowed”.
For examples, which I am unable to give here for reasons of space, see
Weinrich (1985: 178, 243).
156 ROLF THIEROFF
5.3 The ‘narrative imperfect’
Whereas dream narrations are not narrations of events which occurred in reality
in the past (which is why they are subsumed under modal uses in Bertinetto
1987: 368) — although they do refer to a past experience of the speaker (which
is why they are treated under past time reference in the present paper) — and
whereas free indirect discourse refers in the first instance to past thoughts of a
fictional character rather than to a real past event, there is one use of the
imperfect which indeed refers to situations of the past. This is what is called in
French the imparfait narratif or imparfait historique where normally a Passé
simple (i.e. an aorist) is required and which is regarded as a stylistic particulari-
ty. An example from French is
(48) Fr Tout changeait ( ) à cinq heures par l’arrivée de
Desaix. (Grevisse 1986: 1291)
‘everything changed at five o’clock, due to the arrival of D.’
In Italian, this use of the imperfect seems to be more widespread than in French,
since it occurs not only in literary prose, but also in newspapers and in oral and
written sports commentaries. (49) is an example of the latter (Bertinetto 1987: 75).
(49) It Al 30° Dossena scendeva ( ) sulla sinistra, strin-
geva ( ) al centro, e mancava di un soffio la
conclusione.
‘at the 30th minute, D. ran down the left side of the pitch,
veered to the middle, and only missed scoring by a hair’s
breadth’
This use of the imperfect poses the greatest problem for authors who insist that
the imperfect is fundamentally imperfective, as does for example Bertinetto
(1986). However, it must also be said that this use is stylistically marked in all
Romance languages and does not normally occur in everyday speech.
6. Conclusion
In the preceding sections, I have gone beyond the so-called incidental scheme to
investigate a number of contexts where in the preterite languages the preterite is
used; it has emerged that in all these contexts in the imperfect languages it is
exclusively the imperfect which is used. It should be stressed again that the aorist
is impossible in all the contexts discussed.
imperfective perfective
counterfactual conditionals (3.1)

contrary-to-fact wishes (3.2)
non-past time reference attenuative (3.3)
affective (3.4)
preludic (3.5)
“false past” (4.)
dream narrations (5.1)
free indirect discourse (5.2)
past time reference

narration
(5.3) narration
pasts PRET IMPF AOR
Figure 1. Uses of preterites, imperfects and aorists
I conclude from this that, as the paradigms of the imperfect languages also
suggest (see 2.), it is indeed the imperfect which is the unmarked past tense:
‘unmarked’ in as far as in contexts without past time reference the imperfect is
used regardless of whether the situation referred to is imperfective or perfective.
This means that the imperfect is not, as Bertinetto has it, a fundamentally
imperfective tense (“Il fatto che l’IPF [=Imperfetto; R.T.] si presenti come un
Tempo fondamentalmente imperfettivo”) (Bertinetto 1986: 346); it further entails
that it is not the imperfect which is unknown to the Germanic languages (“un
Tempo sconosciuto alle lingue germaniche”) as Bertinetto (1986: 398) says in a
footnote, but that, on the contrary, the aorist is.11
In contrast to both the imperfect and the preterite, the aorist is very
restricted in its use: Firstly, the aorist can only occur with past time reference
(past time reference being part of the meaning of the aorist), whereas imperfect
and preterite occur both with past time reference and in many other contexts.
Secondly, the aorist is absolutely restricted to perfective situations, whereas
158 ROLF THIEROFF
neither imperfect nor preterite are restricted to either imperfective or perfective

situations. And thirdly, the aorist is largely restricted to narration, while there is
no such restriction for the imperfect, nor for the preterite.
Thus, it is only in situations which at the same time have past time reference
and are perfective and are narrated that the imperfect stands in opposition to the
aorist, and only in these situations is the imperfect necessarily imperfective.
These results are illustrated in fig. 1, which shows that preterites and
imperfects share numerous uses, imperfective as well as perfective, with and
without past time reference, the only difference being situations where the aorist
is in opposition to the imperfect.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the following persons who provided me with examples from various languages:
Karen Ebert (North Frisian), Eva Hedin (Modern Greek), Lars Johanson (Swedish), Jouko Lindstedt
(Bulgarian), Hannu Tommola (Finnish).
Notes
1. For reasons using the term “anterior” rather than “perfect” for this category, see Thieroff
(1992: 281ff). — The meaning of the category  can best be described as “E before S”; i.e.
by using this category the speaker situates the time of event prior to a point of reference.
Morphologically, in almost all European languages, the anterior is constructed with finite ‘have’
or ‘be’ + past participle of the main verb (exceptions are Irish, Basque and Maltese).
2. Instead, with the exception of Southern German, these languages have the more general
perfective:imperfective (:) opposition, which is not restricted to past time reference.
3. For a discussion of the Finnish forms with future time reference, which are traditionally not
regarded as , see Thieroff (1994: 14f).
4. The fact that in the Germanic and in the Romance languages the forms containing both a 
and a  marker also have a conditional or a subjunctive meaning is neglected here. What is
important is that in all languages mentioned, these forms do appear with future-in-the-past time
reference.
5. The question of whether the Greek “Aorist” is to be regarded as an instance of the cross-
linguistic category  is discussed in Thieroff (1995: 19f).
6. In languages where the anterior (“perfect”) has replaced (or is in the process of replacing) the
aorist, such as spoken French and certain varieties of Italian, Rumanian, and Albanian, it is this
anterior which is more frequent in such contexts. For details about this development see
Squartini/Bertinetto (in press) and Thieroff (in press).
7. In modern grammars of Finnish and of Estonian as well as in Tommola (1994) and in
Metslang/Tommola (1995), the forms glossed here as “ ” are glossed as “”, since
Finnish -isi- and Estonian -ksi- are regarded as a single marker of a conditional mood.
However, there is some evidence that, at least diachronically, these markers must be analyzed
as is + i and ks + i respectively, with is/ks representing a subjunctive marker and i being the
preterite marker, as in the preterite indicative forms Finnish vet-i ‘he pulled’, Estonian tuli ‘he
came’ (see Kauppinen [1996: 129] and the literature cited there). The reason for analyzing
-isi-/-ksi- as a single marker of a conditional mood is probably that these forms do not occur
with past time reference. This reminds one of German, where the preterite subjunctive is often
called “Subjunctive II”, because it does not have past time reference, although in German the
morphological composition of preterite + subjunctive marker is absolutely transparent.
8. Kozintseva (1995: 292f) calls forms like xoser in (19) “Past Subjunctive”, evidently because in
the subjunctive (as in all other non-indicative moods, in Armenian as well as in the other
imperfect languages) there is no opposition  vs. .
9. Examples (28a–c) are taken from Fleischman (1989: 9).
10. Leonid Kulikov (p.c.) points out that a meaning similar to this usage is conveyed in adult
speech in sentences like
(i) Grm Dies sei ein rechtwinkliges Dreieck. (Eisenberg 1994: 133)
(ii) Fr Soit un triangle rectangle. (Grevisse 1986: 1304)
‘Let this be a rectangular triangle’
However, in sentences like (i) and (ii) the verb is 1) in the present tense and 2) in the
subjunctive mood irrespective of whether the preludic use of the past is in the indicative or in
the subjunctive.
11. It must nevertheless be acknowledged that in the indicative the imperfect is indeed largely
restricted to imperfective situations in Italian, since in most situations discussed in section 3 the
imperfect subjunctive is used, a form not taken into consideration by Bertinetto (1986). That the
Italian “Congiuntivo Imperfetto” is indeed an imperfect and not, as Schwarze (1995: 103 and
passim) maintains, a “perfect”, is a point which cannot be discussed here.
References
Arimany, Miquel. 1978. Gramática Práctica del Catalán. 5th edition. Barcelona: Arimany.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1986. Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema
dell’indicativo. Firenze: L’Accademia della Crusca.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1987. “Structure and Origin of the ‘Narrative’ Imperfect”. In:
Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba & Giuliano Bernini, eds, Papers from the
7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
Benjamins. 71–85.
Beyrer, Arthur, Klaus Bochmann & Siegfried Bronsert. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen
Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Buchholz, Oda & Wilfried Fiedler. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Cartagena, Nelson. 1994. “Das Tempussystem der spanischen Gegenwartssprache”. In:
Thieroff & Ballweg, eds. 173–190.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related
Problems. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.
160 ROLF THIEROFF
Dahl, Östen. 1995. “The Tense System of Swedish”. In: Thieroff, ed. 59–68.
Dahl, Östen, ed. In press. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dardano, Maurizio & Pietro Trifone. 1985. La lingua italiana. Morfologia. Sintassi.
Fonologia. Formazione delle parole. Lessico. Nozioni di linguistica e sociolinguistica.
Bologna: Zanichelli.
Eisenberg, Peter. 1994. Grundrib der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Stuttgart/Weimar:
Metzler.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1994. “Das dänische und norwegische Tempussystem im
Vergleich mit dem deutschen”. In: Thieroff & Ballweg, eds. 49–68.
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1989. “Temporal Distance: A Basic Linguistic Metaphore”. Studies
in Language 13. 1–50.
Green, John N. 1988. “Spanish”. In: Harris & Vincent, eds. 79–130.
Grevisse, Maurice. 1986. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 12th edition. Paris: Duculot.
Harris, Martin. 1988. “French”. In: Harris & Vincent, eds. 209–245.
Harris, Martin & Nigel Vincent, eds. 1988. The Romance Languages. London: Routledge.
Hedin, Eva. 1995. “The Tense Aspect System of Modern Greek”. In: Thieroff, ed.
233–251.
Hundertmark-Santos Martins, Maria Teresa. 1982. Portugiesische Grammatik. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Janssen, Theo A.J.M. 1994. “Tense in Dutch: Eight ‘Tenses’ or Two Tenses?” In:
Thieroff & Ballweg, eds. 93–118.
Kauppinen, Anneli. 1996. “The Italian indicativo imperfetto compared to the Finnish
conditional verb form — Evidence from child language”. Journal of Pragmatics 26.
109–136.
Kozintseva, Natalia. 1995. “The Tense System of Modern Eastern Armenian”. In:
Thieroff, ed. 277–297.
Kress, Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Lindstedt, Jouko. 1985. On the Semantics of Tense and Aspect in Bulgarian. Helsinki:
University Press.
Metslang, Helle & Hannu Tommola. 1995. “Zum Tempussystem des Estnischen”. In:
Parkinson, Stephen. 1988. “Portuguese”. In: Harris & Vincent, eds. 131–169.
Schwarze, Christoph. 1995. Grammatik der italienischen Sprache. 2nd edition. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Squartini, Mario. 1995. “Tense and Aspect in Italian”. In: Thieroff, ed. 117–134.
Squartini, Mario & Pier Marco Bertinetto. In press. “The Simple and Compound Past in
Romance Languages”. In: Dahl, ed.
Thieroff, Rolf. 1992. Das finite Verb im Deutschen. Tempus — Modus — Distanz.
Tübingen: Narr.
Thieroff, Rolf. 1994. “Inherent Verb Categories and Categorizations in European
Languages”. In: Thieroff & Ballweg, eds. 3–45.
Thieroff, Rolf. 1995. “More on Inherent Verb Categories in European Languages”. In:
Thieroff, Rolf. In press. “On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe”.
In: Dahl, ed.
Thieroff, Rolf, ed. 1995. Tense Systems in European Languages II. — Tübingen: Nie-
meyer.
Thieroff, Rolf & Joachim Ballweg, eds. 1994. Tense Systems in European Languages.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Tommola, Hannu. 1994. “Zum Tempus im Finnischen”. In: Thieroff & Ballweg, eds.
219–229.
Weinrich, Harald. 1985. Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. 4th edition. Stuttgart
etc.: Kohlhammer.
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1970. Tempus und Zeitreferenz im Deutschen. München: Hueber.
The qualitative meaning of Russian imperfective
verbs in passive constructions
Youri Poupynin
Institute of Linguistic Researches, St. Petersburg
Abstract
This study concerns one particular meaning of the Russian imperfective aspect
(the “qualitative” meaning). It expresses a quality or a characteristic of the
person or the thing. The qualitative meaning can be expressed in active and
passive (reflexive-passive) constructions, compare: Železo legko ržaveet
(rust::::) ‘Iron rusts easily’ and Kryška zavinčivaetsja
(screw::::) s trudom ‘The lid screws/is (= can be) screwed with
difficulty’. If such a qualitative meaning is presented in a reflexive-passive
construction, the question arises whether such a construction is a real passive
or not. I analyze both the similarities and the differences between these
structures and passives.
The qualitative meaning of the imperfective aspect (IPF) (see Akimova &
Kozintseva (1996) on the qualitative semantics of the IPF) represents “constant
readiness” of a person or a thing to perform a certain action under certain
conditions. As a rule, it is exemplified by active imperfective forms. See, for
example (1).
(1) Ona xorošo gotovit boršč
she well cook.::: borsch
‘She cooks borshch well/She is good at cooking borshch’.
Sometimes this meaning is also called potential-qualitative (cf. Bondarko 1971).
Such a qualitative meaning can also be expressed in passive constructions.
See (2)–(3):
164 YOURI POUPYNIN
(2) Stekljannaja posuda legko moetsja

glass crockery easily wash::::
‘Glass crockery washes/is (= can be) washed easily’;
(3) Kryška zavinčivaetsja s trudom
lid screw:::: with difficulty
‘The lid screws/is (= can be) screwed with difficulty’.
In such cases the qualitative meaning has certain features, which have often been
a subject of specific investigations. We shall point out such issues.
In the Russian grammatical tradition, examples of types (2) and (3) are not
considered passives, and imperfective forms in such constructions have not been
regarded as reflexive passives (Grammatika 1960). The verbs that appear in such
constructions are usually considered as representatives of a distinct voice called
“passive-qualitative”.
However, Janko-Trinickaja has argued that such constructions are close to
passives and that they should be considered as a subtype of the latter (Janko-
Trinickaja 1962).
Yet the semantic and typological uniqueness of (2) and (3) have continued
to attract the attention of scholars. Thus, Loetzsch (1978) proposed to call such
constructions “modal passives”. As is well-known, such constructions are able to
include a modal verb, cf.:
(4) Stekljannaja posuda možet legko myt’sja
glass crockery can easily wash:::
‘Glass crockery can be washed easily’;
(5) Kryška možet zavinčivat’sja (tol’ko) s trudom
lid can screw::: (only) with difficulty
‘The lid can be screwed (only) with difficulty’.
Nevertheless, the term itself seems to be quite unfortunate and misleading, since such
modality is a feature not of the passive, but of the qualitative meaning of the IPF in
general. Compare the “modal active” where a modal verb can also be included.
(6) Ona možet xorošo gotovit’ boršč
she can well cook::: borshch
‘She can cook borshch well.’
One should also note that such constructions were considered, under the typolog-
ical point of view by Nedjalkov (1978) and by Nedjalkov & Geniušiene (1991),
as reflexive constructions. In the latter publication, constructions like (2) and (3)
were called “quasi-passive”.
IMPERFECTIVE VERBS IN PASSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS 165
The aim of the present paper is to analyze both sides of constructions like
(2) and (3): their similarity as well as their difference with passive constructions.
The main difference between the qualitative passive of the IPF and “true”
reflexive-passives is the fact that the qualitative passive cannot be constructed
with an agentive instrumental. In the Russian grammatical tradition, the possibili-
ty of inclusion of an agentive instrumental into a passive construction is consid-
ered as the most important syntactic criterion of passivity.
Formally, one can include an agentive complement into a construction like
(2) and (3) with the qualitative meaning of the IPF, but the shift in semantics is
so drastic that the resultant construction cannot be regarded as synonymous.
Compare (7) and (8).
(7) Ėti zadači s trudom rešajutsja
these problems with difficulty solve::::
‘These problems are difficult to solve’;
(8) Ėti zadači s trudom rešajutsja Sašej
these problems with difficulty solve:::: Sasha:
‘These problems are difficult for Sasha to solve’.
In (7) there is qualitative semantics characterizing the object (“these problems”).
Meanwhile, if it is possible to speak of a quality or characteristic in example (8)
it can only be the quality of a given person, i.e. an agent (for instance, Sasha’s
inability, carelessness etc.).
Note that the passive construction can exist without an agentive instrumen-
tal. The agentless passive is quite common in Russian. The agentless passive can
usually be transformed to an indefinite-personal active construction, as in (9 a,b).
(9) a. V Russkom muzee otkryvaetsja vystavka
in Russian museum open:::: exhibition
‘An exhibition is opened in Russian museum’;
b. V Russkom muzee otkryvajut vystavku
in Russian museum open:::: exhibition
‘They open an exhibition in Russian museum’.
However, the application of a similar rule to the qualitative passive is mislead-
ing, since such a transformation (as well as in the case of (8)) leads immediately
to a certain weakening of the qualitative meaning. Thus, in the transformation
(10) (from (7)), the processual (or the iterative) imperfective meaning also
becomes possible.
166 YOURI POUPYNIN
(10) Ėti zadači rešajut s trudom

these problems solve:::: with difficulty
‘They solve these problems with difficulty’.
In my opinion, the problems of such a transformation are closely related to the
inclusion of an agentive instrumental into the construction. If the reference of
such an agent remains vague, it is not clear in what variant this agent should
appear in an active construction resulting from the transformation.
Nevertheless, in (2) and (3) the object (patient) semantics of the central
participant of a qualitative situation (i.e. “the bearer of a verbal characteristic”;
see Bondarko 1992: 54–67) is beyond any doubt. This enables one to consider
constructions like (2) and (3) as a subtype of the passive (in spite of the various
remarks: “passive-qualitative”, “modal-passive”, “quasi-passive”, etc.). The object
semantics of the bearer of a verbal characteristic is the main feature shared by
the qualitative passive and the “true passive”.
The following question then arises: which distinctive features can the
underlying agent have in cases like (2) and (3)? In my opinion, one has to
distinguish between at least two different cases. One of them does not include
agentive semantics as an obligatory element. Cf. (11).
(11) Nitki rvutsja
threads tear::::
‘The threads are (can be) torn’.
In this case the transformation “The threads are able to undergo tearing easily”
is not equivalent. This utterance also includes such semantic component as “The
threads are flimsy, they can become torn ‘involuntarily’”. Hence, this case has to
be characterized as an intermediate one. It is not possible to identify it to with
the “true passive”.
The second case (cf. (2) and (3)) requires the semantic element of an agent.
Cf. (12).
(12) Provoloka gnjotsja
wire bend::::
‘The wire bends/is (can be) bent’.
Here, it is possible to use the following semantic key: it can be said about the
bearer of the verbal characteristic: “The wire is able to undergo bending”, “The
wire yields to bending”, “It is possible for the wire to be bent”. The application
of an action to the object considered as the bearer of a verbal characteristic in
utterances of such a type testifies to the passivity of given constructions. Let us
try to examine what kind of an agent can bring about such an action.
In my opinion, the most essential feature of the agent is his/her high degree
of generality in the given context. See (13).
(13) Preparat posle suški legko rastiraetsja v
substance after drying easily pound:::: into
jarko-krasnyj porošok
deep-red powder
‘After drying the substance of the preparation easily pounds (is/can
be easily pounded) into deep-red powder.’
That sentence means that everybody who pounds that substance discovers its
quality immediately. In other words, the agent is not a concrete referent, but a
class (or a group). This class can be defined as “those who want to perform a
certain activity directed towards a certain object”. It is the high degree of generali-
ty that impedes the inclusion of the effective agent in the instrumental case.
It is possible, however, to overtly express the agent by means of a special
additional construction. See (14).
(14) Preparat posle suški legko rastiraetsja v
substance after drying easily pound:::: into
jarko-krasnyj porošok vsemi, kto zaxočet…
deep-red powder by.all who want::::
‘After drying the substance of the preparation can easily be pounded
into deep-red powder (by anyone who wants to…)’
The quality of an object can be negatively evaluated (see the classification of
qualitative-passive semantics in Poupynin 1998). In case of negative evaluation,
the class of real agents should be described in a different way: e.g. as “those
who try to perform a given activity with regard to a certain object”. See (15)
vs. (16).
(15) Jaščik stola tugo vydvigaetsja
drawer of.table tightly pull.out::::
‘The drawer of the table pulls (is/can be pulled) out tightly’;
(16) Jaščik stola tugo vydvigaetsja,
drawer of.table tightly pull out.:::
esli kto poprobuet ėto sdelat’
if who try.::: it do.::
‘The drawer of the table is hard to pull out tightly when anyone tries
to do it’.
168 YOURI POUPYNIN
The actual manifestation of qualities expressed in qualitative-passive construc-

tions is connected to an intention of a person to carry out an action. Despite its
object reference, these qualities are realized only in relation to the person and
according to his/her will. In each concrete case of manifestation of the quality of
a certain object, the concrete action of an actor takes place. In the analysis of
similar operations a concrete agent is generalized and his/her individual reference
is suspended.
The qualitative-passive constructions play a crucial role in the expression of
a rather rare variant of subject-object relations. From the point of view of
concreteness or generalization, the interrelation between the real author of an
action (agent) and the direct object has the following four variants (see Table 1).
Table 1
agent patient
1 individuated individuated
2 individuated non-individuated
3 non-individuated individuated
4 non-individuated non-individuated
Types 1, 2, 4 are exemplified in (17a,b,c) respectively.

(17) a. The student reads an article
b. The student reads articles
c. Students read articles
Type 3 raises some difficulties. This may be due to the fact that the individua-
tion of an object is less stable than that of the subject (for some detailed
discussion, see Poupynin 1996). Only some rare and special constructions in
Russian correspond to type 3. Compare, in particular, the qualitative-passive
constructions as in (2), (3), (7), (11), (13).
The qualitative-passive construction can represent type 4 of the subject-
object relations as well. See (18).
(18) Takie zadači s trudom rešajutsja
such problems with difficulty solve::::
‘Such problems are difficult to solve’.
Among the active constructions, one has to mention generalized personal
constructions which may also represent type 3. Consider (19).
(19) Ėtu muzyku vsegda slušaeš’ s udovol’stviem

this music always listen:::: with pleasure
‘One always listens to this music with pleasure’.
It is interesting to note that in many cases a qualitative-passive construction can
be transformed into a generalized-personal active. Witness (20 a, b).
(20) a. Ėta kniga čitaetsja s udovol’stviem
this book read:::: with pleasure
‘This book reads (is/can be read) with pleasure’;
b. Ėtu knigu čitaeš’ s udovol’stviem
this book read:::: with pleasure
‘One reads this book with pleasure’.
The main obstacle is a particular stylistic feature of such generalized-personal
constructions. They are frequently used, to our understanding, in narrations which
introduce the hearer (the reader) to a class of real agents. The qualitative-passive
constructions do not exclude a hearer (a reader) from the class of real authors of
an action. Rather, they emphasize that such an inclusion depends on his/her will
(“those who want to …, try to …, etc.”).
The analysis seems to prove that the qualitative-passive constructions are
close to “true” passives (cf. Janko-Trinickaja (1962)). It is possible to add to her
argumentation that the qualitative-passive constructions contain a notion of the
peripheral agent. However, in my opinion, this is an overgeneralized agent and,
therefore, the qualitative passive cannot be constructed with an agentive instru-
mental.
References
Akimova, Tat’jana G. & Kozintseva, Natalija A. 1996. “Značenie kačestvennoj xarakte-

rizacii v konstrukcijax s glagol’nymi predikatami”. In: Bondarko, A.V. et al. (eds.)
Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki: Kačestvennost’. Količestvennost’. Sankt-Peter-
burg: Nauka, 79–93.
Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola (Značenie i upotreblenie).
Moskva: Prosveščenie.
Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1992. “O ponjatii “nositel’ predikativnogo priznaka” (NPP)”. In:
Bondarko, A.V. et al. (eds.) Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki: Sub’’ektnost’.
Ob’’ektnost’. Kommunikativnaja perspektiva vyskazyvanija. Opredeljonnost’/
neopredeljonnost’. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 54–67.
170 YOURI POUPYNIN
Grammatika 1960 — Vinogradov, V.V. et al. Grammatika russkogo jazyka. Tom I.

Moskva: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.
Janko-Trinickaja N.A. 1962. Vozvratnye glagoly v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moskva:
Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.
Loetzsch, R. 1978. “Jazykovye kontakty i zalog”. In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.) Problemy
teorii grammatičeskogo zaloga. Leningrad: Nauka, 93–98.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1978. “Zametki po tipologii refleksivnyx deagentivnyx konstrukcij
(opyt isčislenija)”. In: Xrakovskij, V.S. (ed.) Problemy teorii grammatičeskogo
zaloga. Leningrad: Nauka, 28–37.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Geniušiene, Ėmma Š. 1991. “Tipologija refleksivnyx konstruk-
cij”. In: Bondarko, A.V. et al. (eds.) Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki: Personal’
nost’. Zalogovost’. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 241–276.
Poupynin, Youri A. 1996. “Sub’’ekt i ob’’ekt v ix svjazjax s grammatičeskim soder-
žaniem predikata”. In: Bondarko, A.V. et al. (eds.) Mežkategorial’nye svjazi v
grammatike. Sankt-Peterburg: Institut lingvističeskix issledovanij RAN, “Dmitrij
Bulanin”, 144–152.
Poupynin, Youri A. 1998. Interaction between aspect and voice in Russian. München:
Lincom Europa. (Lincom studies in Slavic linguistics; 02).
Typological notes on aspect and actionality
in Kipchak Turkic
Lars Johanson
Mainz
Abstract
The present paper deals, in a typological perspective, with the aspect (‘view-
point’) categories of intraterminality (presents, progressives, imperfects, etc.)
and postterminality (perfects, resultatives, etc.) in languages of the Kipchak
(northwestern) Turkic branch. Special attention is given to constructions with
auxiliary verbs which (i) operate as actional specifiers on different types of
actional phrases and (ii) contribute to the renewal of intraterminality and
postterminality. It is shown how the actional and aspectual categories in
question interact and how translation equivalents in languages such as English
and Russian may suggest erroneous interpretations of this interaction.
1. Typologically meaningful comparison
The present paper deals with the place of aspectual and actional categories in a
framework of typologically meaningful crosslinguistic comparison. The material
consists of a number of Kipchak Turkic verbal items and their translation
equivalents in languages such as English and Russian. Some of the comments
can be seen as marginal notes to the admirable typological work on tense and
aspect carried out by Vladimir Petrovič Nedjalkov, to whom this article is
dedicated in respect and affection. My argumentation is based on a model of
interaction of aspect and actionality presented in previous work (e.g. Johanson
1971, 1996, 1999). This theoretical orientation implies, among other things, the
use of aspect in the sense of ‘viewpoint operator’.
One central problem addressed in both previous work and the present
172 LARS JOHANSON
contribution is how to establish fruitful conceptual tertia comparationis for

typological comparison of aspectual, actional and temporal categories across
languages. It is not self-evident that criteria based on reference to types of
extralinguistic situations correspond to the structure of the linguistic material
studied. If they fail to capture the essential concepts signalled by the items
compared, they may falsely suggest unmotivated discrepancies between broadly
similar categories like the Turkic and Indo-European ones to be dealt with below.
To account for differences and similarities between categories established
on the basis of situational criteria, attention must be paid to the language-specific
number and nature of viewpoint operators as well as their interrelations with
aspect-sensitive classes of actional content. Translation equivalents may not only
differ from each other in aspectual content but also in the internal phase
structure of their actional phrases. Observations on the systematic nature of such
differences may be used to refine typological models based on categories such
as ‘progressive’, ‘imperfective’, ‘perfective’, ‘resultative’ and ‘perfect’.
The Kipchak or northwestern branch of Turkic that will be focused on here
— spoken in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by about 20 million speakers —
includes a western group consisting of Kumyk, Karachay, Balkar, Crimean Tatar
and Karaim, a northern one mainly consisting of Tatar and Bashkir, and a
southern one consisting of Nogay, Kazakh, Karakalpak and Kirgiz. The Karachay
material cited below includes examples from Vladimir Nedjalkov’s own studies
and data collections.
2. Viewpoint operators and aspect-sensitive actional classes
Kipchak Turkic languages exhibit two kinds of viewpoint operators. One kind
signals an intraterminal perspective envisaging the event within its outer limits.
The other kind signals a postterminal perspective envisaging the event at a point
after its relevant limit has been transgressed. Intraterminals include items
commonly called ‘progressives’, ‘presents’ and ‘imperfects’, whereas post-
terminals include so-called ‘resultatives’, ‘statives’ and ‘perfects’. Turkic and
English intra- and postterminals are essentially similar, though they differ in
number and particulars. Both Turkic and English lack perfective markers of the
Russian type, which signal an adterminal perspective envisaging the event at the
very attainment of its crucial limit.
Aspect operates on actional phrases — minimally verb lexemes — of
different phase structures: (i) finitransformatives (e.g. English die), (ii) initio-
transformatives (e.g. hide) and (iii) nontransformatives (e.g. dance). Nontransfor-
ASPECT AND ACTIONALITY IN KIPCHAK TURKIC 173
matives denote actions that lack a crucial transformative limit. With finitrans-
formatives, the crucial transformative limit is the final one; with initiotransfor-
matives, it is the initial one.
Similarities and differences between actional phrases with respect to phase
structures are important for typological comparison. Note, for example, that
Turkic languages are relatively rich in initiotransformatives, whereas English and
Russian tend to use two counterparts — a transformative and a corresponding
nontransformative — for each Turkic initiotransformative, e.g. tot- = grasp +
hold, xvatat’ + deržat’; ¦uqla-
J = fall asleep + sleep, zasypat’ + spat’; oltur- = sit
down + sit, sest’ + sidet’. Consequently, Turkic initiotransformatives are by no
means simply ‘verbs of state’, as they are often referred to in the literature. They
may certainly be regarded as ‘two-phase verbs’ when compared with their
English or Russian translation equivalents. Most English and Turkic verbs,
however, might then also merit the designation ‘two-aspect verbs’ since each one
usually corresponds to both a perfective and an imperfective Russian verb. Note
that, with initiotransformatives and nontransformatives, postterminals envisage
the event after its initial limit and may thus refer to the same objective situation
as the corresponding intraterminals do (e.g. English is hidden = is hiding). As
will be clear from the following analyses, reliance on English or Russian
translation equivalents and ignorance of the distinction between viewpoint
operators and the actional content they operate on may lead to erroneous
interpretations of Turkic items.
3. Actional specifiers
All Kipchak languages except Karaim possess numerous actional specifiers

signalling modes of action, postverbial constructions consisting of a converb
marker plus a following auxiliary, often a postural verb. Operating on various
types of basic actional phrases, they create new and more specific actional
contents. They may have descriptive functions, specifying how a given action is
carried out qualitatively or quantitatively, for example, marking the actional
phrase for durativity. They may also have phasal functions, specifying one
inherent phase — the initial, statal or final one — of the action expressed by the
basic actional phrase. Their functions vary across languages; for Tatar, see
Schönig 1984.
The converb markers used in these constructions are of two main types. The
first one is vowel-final and will be denoted here as A. The second one ends in
a labial stop and will be denoted as B. Though A and B originally signalled
174 LARS JOHANSON
intraterminality and postterminality, respectively, this semantic difference has

largely been neutralized in the postverbial constructions, allowing rather similar
uses (Johanson 1990).
A frequent actional marker is the type A + the postural verb tur- ‘stand’,
often defined as a marker of ‘durativity’, ‘iterativity’, ‘constancy’ or ‘continuat-
ion’, e.g. Tatar yaza tor- ‘keep writing’. The durativity of the type B + tur- is
used in actionally ambiguous actional phrases to specify a ‘statal’, i.e. non-
dynamic phase of the action. It is ‘actionally homogenizing’ in that it turns
transformatives into nontransformatives, blocking limit-oriented interpretations
(Johanson 1971: 194–201).
Thus, transformative readings are excluded, e.g., in Tatar awïrïp tor- ‘be ill’
(not ‘get ill’), qarap tor- ‘look’ (not ‘catch sight’), kürěp tor- ‘see’ (not ‘suddenly
see’) or Kumyk ašap tur- ‘eat’ (not ‘begin to eat’ or ‘eat up’), oxup tur-‘read’ (not
‘start reading’ or ‘read and finish reading’). The disambiguating effect is observed
most clearly with initiotransformatives, where, out of the two potential phases,
the nondynamic one is specified, e.g. Tatar totïp tor- ‘hold’ (not ‘grasp’), Kumyk
yuxlap tur- ‘sleep’ (not ‘fall asleep’), Karachay olturub tur- ‘sit’ (not ‘sit down’).
In all comparisons with English and Russian, it should be kept in mind that
both use at least two translation equivalents for each initiotransformative Turkic
verb; see the examples tot- = grasp + hold, xvatat’ + deržat’ etc. in section 2. It
is always the nondynamic English or Russian verb that corresponds to the B +
tur- periphrasis. Thus, Karachay asïlïb tur- (from asïl- ‘be hung’) refers to the
state obtaining after the transformation: ‘be hung, hang’.
Since B + tur- is actionally homogenizing, original finitransformatives can
only occur with it if quantitatively reinterpreted as serial (Johanson 1971:
197–200), e.g. yibärip tur- ‘send repeatedly’. Needless to say, serial interpreta-
tions are also possible with initio- and nontransformatives, e.g. Kumyk oxup tur-
‘read [repeatedly, habitually]’, Karachay tigib tur- ‘sew [repeatedly, habitually]’.
Meanings of ‘durative’, ‘iterative’, ‘permanent’, ‘regular’ or ‘usual’ action,
attested for Kumyk, Bashkir, Tatar, Karachay, Balkar etc., thus derive from the
nontransformativizing function.
The periphrastic markers in question do not occur with actional phrases of
all semantic types and thus lack the degree of generalization to be expected from
aspectual-temporal categories. As actional specifiers, however, they may be used
in various aspect-tenses, e.g. Tatar uqïp tordï ‘read’ (simple past), Karachay oqub
turadï ‘reads’ (simple present).
4. Development into viewpoint operators
In the course of Turkic linguistic history, several actional specifiers have

contributed to the creation of viewpoint operators, i.e. the renewal of intra-
terminal and postterminal aspectual-temporal items. This means that originally
actional properties have been reinterpreted as aspectual ones. The markers have
generalized to occur with actional phrases of all semantic types.
At a rather early stage of Kipchak, the complex A + turur came to renew
intraterminality (Johanson 1976), whereas B + turur renewed postterminality. The
forms underwent strong formal erosion, first fusion of the converb marker with
the auxiliary, and then total or partial loss of turur, e.g. yaza turur >> yaza ‘is
writing’ or yazïp turur >> yazïp ‘has written’.
These intra- and postterminal items originally expressed high degrees of
focality, putting high focus on the given aspectual orientation point, as ‘progress-
ives’ and ‘resultatives’, respectively. Later on, they turned into items of lower
focality, i.e. simple presents, imperfects, perfects, constatives. This development
led, in its turn, to a second renewal of high focality by periphrastic means. Even
in modern Kipchak, certain actional markers may be involved in similar processes.
5. Modern Kipchak viewpoint categories
Modern Kipchak viewpoint items based on postverbial constructions with tur-

include the following types, which will be briefly commented on below.
Intraterminals
of lower focality
Simple presents in <A[t]>, e.g. Crimean Tatar ala ‘takes, is taking’,
Karaim alam ‘I take, I am taking’, Bashkir uqïymïn ‘I read, I am
reading’, Kumyk aytaman ‘I talk, I am talking’, Kazakh köremin ‘I
see, I am seeing’, Karakalpak aladï ‘takes, is taking’.
Simple imperfects in <A + ‘was’>, e.g. Tatar ala idě ‘took, was
taking’, Bashkir bara ině ‘went, was going’, Kumyk gele edim ‘I
came, I was coming’.
of higher focality
Focal presents in <A tur-A[t]>, e.g. Kumyk bara turaman ‘I am going’,
Karachay ala turadï ‘is taking’, Nogay qaray turadï ‘is looking’.
Focal imperfects in <A tur-A + ‘was’>, e.g. Karachay öle tura edi
‘was dying’.
176 LARS JOHANSON
Postterminals
of lower focality
Constatives in <B[t]>, e.g. Nogay barïppan ‘I have gone’, Karakal-
pak alïppan ‘I have taken’, Karachay alïbdï ‘has taken’.
Pluconstatives in , e.g. Karachay ölüb edi ‘had died’.
of higher focality
Focal perfects in , e.g. Kumyk gelip turaman ‘I have
come’, Karachay alïb turadï ‘has taken’.
Focal pluperfects in , e.g. Karachay ölüb tura edi
‘had died, was dead’.
5.1 Simple presents in <A[t]>
Kipchak languages exhibit simple presents, nonpast intraterminals of lower

focality, often called ‘present-futures’ or ‘indefinite presents’. These items go
back to A + turur, originally a focal intraterminal, and have the shape <A[t]>,
i.e. they either contain or do not contain a reflex of turur, e.g. Tatar, Bashkir,
etc. bara, Karachay, Nogay, etc. baradï ‘goes’.
The simple presents express an intraterminal view but are, as items of lower
focality, often used to refer to plurioccasional (‘habitual’) events, thus corre-
sponding to English simple presents, e.g. Karachay oquydu ‘reads’. But they may
also be used to refer to a more narrow presentness in the sense of actually ongoing
unioccasional events, e.g. oquydu ‘is reading’. In the latter case, their English
translation equivalents are necessarily progressives, e.g. is reading, whereas the
Russian ones are simply imperfective presents, e.g. čitaet ‘reads, is reading’.
Thus, so-called ‘progressive’ situations do not necessarily require a high-
focal Kipchak item of the type <A tur-A[t]> to be dealt with below, e.g.
Karachay oquy turadï ‘is reading’. Similarly, the intraterminal view of initiotrans-
formatives may envisage the nondynamic phase as current, e.g. Karachay (bu
sagatda) olturadï ‘is sitting (at this moment)’, söyeledi ‘is standing up’, (alqïn)
¦uqladï
J ‘is (still) asleep’ from the verbs oltur- ‘sit down, sit’, söyel- ‘stand up,
stand’, ¦uqla-
J ‘go to sleep, sleep’. The high-focal items have not reached a
degree of grammaticalization that renders them compulsory in ‘progressive
contexts’. On the other hand, the possible use <A[t]> items to refer to unioccasi-
onal current events is not enough to define these items as progressives in the
English sense. Besides, as we will see, objectively identical situations may also
be referred to by the postterminal aspect of the initiotransformatives just
mentioned, e.g. Karachay söyelib turadï ‘has stood up = is standing’.
5.2 Simple imperfects in <A + ‘was’>
The corresponding nonfocal past intraterminals in <A + ‘was’>, e.g. Bashkir bara
ině ‘was going, went’, Kumyk gele edi ‘was coming, came’, Kirgiz bilet ele
‘knew’ go back to focal intraterminals of the type A + turur erdi. They are absent
in Kazakh, where their functional field is taken care of by a plurioccasional past
in -AtIn, e.g. baratïn ‘used to go’ (cf. Nogay -AtAGAn) and intraterminals such
as A + žatïr edi.
5.3 High-focal presents in <A tur-A[t]>
Kipchak languages also possess high-focal nonpast intraterminals in

<A tur-A[t]>, going back to A + tur-A turur, e.g. Kumyk bara turaman ‘I am
going’, Karachay išley turama ‘I am working’, čïga turadï ‘is just going out’,
oquy turadï ‘is reading’, Nogay qaray turadï ‘is looking’. Kazakh has corre-
sponding constructions with A or B + žatïr, žür, otïr or tur. The items are
normally used in so-called ‘progressive’ contexts, for events relatively concen-
trated to the moment of speech. As we have seen, however, they are not
compulsory in such contexts.
5.4 High-focal imperfects in <A tur-A + ‘was’>
There are corresponding high-focal past intraterminals (‘progressive pasts’) in

<A tur-A + ‘was’>, going back to A + tur-A erdi, e.g. Karachay öle tura edi ‘was
dying’, Nogay kele tura edi ‘was coming’. Kazakh uses constructions with A or
B + žatïr, žür, otïr or tur, e.g. oqïp žatïr edi ‘was (just) reading’.
5.5 Constatives in <B[t]>
The type <B[t]> represents postterminals of lower focality, e.g. Karachay

¦azïbma
J ‘I have written, I wrote’. It goes back to B + turur, originally a high-
focal postterminal (‘resultative’) denoting the state after the transgression of the
relevant limit of the event, e.g. yazïb turur literally ‘stands having written’. It
later defocalized, i.e. developed into an item of lower focality, showing various
stages of formal erosion: > B + tur > B + tIr > B + tI > B.
Its frequency and functions vary across languages. Defocalization means a
shift from the focus on the postterminal state to a more event-oriented view.
<B[t]> items function as ‘perfects’, ‘complexive pasts’, ‘narrative pasts’,
178 LARS JOHANSON
‘evidential pasts’, etc. They should not be confused with forms containing the
actional specifier B + tur- (see below).
To understand the use of these items, it is necessary to take the phase
structure of the actional phrases into account. The postterminal aspect of
initiotransformatives such as oltur- ‘sit down, sit’ is often misunderstood. Since
the event is envisaged in its postterminal state, after the transgression of the limit
of transformation, an item such as olturubdï ‘(has sat down =) is seated’ is a
possible translation of ‘is sitting [at the moment]’. But this occurrence of the item
in an alleged ‘progressive context’ does not mean that it is a ‘progressive’ itself.
Whereas the postterminal aspect of Karachay passives such as asïl- and
tagïl- ‘be hung’ is used to refer to the posttransformational phase ‘hang’ (intran-
sitive, anticausative), English and Russian have special verbs, hang and viset’, to
refer to this phase. The fact that tagïlïbdï or asïlïbdï ‘(has been hung =) is
hanging’ is rendered in Russian as visit does not mean that it is a present tense,
and the English translation equivalent is hanging does not turn it into a ‘progres-
sive’. In Tawla özenni tögeregin alïbdïla ‘Mountains surround the valley’
(literally ‘mountains are in the state of having occupied the surroundings of the
valley’), Karachay uses a postterminal aspect of tögeregin al- ‘occupy its
surroundings’ to refer to the same posttransformative state for which English
uses a present tense of its initiotransformative lexeme surround. The Turkic item
here occurs in the role of a ‘pseudo-past’, since it does not refer to any dynamic
action of ‘occupying’ in the real world, but not even this fact would permit us to
classify it as a present tense on a par with its English translation equivalent.
5.6 Pluconstatives in 
There are also analogously formed correponding past items of the type
, going back to B + turur erdi, e.g. Karachay ¦azïb
J edi ‘had written’,
Kazakh kelip edi ‘had come’, ¦uqlab
J edi ‘had fallen asleep, was asleep’, ölüb edi
‘had died, was dead’, arïb edi ‘had got tired, was tired’. These past constatives,
which we refer to as pluconstatives (cf. pluperfect vs. perfect), may occur in so-
called ‘progressive contexts’ without being ‘progressives’ themselves.
5.7 Postterminals based on -GAn
Kipchak languages also possess postterminals of lower focality based on -GAn

and going back to the originally high-focal type -GAn + turur. They convey
‘perfect’ or ‘resultative’ meanings, e.g. Kazakh ölgen ‘has died’, Karachay
¦azgandï
J ‘has written’, Kumyk aytganman ‘I have talked’, sometimes also
indirective meanings, e.g. Tatar bergen ‘has [apparently, etc.] given’. Formally
corresponding pluperfects go back to -GAn + erdi, e.g. Tatar algan idě ‘had
taken’, Karachay arïgan edi ‘had got tired, was tired’, Kazakh kelgen edi ‘had
come’, körgen edi ‘had seen’. The subtle functional differences from the
postterminals based on B will not be dealt with here.
5.8 High-focal postterminals in 
Postterminals of the structure , literally ‘stands having -ed’, convey
a higher degree of focality (Johanson 1995: 96–97), e.g. Kumyk gelip turaman ‘I
have arrived’, Karachay ketib turadï ‘is gone’, uyanïb turadï, ‘has woken up, is
awake’, išleb turadï ‘has built’. The items are semantically similar to the Turkish
periphrasis -miş bulunuyor. As may be expected from high-focals, they are
predominantly used with transformatives. They originally emerged to renew high-
focal postterminality after the predecessor <B[t]> had defocalized and also spread
to nontransformatives.
In some languages, the shape of these aspectual-temporal items may appear
ambiguous in that they also seem to be interpretable as combinations of an
actional specifier B + tur- with the simple present tense. Their semantic content
is, however, quite different from that of the latter. This is particularly obvious
from their use with finitransformatives. In an item such as alïp tura ‘has taken’,
the element cannot be an actionality marker specifying a nondynamic
phase of a single action ‘take’, since al- ‘take’ is not an initiotransformative with
the meaning ‘take + hold’, which would allow the reading ‘is [still] holding’.
 items often suggest ‘resultative’ interpretations, referring to a
state that presupposes an event whose crucial limit is already transgressed. They
thus combine with expressions meaning ‘still’, but not with elements characteriz-
ing the event itself, e.g. expressions meaning ‘rapidly’ or ‘slowly’ (Nedjalkov &
Nedjalkov 1987: 116). The possessor of the state may be the first actant of the
verbal construction, e.g. Karachay arïw kiyinib turadï ‘is beautifully dressed’,
[alqïn] ačïlïb turadï ‘is [still] opened’, kitabnï alïb turadï ‘has taken the book’ (‘is
still in the state of having taken the book’). If the effect of the event is not seen
as a state, the result will be a defocalized, ‘perfect’ use as in Karachay terezeni
ačïb turama ‘I have opened the window’. According to Nedjalkov & Nedjalkov,
passive transitives particularly tend towards ‘resultative’ readings, whereas active
transitives prefer ‘perfect’ readings (1987: 117).
On the other hand, the lower item <B[t]> is often observed to refer to the
same (‘resultative’ or ‘perfect’) situations as the higher one, e.g. Karachay tagïlïb
turadï ~ tagïlïbdï ‘is hanging (just now), ¦abïb J turadï ~ ¦abïbdï
J ‘has shut’.
180 LARS JOHANSON
Similar to the case with ‘progressive contexts’ and intraterminals, ‘resultative

contexts’ do not determine the choice of postterminals. Again, the mere reference
to an objective situation does not explain the use of the higher item.
The items under discussion are by no means ‘durative
presents’ or ‘progressives’. As usual, however, Russian imperfective presents and
English progressives may be translated by postterminal forms of Turkic initio-
transformatives. In Karachay ¦uqlab
J turadï, olturub turadï, söyelib turadï, tagïlïb
turadï, etc., the actional contents of ¦uqla-
J ‘fall asleep + sleep’, oltur- ‘sit down
+ sit’, söyel- ‘stand up + stand’ and tagïl- ‘be hung up + hang’ are envisaged high-
focally in their postterminal states: ‘has fallen asleep’ = ‘is asleep’ = spit = is
asleep, ‘has sat down’ = sidit = is sitting, ‘has stood up’ = stoit = is standing,
‘has been hung’ = visit = is hanging. Even if ‘progressive contexts’ are postulat-
ed for such cases, the Turkic items used are postterminals and not presents. It
would be wrong to say that they have developed into genuine preterite-presents.
The postterminal aspect can nevertheless describe a situation objectively identical
to the one described by a present tense of the same initiotransformative verb, e.g.
söyelib turadï = söyeledi. may also be used in cases such as
Karachay Tawla özenni tögeregin alïb turadïla ‘Mountains surround the valley’
(see 5.5), where the Turkic item is not a present tense item, but a high-focal
postterminal of a finitransformative actional phrase.
5.9 High-focal pluperfects in 
There are corresponding high-focal pluperfects of the structure 
‘was in the state of having done’, e.g. Karachay ¦uqlabJ tura edi ‘had fallen
asleep, was asleep’ (initiotransformative); ölüb tura edi ‘had died, was dead’
(finitransformative). Note that the simple is often used to refer to the
same objective situations, e.g. ¦uqlab
J edi ‘had fallen asleep, was asleep’, ölüb edi
‘had died, was dead’ (5.6). None of these items is, of course, a ‘progressive’.
6. Combining actional specifiers with aspect-tense-mood items
The actional specifier B + tur-, signalling nontransformativity and/or durativity,

combines with various aspect-tense-mood items, e.g. Nogay turïp tur! ‘stand still’
(imperative), turïp tursïn ‘may it stay’ (optative), qarap turdï ‘looked (for a
while’), Tatar uqïp tordï ‘read (for a while)’, Karachay ¦anšab
J turdï ‘kept
chatting’ (simple past), Nogay oqïp turgan ‘has read (for a while), Karachay
oynab turgandï ‘has played (for a while)’.
6.1 Combinations with the simple present
In the same way, the actional specifier B + tur- combines with the simple present,
e.g. Kumyk oxup tura ‘reads’, barïp turaman ‘I go permanently’ (Benzing
1959: 405), Karachay awrub turadï ‘hurts’, Nogay dep turadï ‘keeps saying’. This
item is still a simple present form, by no means a high-focal — a ‘progressive’
or ‘concrete present’ —, as would be expected from an item renewing intra-
terminality. B + tur- combined with the simple present is only low-focal. Thus,
Karachay oqub turadï is not more focal than oquydï ‘reads’. It is the A tur-
constructions that normally form ‘progressives’ in Kipchak Turkic, the exception
B tur- being mainly limited to Kirgiz. As for Tatar -p tor-, Kumyk -p tur-, etc.,
they are clearly actional specifiers (cf. Džanmavov 1967: 206).
Though not explicitly signalling habituality, B + tur- combined with the
simple present may appear in multioccasional contexts, expressing a general
‘presentness’ including habitual occupation, e.g. Karachay (ertden sayïn) kitab
oqub turadï ‘reads books (every morning)’. But it can also be used for on-going
unioccasional events, e.g Karachay kün ¦ïltïrab
J turadï ‘the sun is shining (now)’,
kiyim tigib turadï ‘sews/is sewing dresses (now or in general)’ (Nedjalkov &
Nedjalkov 1987: 119).
Typically enough, the combination only affects a few verbs. According to
Nedjalkov & Nedjalkov, only 15 of the most frequent Karachay verbs belong to
this class, namely postural verbs, verbs for ‘sleep’, ‘hurt’, etc. (1987: 118). The
same types of verbs are found in Tatar (Schönig 1984: 232–245) and other
Kipchak languages. They include several initiotransformatives, which, as was
stated above, correspond to English and Russian nontransformatives in one of
their meanings. The actional specification renders the verbs explicitly nontrans-
formative, ruling out possible transformative readings.
Forms such as Kumyk -ip tura and Karačay -ib turadï are, as has already
been stated, potentially ambiguous since they are identical in shape with high-
focal postterminal items (5.8). However, this situation is not a case
of polysemy in the sense of one and the same item having both anterior or non-
anterior meaning. A duality of that kind would only be possible with post-
terminality operating on initiotransformatives, e.g. olturub turadï ‘has sat down
= is seated’. High-focal postterminals formed from initiotransformatives may
even develop into intraterminal preterite-presents of the Standard Uzbek type
turibdi ‘is standing’ (< ‘has stood up’). But the ambiguity we are dealing with
here is of a different kind since it does not arise with initiotransformatives alone.
It is rather similar to the ambiguity of -ip dur- forms found in some Anatolian
Turkish dialects, e.g. yazïp duru ‘writes permanently’ (actional marker) versus ‘is
182 LARS JOHANSON
writing’ (aspect-tense); see Demir 1992. It would be important to determine

whether the readings are, as in the Turkish items, systematically distinguished by
accent differences. In any case, it is obviously wrong to claim that one and the
same item may have both progressive and resultative meaning. This
is a point in which I strongly disagree with both Nedjalkov & Nedjalkov 1987
and Ebert 1995 (cf. Johanson 1995: 97–98).
6.2 Combinations with the simple imperfect
The corresponding combinations of the actional specifier B + tur- with simple

imperfects in <A + ‘was’> (5.2), e.g. Karachay: -ïb tura edi, are also items of
lower focality and by no means progressives. Like the simple present forms dealt
with in section 6.1, they are potentially ambiguous, their segmental shapes being
interpretable as high-focal pluperfects (5.9).
6.3 Combinations with high-focal intraterminals
Combinations of the actional specifier B + tur- with high-focal intraterminals of

the type <A tur-A[t]> would result in reduplications like *B + tura tura and are
therefore generally avoided in Kipchak languages. Nogay, however, uses a form
in B + turï that combines a nondynamic phase specification with a high-focal
present, e.g. oqïp turï ‘is reading’, basïm avïrïp turï ‘I feel dizzy’ (literally ‘my
head is turning’). The reason is that tur- belongs to a group of four postural
verbs which, in some Turkic languages, form high-focal intraterminals by means
of a contracted variant of turur, e.g. Kirgiz turu, Kazakh tur, Nogay turï,
Turkmen dur (Johanson 1995: 85). The contrasting less focal item is the combi-
nation of the actional specifier with the simple present, e.g. oqïp turadï ‘reads, is
reading’, oltïrïp turadï ‘sits, is sitting’ (6.1). In Nogay, there is also a correspond-
ing high-focal imperfect in B + turï + ‘was’, e.g. tutïp turï edi ‘was holding’.
7. Conclusions
One important lesson to draw from the comparison of Kipchak Turkic items with
their English and Russian translation equivalents is that extralinguistic situations
themselves do not determine the choice of devices. In the Kipchak languages
discussed in the present article, not even reference to an event going on in a
substantial sense at the time of speech necessarily requires a high-focal item
signalling narrow presentness. The speaker has several aspectual options for
describing one and the same situation.
The case of ‘somebody having already woken up’ may be represented in
different perspectives and with different degrees of focus on the situation at the
time of speech. A Karachay speaker may choose the ‘resultative’ uyanïb turadï,
the ‘perfect’ uyangandï, the ‘constative’ uyanïbdï or the ‘simple past’ uyandï,
four semantically distinct possibilities. A situation in which ‘somebody is sitting
just now (= at the time of speech)’ may be described by means of several forms
of the initiotransformative verb oltur-, e.g. the ‘simple present’ olturadï, the
‘resultative’ olturub turadï or the ‘constative’ olturubdï. In none of these and
similar cases do English or Russian translation equivalents provide criteria for
pinpointing the differences.
The seemingly high exchangeability of items shows us that the perfectly
legitimate and necessary use of situational criteria should be supplemented by
careful analyses of language-specific aspectual and actional meanings. Such
meanings, defined at the proper level of abstraction, as well as their interactions
seem to be broadly similar in the European languages dealt with here and thus
provide a more solid basis for establishing crosslinguistic categories.
References
Benzing, Johannes. 1959. Das Kumükische. In: Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth
Scheel & Zeki Velidi Togan (eds.): Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta 1. Aquis
Mattiacis: Steiner. 391–406.
Demir, Nurettin. 1992. Zur Verwendung der Hilfsverbverbindung -ip dur- in einem
anatolischen Dialekt. In: Bethlenfalvy, Géza, Ágnes Birtalan, Alice Sárközi & Judith
Vinkovics (eds.): Altaic religious beliefs and practices [Budapest]. 89–95.
Džanmavov, Jusup Dž. 1967. Deepričastija v kumykskom literaturnom jazyke (sravnitel’no
s drugimi tjurkskimi jazykami). Moskva: Nauka.
Ebert, Karen. 1995. Ambiguous perfect-progressive forms across languages. In: Bertinetto,
Pier Marco, Valentina Bianchi, Östen Dahl & Mario Squartini (eds.): Temporal
reference, aspect and actionality, 2: Typological perspectives. Torino: Rosenberg &
Sellier. 185–203.
Johanson, Lars. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des
türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Turcica 1).
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Johanson, Lars. 1976. Zum Präsens der nordwestlichen und mittelasiatischen Türk-
sprachen. Acta Orientalia (Copenhagen) 37, 57–74.
184 LARS JOHANSON
Johanson, Lars. 1995. Mehrdeutigkeit in der türkischen Verbalkomposition. In: Erdal,

Marcel & Semih Tezcan (eds.): Beläk Bitig. Sprachstudien für Gerhard Doerfer zum
75. Geburtstag (Turcologica 23). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 81–101.
Johanson, Lars. 1996. Terminality operators and their hierarchical status. In: Devriendt,
Betty, Louis Goossens & Johan van der Auwera (eds.): Complex structures: A
functionalist perspective (Functional Grammar Series 17). Berlin, New York:
Mouton de Gruyter. 229–258.
Johanson, Lars. 1999. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In: Dahl, Östen (ed.):
Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nedjalkov, Igor’ V. & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 1987. Karačaevo-balkarskaja glagol’naja
forma na -b/-p tur-a- so značenijami nastojaščego i prošedšego vremeni (v sravnenii
s formami na -b tur-a/tur-ib- v uzbekskom jazyke). In: Funkcional’no-semantičeskie
aspekty grammatiki. Moskva: Nauka. 112–121.
Schönig, Claus. 1984. Hilfsverben im Tatarischen. Untersuchungen zur Funktionsweise
einiger Hilfsverbverbindungen (Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission
35). Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Distributivity
More than aspect
Inga B. Dolinina
McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
Abstract
The issue of grammatical affiliation of Distributivity is discussed, and a

theoretical framework for its adequate analysis is described. Distributivity is
regarded as a grammatical category belonging to the cluster of quantificational
categories, and not to the Tense-Aspect-Mood cluster. It is shown that the
semantics of Distributivity, its typological encoding, and the oppositions it
deals with are broader than those of Aspect. Within quantification, Distributiv-
ity is characterized as a category having a dual (nominal-event) nature, since
it displays the combined meanings of nominal plurality and event-plurality.
1. Introduction
1.1 Aspect or quantification
The problems of the grammatical affiliation of Distributivity are diverse.

Distributivity deals simultaneously with both nouns and verbs, thus posing a
question whether it is a nominal or a verbal category. Besides, Distributivity
deals with quantification: multiple objects are represented via individualization of
their constituents, and the similar “actions” of these participants create a repeti-
tion of events. Thus, Distributivity deals with both nouns and verbs, and with
their quantification. But traditionally quantification of nouns and of verbs are
regarded as belonging to different domains of grammar: quantification of nouns
is associated with Number (atemporal quantification), and quantification of
events with Aspect (temporal quantification).
186 INGA B. DOLININA
Recently there have been renewed attempts to unify the area of affiliation
of quantification. Thus, some linguists argue that nominal quantification must be
regarded within Aspect/Aspectuality (Rijkhoff 1991, Verkuyl 1993), whereas
others, following Jespersen (1963/1924), argue that event quantification belongs
to the cluster of quantificational categories (Dressler 1968, Xrakovskij 1989).
Both claims have their rationales. The “pro-Aspect” position stresses that
quantificational features of arguments (as well some other — eg. ergative reading
of the NP (Abraham 1996)) are influenced by, or influence, aspectual features of
the verb (for recent discussion see Verkuyl 1993, Krifka 1989, Krifka 1996), and
thus can be described through aspectual notions. The “pro-Number” approach is
based on the claim that quantification is a semantico-logical parameter, indepen-
dent of other parameters, and can be applied to any entities. In the case of event-
plurality, quantification is a more abstract notion than Aspect, because event-
plurality can be triggered by repetition on the axis of time and thus be related to
Aspect, but also by a plurality of activities of the participants, and thus lie in
other dimensions than Tense-Aspect. Consequently, since each position has its
rationale, the question is not whether to choose only Number or only Aspect, but
which of these features — quantificational (atemporal) or aspectual (temporal) —
forms the “dominant” component of meaning of the phenomena in view.1
My general position is to regard quantification of nouns and of events as
areas of Number/Quantification, and not of Aspect. Even more so for Distribut-
ivity, as compared with other types of event-plurality, because all distributive
constructions obligatorily contain a component of quantification, but in only a
few of them is it due to repetition in time (and consequently to Aspect). A
distributive construction can be insensitive to the axis of time but never to
number, which is an indicator of the dominance of the quantificational compo-
nent of meaning over the aspectual. This quantificational component, which goes
beyond the aspectual characteristics of distributive constructions, is the center of
interest in this paper.
1.2 Goals of the paper
In this paper I describe Distributivity as a quantificational category and claim

that it is distinctively two-faceted, since its meaning embraces two different and
independent areas of quantification — one of objects and the other of events.
Consequently, I argue, Distributivity can be adequately described only within a
theoretical framework which embraces both quantification of objects and quanti-
fication of events. This framework must be developed in terms of inherent meanings
and not in terms of ways of encoding these meanings. This extended understanding
DISTRIBUTIVITY: MORE THAN ASPECT 187
of the domain of quantification as a special area of grammatical description

presupposes an extended system of relevant grammatical categories which
includes not only Nominal Number but also “Verbal Number” — event-plurality.
In what follows, I present a variety of “distributive constructions” (DC) and
discuss their semantic and formal properties. After listing some theoretical
problems of interpreting Distributivity, I defend the singling out of Verbal
Number as an independent quantificational category parallel to Nominal Number,
and show that Distributivity has features of both these categories. Finally, I show
that the complexity of the semantic structure of Distributivity makes it possible
to express within it many different semantic oppositions, very few of which are
actually relevant for Aspect.
2. Some examples of distributive constructions
The following examples are comparatively universally identified as DC.

(1) a. Everyone/each person/each of us looked at him with interest
b. A conductor verified each ticket/every ticket/each of the tickets
represent Subject and Object Distributivity respectively, encoded here within NPs
by various determiner quantifiers (D-quantifiers).2
(2) He examined the books separately/one by one/in turns
represents Object Distributivity, here encoded by an adverb; whether it is an A-
or a D-quantifier is arguable.
(3) She scattered her notes all over the room
represents Object Distributivity (combined with Diversative Distributivity), encoded
by the inner semantics of the verb, which is emphasized by the adverbial phrase.
The following constructions from Russian (4a), Ukrainian (4b) and Polish
(4c) represent respectively Subject, Object and Diversative (motion from a
plurality of locations to one place) Distributivity, encoded by the verbal prefixes.
(4) a. Butylk-i po-pada-li s polk-i
bottle-: -fall-: from shelf-
‘The bottles fell from the shelf’
b. Vona pere-bil-a uves’ posud
she: -break-:: all dish..
‘She broke all the dishes’
c. Ptak-i z-leciał-y sie˛ do ogrod-u

bird-. -fly-.  in garden-.
‘The birds flew (from different directions) to the garden’
In the following example from Evenki (Nedjalkov 1989: 67) the second verbal
form encodes the multiplicity of locations by means of a suffix:
(5) loko → loko-t
hang (smth) → hang (separately and in different places)
Moses Columbian (Kinkade 1977: 149) construction (6) represents Subject
Distributivity, which is encoded by the combination of a reduplicated verb root
denoting a singular Agent with a subject marked for plurality.
(6) ł6q-łáq- lx lx
sit.//-  -/
‘Each has a position in which to sit’
The second construction in a Tsova-Tush (Bats — Holisky 1985: 45) example (7)
is a case of Subject Distributivity encoded by the combination of the plural
Subject with the imperfective form of a telic (punctual) verb. This marking is
commom for languages with an opposition of Perfective and Imperfective
(Maslov 1962, Dressler 1968, Durie 1986).
(7) Obi dah dopše˛ → obi dah depše˛
they (as a group) shattered. → they (each of them) shattered.
The following three types of constructions, though not universally recognised as
distributive, are discussed by both linguists and logicians. Thus, (8) is an
example of “Cumulative” Distributivity (Scha 1981: 483) characterised by an
indefinite distribution of a set of entities among another set of entities, Russian
(9) can be called (after Gil 1995) “Share” Distributivity, here expressed by a
preposition, and the problem in (10) is to what extent a “collective” reading can
be considered related (and not opposed) to Distributivity.
(8) 600 Dutch firms use 5000 American computers
(9) Passažir-y nes-li po neskol’ko paket-ov
passenger-. carry-.  several package-.
‘The passengers were carrying several packages each’
(10) All the men were ready for the battle
3. Quantificational semantics of DC
Semantically, all these DCs combine the idea of plurality with the idea of
singularity, because they refer to situations with a multiple argument, each (or
some) member of which is individualized. And they are all ambivalent about
whether they are quantifying the participants, the actions of the participants,
or both.
3.1 From plurality to singularity
Distributivity is a kind of quantification which combines the meaning of a group

plurality with that of an individualized singularity. DCs describe situations with
an obligatory “multiple” (group) argument — a multiple subject (1a, 4a, 6, 7, 10),
a multiple object (1b, 2, 4b), multiple spatial locations (3, 4c, 6), or the multiple
parts of an object (Bach et al. 1995, Krifka 1989, Verkuyl 1993) or an action —
or several such arguments (3, 4c, 5, 8, 9). Because at least one argument in a
situation described by a DC must be multiple, DCs express plurality.
Besides multiplicity, however, DCs always imply individualization of the
actions of each (or some) member of the multiple argument: the action is
performed either individually by every member of the group agent, or in respect
to every individual object, or within different spatial locations, etc. Because they
individualize the actions of the group participant, DCs express singularity. But it
is not an ordinary singularity, referring to a single entity as such, but a singulari-
ty referring to one member of the group.
Thus, individualization in a distributive situation denotes not a “primary”
singularity, but a secondary singularity, a singularity “derived” through plurality,
with the logical direction of quantification going from PL to SG. Similarly, the
plurality presented by DCs also differs from ordinary plurality (even of discrete
entities), because it emphasizes the idea of the discreteness of its constituents, in
the same way as singularity within DCs emphasizes the idea of separateness.
3.2 Entities quantified
Besides quantificational ambivalence (group-individual contrast), there is another

dimension of ambivalence concerning the entities which are quantified — object-
event contrast. DCs express individualization not simply with respect to members
of a multiple argument, but also — and predominantly — with respect to
individualized activity of these members. They render events as individualized.
Many linguists specially stress this component of distributive meaning, starting
with Isačenko (1962). They all claim that Distributivity specifies the individual-
ization of each action, their repetitiveness (Baker 1995: 50). Faltz (1995: 295) not
only recognizes that Distributivity renders both plurality of arguments and
plurality of events, but considers them as logically independent features.
This poses an important theoretical problem. What is really quantified:
participants, events, or both? The first position is hardly acceptable, because
Distributivity can neither semantically nor logically exist as a purely nominal
category and be used independently, outside of the situation or outside of the
sentence. Even constructions with purely existential predicates or with copulas
are impossible without a specialized context; to express distributive meaning, a
sentence must have a full-fledged predicate:
(11) a. *This is each book/Each book was in its place
b. *There is every boy/Every boy knew the answer
Thus, whether or not DCs express quantification of objects, they definitely
express quantification of events. But if so, their analysis requires a theoretical
framework which deals with the system of quantification of events. This is
methodologically an important shift of discussion towards the nature of event-
plurality and its status in grammatical descriptions. Previously linguists consid-
ered it as an area of Aspect, but Distributivity is not related directly to Aspect,
either semantically or in the ways it is encoded (at least not to the opposition of
Perfective/Imperfective). Cases like (7) are comparatively rare from the typlog-
ical perspective.
4. Mechanisms of encoding Distributivity
DCs exhibit a diversity of mechanisms of encoding, which can illuminate the

different components of Distributivity as a semantic category. Distributive
meaning can be encoded within different word-classes — nouns (or Nps) or
verbs (“morphologically” or “periphrastically”), by means of adverbs (or adverbial
modifiers), by specific forms of numerals, and in other ways. Besides, the mecha-
nisms of encoding are extremely diverse: affixation, reduplication, suppletion, etc.
4.1 Encoding within nouns (NPs)
Within a noun phrase Distributivity is usually expressed by:

a) specialized distributive and general quantifiers such as every, each, all.
This pattern is widespread. It is a dominant way of expressing Distributivity in
French, English, Arabic and Khmer. It is one of the possible ways of doing so
in Slavic, German, Turkic, Chinantec languages, Hausa, Itelmen and Vietnamese.
Here belong also other NPs presenting “group — individual” or “individual —
individual” (Krifka 1989: 86ff) contrast, as in each of them, je zwei Äpfel, sowohl
Anna als auch Otto, both Mary and John.
b) articles and determiners, especially in constructions with generic meaning
like A man is mortal (= Each man is mortal), sometimes in complex combinations.
c) nominal affixes, as in Kabardian (Colarusso 1992: 57):
(12) l’6- q’as ∅-y-a -ś’6-f
man- it-3--do-able
‘Each man can do it’
d) reduplication, as in some Amerindian languages — Nass Tsimsian,
Southern Paiute, Maidu, Tonkawa, e.g. Maidu (Mithun 1988: 222):
(13) a. tsa → tsa’tsato
‘tree’ → ‘every tree’
b. höbo’ → höbo’ boto
‘house’ → ‘every house’
e) a noun lexeme (generally a nominalization of a distributive verb), like English
distribution, branching, German Ausverkauf, Zergliederung, Verschleuderung,
French décomposition, dispersion, stratification.
Cases with D-quantifiers similar to every present a “strong”, “selective”
(Evans 1995: 208) pattern of encoding Distributivity, because every provides an
immediate distributive interpretation of the construction. Other cases of noun-
adjacent encodings do not uniquely express Distributivity; the same forms are
used for encoding number, definiteness, generic notions, etc. This functional
ambiguity characterises quantifiers like all, articles in generic sentences, redupli-
cation, and affixes (which can mark both nominal number and Distributivity, or
both iterative repetition and distributive repetition, etc.).
4.2 Encoding within verbs
In verbs Distributivity can be expressed by:

a) prefixes, as Slavic po-, pere-, na-, raz-, etc. (4a,b,c,); German zer-
(zerfallen, zergehen, sich zerstreuen); Georgian da- (Tschenkéli 1958: 98); and
Navajo dá-, na- (Dressler 1968: 71,73).
b) suffixes (Aleut, Evenki, Itelmen, Eskimo, Turkish, Armenian, Japanese,
Indonesian, some Amerindian), as in Zoque (Wonderly 1951: 149):
(14) a. ken → ken-b%‘

‘see’ → ‘see all’
b. wiht → wit-ke‘t -u
‘to walk’ → ‘he also walked’
c) reduplication (Amerindian languages, Chamalal, Armenian, Indonesian),
as in Classical Nahuatl (Suárez 1983: 69) — (15a) and in Cree (Horden 1934: 56)
— (15b):
(15) a. (te t.tSì a)-maka → (te.tSì a)- ma‘-maka
‘to give (smb. smth.)’ → ‘to give (smth) to each (person)’
b. mākiw → mu-mākiv (ma-mākiv)
‘he gives’ → ‘he gives distributively’
d) combination with some auxiliary verbs, or with serial verbs (Ewe,
Turkish, Vietnamese, Hindi), as in Ossetian (Abaev 1964: 45) — (16a) and in
Vietnamese — (16b):
(16) a. k5s6n → k5st6t5 k5n6n
look → look .  do
‘to look’ → ‘take several looks (in various directions)’
b. tôi xem hê¢ t phim nãy ên phim khác ..
I watch  movie this / movie another
‘I watch one movie after another’
e) the root itself (lexical distributives, found in almost all languages, like
scatter, disperse), or derivationally secondary verbal lexemes, which semantically
reflect the idea of partitioning, as in Zoque (Wonderly 1951: 153) — (17a), or in
Russian — (17b):
(17) a. nama +t%ks → namat%ks
small chop → chop in small pieces
nama + cihk → namacihk
small tear → tear in small pieces
b. kroš- it’
crumb.-
‘to crumb, to crumble’
f) combination of a singular root with a plural argument, as in (6).
g) specific usage of the Imperfective Aspect of punctual verbs with plural
arguments, as in (7).
h) change of tonal/vowel structure of the root (e.g. some Chinantec languages).
There are very few “strong” markers of Distributivity adjacent to the verb.
The most “pure” case is Aleut; Slavic distributive prefixes cannot be considered
pure. Usually verbal markers are multifunctional. Even if they primarily encode
Distributivity, they are widely used for marking other grammatical categories,
usually those with which they are in any way semantically connected. In the case
of DCs, these are markers which encode other types of event-quantification
(iterative, semelfactive) or event-“qualification” (intensivity, attenuativity, etc.),
or nominal number. The question of the range of categories which can be marked
by a multifunctional marker was much discussed in connection with different
categories (eg. Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988).
The categorial identification of a relevant marker (and of the corresponding
construction) as a distributive one is dependent on various components of the
context. It depends first of all on the inherent semantics of the verb — presence
of irreversibility, stability or terminativity (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 4–5),
or of parameters closely related to them (telicity/atelicity and boundedness/
unboundedness). Other strong markers of the context are the adverbs (compare
separately and several times) and the plurality of one of the arguments (see
relevant discussion for Even in Maltshukov 1992: 6).
4.3 Adverbs and numerals
Adverbs and adverbial-type expressions like separately, one after another, in

succession mark DC together with other means, or by themselves. Presumably
they can be qualified as strong distributive quantifiers because of their inner
semantics. In some cases (Ewe, Hausa) the reduplication of adverbs or of noun-
circonstants expresses Distributivity.
There are also DCs encoded by special numeral-based derivatives. Thus,
Ossetian has constructions with “distributive-partitive numbers” (Abajev
1964: 22), like (18a), and Kabardian has constructions with “distributive numeri-
cal adverbs” and “attributive multiplicatives” (Colarusso 1992: 162) — (18b).
They are all formed by means of suffixing numerals, and denote the variety of
distributive meaning connected with division/partitioning of the group/mass
referent in different ways:
(18) a. 5rt5 → 5rt6gay
‘three’ → ‘by threes’
b. śe → śa-a-ś’a
‘three’ → ‘three-fold’
Many languages have numeral-based verbs, like treble, Russian troit’s’a — to

be/appear treble. Cree has a well-developed system of formation verbs like these.
Thus, the ways of encoding Distributivity are diverse and often multi-
functional. So they cannot in isolation serve as a reliable diagnostic means of
identifying DC, especially in cases semantically close to DC. Because of the
unreliability of encoding mechanisms as identifiers of Distributivity, one has to
appeal to function and meaning associated with Distributivity as a specific
category. But this strategy can be successful only if there exists a theoretical
framework which provides an adequate system of concepts.
5. Verbal plurality as independent quantificational category
5.1 Problems of grammatical affiliation of Distributivity
The question concerning the grammatical status of Distributivity can be dealt

with only in a wider context of all phenomena relevant to event-plurality and
nominal Number. Like many other phenomena connected with quantification,
Distributivity is “homeless” within grammatical theory. Among the categories of
the noun, the category of Number is the only quantitative category with a
definite place in grammar, and among the categories of the verb, Number
agreement is the only such category. Thus, grammars provide a place for
inherent nominal number but not for inherent verbal number. Hence all other
instances of quantification — Distributivity, iterative and multiplicative repetition
of events, etc. — can be (and usually are) scattered all over descriptive and
theoretical grammars, usually as additional interpretations of the function of
certain markers, lexical items, auxiliaries, or certain constructions, etc. As for
event-quantification, it is generally acknowledged to exist, but is usually treated
within the category of Aspect, as a type of aspectual meaning or as a special
Aspect, and not as a separate grammatical and semantic category. I discuss the
question of the treatment of event-quantification in grammatical theory below.
5.2 “Traditional” approach to nominal Number and event-quantification
Traditionally the category of Number was considered a nominal category. The

contentive argument for this position was that the scope of quantification is
objects, designated by nouns, and that it is the number of objects that is in
question. The formal argument was that the meaning of plurality is encoded
primarily in nominal “inflectional” categories, either in the noun itself, or by
agreement-type marking in the adjective or the verb, or by “plural words”

(Greenberg 1969, Dryer 1989, Nichols 1992). Number encoding in the verb was
treated as Agreement — a case of redundancy in the grammatical system.
Though distinctions between singular and non-singular events (repetitive,
iterative, etc.) were recognized and described, these phenomena were associated
with Aspect (as one of the two major types of meaning of aspectual forms —
Partee 1991, Givón 1984, Bybee et al. 1994) or with Aktionsarten. A number of
linguists proposed to make a distinction between Aspect per se and other Aspect-
related concepts. Thus, they propose to interpret event-plurality as a special type
of Aspect — that is, to treat “generic” Aspect not as a single category, but as a
cluster of categories (Mel’čuk 1991). But even this approach connects event-
plurality more strongly with Aspect than with Number.
This position has an understandable basis. Formally, many languages use
“aspectual forms” (Imperfective and Perfective) for encoding both Aspect and
Number of events (especially Iterativity and Multiplicativity, and to some extent
Distributivity). Semantically, both Aspect and repetition are reflecting an idea of
a “period of time”, associated with how an event or a group of events is
projected on the axis of time. Besides, diachronically, there are direct connec-
tions conceptually relating iteration and such aspectual meanings as continuity,
progressiveness, etc. As is suggested in Bybee et al. (1994: 160ff), in the process
of historical development Number of events is dialectically transformed into a
more general concept of continuity
5.3 “New” approaches to event-quantification
Two independent schools of thought in linguistics have however challenged the

traditional interpretation of Number as exclusively a nominal category.
The older of these two schools going back to Jespersen (1924) has proposed
an alternative approach to understanding verbal number. The basis of this alterna-
tive approach was the theoretical position that one must single out a special
category of Number responsible for quantification of events (“verbs”, “actions”,
whatever is the terminology): “plural of the verbal idea”. This category should be
regarded as part of the general category of Number. Jespersen supported his
position by a substantial overview of typological data. Thus he gave a grammati-
cal status to the phenomena of verbal plurality, distinct from noun plurality, from
Aspect and from unattested affiliation within verb-formation, lexical meaning
etc. Two subsequent monographs Dressler (1968) and Xrakovskij (1989)
deepened Jespersen’s insights. Neither of these monographs seems to be widely
known to researchers working in the North American linguistic tradition.
Independently of this theoretical approach, linguists working mostly in the

North American typological tradition (Frajzyngier 1985, Durie 1986, Mithun
1988, Rijkhoff 1990, etc.) have also challenged the restriction of Number to a
nominal category, but on quite a different basis. Their arguments arose from
typological observations of material which did not conform to the theory of
agreement and which consequently demanded a new theoretical analysis. Their
approach goes back conceptually to Greenberg (1974) and Moravscik (1978) and
generalizes observations over patterns of encoding verbal quantification in
particular languages (Kinkade 1977, Holisky 1985). This typologically based
approach asserted the theoretical necessity to recognize a category of Number for
verbs different from Number of nouns. It showed that the verb is a material
bearer of marking for both nominal plurality and non-nominal plurality, which
operate independently. Recent publications (Jelinek 1984, Bach et al. 1995) have
continued to discuss the idea that semantically and logically the scope of
quantification in sentences includes not only objects, but also events which can
be repeated as a whole.
5.4 Types of “number” encoded in verbs
The verb as material bearer of different number markers is overloaded,

because, on the one hand, nominal plurality quite persistently can be actualized
by means of a “head-marking” pattern (that is, on the verb — Nichols 1992) and,
on the other hand, inherent verbal plurality is also usually marked on the verb.
So the verbal marking of plurality can express inherently different types of
quantification:
1) It can be agreement — a redundant secondary device for marking
nominal number. In some languages the Number agreement with the Subject is
obligatory, eg. German ich lese — wir lesen, or Russian ja čitaju — my čitaem,
in other languages the verb agrees also with other arguments, as in Huichol
(Comrie 1989: 69):
(19) Nee waakanaari ne-meci-tGkiitG eekG
I chickens --give you
‘I gave the chickens to you’
2) It can be a primary way of marking nominal number as a selective
feature of the verb. The most transparent example is suppletion (“stem alterna-
tion” in Mithun’s terminology) for /- arguments in a variety of North
American languages, as in Upper Chehalis (Kinkade 1991: 67, 163) — (20a) for
subject, and (20b) for object:
(20) a. tíxw → S6p

‘be killed/die ( subject)’ → ‘people die ( subject)’
b. kw6na → óimi
‘hold/take ( object)’ → ‘grab ( object)’
Another type of encoding of nominal plurality into the verb is represented by
pluralia tantum verbs, like to assemble, to gather, to scatter, which combine only
with multiple subjects and/or with multiple objects. The question whether they
actualize nominal or event plurality is not so evident. Verbs like to scatter, to
distribute, to disperse imply Distributivity, because they have a semantic
component of individualization/partitioning, which makes them cases of event
plurality. Other verbs like to assemble, to gather seem to imply only an action of
a group of people, without the component of individualization. Thus they seem
to belong to nominal number.
3) It can refer to event-plurality. In this case number markers encode either
repetition of actions in time, or the idea of multiple activities of a “group
participant”. In Classical Nahuatl (Suárez 1983: 62) — (21a) event-plurality
(marked by reduplication) expresses iteration. In Copainala Zoque (Suárez
1983: 75) — (21b) the idea of repetition is marked by a non-differentiated
iterative-distributive prefix, and can have respectively both readings. In
Tepetotutla Chinantec (Westley 1991: 28) — (21c) a specialized suffix marks
repetition in time.
(21) a. wi.tek → wi‘‘-wi.tek
to hit → to hit repeatedly
b. min-ge‘‘t-u
‘He came again/He also came’
c. ki-ka-‘nau‘ za hā‘
--seek...  animal
‘She/he repeatedly hunted the animal’
5.5 Classification of types of event-plurality
There are several types of event-repetitions — each of which can be described

as a special grammatical category (or a subcategory, depending on the choice of
the level of generalisation). They can be united in a cluster of event-quantificat-
ional categories. Classification of the categories forming the quantificational
cluster was one of the major tasks within the approach deriving from Jespersen.
Dressler (1968) proposes a “natural” classification of types of verbal
plurality: Iterative (with subtypes: Discontinuative, Repetitive, Alternative, etc.),
Distributive (Subject-, Object-, Reciprocal-, Dispersive-, etc. subtypes), Continu-

ous (Usitative, Durative, etc. subtypes) and Intensive (Intensive, Emphatic,
Exaggerative, etc. subtypes).
Xrakovskij (1989) presents a formal calculus of types of verbal plurality
based on a combination of two parameters: 1) repeated situations occur in one/in
different periods of time, 2) repeated situations have the same/different partici-
pants. He argues that only three (out of four logically possible) combinations
occur, and singles out three principal types: Iterative, Multiplicative-Semelfactive
and Distributive. Multiplicative-Semelfactive refers to situations which include
one and the same set of participants and occur within one period of time:
Russian: morgat’ ‘to wink’ — morgnut’ ‘to wink once’. The first verb implies
Multiplicative plurality — a process consisting of microacts, and the second
Semelfactive singularity — a single microact as a separate event. Iterative
plurality refers to situations with the same participants, each of which has its
own place on the axis of time: to visit (once) — to visit several times. Distributive
plurality refers to situations with different participants (due to there being several
members within a group participant) repeated within one period of time. This
classification scheme presents the types of event plurality as mutually exclusive,
which is not exactly what the data show. Besides, it does not include the fourth
possibility: distributive constructions for which the ‘unity’ of the time period was
either not relevant or excluded like Each of them visited Rome.
Neither Dressler nor Xrakovskij make use of parameters of nominal
quantification for classifications of event-plurality. Dolinina (1989) proposes a
classification which a) recognizes the relevance for event-plurality of such
parameters as discrete (countable), homogeneous (mass/collective), and heteroge-
neous plurality (types of nominal plurality — Xolodovič 1979, Hirtle 1982) and
b) distinguishes the ‘source’ of plurality. According to b) there are two main
subtypes: repetition of events in time (Temporal plurality) and repetition of
events due to individualization of the participants of a group (Distributivite
plurality). According to this classification Temporal plurality is represented by
two categories — Iterativity (discrete plurality) and Multiplicativity-Semel-
factivity (homogeneous plurality). Distributive plurality also can be either
discrete (cases of evident individualization, e.g. cases with each or every) or
homogeneous (cases of collective/mass and cumulative interpretations, including
cases with all). Heterogeneous plurality is a special case which is not now
considered. Here, in contrast to Xrakovskij, Temporal plurality and Distributivity
are regarded as logically independent types. Hence they can easily combine
within one construction: Each of them regularly visited a dentist. Hence, too, one
can acknowledge cases of Distributivity where the succession of actions of the
participants is tied to one group of people rather than to one period of time and
thus permits a more loose connection with the axis of time. This classificational
scheme gives a basis for a more precise classification of different types of
Distributivity than those previously proposed which were based on the syntactic
function of the multiple arguments. It becomes possible because ordinary
Distributivity here correlates with collective plurality as discrete and continuous
types of distributive plurality, and because this classification makes distributive
repetitions and temporal repetitions independent from one another, thus “freeing”
distributive meaning from the axis of time and also making these types of
repetitions combinable with one another within one construction. Thus this
classification provides a reasonable framework for analysis of DCs.
6. The two-faceted nature of Distributivity
If there are two different sets of categories of Number — one for objects and
another for events, Distributivity has characteristics of both. Distributive plurality
is ontologically two-faceted: it covers quantification of events in so far as it
expresses a repetition of individualized actions, and quantification of objects in so
far as it identifies the participants (objects) as members of a multiple argument.
This semantic duality explains why Distributivity is interpreted in some
descriptions as quantification of nouns and in others as quantification of verbs.
Often the interpretation chosen is motivated by the mechanism of encoding
Distributivity in a particular language. But theoretically it is impossible to
affiliate it only to one of these areas. It differs from “pure” types of event-
plurality (Iterativity and Multiplicativity) because it must include a multiple
argument, and it differs from ordinary nominal plurality because it expresses not
the number of objects as such but their individualization.
One can understand, but hardly accept, the ad hoc attractiveness of the
following compromise position: in some languages Distributivity is a nominal
category, in others a verbal one. In fact, different languages choose, by marking,
one of the components of Distributivity (nominal plurality — verbal plurality) as
the dominant one and the other one as secondary. So intuitively the category can
look as if it belongs to different types of quantification in different languages:
in those languages which do not have regular number contrasts of SG-PL but
which mark SG-DIST (the feature by which Boas 1924 characterizes the
specificity of some North American languages), Distributivity might intuitively
be more closely associated with nominal plurality.3 In contrast, in languages
which have well-developed noun number contrasts and whose distributive
contrast stresses particularly the individualization of the actions, Distributivity

might be regarded intuitively as a kind of verbal plurality.
7. Semantic oppositions within Distributivity
Many important peculiarities of Distributivity are due to the fact that it is not a
grammatical “primitive” with one component of meaning. The duality of
Distributivity, along with its with other features, is responsible for the variety of
semantic oppositions which can be marked within it. Some of these oppositions
are due to its verbal nature of projecting events on the axis of time (simultaneous
vs. successive), others to the syntactic (or role) type of the multiple argument
(Subject-, Object-, Locative-, etc. Distributivity), still others to the necessity to
coordinate actions of individual members of one multiple argument with
individualized members of another multiple argument (Share Distributivity),
others again to such universal features of quantification as discreteness and
collectivity, and others to different combinations of the above-mentioned
possibilities.
The cases mentioned in different descriptions of Distributivity can be
classified within the following types of the most significant distributive contrasts:
1) The contrast based on the syntactic (or role) status of the multiple
argument. It refers to Actant Distributivity represented by subtypes: Subject- (1a,
4a, 6, 7, 12, etc.), Object- (1b, 2, 3, etc.) and Addressee- (15a). And it refers to
Spatial (circonstant) Distributivity, represented by the following subtypes:
Multiple locations (3, 5), Diversative (4c), its opposite Cyclocative as in Russian
(22), Ambulative as in Russian (23), etc.:
(22) Pticy raz -lete-li -s’
birds -fly-..-
‘Birds flew away (from one place in different directions)’
(23) Ja obo-š -la vse bibliotek -i
I -go -.. all library -
‘I went around (visited) all libraries (in succession)’
These contrasts are meticulously marked in Slavic languages, but not very often
in other languages. Sometimes there is differnt marking for actant and for
locative distributivity. The classification of DCs according to the syntactic status
of the multiple argument is discussed in the literature more than any other
contrast. A special problem is posed in this connection for ergative languages
(Xrakovskij 1989: 34, Frajzyngier 1985).
2) The contrast based on the parameter of “multiple entity — partitioned

entity”, which includes cases designated as “Quasi-Distributivity” and cases
designated “Dispersive Distributivity”, names which imply the idea of dividing
an object, a space (in general or that taken by the object), or an action itself into
parts. The typical examples are (17, 18), and besides (24) — Russian and (25)
— Aleut (Golovko 1989: 58):
(24) Zemlja po -treska -la -s’ ot žary
soil  -crack - - from heat
‘Soil cracked (all over) from heat’
(25) tiņ ču-ku-ķ → tiņ ču-la-ku-ķ
‘I dressed’ → ‘I am dressing in several stages’
One can suppose that to the same semantic opposition belong the cases not only
of partitioning, but also those of “assembling”, which are traditionally called
“Sociative (Associative)”, like (26) — Even (Maltshukov 1992: 4):
(26) Beji-l d’u -la i -lde -r
man- house - enter -/ -/.
‘The men came together into the house’
3) The contrast based on the distribution of individualized actions in time —
whether they are simultaneous or successive. This contrast is explicitly presented
in Aleut, where there are specialized suffixes for each alternative: la- conveys
succession, whereas -tuó- conveys simultaneity (Golovko 1989: 59). In Mayali
(Baker 1995: 210) the prefix djarrk- marks sameness of place and time; that is,
it expresses the idea of simultaneity. This contrast is strongly presented in
French, German, Chinese and Hindi. But very often this contrast is neutralized
and can be irrelevant.
4) The coordination, in cases with more than one multiple argument, of the
actions of the members of one group participant with the members of another
group participant (Scha 1981, Verkuyl 1993: 7, Gil 1995). It semantically covers
cases like: Each passenger carried two bags, Jane and Mary wore a white and a
red shirt respectively, Three girls ate five sandwiches. In general the occurrence
of a word signifying coordination is very important for the “distributive reading”
of various constructions in Japanese and in Indonesian, which like Russian have
special words conveying the meaning ‘per person’.
5) The contrast between discrete, individualized Distributivity and what can
be called “collective” Distributivity. This contrast is best presented by the
opposition of constructions with each/every and those with all: Each student
participated in the project — All students participated in the project. All students
here is not an ordinary plurality, it is a designation of the whole group of

individuals as a closed set, which does not allow partial reading and which refers
to all “eaches” presented as one unity.
8. Conclusion
Distributivity is a semantically complex grammatical category with diverse

mechanisms of its encoding. Since the form of encoding is not diagnostic in
singling out either the boundaries and the inner structure of this category, or in
solving the controversies connected with the interpretation of Distributivity, a
theoretical framework was proposed which meets these needs.
Distributivity does not belong to the domain of Aspect, but to that of
quantification. It is a special grammatical category within the general meta-
category of Number. It is doubly dual: it unites the ideas of plurality and
singularity, and it expresses the quantification of both nominal and verbal
entities; thus it belongs to the cluster of event-quantificational categories and to
the cluster of nominal quantificational categories. In order to distinguish Distribu-
tivity both from ordinary nominal quantification and from other types of
quantification of events, and to account for marginal cases, I proposed a theoreti-
cal framework which incorporates within quantification both nominal Number
and event Number. Within this framework I have also listed the major semantic
contrasts actualized by Distributivity, within which one can locate the various
kinds of Distributivity recognized in the literature.
Acknowledgments
This paper is a part of my ongoing research on the theoretical and typological analysis of verbal
plurality, which is supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. I am deeply indebted to those who contributed to this research: to my colleagues
who helped me to verify the data in various languages: Nina Kolesnikoff, Walter Smyrnyv, John
Colarusso, Virginia Aksan; to my research assistants, students (undergraduate, graduate and doctoral)
without whom the vast search of data would be impossible: Vanessa Hoang, Bruce Trono, David
Beck; and to David Hitchcock for helping me to develop my ideas and for all kinds of editing
assistance. I also thank my editors W. Abraham and L. Kulikov for their valuable advice in
preparation of the final version of the paper.
Notes
1. The notion of a “dominant” meaning for a grammatical category is discussed in Xolodovič

1979.
2. Some linguists propose (after Bach et al. 1987) to reduce the variety of markers of quantificat-
ion to two classes: determiner (D-) quantifiers and adverbial (A-) quantifiers. D-quantifiers refer
in the case of DC to quantifiers like every, each and perhaps all, and are parts of NPs. A-
quantifiers include a variety of means, such as adverbs, affixes and auxiliary verbs. This system
is rather general for my task, but the cases I describe can be easily classified by it.
3. Mithun (1988, 223) raises the question of the grammatical affiliation of Distributivity in
connection with the functional development of reduplicative patterns. She discusses Boas’s
opinion concerning what “category” (Noun or Verb) actually “hosts” them. She points out that
associating Distributivity with nominal plurality can be the result of the influence of English,
which modified the patterns of an “authentic” grammar, imposing plural distinctions in cases
where the aboriginal language would naturally ignore them.
References
Abaev, V.I. 1964. A Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic (ed. Herbert H. Paper, trans. Steven
P. Hill). Bloomington: Indiana University Research Centre in Anthropology,
Folklore, and Linguistics. [= International Journal of American Linguistics, 30 (4),
Part II.].
Abraham, Werner. 1996. “The Aspect-Case Typology Correlation: Perfectivity triggering
Split ergativity”. Folia Linguistica XXX/1–2: 5–34.
Bach, Emmon, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara H. Partee, eds. 1995.
Quantification in Natural Languages. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 54.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, Mark. 1995. “On the absence of certain quantifiers in Mohawk”. Bach et al. 1995.
21–58.
Boas, Franz. 1966 (1911). Introduction to Handbook of American Indian Languages.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar:
Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Colarusso, John. 1992. A Grammar of the Kabardian Language. Calgary: University of
Calgary Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Second edition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related
Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dolinina, Inga B. 1993. “Verbal quantity”. Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Conference of
the Canadian Linguistic Association ed. by Carry Dyck, 155–170. Toronto: Toronto
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Dolinina, Inga B. 1989. “Teoretičeskie aspekty glagol’noj množestvennosti [Theoretical
aspects of verbal plurality]”. Xrakovskij 1989. 258–269.
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Wien: Böhlau in Kommission.
Dryer, Matthew. 1989. “Plural words”. Linguistics 27: 865–895.
Durie, Mark. 1986. “The grammaticization of number as a verbal category”. Proceedings
of the Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 355–70.
Evans, Nick. 1995. “A-quantification and scope of Mayali”. Bach et al. 1995, 207–270.
Faltz, Leonard M. 1995. “Towards a typology of natural logic”. Bach et al. 1995,
271–320.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1985. “Ergativity, number, and agreement”. Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society 11: 96–106.
Gil, David. 1995. “Universal quantifiers and Distributivity”. Bach et al. 1995, 321–363.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1972. “Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in
the genesis of a linguistic type”. Working Papers on Language Universals 9
(November 1972): 1–39.
Hirtle, Walter. 1982. Number and Inner Space. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1985. “A stone’s throw from aspect to number in Tsova-Tush”.
International Journal of American Linguists 51.4: 453–455.
Horden, J., Rt. Rev, D.D. 1934. A Grammar of the Cree Language. London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii so
slovackim [Grammatical system of Russian in comparison to Slovak], Part 2.
Bratislava.
Jelinek, Eloise, and Demers, Richard A. 1994. “Predicates and pronominal arguments in
Straits Salish.” Language 70: 697–736.
Jespersen, Otto. 1963 (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd.
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1977. “Singular vs. plural roots in Salish”. Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Salishan: 147–156.
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1991. Upper Chehalis Dictionary. University of Montana Occasional
Papers in Linguistics. Missoula, Montana: University of Montana.
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitutionen. Zur Semantik von Massen-
termen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Krifka, Manfred. 1996. Review: Verkuyl, Henk J. A Theory of Aspectuality. The Interac-
tion between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics,
64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. Studies in Language, 20:2,
443–454.
Maltshukov, Andrej L. 1992. “Distributive constructions and verbal valence in Even”.
Languages of the World. 3. 1. 4–10. München: Lincom Europa.
Maslov, Jurij S. 1984. Očerki po aspektologii [Essays on aspectology]. Leningrad:

Leningrad University Press.
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1991. “Toward a universal calculus of inflectional categories: On Roman
Jakobson’s trail”. New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation ed. by Linda R.
Waugh & Stephen Rudi. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Vol. 49). 85–109.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. “Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking”.
Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics ed. by Michael
Hammond & Michael Noonan, 211–234. San Diego: Academic Press.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. “Agreement”. Universals of Human Language. V. 4. Syntax ed.
by Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik, 331–374.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nedjalkov, I.V. & Sverčkova, U.D. 1989. “Vyraženije množestvennosti situacij v
evenkijskom jazyke [Expression of the plurality of situations in Evenki]”.
Xrakovskij 1989: 63–72.
Nedjalkov, V.P. & S.Je. Jaxontov. 1988. “The typology of resutative constructions”.
Typology of Resultative Constructions ed. by V.P. Nedjalkov, 3–63. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Partee, Barbara. 1992. “Naturalizing formal semantics”. Plenary Session Texts, XVth
Congress of Linguists, 62–76. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 1991. “Nominal aspect”. Journal of Semantics 8: 291–309.
Scha, Remko. 1981. “Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification”. Formal
Methods in the Study of Language ed. by J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen & M. Stokhof.
483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.
Tschenkéli, Kita. 1958. Einfürung in die Georgishe Sprache. Band I. Zürich: Amirani
Verlag.
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. The Interaction between Temporal and
Atemporal Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 64). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Xolodovič, Aleksandr A. 1979. Problemy grammatičeskoj teorii [Problems of the theory
of grammar]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Xrakovskij, Viktor S., ed. 1989. Tipologija iterativnyx konstrukcij [Typology of iterative
constructions]. Leningrad: Nauka.
The past perfect in Armenian
Natalia A. Kozintseva
Institute of Linguistic Researches, St. Petersburg
Abstract
The objective of the present paper is to describe the meanings of the Past
Perfect in Old Armenian and Modern Eastern Armenian (MEA) and to make
an attempt to reveal the semantic development of the Past Perfect. The
investigation is based on the differentiation of the absolute-relative and absolute
tenses proposed by B. Comrie. It deals with the usage of the Past Perfect in
independent and subordinate clauses, in narration and in direct speech.
The functions of the Past Perfect in Old Armenian and in MEA have not
been compared before. It is shown that the Past Perfect in MEA differs from
the corresponding Old Armenian form by being used more widely in indepen-
dent clause and in direct speech. In these contexts, it has an absolute time
meaning and relates a past action of the second degree of remoteness to the
moment of speech.
1. Introduction
In various languages, forms that combine two time scopes in their meaning, a
preceding and a succeeding one, are referred to as Perfect (Maslov 1984: 32).
Formally, in most modern Indo-European languages these forms are periphrastic
and consist of the participle and the auxiliary verb ‘have’ or ‘be’ in the present,
future or past tense forms. The Past Perfect form in Armenian is briefly de-
scribed here to help the reader analyze the data.
In Old Armenian (Grabar), Perfect forms are built with the help of the Past
Participle in -eal (Grabar) and finite forms of the auxiliary verb em ‘I am’ (‘be’)
in Present and Past. The Past Perfect is formed with the auxiliary in the Past
tense, see (1):
208 NATALIA A. KOZINTSEVA
(1) Grabar: ēi () ēir () ēr ()

ēak’ () ēik’ () ēin ()
In Modern Eastern Armenian (MEA), the Past Perfect is formed with the help of
the Perfect Participle in -el, and Past tense forms of the same auxiliary, see (2):
(2) MEA: ēi () ēir () ēr ()
ēink’ () ēik’ () ēin ()
In Grabar and MEA, Perfect forms are aspectually opposed to two other past
forms, the Imperfect and the Aorist. In Grabar, both Pasts are synthetic, and in
MEA, the Aorist is synthetic, while the Imperfect is periphrastic (see Kozintseva
1995).1
Section 2 deals with the general semantic representation of the Past Perfect.
Sections 3 and 4 exemplify and discuss the functions of the Past Perfect in
Grabar and MEA, respectively. Section 5 contains conclusions concerning the
differences between the Past Perfect forms in Grabar and MEA.
2. Meanings of the Past Perfect
Typological studies of the Past Perfect have revealed two meanings conveyed by
structurally identical forms in different languages:
1) absolute-relative time meaning, i.e. the combination of “absolute time
reference (one time point is located prior to here-and-now) with relative time
reference (the action referred to by the verb in the pluperfect is located prior to
this contextually established reference point)” (Comrie 1986: 272)
2) absolute time meaning of the past of the second degree of remoteness;
according to Comrie, this meaning is expressed by the Past Perfect in Hindi, MEA,
and Pidgin English used in some Western African countries (Comrie 1985: 68).
The difference between these two meanings is rather essential. In the first
case, the Past Perfect is related to a reference point provided by the context, and
in the second case directly to the moment of speech as the deictic centre.
As Comrie claims, the English Past Perfect cannot be used in a sentence
like (3):
(3) They had built a magnificent wall (Comrie 1985: 69).
which is uttered by a speaker observing the Great Chinese Wall, although the
wall was built in the remote past. The same is valid also for MEA, where the
Past Perfect is rarely used in direct speech.
THE PAST PERFECT IN ARMENIAN 209
The description given below will take into account the differences between
languages that concerns: (a) the aspectual functions of the Past Perfect, (b) its
use in the independent and subordinate clause, (c) the obligatoriness of the Past
Perfect in different types of syntactic structures.
3. Old Armenian (Grabar)
In Grabar, the Past Perfect, like the Present Perfect, denotes the result of the
previous action relevant for the reference point in the past, see (4):
(4) Isk ibrew z-ays katarecin yew ararin iwreanc
and when -this fulfill.: and do.: them
mec» apēs hastatutiwn, yew deṙ andēn i tegwoJ¦n zeteg-eal
rather safety and still same at place- remain-
ēin xagagut’eamb, gužkan hasanēr yašxarhēn
be:. peacefully envoy come:. country.
Hayoc, z-č» akat har-eal yew z-ojis
Armenian, -forehead strike. and -collar
pataṙ-eal vasn apstambin Vasakay (Eghishe 1957: 78)
tear- about rebellion: Vasak.
‘And after they had committed this act and had thoroughly strength-
ened their position and were still staying in the same place peaceful-
ly, an envoy of sorrow from the land of Armenia arrived who,
banging his fist against his forehead and tearing his collar apart, told
about Vasak’s treacherous rebellion…’
The Past Perfect may be used both in dependent and independent clauses. The
bulk of my sample from Eghishe (133 of 168) is represented by dependent
clauses. In this case, according to Lyonnet (1933), the Past Perfect is used to
express the meaning of the relative past. In the subordinate clause, the Past
Perfect is obligatorily used if it is necessary to convey the participant’s state that
is (a) simultaneous with the past action in the main clause (i.e. the reference
point), see (4) and (7), or (b) prior to it, see (6). The main action may be ex-
pressed by the Aorist, if it belongs to the main plot of events, or by the narrative
Imperfect.
The following types of complex sentences with the Past Perfect in the
dependent clause are present in Eghishe’s text.
3.1 Complex sentence with a complement clause
The main action is rendered by the Aorist,2 see (5):

(5) Cawel ew patmeac ews aṙawelabanut’eamb z-or inč oč
more and tell.. also exagerration: -that what not
ēr gorc» -eal Hayoc (Eghishe 1957: 90)
be.. commit- Armenian.:PL
‘He added even more and told, with much exaggeration, about things
that had not even been committed by the Armenians.’
3.2 Complex sentence with an attributive clause
3.2.1 The main action is rendered by the Aorist
3.2.1.1. The Past Perfect denotes a relevant result of a past action that must have
caused the past action in the main clause, see (6):
(6) Du or i mankut’enē yaydm orēns sn-eal
you who from childhood. this faith educate-
ēir, yev č» šmarteal gitēir z-pndut’iwn
be.. and truly know:. -firmness
mardkanc… 6ndēr z-ayd amenayn hawasteaw
people.: why -that all certainty:
yandiman č-asacēr c-t’agaworn? (Eghishe 1957: 62)
straightforward -tell.. -king
‘You who had been educated according to that faith from your
childhood and had true knowledge of these people’s resoluteness…,
why haven’t you told all that to the king with all certainty and in a
straightforward manner?’
3.2.1.2. The Past Perfect denotes the relevant state that is simultaneous with the
main action in the past, see (7):
(7) … yew erewecan nma sandugk’ lusegēnk’, or
and appear..: he: staircase: shining:, that
kangn-eal ēr yerkrē i jerkins… (Eghishe 1957: 150)
spread- be.. earth. to heavens
‘And a shining staircase spanning all the way from earth to the
heavens appeared before him…’
3.2.1.3. The Past Perfect denotes the experiential action3 that precedes the action
of the main clause at some previous point (or interval) of time, see (8):
(8) … yaṙa¦J matean yew iwr azgakan-k’n, or yews
forward step.: and his kin: who also
yaṙa¦agoyn
J dataxaz l-eal ēin znmanē
previously procurator be- be.: his
aṙa J i ark’ayin… (Eghishe 1957: 134)
before king:
‘…His kin, who had accused him before the king previously,
stepped forward…’
3.2.2 The main action is rendered by the Imperfect

The subordinate clause conveys the preceding past action whose result was
relevant at the moment of the main action, see (9):
(9) …yew z-amenayn or ziard yew karg-eal
…and -everything that as and establish-
ēin yaṙaJ¦agoyn, andrēn yorinēr (Eghishe 1957: 85)
be.: before again legalize:.
‘And <he> again legalized everything in the way it had been estab-
lished before.’
3.3 Complex sentences with a temporal clause
The Past Perfect is used in a temporal clause introduced by the subordinator

minččew ‘before’. Notably in (10), the main action expressed by the Imperfect
occurs before the action rendered by the Past Perfect, i.e. the Past Perfect
denotes the later action. In this case, the main reason of using the Past Perfect
may consist in conveying background events. The other explanation that may be
proposed is that this is a special (modal) use of Past Perfect where it denotes the
expected action that did not take place:4
(10) Minččew yandiman eg-eal ēin mimeanc,
before meeting be- be:: each.other
z-gišer mi ognakan gt-eal nora, p’axsteay
-night an aid find- his flight
ankanēr yamurs iwroy ašxarhin… (Eghishe 1957: 80)
take:. :fortress his land
‘Before they met, Vasak had chosen night as his aid and promptly
escaped to the fortress in his land.’
It should also be mentioned that Past Perfect is not found in temporal clauses
introduced by the conjunction ibrew ‘when’.
3.4 Complex sentences with a conditional clause
In a subordinate conditional clause, the Past Perfect may denote unreal, see (11),
or counterfactual action, see (12):
(11) Ew et’ē kamec-eal ēr soca marmnawor
and if wish- be.. they corporeal
inč agahut’iwn i nerk’s xaṙnel, sakaw mi aknarkēin
some self-interest to this add, little just hint::
k’ristonēic i karawani-s, z-kšiṙ iwrak’ančiwr marmnoc
Christians in army-our, -weight each body.:
noca oski arnuin (Eghishe 1957: 181)
their gold get::
‘And if we had wished to add some self-interest to the matter, we
should just have made a hint to the Christians in our army so that
each of us would get as much gold as the bodies weighed.’
(12) Ew et’ē č-ēr mer ač» apar-eal yew
And if -be.: we. hurry- and
i p’axust darj-eal, mium i mēnJ¦ oč
to escape set.out. one from we. 
tayin aprel (Eghishe 1957: 61)
let:: live:
‘…and if we had lingered and failed to escape, they would have left
none of us alive.’
3.5 Complex sentences with a causal clause
In a subordinate causal clause, the Past Perfect denotes a prior action that causes
the action in the main clause, see (13):
(13) Ew oč1 inč2 kamecaw amenewin unkn3 dnel4 nma
and not1,2 want.. at.all listen3,4 him
marzpann, zi srti5 mtok’6 kaleal ēr
marzpan, for sincerely5,6 accept. be..
z-parskakan orēnsn (Eghishe 1957: 63)
-Persian religion
‘But the marzpan had no desire to heed him, for he had sincerely
accepted the Persian religion.’
3.6 The Past Perfect in independent clauses
The Past Perfect can be used in independent clauses in narration. It denotes a

resultative state included into the sequence of actions constituing the narration.
In this context, the Past Perfect can be interpreted as a relative tense, because it
refers to a past reference point constituted by past actions, see (14):
(14) Ew ayspēs hpartacaw barjracaw…
and so become.proud. become conceited.
vasn1 aynorik2 kegc» aworut’eamb t’agucanēr zink’n…
therefore1,2 deceitfully hide-. himself
Ew yoyž ēr casuc-eal 6nd anunn
and quite be.. became.furious- at name
K’ristosi… (Eghishe 1957: 12–13)
Christ.
‘Thus he waxed haughty and overweening… Therefore he deceitfully
hid his [intentions]… And he became quite furious at the mere
mention of Christ’s name….’
In conversational discourse, the Past Perfect may convey the remote past
meaning (the reference point being the moment of speech). Actions belonging to
the recent past are expressed by the Aorist, see (15):
(15) I hur yew i hogi ēik’ mkrt-eal-k’, ard
In fire and in soul be.: baptize-- then
i moxir ew yač» iwn t’at’awicik’? (Eghishe 1957: 55)
in ash and ash stuck.:
‘You that have been baptized in fire and soul, are you now stuck in
ashes?’
3.7 Conclusions
The following points can be made concerning the Past Perfect in Grabar.
1. This form is mainly used in subordinate clauses.
2. In different types of subordinate clauses, the Past Perfect expresses a past
action whose result is relevant at the time of the main action (as in attribu-
tive clauses), or a past action that precedes the action in the main clause (as
in complemental clause and in the causal clauses), or a past unreal or
counterfactual action in conditional (and maybe in temporal) clauses.
3. It may be also used in independent sentences in narration (the reference

point being located in the past).
4. In conversational discourse the Past Perfect forms are also used in the
context of simple past forms (Aorist and Imperfect) that denote actions
preceding the moment of speech; in this case the Past Perfect also functions
as the remote past.
5. The Past Perfect in Grabar has three interrelated functions:
a) in the same way as the Present Perfect conveys an action whose result is
relevant at the moment of speech, the Past Perfect conveys current rele-
vance at some reference point in the past.
b) it expresses a taxic meaning of anteriority (the category of taxis was
proposed by R. Jakobson (Jakobson 1957) as a general term for meanings
of anteriority, simultaneity, etc).
c) it denotes events in the remote past representing the second degree of
remoteness with the first being denoted by the Aorist or Imperfect.
4. Modern Eastern Armenian
In MEA, too, the Past Perfect can be found in both subordinate and dependent
clauses. As the basic principles of using the Past Perfect in the subordinate
clause in Old Armenian and MEA are practically the same (with the exception of
conditional clauses5), the Past Perfect in complex sentences is not discussed here.
In MEA, the Past Perfect in independent clauses is more widely used than
in Grabar. In the independent clause its functions are twofold: (a) it can be
related to a reference point in the past, or (b) it can be related to the moment of
speech and designate the remote past. The aspectual meanings of the Past Perfect
with regard to these functions are discussed in the subsections below.
4.1 The Past Perfect related to a reference point in the past
This function of the Past Perfect is revealed in narration where the actions of the
main plot are expressed by Aorist and Imperfect. In narration, the Past Perfect
denotes actions that precede the actions of the main plot and constitute back-
ground or extended flashbacks (Fabricius-Hansen 1991).
Constructions with the Past Perfect may be syntactically variegated. The
reference of the action to an interval preceding the reference point may be
explicitely expressed by the adverb arden ‘already’ or adverbials which include
the preposition minčev (minč) ‘until’, or the postposition aṙaj¦ ‘before’, see (16).
The Past Perfect occurs in all aspectual contexts characteristic for the
Present Perfect (with past reference).
4.1.1
Action whose result is relevant for the reference point represented by a past
event denoted by Aorist or Imperfect, see (16):
(16) Arag hagnvec yew kazm u patrast kangnec
quickly dress.. and neat and ready stand..
hayrik-i aṙJ¦iev. Hayrik-n arden patrast-el
father- before. Father- already prepare-.
ēr ayn amen6, inch petk’ ēr: lusankarchakan aparat6,
be.. that all what need was photograph camera,
p’ok’rik č» ampruk6… (Petrosyan 1988: 4)
small knapsack
‘She quickly dressed and came to her father neat and ready. Her
father had already prepared all that was needed: a camera and a
small knapsack.’
4.1.2
Quasi-resultative state (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 13–14) as the background
for an action, constituing a narrative sequence, see (17):
(17) Mač» kalyann sksec et u aṙaJ¦ k’aylel; na aynpes
Machkalyan- begin.. to and fro walk; he so
ēr mṙaylv-el, or erkyugic
be.. become.gloomy-. that fear-
paṙav-i arcunk’-ner-6 kang1 aṙan2,
old.woman- tear-- stand.:1,2
saṙan ačk’-er-i meJ¦ (Sahinyan 1957: 110)
freeze.: eye-- in
‘Machkalyan started walking to and fro; he became so gloomy that
tears (that nearly started to flow) froze in the old woman’s eyes.’
4.1.3
Experiential action, see (18):
(18) Minč ayd at’oṙ-i het ēr par-el,

before that chair- with be.. danse-.
ayžm cankan-um ēr kendan agJ¦k-a het
now want-. be.. alive girl- with
par-el (Xalap’yan 1978: 39)
danse-
‘Before that he had danced only with a chair, and now he wanted to
dance with a real girl.’
4.1.4
Durative action, see (19):
(19) Minč aysor na c» nog-ner-i-n havatacr-el
before this.day he parents--- assure-.
ēr t’e lin-um ē
be.. that stay-. be..
6nker-ner-i mot… (Zoryan 1959: 307)
friend-- with
‘Before that day he had assured his parents that he usually stayed
with his friends’
4.1.5
Iterative action, see (20):
(20) Aṙhasarak na oč ok’-ic čēr
generally he no one- :be..
negac-el, čēr
take.offence-. :be..
trtn¦ac-el
J orevē mek-i hasce-in (Xanzadyan 1974: 264)
complain-. some one- addresse-
‘Generally he took offence at no one, and complained about no one.’
4.2 The Past Perfect as a remote past
The function of a remote past is expressed by the Past Perfect, if:

1) the reference point coincides with the moment of speech, the Past Perfect
is related to the Present, see (21);
(21) Da aṙaJ¦hin1 hert’in2 veraberv-um ē

this firstly1,2 apply-. be..
Hamilton-i, Saint K’at’ring-i u Brandford-i
Hamilton- Saint Catring- and Brandford-
gaxt’oJ¦axnerin yev bacatrv-um
settlement.of.refugees and explain-.
ē nranov, or ayd k’agak’-ner-i hay
be.. that: that those city-- Armenian
bnakčut’yan mec» amasnut’yun6 gagt’-el ēr
population majority flee-. be..
nuyn šrJ¦an-ic, K’gi-ic (Bekaryan 1990: 22)
same district-, Kukh-
‘This applies, first and foremost, to the settlement of the refugees in
Hamilton, Saint-Catring, and Brandford, and is due to the fact that
most Armenians had fled from a single district, Kukh.’
2) sequences of Past Perfects are used in narration to express past actions that
occurred prior to the events in the main plot denoted by the Aorist or the
Imperfect; in conversational discourse, the Past Perfect may refer to an remote
past action with cancelled result, see (22):
(22) Angut mard, es inj zrkelov p’og ēi
shameless man, I myself depriving money be..
havak’-el, inčpes karogac-ar
collect-. how dare-.
gogan-al? (Harut’yunyan 1977: 123)
steal-
‘You shameless man, I had collected the money depriving myself,
how dared you steal them?’
Pragmatically, this form is used in utterances expressing apology, see (23) and
(24). Situations denoted by the forms moṙacel ēink’ ‘we had forgotten’ and
mtk’erov vēi tarvel ‘I had been absorbed by my thoughts’ are no longer relevant
at the moment of speech (the result is cancelled):
(23) Paron, menk’ jezanic nerogut’yun enk’
sir, we you. pardon be.:
xndrum … Menk’ moṙacel ēink’, or
ask:. we forget-. be.: that
amen mard … aržanapatvut’yan zgacum

every man self-destiny: sense
uni… (Sahinyan 1957: 234)
has
‘Sir, we ask you to forgive us… We have forgotten that every man
has a sense of self-destiny’
(24) Nerecek’… Mtk’-er-ov ēi
excuse.: thought-- be..
tarv-el (Petrosyan 1988: 34)
be.taken.away-.
‘Excuse me… I have been absorbed by my thoughts.’
In narration, the sequence of Past Perfect forms may denote succesive events in
the remote past. Such sequences form a regression in the narration, i. e. they
mark a digression to events preceding those in the main plot. In this context, the
Past Perfect is combined with adverbials of the remote past, like žamanakin
‘sometimes in the past’, patanekut’yan tarinerin ‘in somebody’s young age’, etc.
5. Conclusion
The Past Perfect in MEA is morphologically and semantically close to the same
form in Old Armenian. In narration, this form has an absolute-relative time
meaning and refers to a past action that occurred prior to past reference point
and is expressed by another (independent) clause or by an adverbial.
The Past Perfect in MEA differs from the corresponding form in Old
Armenian by being used more widely in the independent clause and in direct
speech. In these contexts, it has an absolute time meaning and relates a past
action of the second degree of remoteness to the moment of speech. The
meaning of a past action with cancelled result revealed in the direct speech context
may be considered as semantically derived from the remote past meaning.
The Past Perfect in Armenian has lost its modal functions. This fact is
correlated with the development of oblique moods and should be the object of
further investigation.
The apectual and taxic functions of the MEA Past Perfect that are found in
different contexts may be ranged in the following way by order of increasing
semantic complexity and remotness from the prototypical meaning:
1) past action whose result is relevant for the reference point in the past,
2) action occuring is prior to some past event (a taxic meaning),
3) past action of the second degree of remoteness,

4) past action with cancelled result.
The Armenian Past Perfect provides an interesting example of the develop-
ment of an absolute meaning co-existing with a relative one. This process is
influenced by the use of this form in different contexts with the moment of
speech as the deictic center. For more profound investigation, a larger sample of
linguistic data from different sources in Old and Middle Armenian should be
considered, while taking into account the functions of the Resultative Past
Perfect.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank the editors of the present volume for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this
contribution.
Abbreviations
1 – First Person
2 – Second Person
3 – Third Person
 – Ablative
 – Accusative
 – Aorist
 – Dative
 – Genitive
 – Imperative
 – Instrumental
 – Imprefect
 – Negation
 – Participle
 – Past
 – Past Participle
 – Present
 – Perfect
 – Plural
 – Singular
Notes
1. The Present Perfect in Armenian was discussed in my article (Kozintseva 1988) which was
written under the most attentive guidance of Vladimir Petrovič Nedjalkov to whom I feel much
obliged.
2. I have not found examples with Imperfect in the main clause in Eghishe’s text.
3. Experiential action implies that the speaker is merely interested in the fact that the action did
occur.
4. In MEA in this clause, the Past Subjunctive should be used.
5. The Past Perfect is not used in “open” conditons. If it is found in a subordinate clause
introduced by et’e ‘if’, it denotes a real past event from which the action conveyed in the main
clause is inferred:
Et’e na tan6 egel ēr, uremn namak-6 stacel ē
if he at.home be- be.. then letter- get- be..
‘If he had been at home, then it means that he received the letter’.
References
Bekaryan, Ara. 1990. “Kanadahay gagut’i patmut’yunic” [On the history of the Armenian
diaspora in Canada]. Lraber hasarakakan gitutyunneri 1, 14–25.
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. “Tense in indirect speech”. Folia Linguistica. XX/3–4. 265–296.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Eghishe. 1957. Vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc Paterazmin [On Vardan and the War of the
Armenians War] (publ. by E. Ter-Minassian). Erevan: HSSH GA Hratarakčut’yun.
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1991. “Frame and reference time in complex sentences”. The
Function of Tense in Texts ed. by J. Gvozdanović, Th. Janssen, Ö. Dahl, 53–73.
Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland.
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Russian
Language Project. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University. Dep. of Slavic Languages
and Literatures.
Harut’yunyan, Vladimir. 1977. Arevadarj [The Solstice]. Erevan: Sovetakan grog
Kozinceva, Natalia A. 1988. “Resultative, Perfect, and Passive in Armenian”. Typology of
Resultative Constructions ed. by V.P. Nedjalkov, 449–468. Amsterdam & Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Kozintseva, Natalia A. 1995. Modern Eastern Armenian. München: LINCOM EUROPA.
Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1933. Le Parfait en Armenien Classique. Paris: E. Champion.
Maslov, Jurij S. 1984. Očerki po aspektologii [Sketches on aspectology]. Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta.
constructions”. Typology of Resultative Constructions ed. by V.P. Nedjalkov, 3–62.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Petrosyan, Roza. 1988. “Ayn ašxarhic ekog jayner” [The voices coming from the other
world]. Sovetakan grakanut’yun, 12, 3–48.
Sahinyan, Anahid. 1957. Xačuginer [Crossroads]. Erevan: Sovetakan grog.
Xalap’yan, Zorayr. 1978. Ev Veradarjnelov Jer Dimankar6… [And Returning Your
Picture…]. Erevan, Sovetakan grog.
Xanzadyan, Sero. 1974. Sevani Lusabac6 [The Sunrise over Sevan]. Erevan: Sovetakan
grog.
Zoryan, St’ep’an. 1959. Amiryanneri 6ntanik’6 [The Amiryan’s family]. Erevan:
Sovetakan grog.
Aspects of aspect in Korean psych-predicates
Implications for psych-predicates in general
Chungmin Lee
Seoul National University
Abstract
Not all aspects of psych-verbs have received a proper descriptive treatment. A

case in point is Korean. Korean reveals the progressive in psych-verbs, while
English does not. The present paper scrutinizes the aspectual distribution of
psych-predicates in Korean, clarifies the nature of the progressive form, and
discusses the relations between cognitive verbs and emotional/sensory/
perceptual verbs, thus taking a critical stand to van Voorst’s uniform (1992)
treatment of achievement verbs. Psychological achievements are ‘resultatives’,
i.e. states implying previous ‘mental’ events. The paper further explores psych-
verb-turned accomplishment verbs and shows how boundaries between
temporal stages or points become blurred or how arguments are even reduced
via metaphorical or metonymic extension, respectively.
1. Introduction
Psych-predicates are distinct from other predicates with respect to their grammat-
ical and semantic features. So far the grammatical relations or thematic roles of
the NPs associated with them have been investigated, but their aspect semantics
was largely ignored until van Voorst (1992).1 Psych-predicates are manifested
either in adjectives or verbs in Korean and English (e.g., be afraid vs. fear), and
it is not clear whether they are stative, agentive or event-related. Particularly,
some Korean psych-verbs can be in the progressive form, whereas English ones
never can. Why they differ in this respect has not received an explanation.
The present paper adopts similar tests as Dowty (1979) applied in classifying
224 CHUNGMIN LEE
verbs, and it tries to see how psych-predicates behave and whether they can be
regarded as achievement verbs uniformly as van Voorst claims. We take the
position that a psych-predicate describes an event or eventuality such that it
involves the beginning, duration, end and result of a psychological state. It is
argued that there must be distinctions between emotional verbs, sensory/
perceptual verbs, and cognitive verbs, on one hand, and between those verbs and
psych-verb-turned accomplishment verbs, on the other. Thus, the paper takes
issue with van Voorst (1992) for failing to recognize those distinctions and
treating all of them uniformaly as achievement verbs. Emotion verbs, with no
telic end-points, behave more like states (with the flavor of a process or an
activity). Psychological achievements are ‘resultatives’, i.e. states implying
previous ‘mental’ events. Particularly in Korean, the sense of state continuation
is becoming stronger even in the case of psychological achievements, not only
with emotions/sensations.
When verbs of physical import get an extended psychological sense, they
tend to maintain the original aspectual structure, even though the boundaries
between temporal stages or points become blurred. As a general principle, if a
verb becomes abstract via metaphor or metonymy, its argument structure gets
reduced (Lee 1993b). In this way, an intransitive use of build (up) becomes
possible. The newly developed psychological verbs are largely subject to the
existing psych-verb pattern in grammatical behavior, even though there remains
some tendency of maintaining the original case relations of the physical verbs.
2. Aspectual behaviors of different kinds of psych-predicates
In Korean there are adjectives of emotion and sensation and their verbal counter-
parts with the verbalizer -e ha-ta attached to the adjective stems. There are also
non-derived verbs of perception. Let us first consider the behavior of adjectives
and their corresponding verbs of emotion.
2.1 Adjectives and verbs of emotion
Predicates of emotion co-occur with duration adverbials (e.g., ‘for five hours’),
but not with time-span adverbials (‘in ten minutes’) in the sense of accomplish-
ment. However, they can occur with time-span adverbials in the sense of ‘after’,
or waiting. Consider (1)–(2):
ASPECT IN KOREAN PSYCH-PREDICATES 225
(1) Cholsu-nun Yonghi-ka sahul tongan (*-e) (kesok)

Cholsu- Yonghi- 3 days for (*in (continuously
miw -oss -ta
abhorrent  
‘To Cholsu, Yonghi was abhorrent for/*in three days (continuously).’
(2) Cholsu-nun Yonghi-ka sahul mane tto miw -oss -ta2
Cholsu- Yonghi- 3 days after (in) again abhorrent  
‘To Cholsu, Yonghi was abhorrent again in (after) 3 days.’
[Dec(larative)]
With the ‘for five hours’ expression, as in (1), the event may be externally and
arbitrarily ‘bounded’, though so fuzzily as in all other emotion events. However,
it does not have any goal terminal point, which is required in an accomplish-
ment. Its verbalized counterpart, miw-o ha-ta ‘hate’ behaves in the same way as
the adjective, only with its case relations changed. Consider (3):
(3) Cholsu-nun Yonghi-rul sahul tongan (*-e) (kesok)
Cholsu- Yonghi- 3 days for (*in (continuously
miw-o hae -ss -ta
abhorrent do  
‘Cholsu hated Yonghi for/*in three days (continuously).’
We notice that neither adjectives nor verbs of emotion can occur with the
delimited time-span expression tongan-e ‘in’ just like activity and state verbs in
general, but that they can occur, to a certain degree, with the time lapse expres-
sion man-e ‘(only) in, after’, as in (2) above, as recurrent events. The latter
expression focuses on the beginning time point of a new or recurrent event, but
if it focuses on the end point of an event as in an accomplishment, then it is
unnatural with emotion adjectives/verbs, as in (4):
(4) ???Cholsu-nun Yonghi-ka sahul man-e ta miw
Cholsu- Yonghi- 3 days in completely abhorrent
-oss -ta
 
‘To Cholsu, Yonghi was abhorrent completely in three days.’
(5) ??Cholsu-nun Yonghi-rul sahul man-e ta
Cholsu- Yonghi- 3 days in completely
miw-o hae-ss -ta
hate hae- 
‘Cholsu hated Yonghi exhaustively in three days.’
226 CHUNGMIN LEE
This shows that emotion predicates do not involve a process of reaching the
culmination point. In this sense, even though emotion events are protracted and
may be externally and loosely ‘bounded’, they are contrasted with true accom-
plishment verbs, which are telic, with a goal or culmination point to be reached.
Emotions are fuzzily and arbitrarily ‘bounded’, if bounded at all. Let us consider
example (6) for the behavior of an accomplishment.
(6) Cholsu-nun il pun man-e won -ul ta kuri -oss -ta
Cholsu- 1 minute in circle  completely draw  
‘Cholsu drew a circle completely in a minute.’
The above accomplishment verb ‘draw a circle’ in Korean involves the culmina-
tion point of completing a circle after one minute of the circle-drawing activity.
In this sense, the lapse of time starts at the beginning of an accomplishment
event, differently from the case of sentence (2), where the lapse of time starts at
the end of a previous event before a new one. Sentence (6) can also occur with
the time-span expression tongan-e ‘in, within’ replacing man-e ‘after.’
Accomplishment verbs both in Korean and English reveal the so-called
‘imperfective paradox’, i.e., the fact that their progressive form does not entail
the perfective (Dowty 1979). But the paradox does not apply to the progresssive
form of emotion verbs. The progressive form of emotion verbs is common in
Korean. The progressive of psychological verbs is rather marginal in the first
place in English, as in (7), although there are native speakers who claim that it
can be used in a special emphatic context of ‘temporary’ nature. See (7), which
entails its perfective counterpart sentence ‘Mary hated a man.’ Note also that (8)
in the progressive of an emotion verb entails (9) in its perfective past form.
(7) ?*Mary was hating a man.
(8) Mary-nun namca han saram -ul miw-o ha -ko iss -oss -ta
Mary- male one person  hate   
‘Mary was hating a man.’ [Intended]
(9) Mary-nun namca han saram -ul miw-o ha -yoss -ta
Mary- male one person  hate  
‘Mary hated a man.’
(10) Mary was running. → Mary ran.
The entailment phenomenon in the English and Korean emotion verb from the
progressive to the perfective (realized in the past) is, therefore, similar to the one
with activity verbs in general, as shown in (10) above. But emotions such as
‘hating’, ‘loving’, and ‘fearing’ also count as an event. Consequently, its
expression having a plural (or non-specific singular) number of themas can occur
with time-span adverbials just like accomplishment verbs, as in (11):
(11) Cholsu-nun il-nyon tongan-e se saram -i miw -oss -ta/
Cholsu- 1 year in 3 person  abhorrent  -
se saram -ul miw-o hae -ss -ta
3 person  hate  
‘To Cholsu, three persons were abhorrent in a year/Cholsu hated 3
persons in a year.’
(12) Cholsu-nun ?*(ku) il-nyon tongan-e yoca han saram -ul
Cholsu- ?*(that 1 year in woman 1 person 
sarang-hae-ss-ta
loved
‘Cholsu loved a woman in a year (bad)/in that particular year (OK).’
For (11) to be appropriate, there must be three different delimited events that
began preferably at different times within the time-span ‘in a year.’ In (12), the
reference to ‘a woman’ is not good enough to evoke the sense of iteration
(frequency) or delimited units of events. Thus, if the sentence occurs with the
indefinite and nonspecific time-span ‘in a year’ it is not acceptable, whereas if
it occurs with a definite time-span expression it is acceptable. This is also the
case in English, as can be seen in the translation. If this condition of delimited
different events is met by some explicit iteration/frequency expression, then a
sentence with a singular definite/specific Theme that occurs in the scope of the
indefinite iteration (frequency) expression can occur with time-span adverbials.
Observe the following example:
(13) Mary-nun il-nyon tongan-e ku/han/otton namca-rul *(se
Mary- 1 year in the/a[spec]/certain male  *(3
pon) miw-o hae-ss-ta
times hated
‘Mary hated the man/a particular man/a certain man *(three times)
in a year.’
We must note that (13) (also in English), without the iteration expression ‘three
times’ in it, is unacceptable, just as the time-span reading tongan-e ‘in’ of (2)
above is. Iteration/frequency numerals (including fuzzy ones) make the events
bounded/delimited/quantized. In general, indefinite but delimited (or individua-
ted), counted events of emotion can co-occur with time-span ‘in’ adverbials. In
counting the events of emotion, their beginning points, but not their end points,
are important, unlike with counting the events of an accomplishment. From the
228 CHUNGMIN LEE
above facts and analysis, we notice that emotion predicates are similar to atelic
predicates of state and activity in their aspectual behavior. However, special
attention must be drawn to the beginning or ending phase of an emotion event,
as can be seen in metaphorical expressions as sarang-i ssak-tu-n-ta ‘Love starts
to bloom’ and sarang-i situ-n-ta ‘Love fades.’ A full-fledged phase can also be
described in expressions like sarang-i pul-tha-oru-n-ta ‘Love is blazing’, though
with no sense of completion or culmination as a goal. Thus, we can hardly say
‘I finished love’, except in in its physical or lapse-of-time sense, either in
English or Korean. Verbs like coh-a-ha-ta ‘like’, kuriw-o-ha-ta ‘long for’,
ashwiw-o-ha-ta ‘miss’ also belong to this class of emotion verbs. These verbs
can take the progressive form, describing the duration or continuation of the
emotional state involved. Incidentally, the English verb ‘long’, though psycholog-
ical and more common in poetry than in conversation, can occur in the progres-
sive, as in ‘I’m longing to meet her’, as opposed to other psychological verbs in
English. Some younger people say ‘I’m missing her’ (and even ‘I’m wanting
her’), but it is not generally accepted.
2.2 Adjectives and verbs of sensation
On the other hand, predicates of sensation often represent the instantaneous onset
of a sensation event involved, e.g., ssu-si-ta ‘be prickly’, ttagap-ta ‘(skin)
smarts’, maryop-ta ‘want to urinate/defecate’, maep-ta ‘be hot (in taste)’, cca-ta
‘be salty’, sikkurop-ta ‘be noisy’, hyanggirop-ta ‘be fragrant’, kkolkkurop-ta ‘be
bristly to the touch’, karyop-ta ‘itch’, kancirop-ta ‘feel a tickle’, aphu-ta ‘be
painful, hurt’, etc. The stimulus of sensation may be repetitive or punctual/short-
lived. The intransitive verb in this category cannot take the progressive form, as
in ?*ssusi-ko iss-ta ‘feeling prickly’, whereas the progressive of the verbal form
-o ha-ta is much better, as in ?maryow-o ha-ko iss-ta ‘wanting to urinate/
defecate’. The momentary onset and short duration of the sensation compared
with the relatively longer duration of emotion make its progressive form less
comfortable (cf. My arm smarts/*is smarting). One interesting phenomenon
regarding sensation predicates is that there are some processes by which non-
sensation predicates become predicates representing spontaneous sensation or
inclination. One such process is the so-called -o-ci-ta-passivization: transitive
verbs such as manci-ta ‘finger’, nwuru-ta ‘press’, palp-ta ‘step’, by this process,
become sensation predicates and show subjectification, i.e. they become natural
in the singular present, if it is in first person only. A test for this is the following
kind of third person Topic construction in the present tense that turns out to be
awkward, whereas the first person Topic construction in the present tense is acceptable.
(14) ?Cholsu-nun sangca sok-uy kwusul-i manci-o-ci-n-ta

Cholsu- box in of beads  be touched
(or tah-nun-ta)
touch(Vi)
‘As for Cholsu, he brushes up against beads in the box by hand.’
English cannot express non-volitional tactile sensation by a separate single verb.
The verb ‘touch’ cannot function as a psych-verb, except in its metaphorical
extension to a sense of emotion.
Another process is descriptive or evaluative adjectives becoming sensation
predicates in Topic construction. Such adjectives are kil-ta ‘be long’, ccalp-ta ‘be
short’, mac-ta ‘be fitting’ (the intransitive verb mac-ta ‘fit’ is more descriptive),
holkop-ta ‘be loose, big’, mukop-ta ‘be heavy’, swip-ta ‘easy’, etc. A Topic
sentence with any of these adjectives in the third person present is odd, whereas
it is not in the first person. See (15).
(15) ?Yonghi-nun i os -i holkop-ta
Yonghi- this dress  loose
‘As for Yonghi, she feels this dress is too big for her.’
Those adjectives subject to subjectification of sensation can be made verbs by
attaching -o ha-ta to the adjective stem, e.g., holgow-o ha-ta. The psychological
verb form can occur in a third person present Topic sentence (e.g., Yonghi-nun
i os-ul holgow-o ha-n-ta ‘Yonghi feels this dress is too big for her’, the Theme
Nom becoming Acc).
However, such an intransitive verb as tah-ta ‘touch’, when used in its
sensation sense, must be used in the first person present tense, but cannot appear
in the progressive or resultative form, as follows:
(16) na-nun pal -i ttang -e tah -nun (/*ko iss, /?-a iss) -ta
I  foot  soil on touch  (/* /? 
‘I feel (the touch of) the soil on my feet.’ (nonvolitional) [(res-
sive)]
The resultative form is possible not in its sensation sense but rather in its
descriptive or objective sense. An analogous subjectification tendency is also
found in Japanese.3 The case marking of the construction [body-part + Nom ---
place + Loc] can alternate with [place + Nom --- body-part + Loc]. The metaphori-
cal expression maum-e o-a tah-ta ‘come and touch one’s mind’ in its emotion
sense shows the body-part+Loc case marking and the same subjectivity condi-
tion, with the deletable first person Topic and a subject corresponding to ‘Leon’s
230 CHUNGMIN LEE
sad story’. Let us consider the following resultative sentence in its descriptive
sense:
(17) Mary-nun pal -i ttang-e tah -a iss -ta
Mary- foot  soil on touch  
‘As for Mary, her feet touched the soil.’ [ = Resultative]
The above sentence entails its past tense sentence (--- tah-ass-ta ‘touched’) but
not its present tense sentence (--- tah-nun-ta ‘feels the touch’) in its subjective
touching sensation sense. The subjective sensation sense represented by the
present form is possible with the first person singular, and the descriptive
resultative state in (17) can occur without Mary’s subjective sensing; for
instance, Mary’s feet could be numb and sense no touch at all. Yet we can utter
(17) objectively. In its descriptive or objective sense, the verb is an achievement
verb. The English verb touch, an achievement verb, can also be used in its non-
achievement, stative sense in the progressive form, e.g. ‘If two things are
touching, they are in contact with one other’, or in its achievement-like emotion
sense, e.g. ‘It has touched me deeply to see how these people live’. In English,
no subjectivity condition applies and both ‘It touches me ---’ and ‘It touches her
---’ are all right unlike in Korean.
The present tense sentence ‘It touches me ---’ may be argued to entail its
perfective counterpart ‘It has touched me ---’. Then, the important question that
arises with regard to aspect is whether those sensation or metaphorical emotion
senses in the present tense denote states/activities or achievements. Neither
blocks entailment. No ‘imperfective paradox’ as in accomplishments arises. No
activity interpretation is involved, in the sensation senses of adjectival forms at
least. In the case of metaphorical emotion sense of touch or maum-e tah-ta
‘touch (my) mind’, the literal physical sense of the verb gives the impression of
punctual achievement, whereas the newly created emotion sense denotes a
protracted state and change of state with fuzzy boundaries. Because of the latter
state nature, the present tense form, which denotes an extended range of time
period around the speech time point, is possible with these verbs. Otherwise,
some perfective form should apply to refer to punctuality. In English, the present
tense in ‘Mary is dead’ refers to its state after dying, but the present in ‘Mary
dies’ cannot.
2.3 Verbs of perception
Perception verbs such as see (and hear) have been rather reasonably classified as
achievement verbs by Vendler (1967). This tradition has been followed by van
Voorst (1992). They reveal the ‘beginning of the event’-reading with the in time
adverbial and the ‘fail to occur’-reading with the quantifying adverb almost.
In Korean, perception verbs such as po-ta ‘see’ and tut-ta ‘hear’ occur in
their perception sense with such adverbs as olphit ‘instantaneously’ and mot ‘not
able’, or with such forms as the passive and the subordinate conjunctive like -ca
maca ‘as soon as’. lf those verbs occur, on the other hand, with such prefixes or
co-verbs as chioda ‘up, at’, turioda ‘into’, cikhyo ‘on, watching’, salphyo
‘around’, noryo ‘staring’, or such action-modifying adverbs as tturojige ‘piercing-
ly’, they become action verbs like look (or listen) as opposed to see (or hear),
without any change in form in Korean (Lee 1973a). In the progressive form,
therefore, they only function as action verbs, and in the passive they only
function as perception verbs. Hence no passive progressive form is allowed in
either sense. Consider (18)–(19).
(18) Joe-nun Sue-rul po -ko iss -ta
Joe- Sue- look  
‘Joe is looking at (/*seeing) Sue.’
(19) (na -nun) Sue-ka po -i -n -ta (/*po -i -ko iss-ta)
(I  Sue- see    (/*see   
‘I see Sue (Sue is visible to me).’
Sentence (18) above describes the progress of the action but not the result of
seeing (if some adverb intervenes between po-ko and -iss, po- and -iss are
independent verbs and po- can denote perception). Thus, only action perfection
(in the past tense), but not perception perfection (i.e. ‘Joe saw Sue’), can be
entailed by (18). (19), in its passive, shows the subjectivity constraint (possible
only with the first person (not the third person) Experiencer in the present,
behaving just like emotion/sensation adjectival sentences). If the context permits,
the active form can show its perception sense, as in (20a,b).
(20) a. no panggum pongae-pul po -ass -ni?
you a minute ago lightning see  
‘Did you see the lightning a minute ago?’
b. ani, mot po -ass -o
no not able see  
‘No, I didn’t/couldn’t see it.’
As can be observed in (20b), the perception sense of the verb occurs only with
the adverb negating ability or circumstances, mot, but not with the simple
negation adverb an ‘not.’ The action sense occurs with the simple negation. The
speaker did not take a look on purpose in this sense with the simple negation.
232 CHUNGMIN LEE
Thus, ilburo ‘on purpose’ cannot co-occur with (20b) (*ilburo mot po-ass-o ‘I
didn’t see it on purpose’). The same contrast occurs in the verb tut-ta ‘hear’
between mot tur-oss-o ‘I didn’t hear it’ and an tur-oss-o ‘I didn’t listen to it’.
Another point about the Korean verb po-ta ‘see, look’ is that it cannot take
a full sentential complement as an object, as a propositional attitude verb. The
verb in the following example is used as a visual perception verb having a non-
finite complement clause, but it cannot be used as a cognitive verb:
(21) [na-nun [Mary-ka ttui-nun kos -ul] po -ass-ta]
[I  [Mary- run  DependN  see  
‘I saw Mary running’. [ = Prenominalizer = Relativizer]
This is different from the English counterpart see, which is used as a cognitive
verb with a finite sentential complement, as in I saw that Mary won the game (see
Barwise and Perry 1982 for its meaning in distinction to I saw Mary running).
Let us then observe what happens when such perception verbs as po-ta
‘see’, etc. occur with a time adverb. With the duration adverb tongan ‘for’, such
verbs tend to get the action sense. Witness:
(22) na-nun ku mulkogi-rul sam pun tongan po -ass -ta
I  the fish  3 minute for look  
‘I looked at the fish for three minutes.’
(23) ku mulkogi-ka sampun tongan po-i-taka saraji -oss -ta
the fish  3 minute for seen after disappear  
‘The fish, after being seen for three minutes, disappeared.’
In (22), the action involved is the speaker’s main concern and can be homoge-
neous. The perception alone is excluded. Notice that the perception can be on
and off for periods of time. In (23), on the other hand, in its passive, the
presence of the fish is salient and stays homogeneous for three minutes, rather
than in the speaker’s perception only. The speaker’s perception appears to persist
in a pragmatic interpretation via the object’s persistent presence. The perception
of seeing or hearing cannot be guaranteed to persist for any conceivable period
of time at one stretch, and, therefore, its expression does not normally co-occur
with any durational time adverb except in a vague, pragmatic (visibility/audibility
or object/event’s presence) sense. In English, too, neither the progressive nor the
imperative/suggestive can co-occur with see/hear. Observe:
(24) a. *Why not see the tree!
b. *Why not hear the music’ (Lee 1973b)
(25) na -to com po -ca

I also please look 
‘Let me take a look!’ [ = a speech act of let’s, used as
an indirect request]
The Korean suggestion sentence (25) is possible only when the verb po-ta
‘see/look’ is used in its action sense, not in its perception sense.
The English verb notice also shows the characteristics of a perception verb
like see, but it reveals a process-like meaning unlike see. Witness (26)–(28).
(26) Mary began to notice me and noticed me partly. (B. Tesar, p.c.)
(27) Mary noticed the building getting taller.
(28) a. ?What she did was notice me.
b. *What she did was hear the fire-alarm go off. (van Voorst 1992)
(29) That foul smell was not noticed by the attendants.
The same verb form (po- ‘see’-‘look’, tut- ‘hear’-‘listen’) can denote either
perception or its corresponding action, depending on linguistic or non-linguistic
contexts in Korean, and, therefore, it can be represented as underspecified with
respect to perception and action. In English, a perception verb and its corre-
sponding action verb are lexically distinct. The perception reading or verb can be
a punctual achievement, whereas its action/activity counterpart is a durational
activity. In the latter case, the verb can be modified by a durational time adverb
tongan or for and its object is not affected or quantized. The tactile sense is
more variously expressed in Korean than in English.
2.4 Verbs of cognition (propositional attitude)
Let us turn to the verbs of cognition such as al-ta ‘know’, ic-ta ‘forget’,
kkaedat-ta ‘realize’, mit-ta ‘believe’, or saenggakha-ta ‘think.’
2.4.1
First consider different tense/aspect forms applied to different contextual uses
of al-ta ‘know.’ In the case of (30) below, the superficial progressive form of the
same verb has been used to imply that the speaker already came to know it
before and that he is in the state of knowing it. Originally it represented the
continuation of a result state. In other words, there has been a change of state
such as COMING TO KNOW before the speech time, resulting in a complex
resultative construction. Therefore, an adverb like kamanhi ‘silently’ can in
principle intervene between -ko and iss-. However, insertion of such a word is
234 CHUNGMIN LEE
impossible in the process progressive (ttwi-ko iss-ta ‘be running’ vs. *ttwi-ko cal
‘well’, iss-ta vs. cal ttwi-ko iss-ta ‘be running well’). It is well known in Korean
linguistics that the same form -ko iss- can be interpreted either as a progressive
or as a resultative (perfective) with certain transitive verbs of wearing such as
ssu- ‘wear (a hat)’ depending on whether we pay more attention to the process
or to the result state. Consider the progressive/resultative form occurring with
al-ta ‘know’ in a dialogue between A and B in (30):
(30) A: hankuk -i iki -oss -tae
Korea  win  
‘Korea is said to have won it.’
B: al -ko iss -o
know  SE
lit. ‘I am knowing it’. ‘I already know that’.
Since the form is used more frequently in the sense of the progressive and since
there is a sense of continuity in the form with cognitive verbs, people usually
take it to come as a progressive. There is a shared sense of continuity in both
process progressive and psych-verb resultative (or perfective in a sense). The
latter takes the same progressive form in Korean. As a consequence, the form
reveals ‘temporariness’ like a process progressive. In this case, the continuity
sense is more salient than the perfective-resultative sense. The corresponding
Japanese expression shi-te iru and the Hindi expression hai jaani show an
analogous consequence. In Mongolian, both the progressive (med-ej bai-na ‘be
knowing’) and the perfective (med-eed bai-na ‘be having known’ (intended))
exist only with subtle meaning differences. In Korean, the state continuation
sense is so salient that its achievement end-point is not really felt. This is
particularly clear when we consider the verb moru-ta ‘not know, be ignorant’,
the semantic opposite of al-ta ‘know.’ Consider:
(31) Mary-nun [Sue-ka o -n kos -ul]CompS moru -ko iss -ta
Mary- [Sue- come    not know  
‘Mary does not know (is in the state of not knowing) that Sue came.’
Here, moru-ko cannot denote any process progressive of moru-ta ‘not know’ as
an inherent state of the negated verb. Since the negation is not an independent
lexeme but came as part of the lexical features of the verb (even though the verb
originally comes from the two separate morphemes mos ‘not’ and al- ‘know’),
we can hardly say that the scope of negation is over the progressive of the
affirmative verb al- ‘know’. Consequently, we cannot say that there is an
achievement such as ‘not knowing’. Yet, adverbials like kunyang ‘just like that’
can be inserted before iss-ta ‘be, exist’ and -ko iss can hardly be called ‘progres-
sive.’ If it is neither an achievement nor a state continuity, then, is -ko simply a
conjunction marker? Its conjunction sense and the lexical meaning of iss-ta have
come to be weakened and the two items -ko and iss- together have been gram-
maticalized to become a unitary complex form, not quite as much, though, as in
the process progressive. If an adverbial intervenes between -ko and iss-, iss-
‘exist, be’ tends to become an independent verb.
On the other hand, the verb ic-ta ‘forget’ clearly behaves like an achieve-
ment verb. Thus, if the form ko iss- is attached as ic-ko iss-, its reading is a
result state, not the process progressive (the reinforcer -so, which is incompatible
with process progressive, can be attached to the resultative ic-ko). Its resultative
can replace the main verb resultative in (31). The resultative -ko iss construction
can be modified by the adverb acikto ‘still’, but the perfective past construction
like ic-oss-ta cannot. The latter, though, can be modified by polsso ‘already.’
The adverb polsso, as a positive polarity item (PPI) cannot modify the past of
the inherently negative verb mol-ass-ta ‘didn’t know.’ Instead, its dual acik ‘yet’
can modify it, functioning as an NPI. If the same dual modifies (31) before the
main verb, Mary is in the state of not knowing the fact ‘yet’ at the moment.
Incidentally, the adverb acikto ‘still’ is a good test for distinguishing between the
resultative and the perfective past (acikto ip ‘wear’ -ko iss-ta vs. *acikto ip-oss-
ta) as in many other languages. The realization of ‘forgetting’ (or ‘not remem-
bering’) is punctual, and the verb usually occurs with the perfective past (ic-
oss-ta), if the subject is not in the first person (in English, we hear a stative
expression like ‘I forget his name’). The past of the negative verb mol-ass-ta
‘didn’t know’, ‘was ignorant’, however, hardly shows any perfective sense; it is
a denial of a state at a certain point of time in the past rather than reporting
occurrence of an event. The continuity sense of iss- in the resultative ic-ko iss-ta
is shown by negating the construction (the Neg is attached to the main verb ic-
‘forget’). Then, at the same time, the negation, with wide scope, licenses an NPI
in the object of the main verb ic- ‘forget’ (e.g. Mary-nun ku il -e kwanhae amu
ket-to ic-ci anh-ko iss-ta ‘Mary is in the state of not forgetting ANYTHING about
it’). Its semantically opposite lexical item kiokha-ta ‘remember’ can take the
same complex resultative construction, but the same form cannot be in the
agentive process progressive reading. A synonymous verb oewu-ta ‘keep in
memory, memorize’ can take both resultative and progressive readings. But it
can only take nominal objects such as lines of a poem, but not a propositional
content, since it does not constitute a propositional attitude verb (see Kim 1993
for the ambiguity of this verb, although her ‘resultative progressive’ is not clear).
Basically, it is an action verb selecting a nominal object, and its progressive
236 CHUNGMIN LEE
reading, which is more frequent, has to do with the action part. The purpose of
the action is ‘having something in memory’. Thus, its result state is a cognitive
state, and that is why it can get a (cognitive) resultative reading. The verb
kkaedad-ta ‘realize’, however, hardly constitutes such a complex result state
construction with the same form (?kkaedad-ko iss-), even though it otherwise
behaves as an achievement verb. This way, we can see word-specific characteris-
tics of similar verbs within the same aspectual class of verbs. The resultative
reading of -ko iss- of the transitive verb is analogous to that in -o iss- with
intransitive verbs. This is a separate form from -ko iss-, which is used exclusive-
ly for the process progressive reading in intransitive verbs.
Turning back to the verb al-ta ‘know’, it is interesting that it can occur with
the past form as in (32).
(32) A: ppalli sum -o
quickly hide SE (Familiar, Imperative)
‘Hide yourself quickly.’
B: al -ass -eo
know  SE (Familiar, Declarative)
‘I got it.’ [SE = Sentence Ending]
The past form reveals its perfective reading in (32B). The new change of state
in cognition occurs as soon as B hears A’s utterance and the result state of the
change remains relevant at the time of utterance. The past form of al-ta ‘know’
in (32B) shows the speaker’s sudden, immediate realization of the informed
situation at the end-point of the whole event of coming to know. This way of
reaching an end-point, though psychological, amounts to an achievement in the
past tense and its result state of the immediate past still continues to be salient.
The same is true of the colloquial use of ‘get’ in English, as shown in the
translation of (32B), as a result of metaphoric extension from physical to
cognitive of ‘get.’ In Japanese, wakarimashita ‘understood’ would be used in this
case. The achievement sense of Korean al-ta ‘know’ is originally related to its
reading in (30B) (historically, the resultative became a perfective past), though
the sense of state continuity associated with the progressive form became more
salient. The past of the verb ic-ta ‘forget’, which is ic-oss-ta, on the other hand,
cannot be appropriately applied to the first person because of the subjectivity
constraint, with a non-wh-complement S, as in (33):
(33) ?*na -nun [Mary-ka o -n kos -ul]CompS ic -oss -o
I  [Mary- come    forget  
lit. ‘I forgot (in the sense ‘I forget’) that Mary came.’
With respect to the above string, it would be contradictory to say that ‘I ceased
to remember that Mary came’ and that ‘I still do not remember it’, mentioning
the fact at the speech time. A similar contradiction arises with the resultative —
ic-ko iss-o ‘(I) am in the state after forgetting —’, as with the perfective past
shown in (33). However, the past of the resultative, ic-ko iss-oss-o ‘(I) was in the
state after forgetting —’ is all right, since we can recall what we forgot. To
admit that the fact already occurred to the speaker (Experiencer) at the moment
of speech after forgetting it for a certain while in the past, the double past form
-oss-oss- must be used alternatively, like ic-oss-oss-o ‘(I) experienced forgetting
---’ after the complement S in (33). The same simple perfective past form, which
is not compatible with the first person, is favorably applied to the third person
and the second person, and it can be used throughout with wh-words and
embedded indirect questions, as a wh- inducing verb, for any person including
the first person. The speaker can be in the state of not recalling the relevant wh-
information after forgetting it, with the first person subject sentence.
Let us then consider the present form associated with al-ta ‘know’, as in (34).
(34) A: haengsung -un modu ahop kae-i -ya
planet  in all 9 Cl be SE
‘The number of planets is 9 in total.’
B: al -a
know SE
‘I know.’
Speaker A intended to inform B, but B responds saying that he already knows in
the present form of the verb. This should be the description of a certain cognitive
mental state, not the description of a process-related habitual aspect. However, the
same verb is used to describe the aspect of reaching the culmination point, as
witnessed in its past use (31B). Therefore, the present tense utterance of the verb
al-ta ‘know’ (33B) implies that there was such a culmination point of coming to
know (change of cognitive state) before the time of the utterance, and, in this
context, that the information is not new to speaker B. This kind of implicature also
applies to the present tense of know in English in the same context. One can also
cease to know (‘forget’). In other words, ‘state’ can be described as a(n) (pro-
longed) aspect in the whole range of subevents of a complex event. The present
tense is used to denote a more permanent, persistent, or, rather competence-related
sort of knowledge, which can be compared with the continuity (progressive or
resultative) form. Thus, for ‘know French’ in the individual-level predication, the
following contrast arises in Korean: French-rul al-a ‘I know French’ <present>
vs. ?*French-rul al-ko iss -o lit. ‘I am knowing French’ <progressive or resultative>.
238 CHUNGMIN LEE
The verb al-ta forms various complex verbs of perception, or cognitive

action, by being followed by auxiliary verbs. The complex verb al-a po-ta, with
the auxiliary -po- ‘see, try’, is used either in the perception achievement interpre-
tation of ‘recognize’ or in the agentive sense of ‘try to find out, investigate.’4
Therefore, the representation for the verb al- may be underspecified as to
pychological/agentive. The complex verb al-a tut-ta ‘hear and understand’, with
the auxiliary -tut- ‘hear’, is used for cognition. The complex verb al-a chari-ta
‘realize’, with the auxiliary -chari- ‘be attentive’, is also used for cognition.
Another complex verb al-a nae-ta ‘find out’, with the auxiliary verb -nae-
‘produce, let out’, comes to have an agentive reading. Still another example al-a
cu-ta ‘appreciate’, with the auxiliary verb -cu- ‘give’, forms a cognitive agentive
verb. In other words, the agentivity/stativity distinction of the al + Aux combina-
tion largely depends on whether the Aux is agentive or not, or, alternatively, is
underspecified and interpreted either way through the context. However, if the
Aux simply denotes some aspectual sense such as completion (in the case of the
verb ic- ‘forget’ the completive or perfective Aux -pori- is almost automatically
attached to it), the interpretation of the complex verb tends to depend on whether
the main verb al- becomes contextually agentive or not, which is underlyingly
represented as underspecified. A process can be either dynamic (agentive) or
stative (as in state-change like realize or we can posit ‘mental or cognitive
action’) and can influence the aspectual structure.
The verb al-ta ‘know’ and related verbs select also embedded questions. A
nominal object of ‘know’ such as ‘his name’ is equivalent to the complement S
‘what his name is’. The psychological adjective kunggumha-ta ‘wonder, want to
know’ selects an indirect question S as a complement (e.g., na-nun ku ai-uy
kohyang -i.odi -i-n-ci-ka kunggumha-ta ‘I wonder where that child’s hometown
is’). Its complement is an open wh-proposition, whereas the complement
proposition of al-ta ‘know’ contains a wh-variable which the speaker can specify
as an indefinite specific proposition. In the case of a factive complement, it is a
definite (‘quantized’) proposition.
2.4.2
If we try to form the pre-nominal or relativized forms of the verb under consid-
eration to put before the noun sangthae ‘state’, we can easily check if it is state-
salient in the present tense or if it comes as a result via achievement in the past
tense. In Korean there is a distinction between the present pre-nominal form
(-nun) and the past pre-nominal form (-n). Observe:
(34) a. kukos -ul al -nun /?-n sangthae

it  know [] /?[] state
‘the state of knowing/ ?having known it’ (intended)
b. kukos-ul ic ?-nun /-un sangthae
?
forget - [] / [] state
‘the state of ?forgetting/having forgotten it’ (intended)
c. kukos-ul kkaedad ?-nun /-un sangthae
?- [] / []
‘the state of ?realizing/having realized it’ (intended)
The verb corresponding to ‘know’ takes the present pre-nominal (relative) form,
whereas the verb corresponding to ‘forget’ takes the past one. The verb corre-
sponding to ‘realize’, i.e., kkaedat-ta, behaves like the latter. The latter two verbs
mark the achievement end-point with the past form even before the noun ‘state.’
If we replace the head noun sangthae ‘state’ by kwacong ‘process’, the latter two
verbs (b and c) become compatible with the present form, and the first verb (a)
is somewhat less compatible with it. All the verbs are slightly less compatible
with the past pre-nominal form before the head noun ‘process’. On the other
hand, the verbs corresponding to ‘know’, ‘not-know’ and ‘forget’ can take the
complex prog(ressive)/result(ative) form -ko iss- before the noun ‘state’, whereas
the verb ‘realize’ cannot. See (35):
(35) a. al ‘know’ -ko iss [/] -nun [] sangthae ‘state’
b. moru ‘not know’ -ko iss [/] -nun []
sangthae ‘state’
c. ic ‘forget’ -ko iss [/] -nun [] sangthae
‘state’
d. ??kkaedad ‘realize’ -ko iss [/] -nun []
sangthae ‘state’
‘a state in which (one) knows/not know/forgets/realizes [prog/
result] (something)’
Propositional attitude verbs like mit-ta ‘believe’ and saenggakha-ta ‘think’ take
the complex progressive/resultative form as well as the present form when they
have complement clauses. Their corresponding verbs in Japanese normally do not
take the present form. Consider:
(36) saram-tul-un [ciku -ka tungul-ta -ko] saengkakha -ko
people  [Earth  round   think 
iss-ta/saengkakha -n -ta
think 
240 CHUNGMIN LEE
(37) hito-tachi -wa [tikyu-ga marui to] omot -te -iru

people  [Earth  round  think  
/*omo -u (Japanese)
/*think 
‘People think[]/think that the Earth is round’. (Gunji, p.c.)
In Japanese, the state continuation/duration sense of the progressive form of the
verbs remains in general making the situation largely episodic (cf. Watashiwa so
omoi-masu [Pres] ‘I think so’). But in Korean, both the progressive and present
forms are used in the state continuation sense, and slightly different uses of the
different forms have developed: the progressive form for temporarity/vividness
or a limited situation, and the present form for generality or a permanent situa-
tion, as discussed about. So, the present form is preferred for (36) in Korean. It
is clear that the progressive form is used as a progressive rather than as an
achievement perfective, at least for these individual verbs. In this sense, the
process progressive (process continuation) in English and other Indo-European
languages and the state progressive (temporary state continuation) have continua-
tion in common (cf. Parsons 1989). This use of the progressive form as state
continuation, however, can be distinguished from the process progressive form
that denotes some action in progress and that is applied only to action verbs, i.e.
-ko iss-nun cung-i-ta ‘in the midst of.’ This form cannot replace the more
commonly used Korean progressive form in (36). This is true of all kinds of
propositional attitude verbs that take a complement clause including al-ta ‘know.’
However, mental activity verbs like ‘consider’ (koryoha-ta, komthoha-ta) and
‘think’ (in its activity sense) can appear in the process progressive form. The
progressive form is also possible with verbs of this category in English. Both in
English and Korean, these verbs tend to take ‘about ---’/--- -e taehae rather than
a direct object. This characterizes the unique status of propositional attitude verbs
in taking complement clauses.
There is another class of psychological verbs which are associated with
propositional contents or events and which behave as intransitive verbs rather
than as transitive verbs. Consider:
(38) Mary-nun [Park-i iki-oss -ta] -nun sasil -i
Mary- [Park- win    fact 
saengkak-na-ass-ta
occurred
‘To Mary, it occurred that Park had won.’
(39) Mary-nun ku-i -rul manna -nun il -i (maum-e) naekhi

Mary- he  meet  event  mind to inclined
-ci anh -ass -ta
to not
‘Mary was not inclined (had no appetite) to meet him.’
(40) Mary-nun sakwa-rul/-ka mok -ko siph -oss -ta
Mary- apple / eat  want  
‘Mary wanted to eat apples.’
The verb saengkak-na-ta ‘(lit.) memory comes out; (something) occurs; comes
to mind’ takes a factive proposition as its subject and an Experiencer as Topic,
showing the typical psychological construction pattern, as in (38). Verbs such as
kiok-na-ta ‘occur, come to memory’ and tto-oru-ta ‘arise, occur’ behave like-
wise. The propositional content involved is factive because some fact saved in
the memory in the past comes out spontaneously to an Experiencer. These verbs
are punctual achievements and do not allow the progressive form. The verb in
(39), on the other hand, takes an event as Theme (Kuno regards this kind of NP
in Japanese psych-verbs/adjectives as an object, which is not well justified) in
which the Agent subject is coreferential with the Experiencer Topic (cf. the
Experiencer-Null Agent Coreferentiality Constraint for the verb, with the
Experiencer as controller). In (40), the main clause adjective takes an embedded
complement clause in which the null Agent is coreferential with the matrix S
Experiencer (the Coreferentiality Constraint) and where the object (or locative
Goal) is raised to get the Nom marker in the matrix S. If not raised, the object
(or the locative Goal) takes Acc (or the locative Goal marker). When the Theme
is raised to get Nom, the output pattern becomes the typical psych-predicate
construction: [Experiencer-Top + Theme-Nom + Psych-Pred]. All these verbs/
adjectives are subject to the Subjectification Constraint (unnatural with non-first
persons in the Present tense).
3. Psych-verbs via metaphor/metonymy
Certain verbs of concrete motion and action, accomplishment and achievement

can function as psychological verbs via metaphorical or metonymic sense
extension. These new psychological verbs tend to behave like real psychological
verbs subject to the Subjectification Constraint. In other words, they are not used
with any non-first person Experiencer in the Present. But certain such verbs
maintain the same case manifestations as concrete action verbs. Let us consider
activity verbs first:
242 CHUNGMIN LEE
(41) kincang-kam -i kamtol -ko iss -ta

tension feeling  whirl round  
‘Tension is whirling round.’
(42) a. na -nun Mary-eke hokam -i ka -n -ta /??ka -ko iss -ta
I  Mary-to liking  go   go  
‘I am inclined to like Mary.’ (lit. ‘As for me, liking goes (/??is
going) to Mary.’)
b. (na -nun) Mary-ka hokam -i ka -n -ta
(I  Mary- liking  go  
‘I am inclined to like Mary.’ (‘As for me, liking goes to
Mary.’)
c. Joe-nun Mary-eke /-ka hokam -i ka -ss/??-n -ta
Joe- Mary-to / liking  go   
‘Joe was inclined to like Mary.’ (As for Joe, liking went to
Mary)
d. Mary-eke /*-ka Joe-ka ka -ss -ta
Mary-to /* Joe- go  
‘Joe went to Mary.’
The verb in (41) originally stands for moving concrete things like water, but
nowadays it is rarely used in the concrete sense. In the concrete sense, it used to
select an object. Today it is predominantly used in the abstract sense to mean
‘hang over’ as in han-pando -e cenwun -i kamtol -n -ta ‘War clouds hang over the
Korean Peninsula’ and in the psychological sense as in (41), both as intransitive
verbs. The common locomotive verb ka-ta ‘go’ as in (42) can be used in its
psychological sense, either maintaining the dative marker as in (42a) or getting
the Nom maker, (42b). If your good feeling goes to someone, you are inclined
to like her, and the one to whom the good feeling goes becomes the Theme
rather than remaining the Goal. In Korean, the Theme takes a Nom marker,
while the Experiencer takes a Top marker. In its concrete sense, Goal must take
a Goal/dative marker, not a Nom marker as in (42d). Even though the psycholog-
ical sense of the expression is obvious in (42c) and thus the Nom marker is
possible for Mary the new Theme, the Goal/dative marker instead of the Nom
marker can appear because of the original locomotive meaning ka-ta ‘go.’ The
verb in its psychological sense appears only with the first person, never in the
third/second in Present (42c) because of the Subjectification Constraint. This kind
of Experiencer-psychological sense of the verb cannot occur in the progressive
(42a). Such psychological nouns as tongceng ‘sympathy’ can also form a
psychological predicate with the verb.
Let us consider some English psychological verb-turned action verbs to find

out about common principles.
(43) Mary’s presence is building (up) tension among the other faculty.
(44) Tension is building (up).
The accomplishment verb build is used as a causative psychological verb in (43)
and as a middle voice intransitive verb in (44). The relation between the two,
therefore, can be compared to that between the causative and inchoative/
unaccusative senses of the verbs break or sink. One important thing to notice,
however, is the change from accomplishment to non-accomplishment in (43) and
all the similar changes to abstract/psychological senses. The expression building
tension, as distinct from building a house, does not have an end-point and thus
is not ‘quantized’ (in Krifka’s (1997) sense). Modification by ‘completely’ is not
appropriate both in English and Korean. Such a psychological state noun as
‘tension’ seems to be a sort of mass noun like ‘pressure’, even though it is
‘cumulative’ in this context and brings about a gradual change of mental state.
‘Mary’s presence’ is an event NP, and the causation involved here is a non-
agentive and non-dynamic abstract process. The middle voice in (44) is only
possible with nouns of mass or abstract/psychological (i.e., ‘non-quantized’)
things as subject. Furthermore, Experiencers of tension are non-referential people
rather than a definite person. In the case of the non-psychological, concrete
verbal meaning, the middle voice expression ‘A house is building’ is impossible.
On the other hand, typical accomplishment verbs such as break and destroy
are argued by van Voorst to retain accomplishment properties even under a
psychological reading. Consider:
(45) These pictures broke his resistence (in five minutes).
(46) His remarks destroyed my happy mood (in an hour).
However, it seems inadequate to reason that ‘inclinations’ (Ryle 1949) are
object-like and can undergo a change of state or be manipulated. Unlike van
Voorst, I would argue that the reason is that, other than build (up), these and
other removal or annihilation verbs, among which dispel, may refer to a clearer
culmination point regardless of whether the direct object is physical or psycho-
logical. Observe:
(47) His laughter dispelled tension and fear.
Psychological state nouns like ‘happy mood’, ‘tension’, and ‘fear’ can hardly be
said to be ‘permanent inclinations’. Yet, examples (45)–(47) tend to maintain the
244 CHUNGMIN LEE
characteristics of accomplishment verbs. The contextually delimited total quantity

is affected and disappears as a consequence. As van Voorst himself claims,
agentivity may not play any significant role in the aspectual structure, but it
serves signalling the process, and the above examples, involving event subjects,
can have agentive subjects, though there may not be any beginning point or any
process as clearly referred to as in concrete accomplishments. Therefore, when
we insert the adverb ‘almost’, in its ‘failed-to’ interpretation, or its Korean
equivalent -(u)l ppon ha-ta, it appears that the end point fails to be referred to
(with no beginning point felt) in the relevant events. In other words, psychologi-
cal accomplishments (via metaphorical extension) yield achievements.
Let us consider analogous Korean examples that behave as accomplishment
verbs in their psychological readings:
(48) Mary-ka kuron mal -lo nae kibun -ul capchi -oss -ta
Mary- such word with my mood  destroy  
‘Mary destroyed my mood with such remarks.’
(49) kuron nongdam -i punwiki -rul kkaetturi -o
such joke  atmosphere  break
‘That kind of joke breaks the atmosphere.’
(50) cosakwan -i sajin -ul po-i -o siwija -uy cohangsim
investigator  photo  show by demonstrator of resistance
-ul kkokk-oss-ta
 broke
‘The investigator broke the demonstrator’s resistance by showing a
photo.’
Such accomplishment verbs, in their psychological readings, are used with the
same argument and aspectual structure as in their physical sense, even though
they tend to become achievement-like because of no clear beginning points in
their events. In (47), the verb can be modified by such expressions as ‘in ten
minutes’, ‘halfway’ or ‘completely’.
Quite a few activity/achievement verbs such as tto-oru-ta ‘arise’ become
psychological verbs with achievement properties meaning ‘come to mind’, etc.
as in (38). Activity verbs such as strike/hit in English also show metaphorical
extensions. Consider:
(51) The behavior of those people strikes/hits me as odd.
(52) ??The behavior of those people is striking/hitting me as odd.
Example (51) denotes a transition in mental states as a new achievement verb.
The change of mental state in the Experiencer me should be punctual, but its
result state remains in the Present form of the verb. The Progressive aspect is
impossible as with most achievement verbs. Van Voorst is somewhat contra-
dictory in treating a progressive like (52) both as fully grammatical and as an
achievement (“??” is my apprectiation, reflecting the intuition of several native
speakers). An informal expression in Korean shows a similar change from
physical to psychological; see kol ttaeri-ne ‘--- strikes me on the brain’ ⇒
‘strikes me as absurd’.
Many psychological state nouns both in Korean and in English occur with
ordinary aspectual verbs. The verbs get metaphorically extended senses to be
associated with psych-nouns. Observe:
(53) John-un Mary-wa sarang -e ppaji -oss -ta / chwiha-yo iss -ta
John- Mary-with love in fall   indulged is 
‘John fell/indulged in love with Mary.’
(54) Mary-nun Bill-e taehan cungosim -uro/-e/-i pultha -ass -ta
Mary- against hatred with/to blaze  
‘Mary(’ mind) blazed with hatred to Bill.’
(55) sarang -i colcong -e talhae -ss ta/ kkut -na -ass -ta
love  culmination at reached ended
‘The love reached the climax/ended.’
In (53), the verb ppaji-ta ‘fall in’, which is an achievement, unaccusative verb,
becomes psychological by metaphor when the locative Goal is a psych-noun like
‘love.’ Even without the psych-noun, the verb can be metaphorically extended to
mean ‘indulge in’, as in John-un Mary-eke ppajio iss-ta ‘(lit.) John fell into Mary
and is in that state.’ The verb chwiha-ta ‘get drunk’ is similar. The former verb,
ppaji-ta, refers to the inchoative part of the whole event of ‘fall in love’ more
strongly than the latter verb. Both verbs, however, involve a result state: the
former by the Perfective in the past marker, and the latter by the complex result
expression (‘exist by being indulged’). The ‘resultative’ can be modified by the
adverb acikto ‘still’, the state being salient (acikto pajio iss-ta/chwihae-iss-ta). This
does not hold for the Perfective past (?*acikto paji-oss-ta), as previously dis-
cussed. Thus, we can feel and express the beginning part of the emotional state
and, furthermore, its continuation by the Progressive (in Korean and Japanese) or
Present. (54) illustrates the process-like part of an emotion. (55) demonstrates the
process-like part and the ending part. The verb sarangha-ta ‘love’, in particular,
can take even the process-Progressive form -V-ko iss -nun cung-i-ta, though it is
a little awkward. The Sino-Korean word for ‘love’, i.e., yonae, however, can take
the process-progressive morpheme -cung, forming yonae-cung-i-ta or yonae-ha-ko
246 CHUNGMIN LEE
iss-nun-cung-i-ta ‘having a love affair’. It can also be modified by yolyolhi

‘vehemently’ without becoming a verb of physical love. It is felt to be a process,
even though it may be basically a mental or emotional activity in Korean. This
shows that aspectual behavior is sometimes lexically determined.
In first-language acquisition studies, the predominant portion (more than
90%) of initial past forms acquired in different languages (Antinucci and Miller
1976 for Italian, Shirai 1996 and Shirai and Anderson 1995 for English and
Japanese, Lee 1997 for Korean) turned out to be achievement (and accomplish-
ment) verbs. In other words, telic verbs are associated with the Perfective past in
child acquisition. Psychological predicates are more frequently associated with
the Present in Korean. Very early words in Korean include sensation adjectives
such as a tto! ‘ah, hot’, apho ‘it hurts’ in the Present and early achievement
verbs in the Past are dynamic ones (Lee 1993a).
4. Conclusion
Psych-predicates in general have been argued to denote events (or at least

eventualities) involving changes and/or end-points. However, there is a distinc-
tion between emotion verbs and perception/cognition verbs. The former largely
behave more like states (with a flavor of process or activity), whereas the latter
largely behave like achievements, with no process involved leading to the
culmination point in the ‘in X minutes’ test. Van Voorst failed to make this
distinction. He also failed to provide any evidence for his claims that emotion
verbs, which have no telic end-points, though denoting loosly ‘bounded’ events,
are also achievement verbs. We have also shown how achievement psych-verbs
manifest their result states either by the Past marker in the sense of the Perfec-
tive relevant to the Present, or by the complex result state expression (analogous
to be+PP). If we interpret emotion/sensation predicates as denoting states that
resulted from the previously initiated or ended achievements, then we may be
able to generalize all psych-predicates as achievements, as van Voorst claims.
However, this claim is not well supported, nor is it generally accepted. The
initiation point of some emotional or sensational state does not seem to form a
well-defined or linguistically inherent end-point of an achievement event.
Psychological achievements are ‘resultatives’ (if they occur with -ko iss-ta ‘be in
the state of’) in the sense of Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988), i.e. as states
implying previous ‘mental’ events. Particularly in Korean, the sense of state
continuation is becoming stronger even in the case of psychological achievements
(cognition), not only of emotions/sensations.
This paper has also shown how verbs of physical sense including activity,
accomplishment and achievement transfer to verbs of psychological meaning via
processes of metaphor and metonymy. When verbs get an extended psychological
sense, they tend to maintain the original aspectual structure, even though the
boundaries between temporal stages/points become blurred. It holds by a general
principle that, if a verb becomes abstract via metaphor/metonymy, its argument
structure reduces (Lee 1993b). Thus, an intransitive use of build (up) becomes
possible. The newly developed psychological verbs are largely subject to the
existing psych-verb pattern in grammatical behavior even though there remains
a tendency to maintain the case relations of the original physical verbs.
Psychological verbs and adjectives, except verbs such as ‘know’ or al-ta
‘know’, behave as stage-level predicates in general (see note 4). However, the
impacts of psychological processes are rather protracted and the thematic role of
Experiencer normally becomes Topic, differently from physical stage-level
predicates.
Psychological predicates reveal diverse grammatical behaviors as either
states(/processes) or achievements or even as accomplishments (under metaphori-
cal extension). It is clear that they do not behave uniformly as states or as
achievements. Further investigations are required to understand better the
relations between mental states/activities/events and their grammatical behaviors
in different languages to arrive at universal properties of psych-predicates.
Notes
1. At the initial stage of the paper, I benefited from discussions with Ik-Hwan Lee and Bruce
Tesar in 1994. A. Herskovits’ draft of a paper on motion predicates (1997) was a helpful
inspiration. I am grateful to Lonja Kulikov, who was so patient throughout the period of
preparing and editing Festschrift for Vladimir Nedjalkov and also to his co-editor Werner
Abraham for his thorough reading of the draft and giving detailed suggestions for improvement
in style. I also thank Robert Fouser, who gave helpful suggestions for an earlier version.
2. The sentence becomes more natural if the adjective has the inchoative -ci ‘become’ as in miw-o-
ci-oss-ta ‘became abhorrent.’ This is because emotion involves a slow and gradual process.
3. A sentence corresponding to (16) in Japanese has the same sensation sense, and a third person
cannot replace the first person without creating oddity (according to Noma Hideki). The
sentence in Japanese, if in the progressive form (no separate resultative form possible in
Japanese), becomes descriptive. The subjectification of descriptive adjectives such as ‘long’,
‘short’, and ‘fitting’ is also found in Japanese.
4. Kratzer (1990), as van Voorst (1992) indicates, distinguishes between two different predicates
for the verb know (assigning a ‘stage-level predicate’ to know in c) to explain the following
dichotomy in grammaticality:
248 CHUNGMIN LEE
a. *When Mary knows French, she speaks it well.

b. When Mary speaks French, she speaks it well.
c. When a Moroccan knows French, she knows it really well.
However, in (a) ‘Mary’ is definite and ‘know’ is an individual-level predicate. Therefore,
‘when’ cannot be conditional. Some ‘reason’ instead must be presented here. On the contrary,
in (c) ‘a Moroccan’ is indefinite and forms a choice function and a conditional easily. Then,
know is, I would say, still an individual-level predicate in (c).
References
Antinucci, F. and R. Miller. 1976. “How Children Talk About What Happened”. Journal
of Child Language 3.169–89.
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Kim, Yookyung. 1993. “The Resultative Progressive in Korean”. CLS 29. 251–65.
Kratzer, A. 1990. “Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates”. Ms. U. of Massachusetts.
Krifka, M. 1997. “The Expression of Quantization (Boundedness)”. Ms. Cornell LSA
Linguistic Institute.
Lee, Chungmin. 1973a. Abstract Syntax and Korean with Reference to English. Seoul:
Thaehaksa.
Lee, Chungmin. 1973b. “The Performative Analysis of ‘Why not V?’”. Language Science
25.39–41.
Lee, Chungmin. 1976. “Cases for Psychological Verbs in Korean”. Linguistic Journal of
Korea (Ene) 1.
Lee, Chungmin. 1982. “Aspects of Aspect in Korean”. Linguistic Journal of Korea (Ene)
7/2.570–582.
Lee, Chungmin. 1989. “Argument Structure and Psych-Predicates”. In: A. Ikeya (ed.) The
Sixth Japanese-Korean Joint Conference on Formal Linguistics. Tokyo: The Logico-
Linguistic Society of Japan, 215–229.
Lee, Chungmin. 1993a. “The Acquisition of Mood Indicators in Korean”. In Kuno et al.
(eds.) Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 5.41–61.
Lee, Chungmin. 1993b. “Frozen Expressions and Semantic Representation”. Language
Research 29.301–326.
Lee, Chungmin. 1994. “Issues in Aspects of Psych-Predicates” (in Korean). Journal of
Aesan 15.1–23.
Lee, Chungmin. 1997. “The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect-Modality in Korean”. Paper at
Cornell LSA Linguistic Institute Workshop on First Language Acquisition of East
Asian Languages.
Lee, Ikhwan. 1994. “Aspectual Characteristics of Psych-Verbs in Korean” (in Korean).
Journal of Aesan 15.25–45.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & S.Je. Jaxontov. 1988. “The Typology of Resultative Construc-
tions”. In: V.P. Nedjalkov (ed.) Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 3–62.
Parsons, T. 1989. “The Progressive in English: Events, Processes, and States”. Linguistics
and Philosophy 12.213–41.
Shirai, Y. 1996. “Early Tense/Aspect Morphology in English and Japanese”. Paper at the
7th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Istanbul.
Shirai, Y. and R.W. Andersen. 1995. “The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology: A
Prototype Account”. Language 71.743–62.
Van Voorst, Jan. 1992. “The Aspectual Semantics of Psychological Verbs”. Linguistics
and Philosophy 15.65–92.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
P 
Events and their componentiality

How descending is ascending German?
On the deep interrelations between tense, aspect,
pronominality, and ergativity
Werner Abraham
University of Groningen
Si tu veux comprendre le mot de bonheur,

il faut l’entendre comme récompense
et non comme but.
Saint-Exupéry Citadelle
Abstract
The present paper draws a link between the two ways in which reference to
the flow of time (according to an original idea developed by G. Guillaume
1929) can be obtained: in the ‘ascending’ or the ‘descending’ way. Descending
tense reference usually languages is coexistent with an aspectual system,
wheres the ascending one tends to constrain relative time reference to true
temporal systems. Since the swap between the accusative and the ergative
systems is motivated by perfectivity and its distinct small clause syntax on the
basis of the derivational paradigms (Abraham 1998) there appears to be a way
to relate perfective derivational paradigms in languages like the continental
West Germanic ones, among which German, with ergativity in the following
sense: what used to be purely inflectional distinctions to classify ‘vertical’
(aspectual) and ‘horizontal’ (temporal) verbal paradigms in the early Indo-
european languages came to be replaced by derivational paradigms in those
languages that have lost aspectual marking in the inflectional paradigms of the
verb. We thus see that, to the extent that the modern European languages have
still retained aspectual distributional properties, they can still resort to aspect-
ual components in their reference of time. However, the prerequisite will be
that the time flow is descending where aspectual components unfold in the
language, while, grosso modo, the European modern languages, among which
notably English, are languages with an ascending time axis.
254 WERNER ABRAHAM
1. Layout of the argument
In Abraham (1996, 1998) it has been argued that the swap between the accusa-
tive and the ergative systems is motivated by perfectivity, which translates as a
distinct small clause syntax on the basis of the derivational paradigms (Abraham
1998) there appears to be a way to relate perfective derivational paradigms in
languages like the continental West Germanic ones, among which German, with
ergativity in the following sense: what used to be purely inflectional distinctions
to classify ‘vertical’ (aspectual) and ‘horizontal’ (temporal) verbal paradigms in
the early Indoeuropean languages came to be replaced by derivational paradigms
in those languages that have lost aspectual marking in the inflectional paradigms
of the verb. We thus see that, to the extent that the modern European languages
have still retained aspectual distributional properties, they can still resort to
aspectual components in their reference of time
2. The split between ergativity and accusativity: Urdu, Hindi, Balochi and
their specific split conditions
The split between ergativity and accusativity is motivated, among other condi-
tions (see Dixon 1994), by aspect and tense: past/perfectivity trigger the ergative
case paradigm, while non-past/imperfectivity account for the case paradigm of
nominative-accusative. In this section we shall illustrate such splits in the three
Indo-Aryan languages: in Balochi (Farrell 1995), Urdu (Butt 1993), and Hindi
(Mahajan 1985, 1994). It is to be noted that in SOV-Hindi the only A is the
equivalent of be. (1a,b,d) below display true intransitives (unergatives), whereas
(1c,e,f) are ergatives (unaccusatives).1 It should not go without noticing at this
point that, according to Trask (1979), typologically ergative languages appear to
be SOV or VSO and restrict their auxiliary representation to  neither of
these characteristics receives any mentioning in Dixon’s book on ergativity. As
we shall see, Mahajan (1995) bases his syntactic account on exaclty these two
correlative properties of typological ergativity. He will thus have to be judged
also for this empirical point of departure.
Now let us see how Hindi splits its clausal case syntax (see also Dasgupta
(1988) on evidence from Bengali for unaccusative NPs within VP).
HOW DESCENDING IS ASCENDING GERMAN? 255
(1) Hindi ():

a. raam-ne vah kitaabẽ (Mahajan 1994: 6)
Ram:(M) those books(Fpl)
par˛hı̃ı̃ hẽ
read:-- be:-
“Ram has read those books”
b. raam-ne bhindiiyãã pakaaı̃ı̃ (Mahajan 1994: 7)
Ram:(M) okra(Fpl) cook:--
hẽ
be:-
“Ram has cooked okra”
c. raam aayaa he
Ram(M) come:-- be:-
“Ram has arrived”
d. raam bhindiiyãã pakaataa he
Ram(M) okra(Fpl) cook:- be:-
“Ram cooks okra”
e. raam vah kitabẽ (Mahajan 1994: 14)
Ram:(M) those books(pl-F)
par˛htaa
read:--- be:--
“Ram used to read those books”
f. raam(-*ne) gir geyaa ergative verb
Ram:₍*₎ fell down
“Ram fell down”
Notice that the predicate verb in (f) above is inherently ergative. The examples
above illustrate the following: case government follows the ergativity distribu-
tion, i.e. the absolutive/nominative in two-place predications reoccurs in one-
place predications, whereas the ergative case is realized only for the subject of
two-place transitives unless, as in cases such as (1f) in Hindi (and, according
to Laka 1993, also in Basque), the one-place verb is an unaccusative. Unaccusat-
ives, in such languages, behave like the absolutive objects in two-place predica-
tions to the extent that they cannot appear in the ergative, but must occur in the
nominative (term used for the absolutive, in a number of grammtical terminolo-
gies). Note, furthermore, that the ergative-absolutive mechanics is active only in
the perfect(ive) or past, not, however, in the present or some continuous; cf.
(1a–c) vs. (1d, e). By contrast to unaccusatives (= ergatives), unergative (= truly
intransitive) verbs can take either case. Cf. (2).
256 WERNER ABRAHAM
(2) Hindi ():

a. kutto-ne bhõkaa
dogs: bark:--SG
“The dogs barked”
b. kutte bhõkee (Mahajan 1994: 14)
dogs: bark:--PL
“The dogs barked”
The fact that the ergative case morphology, as in ergative splits, surfaces only in
perfective aspect is characteristic of most Indo-European languages (Kachru &
Pandharpande 1979). A similar distribution, carries over partially to Georgian,
some Australian languages and some Tibeto-Burman languages (Mahajan
1994: 14, quoting Marantz 1991 and DeLancey 1980 as testifiers). Two solutions
come to mind for a systematic, minimalistic representation and account of this
correlation: either, the ergative and absolutive case markings are bound in some
way to two structurally different aspectual nodes: one originating outside of VP
carrying truly V-independent inflection features; and another one originating from
inside VP. Either aspectual node need be checked for strong, structural case
features: to the extent that the verb is two-place, the perfect(ive) features of the
verb trigger the search for the aspectual node for the absolutive (or nominative)
case, whereas the outer aspectual node is the landing point for ergative case
characteristics. A split with ergative in the imperfective and accusative in the
perfective has never been attested (Farrell 1995: 220). Note that the distributive
trigger is verb-inherent since it is either the morphological-inflective (perfect(ive)
vs. non-perfect(ive)) or the inherent semantic information (unaccusative) of the
verbal that decides which of the two structrually different nodes are to be
checked for the required overt case morphology. This first scenario can be
represented as in (3a,b) representing the two syntactic configurations in (2a,b).2
(3)
a. AspP for bark1: __[V] b. AspP for bark2: [_V];
cf. fall as eV!
eSubj-ne Asp VP

V0 NP V
Subj(-)

[eSubj = ergative subject, aSubj = absolutive subject].

The second scenario departs from the observation that ergative languages
generally appear to have no auxiliary for have, but only one for be, as opposed
to --languages. Hindi would be a good example; see (1a-e) above, where
be appears as the only A of the periphrastic perfect. This latter scenario is
somewhat complicated and will be discussed in the following section. Pursuant
to this point of departure, the bipartition of the structural representation of the
clause in a (split) ergative language is not basic as in (3) above, but derived, i.e.
the result of the principled distribution of the A have vs. be and the principled
link between the two A (see Marantz 1991, Guéron 1995, Hoekstra &
Rooryck 1995, Bittner & Hale 1996).
In what follows I shall be brief on Urdu, since it is another Indic-Indo-
european language closely related to Hindi. What is highlighted, however, is
what appears to be a dependency on the specificity character of the VP-internal
argument.
(4) Urdu ():
a. naadyaa-ne xat likh-aa basic word-order in
N.F: letter:M- wrote:.M. perfective
“Nadya wrote a letter” constructions: SOV
b. naadya-ne hassan-ko xat di-yaa
N.F- Hassan:M- letter:M- give:.M.
“Nadya gave Hassan a (particular) letter”
c. naadya-ne hassan-ko xat jaldii-se
N.F- Hassan:M- letter:M- quickness:
di-yaa
give:.M.
“Nadya gave Hassan a (particular) letter quickly” (Butt & King
1995: 3)
d. anil ghore bec-taa hai
Anil:M- horse:M.pl sell:.M.sg be
“Anil does horse-selling”
e. naadyaa subah-se shaam-tak xat
F- morning: evening-until letter:M-
likh-tii hai
write:IMPERF.F.SG be:pres.sg
“Nadya writes letters from morning until evening” (Butt &
King 1995: 7)
As is illustrated in (4c), the specific reading of the direct object is available also
if the object is outside of VP. As soon as an indefinite object is instantiated,
258 WERNER ABRAHAM
incorporation into the predicate takes place. A position outside the VP is no

longer available then. See (4d), with the direct object, ghore, without case
marking. (4e), finally, testifies to the observation above that it is only under the
perfective that the ergative mechanism (and not the nominative/accusative
mechanism) is activated.
3. Balochi: ergative split according to a number of heterogeneous criteria
The following examples on the Northwestern Iranian language of Balochi are

taken from Farrell (1995). Balochi is interesting insofar as two variants can be
distinguished: Southern/Eastern Balochi and Western Balochi, of which only the
first exhibits the ergative split, whereas the latter displays a pure nominative/
accusative pattern except in discourse, where ergativity occurs occasionally.
Balochi is interesting insofar as the areal ergative/accusative distribution allows
for the conclusion that ergativity in the Southern/Eastern part follows the track
which the Western district with the nominative/accusative pattern has taken, i.e.
it follows the former on its way out of the ergative system. Furthermore, Balochi
displays a number of interdependencies that are valuable in the evaluation of
ergativity conditions. Next to the aspectual condition for the split, Balochi is
specific to the extent that the ergative/absolutive case marking in the perfective
is confined to third person nouns and pronouns (in line with all findings so far
on ergativity split; see Silverstein 1976; Rumsey 1987: 27). First and second
person pronouns are marked in the nominative/accusative pattern.
(5) Balochi ():
a. jinik sho (Farrell 1995: 221)
girl- go.-
“The girl went”
b. jinik-a becik ja
girl- boy- hit.- ergative pattern!
“The girl hit the boy”
c. men te-ra gir-ã
I- you(sg)- catch.. accusative pattern!
“I will catch you”
Note that , in the traditional grammatical terminology of Balochi, stands for
‘direct’ (case) = without case marking, therefore = absolutive/nominative;
 = oblique case; Farrell 1995: 219.
The reason for this person split is obviously that first and second persons
are the prototypical , as opposed to third persons. A, as generalized

above, can never enter into the lexically designated VP-internal argument
position. Consequently, they are out as carriers of the absolutive/nominative/
direct case, particularly in a system that displays a tendency toward another
pattern in the first place. Note that the  cannot surface in a lexically
designated object position in any of the Indoeuropean nominative/accusative
languages (Abraham 1978).
According to Farrell’s (1995) analysis of Balochi, one can factor out the
following triggering criteria for ergativity: the aspectual (perfectivity) factor; the
definiteness factor; and the person factor. To this, Mahajan (1994: 14ff.) adds the
following criteria: the unaccusativity factor; the auxiliary factor; and the reflexive
factor. According to Mahajan (1994), all of the factors are epiphenomena of one
basic typological assumption, witness the condition whether or not the language
in question has the finite predicate, V, in marginal position (thus, SOV or VSO).
Since the line of argument pursued in the present paper questions this basic
assumption and its consequences, each of these five factors for ergativity will
have to be discussed separately.
In order to arrive at a full set of conditioning factors for the emergence of
ergativity let us survey Farrell’s findings with respect to the person and the
definiteness factors. (6) and (7) display nicely the complementary distributions
of case characteristics as dependent from such factors (none of which were
considered by Mahajan 1994).
(6) Person-definiteness factor for ergativity in Balochi (Farrell
1995: 223):
third person patient marking in the perfective and the non-perfective
Abbreviations:  = direct (= absolutive, nominative) case;  = oblique case;
 = subject;  = agent; P = patient;  = indefinite;  = definite;  = emphatic;
,, = 1st, 2nd, 3rd person].
non-perfective perfective
indefinite patient direct case direct case
definite patient oblique case direct case
definite emphatic patient oblique case direct case
260 WERNER ABRAHAM
(7) Case and verb agreement factor for ergativity in Balochi (Farrell
1995: 225)
S A (1&2) A(3) P(Ind) P Def (1&2) P Def (3) P Verb
(Emphasis) Argument
non-perf. DIR with S

non-perf. DIR DIR DIR OBL OBL OBL/DAT with A
perf. DIR with A
perf. DIR OBL DIR OBL DIR with P
perf. DIR OBL DAT with 0
The Balochian examples above as well as the generalisations in (6) and (7)
permit the following conclusions, which appear of relevance for our present
purposes. Let us first generalize, from properties exhibited by German as an
SOV-language, to ergative SOV-languages (such as Balochi, Hindi, and Urdu).
Unfortunately, we are not in a position to exploit these data to yield final
plausible results. It is for this reason that just a number of questions are jotted
down. While no clear answers can be seen as yet it appears intriguing enough to
formulate the following speculations.
(8) a. [−definite] verbal arguments/actants appear in the ABS, rather
than [+definite] ones. The reason is that [−def] occurs closer to
the verb (inside VP, as a case governed by the verbal predicate,
C/Vo), whereas [+def] occurs distant from the finite predicate
(outside of VP; as C/T, i.e. under the tense category of the
whole clause).
It may be speculated that this indicates that ergativity in
these (SOV) languages has a deep link with the -
split of the clause.
b. ABS, rather than ERG, occurs as PAT, and consequently as
[ animate].
This appears to force the conclusion that VP-internal theta
roles such as for the ABS cannot be .
c. ABS is closer to the clausal focal position, which makes ABS
rhematic in nature, if in its basic position.
Again, this may have to do with the fact that an SOV-lan-
guage splits the structural field for its arguments/actants
(subject and objects) into VP-internal and VP-external portions.
Departing from Heim (1982), Enç (1991) and following
Abraham (1992a,b), VP is taken to be the locus of rhematic
material, whereas the structural area above VP (IP or AgrPs,

TP, CP) is the locus of thematic material.3
What (8a–c) point to, however, is a categorical distinction between V-marginal
languages (SOV, VSO) and V-medial languages (SVO), since only the former
open structural space for NP-scrambling and, consequently, for the distinction of
thematic vs. rhematic status of otherwise coreferential nominals (in terms of
Heim (1982): the ‘restrictive’, VP-external space vs. the clause ‘kernel’, VP-
internal space). This is the basic typological split that Mahajan (1994) takes as
a point of departure for his account of ergativity and the non-occurrence of the
auxiliary  in ergative languages. Mahajan’s position will be sketched in the
following section. Before we do that, however, let us generalize further on
Balochi.
(9) a. ABS is morphologically and paradigmatically the unmarked
case some sort of ‘copular’ case; unless the features [−def]
and [−human] are supported by perfectivity the NP-(object)
case morphology appears marked.
b. ABS (≠ ERG) only surfaces under perfective or past tense
conditions.
c. ABS in split ergativity patterns cooccurs with default focus or
with non-focus, in agreement with the accusative in the nomi-
native-accusative pattern.
d. According to some optimality mechanics, the ergative split can
find expression on different levels of representation: in terms of
case (Erg-Abs vs. Nom-Acc), [a Animate] or [a Reference],
i.e. [±def].
Is there reason to assume that the latter features surface in
a language whose ergativity is fading (such as in Western-
Southern Balochi vs. Eastern Balochi)? See the supportive
assumptions made by Farrell (1995: 239).
e. In terms of a strong tendency, first and second persons are
prototypical A, since invariably [+human], even in the
least ergative dimension in an ergative language (cf. (6) above,
following Farrell 1995: 223).
Again, we assume that speaker and addressee pronouns
represent prototypical . The question is, however, how
agentivity relates to the perfective. If ergativity is to be ac-
counted for on the basis of the striking link with perfectivity,
all generalizing observations in (8) and (9) should follow
262 WERNER ABRAHAM
naturally from this basis, in particular the conditioning factors

such as agreement, focus, theta role of 1st and 2nd persons vs.
3rd persons, and, possibly, also the auxiliary split between
ergative and non-ergative languages.
In what follows two approaches to ergativity will be evaluated against these
criteria and facts: Mahajan’s (1994) typological split and the aspectual syntax
approach (Abraham 1992b, 1994). Other splits such as according to pronominal
person (1st/2nd persons, always accusative, vs. 3rd persons in the ergative4) or
mood split (declarative for ergative vs. potentiality for accusative; cf. Dixon
1994: 101ff.) will be taken up later and only to the extent that they relate to the
aspect account suggested in the present paper.
In the following section the question will be pursued whether there is a
common explanation for all split paradigms sketched above?
4. The aspect account for derivational unaccusativity in German
See (10)–(11a–c) from German for what is suggestive of a classification on the

basis of lexical-derivative perfectivity (an unquestioned status in the tradition of
German grammar writing).5
(10) ergative (‘unaccusative’; eV) vs. unergative (truly intransitive; iV)
verbs (all non-transitive!); main word stress indicated by small caps:
eV: German kommen, fallen, steigen, laufen,
klettern, schlafen, sterben
iV: German kommen, fallen, steigen, laufen, klettern, schlafen.
Notice that not each of the verbal prefixes classifies for what are
eVs; rather, this appears to depend on the lexical quality of bound-
edness that is represented within lexical prefix (as well as affixoids).
Note, furthermore that such ‘ergativizing prefigation’ extends to
constituents with a directional accusative; viz. in den Garten laufen
“into the: garden- run” vs. im Garten laufen “in the:
garden: run”, the latter being non-ergative in the sense that it
does not accommodate any of the diagnostic criteria of unaccusat-
ivity/ergativity as shown below).
(11) a. adjectival participle test: subject of eV behaves syntactically
like a direct object (DO)
der gekommene/gefallene/gestiegene Gast; cf.
geschlagener Hund from X schlägt den Hund, whereas
*geschlagener X! Furthermore, das in den Garten gelaufene

Kind “the-into-the--run-child” (vs. *das im Garten gelaufene
Kind “the in the--garden--run-child”).
Notice that the present participle (which presupposes the lexi-
cally designated subject, SUBJ, not, however, the DIROBJ)
does not yield the perfectivizing, and, consequently, the ‘erga-
tive’ effect: schlagender X vs. *schlagender Hund (cf. the
example in (1) above!). In other words, the present tense and
active (underived) (participial) verb does not trigger ‘ergative’
properties, as opposed to the perfect participle.
b. agentivity test: -er-nominalization is generally only possible
from  (note that we consider only productive -er-nom-
inalizations from verbs): Läufer, Kletterer, Steiger, Schläfer
(derived from agentive iV) vs. *Einschläfer, *Zusammenfaller,
*Sterber (unless a reasonable idea is evoked from such nom-
inalizations that the person doing this does it purposefully).
Generalized conclusion: the subject of an eV can never be an
.
c. -test: eV select sein/be, whereas iV select haben/have; the
periphrastic perfect forms of eV only go with the A sein; the
equivalent forms of iV never go with sein: *hat(te)
gekommen/gestiegen/gelaufen. Furthermore, for
projections beyond simple lexicals, for example in Dutch in de
tuin gelopen hebben “in the garden run ” vs. de tuin
binnen gelopen  “the garden into run ”.
Notice that (2a) above presupposes the A-property diagnosed
in (2c): only -selecting lexical forms support the distribut-
ional participial-attributive diagnostics for ‘ergatives’. Since
-participles have a stative meaning presupposing an approach
phase leading to that participial state (in terms of the grammati-
cal expression of the +participle, at least where such an
option exists as in German and Dutch), the stative participle
always implies completion of an event-part of one single lexical
verb. This is what we call a perfective, or terminative, verb. If
‘ergative’ verbs are those that display the dstributional proper-
ties described in (10) and (11a-c), then the conclusion is forced
that this type of syntactic ergative is a perfective.
264 WERNER ABRAHAM
(11a–c) provide evidence for the validity of an aspectual account of eV: all
‘ergatives’ (in Perlmutter’s and Burzio’s sense) are terminatives (resultatives;
perfectives; cf. Abraham 1994). However, as much as this makes sense in the
context of (10)–(11a-c), notice that the aspectual account of unaccusativity seems
to run afoul if both Burzio’s Unaccusative Hypothesis and the perfectivity facts
are taken to be correct. Notice what this would yield: if one-place unaccusatives
are considered as subject-demoted, what should be the structure of transitive
perfectives? See the aporia (‘Burzio/Perlmutter’s paradox’) sketched in (12b).
(12) B⁄P 
[a] Perlmutter/Burzio: demotion of external argument:
(a) – iV: Qe[_] tV: Qe[VP Qi V1+2?]
(b) + eV: _ [Qi_] tV: _ [? Qe [? Qi V1?] V2?]]
While we do not know, for the time being, what the structure of transitive
perfectives should be if it should mirror anything of its one-place counterpart,
eV, as in (12b), we do know that there is a highly productive way to produce
perfectives by way of secondary predication in German and Dutch. Such
secondary predicates are formed dominantly by adjectives or adverbs attached to
the primary predicate (and united with it orthographically). See (13a,b) below.
(13) a. There is a class of verbal prefixes in the continental West
Germanic languages which change the non-perfective meaning
of a verbal simplex to a perfective one. This class is open and
actively productive to the extent that it is enriched by adjectiv-
als and those adverbials that designate states to be reached
through some prior (approach) event. Among such adverbials
are adverbial constituents (PPs) designating direction (without
exception P+accusative in German, as in Latin and Ancient
Greek). See the following groups of examples, where the first
one is the one-place durative, whereas the second one repre-
sents the perfective (with the typical, obligatory diagnostic
 on the verbal prefix).
b. schlafen -schlafen ( ), welken -welken
(), laufen sich laufen (  =
 ), (i Garten) laufen in den  laufen
(  PP).
For such perfectivization by means of lexical prefigation, see the productive

prefixal paradigms in Modern Russian, among which po- or na- (Gawronska
1993 as well as Smith 1995).
(13) c. Ona pro-stoja-l-a na uglu celyj čas
she -stand-- on corner: entire: hour:
“She stoodPERF on the corner until the end of the hour” (Smith
1995)
Any of these derived predicative perfectives are covered without exception by the
participial and auxilial diagnostics of ergatives (see Burzio 1986 for Italian,
Haider/Rindler-Schjerve 1987 as well as Abraham 1994 for German). Note that
this is an empirical finding, which is in need of a structural account just as much
as Burzio’s generalisation. But the implication, according to these exceptionless
observations, is that ergatives in the languages under inspection (languages with
a actively productive derivative system producing perfective verbs) are perfect-
ives. Note, further, that this is in line, in a fashion yet to be explained, with the
equally general observation that in split ergative vernaculars, the ergative is
bound to the perfect(ive) forms. See the following example from Hindi (Mahajan
1994: 6; the example repeats (1a) above):
(14) raam-ne vah kitaabẽ par˛hı̃ı̃ hẽ
Ram:(M) those books(Fpl) read:-F- be:-
“Ram has read those books” (Mahajan 1994: 6)
Any of these perfectivized constructions can most adequately (i.e. rendering the
semantic interpretation of an accomplishment or achievement semantics in the
most direct fashion) be represented as predicatives (i.e. copular predicates +
prefix/adjectival/adverbial) for the object in transitive two-place constructions or
the subject in one-place constructions. See the following representations. Note
that such perfectivizing small clause constructions derived from transitives can
be paraphrased systematically in accordance with the following pattern in (15).
(15) secondary predicate paraphrase:
subject-verbal event- -[sc direct object = -subject -
++ XP], where XP = {adjective, verbal prefix,
verbal affixoid, NP, perfect participle (= adjective)}.
Note, at the same time, that for one-place ergatives such as sterben/die, repre-
senting the approach as well as the resultative phases in (16a) below, do not take
a statal predicate in the small clause. It has to remain open for the time being
whether there are other one-place perfectives/ergatives that do in fact take such
266 WERNER ABRAHAM
a small clause predicate. Perfectives, in short, always have the following event
structure (see Abraham 1990, 1994):
(16) a. biphasic event structure for einschlafen “fall asleep” (ergative
verb and terminative): the event tructure consists of two lexical-
ly inherent components, E1 and Zu 2, carrying together the
Aktionsart reading and, consequently, the lexical meaning. [t1,
tm, tn = temporal points on the event-constituting axis; E1 =
approach event component, Zu2 (Zustand “state”) = state phase
resulting from E1].
schlafen=
einschlafen eingeschlafen (sein)
|>>>>>>>>>>>>>x–––––––––––––|
t1 E1 tm Zu2 tn
b. monophasic event structure for schlafen “sleep” (intransitive
verb and non-terminative): the event structure is restricted to
one single homogeneous, durative component, inherently not
complex and analyzable (≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈); the graph below repre-
sents the temporal points of reference, t1 and tm , as well as the
relative point of the speech act, ts (relation of anteriority), thus
a temporal relation, that for schlafen “sleep” and that for
geschlafen haben “have slept”. Note that one does not have to
distinguish two inherent event components as in (a), i.e. E1 and
Zu2.
geschlafen
schlafen (haben)
|≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈x≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈|
t1 tm ts
On the basis of the paraphrase generalization this leads to the following syntactic
small clause representations.
(17) a. t/riV: Qe [Qi AgrP ADJ] V]
(daß) sieQe [ [ sichQi (ist) [ müde/kaputt]] tanzte]
(that she herself (is) tired/worn out/out- danced
b. eV: Qi [ ti AgrP ADV] V]
(daß) sieQi [ [ tQi (ist) [ oben])]]]] kletterte]
(that she (is up/on top climbed
where Q necessarily = TH and AgrP restricted to states; Qi for
iV = reflexive pronouns with subject coreference.6
c. for eV: NPj [VP tj [SC tj AgrP X(P)] V]

d. for t/riV: NPi [VP ti NPj [SC tj AgrP X(P)] V]
where NPj necessarily = TH; AgrP is restricted to states; NPj for
iV = reflexive pronouns with subject coreference.7
Not only do we have a distinct semantics and syntax for perfectives, but there is
also no need to refer to the internal status of the only argument in one-place eVs.
Not only is the Perlmutter-Burzio representation (and all subsequent akin
solutions; see, most recently, Bittner/Hale 1996) replaceable to the extent that the
small clause solution avoids all the shortcomings of the solution in terms of
theta-role distribution; what is more, the status of secondary object predication
embraces the Burzio solution and accounts for the split phenomena with which
the Burzio account cannot deal in any constructive sense.
Notice that all the criteria postulated for true ergative languages by Dixon
(1994) are naturally accounted for under the aspectual solution. Thus, the change
of pivot (S in accusative languages, O in ergative ones one which
has proven to be such an obstacle to syntactic solutions (Marantz 1984, 1991,
1996; see also Nash 1995) receives a straightforward and natural explanation:
the O⁄A is the subject (= ‘pivot’!) of the embedded, secondary predica-
tion. this accounts also very straightforwardly for the binding and c-command
relations which are congruent with accusative languages (and not, as might be
expected, with any inverse form).8
5. Guillaume’s typology of tense marking: the ‘ascending’ vs.

‘descending’ time concepts
We have seen in the aforegoing sections how the aspectual type of ergative split
can be explained in terms of a gradient nominal axis shifting from what is the
highest possibility of an  to what is the lowest (3rd person pronouns,
appellatives, abstract nouns; see Dixon 1994: 85). Another such ‘shifter’ is the
way in which the flow of time is systematically referred to in a language. The
main two perspectives can be illustrated in the following way (adopted from
Hewson 1996; see, further more, Dixon 1994: 97f. on the same topic).9 Let us
imagine someone who climbs a mountain. The time as it goes on can be viewed
from someone who pursues the ascent of the climber through a binocular from
a position at the foot of the mountain constraining his interest with respect to the
flow of time not only on the climber. The past, present, and future spread out
behind and in front of the climber in terms not only of the sections of the
268 WERNER ABRAHAM
mountain path covered, and to be covered by, the climber. Rather, they extend,
in the viewpoint of the observer, beyond the mountain climber. This viewpoint
can be sketched as in the following figure 1. What is completed of the ascent
will change at all times that the climber moves, under the view of the observer,
up the mountain. The remaining ascent will be seen as a prospective possibility.
Under a somewhat different image, Guillaume (1929) called this time flow
. See (18).
(18) past present future
<––––––––x––––––––>
‘now’
The other way to look upon time is with the eyes of the climber himself as he
climbs the mountain and assesses his ascent in terms of what he has covered
already, i.e. by looking back. ‘now’, under this perspective, is moving along with
the climber himself. The time flow is assessed in terms of what he has complet-
ed or what he will have completed given the remaining time to climb the top. By
contrast to the scenario in Fig. 1, this view on the time flow can be called
. See (19).
(19) past present future

––––––––x––––––––
→ ‘now’
The concept of tense, under the former viewpoint, embraces the past, the present
and the future all with equal grammatical-paradigmatic status, while the second
view, in principle, regards the history of events in terms of results (and not-yet-
results or never-to-be-results). One way to illustrate this distinction is by
reference to the following minimal clausal pair in Modern German.
(20) a. Er kletterte auf die Mauer/die Mauer hinauf ascending;
he climbed up on the wall eventive-progressive
b. Er erkletterte die Mauer descending;
he -climbed the wall i.e. completive
See the previous section on the perfectivizing effect of a great number of verbal
particles. Quite clearly, the two views are covered by the terminological distinc-
tion of ‘aspectual’ vs. ‘temporal’ systems of grammatical time reference. This is
illustrated by any of those pre-modern Germanic language states that used the
periphrastic perfect in just this sense. See the following list of examples (taken
from Abraham 1997) providing diachronic evidence of object agreement as well
as subject agreement on the preterite participle. See also the overview in Kotin
(1998).
(21) a. hîe h5fdon hiera cyning âworpenne Old English
they had their king off-thrown descending; i.e.
“they had their king as a deposed one” retrospective
b. (Habet filia) arbores transplantatos Late Latin
has: daughter trees:- transplanted:-
c. (Tho quad her thesa ratissa:) Old High German
(dicebat autem hanc similitudinem:
(then spoke he this simile
phígboum habeta sum giflanzotan (Tatian G 102,2,
arborem fici habebat quidam plantatum CII 23)
figtree:M had a certain planted:M
in sinemo uuingarten
in vinea sua
have:3pl tree: planted: in vineyard
d. (habda them heriscipie herta gisterkid,)
(had they retainership heart: reinforced
that sia habdon bithuungana thiedo ghuilica,…
that they had superseeded: peoples: every:10
“they had reinforced the hearts of their retainers such that they
superseeded all peoples” Old Saxon (Tatian 2,1–2, 55–56) B/M
195866
e. Sume sâr verlorane Uurdun sum erkorane
some: became forelorn: become: some selected:
“some will be forelorn, some will be selected” OHG (Ludwigs-
lied XXXVI,13): B/E 1966; perfective (‘ergative’, eV) verb!
f. … uuit hebbiat unk giduan mahtigna god,
we two have us-two: done mighty:M god
uualdand uureðan. …
master-M enraged-M
OHG (XLIV. Annex: B., from the Genesis, 24) B/E 1966
active past participle agreeing with the direct object!
270 WERNER ABRAHAM
g. thes ni habda he êniga geuuuruhte te thi, sundea

thereof not had he anything done to you sin
gisuohta, thoh thu ina nu aslagan hebbias, dôdan
sought, although you him now slain have dead
giduanan.
made
Old Saxon (Genesis 46ff.)
h. Thô geng im thanan mið grimmo hugi, habda ina
then went him- thence with grim mind had him
god selbo suîðo farsakanan.
god self given
Old Saxon (Genesis 80f.)
In the very same vein, the Germanic languages that introduced the German
inchoative werden for the future selected a nominal verbal form, much in the
sense of Modern German werden + Adjective/Noun to denote “to enter into the
state denoted by the statal adjectival/nominal lexeme” (see for Gothic Lloyd
1979, Abraham 1992a; for Old High German and Middle High German Abraham
1997 as well as Kotin 1995a,b). In other words, what developed as a grammat-
icalized reference of an event to come in the modern temporal sense of future
tense was then felt to be like the prognosticization of a completed state: viz.
again (21a) with the paraphrase “they had their king as a deposed one” (not, of
course, “they had deposed their king”, which renders the meaning of (21a) only
to the extent that it is implied by the former paraphrase in terms of object
predication).
Indo-European was said to be of the ‘descending’, or aspectual, type,
whereas all Germanic languages appear to have developed to be ‘ascending, or
temporal, paradigms for the reference of relative time. However, Ancient Greek
is a good example of encompassing both viewpoints views, other than Latin,
which is a representative of the temporal, or ‘ascending’ type. See the chart in
(22) (in part adapted from Hewson 1996). The ‘descending’ type is illustrated in
(23) below. Note that Latin makes massive use of the sigmatic perfect (as
opposed to the -u/v-derivation), in a wide number of cases somewhat hidden as
-x- (= -k/c+s-!).
(22)
₍A₎ T
P P F
L Infectum laud-a-ba-m laud-o laud-a-b-o
scrib-e-ba-m scrib-o scrib-a-m
ping-e-ba-m ping-o ping-a-m
Perfectum lauda-v-era-s laud-v-i lauda-v-er-o
scrip-s-era-s scrip-s-i scrip-s-er-o
pin-x-era-s pin-x-i pin-x-er-o
(= *ping-s-era-s) (= *ping-s-i) (= *ping-s-er-o)
The samples of the original IE sigmatic (Aorist) perfect are still extant in great
number in Latin. See the forms of pingere “paint” and scribere “write” in (22)
above (Hofmann-Szantyr 1977: 587 ff.). Ancient Greek, by contrast, still had one
extra temporal stage on top of the perfect, the Aorist. The forms are clearly
distinct through all modi and genera. See (23) for a selection of these forms
(luain “solve”, thúain “sacrifice”; according to Kaegi (s.d.).
(23)
T
A P N-P
A Present é-luo-n lú-o
G (= Imperfective) é-thuo-n thú-o
Aorist é-lu-s-a lú-s-o
(= Perfective é-thu-s-a thú-s-o
= hist. Present)
Perfect e-le-lú-k-e lé-lu-k-a
(= Retrospective) e-te-thú-k-e té-thu-k-a
There is reduplication in Ancient Greek, too, but only in the perfect, not in the
Aorist. The horizontal orders reflect the grammaticalization of tense, while the
vertical orders classify aspectual distinctions though fully grammaticalized only
in Ancient Greek as in the dichotomy above. While Latin present a ternary
temporal distinction (and no independent aspectual paradigms and meanings),
Ancient Greek has two temporal and three (and consequently independent)
272 WERNER ABRAHAM
aspectual distinctions: -s- marks the perfective, -k- the retrospective; the augment
é-distinguishes the Past from the Non-Past. The twofold, both vertical and
horizontal, paradigmatic distinction in (23) is held to be representative for Proto-
Indoeuropean. Some of the Latin paradigmatic morphology still reflects this older
stage. While the sigmatic perfect is pervasive in Latin (see (23) above) it is a lot
less frequent in exchange with the -u/v- perfect morpheme within one and the
same verbal stem. See (24) (from Hewson 1996; Latin mordēre ”bite”,
praemordēre “bite off”). [vowel length disregarded here!]
(24) Latin reduplicative and sigmatic perfects in one single verbal stem
P P
mord-ē-ō mo-mord-i reduplication as perfect marker
prae-mord-ē-ō prae-mor-s-i sigmatic (aorist) morphology
This is to show that the perfect in Latin is etymologically an amalgam of the

perfect and the aorist, but that the sigmatic marker had lost its paradigmatic
status causing the independent aspectual paradigmatic marking to be lost. Quite
clearly, the grammatical perfect signals, i.e. the sigmatic and the reduplicating
morphemes, are the marking ones vis-á-vis the unmarked present stem. Notice
that it was the Latin sigmatic perfect that the preterite in Romance developed
from.
The general conclusion to be drawn from the examples above is that the
perfect(ive) is marked vis-à-vis the unmarked imperfect(ive). This is supported
by facts from other (split) ergative languages. We shall come back to this point
presently.
6. Marking temporally relative event occurrence in descending vs. ascend-

ing universes
Recall that aspectual systems for the reference of events in the universe of time
make use of an descending universe, whereas temporally referring systems
display an ascending universe. The two illustrations from Latin and Ancient
Greek have shown on the basis of which criteria such systems can be distin-
guished and how they may cooperate to provide rich means of reference of
relative time. Recall (16a,b) which are replicated here for ease of exposition: the
two figures demonstrate how the Reichenbachian descriptive instruments can be
applied.
(25) a. biphasic event structure for einschlafen “fall asleep” (ergative

verb and terminative): the event tructure consists of two lexical-
ly inherent components, E1 and Zu2, carrying together the
Aktionsart reading and, consequently, the lexical meaning. [t1,
tm, tn = temporal points on the event-constituting axis; E1 =
approach event component, Zu2 (Zustand “state”) = state phase
resultating from E1].
schlafen=
einschlafen eingeschlafen (sein)
|>>>>>>>>>>>>>x–––––––––––––|
t1 E1 tm Zu2 tn
b. monophasic event structure for schlafen “sleep” (intransitive
verb and interminative): the event structure is restricted to one
single homogeneous, durative component, inherently not com-
plex and analyzable (≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈); the graph below represents
the temporal points of reference, t1 and tm as well as the rela-
tive point of the speech act, ts (relation of anteriority), thus a
temporal relation, that for schlafen “sleep” and that for ge-
schlafen haben “have slept”. Note that one does not have to
distinguish two inherent event components as in (a), i.e. E1 and
Zu2.
geschlafen
schlafen (haben)
|≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈x≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈|
t1 tm ts
Now let us see how this translates to the aspectual distinction in Ancient Greek.
Compare (26) and (23) above.
(26) Ancient Greek: aspectually structure of relative time

marked event structure
Imperfective (= Present) |<––––––––x––––––––>|
t
Perfective (= Aorist) |<–––––––––––––––––x|
t
Retrospective (= Perfect) |<––––––––––––––––––|x
t
274 WERNER ABRAHAM
Recall that it is the perfect that is marked, while the imperfect remains un-
marked. This holds for Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, but also for Gothic (gi-, ga-
prefix; -nan-affix as opposed to -jan-derivation for the weak causatives) and Old
High German (ga-, gi- prefix). The aspectual perfective marking was lost in the
course of Middle High German, co-temporal with the transition of the newly
introduced (calqued, probably; see Leiss 1989) inchoative copula werden for the
aspectual retrospective (werden + present participle/gerund) to the pure temporal
future (werden + verbal infinitive). See Abraham (1992a). Since so far we have
noticed consonance between an independent aspectual paradigmatically fixed
system of relative time and the descending time universe we may rightly assume
that the decay of paradigmatic aspect and the emergence of the temporal
systematics in late MHG (due also to the rising need of the sequence of tenses
in the course of optimizing textual coherence) coincided with the transition in the
perspective of relative time reference.
However, this appears to be in contradiction with the facts we have
observed with respect to the aspectual impact in the syntax of German (sections
1 and 2 above). Does German fuse the two systems after all? Does it combine
the ascending with the descending view on relative time? What other and
independent facts are there for such a scenario?
7. The PIE relative time inheritance in German
The relation between the type of theta role ergativity or unaccusativity (in
Perlmutter’s and Burzio’s sense; see Perlmutter 1976; Burzio 1986; Belletti 1988;
den Besten 1986; Marantz 1984; Pesetsky 1982; and others) and perfectivity
(Abraham 1996, 1997, 1998) hinges crucially on the following criteria.
(27) Ergative/unaccusative verbs, categorially Xo, are a subclass to
phenomena displaying identical ergative properties both below the
zero projection, X−1, and above, XP. Whatever the common solution
to a description, the multilevel character of this phenomenon has to
be involved.
(28) Due to ergative phenomena on the level of XP as well as to the
apparent and unexplained asymmetry with ‘ergative’ transitives as in
(12) above, the thematic solution proposed by Burzio cannot be
correct. Rather, as we suggested, the perfective properties are
accounted for by the small clause syntax (object predication) both
for one-place and two-place perfectives. Recall (17).
(29) Both the theta role restriction and the condition that the subject of
ergative verbs displays distributional properties of a structural,
internal argument are epiphenomena in relation to the aspectual
account, both semantically and syntactically.
(30) There are two seemingly contradictory properties to be accounted for
under one single explanation:
(i) the pivot, or focal, status of the object as opposed to the non-
pivotal status of the subject in ergative languages; this has led
to the conclusion, wrongly so, that ergativity is a phenomenon
akin to the passive.
(ii) Both the order and the c-command relation between subject/
object and binding relations for the assignment of reflexive
pronominals are identical in accusative and ergative languages.
No doubt, the small clause solution accommodates of all these criteria: the
perfectivity semantics is plausibly reflected; likewise, the focal, pivotal status of
the internal argument as well as the subject criterion safeguarding the binding
requirements are well motivated by the small clause syntax; the focal phenome-
non is further supported by the fact that the small clause predicate is always the
stress-focussed component incorporating into the total predicate. Beyond doubt
also, the descending event semantics is best reflected by the resultative syntax of
the small clause description. Notice, furthermore, that the typical small clause
order is naturally reflected by the distribution in (31); see for the same type of
evidence (10)–(11a–c) above.
(31) a. daß die Mutter Juden hatte versteckt
that mother jews had hidden
(i) ‘that mother had hidden jews’ event reading only
(ii) *‘that mother had jews hidden’ *object predicate reading
b. daß die Mutter Juden versteckt hatte
that mother jews hidden had
(i) ‘that mother had hidden jews’ event reading
(ii) ‘that mother had jews hidden’ object predicate reading
Notice that there does not appear to be any other solution under the conditions,
set out in (27)–(30) than the small clause solution. Furthermore, it is this
syntactic descriptive feature that retains the PIE tense-aspect distinction in
German (and, at least partly, also inDutch and West Frisian), albeit in terms of
derivative morphology. Recall (10-(11a–c) and (15) above.
276 WERNER ABRAHAM
8. The passives and the ergatives
What is the difference between the ergative and the passive? What are the
characteristics that are alike? If we want to cope with a description of the two
types of ergativity and our equivalence between ergativity and perfectivity, i.e.
the Perlmutter-Burzio type and the typological one (including split ergativity and
its triggering conditions), we are bound to elucidate the true relation. What, for
example, does the restriction tell us that in Russian the ellipsis of the direct
object is possible only under the control of the imperfective, but never of the
perfective aspect? See (32a,b) below (Kotin 1995b: 38), where the perfective
marker is the prefix pro-. The grammatical distribution is not dependent upon
any temporal marking.11
(32) a. čital (knigu)
read.- (a/the book
b. čitaet (knigu)
read.. (a/the book
c. pročital *(knigu)
-read- *(a/the book (completely)
d. On spokojno spal (vsju noč’)
he calmly slept.- (through the whole night
e. On spokojno prospal *(vsju noč’)
he calmly -slept- *(throughout the whole night
German would render (32e) differently from (32d). Notice that the verbal particle
durch- “through” perfectivizes the imperfective verbum simplex, schlafen
“sleep”. Recall that we pointed out this strongly productive and paradigmatically
well-established characteristic of German; compare also (32d).
(32) d. G: Er schlief die ganze Nacht ruhig
e. Er hat die ganze Nacht ruhig durchgeschlafen
Quite clearly, (32a–c) are not identical structurally with the subsequent (32d, e),
to the extent that the latter provide an adverbial accusative (of duration) rather
than true direct objects. Yet, there is a common property, namely the duration-
delimiting, or telic, accusative. The delimiting accusative is dispensible in
Russian only with the imperfective, not the perfective predicate regardless of
tense. Consider again our original tenet with respect to the fundamental syntactic
nature of perfectives (cf. above (12), (15)–(17)): If perfectives are to be taken as
embedded small clauses (object predications, or secondary predicatives), then the
Russian perfective prefix pro- will be the secondary (small clause) predicate. Its
argument needs to be the object, unless the verb is a one-place perfective (in
which case the only subject argument will serve as small clause argument, too,
subject to subsequent raising to serve as overall subject, due to the EPP). Perfect-
ives as in (32c,e) therefore need an object to provide the internal external-subject.
Imperfectives, on the other hand, do not project small clause embeddings. Their
object is dispensible for syntactic reasons, other than that of perfectives where
the prefix-predicate (small clause predicate) is in need of the direct object as its
external subject. This is behind the restriction in (32a–e), and as such it provides
a nice support for the perfective syntax tenet raised above for ergatives.
Let us take up the thread where we left it before we took up (32). Note,
first, what counts as unaccusative (a lexical morpheme or a constituent/phrase
whose desginated external theta role is demoted and which, as a consequence
(due to the case filter) can no longer assign a structural accusative): in addition
to the typical ergative verbs (which we analyzed, without exception, as perfect-
ives), particle verbs and prefixed verbs (in derivational-ergative languages such
as the continental West Germanic ones, among which German), verbs of move-
ment with a directional prepositional phrase. What they have in common is that
their subject is the derived internal argument and that their designated, external
argument has been demoted.12 They are distinct from middles and middle con-
structions to the extent that their external argument (typically ) is bound
invisibly by the grammatical passive morpheme. They have in common with
middle verbs and middle constructions that the derived subject is in focus (new
pivot, in Dixon’s terms; Dixon 1994). What can the basic, underived type of
clause be that the middle (construction is derived from, or that it corresponds with,
if it is not the active clause? See (35) for an attempt to draw plausible distinctions.
Notice that this allows us to make clear distinctions, on the basis of the
criteria of ‘pivot’ and (discourse-categorial) ‘focus’, passives, middles, and
ergatives none of which share all distinguishing features. Notice further that
middle constructions may be seen to derive from statal passives, not from event
passives (their demoted agent is never revivable syntactically, as opposed to the
event passive where the demoted agent can surface as a preposition phrase).
Statal passives are adjectival passives, from which status one can derive that no
argument can ever be A. Recall that statal passives are profoundly akin to the
small clause/secondary predication embedded in the primary predication. This is
where perfectives (which are always secondary predications, irrespective whether
they are one-place or two place; cf. (11) and (15) above), ergatives, and statal
passives overlap both in their semantics and their syntax. Ergatives are thus not to
be compared with event passives, at least not in those languages with an ergative
split and with the only A . Rather, they bear the character of adjectival
278 WERNER ABRAHAM
passives, whose demoted A cannot surface supported by a syntactic preposi-

tional phrase, but only on the strength of a lexical prepositional phrase (see for
this line of argument, at least for German and Dutch, Abraham 1995).
(33)
 designated designated pivot focus (promoted)
⁄ subject object
 V⁄V / / (≠ ) / /
 V / 0 / /
/ demoted ()*  
 (/)  0 (if from eV) 0 (if from eV)

  demoted  not required* ; ;
(/ 0 (if from iV) 0 (if from iV)

)
() / / / /
* refers to medialization and passivization of intransitives (which is permitted only for agentives and
which do not derive subjects, leaving the verb with zero valency).
In this context, it is appropriate to point out the status of affixal or infixal

morphemes indicating perfectivity in derivative paradigms. In Gothic the
-nan-verbs identified an inceptive paradigm, notably in opposition to the weak
-jan-verbs (Lloyd 1979: 166ff. et passim). Nash (1995) makes the same point
with respect to the thematic suffix in Georgian (perfectivity marker and, conse-
quently, the ergative case assignment in an otherwise split system). See (34)
(from Nash 1995: 5).
(34) a. Gogo-m xe da=XaTa-a
girl- tree-
da=xaT-o-s
=draw-[]sg//=draw-SUBJ-sg
“The girl drew//would draw a tree”
b. Gogo xe-s da=xaT-av-s// xaT-av-d-a
girl- tree- =draw-TS-sg//draw---sg
“The girl will draw//was drawing a tree”
The italicized morpheme -avis the perfective augment. Hindi appears to be
marking the perfective in a similar way, as opposed to the imperfective which
remains unmarked. It appears, then, that what is the marked paradigm is the
perfective in a language that provides both an imperfective case syntax and a
distinction between verbal aspect-marking paradigms.
What kind of predictions does this invite? Notice, first, that we would
expect a member in an syntactic or lexical-paradigmatic opposition to be marked
if of marked status in this opposition. We observe the following triadic distinc-
tion (‘voice — gender corrolary’):
(35) Voice-gender corrolary:
ergative — perfective — descending vs. accusative — imperfective
— ascending
If German indeed shares either characteristics and if further the ascending
component is the strongest (accusative next to only-distributional/non-morpholog-
ical) ergative characteristics, we expect the perfective to be marked. This is
indeed the case; recall the ‘ergativizing’, perfectivizing (non-paradigmatic)
derivative morphemes in (10)–(11a-c) and (15) as against the imperfective verba
simplicia. This, then, is expected to take place on the level of non-paradigmatic,
covert distributional syntax. See Abraham (1996) for an overview of this
sytematics in the verbal paradigms of German and Dutch as opposed to English,
which shows nothing of this anymore.
9. Evidence
Let us be brief on the evidence for the component of descending relative time in
German. The list may not be exhaustive.
(36) a. derivational affixation to verbs (affixes carrying main word
stress); see (11)–(15) above (considerably extended in dialects
of German; cf. Abraham 1985)
b. perfective distributional syntax of the modal verbs (more pre-
cisely: their deontic representations; see Abraham 1995, 1996)
c. directional readings with verbal constituents of movement
(directional case is accusative rather than dative); see (11)–(15)
as well as (21) above.
d. double perfect forms in substandard, dialectal German (Abra-
ham 1985, 1995)
e. in late Middle High German, the newly introduced future A
werden (possibly calqued from Slavic; cf. Leiss 1985) could
280 WERNER ABRAHAM
embed only the adjectival present participle (from which

today’s infinitival embedding emerged due to a grammaticizing
process); for other supporting evidence for the early stages of
German cf. Abraham 1985.
By contrast, the ascending (purely temporal) time concept arose out of the need
of the sequence of tenses due to an increased sensitivity of textual coherence and
due to growing awareness of precision in written German (as opposed to oral
German, where the system of temporal representation is less rich than in the
standard language).
It appears to me that the fact that German (and Dutch) can express the
future through the present tense is a good indicator for descending characteristics
of its time concept. See the following perfectly idiomatic example.
(37) a. Morgen habe ich es fertig. (instead of … werde ich
tomorrow have I it finished … will I
fertig sein)
finished be
“Tomorrow I will finish”
b. Nächstes Jahr habe ich mein Arztdiplom
next year have I my GP diploma
gemacht. (instead of … werde ich mein Arztdiplom machen)
made … will I my GP diploma make
“Next year I will finish my studies for GP”
These examples are clear instances of the descending concept of relative time
(sse, in a similar, though not identical, vein Leiss 1989: 245ff.).
10. Tense or aspect under binding restrictions
What remains as an open question are the conditions on split ergativity which are
outside of perfectivity. Recall section 4 above. Is there any link to the type of
explanation on the split under perfectivity conditions? Or do we deal, in this
instance, with completely unrelated phenomena. Notice that Dixon (1994) does
not relate these questions in the remotest way.
One of the ways to think of tense is in terms of pronominality (going back,
as far as I can see, to Partee 1971; see also Hornstein 1990, Leiss 1989; Guéron
1993, among others). Now, if this is to make sense one should assume two
points of time, the reference point and the speaker’s time point. Any Past tense,
then, would refer to some anaphoric time relation, i.e. looking back to some
antecedent. Future tense, in this perspective, would be a cataphoric time relation,
i.e. looking forward to some reference point to come in relation to the speaker’s
reference time. And the present would be non-pronominal since no pronominal
relation would be established between the reference time and the speaker’s time.
The relation between the two reference points on the time scale can be seen as
loosely bound in accordance with Principle B of the Binding theory, i.e. like true
pronouns (relation to some occurrence in the previous text, thus as highly
thematic, but without any syntactic local binding, or coreference, property as
holds for reflexives). See the following graph sketching these relations.
(38) ana- cata-
tr phor ts phor tr
|––––––––––––x––––––––––––|
  
  
Now, assume that past, as opposed to present and future, establishes true anapho-
ric relations on the basis of Principle B (“unbound within the syntactic local
domain, i.e. unbound by the subject within the minimal clausal domain created
by this subject”). Then, what would be the tense relation correlative to the
reflexive, for which Principle A holds (“coreference with the subject in the
minimal syntactic domain”). Think of the relation established in (35a). The best
candidate, beyond all tense differences mentioned above, is the bi-phasic relation
holding for perfectives. This is so because the relation of coreference holds
within the minimal domain of the lexical meaning of the verb, or the verbal stem
plus the affixoid, or the prepositional constituent in the accusative of direction
plus the movement verb. Recall the examples about lexical as well as syntactic
unaccusatives in German in (10)–(11a–c) and (13a,b) above. This truly close, or
reflexive, relation is established in terms of the bi-implication between the two
phases holding for perfectives, or resultatives: the approach phase always implies
the result to be achieved, and the result state presupposes the aforegoing phase
leading to it. A perfective, then, is subject to local binding in terms of Principle A,
according to some intuitive plausibility. But what is the subject which we need
to make the local clausal binding domain applicable, needed for the relation of
coreference under Principle A? Notice that invoking a coreference relation with
some object would not do, since for intransitives we cannot refer to an object. To
invoke a binding-A relation for one-place unaccusatives, or perfectives, we need
the local domain of a subject, unless there is reason to go beyond the domain of
the subject-predicate domain. But there is no such reason. Now, the only way to
282 WERNER ABRAHAM
determine a subject domain for the predicate is by appealing to a small clause

construction embedded within the stem of the main verb and the prefix, the
affixoidal adjective, or the prepositional constituent of directional movement
predicates. The embedded small clause, then, is the local domain for binding under
A-conditions, i.e. between the embedded predicate and the small clause subject.
Notice that this pronominal-reflexive link in syntactic terms is supported by
two old observations. First, as regards the pronominal nature” of the past tense
category, both the “past pronoun” and the perfective reflexive” are highly
thematic. This is borne out by the syntactic constraints for the only landing sites
of weak pronominals and their clitic correspondents: outside of the existential
nuclear sentence (to use Heim’s 1982 terms) on the right edge of CP, or the
section restricted to anaphoric material (the restrictive portion of the clause, in
Heim’s terms). Weak pronouns and their clitic forms can never occur within VP,
whatever the underlying word order (SVO or SOV). This clarifies its truly
pronominal, and, consequently, discourse-thematic nature. Second, the observed
discourse thematicity is in line with the equally old observation that perfectivity
is enhanced, or maybe only created, by definite object-NPs. They are known, or
given, on the basis of their categorially inherent thematicity and they are
perfective in that they invoke the whole of the event as a completed result.
Results, thus, are always more thematic; and past events, by their very past
nature, are closer to such completed events. In other words: if pronominals are
themas, then past and perfect are thematic, too; if, on the other hand, perfective
is thematic, then results and resultatives are thematic, too.
At this point, a caveat is in place. Pasts and perfect(ive)s need not denote
completed events (cf. Dixon 1994: 97, fig. 4.6., where he addresses exactly this
phenomenon). All that appears to matter is whether you look at the event as a
semantic unit or in its relation to the time scale. If the latter, temporal rather than
aspectual, view is expounded pasts will not correlate with, or trigger, perfectives
or unaccusatives, or absolutives. This may be the typological situation of unsplit
ergative languages.
What all this yields is the following. Perfectives as such are discourse-thema
associated. This may be achieved in several terms which display no direct
correlation at first sight:
(39) a. in terms of their aspectual property, i.e. the biphasic event
relation;
b. the category-inherent specificity of the definite article; and
c. the even higher specificity, and discourse thematicity, of the
first and second persons vs. the third person.
See our (12a,b) above, where we were still speculating about the true nature of
an underlying, common denominator for the split triggered by person deixis and
specificity of the nominals involved.
Now note what all this permits to conclude with respect to the concept of
unaccusativity, or “ergativity” (in the sense of Perlmutter, Anderson, Halliday,
Burzio, Pesetsky, Grewendorf, Belletti and others in the generative syntactic
tradition). If indeed, this syntactically explained concept of unaccusativity can be
reduced to the all-and-more encompassing concept of perfectivity then this is: (i)
a syntactic concept only to the extent that perfectivity is. I have argued that
indeed all perfectivity is to be accounted for in terms of the secondary predicate,
or predicative, or small clause embedding as displayed in detail in (15a,b). Note
that the simpler generalization and explanation on the basis of case theory as
under (12a) not only is a subconcept under the account in (15), but that it is also
wrong given the impossibility to make symmetric the representation of unaccu-
satives/ergatives as one-place perfectives as in (12a) (with the lexical grid
“_[internal theta role V]” or _[Q Qi _]) and true unergatives as one place non-
perfectives (with the lexical grid “external theta role[_ V]” or Qe[_]), on the one
hand, and non-perfective transitives/two place predicates (with a corresponding
external argument: “external theta role [internal theta role V]” or Qe[Q Qi_]) and
the perfective correspondent (which would have to “demote” its internal argu-
ment to some lower case position, parallel to the object-like subject of unaccu-
satives), on the other hand. This is not imaginable, however. Thus, what remains
is to conceptualize perfectives in terms of biphasics, with the result semantics
mapped onto an embedded small clause. The latter yields the subjecthood of its
only argument required by the resultative, or stative-adjectival, predicate type.
This leaves us with little, if anything, in purely syntactic terms for Perl-
mutter’s Unaccusative Hypothesis and Burzio’s generalization. The German
unaccusative facts have to be subsumed totally under the perfective account
anyway. What might remain are the observations with respect to ne in Italian
(Burzio 1986: 20ff.). But we have extended these observations to include facts
from West Greenlandic and from German to show that, while they appear to
concern VP-internal subjects and non-specific, predicate-incorporated objects in
rhematic discourse function, nothing persuasive carries over to ergative properties
of the case or syntactic ergativity facts observed in truly ergative languages. It
appears, then, that what is called unaccusativity or ergativity in Perlmutter’s and
Burzio’s sense is but an epiphenomenon within a much more pervasive perfec-
tive scenario. While perfectivity covers the grammatical nucleus of this phenome-
non, together with its small clause construction, other triggers such as discourse
284 WERNER ABRAHAM
thematicity and pronominalness are less central, but, eventually, likewise to be

accounted for in syntactic terms.
It has been pointed out repeatedly (among others by Anderson 1973) that
languages can develop in either direction: from ergativity to accusativity and
conversely. In either case perfectivity plays a crucial role: either as a property
taking on a stronger triggering role for grammatical properties, or losing this
conditioning force. If ergativity follows it cannot be predicted which of the
observed conditions (discourse thematicity by way of pronominal person, by
VP-internality, or by aspectual definiteness) it will propagate. But the accompa-
nying distributional facts, notwithstanding their resemblance with ergative
properties, are to be subsumed under the larger denominator of aspectual
perfectivity.
Notice that it would be attractive to infer from the observed data in German
that the modern stage is a weak reflex of an Indoeuropean ergative stage (as has
often been claimed, though without much convincing evidence). But if perfect-
ivity is stated as the all-embracing property from which the epiphenomenon of
ergativity follows in different grammatical forms then it appears that the
conclusion from the observed distributional data to an Indoeuropean ergative
stage is little more than pure speculation as long as no solid linking stages have
been found.
11. Conclusion and speculative outlook
If the argument is to be verified further, and thus will turn out to be tenable, that
the syntactic characterization of unaccusatives in Burzio’s (and related) fashion
is just too simple and does not do justice to a wide array of empirical linguistic
facts which have to be included and accounted for in a general approach i.e.
a descriptive format under avoidance of an examination of semantic and aspect-
ual properties (telicity, change of state, possibility of non- agentive reading) -,
then an interesting conclusion arises, which confirms our observations so far. It
will then also be impossible to state the distinction between unergative and
unaccusative, namely if
a. subjects originate within a (single) VP
or
b. vacuous branching is disallowed. See (40a) vs. (4ob) below.
(40) a. VP vs. b. VP
NP V V
V NP V
Such indiscernability in formal terms lends further support to our analysis, e.g.
of the lexical-aspectual pair schlafen/einschlafen: there is a small clause or
embedded VP embodying a change and resulting state. This solution is to be
expressed more fully in formal terms for different types of verb. The idea of a
lexically oriented approach lies also at the bottom of Smith’s approach on aspect
(Smith 1995).
It will have to be seen at the hand of minute comparison which of the
modern discussions of aspect might be a useful frame of reference for Guil-
laume’s distinction between an ascending viewpoint based primarily on the
temporal axis and another based primarily on aspectual distinctions (descending).
A characteristic of the latter type of language — which includes Hindi and other
split ergative languages — is that the perfective is used for past time reference
as there is no set of past tense forms for verbs. The distinction might be
neutralized in the future and irrealis mood: Hindi has a real future and contingent
inflection.
If German is of the former type, then this feature explains why aspectual
perfectivity is expressed by derivation of verb stems or auxiliary modal verbs,
and not by verbal inflection, which seems to be reserved for tense and mood.
Consider the contrast of German schlafen/einschlafen and Hindi soo-yaa ‘sleep-
pf’ = neutral for ‘slept’ (activity), ‘went to sleep’ (change of state), vs. soo ga-yaa
‘sleep go-pf’ = perfective ‘went to sleep’.13 The perfective is indicated unambigu-
ously with a general compound verb, not a specific prefix. The ascending/
descending contrast might be rephrased in contemporary phrase structure terms
as a contrast of the possible contents of INFL, i.e. the aspectual/temporal
projections outside of VP. In ‘ascending’ languages, then, INFL contains mainly
tense reference, and aspectual distinctions have to be indicated within VP, as part
of the simple (monophasic) or complex (biphasic) verb structure. The unaccu-
sative derivations, which have marked aspectual properties, seem to be a
particularly striking and clear instance of the aspectual source of the marked
syntactic and semantic properties of unaccusatives.
Notice what follows from this with respect to split ergative languages such
as Hindi, an ergative language. It becomes absolutely doubtful that Hindi, with
286 WERNER ABRAHAM
its extensive and productive aspect marking, really has a syntactic distinction of
intransitive verbs. Alice Davison (p.c.) has pointed out to me that transitive verbs
in Hindi lack the lexical distinctions found in other languages; for example verb
stems like deekh- comprise both activity meaning ‘look’ and achievement (telic)
meaning ‘see’. An activity like dauR ‘run’ can easily be made into a telic verb
by adding a reference of distance like das miil ‘10 miles’. Bengali, as Dasgupta
(1988) has argued very convincingly, does seem to have a syntactic distinction
of unergative and unaccusative verbs. But Bengali turns out to be ‘ascending’ in
Guileaumme’s terms, as it has tense and agreement morphology to a greater
degree than Hindi. Notice, also, that Bengali has no ergative marking in the
perfective, much unlike Hindi.
It is interesting in this context that the ‘eastern’ dialects of Hindi without
ergative marking in the perfective resemble Bengali in that they have more
extensive tense and agreement morphology on the verb stem itself than standard
Hindi (p.c. by A. Davison, who refers to specific examples in Grierson’s
Linguistic Survey of India).
Typologically speaking, the following generalization may be adequate: a
lexical/syntactic distinction between unergative and unaccusative verbs is found
in ‘ascending’ languages expressing tense-agreement, while aspect-based
‘descending’ languages may have the ergative-perfective association and do not
(need to) express syntactically the lexical/aspectual difference between telic and
atelic verb meanings.
Acknowledgments
This paper owes critical discussions to a lot of audiences, which I cannot name in more detail.
However, I would like to thank specifically Alice Davison/Iowa for comment and John Hewson/
Memorial University for valuable insight into his own considerations about related topics. Michail
Kotin/Moscow has drawn my attention to related phenomena in Modern Russian.
Notes
1. Recall the distribution of cases in ergative systems (₍₎ often formally equivalent with
₍₎), both lexically and tense/aspect (periphrasis) induced:
in ergative case systems: two-place verbs:  
one-place verbs: 
in non-ergative case systems: two-place verbs:  
one-place verbs: 
2. For a more detailed discussion as to what aspectual conditions can mean in terms syntactic
representation see Abraham (1996, 1998).
3. This is made plausible also by the fact that clitic pronominals, by contrast to their full nominal
counterparts, cannot occur in situ within VP. Note that pronominal clitics are highly thematic,
often to the extent that they can be dropped completely (pro drop-languages).
4. Questionably a mere discourse-based split; but see Dubois (1996).
5. See also Seibert (1993) for further material and the demonstration that the unergative/
unaccusative distinction in German is not a consistent formal morphonological/syntactic
difference, but that it is relative to verb meaning and derivational affixes on the verb indicating
change of state.
In a somewhat similar (though formally heterogeneous) fashion, Kishimoto (1996) proposes
in a very fine and focussed way that semantic criteria define unaccusative (senses of) verbs in
Japanese. It is proposed that languages can differ in these semantic criteria. The Role and
Reference Grammar notation for different aspectual types is actually quite attractive (derived
from Dowty’s restatement of Generative Semantics analyses) and could probably be restated in
recent Chomskyan terms (such as Hale and Keyser who ultimately owe much to GS).
6. I leave undiscussed, at this point, the relation between the statal-deictic predicate in the small
clause and the directional-deictic in the verbal particle (e.g. empor- “upwards” vs. oben “on
top”) and its systematic derivation from the SC-description to the surface verb. See Abraham
(1994) for further details. Notice that such a systematic description must embrace the systematic
change between the directional accusative and the statal dative as in the telic movement
constituents in (8b) above: viz. Die Kinder sind IN DEN GARTEN-ACC gelaufen “they ran inTO the
garden” and its structural description (daß) sieQi [VP [SC tQi (sind) [ADV im Garten-DATIVE])]]]]
gelaufen sind] ‘that they [(such that) they (are) in the garden] ran’. Notice, however, that
whatever its account in syntactic terms, it will be identical both in phrasal syntax and on the
level of the word-syntax.
7. I am aware of the unaccomplished precise description of directional-perfectivizing constituents
such as der in den Garten (hinein-)gelaufene [Gärtner] ”the-into-the-garden-run-gardener”,
which should yield the paraphrase “der Gärtner lief, bis/so daß er in dem Garten war” (‘the
gardener ran until he was in the garden’). Since the small clause predication is always statal the
directional accusative in German has to give way to the statal dative. Notice that this case shift
is always accompanied by a shift in the deictic verbal prefix. Thus, what is in deN Garten
(HINEIN-) will eventually become iM Garten (drinnen) in the statal small clause predication
something which cannot be accounted for by a simple morphological shift. See also note 3
above.
8. Dixon (1994) does not pay sufficient attention to this fact.
9. “Aspect and tense from PIE to Germanic: the systemic evolution.” Paper read at the occasion
of the Conference The germanic verb at Trinity College. Reference is made to Hewson’s
handout.
10. Thanks to Professor St. Sonderegger for specific help on an Old High German detail.
11. I would like to thank at this point M. Kotin (Moscow) for clarifying this issue to me as well as
pointing out to me his relevant publications.
12. Notice, however, that, if we abstract from the type of passive in English restricted to transitives,
the generalization about passivization may have to be restricted to deagentivization rather than
detransitivization. Think of the passive of intransitives in a wide number of languages among
which German, Dutch, and West Frisian.
288 WERNER ABRAHAM
13. The Hindi examples as well as part of the line of argument have been provided by Alice
Davison/Iowa (p.c.).
References
Abraham, Werner. 1978. “Valence and case: remarks on their contribution to the
identification of grammatical relations.” In: Werner Abraham (ed.) Valence, semantic
case, and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 695–729.
Abraham, Werner. 1985. “Transitivitätskorrelate und ihre formale Einbindung in die
Grammatik.” Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 28, 1–72.
Abraham, Werner. 1990.”A note on the aspect-syntax interface.” In: M. Mascarò & M.
Nespor (eds.) Progress in linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1–12.
Abraham, Werner. 1992a. “The emergence of the periphrastic passive in Gothic.”
Leuvense Bijdragen 81/1–3, 1–15.
Abraham, Werner. 1992b. “Clausal focus vs. discourse rhema in German: a programmatic
view.” In: D. Gilbers & S. Looyenga (eds.) Language and Cognition 2. [Yearbook of
the research group for linguistic theory and knowledge representation of the Universi-
ty of Groningen.] Groningen, 1–18.
Abraham, Werner. 1994. “Ergativa sind Terminativa.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft
12/2: 157–184.
Abraham, Werner. 1995. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachvergleich. Grundlegung einer
typologischen Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. [Studien zur deutschen
Grammatik, 41].
Abraham, Werner. 1996. “Peculiarities of verbal classes in German, in particular in
relation to English and Dutch.” Paper read at the conference on the verb in German-
ic. Dublin Trinity College, May 1996. Ms. Univ. of Groningen.
Abraham, Werner. 1997. “The interdependence of case, aspect, and referentiality in the
history of German.” In: Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.) Parameters of
morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: CUP, 29–61.
Abraham, Werner. 1998. “Paradigmatic marking in German and English.” In: Karmen
Teržan Kopecky (ed.) Sammelband des II. Internationalen Symposions zur Natürlich-
keitstheorie 23.-25. Mai 1996. Maribor: Universitätsverlag, 159–172.
Anderson, John M. 1968. “Ergative and nominative in English.” Journal of Linguistics 4,
1–32.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1973. “u-umlaut and Skaldic verse.” In: Stephen Anderson & Paul
Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 3–13.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. “On mechanisms by which languages become ergative.” In:
Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press,
317–363.
Baker, Mark C., Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts. 1989. “Passive arguments raised.”
Linguistic Inquiry 20/1, 219–251.
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. “The case of Unaccusatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 19/1, 1–34.
Besten, Hans den. 1986. “Some remarks on the Ergative Hypothesis.” In: Werner
Abraham (ed.) Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 53–74.
Bittner, Maria & Ken Hale. 1996. “The structural determination of case and agreement.”
Linguistic Inquiry 27/1: 1–68.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1993. “Ergativity and ergative unergatives.” In: C. Phillips (ed.)
Papers on case and agreement II. [MITWPL, vol 19].
Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and agreement in Inuit. PhD dissertation Univ. of
Brabant, Tilburg.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. A Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Butt, Miriam. 1993. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis. Stanford University, California.
Butt, Miriam & Tracy Holloway King. 1995. Optionality in ‘free’ word order languages.
Ms. Univ. Tübingen (paper GGS-meeting at Jena, 26th May, 1995).
Catford, J.C. 1976. “Ergativity in Caucasian languages.” NELS 6, 37–48.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. “Bare phrase structure.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5,
1–48.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Review of Klimov (1973). Lingua 39 (1976), 252–260.
Dasgupta, Probal. 1988. “Bangla quantifier extraction, unaccusative in situ, and the ECP.”
Linguistic Inquiry 19/4, 691–698.
DeLancey, Scott. 1980. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. IULC
Publication, Indiana University.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. [Cambridge Studies in Linguis-
tics, 69].
Dubois, Jack. 1996. Discourse ergativity. Paper read at the Conference ‘Functionalism —
Formalism’ at the university of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. April 1996.
Egede, P. 1760. Grammatica Groenlandica Danica-Latina. Copenhagen: Gottmann.
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. “The semantics of specificity”. Linguistic Inquiry 22/1, 1–25.
Farrell, P. 1995. “The structure of Balochi.” In: Theodora Bynon et al. (eds.) Ergativity.
In: D.C. Bennett, Th. Bynon, and B.G. Hewitt (eds.) Subject, voice, and ergativity.
Selected essays. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Gawronska, Barbara. 1993. An MT-oriented model of aspect and article semantics. Lund:
University Press. [Traveaux de l’institut de linguistique de Lund, 28].
Geenhoven, Veerle van. 1995. “Semantic incorporation: a uniform semantics for West
Greenlandic noun incorporation and West Germanic bare plural configurations.”
Proceedings of the 31st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. University of
Chicago.
Grewendorf, Günter. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Reidel.
290 WERNER ABRAHAM
Grierson, George A. 1903–1928. Linguistic Survey of India. Calcutta: Superintendent

Government Printing etc.
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1993. “Sur la syntaxe du temps.” Langue Française 100, 102–124.
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1995. “On have and be.” Paper Univ. of Paris, Nanterre (read at
Groningen, April 26, 1995; hand-out).
Guillaume, Gustave. 1929. Temps et verbe. Théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps.
[suivi de L’architechtonique du temps de les langues classiques. 1945] Paris 1965.
Haider, Hubert & Rindler-Schjerve, Rositta. 1987. “The parameter of auxiliary selection:
Italian-German contrasts.” Linguistics 25, 1029–1055.
Hale, Ken & Samuel Keyser. 1993. “On argument structure and the lexical expression of
syntactic relations.” In: Hale, K. & J. Keyser (eds.) The view from Building 20.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 53–109.
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1967. “Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 1.”
Journal of Linguistics 3, 37–81.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hewson, John. 1996. “Aspect and tense from PIE to Germanic: the systemic evolution.”
Paper Memorial University of Newfoundland, read at the Trinity College Dublin
conference on the Germanic verb. May 1996.
Hoekstra, Teun & Jan Rooryck. 1995. Dynamic and stative . Paper Leiden (read at
the 10th Comparative Germanic Workshop at the University of Brussels, 17–19
January, 1995).
Hofmann, J.B. & Anton Szantyr. 1965/21972. Lateinische Grammatik. Bd. II: Lateinische
Syntax und Stilistik. München: C.H. Beck.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse.”
Language 56, 251–299.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As time goes by. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kachru, Yamuna & R. Pandharipande. 1979. “On ergativity in selected South Asian
languages.” South Asian Language Analysis 1, 193–209.
Kaegi, Adolf (s.d.) Griechische Schulgrammatik. Weidmann.
Kalmár, Istvan. 1979. “The antipassive and grammatical relations in Eskimo.” In: F.
Plank (ed.) 1979, 117–143.
Kayne, Richard. 1993. “Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection.” Studia Linguis-
tica 47, 3–31.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 1996. “Split intransitivity in Japanese and the unaccusative hypothe-
sis.” Language 72, 248–286.
Klimov, G.A. 1973. Očerk obščej teorii ėrgativnosti. Moscow: Nauka.
Kotin, Michail. 1995a. “Probleme der Beschreibung der deutschen Verbalmorphologie:
zur Herausbildung der grammatischen Kategorie des Genus verbi.” Deutsche
Sprache 23/1: 61–72.
Kotin, Michail. 1995b. “O roli akcional’nyx značenij v formirovanii nemeckoj glagol’noj
paradigmy.” Izvestija Akademii Nauk. Serija Literatury i Jazyka. Tom 54/4, 36–45.
Kotin, Michail. 1998. Die Herausbildung der grammatischen Kategorie des Genus verbi im
Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske. [Beiträge zur germanischen Sprachwissenschaft, 14].
Laka, Itziar. 1993. “Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusa-
tive.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, ed. by J. Bobaljik and C. Phillips,
149–162.
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1985. “Zur Entstehung des neuhochdeutschen analytischen Futurs.”
Sprachwissenschaft 10, 250–273.
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1989. Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lloyd, Albert L. 1979. Anatomy of the verb. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Studies in
Language Companion Series; 4].
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Ph.D. thesis
M.I.T. Unpublished.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1994. Universal grammar and the typology of ergative languages. Paper
UCLA (read at the FAS-meeting Berlin, November 1994).
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. “Case and licensing”. Proceedings of ESCOL 8, 234–253.
Marantz, Alec. 1996. Formally ergative. Paper presented at the conference ‘Functionalism
and Formalism in linguistics’, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, April 18–20,
1996.
Milner, G.B. 1973. “It is aspect (not voice), which is marked in Samoan.” Oceanic
Linguistics 12, 621–639.
Nash, Léa. 1995. Portée argumentale et marquage casuel dans les langues SOV et dans
les languages ergatives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation MIT.
Partee, Barbara. 1971. “Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in
English.” Journal of Philosophy 70, 601–609.
Perlmutter, Paul. 1976. “Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis.” Berkeley
Linguistic Society 4, 157–189.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation MIT.
Plank, Frans (ed.). 1979. Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. New
York: Academic Press.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1988. “Topic … comment: citation etiquette beyond thunderdome.”
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 579–588.
Rumsey, Alan. 1987. “Was Proto-Indoeuropean an ergative language?” Journal of Indo-
European Studies 15, 19–37.
Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1995. “Impersonalien.” In: Syntax. Ein internationales Hand-
buch zeitgenössischer Forschung. 2nd vol., ed. by Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von
Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann. Berlin: W. de Gruyter,
1277–1287.
Seibert, Anja J. 1993. Intransitive constructions in German and the ergative hypothesis.
Working Papers in Linguistics #14, Dept. of Linguistics, U. of Trondheim.
292 WERNER ABRAHAM
Silverstein, Mark. 1976. “Hierarchy of features and ergativity.” In: R.M.W. Dixon 1976
(ed.) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Aboriginal Studies, 112–171.
Smith, Carlota S. 1995. Aspectual viewpoint and situation type: the two-component
theory. Paper LSA, January 1995 (handout).
Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “The ergative parameter.” In: D.C. Bennett, Th. Bynon, and B.G.
Hewitt (eds.) Subject, voice, and ergativity. Selected essays. School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, 244–262.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1995. “French predicate clitics and clause structure.” In: Anna
Cardinaletti & M.T. Guasti (eds.) Small Clauses. San Diego etc.: Academic Press,
287–324. [Syntax and Semantics, 28].
Trask, Robert L. 1979. “On the origins of ergativity.” In: Frans Plank (ed.) Ergativity:
toward a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press, 385–404.
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 1996. “Participles and bare argument structure.” In: Werner
Abraham et al. (eds.) Studies in Minimalist syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 283–304.
[Linguistics Today, 12].
Verbal temporalization in Russian and English
Georgij Silnitsky
Smolensk State Pedagogical University
Abstract
The aim of the present paper is a systematic consideration of various types of

temporal characteristics of the verbal action, subsumed under the general
notion of “temporalization”. This is to be achieved through a semantic analysis
of the interrelations between
– semantic types and structures of verbal meaning,
– various types of temporal bases with which the verbal actions are
correlated, and
– various grammatical means of expressing verbal temporalization.
The method applied is thus “componential analysis” of the semantic structure
of the linguistic phenomena under consideration combined with an integrative
intercategorial approach. I hope to establish some deep-structure relations
underlying the multilevel means of expressing temporal orientation in a
number of Indo-European languages.
1. Semantic types and structures of verbal meaning
Our discussion is based upon the “chronostructural” model of verbal meaning

proposed in Sil’nickij 1988 (cf. Vendler 1967, Dahl 1974, Maslov 1977). The
semantic structure of a verbal meaning is analyzed in terms of constituent phases.
We shall distinguish between three main types of verbal meaning: three-phasal,
two-phasal and monophasal.
1.1 Three-phasal chronostructures
Three-phasal chronostructures consist of three consecutive phases (‘initial’,

294 GEORGIJ SILNITSKY
‘medial’ and ‘final’), filled in by “states” (s) — semantically homogeneous

processual components of verbal meanings.
Three-phasal chronostructures are subdivided into two classes: gradual and
cyclic.
Gradual (asymmetric) chronostructures (-s/s*/s) are characterized by the
representation of a certain state s in the final phase, its contradictory negation
(-s) in the initial phase and an intermediate transitional state (s*) in the medial
position: ‘The door closed’ (the “condition” of the object changes from an initial
state of “openness” into its opposite through a gradual transition from the former
to the latter). The corresponding causative construction (‘He closed the door’)
has the same chronostructure with the additional insertion of an operative
(causal) state (a), synchronous with the transitional state s*, into the medial
phase (-s/a.s*/s): the agent causes the object to change from its initial into its
final state through a transitional phase of “causation” a. The introduction of a
medial transitional phase distinguishes the proposed model from that of O. Dahl
with its momentary transition from one state to another (Dahl 1974).
The asymmetry of gradual chronostructures manifests itself in the non-
coincidence of the semantic content of their initial and final phases.
The final state in gradual chronostructures may have a definitive (unequivo-
cally realized or unrealized) or non-definitive (potential) status:
(1) positive definitive: ‘He passed his examination’;
(2) negative definitive: ‘He failed in his examination’;
(3) non-definitive: ‘He is preparing for his examination’.
Cyclic (symmetrical) chronostructures (-s/s/-s) have the positively marked state
s in the medial phase flanked by two negative marginal states (-s) marking the
temporal limits of the former, i.e. explicating the presence of an inchoative and
a conclusive temporal point beyond which the medial state does not hold: ‘He
yawned’(non-causative), ‘He rang the bell’ (causative).
1.2 Two-phasal chronostructures
Two-phasal chronostructures (-s/s) consist of an initial and a final phase with a

momentary transition from the first to the second; this momentary borderline
may be regarded as a “reduced” medial state: ‘He woke’, ‘He found the house’,
‘The glass broke’. The corresponding causative construction (‘She woke the
child’, ‘He broke the glass’) renders the structure a non-reduced three-phasal
chronostructure with an operative non-reduced state in the medial position.
VERBAL TEMPORALIZATION IN RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH 295
1.3 Monophasal verbal meanings
Monophasal verbal (-/s/-) meanings include a single state which is not situation-
ally limited in either of its temporal perspectives: ‘He slept/worked/waited’. The
state s may be considered here as occupying the medial phase with two “empty”
marginal phases. The symmetry of monophasal structures as regards the marginal
phases allows them to be treated as a “doubly reduced” subtype of three-phasal
cyclic verbal meaning.
Three- and two-phasal verbal meanings are ‘terminative’, as illustrated by
the examples above: the final state limits the duration of the medial and initial
states. We shall differentiate between ‘processual’ (three-phasal) and ‘instant-
aneous’ (two-phasal) terminatives. Monophasal verbal meanings are correspond-
ingly ‘durative’, i.e. potentially unrestricted in their duration: ‘sleep’, ‘stand’.
It follows that the distinction between terminatives and duratives is to be
found in the complex semantic structure of the former and the simple structure
of the latter.
The various types of semantic structures of verbal meaning may be illustrat-
ed by the following scheme (Table 1):
Table 1
Initial Final
Medial phase
phase phase
Gradual structure: ‘The door closed’ -s:<open> s* s:<closed>
‘He closed the door’ -s:<open> a.s* s:<closed>
Cyclic structure: ‘He winked’ -s s:<wink> -s
Two-phasal structure: momentary
-s: <intact> s:<broken>
‘The glass broke’ transition
Monophasal structure: ‘He waited’ - <wait> -
2. Types of temporal bases
By the ‘temporal basis’ of a verbal action I mean a moment, period or another

action with which it is temporally correlated.
The following dichotomies of temporal bases will be considered:
1) Momentary (temporal moment) — linear (temporal period, another action):
(4) ‘He woke at seven o’clock’ (momentary temporal basis),
(5) ‘He woke early in the morning’ (linear basis).

2) Deictic (moment of speech) — non-deictic (situational) (fixed moment,
period, another action):
(6) ‘He is working on the problem’ (deictic basis),
(7) ‘He has been working on the problem since morning/since I left
him’ (situational temporal basis).
3) Implicit — explicit.
Deictic temporal bases are, as a rule, implicit, as in (6).
Explicit (contextually expressed) temporal bases will be further termed
“temporalizers”.
The temporal correlation of a verbal action with its temporal basis may be
of three main types: simultaneity, priority, sequence.
The following subtypes of simultaneity are to be distinguished:
1) Intrinsic simultaneity: the temporal basis is of a shorter duration than the
verbal action and coincides in time with an internal moment (segment) of the
latter:
(8) ‘He is working’ (deictic intrinsic simultaneity),
(9) ‘At five o’clock he was working’ (situational intrinsic simultaneity).
2) Congruent simultaneity — the temporal basis is of exactly (definite congru-
ence) or approximately (indefinite congruence) the same duration as the verbal
action:
(10) ‘He wrote the letter in two hours’ (definite congruent simultaneity),
(11) ‘He worked for two hours/from four to six’ (indefinite congruent
situational simultaneity: the verbal action lasted during the specified
period but is not necessarily limited by it),
(12) ‘He has worked on the problem since morning/for two hours’
(indefinite congruent simultaneity in combination with deictic
priority: the temporal basis specifies the duration of the verbal action
before the moment of speech and the possibility of its continuation
after that moment).
3) Extrinsic simultaneity — the verbal action is of a shorter duration than the
temporal basis and coincides in time with an internal segment of the latter:
(13) ‘He returned today/yesterday’.
The temporal relations of priority and sequence may be ‘exclusive’ or ‘inclus-

ive’: the temporal basis does not coincide in time with any moment of the verbal
action in the first case and coincides with its final or initial moment in the
second. Inclusive priority may be expressed jointly with congruent simultaneity:
(14) ‘I have waited here for two hours’.
The structural semantic characteristics of verbal meanings (the number, type and
sequence of the inherent states) constitute the sphere of ‘intraverbal’ temporal-
ization, as opposed to ‘extraverbal’ temporalization through various types of
correlation of the verbal actions with their temporal bases. Both types of
temporalization find grammatical expression by means of the morphological
categories discussed in the next section.
3. Grammatical temporal categories
Three grammatical categories in Indo-European languages express various types

of temporal correlations of the verbal actions: aspect (intraverbal temporal-
ization), tense and taxis (extraverbal temporalization) (Maslov 1988: 63).
3.1 Tense
The category of tense expresses deictic temporal correlations (simultaneity,

priority, sequence) of the verbal action with the moment of speech and is
characterized by the following traits in Indo-European languages:
1) ‘Strong’ (irregular) verbs in a number of Indo-European languages
(English, German, Russian, etc.) have different lexical bases for expressing
present and past tense-meanings, thus marking the past/non-past temporal
opposition, stemming from proto-Indo-European roots, as basic for the tense
system. The past tense, which encompasses the temporal sphere of “consummat-
ed” actions, realized in the whole of their duration and interconnected with one
another by the widest range of temporal correlations, constitutes the most
definitive of the tenses, and is characterized by the most differentiated specifica-
tion of its temporal meanings.
2) The future tense, in distinction to the past, figures as the “weak” member
of the temporal system and a latecomer in the history of Indo-European languag-
es. It consequently lacks a typologically constant morphological form, finding
expression in different languages by means of
– analytical constructions with modal auxiliaries (English, German);
– perfective verbal bases and morphological paradigms of the present tense

(Russian);
– specialized synthetic forms (French: base of the infinitive + specific
morphological paradigm).
It is only in the last case that we can speak of the future as a genuinely autono-
mous tense-form and of the whole tense system as tripartite in its “deep” structure.
Another index of the specific categorial status of this temporal form is the
presence in a number of Indo-European languages of two subtypes of the future:
the simple future (the “future-in-the-present”) and the future-in-the-past. The
latter is positively correlated in the Indo-European language family with the
pluperfect with which it is symmetrically juxtaposed in the temporal dimension
(cf. English, German, French, Norwegian, Swedish, Bulgarian, Old Church
Slavonic, Armenian, Ancient Greek, etc.; on the other hand, both forms are
conspicuously absent in the majority of modern Slavic languages). One may
assume that the categories of the future-in-the-past and the pluperfect are comple-
mentary; but this hypothesis is to be checked on a wider range of languages.
The following discussion will center mainly upon a comparison of English
and Russian with occasional references to other Indo-European languages.
3.2 Aspect
The primacy of intraverbal temporalization characteristic of aspect manifests

itself in the close interaction of this category with the derivational and semantic
structure of the verb.
A prominent feature of aspect distinguishing it from other grammatical
categories is the possibility of a joint representation of both aspectual characteris-
tics (perfective and imperfective) in the same verbal base (in distinction to such
compound grammatical forms as the perfect continuous or the future-in-the-past):
cf. čitat’ (imperfective: ‘read’) — perečitat’ (perfective: ‘reread’) — perečityvat’
(“secondary” imperfective: ‘be rereading’) (Bondarko 1971: 18). We have here
an opposition between verbal bases, rather than between grammatical forms as
they are normally understood, which gives additional grounds for regarding
aspect as a lexical rather than a grammatical category.
The predominantly intraverbal temporal orientation of aspect may likewise
be seen in the fact that each of its two subtypes determines a distinct set of verbal
semantic structures, so that a change of aspect is always accompanied by a
corresponding transfer of the verbal meaning from one semantic class to another.
Thus, the perfective marks the definitive (unequivocally realized or unreal-
ized) status of the state in the final phase of the verbal meaning (Sil’nickij
1992: 436ff) and determines the following types of verbal semantic structure:
a) gradual instantaneous: zasnut’ (non-causative: ‘fall asleep’), slomat’
(causative: ‘break’ trans.);
b) gradual processual: sgoret’ (non-causative: ‘burn down’ intr.), sžeč’
(causative: ‘burn down’ trans.);
c) cyclic instantaneous: mignut’ (non-causative:‘wink’), tolknut’ (causative:
‘push’);
d) cyclic processual (delimitative): poguljat’ (‘have a walk’).
The imperfective may be “primary” (non-derived) or “secondary” (derived
from a perfective base).
P  are correlated with monophasal (durative) semantic
structures with a single positively represented state in the medial phase: spat’
(non-causative: ‘sleep’), xranit’ (causative: ‘keep’).
S  transform the semantic structure of the corre-
sponding basic perfectives in one of the following ways:
G  have the state in the final phase changed from a
definitive to a potential status: cf. zasnut’ (perfective: ‘fall asleep’) — zasypat’
(imperfective: ‘be falling asleep’).
I correlated with cyclic instantaneous perfectives (mignut’
‘wink’) acquire an iterative meaning: migat’ (‘wink repeatedly’).
P, with a definitive state in their final phase, have a ‘closed’
semantic structure, as distinct from the ‘open’ structure of imperfectives charac-
terized by an “empty” or potential final phase. These two structural types
determine two respective types of iterative meanings: imperfectives express an
“open” (indefinite) iteration, i.e. one that can be continued:
(15) On často pisal nam
he often wrote to us
On the other hand, perfectives in an iterative function express an action which is
repeated a certain number of times and may thus be regarded as a single
“closed” “macroaction”:
(16) On triždy postučal v dver’
he three times knocked at the door
The two aspectual forms (and the corresponding types of verbal meaning) have
the following temporal characteristics:
Extrinsic temporalizers are aspectually non-diagnostic, i.e. may be freely and
indiscriminately used with perfectives and imperfectives:
(17) On čital/pročital vaše pis’mo segodnja/včera

he read your letter today/yesterday
The main diagnostic function differentiating the aspectual forms in the temporal
sphere is performed by various types of simultaneity.
Instantaneous perfectives are used with intrinsic temporalizers:
(18) V dva časa on prosnulsja/otkryl okno
at two o’clock he woke/opened the window
Gradual perfectives combine with definite congruent temporalizers:
(19) On postroil dom za dva goda
he built the house in two years
Imperfectives (primary and secondary) may be used both with intrinsic and with
indefinite congruent temporalizers:
(20) V dva časa/v tečenie dvux časov on pisal/podpisyval pis’ma.
‘At two o’clock/for two hours he wrote/signed letters.’
Cyclic processual perfectives may be used with indefinite congruent, but not with
intrinsic temporalizers:
(21) a. On pospal v tečenie dvux časov.
‘He slept during two hours.’
Cf. (21b), which is unacceptable:
(21) b. *On pospal v dva časa.
‘He slept at two o’clock.’
The temporal relations of priority and sequence do not differentiate between
aspects:
(22) On pisal/napisal pis’mo do/posle dvux časov.
‘He wrote the letter before/after two o’clock’.
The scheme above shares a number of features with Z. Vendler’s well-known
classification of verbal meanings (Vendler 1967). Thus, intrinsic and definite
congruent temporalizers coincide with Vendler’s criteria “at what time” and “for
how long”, though the other temporal characteristics utilized in the present paper
(extrinsic, indefinite congruent, instantaneous — processual temporalizers) do not
figure in Vendler’s system. It should be noted that intrinsic temporalizers are
applicable not only to causative “achievements” (in Vendler’s terminology), but
likewise to non-causative “activities” (cf. ‘break’ trans. vs. ‘break’ intr., if the
second example can be brought under the latter heading). “Achievements” differ
from “accomplishments” in the instantaneous/processual quality of the medial
state in gradual structures, causative or non-causative; in the latter case (e.g.
‘break’ Vi — “achievement’, ‘burn’ Vi — “accomplishment’) the appropriate-
ness of Vendler’s terms may be questioned. The distinction between definite and
indefinite congruent temporalizers serves to differentiate cyclic processual
perfectives (počitat’) from monophasal imperfectives (čitat’); cf. ‘He read the
book in two hours/for two hours’. Extrinsic temporalizers play an essential role
in differentiating the categories of aspect and taxis and the subtypes of the latter
(see below).
3.3 Taxis
According to Maslov (1988: 64), “taxis is a category which defines the “action”
denoted by the predicate in terms of its relations with another “action”, named or
implied in the given utterance, that is, the chronological relations between them
(simultaneity, precedence or sequence)”. This definition should be broadened so
as to include a fixed moment and period of time into the sphere of taxical
temporalization. The extraverbal non-deictic temporal orientation of taxis
occupies an intermediate position between the intraverbal temporalization of
aspect and the deictic extraverbal temporalization of tense.
One of the most significant phenomena in the history of Germanic, Ro-
mance, Slavic and some other Indo-European languages is the more or less
simultaneous appearance (second half of the first millenium A.D.) of the
analytical perfect, formed on the same morphological pattern (auxiliary have/be
+ past participle). The perfect/non-perfect opposition, in turn, constituted the
basis of the rising category of taxis. The 12th-14th centuries mark a bifurcation
point in the development of the temporal systems of these languages. The
majority of Slavic languages saw a gradual decline and final disappearance of the
category of perfect and a corresponding ascendancy of aspect, while in the
Germanic and Romance languages it was the category of perfect that has been
foregrounded at the expense of aspect.
A vestige of the old duality may be seen in modern French in the coexis-
tence of the perfect/non-perfect and the aspectual (perfective — nonperfective)
oppositions (Table 2):
Table 2
Nonperfect Perfect
Imperfective Imparfait: je parlais Plusqueparfait: j’avais parlé
Perfective Passé simple: je parlai Passé antérieur: j’eus parlé
The transitional character and instability of the equilibrium between aspect and
taxis is manifested here by the gradual obsolescence of the perfective members
of the aspectual oppositions (passé simple, passé antérieur) and a corresponding
broadening of the semantic function of the imperfective elements (imparfait,
plusqueparfait). The aspectual opposition is thus neutralized in favour of that
between the perfect and nonperfect, with a resulting formal consolidation of the
category of taxis.
In contrast to the intraverbal temporal orientation of the perfective aspect,
the perfect taxis expresses the non-deictic (situational)  of the verbal
action as regards a certain extraverbal temporal basis; the term “secondary
priority” will be used to differentiate this temporal relation from that of “prima-
ry” (deictic) priority expressed by the past tense.
The perfect is used in this main categorial meaning in all the tenses, thus
constituting a specific temporal subcategory (Smirnickij 1959: 300; Maslov
1984: 32–47). This fact is disguised by the terminological inconsistencies of some
linguistic traditions. Thus, French grammarians use heterogeneous terms (“passé
composé”, “passé antérieur”, “futur antérieur” etc.) to denote various temporal
modifications of the perfect. The German terminology is “Perfekt” and “Futurum
II” for the “present perfect” and “future perfect”.
In modern English the category of taxis has reached its fullest and most
consistent development. This is primarily due to the appearance, late in the
history of the language (18th-19th centuries), of the continuous — a sub-
categorial form complementary to the perfect and the originally unmarked “non-
perfect”. The non-perfect underwent a transformation into the “indefinite”
subcategory with a corresponding redistribution of temporal meanings. The
perfect retained its original meaning of secondary (non-deictic) priority, while the
continuous and indefinite “shared” the remaining non-deictic temporal functions:
the continuous acquired the meaning of secondary (non-deictic) simultaneity, the
indefinite — that of secondary sequence.
One witnesses here the emergence of a new full-fledged grammatical
category expressing the same three fundamental types of temporal correlations
(simultaneity, priority, sequence), as the category of tense, and differing from
the latter in that it is based not upon the moment of speech, but on a situational
temporal basis — a certain fixed moment, period of time or another action (for
a more detailed argumentation, see Sil’nickij 1970). The term “secondary (non-
deictic) tense”, explicating the common temporal base of this category and of the
“primary” (traditional) tenses, seems at least as adequate here as the term “taxis”.
Henceforth both terms will be used synonymously.
A comparison of the following examples unequivocally displays the
temporal meanings of the three secondary tenses:
(23) He may have returned yesterday (perfect infinitive),
(24) He may be returning at this very moment (continuous infinitive),
(25) He may return tomorrow (indefinite infinitive).
The uninflected form of the infinitive is devoid of primary tense meanings and
therefore may serve as an efficient criterion for explicating the secondary
temporal meanings of the verb. The perfect (23), continuous (24) and indefinite
(25) forms of the infinitive express respectively the temporal relations of priority,
simultaneity and sequence relative to the action of the finite verb may, i.e. to the
present moment.
We shall speak of a diagnostic relation between a grammatical category, a
semantic type of verbal action and/or a certain type of contextual temporalizer if
one of these items serves to differentiate (“diagnoses”) its correlate from other
items on the same level.
Secondary tense (taxis) differs from aspect in that extrinsic temporalizers
play a diagnostically differentiating role with respect to taxis, not aspect.
Thus, the new-fledged category of the continuous (and the perfect continu-
ous as its derivative subtype) is not typically used with extrinsic temporalizers.
It is to be noted that the perfect continuous (‘He has been working’) is
formed on the morphological pattern of the continuous (to be in the required
tense form (i.e. present perfect) + present participle), but not that of the perfect
(to have + past participle), and is therefore to be regarded as a variant of the
former category. The “ordinary” continuous may accordingly be called the “non-
perfect” or “indefinite” continuous.
Intrinsic temporalizers constitute a diagnostic feature of the continuous (‘At
five o’clock he was reading the book’, see O. Jespersen’s treatment of the
“expanded” tenses (Jespersen 1924); cf. French: ‘A cinq heures il lisait le livre’).
Indefinite congruent temporalizers fulfil the same function with respect to the
perfect continuous (‘He has been working since morning’). Both variants of the
continuous exert a “strong” influence upon all the classes of verbal meaning: the
continuous determines a monophasal or reduced gradual meaning (‘He was
sleeping/locking the door when I saw him last’), the perfect continuous — a
gradual processual one (‘I have been opening this door for two hours’). Symptom-
atically, neither form of the continuous can be used with verbs which do not
admit of a processual state in their medial phase (‘find’, ‘lose’).
The indefinite and the perfect, in distinction to the continuous, do not alter
the semantic structure of the verbal base and do not express a single diagnostic
type of temporal correlation; the continuous, by contrast, results from an
interaction of the secondary tense-form and the semantic type of the verb.
Both secondary tenses are used with extrinsic temporalizers, but with certain
diagnostic limitations: the indefinite is used with extrinsic temporalizers of
simultaneity (‘I met him today/yeaterday’), while the perfect admits extrinsic
temporalization only in conjunction with an implicit or explicit temporal relation
of priority (‘I have met him today’, ‘He said that he had returned the book the day
before’).
The perfect expresses:
(26)   with instantaneous (gradual or cyclic)
meanings:
‘He has opened/has pushed the door’,
(27)  (or )  in combination with definite
congruent simultaneity when used with processual gradual structures:
‘The situation has improved in the last two years’
(28) or in conjunction with indefinite congruent , in the
case of monophasal structures:
‘He has slept for two hours already’.
The indefinite, being the “weak”, “residual” member of the system of secondary
tenses, expresses the whole range of temporal meanings which have not been
realized by the “marked” forms — the continuous and perfect:
With instantaneous structures and momentary temporalizers the indefinite
implies secondary sequence, the other two types of temporal relations being
logically excluded due to their monopolization by the continuous (secondary
simultaneity) and perfect (secondary priority):
(29) ‘At five o’clock he left the house’
(cf.: ‘…he was leaving/had left the house).
The indefinite form of gradual three-phasal and monophasal processuals express-
es respectively definite congruent simultaneity:
(30) ‘He ate his dinner in five minutes’
and indefinite congruent simultaneity:

(31) ‘He worked for two hours’
( the additional meaning of secondary priority characteristic of the
perfect).
The indefinite is symmetrically juxtaposed to the perfect in its temporal
characteristics; both are opposed to the continuous. This multilevel hierarchy of
extraverbal temporal oppositions determines the system of derived intraverbal
(“aspectual”) meanings expressed by the secondary tenses in English. We shall
restrict our discussion to two main intraverbal semantic features which play a
dominant role in the Slavic aspectual system: a) finished — unfinished action,
b) single — repeated action.
The continuous as the most “strongly marked” of the secondary tenses
always expresses an unfinished single action, irrespective of the semantic type of
the verb. The first “aspectual” meaning is tautologous to the main temporal
meaning of the continuous: the coincidence of an internal segment of the action
with an intrinsic temporal basis is equivalent to a continuation of the action after
this temporal basis. The same temporal meaning of intrinsic simultaneity
logically implies a single (unrepeated) occurrence of the verbal action: several
discrete repeated actions cannot coincide in any of their internal segments with
one and the same temporal basis.
The last argument is not refuted by the use of the continuous with the
adverb “always” (‘He is always grumbling’): this specific construction actually
has the meaning not of a repeated (i.e. interrupted), but, hyperbolically, of a
single continuous action “without beginning or end”.
The French imparfait differs from the continuous in English and coincides
with the Russian imperfective in that it may be used in an iterative meaning in
combination with extrinsic temporalizers:
(32) a. Je le rencontrais souvent cette année.
Cf. in Russian and English:
(32) b. Ja ego často vstrečal v etom godu
c. *I am often meeting him this year.
The perfect is influenced in its derivative “aspectual” meanings by the semantic
type of the verb.
The perfect form of terminative verbs expresses exclusive priority, implying
a certain “free” interval of time between the final moment of the action and the
temporal basis during which the action does not take place. This temporal
meaning is tautologous to the “aspectual” meaning of a finished action (‘He has

lost the key’) and is logically compatible with the expression of a repeated
action: the “free” interval of time between the end of the action and the temporal
basis admits of any number of repetitions of the action, all of which remain prior
to the temporal basis (‘I have knocked at the door several times’).
The perfect form of durative verbs is less clear-cut in its temporal functions
(admitting the expression of both inclusive and exclusive priority) and hence in
its “aspectual” meanings.
In their inclusive function these forms are standardly regarded as synony-
mous to the perfect continuous; cf.:
(33) He has worked for two hours,
(34) He has been working for two hours.
In both cases the verb is used with an indefinite congruent temporalizer. On the
other hand, a definite congruent temporalizer may be used only with the first
form, but not the second:
(35) He has eaten his breakfast in ten minutes,
(36) *He has been eating his breakfast in ten minutes.
It follows that the perfect continuous expresses an action which includes the
temporal basis and may in principle continue after it, i.e. a potentially unfinished
action. A corollary to this is the second “aspectual” meaning of a single action:
the absence of a “free” interval of time between the end of the action and the
temporal basis excludes the possibility of a repetition of the action.
The processual (“durative”) perfect, on the other hand, has a wider range of
“aspectual” meanings. In its inclusive function it may express either a finished
or an unfinished action (‘I have lived in Moscow since childhood’), but not a
repeated one (for the same reason as the perfect continuous). The exclusive
processual perfect, on the contrary, may express a repeated action (‘I have stayed
with my friends several times this year’) and always expresses a finished action (‘I
have recently stayed with my friends for a whole month’).
The ‘indefinite’ is characterized by the widest range of derived “aspectual”
meanings. Owing to the irreversibility of the objective “time-arrow” the relation
of secondary sequence implicates the lowest degree of limitation of the verbal
action by the temporal basis: being prior to the action, the temporal basis does
not “hinder” in any way its further development. As a result of this temporal
“emancipation” the verbal action enjoys the greatest latitude in its “aspectual”
manifestations.
Thus, the indefinite is the standard form of expressing a repeated action: the
absence of a posterior temporal restrictive limit allows the action to be repeated
any number of times, each repetition subsequent to its precedent:
(37) I met him several times last year.
A generalized action may be regarded as an extreme case of iteration. The
preferred use of the present indefinite in this function is determined by the
temporal instability of the present moment: the constant prospective “shift” of the
present moment on the objective time-scale projects the sequent verbal action
into a temporally generic dimension:
(38) The earth revolves around the sun.
The form of the indefinite is neutral with respect to the finished/unfinished
“aspectual” character of the verbal action, which is wholly determined by the
semantic type of the verb. Three-phasal (terminative) verbs in the indefinite
express a finished action:
(39) He woke,
(40) The door opened,
(41) He built a house.
On the other hand, durative verbs in the same form denote an unfinished action:
(42) He worked/slept/breathed.
4. Conclusion
As demonstrated above, the verbal grammatical categories of aspect and taxis

(secondary tense) occupy an intermediate position in the temporal system of
language between various types of verbal meaning, on the one hand, and various
types of contextual temporalizers, on the other. They thus serve as a connecting
link between intraverbal and extraverbal temporalization.
The category of aspect is mainly of a semantic nature: the perfective aspect
is characterized by a “closed”, i.e. a more complex semantic chronostructure
compared to the “open” structure of the imperfective. This is due to the presence
of a definitive (realized or unrealized) final state in the perfective semantic structure
and its absence or reduced (potential) status in the structure of the imperfective.
The diagnostic role of contextual temporalizers, on the other hand, is of
minor significance with respect to the category of aspect. The temporal relations
of priority, sequence and extrinsic simultaneity do not differentiate the two

aspectual subforms. The two remaining subtypes of similtaneity — intrinsic and
congruent — exert a diagnostic influence upon aspectual forms only in conjunc-
tion with certain semantic characteristics of the verbal action. Thus, intrinsic
simultaneity diagnoses instantaneous perfectives and reduced imperfectives;
congruent simultaneity diagnoses cyclic processual perfectives in its definite
subtype, and gradual perfectives in its indefinite variant.
The category of secondary tense, in distinction to aspect, is more closely
affiliated with contextual temporalizers than with the semantic structure of the
verbal action. In particular, extrinsic simultaneity fulfils a diagnostic function
with respect to secondary tense, being compatible with the indefinite, but not the
continuous, and diagnosing the perfect in conjunction with the relation of
secondary priority. Definite congruent simultaneity is incompatible (i.e. negative-
ly diagnostic) with the perfect continuous.
As for the semantic connections of the secondary tenses, it is only the
continuous (and its “perfect continuous” subtype) that is diagnostically correlated
with gradual and monophasal chronostructures.
We may draw the general conclusion that the categories of aspect and
secondary tense are respectively of a predominantly intraverbal and extraverbal
orientation and are to a large extent complementary in their semantic and
distributional characteristics: the presence of one of these categories in a number
of Indo-European languages is accompanied by the absence or reduction of the
other. Languages may accordingly be subdivided, on the basis of the dominant
type of non-deictic verbal temporalization as well as some other characteristic
features (presence/absence of the article, free/fixed word order, a.o.), into two
classes, ‘introverted’ and ‘extraverted’. On this criterion modern Slavic languages
(Russian, Polish, Czech and others, with the notable exception of Bulgarian and
Macedonian) pertain on the whole to the “aspectual” group, while the Germanic
and Romance languages demonstrate a predominant “taxic” line of development
(see Sil’nickij 1992: 442).
References
Bondarko, Aleksandr V. 1971. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola [Aspect and tense of the
Russian verb]. Moskva: Prosveščenie.
Dahl, Östen. 1974. “Some suggestions for a logic of aspect”. Slavica Gothoburgensia 6,
21–35.
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
Maslov, Jurij S. 1977. “Russkij glagol’nyj vid v zarubežnom jazykoznanii poslednix let.
II”. [Russian verbal aspect in foreign linguistics of the last years. II]. Problems of
Russian aspectology, II. Tartu, 23–46.
Maslov, Jurij S. 1984. Očerki po aspektologii [Essays in aspectology]. Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta.
Maslov, Jurij S. 1988. “Resultative, perfect and aspect”. Typology of resultative construc-
tions, ed. by V.P. Nedjalkov, 63–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sil’nickij, Georgij G. 1970. “O kategorijax vida i vremennoj sootnesennosti (opyt
aksiomatičeskogo opisanija”. [On the categories of aspect and tense (an essay in
axiomatic description)]. Učenye zapiski Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo pedago-
gičeskogo instituta i Novozybkovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta
35, ed. by G.G. Sil’nickij, 153–167. Smolensk: Izdatel’stvo Smolenskogo pedagog-
ičeskogo instituta.
Sil’nickij, Georgij G. 1988. “The structure of verbal meaning and the resultative”.
Typology of resultative constructions, ed. by V.P. Nedjalkov, 87–100. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sil’nickij, Georgij G. 1992. “Aspects of aspect”. Studies in Language 16 (1), 429–444.
Smirnickij, Aleksandr I. 1959. Morfologija anglijskogo jazyka [Morphology of the English
language]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo literatury na inostrannyx jazykax.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press.
A typology of phasal meanings
Vladimir A. Plungian
Institute of Linguistics, Moscow
Abstract
This study is part of a long-running project aiming at a typological description

of “inherent” (in Anderson 1985’s sense) verbal categories in the languages of
the world. At the outset, I will briefly summarize some general principles
which underlie my approach to grammatical values. Then I will present data
about one particular type of verbal values usually labelled ‘phasal’.
1. Basic assumptions
As is widely acknowledged now (cf., for example, Bybee et al. 1994: 1–2), a
typological grammatical study is possible only on the presumption that natural
languages are regarded as having a common semantic substance (i.e. a universal
and mutually translatable semantic content). This common semantic content is
thought of as describable by means of some semantic metalanguage (which may
be either a selected subset of a natural language, or a semi-artificial language
including elements coined by linguists; the choice between these two major
solutions depends on the particular theoretical framework: cf. for example,
Apresjan 1980 and Wierzbicka 1996). One of the central problems in the study
of grammatical values is that they tend to be semantically non-elementary so that
their cross-linguistic comparison results in decomposing them into simpler
recurrent semantic units (or “grammatical atoms”, or else “universal grammatical
values”) like ‘the given situation S precedes [= is before] another situation’, ‘the
given situation is positively evaluated by the speaker [= the speaker thinks S is
good]’, etc. A set of these elementary values structured somehow constitutes
what may be called the “Universal Grammatical Inventory”. This latter is
312 VLADIMIR A. PLUNGIAN
construed not as a mere list of meanings, but rather as a coherent semantic space
such that each language extracts a certain part of it and distributes it between the
available grammatical means.
Grammatical typology is thus concerned with the content and structure of
the Universal Grammatical Inventory, as well as with those combinations of
universal values which contribute to the semantics of the grammatical markers in
individual languages. Such combinations are by no means arbitrary. This twofold
goal can be referred to as a ‘typology of values’ and as a ‘typology of systems’,
respectively.
In the former case, a typologist attempts, above all, to establish the invento-
ry of semantically close universal values that form coherent semantic areas, as
well as larger groups or “grammatical domains”. For instance, the area of
iterativity is included in the aspectual domain; the area of irreality is a part of the
modal domain, etc.1
Within the typology of systems, linguistic study is concerned primarily with
two phenomena: “combined” and “cumulative” grammatical markers. Combined
markers are roughly the same as polysemous markers (the term has been widely
used, in particular, in Nedjalkov 1988). As is well known, one and the same
grammatical marker may express more than one universal value (or more than
one combination thereof) depending on the context, and the majority of grammat-
ical markers in natural languages are polysemous indeed. Typical instances of
grammatical polysemy are those of the reflexive and the reciprocal; perfect and
evidential; durative and habitual; and many others. There are some typical
diachronic scenarios giving rise to such polysemies. As a rule, synchronically
compatible values are semantically adjacent and belong to the same area within
the Universal Grammatical Inventory.2
As concerns the cumulative expression of grammatical values, this is a
phenomenon of a different order. It relates to a simultaneous expression of two
values (not necessarily close to each other) by one and the same (morpho-
logically elementary) grammatical marker. The cumulative expression of the
durative and the past (= “imperfect”) or of voice and subject person/number by
the same verbal marker are typical examples of this kind. A frequent cumulation
features the typology of word structure in a given language (i.e. its highly
inflectional character) rather than the semantics of its grammatical markers.
Each grammatical system can thus be regarded as a particular transformation
of the Universal Grammatical Inventory. Specific parameters of such a system are
based on the degree of combined and cumulative markers as well as on their types.
In what follows, I will focus on universal values rather than on particular
grammatical systems. Specifically, I will scrutinize a semantic area which
A TYPOLOGY OF PHASAL MEANINGS 313
belongs to the periphery of the aspectual domain and has not yet been the object
of a detailed typological study: the area of phasal values.
2. Towards a description of phasal values
There are three main phasal meanings: inchoative (‘P begins’), terminative (‘P
stops’), and continuative (‘P continues’). This inventory immediately raises two
questions: (i) Are there other possible phasal values? (ii) What is the semantic
area these three values belong to? In other words, what we need is an exact
definition of the verbal phase and the calculus of phasal values.
At first glance, the phase is a mere indication of a particular part of the
situation,3 namely its starting point, its middle, or its end. Since no situation has
any other (logically possible) parts, the above list of three values must be
complete. This position is indeed the most influential linguistic tradition (but not
the logical one, see below!) of the description of phasal values. One of the most
explicit and clear formulations of this idea is that proposed by Mel’čuk
(1994: 115):
Nous appellons catégorie de phase une catégorie dont les éléments spécifient
la partie temporelle du fait décrit Fn en question [= début, continuation, fin].
This view of the “phasal segmentation of a situation” is widely held. Similar, or
almost identical, statements can be found, for instance, in aspectological studies
by Maslov (1978), Xrakovskij (1980; 1987: 153–155), Sil’nickij (1983/1988),
Tommola (1984), Brinton (1988), and many others. From a semantic point of
view, ‘P begins’ is often said to be the most elementary value, because the two
other phasal values can be defined via combinations of ‘P begins’ and negation
(for details cf. Apresjan 1980: 30). An approach to the verbal phase as a ternary
category is especially characteristic of typological and descriptive linguistic
studies. When typologists speak about affixal phasal markers, they adopt a
similar semantic analysis (i.e. an inchoative verbal affix is said to be semantical-
ly equivalent to a morphologically autonomous predicate such as ‘begin’, etc.; cf.
Nedjalkov 1987: 180–181). Given such an approach, the most serious theoretical
problem we face will be the following: where (i.e. to which semantic area within
the Universal Grammatical Inventory) do the phasal values belong? As I will
argue below, the set of possible phasal values largely depends on how this
question is answered.
Again, the simplest solution was proposed by Mel’čuk (1994). Within his
terminological system (relying heavily upon Jakobson 1957), the verbal phase is
said to be that ‘qualitative’ verbal category4 which specifies the reported

situation. Interestingly, alongside the verbal phase, there is only one category in
Mel’čuk’s system belonging to the same logical class, ‘continuité’, exemplified
by Russian verbs like postrelivat’ ‘to shoot, fire intermittently’ (no examples
from other languages are adduced); see Mel’čuk 1994: 116. Thus, within
Mel’čuk’s theory, the verbal phase has no “close relatives”, other than ‘continu-
ity’, whose typological status is dubious (it appears to be a cumulative expression
of the iterative and attenuative values, in other words, a combination of two
different aspectual-like components).
According to a more widespread approach, phasal values belong to the
aspectual domain. This viewpoint is based on a wider interpretation of the
concept of aspectuality, suggesting that any value related to the “inner structure
of the situation” is aspectual.5 However, this assumption, which even may appear
trivial, is controversial as to the relationship between the definition of phase and
the content of the inventory of phasal values. More specifically, given the
assumption that aspect represents the inner structure of a situation, the reference
to the parts (= temporal phases) of a situation must be the main (or even the
only) information relevant for aspect. Then, one might expect that phasal values
will be aspectual values par excellence, and, hence, aspect and phase must be
nearly identical. This is not the case, however. Scholars either refuse to treat
phasal values as aspectual: cf. for instance, Mel’čuk 1994 (cf. also a survey of
aspectual values in Chung & Timberlake 1985, where the concept of phasal
values is not mentioned at all), or locate them on the periphery of the aspectual
semantic domain (as in Xrakovskij’s or Brinton’s works).
Under the latter viewpoint, prototypical aspectual values are delineated as
expressing the duration, iteration or habituality of a situation rather than its
continuation, or the achievement of a natural limit rather than the starting point
or the end of a situation. Moreover, those aspectologists who insist on the
aspectual nature of the phasal values (Dik and, still earlier, Coseriu) are eventual-
ly forced to accept a wider concept of the verbal phase, which implies the
merger of this semantic area with progressive, perfect, prospective, and other
values referring to certain qualitative stages of a situation (cf., in particular, very
similar schemes in Coseriu 1976: 103–108 and Dik 1989: 189–1926).
Such shortcomings of the existing theoretical frameworks can hardly be
accidental, and terminological inconsistencies are not the only reason for that.
Given the assumption that the aspect of a situation relates, above all, to the
duration, habituality and achievement of the natural limit, it is obvious that phase
cannot be identical to aspect; or, at any rate, it does not belong to the typical
kinds of aspect. On the other hand, assuming that aspectual grammemes should
be described in terms of the inner structure of a situation (which can hardly be

disputed), the traditional definition of phasal values turns out to be incorrect,
since it conceals the true nature of verbal phase.
Let us consider in detail the semantics of the predicate begin, proceeding
from the well-known definition of Russian načat’sja given by Apresjan
(1974: 75):
(1) X began at Tj = ‘X did not exist at Ti, and X existed at Tj, and Tj is
after Ti’.
Remembering what was said earlier about phase, it is quite surprising that this
definition (which does not contradict our intuition) contains no reference to inner
temporal phases of the situation X. More relevant for the semantics of ‘begin’
(as well as for other phasal predicates) is the fact that, at a given moment, the
situation in question takes place (or does not take place), unlike what happened
in any other (earlier) moments. Thus, as opposed to what can be surmised on the
basis of the traditional definition of phasal values, these meanings have little to
do with the inner temporal structure of a situation. Instead, all these values refer
in fact to the existence or non-existence of a situation at several moments, as
compared to some other moments. For instance, ‘continue’ does not refer to the
middle phase of a situation (for that purpose, the world’s languages usually have
recourse to the progressive). Rather, it states that a situation has taken place at
some earlier moment and, invariably, takes place at the present moment. (By and
large, this may mean that the situation in question is in its middle phase, but this
is merely a pragmatic implication of the main statement.)
Thus, the elements which underlie “phasal” values do not belong to the
aspectual domain. Having dispensed with the incorrect definition of phase, let us
return to the inventory of phasal values. In fact, a solution of this problem has
already been suggested within the tradition of the logical description of phasal
predicates (which traditional aspectology did not impinge upon). Under the
assumption that a phasal predicate refers to two moments, the point of reference
(t0) and the preceding moment (ti), and that the situation in question either takes
place (+) or does not (−) at these moments, we obtain four (not three!) logically
possible combinations:
(2) ti t0
(i) − + (‘begin’)
(ii) + − (‘stop’/‘not continue’ = ‘begin’ ⊕ ‘not’)7
(iii) + + (‘continue’/‘not stop’ = ‘not’ ⊕ ‘begin’ ⊕ ‘not’)
(iv) − − (‘not begin’)8
For the first time (judging from the survey in Brinton 1988), such a scheme
appears in the writings by Georg von Wright in the 50’s. Later it was used by
many logicians and philosophers. However, von Wright believed that the fourth
member of this scheme, referring to the ‘non-beginning’ of an activity or to the
‘continuation of the non-activity’, is absent in natural languages and has to be
excluded from linguistic analysis. Thus, this “fourth element”, construed within
a logical perspective, was abandoned, and the logical tradition has merged here
with the linguistic one.
It turns out, however, that this “fourth element” is quite common in natural
languages, often expressed by specific lexical means. For instance, this meaning is
rendered by Russian tak i ne (lit. ‘so and not’) or English not yet.9 Consider (3):
(3) a. On tak i ne otvetil na moe pis’mo
he reply.:: on my letter
‘He did not reply to my letter (although I expected him to do so).’
Moreover, grammatical markers which express the cunctative value do also exist
and are quite common at least in one linguistic area, i.e. in the Bantu languages.
Specialists in Bantu have been perfectly aware of the so called ‘not-yet-forms’ of
verbs, collected in descriptive studies of Kiswahili, Luganda, Kirundi, Kikuyu,
and other Bantu languages. However, the status of these forms within verbal
systems (aspect? tense? mood? taxis?) tended not to be discussed — above all,
due to some morphological peculiarities of the Bantu languages. More specifical-
ly, the verbal systems typical of Bantu are qualified as ‘linear’ (a term adopted
from Welmers 1973): a verbal form has only one slot for all inflexional affixes,
which, because of this, are opposed to each other as members of one grammati-
cal category regardless of the type of value they express. In other words, the
opposition between, for instance, tense and mood, or tense and taxis, has no
morphological support in Bantu languages. For that reason, a discussion on the
difference between tense and mood, mood and aspect, etc. could not be regarded
as an important issue within the tradition of the Bantu studies. Moreover, at least
since the 50’s, Bantu scholars (especially in Belgium) have introduced the term
tiroire (lit. ‘box’), which refers to any inflectional verbal category which forms
such a mutually exclusive paradigmatic set of markers, regardless of the value it
refers to. Incidentally, this is yet another illustration of the distinction between an
individual language description and the study of the Universal Grammatical
Inventory as discussed in Section 1.
An attempt at a theoretical evaluation of continuative and cunctative forms
in one of the Bantu languages (Luganda) was made by Comrie (1985: 53–55).
However, Comrie’s interpretation appears rather forced: he treats the corresponding
markers as cumulatively expressing two different grammemes of the absolute

tense (something like ‘present-past’). The theoretical status of such hybrid
constructs is awkward and poses a number of problems. A more natural and
simpler solution would be treating these forms as independent of the category of
tense, i.e. as phasal markers (though the very notion of verbal phase seems to be
missing in Comrie’s theoretical framework).
In an insightful article, Schadeberg (1990) draws attention to shortcomings
and disadvantages of an interpretation of these markers in Bantu languages
(primarily with evidence from Kiswahili) in terms of tense oppositions. Later,
Schadeberg’s argumentation was recapitulated in Heine et al. (1991: 192–204).
Thus, we can posit an independent semantic area of “phasal values”,
consisting of four elementary values (differing in frequency across the languages
of the world). These values are concerned with the very fact of the existence or
non-existence, respectively, of the situation in question at the point of reference
as compared to an earlier moment, rather than with the inner structure of a
situation. This means that phasal values belong to the periphery of the aspectual
domain. Correspondingly, they are often left out of the scope of aspectology, or,
still worse, they are treated inadequately in linguistic descriptions.
3. Verbal phase and adjacent meanings
A separate problem which I shall discuss in brief concerns semantic “remain-

ders” within the meaning of phasal markers in some languages. As has been
pointed out in Section 1, non-polysemous and non-cumulative grammatical
markers are very rare. A study of types of polysemy and cumulation must
therefore be quite instructive, in order to understand better the nature of a given
linguistic value.
The value most commonly co-occurring with phasal values is ‘the given
situation comes about or does not come about, contra the speaker’s expectations’.
Most often, this is expressed by lexical means. For instance, in Russian the
inchoative proper is expressed by the verb načat’(sja) ‘begin’, while the incho-
ative with the additional meaning ‘the speaker did not expect the situation to
come about at the present moment’ is rendered by the adverb uže ‘already’.
Consider:
(4) a. On načal rabotat’
he begin.:: work.
‘He began to work.’
b. On uže rabotaet
he already work.:
‘He is already working.’
The category of counter-expectation (cf. Heine et al. 1991) is also often termed
‘phasal polarity’ (cf. van Baar 1997). The rich literature dealing with this subject
mostly focuses on subtleties of the lexical semantics of the corresponding words.
It is important to note that verbal phase is often expressed in cumulation
with the value of counter-expectation by the same grammatical means. However,
the frequency of such cumulation is different for different phasal values.
Inchoative and terminative rarely co-occur with other values. By contrast,
continuative is commonly expressed together with counter-expectation, cf. the
Russian adverbs eščë, vsë eščë (which roughly correspond to English neutral and
“emphatic” still).10 As for the cunctative, all examples of its grammaticalization
I am aware of instantiate the cumulative expression of phase and counter-
expectation, of the not yet/tak i ne type (see (3) above). Note that the merger of
these two types of meaning occurs in the case of those phasal values which refer
to retaining the phasal polarity (be it “positive” polarity as in the case of
continuative, or “negative” polarity as in the case of cunctative), but not to its
change. This is, of course, no accident: there is no need to emphasize the
retaining status quo in cases where this retention is not called into question.
Yet another category commonly expressed in cumulation with phase is taxis.
While phasal markers as such assess the existence of a situation with respect to
itself, in more complicated cases the speaker expresses some statements concern-
ing the (non-)existence of a sequence of elementary situations, indicating the
order of the elementary situations within this chain. This yields values like ‘begin
with V’ (or ‘to begin with, V’) and ‘conclude with V’ (‘to conclude, V’), which
combine both phase (‘begin’/‘conclude’) and taxis (‘earlier’/‘later’) components.
Such compound values might be termed ‘outer phase’. They are expressed, for
instance, in Romance languages by means of verbal periphrases like Spanish or
Portuguese acabar por ‘to end in smth.’, as well as in a number of other
languages (like Aleut or Soninke).
Notes
1. Among the main verbal domains, at least the five following are to be distingushed: the
aspectual domain; the modal domain; the domain of tense-taxis values; the domain of valence-
related values; and the directional domain (the latter includes the meanings specifying spatial
characteristics of the situation referred to by the verb and a variety of adjacent values).
2. Such semantic affinities often give rise to speculations on the so called “invariant meaning”
shared by all uses of one combined marker, but this theoretical issue goes beyond the scope of
grammatical typology in the strict sense of the word.
3. I use the cover term ‘situation’ instead of other recurrent terms such as ‘state-of affairs’ or
‘event’. In the framework adopted here, event designates one particular aspectual class of
situations (roughly corresponding to Vendler’s achievements).
4. Unlike a large group of aspectual categories in the strict sense, which are considered ‘quantit-
ative’ within Mel’čuk’s framework.
5. This wider concept of aspectuality has come to prevail in modern typological studies and has
gradually entered Slavistics (where the traditional dichotomy of aspect and Aktionsart has
dominated); for more detailed argumentations, see Maslov 1978, Dahl 1985, Mel’čuk
(1994: 84–97), among others; cf. also Plungian 1997.
6. Interestingly, the continuative value is totally absent in Dik’s scheme. Similarly, in Bybee et al.
(1994), phasal values are listed indiscriminately together with the aspectual ones, and the
terminative is not mentioned at all. Thus, in a sense, verbal phase dissolves in the aspectual
ocean, losing thereby its specificity.
7. ⊕ symbolizes the concatenation of two or more meanings.
8. As mentioned above, the common term for the meanings of type (i) is inchoative (for details,
see Nedjalkov 1987), for type (ii) terminative, for type (iii) continuative. Quite naturally, there
is no established term for type (4); in Plungian 1997 I used the term cunctative (from Latin
cunctari ‘hesitate; delay’); Schadeberg (1990) has proposed the term ‘tardative’.
9. An important difference between Rus. tak i ne and Engl. not yet concerns the expectation of the
speaker about the situation in question at the moment t0. Rus. tak i ne states that an event did
not start at t0 and, most likely, will not happen any later, while in the case of not yet the
speaker does not abandon his/her expectations. Generally speaking, the feature ‘type of
expectation of the speaker’ belongs to the most essential parameters of a description of
(additional) subtypes of phase meanings; I will return to this issue in Section 3.
10. It should be noted also that some languages have markers expressing change in phasal polarity,
but nothing else; cf. the prefix a- denoting counterexpectation in Mixtec languages (see
Macaulay 1996).
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Inflectional morphology. In: Shopen, Timothy (ed.),

Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and
the lexicon, 150–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1974. Leksičeskaja semantika. [Lexical semantics]. Moskva: Nauka.
(2nd ed.: Apresjan, Jurij D. Izbrannye trudy. T. 1. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury,
1995).
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1980. Tipy informacii dlja poverxnostno-semantičeskogo komponenta
modeli “Smysl ⇔ Tekst”. [Types of information for the surface semantic component
of the “Meaning ⇔ Text” model]. In: Apresjan, Jurij D. Izbrannye trudy. T. 2,
8–101. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury, 1995.
Baar, Theodorus M. van. 1997. Phasal polarity. Amsterdam: IFOTT.

Bondarko, Aleksandr V. (ed.) 1987. Teorija funkcional’noj grammatiki: Vvedenie.
Aspektual’nost’. Vremennaja lokalizovannost’. Taksis. [A theory of functional
grammar: Preliminaries. Aspectuality. Temporal localisation. Taxis.] Leningrad:
Nauka.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: aspectualizers and
post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan L.; Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar:
tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Chung, Sandra & Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In: Shopen, Timothy
(ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories
and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202–258.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1976. Das romanische Verbalsystem. Tübingen: Narr.
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dik, Simon. 1989. The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Heine, Bernd; Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Frederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: a
conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University. [reprinted in: R. Jakobson. Selected writings, vol.2,
130–147. The Hague: Mouton, 1971].
Macaulay, Monica. 1996. A grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Maslov, Jurij S. 1978. K osnovanijam sopostavitel’noj aspektologii. [Towards the
foundations of the comparative aspectology]. In: Maslov, Jurij S. (ed.) Voprosy
sopostavitel’noj aspektologii, 4–44. Leningrad: Izd-vo LGU.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1994. Cours de morphologie générale (théorique et descriptive). Vol.2,
Deuxième partie: Significations morphologiques. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Univer-
sité de Montréal/CNRS.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1987. Načinatel’nost’ i sredstva eë vyraženija v jazykax različnyx
tipov. [Inchoativity and its cross-linguistic expression]. In: Bondarko (ed.), 180–195.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Plungian, Vladimir A. 1997. Vid i tipologija glagol’nyx sistem. [Aspect and typology of
verbal systems]. In: Čertkova, M.Ju. (ed.) Trudy aspektologičeskogo seminara
filologičeskogo fakul’teta MGU. T. 1, 173–190. Moskva: Izd-vo MGU.
Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1990.  —  —  : das Unerwartete als
grammatische Kategorie im KiSwahili. Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter 2, 1–15.
Sil’nickij, Georgij G. 1983. Struktura glagol’nogo značenija i rezul’tativ. In: Nedjalkov,
Vladimir P. (ed.) Tipologija rezul’tativnyx konstrukcij, 54–65. Leningrad: Nauka.
[Engl. transl.: The structure of verbal meaning and the resultative. In: Nedjalkov
(ed.) 1988, 87–100].
Tommola, Hannu. 1984. On the aspectual significance of ‘phase meanings’. In: de Groot,
Casper & Tommola, Hannu (eds.). Aspect bound, 111–132. Dordrecht: Foris.
Xrakovskij, Viktor S. 1980. Nekotorye problemy universal’no-tipologičeskoj xarakteristiki
aspektual’nyx značenij. [Some problems of a universal typological description of
aspectual meanings]. Učenye zapiski Tartusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, N
537 (Aspektual’nost’ i sredstva eë vyraženija), 3–23.
Xrakovskij, Viktor S. 1987. Semantika fazovosti i sredstva eë vyraženija. [The semantics
of the verbal phase and its expression]. In: Bondarko (ed.), 153–180.
Welmers, William E. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley: University of California.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Degrees of focality in Kalmyk imperfectives
Karen H. Ebert
University of Zürich
Abstract
This paper tries to provide some clarification of the functions of Kalmyk1

forms that are usually listed as “presents” or “imperfect(ive)s” in the literature,
without any attempt at determining their exact function. My data come mainly
from a EUROTYP questionnaire and from Bläsing (1984), which is based on
an extensive evaluation of contemporary Kalmyk prose. I shall try to describe
the functions of the various imperfective forms in the framework of the aspect
theory developed by Johanson and discussed by part of the EUROTYP group
on “Tense and Aspect”. The various imperfective forms exhibit different
degrees of focalization and represent a developmental continuum, in which
high-focal forms tend to be used in less focalized contexts, pulling in new
high-focals from the domain of durative actional periphrases.
1. The data
The initiative to look at Kalmyk came from a questionnaire that Vladimir

Nedjalkov prepared for the EUROTYP project.2 The interpretation of the data
was difficult due to the scarcity of information on Kalmyk in general and to the
nature of the questionnaire data. A preliminary evaluation was given in Berti-
netto, de Groot & Ebert (forthcoming). In this paper, which includes additional
material from the literature, especially from Bläsing (1984), I shall give a more
detailed presentation of the data and try to interpret them in terms of focality and
grammaticalization.
The most important forms of the imperfective-durative domain are with their
traditional names:
324 KAREN H. EBERT
Benzing 1985
-na Präsens I
-J¦ana Präsens durativum I
-J¦ax Präsens II
-J¦ala Imperfectum III
-ad bäänä Präsens durativum II
-ad bääv Imperfectum I
-dg Präsens Usus
-dg bilä Imperfectum II
-a Präsens III
-J¦ jov- kursiv-durative Aktionsart
-J¦ Präteritum imperfecti
The Russian sources list between one present tense (-na; Todaeva 1976) and
three (-na, -¦ana,
J -a; Muniev 1977).3 Forms like -¦J bää- and -ad bää- are treated
under “aspect”, together with numerous aktionsart specifiers (cf. section 6).
The following forms were used in imperfective contexts in the question-
naire. As functional labels are problematic, I give only some morphological
information at this point.
a) -na
b) -J¦a-
c) -J¦ bää-/jov- simultaneous converb + ‘be’/‘go’
d) -ad bää-/jov- anterior/neutral converb + ‘be’/‘go’
e) -a imperfective participle
f) -dg habitual participle
The auxiliary verbs bää- and jov- and the marker -¦a- J combine with -na and
various tense and non-finite markers. The participles take personal endings in
present contexts, whereas past time reference has to be indicated with the help of
an auxiliary, e.g.: axul-dg-v ‘I usually clean’, axul-dg bilä-č ‘you used to clean’.
The habitual is used in a straightforward way and does not need further
discussion here. All the other forms can be used to indicate that a situation holds
at a certain reference point.
(1) a. Ter haša suu-na.
she outside sit-
‘She is sitting outside.’ (= 28)4
b. Ter ködl-¦a-na.
J
she work-JA-
‘She is working [just now].’ (= 1)
DEGREES OF FOCALITY IN KALMYK IMPERFECTIVES 325
c. Boss ėvrä uucta bilä ju]had gi-xle ir-sn

boss self angry was why say- come-.
saam-d DJ¦on ködl-¦J uga bää-J¦.
time- J. work-. not be-/
‘The boss was angry, because John was not working when he
came in.’ (= 76)
d. Öckldür asxn Pjotr ir-sn saam-d, Anna
yesterday evening P. come-. time- A.
ködl-ä bi-lä.
work-. be-
‘Last night when Pjotr came, Anne was still working.’ (= 3)
e. a]huč kün ėnd-tend-än xälä-häd jov-na.
hunt man here-there- look- go-
‘The hunter is looking around.’ (Bläsing 25)
The same forms can be used in non-actual contexts:
(2) a. Küükn xama ködl-nä? – Sovxoz-d. Jum
girl where work- sovchos- something
bič-dg-är ködl-nä.
write-- work-
‘Where does the girl work? — In the sovchos. She works as a
secretary.’ (Bläsing 87)
b. Bagš-ar ködl-¦ä-nä.
J
teacher- work-JA-
‘He works as a teacher.’ (Bläsing 93)
c. Cuhar sään-är ködl-¦J bää-nä.
all: well- work-. be-
‘They all work well.’ (Bläsing 31)
d. Badm traktorist[-ar] ködl-ä.
B. tr. - work-.
‘Badm works as a tractorist.’ (Benzing 128)5
I do not have a simple sentence with -ad bää- in a non-actual context at hand,
but as the form is a lexical specification and appears even in dictionary entries
(e.g. jov-ad bääx ‘walk around’, see section 6) there is certainly no restriction
against such a use.
In sections 2–6 I shall exemplify the uses of the forms, and subsequently in
section 7 I shall try to give an evaluation in terms of degrees of focality.
326 KAREN H. EBERT
2. -na
According to most authors -na marks present tense. However, simple -na refers
to actual present situations only with stative verbs (1a, 3a,b). With dynamic
verbs, the form refers without further context to an inactual situation (including
future events, (3c,d)). In backgrounding contexts it can just as well be applied to
past events (3e). This means that -na does not in itself bring about a temporal
reference, and “present” is only a default interpretation.
(3) a. Pjotr xärü-hi-n’ med-nä.
P. answer--:3 know-
‘Pjotr knows the answer.’ (= 39)
b. či ėndr evr modrun bää-nä-č.
you today very rude be--
‘You are being very rude today.’ (= 43)
c. Ter umš-na.
s/he read-
[What does Ann do on Saturdays?] — ‘She reads.’ (= 2)
d. bi bič-sn xamgi-n’ xälä-nä-v.
I write- total-:3 look--
‘I shall look at everything that is written.’ (Benzing 122)
e. Jov-J¦ jov-ad ard-an xälä-xlä mana
go-. go- behind-.. look- our
ard neg čon jov-na.
behind one wolf go-
‘We were walking, and when we looked back, a wolf was
walking behind us.’ (Bläsing 55; see continuation of the text in
(14) below).
The interpretation as a “present tense” might seem justified if one sees -na in
opposition to anterior -la and future -x:6
  
-na -la -x -v
-J¦a-na -J¦a-la -J¦a-x –
-J¦ bää-nä/jov-na -J¦ bi-lä/jov-la -J¦ bol-x –
-a -a bi-lä -a bol-x –
However, in past contexts -na is also in contrast with perfective -v.7 If -na is
called a “present”, then this term cannot mean a deictic tense, but only some-
thing like ‘simultaneous or unmarked in relation to a temporal reference point’.
In this sense it can be used in fairy tales and historical accounts even with
dynamic verbs that report a sequence of events.8 Yet, the categorization as
“present” remains unsatisfactory as it leaves the sensitivity to the actional
character of the verb, which is characteristic of aspect, unexplained.
3. -¦J a-
The form used most often in the Kalmyk translation of the progressive question-
naire sentences is -¦ana
J (-¦a
J + -na). It appeared in the overwhelming majority of
cases where we expected a progressive form. -¦anaJ occurred with all types of
verbs, including temporally restricted statives (4c). Like the simple na-form, it
can refer to future events (4d).
(4) a. Usn busl-¦a-na.
J
water boil-JA-
‘The water is boiling.’ (= 38)
b. Ter ada ger-t-äs-n har-ča-na.
she just house---her go_out-JA-
‘She is just going out.’ (= 21)
c. Anna üüdn xoornd zogs-¦a-na.
J
A. door between stand-JA-
‘Anna is standing by the door.’ (= 58)
d. Anna ma]hdur jov-¦a-na.
J
A. tomorrow set out-JA-
‘Anna is leaving tomorrow.’ (= 66)
-¦a-
J combines also with other tense-aspect markers and with nonfinite suffixes.
(5) Öckldür Anna evrä-n hora-dan jum
yesterday A. self- room-.. something
umš-ga-tl, Martin sad-t naad-¦a-la.
J
read-?-as long as M. garden- play-JA-
‘Yesterday, while Anna was reading in her room, Martin was
playing in the courtyard.’ (= 70)
From the questionnaire data -¦a-
J appeared to be a typical broad progressive
marker, comparable to the English -ing form; we analyzed it as such in Berti-
netto, de Groot & Ebert (forthcoming). There was, however, a somewhat
troublesome example:
328 KAREN H. EBERT
(6) Ter daalhvr-an küce-¦ä-lä,

J gazet umš-¦ä-lä
J xot
he lesson-.. do-JA- newspaper read-JA- food
id-¦ä-lä
J xöön’ unt-xar kevt-lä.
eat-JA- after sleep- lie down-
[Yesterday in the evening] ‘he studied, read the paper, ate and then
lay down to sleep.’ (= 71)
Here a progressive would not be possible in English and other languages with a
broad progressive. The chosen form indicates that the activities of studying,
reading the newpaper and eating were not carried out in a strict order; one could
translate ‘he did some studying and reading…’.9
Taking more natural texts into consideration, I found additional evidence
against a straightforward analysis of the -¦a-
J form as a progressive. The form
combines with all types of stative verbs, even with strict statives like med-
‘know’,10 where the informant used only -na in the questionnaire.
(7) a. Batr Xar Jilhn xan ju zärlg bol-dg-in’ ken
hero (name) chan what order become--.:3 who
med-¦ä-nä?
J
know-JA-
‘Who knows the verdict of the hero Chan Char Djilgan?’
(Todaeva 1976: 157)
b. Bi med-¦ä-xš-v.
J 11
I know-JA-.-
‘I don’t know.’ (Bläsing 22)
c. bi en ger-t tan-as udan bää-¦ä-nä-v.
J
I this house- you- long be-JA--
‘I have been [living] in this house longer than you.’ (Benzing 128)
d. Oda zurg-t ju üz-¦ä-nä-t?
J
now picture- what see-JA--
‘What do you see in the picture?’ (Bläsing 87)
Like other forms in -na, -¦ana
J is independent of tense. It is the most frequent
form used for describing background situations in narratives.
(8) a. Svetlana haza har-v. Dulan xaša-has
S. outside go out- warm stable-
har-h-čk-sn xaljun ükr seg dor övs
go out---. (color) cow roof under grass
id-¦ä-nä.
J
eat-JA-
‘Svetlana went outside. The brown cow that had been released
from the warm stable was eating hay under the roof.’ (Bläsing 54)
b. Xora Saglr-t taas-gd-v. /…/ Xora-n bul]g-d tumbočk
room S.- like-- room- corner- nighttable
deer ik nür üz-dg ger zogs-¦a-na.
J
on big face look- mirror stand-JA-
‘Saglr liked the room. /…/ In the corner, a big mirror stood on
a night table…’ (Bläsing 63)
The uses of -¦a-
J demonstrated in (6–8), together with its frequent occurrence in
non-actual contexts (2b), put it on a par with “imperfects” in languages like
Italian and French, though only -¦ala
J has a temporal restriction. We can assume
that -¦a-
J was once mainly a progressive marker, but it has developed rather far
in the direction of a general imperfective (cf. section 7).
4. -¦J bää-/jov-
Most authors (cf. Todaeva 1976: 157, Bläsing 1984: 18) take -¦ana J to be a
contraction of -¦J bäänä (simultaneous converb + ‘be’) and assume that the two
are functionally equivalent. The construction -¦J bää- is rare; in the progressive
questionnaire it occurred only in one negative sentence (see (1c)), but I found a
few examples in Bläsing (cf. also (2c) and (11b)).
(9) caaran xälä-¦J bää-nä.
far/away look-. be-
‘She is just looking away.’ (Bläsing 22)
The infrequency of -¦J bää- may partially be explained by the fact that the
auxiliary jov- ‘go’ is preferred over bää- ‘be’, especially if motion is involved.
In the questionnaire it was used three times, and it was not difficult find more
examples.
(10) a. Ter xuld ke-¦J jov-na.
she shopping do-. go-
‘She goes around shopping.’ (= 46)
b. Oda bolxla al’pinist uul-än ora-d kür-č
now if it is a. mountain- top- reach-.
jov-na.
go-
‘The alpinist is reaching the top just now.’ (= 31)
330 KAREN H. EBERT
c. Narn suu-¦J jov-na.

sun sit down-. go-
‘The sun is setting.’ (Muniev, Slovar’ 464)
d. mana övgn sovxoz togt-sn-as avn
my old man sovchos found-.- onwards
lavk-d ködl-¦J jov-na.
shop- work-. go-
‘My old man has worked in the shop since the foundation of
the sovchos.’ (Bläsing 31)
The following text passage exemplifies the use of -¦J bää-/jov- in a past context
and with the participial suffix -sn. (The forms in -a will be discussed in section
5 below.)
(11) a. Ör šin-kän cää-¦J jov-la.
morning new- get clear-. go-
‘Dawn was just breaking through.’12
b. Ik xar tolha deer-äs ör-ün budn doragšan
big black hill on- morning- fog down
buu-¦J bää-lä.
let down-. be-
‘The morning fog was coming down from the big dark mountain.’
c. /…/ Xotn-a uls unt-a.
town- people sleep-.
‘The people of the town were still asleep.’
d. Ükr-müd ör-ün kevtr-äs-n’ bos-ad, bäärn
cow- morning- bed--:3 get up- place
tal-an xälä-häd, id-¦J jov-sn cag
side- look- graze-. go-. time
bi-lä.
be-
‘The cows rose from their morning bed and looked over to the
place nearby; it was grazing time.’
e. Xön ör-ün kevlhän kev-äd, kiitn ¦J öln övsn deer
sheep morning- ruminate- cold soft grass on
kevt-ä kevt-lä.
lie-. lie-
‘The sheep, busy with their morning ruminating, were lying on
the cool, soft grass.’ (Bläsing 70–71)
According to Benzing, -¦J jov- characterizes “kursiv-durative aktionsart”. It

certainly originated as a durative marker specifying atelic actionality (cf. section
6), and it is still used in this sense. But so is -¦J bää-.13 However, in sentences
(10b,c) an interpretation of -¦J jov- as an actional periphrasis specifying non-
transformative meaning of the verb is impossible. The initio-transformative verb
suu- ‘sit down; sit’ is used in its transformative meaning in narn suu¦J jovna ‘the
sun is setting’. In ora-d kür-č jov-na ‘is reaching the top’ the predicate remains
transformative and a durative reading is excluded.
It is often difficult to distinguish aktionsart from aspect marking in
periphrases of the type -¦J bää-/jov-. Progressive markers often develop out of
durative periphrases and both functions may exist side by side for a long time
(cf. Johanson (1995) for Turkic, Ebert (forthcoming a) for Germanic languages).
Cases like (10b,c) and the fact that bää- and jov- have largely ousted the other
postural verbs in the periphrasis with the simultaneous converb indicate a
considerable degree of grammaticalization. In most cases -¦J bää-/jov- focusses on
an event as ongoing at a certain reference point. The construction seems to
correspond somewhat better to the notion of “progressive” than -¦a-. J However,
a more detailed investigation of the limitations of the two forms is necessary.
5. -a
Benzing’s “Präsens III”, the imperfective participle used as a finite verb, has
received little attention in the literature. Bläsing does not discuss the form, as it
is very infrequent (1984: 75). For Benzing it is unclear how it differs from other
present forms. However, the form expresses more than a simple present (or past).
Benzing himself gives the example ir-ä bäänä ‘he is still on his way’.
Forms with -a (-ha after a vowel) were used in finite function in three
questionnaire sentences with present, past and future time reference. In two cases
the English sentence to be translated contained the adverb “still”, which indicates
that the activity has been going on for some time (cf. also (1d)).
(12) a. Narn gerlt-ä.
sun shine-.
‘The sun is shining.’ (= 36)
b. 8 čas-la ir-xl-čn, bi xot-an
8 hour- come--. I food-..
ke-hä bää-x-v.
do-. be--
‘If you come at 8 o’clock, I will still be cooking.’ (= 83)
332 KAREN H. EBERT
The following examples are again from Bläsing (1984: 76–77). Note that the first
two sentences contain the adverb da] ‘always, still’.
(13) a. Bata da] surhul-jan sään-är das-a.
B. always lesson-.. good- learn-.
‘Bata is still studying well.’
b. Mana kolxoz da] türün-d jov-a.
our kolchos always first- go-.
‘Our kolchos is still first.’
c. Ör-ün-äs avn dulan sal’kn ülä-hä.
morning-- onwards warm wind blow-.
‘A warm wind has been blowing since morning.’
d. Sovet-in josn zura-han kücä-hä.
soviet- power plan-.. reach-.
‘The Soviet power still fulfils its plan.’
The imperfective participle in its finite use focusses on a situation that holds at
a reference point and some time before. There is thus always some durativity
implied. We would predict that the form cannot apply to momentaneous events.
The form corresponds to Lezgian -zma, which Haspelmath (1993: 145) calls
a “continuative”. Most Kalmyk (and Lezgian) examples cannot be interpreted as
continuatives in the usual sense. In (12b), for example, the interpretation ‘I will
go on cooking’ seems odd. Continuative ‘go on V-ing, keep V-ing’ indicates that
a situation will continue for some time after the reference point. The Kalmyk
form in -a points backwards: the situation has existed for some time before the
reference point. Whether it will continue is irrelevant. Indeed, often it seems to
be implied that this is not to be expected (consider uls unta ‘people are still
asleep’ in (11c)). Therefore “persistative” seems to be a better term for this form
than “continuative”.
The imperfective participle can also occur in durative periphrases together
with postural verbs, as in kevt-ä kevtlä ‘were lying’ (11e).
6. -ad bää-
Concerning -ad bää- (Benzing’s “Präsens durativum III”), I follow Bläsing

(1984) in that it is not a tense-aspect form. -ad bää- (or -ad jov-/suu-/kevt-; see
below) can either disambiguate the actionality (inherent aktionsart) of verbs, or
express some quantitative aktionsart like iterativity or extended duration.
Some remarks on the actionality of Kalmyk verbs are in order here, though
not much is known about it. Actional character can sometimes be inferred from
the Kalmyk-Russian dictionary or from uses in texts. If a Kalmyk verb is
rendered by a Russian perfective and imperfective form, we can assume that we
are dealing with a two-phase verb.14 The following are some examples from the
large group of Kalmyk initio-transformative verbs.
suux ‘sit down; sit’ (Russ. sadit’sja; sidet’)
kevtx ‘lie down’ (see (6)); ‘lie’ (see (11e))
jovx ‘go away, set out’ (4d); ‘go, walk, move around’ (14a)
zogsx ‘stop, stand still’ (14c); ‘stand’ (4c)
šatx ‘start to burn, flare up; burn, sparkle’ (Russ. zagorat’sja, goret’)
ääx ‘become frightened; be frightened’ (Russ. pugat’sja, bojat’sja)
Those lexemes have the actional structure ⊗––––, where ⊗ stands for the trans-
formative meaning component (e.g. ‘sit down’), and –––– symbolizes the
posttransformative phasal meaning (‘sit’).15 The grammatical aspect picks out the
matching meaning component:16 perfective -v selects the transformative meaning
(e.g. zogs-v ‘stood still’ (14c), güü-v ‘ran off’ (14f)), whereas imperfective -na
applies only to the posttransformative phase ‘stand’ in zogs-na, ‘sit’ in suu-na
(1a), ‘go, walk’ in jov-na (14a).
However, often the disambiguation is not left to the grammatical aspects,
but made explicit on the level of the predicate. The verb ääx is disambiguated by
the suffix -čk17 in (14b); ää-čk- can only mean ‘become frightened’ and not ‘be
frightened’. šatad bää- (14e) can only mean ‘burn, sparkle’ and not ‘flare up’,
güühäd jov- (14g) cannot mean ‘run off’ (cf. güü- in (14f)). I.e. the periphrasis
-ad bää-/jov- specifies the posttransformative phase meaning of the initio-
transformative verbs šatx and güüx.
(14) a. Jov-J¦ jov-ad ard-an xälä-xlä mana
go-. go- behind-.. look- our
ard neg čon jov-na.
behind one wolf go-
‘We were walking, and when we looked back, a wolf was
walking behind us.’
b. Bidn ėk-tä-hän ää-čk-äd čon-ur
we mother--.. afraid-- wolf-
xääkrü-vidn.
shout-:
‘My mother and I got frightened and shouted at the wolf.’
334 KAREN H. EBERT
c. čon man-ur xälä-häd zogs-v.

wolf we- look- stand-
‘The wolf looked at us and stood still.’
d. Man-as ää-¦J zul-¦a-xš.
J
we- afraid-. flee-JA-
‘He was not afraid of us and did not flee.’
e. Nüd-n’, xojr kök hal met, šat-ad bää-nä.
eye-:3 two blue fire similar burn- be-
‘His eyes were gleaming like two blue flames.’
f. ėk-m namag har-t-as-m av-ad,
mother-. I. hand---. take-
har-ad güü-v.
depart- run-
‘My mother took me by the hand and ran off.’
g. čon mana ard-as güü-häd jov-na.
wolf our behind- run- go-
‘The wolf kept running after us.’ (Bläsing 55)
Apart from specifying the actionality of two-phase verbs, -ad bää-/jov- can add
various quantitative aktionsart features, like iterativity, continuativity, graduality
or extended duration. äämäd jov- in (15) does not yield the stative posttrans-
formative meaning ‘be afraid’, but indicates the graduality and extended duration
of the process of ‘getting afraid’.
(15) Svetlana kürgn-än’ ėk-ėcg-in ger-ür öördx
S. fiancé-.. father-mother- house- near
dutman, … ää-m-äd jov-na.
the more the more afraid-- go-
‘The nearer Svetlana came to her fiancé’s parents’ house, the more
she became afraid.’ (Bläsing 25)
Graduality is also involved in (16a). The form xääläd bää- does not specify the
phasal (pre-transformative) meaning of the gradual completion verb xääl-
‘melt’.18 The perfective -v implies that the inherent limit was reached, and the
periphrasis adds the feature of duration. (16b) is an example for an iterative
meaning (see also (1e)).
(16) a. Üvl-in turš-ar or-sn casn nar-na küčn-d

winter- course- fall-. snow sun- force-
xääl-äd bää-v.
melt- become-
‘The snow that had fallen during the winter melted in the force
of the sun.’ (Bläsing 25)
b. šofer /…/ nük-tä hazr-ar or-ad, suu-J¦
driver hole- ground- go- sit-.
jov-x ämts-än neg iigän, neg tiigän
move-. people-.. one here one there
av-č šiv-äd jov-v.
take-. fling- go-
‘The driver /…/ went over the bumps and flung his passengers
[= the people going in a sitting position] from one side to the
other.’ (Bläsing 30)
Besides the verbs bääx and jovx, the postural verbs suux and kevtx in their phasal
meanings ‘sit’ and ‘lie’ are also used in the actional periphrasis with the converb
in -ad. They are, however, rare and always keep some of their literal meaning.
-ad suu- and -ad kevt- are often comparable to SIT TO/LIE TO in Germanic
languages (cf. Ebert 1996: 53–58, forthcoming a). (17) does not imply that the
person is sitting at the moment of orientation (O), but that she sits at her desk
off-and-on over a longer stretch of time including O.
(17) Ter dissertats-an bič-äd suu-na.
she dissertation-.. write- sit-
‘She is writing her dissertation.’ (= 18)
(cf. Dutch: Ze zit aan haar proefschrift te werken.)
7. Conclusions
Five of the Kalmyk forms that were used in the progressive questionnaire belong
to the imperfective domain. The sixth, -ad bää-, is an aktionsart marker. The
imperfective forms can be interpreted as representing different positions on a
focality scale. Focalization is a gradual concept and notoriously difficult to
define. A clear exposition of focality degrees is presented in Johanson (forthcom-
ing a: section 7.3). In Johanson’s terms, high-focal forms exhibit a narrow
viewpoint and refer to “uni-occasional events, basically confined to the immedi-
ate proximity of O and actually performed there”. They correspond to “focalized
336 KAREN H. EBERT
progressives” in Bertinetto, de Groot & Ebert (forthcoming), which view an

event “as going on at a single point in time”. Johanson’s low-focal forms have
an expanded viewpoint and refer to “uni- or pluri-occasional events not confined
to the immediate proximity of O, but actually performed there”.19 Non-focals
refer to events “in principle being the case at O, but not actually performed there”.
In (18) I try to give a schematic presentation of the uses of the Kalmyk forms.
(18) AART IMPERFECTIVE DOMAIN
atelic, durative high- low- non-focal
-ad bää-/… →
→ -¦J bää-/jov- →
-a
-¦a-
J →
-na →
-dg
According to the available data, the -¦J bää-/jov- form shows the highest degree
of focality. It is predominantly used in contexts that direct the attention to an
event as ongoing at the moment of O. -¦a- J is also used with a narrow viewpoint
— in fact, even more frequently so than -¦J bää-/jov-. However, its use has been
extended and it also combines with stative verbs (7a-d). Moreover it seems to be
rather frequent in non-actual contexts. -na is even less focal. Its actual present
function is restricted to states. With dynamic verbs it refers only to non-actual
situations. Habitual -dg is always non-focal.
It is not quite clear where -a belongs. It might seem to fit the characteriza-
tion of low focality: If a speaker uses an a-form he indicates that the event is not
confined to the immediate proximity of O. Nevertheless, he focusses on the event
only at a certain moment. The previous period is implied, but not focussed.20 I
therefore put it in the same position as -¦J bää-. The difference between the two
forms lies in their implications, which cannot be captured in the focality scale.
(18) also symbolizes a well-known grammaticalization path. The position of
the elements on the scale is not fixed. The high-focal forms move in the
direction of lower focality, and the more they enter into low-focal domains the
more the old imperfective is pushed into non-actual contexts and modal uses.
It will have become clear that it is problematic to assign labels to the forms.
-¦J bää-/jov- seems to correspond best to the “progressive” prototype (cf. Bybee
et al. 1994: 133–137), and “imperfective” seems to go well for -na (since we are
used to defocalized imperfectives). -¦a- J is in-between the two. As it is very
common in both focalized and defocalized contexts, it is closer to being an
imperfective than (even a broad) progressive. For lack of a convenient label I
call it the ¦a-imperfective.

J Note that terms like “actual present”, “actual past” or
the Russian “nastojaščee konkretnoe” will not do, as -¦a(-na)
J does not establish
a temporal reference.
Durative actional periphrases are in principle outside the aspecto-temporal
domain, but they often are preaspectuals (cf. Johanson, forthcoming a) and tend
to be used in focalizing contexts. They are a common source of new high-focals,
filling the place left by defocalized forms. Often they fulfil a double function as
markers of aktionsart and as progressives, and it is difficult to distinguish the
two in a situation of a gradual category shift. The Kalmyk -ad bää-/jov- form can
be explained as a disambiguation of two-phase verbs or as a marker of quantita-
tive aktionsart in all instances I looked at. However, the fact that the two verbs
bääx and jovx have nearly replaced the other auxiliaries suggests that the -ad
bää/jov- forms may indeed be on the way to becoming grammaticalized. Actional
periphrases are characterized by a great variety of forms.21
The situation becomes more complicated by the possibility that focal past
and nonpast forms need not move with the same speed (cf. “Präsenserneuerung”
in Turkic (Johanson 1995) and Mongolian (Bläsing 1984: 83f)). Needless to say,
more detailed research with the help of native speakers concerning the function
of all forms is necessary. I hope that this contribution will instigate Vladimir
Nedjalkov to a second round on Kalmyk imperfectives.
Notes
1. Kalmyk is a Mongolian language spoken by approximately 160.000 people in the Autonomous

Republic Kalmykia, on the steppes between Don and Volga.
2. I thank Vladimir Nedjalkov and B. A. Bičev for filling in the questionnaire and Stefan Georg
for his help with Kalmyk morphology.
3. Muniev also lists three past tenses (-la, -¦,
J -čkla) without any indication how to distinguish
them. The perfective -v is not mentioned as a tense. Todaeva (1968) postulates two past tenses:
-la and -v.
4. The abbreviation  28 stands for “EUROTYP progressive questionnaire, sentence 28”. The
full questionnaire will be printed in Dahl (ed., forthcoming). The abbreviations used in the
glosses correspond to common usage (cf. EUROTYP guidelines), with a few additions that will
be immediately understandable.
5. Benzing has only traktorist in this example.
6. I have not seen such a systematization in the literature, but Nedjalkov makes a similar
suggestion in his comments to the questionnaire. Note that in Benzing’s terminology (see
section 1) there is no correspondence between e.g. -¦ana
J ”Präsens durativum I” and -¦ala
J
“Imperfectum III, -¦ax
J ”Präsens II”.
338 KAREN H. EBERT
7. The aspecto-temporal opposition between -na and -v is captured in the terms used in most
germanophone Mongolian studies:
Präsens Imperfecti -na Präsens Perfecti -la
Präteritum Imperfecti -¦J Präteritum Perfecti -v
However, a temporal interpretation of the oppositions -v (): -la (perfect) and -na (): -¦J
(resultative, often with evidential function) is untenable.
8. This fact was brought to my attention by Stefan Georg. A typical text example is given in
Bläsing (1984: 49): The text starts with the evidential -¦J and changes to -na after a few
sentences. Bläsing calls this use of -na a non-deictic present.
9. In the corresponding sentence  72, which explicitly indicated the strict sequence of the
activities, the aorist was used.
10. Kalmyk med- is probably an initio-transformative verb, meaning ‘get to know, know’, but in
(7a,b) only the stative meaning component can be intended.
11. -xš is the negative aspect marker corresponding to positive -na.
12. Bläsing, for reasons that remain unclear to me, translates the first sentences with a German past
perfect: “Die Morgendämmerung war gerade angebrochen. Der Frühnebel war von dem grossen,
dunklen Berg herabgestiegen.”
13. In actional periphrases we also find the verbs suu- ‘sit’ and kevt- ‘lie’, but they are rare and
often keep some of the original meaning; e.g. unt-¦J kevt- ‘sleep, lie sleeping’, ämsx-¦J kevt-
‘cough, lie coughing’, umš-¦J suu- ‘read, sit reading’.
14. Though not vice versa. The dictionary gives only one translation for two-phase verbs of the
fini-transformative type (accomplishments). It is obviously assumed that telicity is marked by
some affix (as in Russian).
15. See Ebert (1995) and Johanson (forthcoming a) for a more explicit presentation of this type of
verb.
16. Cf. Sasse (1991b), Breu (1995) for a selection theory of aspect, and other articles in Sasse
(1991a) for an application to individual languages. For my own interpretation of the interaction
of initio-transformative verbs with grammatical aspect cf. Ebert (1995 and forthcoming b).
17. Russian sources sometimes refer to -čk as “perfective aspect”. Its function is comparable to that
of Russian prefixes only insofar as the latter also carry aktionsart meanings. The Kalmyk
actional specifiers correspond better to the German verb prefixes; e.g. uu-čk- = aus-trinken
‘drink up’, umš ork- = durch-lesen ‘read through’, unt-¦J od- = ein-schlafen ‘fall asleep’ (od-
‘take off, depart’, ork- ‘put’, -čk < -¦J ork-).
18. Cf. the ambiguity of the English verb melt (for 3 hours), melt (in 3 hours).
19. Bertinetto et al.’s “durative progressives”, which are “evaluated relative to a larger interval of
time” comprise both preaspectuals (like the Germanic postural verb constructions) and
defocalized forms and thus need further specification.
20. This could possibly be compared to high-focal resultatives, which focus on a state, but imply
the event which resulted in the state.
21. Note that the -¦J bää-/jov- forms have been grammaticalized, but may still be used as actionality
markers, parallel to -¦J suu-/kevt-. It should be mentionend that besides the most frequent
aktionsart formations with -ad, -¦J or -a the converb in -n (largely equivalent to -ad) also
combines with postural verbs to form a durative periphrasis. Which form is used is often
optional, but certain combinations tend to be conventionalized and sometimes lexicalized.
References
Benzing, Johannes. 1985. Kalmückische Grammatik zum Nachschlagen. Wiesbaden:

Harassowitz.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Valentina Bianchi, Östen Dahl & Mario Squartini eds. 1995.
Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Vol. II: Typological perspectives. Torino:
Rosenbaum & Sellier.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Casper de Groot & Karen H. Ebert. Forthcoming. “The Progres-
sive in the languages of Europe”. Dahl, ed. Forthcoming.
Bläsing, Uwe. 1984. Die finit indikativischen Verbalformen im Kalmückischen. Wiesbaden:
Steiner.
Breu, Walter. 1995. “Interactions between lexical, temporal and aspectual meanings”.
Studies in Language 18.1, 23–44.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense,
aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago University Press.
Dahl, Östen, ed. Forthcoming. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin etc.:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ebert, Karen H. 1995. “Ambiguous perfect-progressive TAM-forms across languages”.
Pier Marco Bertinetto et al., eds. 185–203.
Ebert, Karen H. 1996. Progressive aspect in German and Dutch. Journal of Germanic
Linguistics and Semiotics. 1.1. 41–62.
Ebert, Karen H. Forthcoming a. “Progressives in Germanic languages”. Dahl, ed.
Forthcoming.
Ebert, Karen H. Forthcoming b. “Aspect in Maltese”. Dahl, ed. Forthcoming.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johanson, Lars. 1995. “Mehrdeutigkeit in der türkischen Verbalkomposition”. Beläk Bitig.
Sprachstudien für Gerhard Dörfer zum 75. Geburtstag ed. by Marcel Erdal & Semih
Tezcan, 81–101. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Johanson, Lars. Forthcoming a. “Viewpoint operators in European languages.” Dahl, ed.
Forthcoming.
Muniev, B.D. 1977. Kalmycko-russkij slovar’/Xal’mg-Ors Tol’. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo
“Russkij Jazyk”.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen, ed. 1991a. Aspektsysteme. (Arbeitspapiere NF Nr. 14, Inst. für
Sprachwissenschaft). Köln.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1991b. “Aspekttheorie”. Sasse 1991a. 1–35.
Todaeva, Buljaš Xojčievna. 1968. “Kalmyckij jazyk.” Jazyki Narodov SSSR. T.V.
Leningrad: Nauka. 34–52.
Todaeva, Buljaš Xojčievna. 1976. Opyt lingvističeskogo issledovanija ėposa “Džangar”.
Ėlista: Kalmyckoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.
Aspectual classification of nouns
A case study of Russian
Ekaterina V. Rakhilina
VINITI, Moscow
Abstract
A semantic classification of Russian nouns is proposed which corresponds to

the verbal classification used in aspectological studies. This classification
specifies the stability of a corresponding noun referent with respect to the time
axis. One interesting result (discussed in detail) is that it predicts the semantic
interpretation of attributive constructions with the Russian “inner-temporal”
adjective staryj ‘old’. This interpretation directly depends on the semantic class
which the noun belongs to. In a sense, then, one may speak about aspectual
types of Russian nouns.
1. Category of aspect as applied to nouns
Semantic boundaries between nouns and verbs (especially, in a cross-linguistic

perspective) are known to be not very rigid (the problem is discussed, e.g., in
Givón (1979: 320 ff.), Langacker (1987) or Talmy (1988); cf. also Bach (1968)
and Rijkhof (1990) for a logical approach). In general, nouns and verbs seem to
share many more properties than is commonly thought. The most obvious
semantic zone for this is, in this respect, the temporal one. Indeed, it is well-
known that not only verbs, but also nouns can express temporal characteristics.
Grammatical tense relates the situation of the verb to the moment of speech, and
this could be applied to certain nouns as well, including concrete nouns. Among
these are, first of all, names of kinds of persons (like brother, professor, or
sailor): this was shown, in particular, in Dahl (1970), where these nouns were
analyzed in the context of modifiers like former or future. There are also several
342 EKATERINA V. RAKHILINA
works dealing with similar problems in Slavic and especially Russian material
(for further references, see Jakovleva 1994).
The idea is that constructions like a former champion are interpreted in the
same way as if they were verbs in the past tense. Thus, “a former champion” is
a person who  a champion in the . The temporal reference is made here
to the property of ‘being a champion expressed by the noun. We will speak in
this case of an external temporal characteristic of a verb or a noun. Thus, former
or future are external temporal modifiers to a noun.
However, whenever we deal with verbs, we must also take into account the
internal temporal characteristics inherent to the meaning of the lexeme. Tradi-
tionally, these characteristics are called aspectual. By means of different
aspectual grammemes, the verb situation is distributed over time. The situation
expressed by the verb could be, for example, “condensed”, or “prolonged”, or
“multiplied”, etc. On the other hand, it is known that verbs are very idiosyncratic
with respect to different aspectual characteristics. Not each situation or event is
capable of being, for example, prolonged or condensed. These facts explain why
the lexical classification of verbs is so crucial for a theory of aspect (see Vendler
1957, which was a pioneer work in this domain).
As we know, aspectual characteristics can easily be ascribed also to
deverbal nouns. In Russian, there are verbal pairs such as the perfective spasti
‘to save, to have saved’ and the imperfective spasat’ ‘to save, to be saving, to
save usually’. Both verbs can derive a corresponding deverbal noun denoting an
agent: cf. spasitel’ ‘one who has saved; saviour’ derived from spasti, and
spasatel’ ‘one who saves (usually, by profession)’ derived from spasat’. Thus,
the nominal pair spasitel’ — spasatel’ mirrors the verbal aspectual opposition of
spasti — spasat’.1
However, the question arises whether concrete nouns (names of objects) can
display the same type of internal temporal characteristics. In what follows I will
try to answer this question.
2. The Russian adjective staryj ‘old’
Let us consider the use of Russian concrete nouns in constructions with the
adjective staryj ‘old’. The analysis will begin with “old things” — i.e. constitu-
ents where a noun denotes a concrete object (cf. old house, old tree, etc.). We
can distinguish four types of interpretation which, as will be shown later,
correspond to the four distinct semantic classes of nouns.2 These four classes can
be exemplified by the following typical noun phrases:
ASPECTUAL CLASSIFICATION OF NOUNS 343
(1) old oak

(2) old rag
(3) old channel
(4) old coins
Let us consider these classes in turn.
The semantic interpretation imposed on the noun by an adjective of the first
class is ‘the object that came into being a long time ago and has existed for a
long time’ (further examples are: old grove, elephant, mushroom, callus, etc.).
Note that in some cases young could serve as an alternative antonym (applicable,
first of all, to animate nouns of this class).
The semantic interpretation within the second class is ‘the object that, being
in use for a long time, has become useless and/or decayed’ (further examples
are: old clothes, ladder, house, furniture, etc.). An adequate antonym in most
cases is new. The important characteristic of this class is that the above interpre-
tation usually coexists with others. The overwhelming majority of the examples,
thus, have two or more different readings. In other classes such a possibility
exists only occasionally (see section 5 for a more detailed discussion).
The semantic interpretation within the third class is ‘the object that is no
longer in use’ (further examples are: old place, flat, trail, tooth feeling, band-aid,
etc.). The closest synonym of old in this reading is former, and the adjectives
present and current can serve as antonyms in most cases.
The fourth class has the following semantic interpretation: ‘the object that
has been created in the past and belongs to the past’. Further examples are: old
icons, silver, postcards; the old London, the old town, etc. The closest synonym of
old in this reading is ancient; a possible antonym is modern.
3. Nominal and verbal aspectual classes: a comparison
It is argued that the four interpretative types of ‘old’ correlate with the four
semantic classes of objects, each of which has its own internal temporal charac-
teristics. Besides, it is interesting to compare these internal temporal characteris-
tics of the nouns. Nominal aspectual characteristics are thus compared here with
the aspectual characteristics of verbs.
The first class (old oak) seems to correlate with gradatives (a term borrowed
from Padučeva 1994) like increase, decrease, enlarge. Gradatives are processes
which gradually change the state of objects during a certain period of time. Let
us consider the nouns of the first class. What they all denote are natural objects
gradually changing in time, such as trees, mountains, etc.
However, the whole picture is somewhat more complicated. The problem is
that each language has its own naive concept of what can change in time, and
what cannot. This does not always correspond to physical reality. Thus, according
to Russian “naive concepts”, not all natural objects do change in time, and, as a
result, not all names of objects can combine with staryj. For example, sun, sky,
fire, stars are conceptualized as stable objects. They do not change, and, conse-
quently, the corresponding Russian nouns do not combine with staryj. Trees are
thought of as changing, but flowers are not. Mountains and rocks (but not hills)
are considered to be changing, and so is wood (but not the steppe). The same
opposition holds for animate nouns. Thus, lions and wolves are capable of gradual
change, contrary to worms, flies or, for example, nightingales. Monsters and
ghosts are also “time-stable”, unlike, for example, witches who may well be old
(cf. staraja ved’ma ‘old witch’, with a frequent additional pejorative connotation).
Since the second class (old rag) contains artifacts having a fixed life-time,
the natural verbal counterparts for it are delimitatives (i.e., verbs denoting an
action limited to a certain period of time, cf. Russian poguljat’ ‘to walk for a
certain time, to go for a walk’). An interesting consequence of this limited
character of their life-time is that all changes affecting the artifacts are consid-
ered in this case as a kind of deterioration. Thus, an old hat is usually worse than
a new one. This effect is not observed in the first class: an old tree is not
necessarily a bad one; it is only a tree which has undergone a certain change.3
The third class (old channel) resembles verbal multiplicatives, i.e. verbs
denoting a multiple action consisting of several consecutive acts. Compare
Russian prygat’ ‘to jump [several times]’, kašljat’ ‘to cough [several times]’, etc.
(for more detail, see, among others, Xrakovskij 1989). Although in these cases
each next act repeats the previous one, it does not mean that all the acts within
a multiplicative action must be fully identical. In fact, they are usually different.
When, for example, one jumps several times, the next jump may well be longer
or shorter than the previous one, but from the lexical point of view this is the
same situation repeated: the speaker abstracts away from these and similar
differences.
If we look back at the nouns, we can say that nouns of the third class are
changeable, renewed objects (or renewed parts of objects). Each of such an
object can (or even must) be replaced by a new one, which is absolutely the
same from the lexical point of view. Due to this, we can label such objects as
cyclic. A typical example here is a tyre: a tyre is something which is regularly
replaced after being worn out. Note that the exchange normally takes place only
after the natural life-cycle of the previous object is finished. This is really a
fundamental prerequisite of its meaning. Indeed, there are cases where we have
so-called “permanently renewed” objects (e.g., plates: one replaces plates during
dinner not because they are “worn”). For example, one cannot say something like:
(5) ?Put the dessert on the old plate, please!
Or imagine the situation when a woman is trying on different coats at the shop:
she takes two and puts them on in turn, and the shop-assistant then advises her:
(6) Oh, take the first one, it is better!
but not:
(7) ?Oh, take the old one, it is better!
In both situations, the exchange certainly did not take place because the life-
cycle of the object was finished: it occured for other pragmatic purposes. Thus,
the conditions for the use of old (staryj) were ignored, rendering this adjective
impossible in cases like (5) and (7).
Finally, the fourth class (old coins) could be called the class of creative
nouns (created at a given moment by a given “author”). Such objects normally
do not decay — they belong to a certain era and they reflect it.4 Thus, they exist
at present as the reflection of the past. As an analogous class of verbs we can
take resultative events like vspomnit’ ‘remember’ or najti ‘find’: after such a
(momentary) event takes place, its result persists for a long time as a stable,
unlimited reflection of the situation or event denoted by this verbal constituent.
The fourth class is not large. It would probably have remained non-produc-
tive, were it not for a new powerful source of these nouns, namely, the words for
(technical) devices. The devices are objects which easily become out of date.
Thus, when we say old telephone or old computer, we mean that it belongs to the
past as a type. The only difference here is that normally the interpretation of the
fourth class constructions is positive, whereas the subclass of devices yields a
negative interpretation (an old computer is rather a bad one, unlike old town or
old icon).
4. The semantics of old: a unified account
In what follows, the attempt is made to implement the results of this classifica-
tion. We have four types of lexemes, each of which has its own aspectual
characteristics. The important point is that such characteristics are independent
and semantically inherent, because this type of “aspectual” information is

indispensable for an adequate semantic description of the lexemes. When
explaining what a tree is, we notice that trees can grow and change in time.
Likewise, when explaining what a tyre is we must say that tyres are something
that is regularly exchanged after being worn out.
Thus, returning to staryj and departing from our classification of nouns, we
can describe it as a temporal operator with only one meaning.5
staryj = ‘that came into being, or was created (long) before the moment of
speech’
All the differences in the interpretations of the given noun phrases with staryj
can be accounted for by the interplay of the meaning of staryj and the aspectual
(in the sense above) properties of different nouns. Thus, for the first class staryj
means ‘such that came into being long before the moment of speech [and has
changed]’. This can be illustrated by the following scheme (see Figure 1).
beginning of the existence moment of speech

of the denoted object
Figure 1.
For the second class, staryj means ‘created long before the moment of speech’.
In this case, ‘long before’ can be measured, where the measure is the life-time
of the object. In other words, the object is so old that its life-time is nearly
finished. This can be illustrated by the following scheme (see Figure 2).
beginning of the life-time moment of speech end of the life-

of the denoted object time of the
denoted object
Figure 2.
The end of the life-time of the object denoted is the real reason for the negative
connotations, which are frequent in this class. However, these connotations do
not belong directly to the meaning of staryj, but are rather a result of the
semantic agreement between a noun and an adjective due to the special aspectual
characteristics of the given class of nouns.
For the third class, the meaning of staryj will be ‘such that came into being
or was created long before the moment of speech and is no longer in use’,
because the measure of what is ‘long before’ here is the life-time of a single
referent. Therefore, the object is so old that it has completed its life-cycle, and
has been replaced by the next object of the same kind. Cf. the following scheme
(see Figure 3).
end of the life-cycle;
beginning of the new life-cycle
beginning of the life-cycle moment of speech

Figure 3.
As for the fourth class, the picture is similar to the third one, with the only
difference that it refers not to the object itself, but to the era the object belongs
to: the object came into being long ago; the era related to its creation has already
passed away.
5. Non-uniqueness of class membership
It should be noted that one and the same noun, in principle, can belong to
different aspectual classes. This explains the fact that some noun phrases with
old can have more than one interpretation. Cf. two possible meanings of moi
starye botinki ‘my old shoes’: 1) ‘worn (and spoiled) shoes’, and 2) ‘shoes
replaced by another pair in my wardrobe (but not necessary worn out)’. Both
interpretations may even coexist within one and the same context, as the
following example (suggested to me by T.V. Bulygina) shows:
(8) Naden’ moi starye botinki, oni eščë sovsem novye
put on my old shoes they still quite new
‘You can take my old shoes, they’re still quite new.’
This is not inconsistent with other semantic properties of nouns. For example, it
is well known that one and the same noun can be described as belonging to
distinct taxonomic classes. Thus, kolodec ‘well’ is not only a kind of container,
but also a kind of construction. Such a “multiple taxonomy” has nothing to do
with polysemy, because it merely reflects different relevant properties of one and
the same thing. The same phenomenon is observed in the case of nominal
aspectual characteristics: a noun like shoes denotes an artifact which either may
have been in use for the long time and then become decayed, or may be no
longer in use and be replaced by another one. In the first case we consider this
object as an artifact with a fixed life-time, while in the second case it appears as
a changeble and renewed (cyclic) object (as shoes and clothes usually are).
Therefore, according to our classification, a noun like shoes must belong to the
second and the third class at the same time. Moreover, there are nouns like
igruška ‘toy’ which can have an even more multifarious interpretation, depending
on the situation. Indeed, what is a toy? A toy is an artifact which can be broken,
damaged, and so on: its life-time is limited. Cf.:
(9) Let us fix our old toys!
On the other hand, each toy is made for a certain age: rattles, dolls, play-mobiles
replace each other in turn. Thus, (10) presupposes the cyclic interpretation
(perhaps, among the other possible ones):
(10) His old toys were now set aside for computer games.
Finally, toys can characterize the era in which they are made and behave, in this
connection, like creative object of our fourth class. Cf.:
(11) An exhibition of old toys took place in Paris last summer.
6. Alternative decisions
Naturally, concerning the semantic representation of old, alternative decisions are

possible. One of them is discussed by Partee (1995), who distinguishes between
several semantic types of adjectives. For example, the semantic type exemplified
by skillful is different from that exemplified by former: every skillful N is an
element of a set denoted by N (a skillful surgeon is always a surgeon). However,
the adjectives of the type of former do not meet this requirement: a former
senator is not a senator. Another example are adjectives of the type of tall: the
values of the dimensional parameter in the contexts like a tall boy and a tall
basketball player are obviously different. Thus, tall determines a different
semantic type of adjectives.
The examples discussed above demonstrate that, with such an approach, all
the semantic differences observed are concentrated within the adjective. If we try
to apply this approach to staryj, the different uses of staryj are distributed over
different types of adjectives: the type former corresponds to the third class (old
channel), whereas the type tall corresponds to the first class (old oak). In such a
case, we have to do with three or even four different lexemes staryj. On the
other hand, we have a possible alternative description, as presented in this paper
(cf. also Taylor’s (1992) “cognitive” account of English old), which preserves a
single meaning of the adjective despite its broad combinatorics.6
Notes
1. Thus, the content of the semantic oppositions in both cases is largely identical. A different
account of aspectual characteristics, which makes use of a much broader inventory of semantic
values, is represented, among others, in Rijkhof (1991).
2. It is to be emphasized that the material of the present paper is Russian. Thus, it is not the
English item old, but the Russian staryj I am dealing with. All the examples are Russian
translated into English, though sometimes this does not yield an exact equivalent. It goes
without saying that there can be, and even must be, differences between the linguistic
behaviour of Russian staryj and English old in contextual usage.
3. Curiously, the noun wine belongs to the first class and not to the second. It is interpreted not
as an artifact, but as a living object. Indeed, old wine is closer to old oak than to old hat,
because, usually, the older the wine, the better it is.
4. The fourth interpretation is favoured by generic use, because a class or a set of objects is better
associated with the era than an individual object.
5. Cf. Beard (1991: 209 ff.) who argues that the traditional polysemous representation of the
English adjective old can be reduced to a more unified one, as well as a very interesting special
study of Taylor (1992) carried out within a cognitive framework. However, both works do not
address the “aspectual” dimension of the phenomenon.
6. Interestingly, the combinability of the names of kinds of persons (not considered here in detail)
confirms this claim: cf. old professor [= ‘old-aged ] vs. old friend [= ‘being a friend for a long
time ] vs. old president [= ‘former ] vs. old emigrants [= ‘of a previous era ].
References
Bach, Emmon. 1968. “Nouns and noun phrases”. Universals in linguistic theory ed. by E.
Bach and R.T. Harms, 19–122. New York: Holt.
Beard, Robert. 1991. “Decompositional composition: the semantics of scope ambiguities
and ‘bracketing paradoxes’”. Natural language and linguistic theory 9.195–229.
Dahl, Östen. 1970. “On points of reference”. Semantikos 1.1.
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic press.
Jakovleva, Ekaterina S. 1994. Fragmenty russkoj jazykovoj kartiny mira [Fragments of
Russian linguistic world image]. Moscow: Gnozis.
Padučeva, Elena V. 1994. “Taksonomičeskie kategorii glagola i semantika vidovogo

protivopostavlenija” [Taxonomic categories of verbs and semantics of aspectual
oppositions]. Semiotika i informatika 34.7–31.
Partee, Barbara H. 1995. “Lexical semantics and compositionality”. Invitation to cognitive
science, part I: Language ed. by L. Gleitman and M. Liberman. Cambridge (MA):
MIT.
Rijkhof, Jan. 1990. “Towards a unified analysis of terms and predications”. Layers and
levels of representation in language theory: a functional view ed. by J. Nuyts et al.,
165–191. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rijkhof, Jan. 1991. “Nominal aspect”. Journal of semantics 8. 291–309.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. “The relation of grammar to cognition”. Topics in cognitive
linguistics ed. by B. Rudzka-Ostyn, 165–205. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Taylor, John R. 1992. “Old problems: adjectives in cognitive grammar”. Cognitive
linguistics 3.1–35.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. “Verbs and times”. The philosophical review 66.143–160; repr. in:
Z.Vendler, Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967, 97–121.
Xrakovskij, Viktor S. 1989. “Semantičeskie tipy množestva situacij i ix estestvennaja
klassifikacija”. Tipologija iterativnyx konstrukcij ed. by V.S. Xrakovskij, 5–53.
Leningrad: Nauka. [Engl. transl.: “Semantic types of the plurality of situations and
their natural classification”. Tipology of iterative constructions ed. by V.S. Xrakov-
skij, 3–64. München — Newcastle: LINCOM Europa, 1997. (LINCOM Studies in
Theoretical Linguistics; 04)].
Subject Index
Aa ambulative, 200
anchoring, 48f.
absolute time, 208, 219 anterior, 141ff., 158n.6
absolutive case, 256f., 260f. antipassive, 7f., 18n.3
absolutive syntax, 256f. aorist, 141ff., 145, 147, 149, 154,
accomplishment (verb), 224ff., 244ff., 157f., 208ff., 214ff., 271, 273
301 perfect, 146f.
achievement (verb), 224, 230f., applicative, 92n.10. See also version
233ff., 238ff., 244ff., 300f. Arabic, 24
action axis, 45f., 50 argument
actional, 333 , multiple (group), 187ff., 200ff.
content, 172f. Armenian, 207ff.
periphrasis, 331, 335 ascending time concept (Guillaume),
, durative, 337 267f., 271f., 279f.
phrase, 172ff. aspect, 3ff., 43ff., 97ff., 171ff.,
specifier, 173f., 179ff. 195ff., 202, 223ff., 298ff.,
actionality, 332f. 307f., 312ff., 341ff.
of two-phase verbs, 334 and transitivity, x, 17f., 22, 43ff.
activity (verb), 225ff., 230, 244, 301 , “generic”, 195
actual present, 336 , grammatical, 333
admirativity. See mirativity -sensitive, 172
adterminal, 172 aspectual
affectivity, 45f. auxiliary, 52ff.
agent class (verbal, nominal), 343ff.
, generalized, 168f. domain. See aspect
agentivity, 85f. meaning, 24ff., 305ff., 342ff.
agreement opposition, 24, 302
, number, 194ff. pair, 102ff.
aktionsart, x, 24, 195, 319n.5 system, 58
, quantitative, 332 triplet, 103ff.
Aleut, 25f., 32, 201 aspectuality, 314
352 SUBJECT INDEX
atelic, 193, 228, 331 , perfective, 100, 105

attenuative, 193 , uncontrollable, 97ff.
attributive clause, 210 causativity, 24ff.
auxiliary, 171ff. , split, 32ff.
causativization, 23f.
causer, 98, 110
Bb change axis, 45f., 50
chronostructure, 293ff., 307f.
background, 328 , cyclic (symmetrical), 294f., 299,
Balochi as a split ergative language, 304
258f. , gradual (asymmetric), 294f., 299,
Bantu, 316f. 301, 304
Bats (Tsova-Tush), 188 , monophasal, 295
binding restrictions on tense/aspect, , three-phasal, 293f.
280ff. , two-phasal, 294
bounded(ness), 193 clause
branching , causal, 212
, vacuous, 284f. , conditional, 212
Burzio’s hypothesis, 264 , temporal, 211f.
collective, 188. See also distributivity
complement clause, 210
Cc completion
of action, 58
case of event, 58
, direct, as ergativity factor, 259f. compounds
, oblique, as ergativity factor, 259f. , possessive, 129ff.
category conceptualization, 43ff., 58ff.
, cluster of, 186, 197f. and aspect, 58ff.
of number. See number conditional, 146ff., 150
, quantificational. See clause, 212
quantificational category , counterfactual, 147ff.
causal constative, 176f.
clause, 212 continuative, 313ff., 319n.8, 332ff.
state. See operative state continuity, 314. See also state
causality, 46 form, 237
causation, 97ff. continuous, 4, 10f., 13ff., 198, 303ff.
, indirect, 110f. control, 97ff.
causative, x, 24ff., 57, 97ff., 300f. counter-expectation, 318, 319n.10
, controllable, 97ff. creative nouns, 345, 348
, double, 25 Cree, 192
, imperfective, 100, 105 cunctative, 319n.8
SUBJECT INDEX 353
cyclic. See chronostructure Ee

cyclic nouns, 344f., 348
cyclocative, 200 effectedness, 85f.
English, 44, 58ff., 172ff., 187ff.,
226ff., 297ff., 349n.2
Dd ergative, 3ff., 22, 32
syntax, 256f.
defocalization, 177, 179 ergativity
deictic. See temporal basis , split, 22, 32, 63ff., 254ff.
delimitative, 344 , motivated by past/non-past
descending time concept, 267f., 271f., distinction, 254ff.
279f. , motivated by perfectivity/
diathesis. See middle, voice imperfectivity distinction
distributive, 4, 10f., 14f., 25f., 32, (German), 253ff.
185ff. tests (in German), 262f.
adverb, 193f. Even, 201
, lexical, 192 Evenki, 188
distributivity, 185ff. event structure, 266, 273. See also
, addressee, 200 chronostructure, phase structure
, collective, 201f. , biphasic, 266, 273
, cumulative, 188 , monophasic, 266, 273
, dispersive, 201 event-plurality. See plurality
, diversative, 187, 200 event-quantification. See quantification
, encoding of, 190ff., 199ff. of events
, individualized, 201f. evidence
, locative, 200 , indirect, 68, 71ff., 86, 89
, object, 187, 200 , inferred, 71ff., 89
, quasi-, 201 , reported, 71ff., 89
, “share”, 188, 200 evidential. See evidentiality
, spatial, 200 , imperfective, 66ff.
, subject, 187f., 200 , perfective, 68ff.
diversative. See distributivity evidentiality, 63ff., 138n.10
dressing and transitivity, 86ff.
, verbs of, 54 experiential, 77f.
duration, 314, 334 action, 211, 215, 220n.3
adverb(ial), 224ff., 232 extended duration, 332
durative, 13ff., 37n.5, 46ff., 66, 216, extraverted language, 308
295, 307, 331, 337f.
Dutch, 278
Dyirbal, 18n.2
dynamic, 13ff., 238
354 SUBJECT INDEX
Ff Hh
Fijian, 24f. habitual, 4, 10f., 66, 176, 181, 314,

finitransformative, 172ff. 336
flow of time, 253 Hare, 76
, ascending, 253 have vs. be as ergative auxiliary, 257f.
, descending, 253 have-construction, 121ff., 137n.5, 301
focality, 175, 323ff. high-focal, 175ff., 179f., 182
, degree of, 175ff. Hindi as a split ergative language,
, scale of, 335f. 255ff.
focalized progressive, 335f. Huichol, 196
French, 301f.
frequentative, 25, 36n.3
future, 146f., 297 Ii
in-the-past, 146, 298
, simple (“in-the-present”), 298 imperfect, 141ff., 172, 177, 182,
208ff., 214ff.
, narrative, 156, 209
Gg imperfective, 3ff., 22, 43f., 47, 66ff.,
97ff., 142f., 145, 149, 154ff.,
Georgian, 64ff., 71, 79ff., 117ff., 278 157ff., 163ff., 173, 176, 190,
German, 253, 262, 276, 278 192, 298ff., 323ff.
Germanic, 145f., 157, 301, 308 , defocalized, 336f.
gradative, 343f. domain, 335ff.
gradual. See chronostructure -durative domain, 323ff.
gradual completion verb, 334 paradox, 226
graduality, 334 participle, 331
grammatical , processual, 165
domain, 312f., 318n.1 inceptive, x, 48
marker inchoative, 247n.2, 313ff., 319n.8
, combined, 312 indefinite (tense), 305ff.
, cumulative, 312, 314, 316f. indicative, 148
grammaticalization (grammaticization), indirect causation, 110f.
79ff., 82f., 89, 176, 323 individualization, 189f., 197ff.
path, 336 Indo-European, 29ff.
Greek infectum (Latin), 271
, Ancient, 29ff., 270ff. initio(-)transformative, 172ff., 333
Guillaume, G., 253, 267 intensive, 24f., 36n.3, 193, 198
intention, 100ff.
intransitive, 3ff., 27ff., 45, 49ff. See
also transitive, transitivity
SUBJECT INDEX 355
intraterminal, 172ff., 182 mirative

introverted language, 308 resultative, 77
inversive verb, 84ff., 93n.21 mirativity, 68, 76f., 89. See also
irreversibility, 193 indirect evidence
iterative, 3ff., 25, 36n.3, 193ff., Mixtec, 319n.10
197f., 216 modality, x
iterativity, 199, 332ff., 227 Mongolian, 337
monophasal. See chronostructure
mood, x, 180ff.
Jj Moses Columbian, 188
motion,
Japanese, 44, 47ff., 58f., 239f., 247n.3 , semantics of, 329
-te iru construction, 47ff. multiple
activity, 197
argument, 189, 200f.
Kk location, 189, 200
object, 189, 197
Kabardian, 190, 193 subject, 189, 197
Kalkatungu, 22 multiplicative, 25f., 32, 193ff., 198f.,
Kalmyk, 323ff. 344
Kartvelian, 63f., 81
Kipchak, 171ff.
Korean, 52ff., 58f., 223 Nn
-e issta construction, 52ff.
-ko issta construction, 52ff. Nahuatl, 192
Newari, 55ff., 58f.
cwan-e construction, 55ff.
Ll nominal quantification. See
quantification of nouns
Latin, 269ff. non-actual context, 336
lexicography, 97, 105, 107ff. nondynamic, 174, 176, 179
Lezgian, 332 non-past, 147
low-focal, 175, 181 non-progressive, 43f.
nontransformative, 172ff., 181
“not-yet”-tense, 316ff., 319n.9
Mm nouns
and verbs, 341ff.
Maidu, 190 , aspectual classification of, 341ff.
mental predicate, 109 , concrete, 341f.
Middle High German, 279f. , creative, 345, 348
middle voice (diathesis), 30f., 243 , cyclic, 344f., 348
356 SUBJECT INDEX
number, 185ff., 194ff., 199, 202 continuous, 303f.

, “distributive-partitive”, 193 , evidential, 77
, sigmatic, 272
subjunctive, 33f.
Oo perfective, x, 22, 43f., 47, 97ff.,
142f., 145, 147, 149, 154f.,
Old English, 269 157f., 173, 190, 226, 230, 234ff.,
Old High German, 269f. 245f., 298ff., 333, 338n.17
Old Saxon, 270 , gradual, 299f.
on-going action, 44, 52 , reduplicative, 272
operative state, 294 syntax, 277, 282f.
Ossetian, 192f. perfecto-present, 33
performative
, quasi-, 109
Pp Perlmutter’s unaccusativity criteria,
264
Palmer, Alf (one of the last speakers persistative, 332
of Warrungu), 3 person-definiteness factor for
partitioning, 192, 197 ergativity, 259f.
passive, x, 23f., 37n.5, 51f., 54, phasal
163ff., 231 meaning (value), 313ff., 333ff.
, agentless, 165 polarity, 318, 319n.10
and ergative, 276ff. structure, 314ff. See also
, modal, 164 chronostructure, phase structure
-qualitative, 164ff. phase (verbal), 313ff.
, quasi-, 164f. , final, 294f., 298f.
passivization, 23f., 287n.12 , initial, 293ff.
past, 143, 147, 151, 154f., 157, 297 , medial, 294f., 299, 304
, “false”, 154f. , outer, 318
future, 148 structure (phasal structure), 172f.,
, narrative, 92n.13 178, 293ff.
perfect, 207ff. pluconstative, 176, 178
, aspectual functions of, 209 pluperfect, 34f., 146f., 180ff.
, perfective, 86 plural
, remote, 213, 216ff. referent, 11f.
perfect, x, 27ff., 47f., 54ff., 68ff., words, 195
77ff., 93n.18, 127ff., 138n.10, pluralia tantum verbs, 197
143, 146, 172, 177f., 207ff., plurality, 189ff.
301ff., 314. See also past , collective, 198f.
, actional, 31, 57 , discrete, 198
and resultative, 127ff. , distributive, 198f.
SUBJECT INDEX 357
, encoding of, 196ff. Qq

, event-, 197f.
, heterogeneous, 198 qualitative, 314
, homogeneous, 198 meaning of the imperfective aspect,
, multiplicative, 198 163ff.
, nominal, 196f., 199f. quantification, 185ff., 194ff.
, temporal, 198f. , atemporal, 185
, verbal, 194ff., 199f. of events (verbs), 185f., 193ff., 199
plurioccasional, 176f. of objects (nouns, nominal), 185ff.,
Polish, 188 198f.
possessive , scope of, 194ff.
compounds, 129ff. , temporal, 185
resultative, 123ff., 135f. quantificational
postterminal, 172ff., 178, 181 category, 185ff., 194ff., 199ff.
posttransformative, 178 quantifier, 190f., 201f.
phase, 333 A-quantifier, 187, 203n.2
postural verb, 335 D-quantifier, 187, 203n.2
postverbial construction, 175 , general, 190f.
Präsenserneuerung, 337 quantitative, 319n.4. See also
preaspectual, 337 quantificational
present (tense), 27ff., 76, 154, 172, aktionsart, 332
176, 181, 228f., 237, 246, 326f. quasi-distributivity. See distributivity
, actual, 336 quasi-passive, 164f.
, narrative, 76 quasi-resultative (state), 215
preterite, 141ff.
-present, 180f.
priority, 297, 301ff. Rr
progressive, 10f., 43f., 47ff., 61n.3,
142, 146f., 172, 175ff., 182, 223, reciprocal, 87f.
226ff., 233ff., 239ff., 245, reflexive, 18n.3, 51
314f., 327ff., 338n.19 reflexivization, 83
, focalized, 335f. relative (past) time, 208, 219
prototype, 336 renewal, 175, 181
propositional attitude. See verb of repetition, 186ff.
cognition , distributive, 191
prospective, 314 in time (temporal), 197
psych-predicate, 223ff. , iterative, 191
psych-verb. See psych-predicate of events, 197f.
punctual, 13ff., 46ff., 241, 244 repetitive, 48f., 195ff.
358 SUBJECT INDEX
resultative, x, 31, 44, 47ff., 57, 79ff., subjunctive, 33ff., 148ff., 153, 159
117ff., 172, 175, 177ff., 229f., Svan, 63ff.
233ff., 239f., 246, 345
and perfect, 127ff.
, grammaticalization of, 79ff. Tt
, mirative, 77
, objective, 54f., 57 TAM. See tense-aspect-mood
, possessive, 123ff., 135f. tardative, 319n.8
, quasi-, 215 taxic meaning, 218
state, 213 taxis, 301ff., 316, 318
retrospective, 271, 273 telic, 193, 226
Romance, 146f., 155, 301, 308, 318 temporal
Russian, 97ff., 163ff., 172ff., 187f., basis, 295ff.
192, 200f., 276, 297ff., 315ff., , deictic, 296
341ff. , explicit (contextually expressed)
(= temporalizer), 296
, implicit, 296
Ss , linear, 295f.
, momentary, 295f.
Sanskrit. See Vedic , non-deictic, 296
semelfactive, 193, 198 categories
sequence, 297, 301f. , grammatical, 297ff.
simultaneity, 201, 296f., 301f., 305 clause, 211f.
, congruent, 296 modifiers
, extrinsic, 296 , external, 342
, intrinsic, 296 , internal (= aspectual), 342f.
singularity, 189ff. temporalization, 293ff.
situation , extraverbal, 297, 301
, inner structure of, 315. See also , intraverbal, 297f., 301
chronostructure temporalizer, 299ff., 303. See also
Slavic, 142f., 200, 298, 301, 308 temporal basis, explicit
small clause syntax (perfectivity), 253, tense, x, 297f. See aorist, past, perfect,
265, 269f. present, etc.
sociative, 202 and transitivity, 26ff.
spontaneity, 46 , secondary, 303, 308
state (verb), 137n.7, 225, 230, 243ff. , verbal vs. nominal, 341ff.
, continuation of, 233, 240 tense-aspect-mood (TAM), ix-x,
, operative (causal), 294 180ff.
static, 13ff. Tepetotutla Chinantec, 197
stative, 30f., 172, 238 terminative, 59f., 62n.11, 193, 295,
subjectification, 229f. 307, 313ff., 319n.8
SUBJECT INDEX 359
-oriented, 59f., 62n.11 Vv

three-phasal. See chronostructure
time-span adverbial, 224ff. valence, valency, x, 23
transformation, 178 Vedic, 25ff.
transformative, 173ff., 179ff. verb
transitive, 3ff., 21ff., 27ff., 49ff., 60 , inversive, 84ff., 93n.21
transitivity, ix-x, 3ff., 21ff., 45, 53, of cognition, 233ff.
57, 83ff. See also aspect and of emotion, 224ff.
transitivity, evidentiality and of perception, 230ff.
transitivity, tense and transitivity of sensation, 228ff.
change, 7ff. version
, high, 17 , object, 65, 83, 93n.30. See also
, low, 17 applicative
, semantic concept of, 23 Vietnamese, 192
Turkic, 172ff., 337 viewpoint, 335
Turkish, 25 operator, 172, 175
two-phasal. See chronostructure voice, 30f., 53
two-phase verb, 333
, actionality of, 334
Ww
Uu Wargamay, 18n.2
Warrungu, 3ff.
Ukrainian, 187
unaccusative, 45, 61n.2, 245, 255ff.
unaccusativity (in German), 262ff. Yy
unergative, 45, 61n.2
unioccasional, 176, 181 Yukaghir, 25f., 32
Universal Grammatical Inventory,
311ff., 316
Upper Chehalis, 196f. Zz
Urdu as a split ergative language,
257f. Zoque, 191f.
In the STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS) the following volumes
have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:
1. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Work-
shop studies prepared for the 12th Conference of Linguistics, Vienna, August 29th to
September 3rd, 1977. Amsterdam, 1978.
2. ANWAR, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic.
Amsterdam, 1979.
3. MALKIEL, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965-1978.
With an introd. by the author + indices. Amsterdam, 1983.
4. LLOYD, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory
of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam, 1979.
5. HAIMAN, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea.
Amsterdam, 1980.
6. VAGO, Robert (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics
Conference on Vowel Harmony (May 14, 1977). Amsterdam, 1980.
7. PARRET, H., J. VERSCHUEREN, M. SBISÀ (eds): Possibilities and Limitations of
Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8-14, 1979. Am-
sterdam, 1981.
8. BARTH, E.M. & J.L. MARTENS (eds): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation.
Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumenta-
tion, Groningen, October 1978. Amsterdam, 1982.
9. LANG, Ewald: The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam, 1984.(English transl. by John
Pheby from the German orig. edition “Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung”, Berlin,
1977.)
10. DRESSLER, Wolfgang U., Willi MAYERTHALER, Oswald PANAGL & Wolfgang U.
WURZEL: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam, 1987.
11. PANHUIS, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study of Latin
Word Order. Amsterdam, 1982.
12. PINKSTER, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st
Intern. Coll. on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. Amsterdam, 1983.
13. REESINK, G.: Structures and their Functions in Usan. Amsterdam, 1987.
14. BENSON, Morton, Evelyn BENSON & Robert ILSON: Lexicographic Description of
English. Amsterdam, 1986.
15. JUSTICE, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic, in the mirror of European languages.
Amsterdam, 1987.
16. CONTE, M.E., J.S. PETÖFI, and E. SÖZER (eds): Text and Discourse Connectedness.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989.
17. CALBOLI, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the
Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1-5 April 1985. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1989.
18. WIERZBICKA, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988.
19. BLUST, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An Essay on the Limits of Morphology.
20. VERHAAR, John W.M. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles on Melanesia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1990.
21. COLEMAN, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4th
International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, 1991.
22. McGREGOR, William: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1990.
23. COMRIE, Bernard and Maria POLINSKY (eds): Causatives and Transitivity. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia, 1993.
24. BHAT, D.N.S. The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification.
25. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds): Semantics and Lexical Universals.
Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.
26. LIMA, Susan D., Roberta L. CORRIGAN and Gregory K. IVERSON (eds): The Reality of
Linguistic Rules. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.
27. ABRAHAM, Werner, T. GIVÓN and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Grammar
and Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995.
28. HERMAN, József: Linguistic Studies on Latin: Selected papers from the 6th international
colloquium on Latin linguistics, Budapest, 2-27 March, 1991. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1994.
29. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Elisabeth et al. (eds): Content, Expression and Structure. Studies
in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.
30. HUFFMAN, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia, 1997.
31. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing.
32. FRAJZYNGIER, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study in
Chadic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.
33. VELAZQUEZ-CASTILLO, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorpora-
tion and possessor ascension in Guaraní. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.
34. HATAV, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and Biblical
Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.
35. MATSUMOTO, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semantic
approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.
36. KAMIO, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.
37. HARVEY, Mark and Nicholas REID (eds): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia.
38. HACKING, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A Comparative Typology of Conditionals in
Russian and Macedonian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
39. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1997.
40. BIRNER, Betty and Gregory WARD: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in
English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
41. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER
and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I:
General papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999.
42. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER
and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II:
Case studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999.
43. OLBERTZ, Hella, Kees HENGEVELD and Jesús Sánchez GARCÍA (eds): The Structure of
the Lexicon in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
44. HANNAY, Mike and A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN (eds): Functional Grammar and Verbal
Interaction. 1998.
45. COLLINS, Peter and David LEE (eds): The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney
Huddleston. 1999.
46. YAMAMOTO, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguis-
tics. 1999.
47. BRINTON, Laurel J. and Minoji AKIMOTO (eds): ollocational and Idiomatic Aspects of
Composite Predicates in the History of English. 1999.
48. MANNEY, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of an
inflectional category. 2000.
49. BHAT, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999.
50. ABRAHAM, Werner and Leonid KULIKOV (eds): Transitivity, Causativity, and TAM.
In honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999.
51. ZIEGELER, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000.
52. TORRES CACOULLOS, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language
Contact.A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000.
53. FISCHER, Olga, Anette ROSENBACH and Dieter STEIN (eds.): Pathways of Change.
Grammaticalization in English. 2000.
54. DAHL, Östen and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages.
Volume 1: Past and Present. n.y.p.
55. DAHL, Östen and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages.
Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. n.y.p.
56. FAARLUND, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001.
57. MEL’C UK, Igor: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-
communicative structure of sentences. n.y.p.
58. MAYLOR, Brian Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal
prefixes in German. n.y.p.

Abraham Kulikov 1999 Tense-Aspect Transitivity and Causativity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abraham Kulikov 1999 Tense-Aspect Transitivity and Causativity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TENSE-ASPECT, TRANSITIVITY

slcs.50.vw.p65 1 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

Werner Abraham Michael Noonan

Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov (eds.)

Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity

slcs.50.vw.p65 2 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

slcs.50.vw.p65 3 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

slcs.50.vw.p65 4 27/10/99, 5:56 PM

The qualitative meaning of Russian imperfective verbs in passive

Werner Abraham Leonid Kulikov

Abraham, Werner Dolinina, Inga B.

Kiryu, Kazuyuki Rakhilina, Ekaterina V.

Lee, Chungmin Sumbatova, Nina R.

perspective has opened for us, particularly as regards the interdependence

Part 1. Transitivity, causativity and tense-aspect: interdependencies

typically imperfective interpretations such as iterative, distributive (‘here and

2. The trade-off between aspect and tense as typological parameters

aspectual categories are generally blurred in translations into European languages

3. Events and their componentiality

The generative school of linguistics has had a deep impact on syntactic-typolog-

Abraham, Werner. 1983. “Bemerkungen zum semantischen Transitivitätsbegriff”. In: J.O.

Litvinov, Viktor P. & Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1995. “The St Petersburg/Leningrad

1957. (with Il’ja N. Gorelov)

Morfologičeskaja struktura slova v jazykax različnyx tipov. Moskva —

1967f. K metodike izučenija sintagmatičeskix podklassov glagolov (Na materiale

1969h. Nekotorye verojatnostnye universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazovanii.

1973c. K teorii nemeckogo pristavočnogo glagol’nogo slovoobrazovanija.

1976b. Tipologija deagentivnyx refleksivnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of deagent-

gumanitarnye nauki. Sekcija III. Ėtno-kul’turnye problemy izučenija narodov

1981f. Tipologija derivacii rezul’tativov. [Typology of resultative derivation]. In:

1983d. (with Petr I. Inėnlikėj & Vladimir G. Raxtilin)

1985a. Čukotskie deagentivnye konstrukcii s sub″ektnym infinitivom. [Chukchee

1987c. (with Igor’ V. Nedjalkov)

1988i. Comparison with Icelandic. (= Section 7 in: Berkov, V.P. Resultative,

and African Studies, University of London, 1995, 60–81]. [English transla-

1994. Tense-aspect-mood forms in Chukchi. Sprachtypologie und Universalien-

GPI(IJa) – Gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut (inostrannyx jazykov)

Transitivity, causativity and tense-aspect:

This paper aims to document as many details as possible of the iterative

1.1 General notes

Warrungu (also spelt Warungu) is an Australian Aboriginal language once

1.2 Outline of the language

The Warrungu phoneme inventory, written in a practical orthography, is as

2. The formation of iterative verbs

3. The syntax of iterative constructions

Affixation of -karra-Y does not affect the transitivity of intransitives, but it

3.1 Intransitive + karra-Y

As mentioned above, the resultant stems remain intransitive. As a pair of

(4) pirku-Ø yinu jana-karra-n

3.2 Transitive + karra-Y

The transitivity changes involved can be classified as follows.

(9) ngaya kurja-wu wapa-karra-n.

Warrungu has (productive) antipassive constructions (-, -),

(21) (TT kantu-ngku) nganya paja-karra-n.

4. The meanings of iterative constructions

4.1 Aspectual meanings: the imperfective

-karra-Y is aspectual, and it has typically imperfective interpretations (as defined

There is a non-productive verbal derivational suffix -rV-, whose vowel

4.2 Obligatory vs. non-obligatory use of -karra-Y

[2] Transitives. They are only rarely attested with -karra-Y.