Guest lecture
MGGU
October 12, 2015
Aspect and tense in the Slavic infinitive (and subjunctive):
Interpretation and distribution
Silje Susanne Alvestad
[email protected]
1. Introduction
2. Background and motivation
3. State of the art, problems, and hypotheses
4. Findings so far
5. Conclusion and further outlook
1. Introduction
The point of departure for this project is a glaring gap in comparative Slavic aspectology—
namely, that represented by the infinitive verb form. Thus, in this project I will first conduct a
corpus-based comparative investigation of how aspect is used in Slavic infinitives, taking the
following 12 modern Slavic languages into consideration: Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian,
Polish, Upper Sorbian, Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, and
Slovene. An example is given below.1
(1) a. Ru: Ты говоришь, товарищ Ермаченко, что здесь надо будет драться, а я
думаю – надо утром отходитьIPF.
“Comrade Ermačenko, you are saying that we will have to fight here, but I think
that it’s necessary to leave in the morning.”
b. By: (…) тут трэба будзе біцца, а я думаю - трэба раніцай адыходзіцьIPF.
c. Uk: (…) тут треба буде битись, а я гадаю - треба вранці відходитиIPF.
d. Pl: (…) że tu trzeba się będzie bić, a ja sądzę - że trzeba się będzie rano
wycofaćIPF.
e. Sr: (…) da bi se ovde trebalo tući, a ja mislim da ujutru treba otićiPF.
f. Hr: (…) da bi se ovdje imalo boriti. A ja mislim da ujutro treba otićiPF.
g. US: (…) tule do bitwy hić, ja pak sej myslu, zo dyrbimy jutře wottud woteńćPF.
h. Sk: (…) že sa tu bude treba biť, ale ja si myslím, že by sme ráno mali odísťPF.
i. Cz: (…) že tu budeme musit bojovat, ale já myslím, že musíme zítra ráno
odejítPF.
j. Sn: (…) da se bo treba tukaj udariti, jaz pa mislim, da moramo zjutraj odrinitiPF.
1
This and all subsequent examples are, unless otherwise noted, from the ParaSol corpus, http://www.slavist.de/,
by Ruprecht von Waldenfels et al. In the examples, matrix predicates are underlined. I will henceforth use the
following abbreviations: Russian (Ru), Belarusian (By), Ukrainian (Uk), Polish (Pl), Bulgarian (Bg), Serbian
(Sr), Croatian (Hr), Macedonian (Mk), Upper Sorbian (US), Slovak (Sk), Czech (Cz), Slovene (Sn), imperfective
(IPF), and perfective (PF). In the English translation of (1), (3), (6) and (8), I have consulted Prokofeva (1959).
1
At the outset of the investigation I will focus on infinitives, but I will eventually be concerned
with subjunctives as well. Specifically, Mk does not have infinitives, and Bg only has a short
form of the infinitive that is in very restricted use (cf., e.g. Mišeska-Tomić (2006:456-457)).
The form both languages use instead is the subjunctive—the subjunctive complementizer da
(cf., e.g. Mišeska-Tomić (2006); Todorović (2012)) + a present tense verb form—as seen in k.
and l. below.
k. Mk: (…) а јас мислам - утре треба да си одимеIPF.
l. Bg: (…) а пък аз мисля, че утре сутрин трябва да отстъпимPF.
In addition, in some Slavic languages, the infinitive and the subjunctive appear to compete for
distribution. This is the case, to some extent, in Sn, to a higher degree in Hr, and to a
significant degree in Sr. Against the background of this observation and examples such as (1)
and (2), three of the questions I will seek to answer in this project are, first, how aspect is used
in Slavic infinitives and subjunctives; second, what the semantic similarities and differences
are between infinitives and subjunctives; and, third, if the infinitive and the subjunctive
compete in certain Slavic languages, what the decisive factors are in this rivalry.
Furthermore, I will in this project examine the formal semantic and syntactic make-up of, first,
infinitives and second, subjunctives, with a special focus on aspect, tense, and time.
The use of the infinitive versus the subjunctive in Slavic is exemplified in (2) below.
(2) a. Ru: – Отравитель, - успел еще крикнутьPF мастер. Он хотел схватитьPF
нож со стола ...
'Poisoner', the master managed to cry out. He wanted to snatch the knife from the
table …
b. Uk: – Отруйник, - устиг ще крикнутиPF майстер. Він хотів схопитиPF ніж
зі столу …
c. By: – Забойца, - успеў яшчэ крыкнуцьPF майстар. Ён хацеў схапіцьPF нож
са стала …
d. Pl: – Trucicielu! - zdążył jeszcze krzyknąćPF mistrz. Chciał chwycićPF nóż ze
stołu …
e. US: – Jědarniko, - móžeše hišće zakřičećPF mišter. Chcyše nóž z blida
hrabnyćPF …
f. Cz: – Traviči, - stačil ještě vykřiknoutPF. Chtěl sáhnoutPF po noži…
g. Sk: – Travič, - stačil ešte vykríknuťPF Majster. Chcel schytiťPF zo stola nôž …
h. Sn: – Zavdajavec, - je še utegnil kriknitiPF mojster. Hotel je pograbitiPF nož z
mize …
i. Hr: – Trovač, - dospio je još viknutiPF majstor. Htio je dohvatitiPF nož sa
stola …
j. Sr: – Trovaču, - uspePF-aor još da uzviknePF majstor. On htedeIPF-aor da zgrabiPF
nož sa stola …
k. Bg: – Отровител, - успяPF-aor само да извикаPF Майстора. ПонечиPF-aor да
грабнеPF от масата …
l. Mk: – Трујач, - стасаPF-aor уште да викнеPF мајсторот. Тој сакашеIPF-imp да го
зграпчиPF ножот …
2
Infinitives—all PF—are used in Ru, Uk, By, Pl, US, Cz, Sk, Sn, and Hr, whereas subjunctive
constructions are used in Sr, Bg, and Mk.2
2. Background and motivation
The infinitive verb form is frequently ignored and poorly understood in formal theoretical
linguistics too. The question of the semantics of infinitives is far from settled. One question
regards infinitives and tense. Since verbal aspect is obligatorily present in all Slavic infinitives,
and since aspects are relations between times–– specifically, between event times and their
reference times, cf. Klein (1995)––a study of aspect use in Slavic infinitives will shed light on
the question of infinitives, time and tense as well.
Moreover, studies of the semantics of infinitives seldom compare this verb form with
the subjunctive. I am aware of only one exception: Han (1998), who also includes the
imperative. Han, however, does not take verbal aspect into consideration. But as exemplified
in (3) below, in one and the same context, we find that some Slavic languages use the
infinitive (boldfaced), some use the imperative (italicized), and some use the subjunctive
(boldfaced and italicized). There are numerous examples of this kind.
(3) a. Ru: Никого из зала не выпускатьIPF, поставитьPF часовых, приказал он.
“Do not let anyone out of the hall, call out the guards!” he ordered.
b. By: Нікога з зала не выпускацьIPF, паставіцьPF вартавых, загадаў ён.
c. Uk: Нікого з зали не випускатиIPF, поставитиPF вартових!
d. Pl: Nikogo nie wypuszczaćIPF z sali, postawićPF wartę!
e. Sr: Ne puštatiIPF nikoga iz sale, postaviPF stražu, naredi on.
f. Hr: Ne puštatiIPF nikoga iz dvorane, postavitiPF stražu, naredi on.
g. US: Nikoho ze žurle njepušćće, nastajće straže, přikaza.
h. Sk: ”Stráže ku vchodu! Nikoho nepustiťPF zo sály!” rozkázal.
i. Cz: Nikoho ze sálu nepustitPF, postavitPF stráže!” nařídil.
j. Sn: ”Nikogar mi ne spuščajteIPF iz dvorane,” je ukazal. ”Stražo postavitePF!”
k. Bg: Никой да не напускаIPF салона, да се поставятIPF/PF часовои —
заповяда той.
l. Mk: Никој да не се пуштаIPF од салата, да се поставатPF стражари, нареди тој.
3. State of the art, problems, and hypotheses
The most comprehensive comparative account of Slavic aspect so far is Dickey (2000), but
although impressive, two important verb forms are not accounted for: imperatives and
infinitives. Imperatives were dealt with in Benacchio (2010), von Waldenfels (2012), and,
more thoroughly, in Alvestad (2013). Thus, the first problem I will seek to solve can be stated
as follows.
Problem 1: How is aspect used in the Slavic infinitive?
In his 2000 study, Dickey concludes that aspect use in Slavic varies geographically, where the
imperfective (IPF) aspect is the most widely used aspect in East Slavic and the perfective (PF)
is the most frequently used aspect in West Slavic. Thus:
Hypothesis 1: The East–West divide can be observed in infinitives too: the East Slavic
languages––Ru, By, and Uk––make up an IPF-oriented group of languages, while the
West Slavic languages––Sk, Cz, and Sn––constitute a PF-oriented group.
2
Both US sentences and the second sentence in By and Cz are from my respondents.
3
In order to solve Problem 1 I will make use of Slavic parallel corpora concentrating on the
ParaSol corpus, which is the most extensive parallel corpus of Slavic languages to date. I will
take Ru as my point of departure, since Ru is that language which is represented by the
highest number of tokens: 3,64 million (as of October 2015).
For reasons that will become clear below, I will only consider telic predicates, i.e.,
accomplishments and achievements (cf. Vendler (1957)).
Examples like (1) support Hypothesis 1. Still, Problem 1 needs to be addressed.
First, based on (1) it would seem that the use of aspect in the infinitive is almost identical to
that in the imperative. My initial survey, however, suggests that this is not the case. For
example, the East Slavic languages use PF significantly more often in infinitives than in the
imperative. Thus, the following questions arise.
Problem 2:
a. Are the differences in aspect use between infinitives and imperatives due to the
fact that infinitives can figure both with and without the modal force of necessity,
whereas imperatives have the modal force of necessity?3
b. How is aspect used in infinitives when they do not have modal force?
c. How is aspect used in infinitives when they do have modal force?
Assumptions: the meaning of the Slavic PF is the inclusion of the event time in the reference
time (e ⊂ t) (cf., e.g., Klein 1995). The meaning of the Slavic IPF is an underspecified
temporal overlap relation between the event time and the reference time (e ○ t). The
differences in aspect use I ascribe to differences in how the individual languages resolve cases
of aspectual competition. In cases of aspectual competition, both aspects can be used without
changing the meaning significantly. This can only occur in telic predicates, which is why I
exclude states and activities from the investigation. When the unmarked IPF is aspectually
neutralized, IPF has a perfective meaning. This use of IPF in past tense indicatives is referred
to in the literature as general-factual, of which Grønn (2004) identifies two main types of
interpretation: the existential and the presuppositional. Imperatives are not associated with
facts, so in Alvestad (2013) I follow Iatridou (2000) and Grønn (2013) in referring to IPF in
such cases as fake. I will stick to this term here.
Digression:
Existential type fake IPF – declarative:
(4) a. Ru: – “Как вы все это помните? Вы изучалиPF лабиринты?” – “Нет. Я
вспомнил старинный текст, который однажды читалIPF.” (ParaSol. Eco: Il
nome della rosa)
“How do you know all that? Are you an expert on labyrinths?” “No, I am citing
an ancient text I once read.”4
b. Uk: – “Ні, я цитую з однієї давньої книги, яку колись читавIPF.”
c. Bg: – “Не, цитирам ти един древен текст, който четохIPF доста отдавна.”
d. Pl: – “Nie, recytuję tylko stary tekst, który kiedyś czytałemIPF.”
e. Hr: – “Nisam, izgovaram dio starog spisa koji sam jednom čitaoIPF.”
f. Sk: – “Nie, to len citujem jeden starý text, ktorý som kedysi čítalIPF.”
g. Sr: – “Не, наводим из једног старог текста који сам некада прочитаоPF.”
h. Mk: – “Не, само цитирам еден антички текст што одамна го имам
прочитаноPF.”
3
4
I follow Kaufmann (2012) in assuming that imperatives have the modal force of necessity.
The English translation is also from ParaSol.
4
i. Cz: – “Kdepak, cituji starý text, který jsem si kdysi přečetlPF.”
j. Sn: – “Ne, navajam iz starega spisa, ki sem ga nekoč prebralPF.”
Presuppositional type fake IPF – declarative:
(5) Ru: В этой поpтерной я написалPF первое любовное письмо к Вере. ПисалIPF
карандашом.5 (Grønn (2004: 192), from Forsyth (1970: 86))
In this tavern, I wrote my first love letter to Vera. I wrote [it] in pencil.
Existential type fake IPF – imperative:
(6) a. Ru: Я знаю, почему он не стонал и вообще не стонет. На мой вопрос он
ответил: – ЧитайтеIPF роман "Овод", тогда узнаете.
(ParaSol. Ostrovskij: Kak zakaljalas’ stal’ (KZS))
I know now why he never groans. I asked him, and he replied:
– Read the novel “The Gadfly” and you’ll know.
b. By: – ЧытайцеIPF раман “Авадзень”, тады будзеце ведаць.
c. Uk: – ЧитайтеIPF роман “Овід”, тоді знатимете.
d. Bg: – ЧететеIPF романа “Стършел”, тогава ще разберете.
e. Sr: – ČitajteIPF roman “Obad”, tada ćete saznati.
f. Hr: – ČitajteIPF roman “Obad”, tada ćete saznati.
g. US: – ČitajćeIPF roman “Spinadło” a budźeće wědźeć!
h. Sn: – BeriteIPF roman “Obad”, pa boste vedeli.
i. Pl: – PrzeczytajciePF powieść “Szerszeń”, to się dowiecie.
j. Mk: – ПрочитајтеPF го романот “Штркел”, тогаш ќе разберете.
k. Sk: – PrečítajtePF si román “Ovad”, dozviete sa.
l. Cz: – PřečtětePF si román “Střeček” a dovíte se to!
Presuppositional type fake IPF – imperative:
(7) a. Ru: – ВывернитеPF карманы! Ну, живо! Что я вам говорю?
Выворачивайте!IPF (ParaSol. Ostrovskij: KZS)
Turn out your pockets! Come on, hurry up! Do you hear me? Turn [them]
out!
b. By: – ВыверніцеPF кішэні! … ВыварачвайцеIPF!
c. Uk: – ВивернітьPF кишені! … ВивертайтеIPF!
d. Pl: – WywróćciePF kieszenie! … WywracajcieIPF!
e. Bg: – ОбърнетеPF джобовете си! … ОбръщайтеIPF!
f. Hr: – IzvrnitePF džepove! … IzvrćiteIPF, kad vam govorim!6
As regards imperatives, I follow Kaufmann’s (2012) analysis and take it that they are
modals. Then, according to standard assumptions about the accessibility of antecedents, in
5
Here, as in (8), underlining signifies presupposition: ‘Pisal’ is underlined to show that the event referred to is
presupposed.
6
The rest of the languages resolve this case in various ways.
5
Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) (Kamp 1981), for example, the event referent of one
imperative VP is inaccessible to the event referent of another imperative VP. I therefore argue
that in imperatives, we typically do not have event token anaphora, but event type anaphora,
and that event type anaphora is sufficient to trigger the presuppositional type fake IPF in
Slavic. The discourse referents of event types––predicates––are not subject to the same
restrictions as eventive discourse referents.
Two questions arise at this point. First, do we find fake IPFs in infinitives? The answer
is, probably, yes. Consider the example below, from ParaSol.
(8) Ru: Оставлять немцам этот склад, конечно, нельзя … Я считаю, нужно его
сжечь. И сейчас же, чтобы к утру все было готово. Только поджигатьIPF–то
опасно: сарай стоит на краю города среди бедняцких дворов. (…) Стружков
шевельнулся: - - За … за … чем … поджигатьIPF?
“We are not going to leave the shed to the Germans; in my opinion we ought to
burn it down, and at once, so as to have it over and done with by morning. To just
set fire to it is dangerous: the fire might spread to the surrounding cottages. (…)”
Stružkov stirred in his chair. “Why … why … why set fire to it?”
The existential type fake IPF is also referred to in the literature as the naming the action
function of IPF, cf. e.g. Forsyth (1970). I therefore suggest that in (8), the first occurrence of
IPF podžigat’ ‘set fire to’ is existential. I also suggest that the second occurrence of IPF
podžigat’ is a presuppositional fake IPF, anaphoric to the first, existential type. Then the next
problem I will seek to solve is this.
Problem 2 – continued: d. What type of fake IPF is most widespread in infinitives––the
existential type, the presuppositional type, or some other type?
In past tense indicatives, the existential type is most widespread, cf. Grønn (2004). In
imperatives, the presuppositional type is by far the most widespread type, cf. Alvestad (2013).
Given the above, the hypotheses regarding Problem 2 are as follows.
Hypothesis 2:
a. The differences in aspect use between infinitives and imperatives are due to the fact that
infinitives can, but need not, be embedded under modal predicates, whereas imperatives are
necessity modals.
b. When an infinitive is embedded under a non-modal predicate, aspect is used as in past
tense indicatives.
c. When an infinitive is embedded under a modal predicate, aspect is used as in the
imperative.
d. When an infinitive is embedded under a non-modal predicate, the existential type fake IPF
is most widespread. When an infinitive is embedded under a modal predicate, the
presuppositional type fake IPF is most widespread.
The first occurrence of IPF podžigat’ ‘set fire to’ in (8), an existential IPF, supports
Hypothesis 2. The second occurrence of IPF podžigat’, however, is a presuppositional IPF. In
order to test the hypotheses in 2, we need more examples such as that given in (8).
6
The next question is this: In the case of presuppositional type fake IPF where both the
antecedent and the anaphor are infinitives, as in (8)––do we have event token anaphora or
event type anaphora?
Further problems to be addressed in this project:
a. What do infinitives denote/refer to? And what do subjunctives denote/refer to?
b. What are the semantic and pragmatic similarities and differences between infinitives and
subjunctives (and imperatives)?
c. How do we account for infinitives and subjunctives (and imperatives) compositionally?
d. To what extent are existing accounts of infinitives, such as Abusch (2004) and Wurmbrand
(2014), applicable to the Slavic languages, in which aspect is obligatorily present? Are there
any connections between such categorizations of infinitives, on the one hand, and the
distribution of the infinitive versus the subjunctive in Slavic, on the other hand?
Let me hypothesize w.r.t. some of these problems. In the theoretical literature,
infinitives are generally associated with non-realized situations—irrealis—and future
orientation (w.r.t. the evaluation time in the given context), cf. e.g. Bresnan (1972), Stowell
(1982), Portner (1992), Han (1998), Abusch (2004), Wurmbrand (2014), and Morita (2013).
As regards the irrealis component, Han (1998) hypothesizes that this is shared by infinitives,
subjunctives and imperatives.
The question of tense and infinitives is disputed, since infinitives lack a morphological
tense feature. If we assume that infinitives contain a covert FUT operator, we are challenged
by examples like (9) below. Interestingly, Bg uses an indicative complement in this case.7
(9) There was an explosion of cheering. Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and
wasn't at all surprised to see that Draco Malfoy hadn't joined in.
a. Pl: Harry spojrzał na stół Ślizgonów i nie zdziwił się, widząc, że Draco Malfoy
nie cieszy się razem z innymi.
b. Bg: Хари погледна към масата на "Слидерин" и въобще не остана
изненадан, че Драко Малфой не се бе присъединил към шумотевицата.
In order to arrive at a theory that can explain the distribution of subjunctives, infinitives, and
factive complements (as in 9b), I will start by decomposing the lexical semantics of the matrix
similarly to how promise and convince are decomposed by Grønn & von Stechow (2010:132).
Whereas imperatives contain a covert modal operator with the force of necessity,
infinitives are more often than not embedded under overt modal operators, as in (1)
(necessary), or the equivalents of attitude verbs such as expected, thought, claimed, etc.
The increase of the use of the subjunctive at the expense of the infinitive is frequently
discussed in the literature on the Balkan Sprachbund (see, e.g., Mišeska-Tomić (2006)). This
phenomenon is illustrated for Hr in (10) below.
(10) Hr: Ali kako je onda moguće da se tako brzo, energično i lako odrekao nečega
tako dubokog? (…) Čovjek, naravno, ima pravo da se pribojava i malo
vjerovatnih opasnosti. (…) Dozvolimo i to da (…), i da je htio izbjeći daljnje
kontakte s policijom, (…)
But how was it possible (for him) to take something so much a part of him and cast
it off so fast, so forcefully, and so lightly? (…) Granted, a man has a right to fear
7
The conjunction če is referred to as an indicative complementizer in, i.a., Todorović (2012) and Mišeska-Tomić
(2006).
7
dangers that are less than to occur. Granted, he (…), and desired to avoid further
contact with the police (…)
Based on examples such as (9b) and (10), my final problem is this: what factors govern the
use of infinitival versus subjunctive complements in Sr, Hr, and Sn, and subjunctive versus
indicative complements in Bg and Mk? And how do these phenomena relate to aspect, tense,
and time?
4. Findings so far8
First, based on (1) it would seem that the use of aspect in the infinitive is almost identical to
that in the imperative. My survey, however, suggests that this is not the case. For example, the
East Slavic languages use PF significantly more often in infinitives than in the imperative. (11)
below is representative.9
(11)
a. Ru: Так ты думаешь, я не знаю, кто мог сделатьPF такую подлость –
испортитьPF тесто! [ParaSol. Ostrovskij: KZS]
‘So you think I don’t know who could do such a dirty trick – spoil the dough!’
b. By: (…) я не ведаю, хто мог зрабіцьPF такую подласць – сапсавацьPF
цеста?
c. Uk: (…) я не знаю, хто міг вчинитиPF таку підлоту – зіпсуватиPF
тісто!
d. US: (…) zo njewěm, štó móhł tajke njedočinštwo zwotaćPF – mi cesto
skazyćPF!
e. Sk: (…) že neviem, kto mohol spraviťPF také svinstvo, kto pokazil cesto!
f. Cz: (…) že já nevím, kdo mohl udělatPF takovou ohavnost a zkazitPF těsto?
g. Sn: (…) da ne vem, kdo je bil zmožen napravitiPF tako malopridnost –
pokvaritiPF testo!
In Bg, Sr, Hr, and Mk, the subjunctive is used.
h. Bg: (…) кой е могъл да извършиPF такава мръсотия, да развалиPF
тестото?
i. Sr: (…) da ja ne znam ko je mogao da učiniPF takvu podlost - da pokvariPF
testo.
j. Hr: (…) da ja ne znam tko je mogao da učiniPF takovu podlost - da pokvariPF
tijesto.
k. Mk: (…) кој можел да направиPF таква подлост - да го расипеPF
тестото!
PF is used in both cases in all the languages in question.
I started my survey of aspect use in Slavic infinitives (and subjunctives) by isolating
all non-negated10 infinitives in the Russian (original) version of Ostrovskij’s Kak zakaljalas’
stal’ in ParaSol. In the initial survey, where the infinitives investigated refer to any one of
Vendler’s [1957] situation types, the share of IPF infinitives is more than ten percentage
8
Sections 4 and 5 will be published in Alvestad (to appear).
The Polish translation of KZS is currently (i.e., as of ultimo August, 2015) unavailable in Parasol.
10
I excluded occurrences of не + infinitive. Cases where only the matrix predicate is negated are included, as
well as (some very few) instances of нельзя + infinitive.
9
8
points lower than that for imperatives: 49%, as opposed to 60% for imperatives. When only
telic predicates are taken into consideration, and when instances of нельзя + infinitive are
excluded (alongside не + infinitive) the share is even lower: 15%. As far as Croatian is
concerned, which for imperatives finds itself in the middle continuum of languages, using IPF
in 45% of the cases investigated in Alvestad (2013), PF is used in more than 85% of the nonnegated infinitives. PF is also used in approximately 85% of the cases in which a Ru infinitive
is translated with da + a present tense form. In other words, the use of aspect in the infinitive
(and the subjunctive, as the case may be) so far seems to be almost identical in the East-Slavic
languages, represented by Ru, and the middle continuum of languages, represented by Hr: IPF
is used in only 15% of the cases, when only non-negated telic predicates are taken into
account.11
Against the background of these findings several questions arise, one of which is this:
Under what circumstances is IPF used in telic predicates in the infinitive (and the subjunctive,
as the case may be) in the various Slavic languages?
5. Conclusion and further outlook
I raised the question of how aspect is used in Slavic infinitives (and subjunctives, as the case
may be). I hypothesized that the East-West divide that has been observed for other verb forms
and contexts of use can be observed in infinitives too. Although the present study is work in
progress, we have seen that this may not be the case: Russian, which uses IPF in 60% of
imperatives (cf. Alvestad 2013), uses IPF in 15% of infinitives, and the latter is also the case
for Croatian, which uses IPF in 45% of imperatives. A larger database is needed to conclude,
but these initial results are intriguing all the same. These results and various examples led me
to raise further questions, such as under what circumstances IPF is used in the infinitive (and
subjunctive), and whether the fake IPF occurs in the infinitive (and subjunctive) and, if so,
what type is most widespread—the existential, the presuppositional or some other type. The
next steps in this project will involve extending the database and deciding on how to
categorize the various matrix predicates involved, so as to see whether the matrix has any
impact on aspect use. Hopefully, these steps will eventually give us a clear answer to Problem
1 and shed light on the questions comprising Problem 2. The project should shed some light
on the long unresolved issue of infinitives, tense and time as well.
11
As far as the share of infinitives versus subjunctives (i.e., da + a present tense form) in Hr is concerned, the
numbers based on Ostrovskij´s Kak zakaljalas´ stal´ in the ParaSol corpus are as follows. When a Ru infinitive is
translated into Hr with either an infinitive or a subjunctive, it is translated to an infinitive in just approximately
36% of the cases. (Occasionally, Ru infinitives are translated into Hr with nouns, or past or present tense forms
without da.)
9
References
Abusch, Dorit. 2004. On the Temporal Composition of Infinitives. Ch. 1 in Gueron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds.),
The Syntax of Time, MIT Press.
Alvestad, Silje Susanne. to appear. Aspect in the Slavic Infinitive (and Subjunctive). Proceedings of the Fifth
Conference of the International Commission on Aspectology of the International Committee of Slavists,
Kyoto, November 13-15, 2015.
Alvestad, Silje Susanne. 2013. – Beware of fakes! Fake imperfectives in the Slavic imperative. PhD dissertation.
University of Oslo.
Benacchio, Rosanna. 2010. Vid i kategorija vežlivosti v slavjanskom imperative: sravnitel’nyj analiz. Munich:
Otto Sagner.
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Dickey, Stephen McCartney. 2000. Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A Cognitive Approach. Stanford, California:
CSLI Publications.
Forsyth, J. 1970. A grammar of aspect. Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Grønn, Atle. 2004. The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian Factual Imperfective. Doctoral thesis. Oslo:
Unipub.
Grønn, Atle. 2013. Imperfectivity and complete events. In F. Josephson & I. Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of
Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–165.
Grønn, Atle and Arnim von Stechow. 2010. Complement tense in contrast: The SOT parameter in Russian and
English, in: Grønn, Atle and Irena Marijanović (eds.), Russian in Contrast, Oslo Studies in Language
2(1), 109-153.
Han, Chung-hye. 1998. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal
Grammar. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The Grammatical Ingredients of Counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2), 231–270.
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J. A. G.; Janssen, T. M. V.
and Stokhof, M.B.J. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Amsterdam, 277-322.
Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. Springer.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1995. A Time-Relational Analysis of Russian Aspect, in: Language, Vol. 71, No. 4, December
1995, 669-695.
Mišeska-Tomić, Olga. 2006. Ch. 6 Infinitives and Subjunctives, in Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-syntactic
Features, Dordrecht: Springer, 413-657.
Morita, Hisashi. 2013. Unification of the Semantics of the Infinitive in English, Miscelanea: Journal of English
and American Studies 45, 31-52.
Portner, Paul. 1992. Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. Electronic Doctoral
Dissertations for UMass Amherst. Paper AAI9305882. Available at
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9305882
Prokofeva, R. 1959. How the steel was tempered. 2. ed. Moscow: Foreign languages publishing house.
Translation of Nikolaj Ostrovskij’s Kak zakaljalas’ stal’, 1936.
Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561-570.
Todorović, Nataša. 2012. The Indicative and Subjunctive da-complements in Serbian. A Syntactic-Semantic
Approach. PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Chicago.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. The Philosophical Review 66(2), 143-160.
von Stechow, Arnim. 2005. Temporal orientation of modals and attitudes (and covert temporal operators). Draft
of 26.12.2005 available at http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Handouts/Cornell_April4.05.pdf
von Waldenfels, Ruprecht. 2012. Aspect in the imperative across Slavic: A corpus-driven pilot study. In A.
Grønn & A. Pazelskaya (eds.) The Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language 4(1), 141–154.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 403-447.
10