Paraphrastic Imperfectivesin Latvian and Upper Sorbian
In the contemporary Slavic literary languages and in contemporary
Lithuanian, verbs derived by means of prefixes with lexical (including
spatial and directional) meaning are aspectually perfective. They are
normally paired
with lexically synonymous verbs that
share the same prefixes but whose stems have been
reimperfectivized
by means of suffixation and/or
suppletion: cf. Russian pf.
Nevertheless, according to Mathiassen, Latvian verbs do exhibit
aspectual oppositions, even though contemporary Latvian, unlike
Lithuanian, does not allow secondary imperfectives to be formed
with the help of suffixation
(1996 [1997]:116). Accordingly,
lexical derivation by means of verb-stem prefixation in Latvian yields
verbs that are in fact neutral with regard to aspect (e.g.,
pārrakstīt
While Latvian seems to have never developed imperfectivizing
morphology, Upper Sorbian, like the Slavic languages generally, did
develop formal means of imperfectivizing prefixed perfective verbs
(viz., verb-stem suffixation). Nevertheless, Toops (1998:292)
concluded that [i]mperfective verb derivation in contemporary
USo is a largely inoperative grammatical process
; indeed,
Micha&lbar;k (1961:42 [1996:73]) notes that the usual imperfective
counterparts to the pf. verbs paraphrases
cited above,
therefore, the meaning of the Upper Sorbian prefixed perfectives is
expressed in the imperfective aspect by means of paraphrases
consisting of the corresponding basic (imperfective) verb and a
spatial or directional adverb that is synonymous with the prefix of
the perfective verb.
Where no adverb exists to express the meaning of a given prefix,
Upper Sorbian further resembles contemporary Latvian in exhibiting
verbs that are now aspectually neutral, e.g.,
Using various grammaticality judgments elicited from native
speakers of Latvian and Upper Sorbian, the proposed paper provides a
descriptive and contrastive analysis of paraphrastic
imperfectives
in the two languages. Despite their remarkable
formal and morphosyntactic similarities (e.g., the paraphrastic
imperfectives of both languages are confined to the expression of
strictly eventive presents), it is concluded that the Latvian and
Upper Sorbian verb systems actually exhibit divergent degrees of
grammaticalization. Upon closer analysis, Latvian paraphrastic
imperfectives
prove not to be imperfective paraphrases of
prefixed perfective verbs at all; rather, the Latvian situation is
concluded to be primordial, reflecting the fact that perfectivization
by means of stem prefixation is the result of a type of lexical
overspecification that has resulted in increased telicity and,
ultimately, perfectivization. Upper Sorbian, in contrast, has largely
(but not completely) abandoned its formerly imperfectivizing
morphology (or relegated it to other functions), and
paraphrastic imperfectives
are genuinely motivated by a
need to express the meanings of prefixed perfective verbs in the
imperfective aspect as well. In the Upper Sorbian literary language
(as opposed to the dialects or colloquial language) this results in
verbal paraphrases that are often lexically
References
Blandow, Christian.
Mathiassen, Terje.
Mathiassen, Terje.
Micha&lbar;k, Frido.
Schuster-&Shachek;ewc, H.
Toops, Gary H.