complex verb formation in english and russian

Transcription

COMPLEX VERB FORMATION
IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN
«TESI DI LAUREA» IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, ITALY
JULY 2002
FRANCESCA MASINI
Supervisor: Prof. Sergio Scalise
Assistant supervisors: Dr. Antonietta Bisetto and Dr. Susan Eerdmans
This is a reformatted version of my thesis.
Contents are identical, but page numbers are different.
© Copyright Francesca Masini (2002)
All Rights Reserved
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements
IV
Introduction
1
Chapter I: Verb-Particles in English
3
1.
Introductory Remarks
3
2.
The Subject Matter: Verb-Particles in English
2.1. Words or Phrases?
2.2. Compound or “Postfixed” Words?
2.3. What Kind of Verbs with Particles?
2.4. Criteria for Distinguishing Particles from Other
Parts of Speech
5
6
8
10
3.
Conditions for V-P Separability
3.1. Are V-Ps Discontinuous Verbs?
3.2. Restrictions on the Position of P
3.3. Semantics and Syntactical Cohesion
15
15
17
20
4.
Particles as Modifiers of the Verb
4.1. Semantic Modifications
21
22
22
25
26
29
4.1.1. Systematic Combinations
4.1.2. Metaphorical Combinations
4.2. Aspectual and Aktionsart Modifications
4.3. Functional-grammatical Modifications
5.
V-Ps as a Base for Further Morphological Operations
5.1. Deriving Nouns from V-Ps
5.2. Deriving Adjectives from V-Ps
5.3. Deverbal Nouns/Adjectives and Affixation
5.3.1. Nominal Inflection: Plurals in –s
5.3.2. Deverbal Agentive Nouns in –er and their
Interaction with Inflection
6.
12
32
32
35
36
36
5.4. Special Instances of V-Ps and Noun Derivation
5.5. V-Ps and Prefixes
37
40
42
Conclusion
43
Notes Chapter I
44
I
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
Chapter II: Prefixed Verbs in Russian
51
1.
The Subject Matter: Prefixed Verbs in Russian
1.1. Slavic/Russian vs. “Latin” Verbal Prefixes
1.2. The Analysis by Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993)
and Di Sciullo (1994)
1.3. The Analysis by Varela & Haouet (2001)
1.4. Prefixes in Russian: Aspectual vs. Non Aspectual
51
51
2.
Verbal Prefixation as a Morphological Process
2.1. Verbal Prefixes and Aspect
2.2. Imperfective Derivation
2.3. A Formal Description of Prefixes
2.4. Prefixed-postfixed Verbs
57
57
61
62
66
3.
Prefixes as Modifiers of the Verb
3.1. Aspectual and Semantic Variations
68
68
69
69
70
71
3.1.1. Pure Aspectual Variation
3.1.2. Sublexical Variation
3.1.3. Lexical Variation
3.2. Syntactical Variations
4.
3.
Prefixes and their Meanings
4.1. Main Meanings of Verbal Prefixes
4.2. Brief History of the Semantic Studies of
Russian Verbal Prefixes
5.1.1. Recursion
5.1.2. Multiple Prefixation
5.2. Suffixation
5.2.1. Deverbal Nouns
5.2.1.1. Abstract Nouns
5.2.1.2. Nouns Denoting Persons
5.2.1.3. Nouns Denoting Objects
5.2.2. Deverbal Adjectives
5.2.2.1. The Suffix -n
5.2.2.2. Suffixes Forming Qualitative Adjectives
II
75
75
92
Prefixed Verbs as a Base for Further Morphological
Operations
5.1. Prefixation
6.
53
55
56
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
97
97
97
97
98
Conclusion
98
Notes Chapter II
99
Contents
Chapter III: A Comparative Analysis
104
1.
Particles and Prefixes as Modifiers of the Verb
1.1. Lexical and Aspectual/Aktionsart Modifications
1.2. Syntactical Modifications
104
104
109
2.
Some Diachronic and Typological Considerations
110
3.
Searching for Semantic Correspondences
3.1. The data
112
112
Notes Chapter III
117
Conclusion
119
Appendix 1: English Verb-Particles
121
Appendix 2: Russian Prefixed Verbs
124
References
136
III
Acknowledgements
First of all, I thank Professor Sergio Scalise and Dr Antonietta Bisetto for assisting me with
readiness and competence during the writing of my thesis. I thank Dr. Susan Eerdmans
for revising the chapter about English and checking the adequacy of the language, and Dr.
Gabriella Imposti for her suggestions and corrections concerning the Russian part. I also
thank heartily my parents for their patience and support. Last but not least, I owe a special
thank-you to Benedetta and Yuri, who shared my all difficulties and joys during these months
and whose support was very important for carrying out this work.
IV
Introduction
Introduction
This work stems from the idea that surface structures belonging to different languages
can have one and the same function within their respective systems. In particular, the
discussion takes into consideration the formation of complex verbs in English and Russian.
The verbal systems of these languages are nourished by two very productive derivational
processes, i.e. the addition of post-verbal particles to English simple verbs and the prefixation
of Russian verbs. Though particles and prefixes are morphologically different elements, their
semantic and grammatical functions seem to be very similar. This work aims at providing an
analysis of both English verb-particles and Russian prefixed verbs along with a comparison
between the two.
The first chapter deals with verb-particles in English. After discussing the discontinuous
and hence problematic structure of these complex verbs, the analysis proceeds to discuss
the types of modification particles introduce in the verbs they add to, which is the core of
the whole work and the basis upon which particles and prefixes are compared. The first
chapter concludes by giving a brief account of the derivational and inflectional operations
verb-particles can be subject to. The second chapter follows the same pattern. It sets out
by discussing Russian prefixes from a formal viewpoint. Then, it proceeds to outline the
semantic, aspectual and grammatical influence of prefixes on the original verb. Finally, it
gives an account of the way in which further derivational processes may interact with verbal
prefixation. The third and last chapter will compare the results of the previous analyses
in order to bring some evidence of the functional correspondence between particles and
prefixes. The discussion ends with a tentative presentation of data aimed at showing some
semantic similarities between the two elements at issue.
The dictionaries that have been used as reference works and sources for the whole
discussion are quoted in the end references.
1
Verb-Particles in English
Chapter I
1. Introductory Remarks
This chapter deals with so-called Verb-Particle constructions (V-P)1 in English, of
which (1) offers some examples:
(1)
He wrote up the essay
The teacher gave out the sheets to the students
They brought up their children in Canada
Two different approaches can be adopted in addressing these verbs, especially with
reference to the position the particle can take with respect to the (transitive) verb and the
nominal phrase (NP) that functions as the object of the verb. This first section deals with the
two approaches and explains why one was chosen as a basis for the whole discussion.
It is known that both sentences in (2) are acceptable in English:
(2)
He wrote up the essay
He wrote the essay up
It is clear that the movement to which up is subject constitutes a problem and can be
interpreted in different ways.
The first, more recent approach can be defined as “syntacticist”; it considers the
postverbal particle as a preposition that is part of a “small clause” and thus, as a syntactic
head independent from the verb (cf. Aarts 1989, den Dikken 1995, Guéron 1990, Kayne
1985, Koopman 1991 and 1993). The second approach can instead be defined as “lexicalist”;
this regards the V-P as a complex predicate and thus as a single lexical item (cf. Dixon 1991,
Johnson 1991, Neeleman 1994, Pesetsky 1993, Selkirk 1982). This work follows the second
approach for the reasons that follow.
The “syntacticist” approach is widely discussed in den Dikken (1995) and is based on
a series of syntactic tests that seem to support the hypothesis that verb and particle are two
independent elements on a syntactic basis. In den Dikkenʼs analysis, particles are defined
as “non-Case assigning argument-taking prepositional elements”, i.e. prepositions acting
3
as ergative heads of “small clauses”. These particles may be modified by adverbs such as
right, straight, all and by interjections such as the hell / the heck (cf. Fraser 1976, 27). The
example in (3) shows how the insertion of an adverb between the NP/object and the particle
is perfectly acceptable:
(3)
John threw the ball right/straight back/up/down2
What den Dikken claims is that the adverb in that position functions as a modifier
of the particle, which consequently should be considered as an independent syntactic unit.
However, as den Dikken himself says, one could argue that not all adverbs can participate in
this type of modification, as the following examples show:
(4)
a. *John threw the ball quickly back/up/down3
b. We painted the house (*completely) up red4
On the other hand, the example in (5) shows that the adverb quickly, which in (4a)
forms an agrammatical string, can be used with another particle and produce a grammatical
sentence:
(5)
John threw the ball quickly through the window5
As a matter of fact, den Dikken admits that the contrast between the sentences in (4a)
and (5) cannot be explained by the approach he supports. During the discussion, we will
see how the verb to throw through should be considered a “verb plus adverb” rather than a
V-P. However, there are some examples of proper V-Ps6 into which lexical material can be
inserted, as in the example below:
(6)
John looked the information right up
While the sentence in (6) can be acceptable in an informal, colloquial context, the
ones in (7) turn out to be agrammatical:
(7)
*John looked right up the information
*He gulped straight down the milk7
4
Therefore, the insertion of lexical material inside V-Ps is possible but not systematic:
insertable adverbs are limited in number and colloquial in style (right, straight, all)8, and in
addition, are subject to restrictions on their insertability with respect to the position of the
NP/object (see examples (6) and (7)).
The “lexicalist” approach has been adopted in this work for the following reasons:
-
the addition of P to V causes the verb to undergo semantic, aspectual and, above
all, syntactic changes, as it may change the argument structure (a-structure) of the verb
itself9; this is why the addition of P to V should be regarded as a morphological process: as
Simpson (1983) states, according to the “Direct syntactic encoding” (cf. Kaplan and Bresnan
1980 and Bresnan (ed.) 1982)10, the a-structure cannot be created or destroyed in the syntax:
keeping this in mind, one could add that, as a rule, morphology “changes” (lexical categories,
a-structure, etc.), while syntax “moves” elements, so that the “internal” modification of a
lexical entry is due to morphology and not to syntax;
-
the complex predicate formed by the addition of P to V becomes the base for
further morphological processes, especially the formation of new nouns and adjectives11.
Thus, in the following sections, V-Ps will be analysed as complex predicates. In
section 2, we will define the subject matter more precisely, trying to collocate V-Ps among
the large group of complex predicates and to distinguish them from other types of similar
constructions such as “verb plus adverb” (V+Adv) and “verb plus preposition” (V+Prep).
In section 3, we will deal with the separability of V and P and the restrictions to which
it is subject, considering the complex verbs at issue as a possible type of discontinuous
predicates. The next two sections will explain, respectively, the lexical and morphological
effects of the union of V and P in a single complex verb. More specifically, in section 4 we
will analyse the types of modifications P makes to the base verb, while in section 5 we will
show how V-Ps can turn out to be a base for further derivational processes.
2. The Subject Matter: Verb-Particles in English
This work deals with Verb-Particles in English, usually known as “phrasal verbs”. The
definition of these constructions is rather controversial, since their features can be attributed
partly to single lexical entries, partly to phrases. Simpson (1983) and Azzaro (1992) state
that several scholars consider them as compounds, among them Bolinger (1971), Palmer
(1974), Dowty (1979), Stowell (1981) and Selkirk (1982). Moreover, Selkirk (1982), Miller
5
(1993) and Goh (2001) speak of a “reanalysis”12 which the verb and the particle undergo,
forming a single complex verb.
Above, we claimed that this work would follow the “lexicalist approach”. However,
despite considering V-Ps as complex verbs and thus as single “words”, it is still the case that
they have some phrasal features, most of all separability, which sometimes prevents them
from forming a syntactic island. We will first try to define to what extent these constructions
should be considered as single lexical entries. Secondly, we will discuss what type of
complex words V-Ps belong to and put forward two alternative proposals: composition
and “postfixation”. Thirdly, we will propose a number of criteria to distinguish postverbal
particles from prepositions (Prep) and adverbs (Adv) and, consequently, proper V-Ps from
V+Advs and V+Preps. Finally, we will try to determine what type of verbs particles can add
to in order to form a V-P.
2.1. Words or Phrases?
V-P features are attributable partly to words (in particular to compounds), partly to
phrases. It remains to be defined which structure V-Ps are closer to. The fact that V-Ps can
be distinguished from constructions such as V+Prep and V+Adv (see below) suggests that
Ps are much more linked to the verb than to the NP. We will now try to analyse V-Ps in
deeper detail, partially applying a test which appeared in Bisetto and Scalise (1999)13 and
was taken from ten Hacken (1994). The test consists in a series of criteria which are aimed
at distinguishing compound words from phrases:
a)
the deletion of the head in case of coordination may happen with phrases but not with
compounds:
He often argues with his father, never with his mother
*She gave up smoking, and he, up drinking
b)
wh-movement of one of the two elements:
Who did he give his book?
To whom did he give his book?
What did you give up?
*Up what did you give?
Who does John get at ?
*At whom does John get?
6
c)
topicalization of the non-head element:
Up stood the witness
Down he sat
*Down he broke
*In he gave
d)
the insertion of lexical material may take place in phrases but not in compounds,
which should form a syntactic island; (transitive) V-Ps allow this insertion, which
is at times non-obligatory, at others obligatory (with pronouns), and at others still
forbidden14:
The man figures out the answer
The man figures the answer out
She stirred it up
*She stirred up it
I called up the man who left
*I called the man who left up
The test gives the following results:
Table 1
Compounds
Phrases
V-P
a
–
+
–
b
–
+
–
c
–
+
+/–
d
–
+
+/–
The results of the test are not univocal. This shows that V-Ps carry features of both compounds
and phrases. V-Ps, however, come closer to compounds than to phrases. Table 1 shows that
the real problem rests with (d), i.e. with the possibility of inserting lexical material in this
type of construction. As for (c), one should bear in mind the criteria adopted by Fraser (1976,
3-4) for distinguishing between V-P and V+Adv15, according to which sat down is not a pure
V-P construction but rather a V+Adv.
It will now prove useful to introduce considerations of a semantic nature, since it
7
appears that constructions that are semantically more opaque have greater syntactical cohesion
with respect to more transparent constructions. Let us consider the verb to sit down. Aside
from the more literal meaning of ʻsittingʼ, that same verb may have a more metaphorical
meaning, used in the military jargon, i.e. ʻto campʼ. In the first case, the particle down may
be construed as an intensifying P which adds to the base verb, thereby forming a V-P, or else
as an adverb which gives rise to a V+Adv construction. This is one of the many borderline
cases, when it is not clear whether we are in presence of a true and proper V-P or else of a
V+Adv. The verbʼs syntactical behaviour seems to call for this latter solution, but we cannot
simply exclude the former, especially when considering that the verb to sit down originates
the corresponding noun sit-down16, and that in certain contexts the particle clearly shows an
intensifying function17, like in (8a):
(8)
a. Sit yourself down and have a cup of tea
b. *Down the army sat to have a rest
The syntactically non-cohesive behaviour of the verb to sit down can be justified
in the light of its being a borderline case between V-P and V+Adv. When we consider the
second meaning of the verb, i.e. ʻto campʼ, its syntactical behaviour is far more cohesive,
as in the example (8b). In this case, topicalization generates an agrammatical string18: to
sit down bears a metaphorical meaning, the two elements that make up the verb are more
“combined” and the overall syntactic behaviour of the verb is more cohesive.
These semantic considerations, as we will see in section 4, are of major importance
in understanding what kind of modification the verb undergoes because of particle addition.
For the purposes of the present section, however, we can say that semantics appears to have
a key role in identifying V-Ps. Borderline cases such as the one previously examined are
numerous and difficult to define, besides displaying an inconsistent syntactical behaviour.
In section 2.4, we will however outline the criteria upon which we will operate a distinction
between V-Ps (which we shall consider as complex words) and phrases such as V+Preps and
V+Advs.
2.2. Compound or “Postfixed” Words?
In the previous section, V-Ps were defined as complex words, but what type of
complex words? We will now take into consideration two major hypotheses: compounding
and “postfixation”.
8
We have already cited some authors who propose to analyse V-Ps as compounds, and
among them Selkirk (1982), who raised the issue of the head of these compounds. English
compounds are usually endocentric and right-headed. Among the very few exceptions to this
general trend, Selkirk indicates V-P constructions, in which the verb on the left acts as the head
of the compound. In justifying this type of formation, Selkirk has elaborated a modification
of the “Right-hand Head Rule” (RHR) proposed by Williams (1981)19, according to which,
“in a word-internal configuration,
Xn
P
Xm
Q
where X stands for a syntactic feature complex and where Q contains no category with the
feature complex X, Xm is the head of Xn” (Selkirk 1982, 20). The modified RHR implies that
the head of an Xn word be the last element on the right which contains the category X, thus
justifying the left-position of the head in V-Ps.
A second hypothesis is that of “postfixation”. But what is “postfixation” and further,
why should we speak of “postfixation” and not suffixation? The first and simplest explanation
could be that suffixes usually modify the category of the base they add to, while particles do
not. Rather, they add information that modifies the semantics, the aspect and the a-structure
of the verb, without becoming the head of the complex word. In this sense, particles are
somewhat similar to the “adjuncts” or “modifiers” defined by Di Sciullo and Klipple (1993)20.
The key difference is that particles are added in postverbal position.
It will now be useful to recall some diachronic data in an attempt to validate the
existence of what we will call “postfixes”. More particularly, works by Bacchielli (1986), Berg
(1998), Brinton (1988), Goh (2001) and Jonah-Lin (2000) will be taken into consideration.
In Old English (OE), verbal prefixation as well as inflection were widespread, and
therefore, preverbal modification was in harmony with both the syntactical structure and the
basic word order of the language (SOV). In the passage from OE to Middle English (ME), a
modification of the word order (WO)21 took place:
SOV → SVO
This syntactical modification also produced morphological effects, inducing the
fall of OEʼs verb-prefixal system22 and introducing a general trend for postmodification23.
9
The change therefore also had an impact on the structure of complex verbs, that moved
from a prefixal or at least preverbal type of modification to a postverbal one, which we can
summarize as follows24:
Pref./Prep. + V (OE) →
V + Prep./Part. (ME)
There follows an example of this type of structural change25:
(9)
OE
→
be-lucan
Modern English
to lock up
In ME, OE prefixed words were therefore superseded by V+P constructions, which
were then subject to reanalysis. The postverbal element can no longer be defined as “pre-fix”,
for obvious reasons, but nonetheless, it accomplishes the same task, that is, it contributes
new information to the semantics of the verb without changing its category. To categorize
such an element is not easy, however, it corresponds to what we nowadays call a “particle”.
V-Ps can therefore be interpreted in two different ways: we can consider them as
endocentric compounds of the [V P]V type or else assume them to be “postfixed” verbs of
the type [ [ ]V + P]V. We support the latter hypothesis, considering particles in proper V-P
constructions as adjuncts or modifiers of the original verb.
2.3. What Kind of Verbs with Particles?
The formation of verb-particles as a morphological process (whatever process it is)
implies some restrictions on the base. As particles cannot add to all the verbs, it follows that
they select them according to their properties. Let us try to consider some of these properties:
a) syntactical/grammatical restrictions: particles add to both transitive and intransitive
verbs:
(10)
to fall (INTR.)
→
to fall down
to put (TRAN.)
→
to put down
b) semantic restrictions: according to Fraser (1976, 11), particles add to dynamic but
not to stative verbs such as to know, to hope, to resemble;
c) phonological restrictions: Fraserʼs analysis of verbs that combine with particles is
almost totally based on phonological considerations (1976, 13-6). In particular, P can
add to:
10
-
monosyllabic verbs26, e.g. to make (out), to put (away), to take (up), etc.
-
phonetically bisyllabic but phonologically monosyllabic verbs27 that are
initially stressed, e.g. to gather (up), to fiddle (away), to tighten (up), etc.
-
few phonologically bisyllabic verbs, e.g. to carry out, to section off, to argue
down, etc. Of course, there are a few exceptions, i.e. verbs such as to separate
out or to summarize up.
d) morphological restrictions: as a consequence of the phonological considerations
above, we might suggest that particles tend to add to native verbal roots whose
phonological pattern resembles the one required by the particles (see above); in
addition, we should take into account some diachronic considerations pointed out by
Bacchielli (1986): the entrance of the P in the English verbal system between OE and
ME is a consequence of several factors, among which the huge importation of Latin
and French learned words; these terms were given an everyday phrasal alternative
by using structurally simple verbs of Germanic derivation; this might be one of the
reasons why Ps seem to add to native Germanic roots rather than to foreign ones;
moreover, Fraser (1976, 9) quotes a series of verbs which frequently appear with Ps,
among which to get (which seems to occur with almost every particle), to do, to fall,
to go, to keep, to make, to put, to run, to take, to turn; it is worth noting that all these
verbs are of Germanic derivation.
These considerations are naturally not sufficient to make verb-particles totally predictable,
but help give an idea of what kind of verbs can be modified by particles.
To conclude, one might ask whether verbs are the only base to which particles can
add. In this respect, we will add some brief considerations about Ps and the “Unitary Base
Hypothesis” (UBH)28.
According to Bauer (1983), “V+P” compound nouns like put-on, drop-out, etc. are
nominalizations from phrasal verbs. Other types of compound nouns are what he calls “P+N”
compounds, e.g. aftertaste, in-crowd, off-islander. It seems to us that they are rather Prep+N
or Adv+N compounds. As for adjectives, Bauer (1983) quotes examples such as before-tax
and in-depth, which he defines “P+N” and which, again, seem to consist of a noun and a
Prep or an Adv. Other examples of compound adjectives are of the “V-P” type, which, in
Bauerʼs very own words, in most cases derive from V+Preps or V+Advs, e.g. tow-away,
wrap-around. Finally, the author quotes some compound adverbs, e.g. flat out, off-hand,
over-night. Here the first two examples are slang words in which it is difficult to decide
whether out and off are particles, adverbs or prepositions, whereas over-night seems to be
composed of a Prep and a noun29.
11
Consequently, it might be argued that current particles, as heirs to ancient verbal
prefixes, can attach only to verbs. In this case, nouns and adjectives containing a particle
would only be deverbal formations (cf. section 5). Of course, further investigation is necessary
to ascertain the cogency of this argument.
2.4. Criteria for Distinguishing Particles from Other Parts of Speech
We saw how particles contribute to the formation of new verbs in English. Be it
compounding or postfixation, one needs to distinguish between particles and other similar
parts of speech, such as adverbs and prepositions, which often follow English verbs, thereby
generating verbal phrases. In the analysis below, taken from Fraser (1976, 2-4), a distinction
between V-Ps and V+Preps and V-Ps and V+Advs is made with the help of criteria associated
with the syntactical behaviour of these constructions.
Criteria for distinguishing V-Ps from V+Preps or V+Prepositional Phrases (PrepP)30:
a)
whereas numerous adverbs can precede PrepPs, they cannot be inserted between V
and P in V-Ps31:
(11)
Harry looked furtively over the fence
[V+PrepP]
*Harry looked furtively over the client
[V-P]
Harry furtively looked over the client
Harry looked over the client furtively
b)
PrepPs can be topicalized, whereas P(+NP)s cannot:
(12)
Off you run now!
*Out he took the diploma
c)
PrepPs act as syntactical units in coordinated sentences where the head is elided,
whereas this type of construction is not acceptable with V-Ps (cf. Ross 1967):
(13)
He sped up the street, and she, up the alleyway
*He sped up the process, and she, up the distribution
d)
usually, prepositions are weakly stressed, and are at times preceded by a short pause,
whereas with V-Ps the main stress falls on the P and the V gets a secondary stress32:
(14)
She RAN33 off [f] the stage
*She RAN off the pamphlets
She ran OFF the pamphlets
12
Criteria for distinguishing V-Ps from V+Advs:
a)
when an action is nominalized, the adverb is to be found only after the NP/object,
while the P of V-Ps comes straight after the V:
(15)
The running of the people out of the building held up the traffic
*The running of time out worried the chess-player
The running out of time worried the chess-player
b)
in coordinated sentences where the head happens to be deleted, the Adv acts like a
constituent, while the P does not:
(16)
Jones pulled the old tablecloth off, and Peters, the new one on
*Jones pulled the deal off, and Peters, the money in
c)
adverbial elements can modify V+Adv combinations, but cannot interpose between
V and P in V-Ps34:
(17)
The debator drew the lucky number only part of the way out
*The debator drew his opponent only part of the way out
d)
the Adv may be contrastively stressed, whereas P cannot:
(18)
I said to carry the prop ON, not OFF
*I said to carry the deception ON, not OFF
In reading Fraserʼs work, one can infer that Ps are considered as separate from
Preps and Advs, and that therefore, they have their own meaning and their own function.
An attempt at categorizing English particles separately is made in Brinton (1988), where
English particles are treated as aspectualizers or Aktionsart markers. It should however be
noted that Diensberg (1990) sheds a different light on Brintonʼs analysis by stating that
particles are indeed often used as aspectual markers, but they can also be used as purely
lexical rather than aspectual modifiers.
We will here consider the multifaceted role that particles can play as verb modifiers.
Ps can in fact modify Vs not only from a semantic but also from an aspectual and functionalsyntactical point of view, given that the particles can modify the argument structure of the
verb itself. For the time being, we will assume that, as a consequence of their multiple role as
verb modifiers, Ps have a status of their own in language and should therefore be considered
as “modifying postfixes”. This means they should be kept separate from prepositions and
adverbs, though they frequently maintain their semantic features, being historically related
to them. As a consequence of the particlesʼ “autonomy” from other parts of speech, it is
hopeful to give a list of proper “particles”, i.e. of those elements which at least once occur in
13
a V-P. On the one hand, Fraser (1976, 5) gives the following list of 16 Ps:
(19)
about, across, along, around, aside, away, back, by, down, forth, in, off, on, out, over, up
On the other, Bacchielli (1986, 103) offers the following list of 17 Ps, which slightly differ
from the one in (19):
(20)
about, across, (a)round, away, at, by, down, for, in, off, on, out, over, through, to, up,
with
The two scholars agree with respect to about, across, (a)round, away, by, down, in, off, on,
out, over, up, but disagree on other particles, i.e. along, aside, at, back, for, forth, through, to,
with. Among these, we feel to exclude aside, at, for, to and with, as no examples of true V-Ps
containing them could be found, and forth, as it is an obsolete form corresponding to out. As
for the particles along, back, through, see the following examples of V-Ps:
(21)
to drive along
to think back, to carry back, to say back, to put st back
to put through, to read through, to be through
Further, we suggest that upon and apart should be added to the list of particles, as they occur
in V-Ps such as to put upon and to take apart. Thus our list is made up as follows:
(22)
about, across, along, apart, (a)round, away, back, by, down, in, off, on, out, over,
through, up
In the following discussion, we will adopt Fraserʼs criteria (illustrated above) for
distinguishing real V-Ps (i.e. the subject matter of this work) from V+Advs and V+Preps.
Any departure will be made explicit.
Summing up, one will note that V-Ps are a rather controversial subject, on account
of both the ambiguous nature of Ps and the difficulty of considering two separate elements
as a single lexical entry. This notwithstanding, considerations of both a synchronic and
diachronic nature have been made that can lead one to think of V-Ps as morphological rather
than syntactical constructions. The next section will deal with the separability of these two
elements.
14
3. Conditions for V-P Separability
3.1. Are V-Ps Discontinuous Verbs?
The characterizing feature of V-Ps is undoubtedly the divisibility of their constituting
elements. This is to say that if these verbs were to be considered as single lexical entries,
they would violate the “Lexical Integrity Hypothesis”35 (LIH) and the “Bracket Erasure
Convention”36, since the insertion of NPs/objects when the V is transitive can (and at times
should) separate V and P.
Simpson (1983) moves from this assumption (and from other data in Warlpiri) in
proposing a weakening of the LIH that would allow the inclusion of these discontinuous
verbs among possibile lexical items. In fact, discontinuous verbs would make up a special
lexical category (identified by the V symbol) generated in the lexicon, and whose internal
brackets remain visible to syntax:
(23)
[ [Verb] [Particle] ]V
On the one hand, this is an interesting proposal, as it would allow for the existence
of discontinuous lexical items. On the other hand, it cannot but be problematic since, in
Simpsonʼs very own words, it is incompatible with such syntactical theories as LexicalFunctional Grammar (LFG) and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG), according
to which every single movement is caused by “phrase structure rules”. However, Simpsonʼs
article remains interesting as it is evidence of the need for justifying these discontinuous
constructions, since, as a matter of fact, V-Ps are not an isolated case: in fact, other languages
exist in which separable verbs or words are to be found, e.g.:
-
preverb+verb cases in Warlpiri: the preverb adds to the verb, changing its astructure, which implies that the preverb and the verb are combined in the lexicon37;
in addition, preverb+verbs may be nominalized; however, inversion and auxiliary
(AUX) insertion can separate the two elements38 (cf. Simpson 1983);
-
separable complex verbs in Dutch: they are formed by combining prepositions or
adverbs with verbs and have properties of both phrases and words; according to Booij
(1992), the elements can be separated by “Verb Second” and “Verb Raising”39;
-
separable verbs in German: the particle+verb compound types in German (called
“distance compounds”) form a lexical unit; however, the two elements are to be
separated in main clauses40, where the verb takes the second position and its modifier
15
goes in final position41; it is very difficult to define particles here, as they are “free
morphemes”, but in some cases act as prefixes (cf. Becker 1992);
-
prefixed verbs in Hungarian: prefixes in Hungarian prefixed verbs are the non-head
constituents and never become the argument of the verb, but the modifiers; however,
as Kiefer (1992) states, prefixes can be used alone in short answers and, moreover,
“if a prefix (…) is moved after the verb, it can be stressed on its own right, i.e.
independently of the verb”42 (Kiefer 1992); Kiefer claims that prefixed verbs are in
fact compounds and therefore lexical units generated in the lexicon, despite being
subject to syntactic movement (cf. Kiefer 1992 and Ackerman & Webelhuth 1997);
-
preverb+verb in Estonian: the preverb may appear discontinuous from the verb
also in Estonian43; nevertheless, the preverb+verb can be used as a base for further
derivational operations such as the formation of deverbal nouns and adjectives44 (cf.
Ackerman & Webelhuth 1997);
-
interfixes in Polish, Russian and Spanish: according to Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi
(1986), Polish, Russian and Spanish interfixes are semantically empty morphemes
which are inserted after suffixation, so that “the choice of an interfix depends on
choice of the suffix”; Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi conclude that “interfixation
rules (…) may violate the Adjacency Condition”45 (cf. Scalise 1994, 201-5); while
in the previous examples the modifying elements were separated from the head
for syntactical reasons, in this case, a morpheme splits a word internally (without
producing semantic changes and violating the Adjacency Condition) and separates
the stem from the suffix46 (cf. Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi 1986).
Since cases of discontinuous predicates (or words) exist in languages belonging to
different linguistic families and typologies, one can reasonably think of finding a way to
justify these structures. Theories that support the idea of two separate modules for syntax
and morphology might not be able to allow for these discontinuous structures.
An interesting proposal is sketched in Ackerman & Webelhuth (1997): the authors
claim that lexical representations are preferably expressed by single or synthetic words,
but can also be expressed by combinations of words or analytic structures. These analytic
structures would be “superficial” expressions of the same “deep” lexical representations.
The authors state that they aim at working out a formalism that provides different types of
predicates with adequate lexical representations (cf. Ackermann & Webelhuth 1998).
In favour of the hypothesis that V-Ps in English and other types of discontinuous
predicates in different languages are created in the lexicon (and therefore are words and not
16
phrases), Simpson (1983) mentions the “Direct Syntactic Encoding”47, and Ackermann &
Webelhuth (1997) the “Lexical Adicity”, i.e. principles according to which only lexical (and
not syntactical) rules can create new a-structures. We will see how the addition of P may
change not only the semantics, but also the a-structure of the verb. Therefore, V-Ps will be
considered as single complex lexical entries whose internal structure is partially visible to
syntax due to their discontinuous form.
3.2. Restrictions on the Position of P
The following analysis is mainly based on Fraser (1976, 16-21). Of course, the
acceptability of constructions varies according to the native speakers and their varieties. We
will now present and discuss some restrictions on the position of P with respect to V and the
whole sentence (S).
a)
P must move after the NP/object if the latter is a pronoun (unless it is contrastively
stressed), whereas, with other types of NPs, the movement is optional (further
restrictions, if any, are showed below):
(24)
He mixed it up
*He mixed up it
I meant to put on HIM (not the whole family)
(25)
The woman called her friend up before leaving
The woman called up her friend before leaving
b)
If the V-P is followed by an NP/object and a “to” indirect complement, P cannot stay
between the object and the indirect complement, unless the object is a pronoun48:
(26)
a. He cabled in the message to his boss
b. *He cabled the message in to his boss
c. He cabled it in to his boss
Fraser here proposes a prosodic explanation: the fact that sentence (26b) is
agrammatical may be due to the fact that both message and in are stressed and the
contiguity of two strongly stressed elements would violate the English verbal phrase
(VP) prosodic pattern49.
Fraser adds that the indirect object movement rule cannot apply to V-Ps; i.e. double
object constructions that occur with verbs like to give are not acceptable with V-Ps:
(27)
The teacher gave the sheets to the students
The teacher gave the students the sheets
17
(28)
a. The teacher gave out the sheets to the students
b. *The teacher gave out the students the sheets
Fraser gives no explanation for these constructions. We could however suggest the
following: the a-structure of the verb to give requires one external argument (the agent,
i.e. the subject) and two internal arguments: the theme (i.e. the object) and the goal
(i.e. the “to” indirect complement). The a-structure of to give out, instead, requires
one external argument (i.e. the subject) and one internal argument (the object). The
internal argument expressing the goal is non-obligatory (and therefore the indirect
object movement rule does not apply), as evidenced by the following example:
(29)
The teacher gave out the sheets
Therefore, given that P can modify the a-structure of the verb, it follows that the
sentence in (28b) is considered agrammatical because the NP the students (due to its
position immediately following the verb to give out, and to the non-application of the
indirect object movement rule) would be seen as the object of gave out, thus leaving
the sheets “hanging”.
c)
If the NP/object is very short, it seems preferable to leave the P near the verb, though
separating them would not be agrammatical50:
(30)
a. He heated up water in the bucket
b. He heated water up in the bucket
According to Fraser, sentence (30a) is better than (30b). Actually, some objections
can be raised: both the sentences can be perfectly acceptable, but, whereas (30a)
focuses on the action, (30b) may focus on water. In other words, there would be a
sort of “internal topicalization” of the member on focus51.
Moreover, Fraser notes that if the NP were somehow “lengthened”, the two
constructions would be equally acceptable and well-formed:
(31)
He heated up some water in the bucket
He heated some water up in the bucket
Fraser gives no particular explanation, apart from the contiguity of two strongly
stressed elements (cf. point (b) above).
d)
If the V-P is in the simple present and conveys a habit, P preferably occurs immediately
after the verb52:
(32)
a. The police track down criminals
b. The police track criminals down
According to Fraser, (32b) is not agrammatical but still sounds strange to native
speakers53. Again, native speakers may have different opinions about this and their
18
different interpretations of such data may depend on intonational/focus factors.
e)
If the NP/object is longer and complicated54, P remains near V55:
(33)
a. *I called the man who left up
b. He called all of my best friends up
Fraser states that sentence (33a) is agrammatical because the NP, the man who left,
contains intonational drops, as opposed to (33b). We could suggest that P cannot be
moved to near another verb, as it might create ambiguity, or that no relative clause
can be inserted between V and P. In this respect, it will prove useful to recall that
Azzaro (1992), in his discussion of P movements and the extraposition of modifying
sentences, quotes the following examples:
(34)
a. She stood up two boys who had given her diamonds
b. ?She stood two boys who had given her diamonds up
c. She stood two boys up who had given her diamonds
Azzaro gives this series of interlinked examples to explain how sentences like (34c)
are derived from others like (34a) and (34b). However, according to Fraser, (34b)
would be agrammatical. Azzaro (1992, 91) notes that “discontinuous dependencies
can be very complex in English” (cf. examples in (34)) and “movement is blocked
beyond “the immediate right” of the NP Complement to the verb”, as the following
example shows56:
(35)
They brought up their children in Canada
They brought their children up in Canada
*They brought their children in Canada up
In conclusion, V-Ps seem to be true discontinuous predicates, but the separation of
their elements is subject to some restrictions. In particular, V and P cannot be distanced too
much (differently, e.g., from German, where the particle, in moving away from the verb, goes
at the end of the sentence (cf. above)). Azzaroʼs observations lead one to think that P moves
only within the verbal phrase in a narrow sense (i.e. predicate+NP/object). Moreover, when
the elements of a V-P (which is a single semantic entity) are separated, V is left “hanging”, as
its meaning is not complete without the contribution of P. Consequently, one needs to wait
for P in order to correctly understand the predicate and the whole sentence. In the meantime,
the listener makes hypotheses (or predictions) about the verb and the lexical material coming
after it. These hypotheses are re-examined when P occurs. It follows that the farther away
the P, the more difficult the interpretation of the verb/sentence, since the short-term memory
is subject to the difficult retention of “hanging” information. Naturally, this is an intuitive19
psycholinguistic observation, whose validity should be established by a series of proper
comprehension tests.
3.3. Semantics and Syntactical Cohesion
Interestingly, there seems to be a sort of link between the semantics and the syntactical
cohesion of V-Ps; i.e. it seems that their degree of semantic opacity is directly proportional
to their cohesion at a syntactical level. In this respect, Azzaro (1992) gives the following
examples of topicalization:
(36)
He sat down
Down he sat
(37)
He went in
In he went
(38)
He gave in
*In he gave
(39)
He brought up the matter
*Up he brought the matter
One could possibly object that the examples in (36) and (37) are not actual V-Ps (cf.
the criteria in section 2), but V+Advs. One should however consider that to sit down is a
borderline case between V-Ps and V+Advs. Its syntactical behaviour changes according to
whether it is used in its literal or metaphorical meaning:
(40)
a. Down he sat
b. *Down the army sat to have a rest
In (40a), down can be interpreted as both an intensifying particle and an adverb,
though it tends to behave syntactically like the latter. The example in (40b) can be defined
as a “transparent metaphor”57, and therefore displays a more cohesive syntactical behaviour.
Examples (38) and (39), instead, are “opaque metaphors”58 and should therefore be regarded
as syntactically cohesive structures.
In addition to these considerations, Bacchielli (1986, 43) claims that in some cases in which
the V-P can have both a literal and a figurative interpretation, the position of P with respect
to the NP/object can help distinguish the possible different meanings. In particular, he states
20
that the V-P-Object order imply a figurative interpretation, while the V-Object-P a literal
interpretation. The author exemplifies his point in (41) below:
(41)
a. He threw up the sponge
(figurative)
b. He threw the sponge up
(literal)
In our view, the verb in (41b) is not a V-P but a V+Adv. However, it might be that, in
case the V-P has a corresponding homonymous V+Adv (or V+Prep), the two constructions
distinguish on the basis of the position of the P/Adv. To be honest, this point seems to be
rather weak and, of course, would need further investigation. Nevertheless, the considerations
proposed in this section lead one to think that there indeed exist a sort of link between the
semantics and the syntactical behaviour of V-Ps.
In conclusion, we have showed that V-Ps should be considered discontinuous
predicates and that the separability of their constituting elements is subject to a number of
restrictions. In this respect, the semantics of the verb may introduce further information to
establish the syntactical behaviour of V-Ps.
4. Particles as Modifiers of the Verb
As said in the previous sections, P introduces changes in the verbal stem. These
changes can be:
-
semantic: P adds to the verb forming a new lexical unit, whose meaning may
be more or less compositional with relation to the meanings of the constituting
elements (in some cases, the P can be semantically empty as it acts as a mere
intensifier of the verbʼs meaning);
-
aspectual: P may function as an aspectual marker and can thus modify the aspect/
Aktionsart of the verb;
-
functional-grammatical: P may modify the a-structure of the base verb.
Thus, the union of P and V creates a new lexical entry that in turn becomes the base
for further derivational and inflectional operations (cf. section 5).
21
4.1. Semantic Modifications
The modifications P introduces in the verb are above all semantic. These modifications
are difficult to predict due to the polysemy of Ps and the non-systematic nature of some
V-Ps. In other words, it is necessary to distinguish between systematic combinations and
metaphorical/idiomatic combinations (cf. Fraser 1976, 5-10).
4.1.1. Systematic Combinations
Although metaphorical combinations are more numerous, Fraser (1976) attempts
to analyse some possible systematic combinations: he first takes into consideration some
classes of semantically related verbs and then sees whether the same particle produces a
consistent semantic change in these verbs. The following data are from Fraser (1976, 5):
(42)
to bolt down, to drink down, to gulp down, to swig down, to swallow down
(43)
to cache away, to bank away, to store away, to stow away
(44)
to hang up, to nail up, to paste up, to screw up, to tuck up
(45)
to deed over, to give over, to hand over
According to Fraser, in these examples, P produces a consistent change in the meaning
of the base verb. Moreover, Fraser notes that the contexts of occurrence of the original verb
and the corresponding V-P are identical, though he cannot describe the type of change that
occurs in examples like the following:
(46)
The boy bolted his food
The boy bolted down his food
(47)
Drink your milk
Drink down your milk
(48)
She canʼt swallow the large lump of potatoes
She canʼt swallow down the large lump of potatoes
Fraser states that his analysis of V-Ps is not sufficiently deep to define the notion of
“systematic combinations” better. We may add that, as for data in (42), the particle seems
to be semantically empty and serves as an intensifier of action, bringing the attention to the
verb/action.
In the examples (43)-(45), the Ps maintain part of the semantics of the corresponding/
22
homonymous adverbs and introduce consistent modifications in the verb. However, if we
try to add to the list in (45) the verb to offer, which is semantically related to the other three
verbs, we will obtain a non-grammatical string:
(49)
*to offer over
One might think that the verb to offer is not a suitable base to form a V-P59, but,
since the V-P to offer up exists, it is evident that the systematic combinations show some
inconsistencies. If we try to enlarge further the series of verbs in (45), we will obtain the
following:
(50)
to assign, to cede, to consign, to commit, to defer, to deliver, to entrust, to report, to
submit, to surrender, to transfer
Among all these, over/up can only add to the verb to deliver, which should be
considered an exception60. Furthermore, the verb to make, after the addition of the P over,
takes a meaning similar to that of the verbs in (45). Therefore, we can “update” this series of
verbs as follows:
(51)
to deed over, to deliver over, to give over, to hand over, to make over
This “semantic group” of verbs seems to display very few gaps, considering that the
verbs in (50) do not have suitable phonological patterns to act as verbal bases for V-Ps61. Let us
now try to enlarge the other series in (42), (43) and (44). If we add the following verbs to (42):
(52)
to get down, to swill down, to wolf down
we obtain (53):
(53)
to bolt down, to drink down, to get down, to gobble down, to gulp down, to swig
down, to swallow down, to swill down, to wolf down
It is worth noticing that semantically similar verbs do not appear in this list: no P can
add to the verbs to devour, to guzzle and to scoff, whereas to eat joins to the P up, forming
the V-P to eat up. Therefore, the Ps down and up alternate in the same “semantic field”62.
23
This may be due to the fact that, in these cases, the two Ps have very similar functions and
meanings. One should however underline that all the verbs in (53) join to down and some of
them join to up as well. Consequently, down and up here are likely to have a slightly different
function: down seems an intensifying element and up a completive one.
Let us now extend the list in (43) by adding the verb to put away:
(54)
to cache away, to bank away, to put away, to store away, to stow away
To put away is the only related verb found which could be added to the list in (43)63.
But, at the same time, there exists a series of semantically similar verbs which are consistently
modified by the P up:
(55)
to bank up, to build up, to gather up, to heap up, to hoard up, to mount up, to pile up,
to save up, to stock up, to store up
Thus, we have again two Ps coexisting in the same semantic field, but here, differently from
the previous case, the Ps are complementary: apart from to bank and to store, the verbs in
(54) only join to away and the verbs in (55) to up (e.g. *to build away, *to gather away, *to
heap away, *to stow up, etc.)64. Also the verb to accumulate exists but it cannot join to Ps due
to phonological restrictions on the base (cf. section 2.3.).
Finally, we will try to enlarge the data in (44) with the following:
(56)
to bind up, to fasten up, to glue up, to link up, to pin up, to put up, to seal up, to stick
up, to strap up, to tie up
Verbs such as to attach, to secure and to unite do not occur with up.
These data lead us to deduce that the lists of verbs proposed by Fraser can be expanded
and that, in general, Ps actually produce consistent modifications in the verbs they add to.
Nevertheless, Ps cannot add to any verb (cf. section 2.3.) and in some cases, the same change
within a single semantic field may be produced by different Ps, e.g. to eat up and the examples
in (54) and (55)65. These observations make the systematic nature of these combinations a
little more precarious, though still present. The lists of verbs in (51) and (53)-(56) show that
Ps produce a consistent change in the semantics of the original verb. It still remains to be
understood why some verbs do not form V-Ps and why some Ps such as up and down or up
and away can produce more or less the same effect on some verbs without there being a more
24
distinct and consistent assignment of Pʼs roles. In this respect, the polysemous nature of Ps
plays a crucial role, but it still has to be established what meanings can be associated with
each P.
4.1.2. Metaphorical Combinations
It remains now to face what we called “metaphorical” or “idiomatic” combinations.
According to Fraser (1976), these combinations are more numerous than systematic ones
and are characterized by the unpredictable effect P has on the verb. In this work we will use
a classification slightly different from Fraserʼs, introducing a further distinction suggested
by Azzaro (1992). The basic distinction is to be made between the systematic combinations
discussed above and metaphorical combinations, which can be divided into two subgroups:
-
transparent metaphors: the union of P and V is not predictable, but the meaning
of the V-P is somehow interpretable;
-
opaque metaphors: the meaning of the V-P is not interpretable on the basis of the
meanings of its constituents.
According to this classification the directional or motion verbs such as to go up, to go down,
to come in, to draw out would be considered as systematic. Nevertheless, directional verbs in
English should be considered V+Adv constructions, due to their syntactical behaviour66.
Metaphorical combinations differ from systematic ones because the addition of P
to V is not predictable on the basis of similarities with other combinations, i.e. P does not
introduce consistent changes in the verbs it adds to. Nevertheless, we can ouline a subgroup
of V-Ps called “transparent metaphors”, whose meaning can be deduced from the meanings
of the two constituting elements. This does not imply that the meaning of these complex
verbs is necessarily compositional: it rather means that, considering the meaning of the two
elements, one can deduce the whole meaning of the V-P by analogical processes. E.g. the
verb to carry back may have both a literal and a figurative meaning, like in (57), where it is
easily deducible:
(57)
Her story carried me back to my youth
It often happens that the same verb has different meanings, some of which are literal,
others metaphorical, e.g. to knock out or to simmer down. In many cases, V-Ps classified as
transparent metaphors have corresponding V+Advs, from which the meaning of the V-P is
somehow derived, e.g. to carry back or to cough up. Generally speaking, the possibility of
a metaphorical transposition of the literal meaning may be considered a further evidence
25
of the lexicality of V-Ps. In this respect, Brinton (1988, 187) states that “the acquisition
of metaphorical and, especially, idiomatic meanings in the phrasal verb is often seen as
indication of the fully fledged development of this form”. Furthermore, metaphorical V-Ps
are more syntactically cohesive, as mentioned above.
Of course, a large part of metaphorical V-Ps have totally idiomatic meanings. By
nowadays these combinations are frozen forms included in the lexicon as non-derived lexical
units, though they maintain some of the V-Psʼ syntactical properties. Verbs such as:
(58)
to carry off, to cut for, to give in, to give up, to look up, to stand in
are idiomatic expressions whose meaning is totally opaque. In this case, differently from the
previous ones, one cannot speak of productivity.
4.2. Aspectual and Aktionsart Modifications
Speaking of aspect and Aktionsart is more complicated than one would expect. The
distinctions between these two categories are not unitary and can differ from language to
language. Generally speaking, “the term “aspect” is used in both a narrower sense, in which
it refers to grammatical categories which have to do with the structure of a situation or the
speakerʼs perspective on it, and a wider sense, in which it also covers lexical and notional
(semantic) categories relating to the classification of situations (states of affairs). The term
Aktionsart is often used to denote the latter” (Dahl 1999). There follows that aspect is to
be considered a grammatical category aimed at indicating the speakerʼs perspective on a
situation/event (e.g. completed, ongoing, beginning, ending, continuing, repeating, etc.),
whereas Aktionsart concerns the inherent nature of the situation/event portrayed (e.g. telic/
atelic, stative/dynamic, punctual/durative, etc.). Though this definition seems to be the most
widespread, it is not the only one accepted. In Russian linguistics, e.g., “the term “aspect”
is constrained to denote only the opposition between perfective and imperfective aspect”,
whereas Aktionsart “covers most of the types of derivational aspect found among languages”67
(Dahl 1999). Quite to the contrary, Brinton (1988, 4), in her analysis of English aspectual
system, makes use of the above-mentioned general distinction and states that “phrasal verbs
seem to be a productive, though not consistent, means in Modern English of expressing
aspectual distinctions”. The author further claims that the “addition of a particle to a simple
verb is thought to lend perfective meaning (drink up, calm down, wait out, die off, pass
away, carry through, bring about, put over), ingressive meaning (hurry up, lie down, doze
26
off, set out, pitch in, go away), or continuative/iterative meaning (hammer away, drive on)”.
Brinton considers post-verbal Ps in Modern English partly as Aktionsart markers of telicity
(e.g. up, down, out, off, through, over, away)68, partly as markers of continuative/iterative
aspect (e.g. on, along, away)69. Brintonʼs work has been opposed by Diensberg (1990), who
argues that Ps cannot be in toto considered as an aspectual category since they do not always
act as aspectualizers, despite the fact that this is the only feature that allows to set them
aside with respect to other parts of speech. Consequently, according to Diensberg, Ps are
to be regarded as modifying elements that may produce aspectual changes, as well as other
types of modifications. Still other scholars spoke about the aspectual value of particles. For
example, Bacchielli (1986, 49) includes among the Pʼs functions an aspectual one, though he
says that not all aspectual meanings can be conveyed by particles70. Also Whorf (1956), cited
in Fraser (1976, 6), claims that Ps (in particular up and out) can add a completive nuance to
the verbs71.
All these considerations lead one to think that particles indeed have a somewhat
aspectual function within the English verbal system. The development of aspectual
and Aktionsart meanings is traditionally attributed to phenomena such as “bleaching”
or “metaphorical change”. In fact, many of the “extended” or secondary meanings of Ps
naturally derive from their original spatial meaning (cf. Brinton 1988, 195)72.
In the present discussion, we will speak of aspect with relation to Ps in the broad
sense, i.e. including both aspectual and Aktionsart properties. In this respect, we attempt at
reporting and adapting a list of the aspectual meanings of Ps taken from Brinton (1988, 2436), who gives an interesting account of various comments concerning the aspectual nature of
Ps. The original sources are quoted in brackets.
up
1) perfective/completive (cf. Kennedy 1920, Bolinger 1971, Lipka 1972, Fraser 1976)
E.g.: to break up, to write up, to drink up, to clean up, to dry up
2) ingressive (cf. Poutsma 1926, Curme 1931, Lipka 1972)
E.g.: to stand up, to sit up, to show up, to hurry up
3) intensive (cf. Jowett 1950, Potter 1965, Live 1965, Bolinger 1971)
E.g.: to speed up, to shoot up, to smash up, to heal up
down
1) ingressive (cf. Poutsma 1926, Curme 1931)
E.g.: to lie down, to sit down, to quiet down
27
2) completive (cf. Live 1965)
E.g.: to burn down, to wear down, to shut down
out
1) completive/terminative (cf. Kennedy 1920, Poutsma 1926, Live 1965, Bolinger 1971,
Lipka 1972, Fraser 1976)
E.g.: to carry out, to search out, to work out, to think out, to die out, to fade out, to write out,
to burn out, to wait out
2) ingressive (cf. Curme 1931, Lipka 1972)
E.g.: to set out, to come out
3) exhaustion (cf. Kennedy 1920, Bolinger 1971)
E.g.: to wear out, to blot out, to talk out, to play out
4) effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to turn out, to give out, to find out
5) durative effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to fight out, to stand out, to hold out
off
1) ingressive (cf. Poutsma 1926, Curme 1931)
E.g.: to doze off, to go off
2) completive (cf. Kennedy 1920, Live 1965)
E.g.: to finish off, to pair off, to taper off, to die off (one after another), to pay off
through
1) completive/terminative (cf. Poutsma 1926)
E.g.: to carry through, to read through
E.g.: to put through
3) durative effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to bear through
away
1) ingressive (cf. Poutsma 1926, Curme 1931, Live 1965, Bolinger 1971)
E.g.: to go away, to ride away, fire away!, talk away!
2) iterative/durative (cf. Live 1965, Bolinger 1971, Curme 1931)
28
E.g.: to pine away, to hammer away, to eat away, to bang away, to work away
E.g.: to pass away
on
1) continuative/durative (cf. Poutsma 1926, Curme 1931, Bolinger 1971)
E.g.: to live on, to sit on, to go on, to keep on, to drive on (along), to move on (along), to
push on (along)
over
E.g.: to put over
in
1) ingressive (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to pitch in, to light in, to sail in
This is a brief sketch of the possible aspectual meanings of English Ps. We feel that, though
they can actually produce aspectual modification in the original verb, Ps cannot be considered
as an aspectual category, since their action may also be merely semantic, as noted in the
section above.
4.3. Functional-grammatical Modifications
Particles may change the a-structure of the verb they add to. According to Fraser
(1976), in systematic V-P combinations the change of a-structure may occur or not.
In (59) and (60) it is showed how the addition of P can change the number and type
of arguments required by the verb:
(59)
a. He drank a cup of milk every morning
b. He drank a lot
c. He drank down the milk
d. *He drank down (a lot)
29
(60)
a. Will you please hand the secret folders to the police?
b. Will you please hand over the secret folders?
c. Will you please hand over the secret folders to the police?
d. *Will you please hand the secret folders?
In (59a/b) the verb to drink is used both transitively and intransitively, whereas examples in
(59c/d) show that to drink down can be only transitive. In other words, the a-structure of to drink
requires one obligatory external (i.e. the subject) and one non-obligatory internal argument
(theme), whereas the a-structure of to drink down requires a obligatory external argument and
a obligatory internal argument (theme/object). Considering the examples in (60), one can note
that the verb to hand requires one obligatory external argument and two obligatory internal
arguments (theme and goal). This is why the sentence in (60a) is acceptable, contrary to the
one in (60d). Instead, the verb to hand over requires one obligatory external argument, one
obligatory internal argument (theme) and one non-obligatory internal argument (goal). If, on
the one hand, the P down adds to the verb to drink and makes the internal argument (theme/
object) obligatory, i.e. makes the verb solely transitive, on the other, the P over, when added to
the verb to hand, changes its a-structure making the internal argument (goal) non-obligatory.
Furthermore, the addition of a P can modify the verbʼs transitivity. There follow
some examples:
(61)
(62)
a)
He sleeps late on Saturdays
b)
I can usually sleep off a hangover
a)
He caught the ball
b)
He caught on eventually
In (61) the verb to sleep, which is originally intransitive, becomes transitive after adding the
P off, whereas in (62) the transitive verb to catch becomes intransitive in (62b) after adding
the P on. Other examples concerning the influence of P on the verbʼs transitivity are given in
Bacchielli (1986, 53):
(63)
30
INTRANSITIVE
→
TRANSITIVE
to blow
to blow down (a tree)
to work
to work out (a sum/the details)
to cough
to cough up (blood)
to scream
to scream (a place) down
(64)
TRANSITIVE
→
INTRANSITIVE
to add
to add up to
to check
to check up on
to show
to show up/off
to catch
to catch up with
Finally, the adding of P can also modify the selective restrictions of arguments. E.g.
let us consider the verb to chime:
(65)
The bell chimed
*She chimed
She chimed in on the discussion
The verb to chime is intransitive and its a-structure requires a obligatory external argument
(i.e. the subject) with the feature [-human]. After adding the P in the verb remains intransitive
but the feature of the subject changes from [-human] to [+human]. A further example is
offered by Bacchielli (1986, 54):
(66)
to argue a case
→
to argue down an opponent
The transitive verb to argue requires an object with the feature [-human]; the adding of
the P down gives rise to a new verb, to argue down, which is still transitive but requires a
[+human] object.
The examples in this section illustrate how the a-structure of a verb can change as a
consequence of the addition of a postverbal P. This helps supporting the idea that adding a P to
a verb is a morphological (and not a syntactical) process, as the modification of the a-structure
of a verb cannot occur in the syntax, given that, as we claimed, “combining” the (sub)categorial
and a-structure properties of the base is a characteristic of morphology (and not of syntax) 73.
In this section, we attempted at illustrating how the addition of P to the base verb
has some effects at lexical level. The union of these elements gives rise to a new lexical
entry endowed with its own semantic and syntactical properties. This new word can in turn
become the base for further derivational processes, as section 5 will show. Needless to say,
there still remains much to say about the nature of particles and their role in the formation
of complex verbs as also doubts on the precarious systematicity of V-P combinations and,
therefore, on their productivity.
31
5. V-Ps as a Base for Morphological Operations
As anticipated above, V-Ps can act as a base for further derivational processes such
as the formation of nouns and adjectives. In this section, we will show how both nouns and
adjectives can be easily derived from V-Ps. We will then analyse the relationship between
the various types of affixation and nouns/adjectives derived from V-Ps. Special instances
of V-Ps and deverbal nouns will also be discussed. Finally, we will discuss the relationship
between particles and prefixation.
5.1. Deriving Nouns from V-Ps
The main derivational operation that generates nouns from V-Ps is the so-called zero
derivation or conversion74. Let us consider the V-P to break down, which we can represent as
follows:
(67)
[ [break]V [down]P ]V
By applying the conversion rule V→N to the verb to break down, we obtain the noun
breakdown:
(68)
[ [ [break]V [down]P ]V ]N
This derivational phenomenon is quite common in English and numerous examples can be
found in works on the same topic (e.g., Fraser (1976), Miller (1993), Simpson (1983) and
Selkirk (1982)). Further examples of this kind of transformation are given below75:
(69)
[ [give]V [away]P ]V
→
[ [ [give]V [away]P
“giveaway”
[ [let]V [down]P ]V
→
[ [ [let]V [down]P ]V ]N
“letdown”
[ [put]V [on]P ]V
→
[ [ [put]V [on]P ]V ]N
“put-on”76
[ [drop]V [out]P ]V
→
[ [ [drop]V [out]P ]V ]N
“dropout”
These transformations can also be represented by the following tree:
32
N
V
V
P
It is worth noting that sometimes we are faced with a “double nominalization”, i.e. the
presence of two nouns that can be traced back to the same V-P, e.g.:
(70)
to cast down
cast down
downcast
to break out
breakout
outbreak
to work out
work-out
outwork
This is due to the coexistence of the OE verb-prefixal system and the new system of
postverbal modification which developed between OE and ME. This implies that there are
common areas in which the two systems will compete. Bacchielli (1986, 123-4) outlines
three possible situations:
-
the two words are morphologically different but identical in meaning, e.g. onlooker
– looker-on, turndown – downturn, cast down – downcast, set-out – outset;
-
the two words are morphologically distinct and differ in shades of meaning and/or
style, e.g. a flowing out (colloquial) – outflow (technical), trodden-down (physical)
– downtrodden (moral), pricked-up (colloquial) – uppricked (archaic);
-
the two words are different both in form and in meaning77, e.g. break-out –
outbreak, look-out – outlook, set-out – outset, let-out – outlet, set-up – upset,
setoff – offset, to hold up – to uphold.
Of course, this “double formation” includes nouns, adjectives and V-Ps.
Coming back to converted nouns, one might ask whether these derivations are
predictable or not. Clearly, not all V-Ps can be transformed into nouns by means of conversion
like in the examples in (69). In fact, if we apply the V→N rule to the verb to bring up we will
then have an agrammatical string:
(71)
*[bring up]N
The corresponding nouns, in this case, are upbringing and the gerund noun bringing-up.
Since substantivised –ing forms are very common in English, also V-Ps can easily be subject
33
to this kind of operation. It is worth noting that the suffix –ing adds to the verbal stem, and
not to the whole V-P :
(72)
the taking off of the plane
*the take-off-ing of the plane
the setting up of a new company
*the set-up-ing of a new company
The nominalization by conversion, which we can define as “primary nominalization”,
comes along with a “secondary nominalization” by suffixation, i.e. the adding of suffixes such
as -ness, -hood, -ful to nouns and adjectives78 in their turn derived from V-Ps, such as79:
(73)
-ness: stuck-up-ness, laid-back-ness, grown-up-ness, worn-out-ness, stand-off-ishness80;
-hood: runaway-hood , standby-hood, goof-off-hood
-ful: (a) pickup-ful (of kids), (a) dugout-ful (of soldiers)
The tree illustrating one of the above listed nouns, e.g. standby-hood, would be as follows:
N
N
Naf
V
V
P
Bacchielli (1986, 87) offers still another example of suffixation, i.e. come-uppance (a
colloquial term meaning ʻdeserved punishmentʼ, ʻretributionʼ). This example differs from
the others above in that the suffix –ance forms nouns from verbs, therefore the step of
conversion is omitted and the noun is formed directly from the V-P.
Of course, these forms cannot be said productive and belong to the colloquial style or
the nonce language. However, some of these, e.g. standoffishness, comeuppance, wornoutness
became stable and entered the official language (cf. Bacchielli 1986, 87).
34
5.2. Deriving Adjectives from V-Ps
Just as for nouns, a primary/direct and a secondary derivation can also be found in
adjectives. Primary/direct derivation basically consists in two V→A operations:
-
the formation of past participles (in –ed or irregular) acting as adjectives directly
from verbs : worn-out, laid off, strung out, tuned in81;
-
the addition of the suffix –able, which turns verbs into adjectives: unget-at-able,
do-up-able, break-in-able, unkeep-off-able, uncome-over-able82.
Problems arise when representing the first kind of formation (see section 5.3), since
the derivation of the past participle from the verb is not external to the whole V-P, as one
would expect in the presence of a complex verb, but rather happens inside the V-P itself, i.e
between V and P. For adjectives like tuned in, we will then have the following structure:
A
V
V
P
-ed
As we will see at a later stage, this structure does not appear to be compatible with the
analysis of V-Ps as [V P]V.
To the contrary, the second examples appear to support the thesis of V-Ps as complex
verbs, since the suffix –able, which turns verbs into adjectives, adds directly and externally
to the V-P:
A
V
V
-able
P
The so-called secondary derivation envisages the formation of adjectives by
suffixation of V-P converted nouns. These suffixes are:
-
-ish83: cutoff-ish, put-on-ish, sellout-ish, standoff-ish84;
-
-less85: handout-less, kickback-less, turnover-less, send-off-less, sit-in-less, stand35
by-less86.
Both suffixes form adjectives from nouns, and therefore their structure is as follows:
A
N
Suff.
V
V
P
In conclusion, adjectives, as well as nouns, can be formed from V-Ps through both
a primary and a secondary derivation. Whereas the formation of past participles shows the
insertion of the suffix –ed between V and P, the other adjectival suffixes add to the whole VP, thus supporting the hypothesis that these verbs are indeed lexical units.
5.3. Deverbal Nouns/Adjectives and Affixation
In the previous sections, we saw how nouns and adjectives can be derived from V-Ps.
The discontinuous nature of V-Ps gives rise to inconsistencies in the behaviour that V-Pderived nouns and adjectives have with respect to affixation. Above, we illustrated a number
of examples of suffixation as a means to form nouns and adjectives. Now we will have an
attempt at showing how V-Ps and their derivatives react in the presence of other types of
affixation.
5.3.1. Nominal Inflection: Plurals in -s
The morpheme of the plural –s is added to the right of the V-P, as evidenced by the
examples in (74)87:
(74)
runaway-s, pickup-s, sit-in-s, pushover-s, castoff-s, leftover-s, lighter-up-s, grownup-s, break-through-s, look-out-s
The tree is as follows:
36
N
N
Pl
V
V
P
-s
Section 5.3.3. will show that the plural –s behaves differently when added to agentive nouns
in –er derived from V-Ps and –ing nouns.
5.3.2. Deverbal Agentive Nouns in –er and their Interaction with Inflection
The formation of deverbal nouns by means of the suffix –er is very productive in
English, as it can give rise to both agentive and instrumental nouns, e.g. breaker, beater,
speaker, caller, maker. The –er suffixation applies to V-Ps as well. The data of some scholars
who dealt with this phenomenon are presented below for discussion.
Miller (1993, 132) illustrates the following examples:
(75)
break-er in
break-er-in-er
?break-in-er
Besides, Simpson (1983, 282) proposes some data for both the derivation of –er
nouns and their interaction with the inflectional suffix forming the plural (-s):
(76)
a. (a great) breaker-upper / ?breaker-up (of doglights)
(an awful) runner-downer (of other people)
b. passers by / ??passer-bys
hangers on / hanger-ons
Finally, Bacchielli (1986, 86-7) discusses both –er nouns belonging to nonce-
language and the interaction of the plural –s with –er and –ing. As for the former point, the
author offers the following examples:
37
(77)
butt-iner
come-outer
takedowner
butter-inner
taker-offer
dropper-inner
Of course, these examples are nonce-words used in colloquial and humourous contexts. As
for the latter point, Bacchielli (1986, 139-40) reaches the conclusion that in most cases the
–s adds to –er and –ing, which attach directly to the verb:
(78)
hangers-on
whispers-on
goings-on
carryings-over
However, he claims that some double formations may be possible, such as:
(79)
runners-up
–
runner-ups
lyings-in
–
lying-ins
Here, runners-up and lyings-in are the commonest forms. Bacchielli (1986, 140) also notes
that the traditional orthographical rules for the plural do not apply in these cases: -y + s
does not become –ies but remains –ys (e.g. stand-bys) and –o + s does not become –oes but
remains –os (e.g. lean-tos).
According to Selkirk (1982) nouns such as the ones above represent a problem for
considering V-Ps as complex verbs, since even though deverbal agentive nouns such as
runner up, hanger on, screwer down only exist by virtue of their corresponding V-P, at the
same time one cannot explain why the agentive suffix would add to the V rather than to the
complex verb [V P]V. The structure of these nouns is:
38
N
N
V
P
Af
This structure appears to be incompatible with that of V-P as [V P]V and moreover it should
assume the existence of a supplementary rule N+P→N.
According to the “Bracket Erasure Convention”88, the internal categorial brackets of
a complex word are erased at the end of the derivational process, thus obtaining a new word
whose internal structure is not visible to all subsequent operations. V-Ps, by virtue of their
discontinuous nature, seem to contradict this principle, in that the affixes that add to V-Ps
may appear in between these two elements, as we already noted in examples (72) and (78).
Past participles/adjectives, as illustrated in section 5.2, are yet another exemplification of
this fact:
(80)
gone over
(Zubizarreta 1987, 96, in Miller 1993, 131)
brought-up
(Simpson 1983, 281)
Simpson (1983) suggests that V-Ps should be considered as single lexical entries from a
morphological point of view and as discontinuous expressions from a syntactical point of
view: this implies that the internal brackets of these complex words remain visible to further
derivations and to syntax as well. Simpson defines this type of lexical entries as belonging
to a special category X, whose words are generated in the lexicon but do not conform to the
Bracket Erasure Convention89 and whose structure is the following:
(81)
[ [Verb] [Particle] ]V
This hypothesis implies that affixes can add to the verb or the particle at different “levels”.
Simpson takes as an example the verb to bring up and its past participle brought up (which
becomes an adjective). In this case, the inflection of the verb applies to the verb and not to
the V-P, thereby allowing insertion of material within the word. This implies that the internal
brackets that contain V and P are still present in the structure, as we can see in (81). Simpson
states that the irregular inflection of the verb to bring is at “level 1”, and that, therefore, one
will have the following scheme:
39
(82)
[ [ X _ ] + V. + Past/PastParticiple [up]P ]V
The same applies to nouns and nominal inflection. Let us take as an example the deverbal
noun hangers on. The suffix –er adds to the verb (and not to the particle as in the previous
cases), thereby generating the agentive noun hanger on which belongs to the category N
and whose internal brackets remain visible, so that at the subsequent level, the plural –s
will add to hanger90. Simpsonʼs hypothesis therefore consists in considering V-Ps as V to be
inserted in the syntax with brackets untouched and possibly subject to stylistic movement
rules such as the particle movement. This hypothesis, as Simpson herself underlines, violates
the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH)91 and does not apply to syntactical theories such as
Lexical-Functional Grammar and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, which do not allow
stylistic movement rules. There follows that Simpsonʼs hypothesis calls for discontinuous
lexical insertion, i.e. the possibility of considering V-Ps as single entries in morphology
(given that they form a single lexical item at both a-structure and semantic level) and as
discontinuous items in syntax.
5.4. Special Instances of V-Ps and Noun Derivation
Fraser (1976, 7) quotes examples of V-Ps such as to keel over, to mull over, to well
up/at/over92, in which the first element, so to speak the “verbal” element, does not act as a
verb when not accompanied by the P, or else its meaning as a verb would be far from the one
held by the V-P. To mull on its own is a verb but has a wholly different meaning as opposed
to to mull over. Keel and well on their own are nouns, but turn into verbs when coupled with
the particle. In this last case one should assume a highly unlikely N+P→V formation rule,
which would imply a number of formal problems such as the fact that the P would have
to take the V category and percolate it to the upper level. Alternatively, one would have to
assume that these verbs are formed by analogy with such verbs as to rope in or to rope off,
in which to rope exists as a standalone verb and derives by conversion from the noun rope.
The problem here is that these verbs ʻeludeʼ, so to say, the central passage N→V and pass
straight onto the verb:
N→(V) + P→V
The brackets around the verb indicate that it is a possible but non existing word of the
language. The verb to keel, for instance, does not exist in English, but it would be a perfectly
40
well-formed and acceptable word in that language. One can therefore envisage the following
structure:
V
(V)
P
N
Yet another special case of derivation is recorded by Simpson (1983), who illustrates
how there are certain nouns formed along the lines of the deverbal nouns above (i.e. nouns
derived from V-Ps), but whose corresponding V-P does not exist. Simpson (1983) gives the
following examples:
(83)
[show-down]N
*[show down]V
[ring-in]N
*[ring in]V
[love-in]N
*[love in]V
[teach-in]N
*[teach in]V
At first glance, one could think that these nouns were [N-P]N compounds, but this would
work only for the first three examples and not for to teach in, given that to teach can only be
a verb93. As above, we can suggest the following rule:
V+P→(V)→N
As in section 5.1., V-Ps generate nouns by conversion. On the analogy of this kind of
operation, nouns can be formed whose base is non existing yet a possible V-P:
N
(V)
V
P
These last two examples of derivation are difficult to interpret and the hypothesis
41
drawn thereupon should be considered as questionable and tentative. This notwithstanding,
one can say that the addition of particles to verbs and the nouns therefrom derived is a
phenomenon that creates a substantial number of new lexical items in English. In actual fact,
on the analogy of constructions such as [V P]V and [[V P]V]N, new words such as the ones
illustrated earlier are created.
5.5. V-Ps and Prefixes
Both Fraser (1976) and Selkirk (1982) state that in English prefixes never add to VPs. Fraser (1976, 15 and 32) reports examples such as those in (84) and (85) and explains
them with phonological-prosodic considerations:
(84)
She tied/*untied down the flapping corner of the carpet
Harry must measure/*remeasure out the amount of grain he wants
(85)
He heated the water too high
He overheated the water
He heated up the water too high
*He overheated up the water
One can already formulate some hypothesis based on these data, but let us first consider the
example in (86), taken from Fraser (1976, 32):
(86)
*He reoutplayed his brother at baseball
According to Fraser, this last example shows that a prefixed verb94 cannot undergo prefixation,
i.e. prefixation is not recursive95. This takes us back to (84) and (85). Here too we are in the
presence of complex verbs, in this case V-Ps, that cannot be modified through prefixation. As
we said earlier, English modern Ps derive from OE prefixes, and V-Ps are the consequence
of structural changes the language underwent between OE and ME. We feel that V-Ps cannot
be modified by prefixation just in the same way as prefixed verbs because these two surface
structures, which are morphologically different due to diachronic reasons, correspond in a
sense to the same deep structure. Therefore, the verb is modified either by the prefix or by
the P/postfix, which turn out to have the same function. Consequently, neither prefixed verbs
nor V-Ps can be further modified through prefixation.
42
6. Conclusion
This chapter dealt with V-Ps and showed how they can be considered as complex
discontinuous verbs. The analysis of the modifying action of the P brought some evidence that
the formation of V-Ps is to attribute to morphology rather than to syntax, since P introduces
changes, such as a-structure modifications, that take place only at a lexical level. Finally, the
latter section of the chapter showed how V-Ps are easily subject to further morphological
operations. This, together with their tendency to idiomatization, is an indication of their
lexical status.
The next chapter of this work will proceed with the analysis of prefixed verbs in
Russian. The action of Russian prefixes will be then compared to that of English particles in
the third chapter.
43
Notes Chapter I
1
During the discussion, the sign P, which usually stands for “preposition”, is used to symbolize the particles.
2
Example taken from den Dikken (1995, 40).
3
Id. note 2.
4
Example taken from Jackendoff (1977, 80), quoted in den Dikken (1995, 41, n.12).
5
Id. note 2.
6
For the definition of proper V-Ps, cf. section 2.
7
The adverbs right and straight are therefore subject to some positional restrictions:
(1)
He gulped down the milk
He gulped the milk down
He gulped the milk straight down
but
*He gulped straight down the milk
(2)
John looked up the information
John looked the information up
John looked the information right up
but
* John looked right up the information
8
As Fraser (1976, 27) suggests, interjections such as the hell/the heck should be added to the list of insertable
adverbs.
9
Cf. section 4.
10
Simpson (1983) states that the “Direct syntactic encoding” in Kaplan & Bresnan (1980) and Bresnan (ed.)
(1982) is similar to the “Projection principle of government and binding” in Chomsky (1981).
11
Cf. section 5.
12
Reanalysis is a “syntactic operation that modifies the structure without modifying the linear order of the
string” (Beccaria (ed.) 1996, 626; translation from Italian by the author).
13
The test is used by the authors to analyse the so-called “compound-like phrases” in Italian. Its (partial)
extension to this analysis is justified by the fact that the aim is similar, i.e. deciding whether a certain construction
is a complex word or a phrase.
14
Examples are taken from Fraser (1976, 17-9). For further discussion cf. section 3.2.
15
Cf. section 2.4.
16
See expressions like to have a sit-down or to hold a sit-down (strike).
17
Kruisinga (1931, 232-3), quoted in Brinton (1988, 170), states that to sit and to sit down convey two different
actions at aktionsart level.
18
The sentence in (8b) might be acceptable in a poetic/stylistically high context.
44
“In morphology we define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the right-hand member of that
19
word.” (Williams 1981, 248).
Di Sciullo and Klipple speak of French prefixes as “modifiers”, i.e. “elements which are predicates of an
20
entity or event, adding information about the event without becoming the head, without changing the syntactic
category and without serving as an argument” (1993, 4-5). Cf. also section 1.2., Chapter II.
21
Cf. Bacchielli (1986), Brinton (1988), Hiltunen (1983), Konishi (1958) and Traugott (1982).
22
Many other factors could be quoted that took part in the structural shift from prefixes to particles, e.g., the huge
amount of compound words imported from Latin and French which led the English language to look for native and
more colloquial alternatives (cf. Bacchielli 1986), the semantic weakening and grammaticalization of prefixes (cf.
Samuels 1972, de la Cruz 1975, Hiltunen 1983 and Denison 1985, cited in Brinton 1988, 189), the great espressiveness
of phrasal forms (cf. de la Cruz 1975, Hiltunen 1983 and Denison 1985, cited in Brinton 1988, 189).
Of course, prefixed verbs did not disappear, but the high productivity they had in the past started to fade
23
gradually. Their widespread use in OE is still recognizable in lexicalized remnant prefixed verbs such as to
withdraw, to uphold, to upset, etc. Nowadays, only few prefixes seem to be still productive (though not so
productive as particles), e.g. over-, out-, under-, down-, up- (cf. Bacchielli 1986, 121-2).
24
Cf. Bacchielli (1986), Brinton (1988), Diensberg (1990), Goh (2001) and Hiltunen (1983).
25
Example taken from Bacchielli (1986, 23).
26
Fraser (1976, 13) says that, besides him, also Kennedy (1920) and Whorf (1964) noted that most verbs
occurring with particles are monosyllabic.
Especially phonologically monosyllabic verbs ending in liquid or nasal consonants, e.g. batter (around),
27
battle (out), widen (out).
The UBH is “a hypothesis proposed by Aronoff (1976) and Scalise (1984) which says that Word Formation
28
Rules may only operate over a single type of syntactically or semantically defined base. This means that there
may be affixation rules which attach an affix to the class of ʻtransitive verbsʼ or to the class of ʻabstract nounsʼ,
but rules which attach an affix to both the class of ʻtransite verbsʼ and the class of ʻabstract nounsʼ are ruled out”
(cf. Don, Kerstens & Ruys). See also the “Modified Unitary Base Hypothesis” in Scalise (1994, 212-3).
29
It is worth noting that there exists the corresponding PrepP over the night.
30
The examples (11), (13), (14), (16)-(18) are taken from Fraser (1976, 2-3).
31
Fraser (1976, 25-7) underlines that there are cases when an adverbial element or an interjection can interpose
between V and P, e.g.:
a)
Iʼll look the information right up
b)
They cleaned it all up
c)
Iʼll look it the hell up after I finish eating
Cf. also example (7) and note 7.
32
According to Bacchielli (1986, 66), the P element of Germanic constructions like P-V, when strongly stressed,
45
tended to move after the verb in English, thus forming a V+P construction where the P element remains
strongly stressed.
33
Capital letters mean that the word is strongly stressed.
34
Cf. note 31.
35
Cf. Di Sciullo & Williams (1987), Lapointe (1980) and Spencer (1991).
36
The “Bracket Erasure Convention” is “a convention proposed in Kiparsky (1982) stating that internal
brackets are erased at the end of a lexical level or stratum. As a consequence of this convention words become
phonologically inert at the end of each lexical level, i.e., they can no longer be affected by cyclic phonological
rules. After bracket erasure, morphologically derived words are treated as though they were underived. In
Kiparskyʼs view this inertness extends to morphological processes, and word formation rules therefore do not
have access to the internal structure of words derived at an earlier level” (cf. Don, Kerstens & Ruys).
37
Cf. “Direct Syntactic Encoding” by Kaplan and Bresnan (1980) and Bresnan (ed.) (1982), according to which
a-structure cannot be created or destroyed in the syntax (cf. Simpson 1983).
38
Simpson offers examples of inversion in (3) and AUX splitting in (4).
(3)
A:Kapi-rna-ju
ka-nyi
wurulypa
nantuwu-rla
ʻI will carry her off for myself on horsebackʼ
Here the preverb wurulypa comes after the verb kangu instead of preceding it.
(4)
(…) rdilypirr-karri
ka-rna-rla
marlaja
ʻ(The mosquito bit me), I am wounded because of itʼ
Here the AUX ka-rna-rla separates the preverb marlaja from the verb rdilypirr-karri.
39
“Verb Second is the rule that moves the tensed verb into second position in main clauses, and presupposes
that the underlying word order of Dutch is SOV. Verb Raising is the rule that raises the verb of an embedded
clause to the right of the verb of the dominating clause where it forms a unit with that verb” (Booij 1992, 52).
Booij gives an example of both, respectively:
(5)
John
beldei
me
op ti
John
rang
me
up
ʻJohn phoned meʼ
(6)
dat
John
that
John
[PRO
me
op ti]
wil
bellen
me
up
wants
ring
ʻthat John wants to phone meʼ
40
Anyway, only particle+verb compounds with stress on the particle are separable.
41
Becker shows how particle+verb compounds remain one-word in subordinate clauses (7) and separate in
main clauses (8):
(7)
46
(weil)
er
die
Zeitung
oft
nicht
ausliest
(because)
he
the
newspaper
often
not
out+read
ʻbecause he often doesnʼt read the whole newspaperʼ
(8)
er1
liest2
t1
die
Zeitung
oft
nicht
aus t2
he1
reads2
t1
the
newspaper
often
not
out+t2
ʻhe often doesnʼt read the whole newspaperʼ
42
Kiefer gives the following examples for these two cases, respectively:
(9)
Újjáépíted a házat?
ʻAre you going to rebuild the house?ʼ
Újjá.
ʻYesʼ
(10)
/lit. re-, anew/
ʻEgész ʻnap ʻszedte ʻössze a ʻholmiját
ʻHe was picking up his things all dayʼ
In the latter example, szedte össze ʻwas picking upʼ comes from összeszed ʻpick upʼ. The stress is indicated by
ʻ in the examples.
43
Ackerman & Webelhuth give an example of a complex verb (ära ostma ʻcorruptʼ) in which the preverb (ära
ʻawayʼ) is separated from the verbal stem (ostma ʻbuy, purchaseʼ):
(11)
mees
ostab
ta
söbra
ära
man
buy [3sg]
his
friend [gen]
away
ʻThe man is bribing his friend awayʼ
44
Examples of deverbal adjectives and nouns derived from the verb ära ostma ʻcorruptʼ are given (examples
taken from Ackerman & Webelhuth 1997):
(12)
äraostmatu
ʻincorruptibleʼ
äraostmatus
ʻincorruptibilityʼ
45
The “Adjacency Condition” was originally proposed by Siegel (1977), cf. Scalise (1994, 202, n. 5).
46
There follow some examples from Dressler & Merlini Barbaresi:
Polish:
szvagier
ʻbrother-in-lawʼ →
adj.szvagier-ski = szvagier-ow-ski
Russian:
mužik
ʻpeasantʼ
→
adj. mužik-ov-skij
Spanish:
polvo
ʻdustʼ
→
polv-ar-eda ʻcloud of dustʼ
47
Cf. note 10.
48
Example taken from Fraser (1976, 17).
49
Actually, this kind of sentence turns out to be not acceptable for some native speakers and acceptable for
others. Here it is a matter of linguistic varieties or even difference between individuals. A statistical survey
should be carried out about the degree of acceptability of all these sentences.
50
51
Of course, this mostly depends on intonation.
52
47
53
Once more, Fraser proposes to trace this back to prosodic reasons.
54
By “complicated” Fraser means a NP which includes intonational drops.
55
56
Example taken from Azzaro (1992, 91).
57
The term is taken from Azzaro (1992), who defines “transparent metaphors” as those constructions whose
semantics can be somehow interpreted on the grounds of clear analogies (cf. section 3).
58
The term is taken from Azzaro (1992).
59
As for the restrictions on the base cf. section 2.3.
60
61
62
E.g. also swallow up / swallow down or gobble up / gobble down. One might argue that the P up has an
aspectual/completive meaning, while down is a mere intensifier of action.
63
The verb to put takes more or less the same meaning with the Ps aside and by.
64
Of course, to put joins to up but in this case it takes a different meaning.
65
Note in particular to bank away/up, to store away/up.
66
Cf. the criteria for distinguishing V-Ps from V+Advs in section 2.4.
67
Isačenko (1962) (cited in Dahl 1999) includes in Russian aktionsart the following meanings: 1) phasal
meaning (ingressive, evolutive, delimitative, resultative); 2) quantitative meaning (attenuative, momentaneous);
3) iterative meaning (iterative proper, diminutive iteratives); 4) distributive meaning (object-distributive,
subject-distributive). All these meanings are conveyed by verbal prefixes (cf. Chapter II).
68
Brinton (1988, 169) quotes an example for each particle:
(13)
The children are eating up the candy
The management decided to close down the plant
The lights are fading out
You should shut off the electricity
Have you thought through the problem?
We have read over the documents
She is throwing away her money
69
Brinton (1988, 175) gives the following examples as regards iterative aspect:
(14)
The carpenter chipped away at the plaster
The politician babbled on about the campaign
The runners jogged along (on) at a good pace
and continuative aspect:
(15)
We drove on (along) for miles
He worked away at the problem for hours
48
You should carry on with your work
70
Bacchielli (1986, 49-50) offers the following examples:
(16)
They had to close down for lack of orders
Weʼve sold out. They wound up the evening by singing folksongs
The carpets were rolled up for storage
Youʼre getting on very nicely
He was arrested for giving out leaflets without permission
The satellite will burn up in the atmosphere
71
There follow the examples illustrated by Fraser (1976, 6):
(17)
to beat up, to churn up, to mix up, to shake up, to stir up
(18)
to bunch up, to coil up, to curl up, to wind up
(19)
to die out, to fade out, to broaden out, to flatten out, to lengthen out, to spread out, to stretch out, to
widen up
72
Actually, Brinton (1988) suggests an alternative idea to explain the shift from spatial to non spatial meaning,
i.e. “iconicity” and “metonymia”.
73
Cf. section 1.
74
For our present purposes, we will not distinguish between “zero derivation” and “conversion”.
75
Examples taken from Fraser (1976, 27-9).
76
Some deverbal nouns derived by conversion have a hyphen between the stem and the P, others not. According
to Bacchielli (1986, 125), the fact that the written form of these nouns (and adjectives) can be “solid”,
“hyphenated” and “open” depends on their degree of formalization.
77
The two formations often convey different meanings of the same V-P. E.g. breakout is a noun derived from
one of the meanings of to break out, whereas outbreak derives from another meaning of the very same verb.
78
The suffix –ness forms nouns from adjectives, whereas suffixes –hood and –ful derive nouns from nouns.
79
Examples from Selkirk (1982, 109).
80
As for “secondary derivation” in -ish of adjectives, cf. section 5.2.
81
82
The first two examples are from Simpson (1983, 282), the third from Miller (1993, 132) and the last two from
Bacchielli (1986, 87).
83
The suffix –ish forms adjectives from nouns.
84
85
The suffix –less forms adjectives from nouns.
86
87
Examples from Selkirk (1982, 54) and Bacchielli (1986, 139).
88
Cf. note 36.
49
89
Cf. section 3.1.
90
It should be noted that Simpson accepts hanger-ons as well.
91
Cf. note 35.
92
For further examples cf. Fraser (1976, 7-8).
93
As for words of the sit-in type, cf. Bacchielli (1986, 181-6). The author states that a great number of these
forms have been created from the sixties. The originator of these forms is sit-in, deriving from the verb to sit
in; then a series of similar constructions with a noun or an adjective were created by analogy (e.g. audience-in,
shoe-in, bed-in, etc.).
94
Actually, we might consider to outplay not as a prefixed verb but rather as a compound verb having the [P V]V
structure (cf. Bauer 1983). In this case, one should say that the compound verb to outplay cannot be modified
through prefixation.
95
Here “recursion” is meant in a broad sense, i.e. the iteration of prefixation in general and not of the same
particular prefix.
50
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
Chapter II
1. The Subject Matter: Prefixed Verbs in Russian
The second chapter of this work deals with prefixed verbs in Russian, examples of
which are given under (87):
(87)
na- + pisatʼ ʻto writeʼ
→ napisatʼ ʻto writeʼ96
pro- + guljatʼ ʻto walkʼ
→ proguljatʼ ʻto walk for a whileʼ
za-
+ rabotatʼ ʻto workʼ → zarabotatʼ ʻ to earnʼ
Traditionally, verbal prefixation in Russian and other Slavic languages is seen as a
process aimed at forming perfective verbs, i.e. a process which introduces aspectual changes.
In actual fact, verbal prefixation in Russian can be considered as a productive derivational
process that forms new lexical items (without changing the category of the base word),
since adding prefixes to verbs produces not only aspectual but also Aktionsart, semantic and
functional-grammatical changes.
1.1. Slavic/Russian vs. “Latin” Verbal Prefixes
In the following discussion, we will take into consideration verbal prefixes of Slavic/
Russian derivation, distinguishing them from prefixes derived from Latin. Table 2 (following
page) offers a list of both97. The main distinction between Russian and Latin prefixes consists
in the fact that the latter do not change the aspect of the verb they add to. Below are some
examples of verbs with Latin prefixes98:
a) de-/dez-(from Latin de-)99:
informirovatʼ (IMP/PER) ʻto informʼ → dezinformirovatʼ(IMP/PER) ʻto misinformʼ
orientirovatʼ (IMP/PER) ʻto orientʼ → dezorientirovatʼ (IMP/PER) ʻto disorientʼ
b) dis- (from Latin dis-)100:
garmonirovatʼ (IMP) ʻto be in harmony withʼ → disgarmonirovatʼ (IMP) ʻto be out
of tuneʼ
kvalificirovatʼ(IMP/PER) ʻto rank, to testʼ → diskvalificirovatʼ (IMP/PER) ʻto
disqualifyʼ
51
c) pred- (from Latin pre-):
videtʼ ʻto seeʼ (IMP) → predvidetʼ ʻto foreseeʼ (IMP)
skazatʼ ʻto sayʼ (PER) → predskazatʼ ʻto predictʼ (PER)
d) re- (from Latin re-):
konstruirovatʼ ʻto constructʼ (IMP) → rekonstruirovatʼ ʻto reconstructʼ (IMP)
organizovatʼ ʻto organiseʼ (IMP/PER) → reorganizovatʼ ʻto reorganiseʼ (IMP/PER)
e) so- (from Latin co-)101:
čuvctvovatʼ ʻto feelʼ (IMP) → sočuvctvovatʼ ʻto sympathise withʼ (IMP)
dejstvovatʼ ʻto actʼ (IMP) → sodejstvovatʼ ʻto contributeʼ (IMP)
Table 2
Proper Russian Prefixes
vvzvozvydozaiznanadnedonizootperepopodprepriprorazsu-
Latin Prefixes
dedispredreso-
With the sole exception of so-, the above prefixes are added to words of foreign
derivation (in particular Latin/Romance)102. We could suggest that these prefixes tend to
select foreign roots103, while proper Russian prefixes tend to select Slavic ones. For example,
52
the verbs rekonstruirovatʼ and perestroitʼ have the same meaning, i.e. ʻto build againʼ. The
former consists of the Latin prefix re- and the verb konstruirovatʼ ʻto constructʼ (of Latin
derivation) and remains imperfective, whereas the latter is formed by the Russian prefix
pere-104 and the verb stroitʼ ʻto buildʼ (of Slavic derivation), whose union gives rise to a
perfective verb. As for functional-grammatical changes, the prefixes de-, dis-, pred-, redo
not seem to change the a-structure of the original verb, even though so- may change it, as in
the case of the verbs above105. Moreover, Latin prefixes seem to occupy an external position
with respect to Russian prefixes. If we consider the verb sopereživatʼ (IMP), ʻto share the
same feelings/experiencesʼ, we notice that it has the following structure:
[ [so]Pref2 + [ [ [pere]Pref1 + [žitʼ]V(IMP) ]V(PER) + [va]Suf]V(IMP)]V(IMP)
Pereživatʼ is the derived imperfective106 of perežitʼ (PER) (meaning ʻto experienceʼ). The
prefix so-, which is the most external affix, does not change the aspect of the verb pereživatʼ.
Unfortunately, there are few verbs containing both a Latin and a Russian prefix, since Latin
prefixes, as we said earlier, seem to select Romance verbs, while proper Russian prefixes
seem to add to Slavic ones. As a consequence, Latin (external) prefixes will rarely add to
pure Russian (prefixed) verbs. We could not find examples with de-/dez-, dis- and re-, but we
do have some with so- and pred-: so-pere-živatʼ, ʻto share the same feelings/experiencesʼ, sona-sledovatʼ, ʻto co-inheritʼ, pred-u-smotretʼ, ʻto foreseeʼ, pred-ras-položitʼ, ʻto predispose
toʼ107.
In conclusion, we distinguish between non-aspectual/Latin prefixes and aspectual/
proper Russian prefixes. This work deals with the latter, which, besides being aspectualizers,
may provide the verb with a new lexical and/or sublexical (Aktionsart) meaning and may
change its functional/grammatical properties (a-structure, subcategorization frame, etc.).
Sections 2 and 3 will deal with the derivational process which leads to the formation of
prefixed verbs as new lexical items and the type of modifications it brings to the verb itself.
Before moving on to these sections, we will attempt to extend to Russian prefixes the analysis
of French prefixes by Di Sciullo and Di Sciullo & Klipple, and that of Spanish prefixes by
Varela & Haouet.
1.2. The Analysis by Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993) and Di Sciullo (1994)
Following Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993), we assume that prefixes are “modifiers”,
i.e. “predicates of an entity or event, adding further information about the event without
53
becoming the head, without changing the syntactic category and without serving as an
argument”. According to Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993) and Di Sciullo (1994), prefixes are
adjuncts that modify the “geometry of the event” (cf. Pustejovsky 1988), a set of properties
(temporal, spatial and scalar) that define the shape of the event108. On the grounds of this
general frame, the authors (and especially Di Sciullo (1994)) develop a distinction between
internal and external prefixes, whose features are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Internal Prefixes (IN-PX)
External Prefixes (EX-PX)
a. are V° adjuncts, i.e. direct sisters of the
aʼ. are Vmax adjuncts, i.e. are outside the
verb
maximal a-structure domain of the verb109
b. semantically modify subparts of the
bʼ. semantically modify the whole event,
internal aspectual structure of the event
giving rise to a second related event, and
and may affect both the Aktionsart and the
produce aspectual modifications of the
a-structure110
entire event, but do not affect the a-structure
nor the Aktionsart111
c. may not be iterated and co-occur
cʼ. may be iterated and co-occur112
d. follow external prefixes
dʼ. precede internal prefixes113
e. may be related to prepositional phrase
(PrepP) complements of the verbs, so there
may be a correspondence between prefix
and preposition though they might not be
homonymous114
f. do not necessarily give rise to an
interpretable structure115
Di Sciullo & Klipple claim that prefixes are “semantically aspectual in nature” and
therefore modify the aspectual structure of the verb, i.e. the “temporal, spatial and scalar
vectors in the geometry of the event”. Clearly, the authors make use of a peculiar definition
of “aspect” which is different from the one used in this chapter. Here we maintained the
traditional meaning of “aspect” used in Slavic and Russian linguistics116, i.e. a grammatical
54
category aimed at distinguishing imperfective from perfective verbs117.
With reference to the distinction between external and internal prefixes by Di Sciullo
& Klipple, we can notice some similarities with the distinction between Russian and Latin
prefixes. First of all, both external and Latin prefixes do not change the a-structure nor the
Aktionsart of the event, but rather modify the “external” semantics118 of the original verb. At
the same time, and as we will see below, both internal and Russian prefixes may change the
a-structure and the Aktionsart of the base verb, and not only its lexical meaning. As regards
iteration and co-occurrence, it seems that Latin prefixes cannot be iterated nor co-occur119,
whereas Russian prefixes cannot be iterated but may co-occur, forming multi-prefixed verbs
(cf. section 5.1.2.). When a Latin and a Russian prefix co-occur, the former is always external
(cf. the above discussion). Finally, the feature displayed in point e in Table 3 can be easily
attributed to Russian prefixes as well. As a matter of fact, Russian prefixed verbs require
specific prepositions (plus corresponding cases) that are somehow related to the prefix120; in
other words, the prefix selects the PrepP complement of the verb (cf. section 3.2. below).
1.3. The Analysis by Varela & Haouet (2001)
We will now consider Varela & Haouetʼs analysis of verb-forming prefixes in Spanish.
The authors speak of lexical and functional prefixes, whose properties are briefly summed
up in Table 4.
Table 4
Functional Prefixes (F-PX)
Lexical Prefixes (L-PX)
a. add abstract semantic features,
aʼ. add semantic information not intrinsic
such as “dar, poner”, ʻto give, to putʼ
to the event, i.e. cause a sort of aspectual
(parasynthesis)121
modification such as “reversion, repetition,
previous occurrence”122
b. cannot omit their complements (N
bʼ. produce no changes in subcategorization
compl. Incorporated) and modify the
requirements and a-structure123
a-structure
c. modify the Aktionsart124
cʼ. delimit a specific Aktionsart reading of
the verb125
55
Both functional and lexical prefixes introduce changes in the semantics of the event, but only
functional prefixes can modify its a-structure, whereas lexical prefixes inherit the a-structure
of the original verb. For this reason, these two types of prefixes can co-occur and interact,
though subject to some restrictions:
L-Px + F-Px + Base
*F-Px + L-Px + Base
*F-Px + F-Px + Base
L-Px + L-Px + Base
L-PXs are always external to F-PXs. F-PXs cannot co-occur nor be iterated (since
subcategorization requirements change after their addition to the verb), whereas LPXs can co-occur. Going back to prefixes in Russian, we can notice that there are some
correspondences with Varela & Haouetʼs analysis. On the one hand, Latin prefixes introduce
the same changes L-PXs do, that is to say bring to the verb such meanings as “reversion
of action” (de-/dis-), “repetition of action” (re-), “previous occurrence” (pred-). On the
other, proper Russian prefixes may affect a-structure and Aktionsart just as F-PXs (and
Di Sciulloʼs internal prefixes) do, whereas Latin prefixes do not change subcategorization
requirements nor a-structure.
1.4. Prefixes in Russian: Aspectual vs. Non-Aspectual
In the light of what Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993), Di Sciullo (1994) and Varela & Haouet
(2001) have said about prefixes in French and Spanish, we now propose a classification of
verbal prefixes in Russian, distinguishing Aspectual/Russian prefixes from Non-Aspectual/
Latin prefixes. The main points are summarized in Table 5 (following page).
It is clear that what mainly distinguishes A-PXs from NA-PXs is the power of perfectivizing
the original verb (point a). In addition, points b and c show further features which characterize
aspectual prefixes, i.e. their ability to change the Aktionsart of the verb and its syntactical
properties. Of course, point d is common to both types of prefixes. The semantics of Russian
prefixes is a very complicated and debated topic, which will be dealt with in detail in
section 4. We can however anticipate that, semantically speaking, A-PXs are much more
complicated than NA-PXs. As a matter of fact, almost all A-PXs are polysemous (and their
several meanings are metaphorically linked to each other), while NA-PXs seem to have
only one meaning. In addition, A-PXs can co-occur, thus forming multi-prefixed verbs, but
56
cannot be iterated. NA-PXs, instead, cannot co-occur nor be iterated. Finally, point f seems
to corroborate the hypothesis that the real distinction between the two groups of prefixes
consists in the aspectual power. Since aspect is a verbal feature and A-PXs have aspectual
power, it follows that they should adjoin only to verbs131. On the contrary, NA-PXs do not
have this power; as a consequence, they adjoin to nouns and adjectives as well.
Table 5
Aspectual Prefixes (A-PX)
Non-Aspectual Prefixes (NA-PX)
a. change the aspect of the verb
aʼ. inherit the aspect of the original verb126
b. may change the Aktionsart of the verb
bʼ. do not change the Aktionsart of the verb
c. may change the a-structure of the verb
cʼ. do not change the a-structure of the
verb127
d. may change the semantics of the verb
dʼ. may change the semantics of the verb
e. are not recursive but can co-occur
eʼ. are not recursive and cannot co-occur128
(forming multi-prefixed verbs)
f. add only to verbs129
fʼ. add to verbs as well as nouns and
adjectives130
2. Verbal Prefixation as a Morphological Process
2.1. Verbal Prefixes and Aspect
Verbal prefixation in Russian is a morphological process forming new lexical entries.
This means that prefixes are not only aspectualizers, but also modifiers which affect the
semantics, a-structure and Aktionsart of the verb they adjoin to. However, prefixes play an
important role in the Russian verbal system, as they perfectivize the base verbs they add to.
Traditionally, prefixes are divided into:
-
merely perfectivizing (i.e. semantically empty);
-
sublexical (i.e. they affect the Aktionsart);
-
lexical.
57
Perfectivizing prefixes contribute to form the so-called “aspectual pairs”. An aspectual pair
consists of two verbs which are identical in meaning but different in aspect. However, some
scholars have claimed that purely perfectivizing prefixes do not exist, as they always introduce
some lexical or sublexical changes in the original verb. In particular, Isačenko (1975) divides
the prefixes into “qualifying” and “modifying”. The former create new lexical items, from
which it is possible to derive secondary corresponding imperfectives (cf. section 2.2.). The
latter modify the Aktionsart of the verb and are perfectiva tantum. Isačenko denies the
merely perfectivizing power of prefixes because, even when they convey meanings such as
“completion of action” or “attainment of a result”, these are still to be considered Aktionsart
and not properly aspectual modifications. Therefore, he does not accept traditional aspectual
pairs such as pisatʼ - napisatʼ ʻto writeʼ, delatʼ – sdelatʼ ʻto do/makeʼ, varitʼ – svaritʼ ʻto
cook/boilʼ, stroitʼ – postroitʼ ʻto buildʼ, as the perfective verbs napisatʼ, sdelatʼ, svaritʼ
and postroitʼ contain the meaning of “attainment of the result of action”, which is to be
attributed to Aktionsart. Therefore, according to Isačenko, pure aspectual derivation through
prefixation does not exist, as well as real “empty” prefixes. Townsend (1980, 117) notes that,
though the role of verbal prefixes seems to prevail as regards aspectual modification (because
of their high productivity), pure prefixal aspect-changing operations are rather rare and most
of all limited to few prefixes, i.e. po- and s-. Suffixes, instead, take part in imperfective
derivation and thus contribute to a great extent to the formation of “secondary” aspectual
pairs. In this work, though the minor role of prefixation in the creation of aspectual pairs with
respect to suffixation is acknowledged (cf. section 2.2.), the traditional division of prefixes
is maintained, as we feel that the meaning “completion of action” is to be attributed to the
perfective aspect, as we will immediately show132.
The distinction between imperfective and perfective is crucial for the verbal system
in Russian. Table 6 sketches the main differences between the two aspects. The data in
Table 6 are based on Gebert (1991), who analyses the differences between perfective and
imperfective and the interaction of aspect with the semantics of the verb. Gebert makes a
basic distinction between verbs denoting change and stative verbs.
58
Table 6
Perfective
Imperfective
With verbs denoting change, it asserts that With verbs denoting change, imperfectives
the process leads to establish a resulting
can have two meanings:
state, i.e. it implies the completion of
1) durative, e.g.:
action. E.g.:
V pjatʼ časov Vanja pisal pisʼmo
Vanja uže napisal pisʼmo
ʻAt 5 pm Vanja was writing a letterʼ
ʻVanja already wrote the letterʼ
2) iterative, e.g.:
The perfective verb here means that the
Oni vstrečalisʼ každyj denʼ
letter is finished.
ʻThey used to meet every dayʼ
With stative verbs, it denotes the beginning With stative verbs, it denotes accomplished
of action, i.e. the starting point of the state
facts (in this case it is called “resultative
itself, e.g.:
imperfective”), e.g.:
Ja uznala ob ètom včera
a) Včera ja chodil v kino
ʻI learned about it yesterdayʼ
ʻYesterday I went to the cinemaʼ
b) Ja daval emu knigu
ʻI gave him the bookʼ
Both cases do not imply the establishment
of the resulting states denoted by the verb
(i.e. the subject of (a) is not at the cinema
now, and the object of (b) already returned
the book), but focus on the event itself.
The fact that the perfective implies the realization of the state denoted by the verb has
repercussions on the use of tenses: perfective verbs can be only used in the past and in the
future, or rather, they are formally conjugated in the present with the same conjugation forms
as imperfectives, but these forms convey a future meaning. Since the use of the present
tense implies that the action is under way, the basic meaning of “completion” conveyed by
perfectives prevents them from occurring in the present. There follow some examples that
illustrate the differences between the imperfective and perfective uses of verbs:
59
(88)
a)
Tanja pisala pisʼmo
(IMP)
ʻTanja wrote/was writing/used to write a letterʼ
b)
Tanja napisala pisʼmo
(PER)
ʻTanja wrote (finished writing) a letterʼ
Sentence (88a) may have several meanings in accordance with the context: it could mean that
Tanja wrote a letter during a certain period of time (which might be an hour or a whole day),
or that she used to write a letter in the past (every day, every week, etc.), or it could simply
convey an accomplished fact. Therefore, the attention is focused on the action itself (be it
single or iterated) or on its duration. To the contrary, sentence (88b) focuses on the result of
the activity, i.e. on the existence of the completed letter. There follows another example133:
(89)
a)
Vanja uže otkryl okno
(PER)
ʻVanja has opened the window
b)
Vanja uže otkryval okno
(IMP)
ʻVanja opened the windowʼ
Sentence (89a) means that the window is opened now, as the perfective implies the realization
of the state, whereas sentence (89b) simply means that Vanja opened the window in the past,
but the window is closed now. The difference between the two aspects is more evident in the
following sentence134:
(90)
On dolgo otkryval (IMP) okno i, nakonec, otkryl (PER) ego
ʻHe tried to open the window for a long time and eventually he managed toʼ
The imperfective verb focuses on the whole action (i.e. the subject opens the window),
whereas the perfective means that the resulting state of that action is reached, i.e., in this
case, the window has been opened. As Gebert herself claims, it is clear that one can speak of
aspect of verbs only in relation with their semantics.
Going back to verbal prefixes, they are traditionally regarded as one of the
morphological means through which perfective verbs can be formed. The problem concerning
the prefixes is that they can bear also lexical or sublexical meanings135 and therefore, often do
not create true aspectual pairs. Quite to the contrary, suffixation can be regarded as a purely
perfectivizing process, especially if we consider the so-called “imperfective derivation”,
which gives rise to real aspectual pairs and will be dealt with in the following section.
60
2.2. Imperfective Derivation
Russian verbal prefixes, as we said, perfectivize the verb they attach to. However,
the addition of the prefix may introduce not only aspectual but also semantic changes in the
base verb. Moreover, more than one prefix can be adjoined to the same verb. There follows
that only one prefix forms the corresponding perfective (the one that changes the aspect
without affecting the semantics), whereas the others form new verbs. All these new verbs are
perfective and either have a different lexical meaning or maintain the lexical meaning of the
original verb while changing its Aktionsart. Both types of new verbs cannot be considered the
perfective partners of the original verb, because they are not identical in meaning. In addition,
the verbs denoting different Aktionsart of the same lexical verb rarely form corresponding
secondary imperfectives, whereas lexically new verbs require a corresponding imperfective
verb to form the aspectual pair. In this case, the imperfective is formed by a kind of suffixation
called “imperfective derivation” (by means of the suffixes -yva/-iva, -va, -a/-ja136). An example
of prefixation and consequent suffixation is given under (91):
(91)
pisatʼ (IMP) ʻto writeʼ + pod- → podpisatʼ ʻto signʼ (PER) + -yva → podpisyvatʼ
ʻto signʼ (IMP)
The prefix pod- is added to pisatʼ and forms a new verb with a different lexical meaning.
Consequently, this new lexical entry undergoes imperfective derivation to “complete” its
aspectual pair. The true aspectual pair here is:
(92)
podpisatʼ (PER) – podpisyvatʼ (IMP)
Therefore, the addition of a lexical prefix to a verbal base gives rise to a new verb which in
turn undergoes imperfective derivation to create an aspectual pair. This does not normally
occur with prefixes that modify the Aktionsart of the verb, though there are some cases in
which a secondary imperfective is formed, e.g.:
(93)
dopisatʼ (PER) – dopisyvatʼ (IMP)
ʻto finish writingʼ
It is not always easy to distinguish lexical from sublexical meanings and predict when a
prefixed verb will require a corresponding derived imperfective. According to Townsend
(1980, 118), if a prefix introduces in the verb a change that is perceived as “lexical” by native
61
speakers rather than merely aspectual or sublexical, then a corresponding imperfective verb
can be derived.
2.3. A Formal Description of Prefixes
From a morphological point of view, prefixes are bound morphemes that add to a
base in order to form a complex word and generate a structure like the one below (cf. Bisetto,
Mutarello, Scalise 1990 and Scalise 1994, 259):
[ Prefix + [
] X ]X
Prefixes do not change the category of the base they add to, therefore the head of the complex
word is the element on the right.
In this specific instance, verbal prefixes in Russian do not alter the category of the
verb, but modify its structure in terms of:
-
aspect
-
Aktionsart
-
lexical semantics
-
a-structure and subcategorization frame (especially transitivity)
-
selective restrictions
Thus, Russian prefixes can be regarded as modifiers of the verbs they adjoin to. This
implies they do not change the category of the verb and become the non-head constituent
of the complex word. However, though not endowed with their own category, a-structure
and subcategorization frame137, they should be considered as lexical entries that pass their
lexical information on to the verb. This addition leads to the creation of new words, with new
meanings and new syntactic properties, therefore prefixation should be regarded as a proper
“Word Formation Rule” (WFR)138.
According to Bisetto, Mutarello, Scalise (1990) and Scalise (1994, 258-60), prefixation
as a WFR (in Italian) has a series of properties which will be partially extended to Russian
prefixes in the analysis below.
1. Formation of new words: most Russian prefixes form new perfective verbs which,
being semantically independent from the original verb, may require corresponding
imperfective verbs;
62
2. Influence on suffixation:
Verb
Noun denoting
Agentive noun
the action conveyed
by the verb
pisatʼ
pisanie
pisatelʼ
ʻto writeʼ (IMP)
ʻwritingʼ
ʻwriterʼ
napisatʼ
napisanie
*napisatelʼ
ʻto writeʼ (PER)
ʻspelling/way of writingʼ
perepisatʼ
perepisyvanie139
*perepisatelʼ
ʻto re-write, to write out/
(also perepiska)
(perepisčik ʻcopyistʼ)
to copyʼ
ʻcopyingʼ
dopisatʼ
*dopisanie
*dopisatelʼ
ʻto finish writing, to addʼ
Nominal suffixation is affected by the presence of different prefixes. The verbs pisatʼ
and napisatʼ maintain the suffix –nie to form derived nouns denoting the action of the
verb: whereas pisanie denotes the action of writing in general, napisanie, deriving
from the perfective napisatʼ, focuses on the result of writing and therefore denotes
the spelling. The suffix -telʼ, instead, cannot add to napisatʼ.
While pisatʼ and napisatʼ are traditionally regarded as an aspectual pair, perepisatʼ
and dopisatʼ are lexically different from the original verb (and have imperfective
corresponding verbs). Perepisatʼ gives rise to two general nouns (perepisyvanie,
where the suffix –nie adds to the imperfective verb, and perepiska, formed by a
different suffix, -ka, which adds to the root perepis-) and one agentive noun in –čik
(i.e. perepisčik). Dopisatʼ cannot form nouns in –nie nor in –telʼ.
3. Recursion: unlike some Italian prefixes, Russian verbal prefixes cannot be iterated
((94a)), but can co-occur giving rise to cases of multiple prefixation ((94b))140:
(94)
a.
*iz-iz-bratʼ
*raz-raz-rabotatʼ
b.
pere-iz-bratʼ
ʻto elect againʼ
po-y-bivatʼ
ʻto kill (one after another)ʼ
63
4. Restrictions on the base:
a)
Syntactical/grammatical restrictions: verbal prefixes add to both transitive
((95a)) and intransitive verbs ((95b)):
(95)
a. pisatʼ ʻto writeʼ
→
zapisatʼ ʻto write downʼ
ʻto readʼ
→
perečitatʼ ʻto read againʼ
b. sochnutʼ ʻto dryʼ
→
vysochnutʼ ʻto dry outʼ
→
zakrasnetʼ ʻto begin to turn redʼ
čitatʼ
krasnetʼ ʻto reddenʼ
As for aspect, prefixes can add both to imperfectives (forming new
perfective verbs) ((96a)) and perfectives (forming double-prefixed verbs)
((96b)):
(96)
a. govoritʼ ʻto speakʼ (IMP) → zagovoritʼ ʻto begin to speakʼ
(PER)
čitatʼ ʻto readʼ (IMP) → počitatʼ ʻto read for a whileʼ (PER)
b. pod-gotovitʼ ʻto prepare/trainʼ (PER) → pere-pod-gotovitʼ ʻto
retrainʼ (PER)
razʼʼ-echatʼsjaʻto departʼ (PER) → po-razʼʼ-echatʼsja ʻto leave
one after anotherʼ (PER)
Moreover, prefixes may be added to bi-aspectual verbs in order to
emphasize their perfective meaning in certain contexts:
(97)
organizovatʼ
→
sorganizovatʼ ʻto organizeʼ
ženitʼsja
→
poženitʼsja
ʻto get marriedʼ
In addition, prefixes can also add to prefixed imperfectives (derived by
imperfective suffixation), e.g. po-vytaskivatʼ ʻto drag/pull outʼ, and to
prefixed perfective verbs, e.g. pere-vypolnitʼ ʻto fulfil againʼ141. In both
cases, the output verb will be perfective.
b)
Semantic restrictions: verbal prefixes add both to stative and dynamic
verbs:
(98)
idti ʻto go (on foot) → vojti
znatʼ ʻto knowʼ
ʻto go inʼ
→ poznatʼ ʻto become acquainted withʼ
However, prefixes may impose some semantic restrictions when they
add to a prefixed verb, as the meanings of the two prefixes should not
be contradictory. For instance, a verb like *u-pri-jti (where idti means
ʻto go (on foot)ʼ) would not exist, as the prefixes u- and pri-, meaning
respectively “away” and “to”, contradict each other142.
64
c)
Phonological restrictions: it seems that verbal prefixes do not impose
phonological restrictions on the base, as they are endowed with at least one
allomorph which allows it to add to any base. Šanskij (1968, 115) states that
“the affixation of prefixes to the parent word does not depend on the nature
of the initial sound of the parent stem or on the final sound of the prefix:
both consonants and vowels can be encountered side by side”.
d)
Morphological restrictions: it seem that, as Šanskij (1968, 119) says,
“denominal verbs, formed from nouns or adjectives, can only very rarely
produce prefixal forms. […] Obviously, as soon as a verb ceases to be felt
as a denominal formation, prefixed forms immediately begin to appear
from it”. In addition, one might speak of the “tendency” of Russian verbal
prefixes to add to native bases143.
5. Prefixes and the “Unitary Base Hypothesis” (UBH): at first sight, the prefixes
considered in this work seem to add to verbs only. However, some phonologically
identical prefixes occur in nominal and adjectival prefixation. There follows a list of
these prefixes144:
Prefixes adding to nouns
pod- (sub-)
pod + gruppa ʻgroupʼ → podgruppa ʻsubgroupʼ
so- (co-)
so + avtor ʻauthorʼ → soavtor ʻco-authorʼ
pri- (addition, attachment)
pri + gorod ʻtownʼ → prigorod ʻsuburbʼ
pro- (pro)
pro + communist ʻCommunist→ procommunist ʻpro-Communistʼ
raz- (intensification of meaning)
raz + krasavica ʻa beautiful womanʼ → razkrasavica ʻa very beautiful womanʼ
Prefixes adding to adjectives
pre- (intensification of meaning)
pre + dobryj ʻkindʼ → predobryj ʻextremely kindʼ
pro- (pro)
pro-amerikanskij ʻAmericanʼ → proamerikanskij ʻpro-Americanʼ
65
raz- (intensification of meaning)
raz + vesëlyj ʻgayʼ → razvesëlyj ʻextremely gayʼ
so- (co)
so + pričastnyj ʻparticipatingʼ → sopričastnyj ʻco-participatingʼ
Nominal and adjectival prefixes in Russian are much less productive than verbal ones.
As for prefixes adding to nouns, pod-, pri- and raz- might be partially associated with the
homonymous verbal prefixes, though they maintain only one of the several meanings
owned by the latter145. The prefixes so-, ʻtogether withʼ, and pro-, ʻin favour ofʼ, derive
from Latin. The former adds to verbs, too, but does not form perfective verbs146. The
latter, instead, should be distinguished from the “verbal” pro-, whose meaning is totally
different147. As regards prefixes adding to adjectives, pro- and so- are not very productive
and derive from Latin, whereas pre- and raz- add to verbs as well, even though the latter
maintains only the intensifying meaning148. In conclusion, the pro- of Latin derivation,
meaning ʻin favour ofʼ, can be added to nouns and adjectives (e.g. prokommunist, ʻproCommunistʼ, proamerikanskij, ʻpro-Americanʼ); pod- and pri- add to both nouns and
verbs (e.g. podgruppa, ʻsubgroupʼ, podpisatʼ, ʻto signʼ, prigorod, ʻsuburbʼ, pridumatʼ,
ʻto inventʼ); pre- adds to both adjectives and verbs (e.g. predobrji, ʻextremely niceʼ,
preuveličitʼ, ʼto exaggerateʼ); so- and raz- can be attached to nouns, adjectives and verbs
(soavtor, ʻco-authorʼ, sopričastnyj, ʻco-participatingʼ, sočuvstvovatʼ, ʻto sympathize
withʼ, razkrasavica ʻa very beautiful womanʼ, razvesëlyj ʻextremely merryʼ, razobidetʼ,
ʻto offend greatlyʼ). In actual fact, one could argue that pod- and pri-, when added to
nouns, are not prefixes but prepositions149, which attach to nouns forming compound
words. Moreover, so- cannot be considered a proper “verbal prefix”, as it derives from
Latin and does not introduce aspectual modifications as proper Russian/Slavic verbal
prefixes do150. Therefore, with the only exception of raz-151, proper Russian verbal
prefixes seem to follow the Modified Unitary Base Hypothesis (MUBH) (Scalise 1994,
212-7), according to which an affix “can be added at the same time either to Adjectives
and Nouns ([+N]), or to Adjectives and Verbs ([+V]), but not to Nouns and Verbs”152.
2.4. Prefixed-postfixed verbs
Together with prefixed verbs, we will also consider prefixed verbs that carry the
particle or postfix –sja in final position. There are three different structures that might
possibly represent verbs of the type “Pref + stem + sja”:
66
a. circumfix hypothesis
V
Pref
V
-sja
b. [ [Pref + V]V + sja ]V
V
V
Pref
-sja
V
c. [ Pref + [ V + sja]V ]V
V
Pref
V
V
-sja
Literally, the postfix -sja has a reflexive meaning and takes part in the formation of reflexive
verbs in Russian. However, in most prefixed-postfixed verbs one cannot delimitate its individual
semantic contribution to the overall meaning of the complex word. Therefore, the prefix and
–sja should be considered as a single morpheme because the modifications the verb undergoes
after their (simultaneous) addition are not attributable either to the prefix or to the particle, but
rather to their joint contribution. In other words, the semantics of the complex verb cannot be
derived from the consecutive addition of the meanings of these two elements to the original
verb. Therefore, they should be considered as a circumfix and represented as follows:
[ Prefix + [
]V + -sja ]V
67
Example (99) illustrates how prefix__sja should be treated as a circumfix:
(99)
a)
v- + dumatʼ ʻto thinkʼ + -sja → vdumatʼsja153 ʻto think over, to meditateʼ
b)
*v-dumatʼ
c)
dumatʼ-sja (only impersonal) ʻto seemʼ
Vdumatʼsja is a circumfixed verb, whose structure is of the type “A+stem+B”, where both
“A+stem” and “stem+B” are agrammatical, or convey a meaning totally different from
“A+stem+B”. In this case, *v-dumatʼ is agrammatical and dumatʼsja is completely different
in meaning with respect to the output verb.
This structure reminds us of Italian parasynthetic verbs such as ingiallire ʻto yellowʼ
and decaffeinare ʻto decaffeinateʼ, which are formed by an adjectival/nominal base and two
bound morphemes that are simultaneously added to the right and to the left of the base (cf.
Scalise 1994, 218). However, prefixed-postfixed verbs in Russian and parasynthetic verbs
in Italian are different in structure: in the former the prefix and the postfix add to a verb,
whereas, in the latter the prefix and the suffix add to an adjectival/nominal base. This means
that parasynthesis implies a category change and builds new verbs, whereas prefix_sja merely
modifies already existing verbs. In this sense, the circumfix hypothesis seems to be more
suitable and justifiable for prefixed-postfixed verbs in Russian than for Italian parasynthetic
verbs, since the former do not involve any category change and therefore, there only remains
to interpret the semantics of the output verb.
These circumfixed verbs will be taken into consideration in the following discussion
about the modifying action of prefixes.
3. Prefixes as Modifiers of the Verb
As we said earlier, verbal prefixes in Russian act as modifiers of the verb they adjoin
to. They modify not only aspect and semantics, but also the syntactic frame of the verb.
3.1. Aspectual and Semantic Variations
Following Sottofattori (1991, 25-6) and Townsend (1980, 116-22), we can classify
the modifying action of the prefixes as follows:
68
1. aspectual;
2. sublexical (i.e. they modify the Aktionsart of the verb);
3. lexical: “modification” (the output verb has a compositional meaning) and
“mutation” (the output verb has an idiomatic meaning).
In the following sections the three types of variation will be discussed.
3.1.1. Pure Aspectual Variation
As said in section 2.1., we assume that some prefixes may have a purely aspectual
function. In this case, the prefix has no lexical meaning and functions as a grammatical
marker of aspect. There follow some examples:
(100) po-
+
zvonitʼ (IMP) →
pozvonitʼ(PER) ʻto callʼ
na-
+
pisatʼ (IMP) →
napisatʼ (PER) ʻto writeʼ
po-
+
stroitʼ (IMP) →
postroitʼ (PER) ʻto buildʼ
s-
+
delatʼ (IMP) →
sdelatʼ(PER) ʻto do/makeʼ
The input and the output verbs in (100) form the above-mentioned aspectual pairs, which
are extremely important in the Russian verbal system (cf. sections 2.1. and 2.2.). The
derived prefixed perfective verb does not form any corresponding suffixed imperfective (cf.
imperfective derivation in section 2.1.) because the new verb is not different in meaning
from the original one, but has merely its aspect changed.
According to Townsend (1980, 117), only po- and s- should be considered as properly
perfectivizing prefixes, whereas other prefixes never produce a mere perfectivization, but
cause some sublexical and/or lexical changes. Perillo (2000, 329) claims that the prefixes vy, na-, po-, pri-, pro-, s- and u-, when added to imperfective verbs, form their corresponding
perfectives, without changing the original semantics. (e.g. pitʼ – vypitʼ, ʻto drinkʼ, pisatʼ –
napisatʼ, ʻto writeʼ, obedatʼ – poobedatʼ, ʻto have lunchʼ, gotovitʼ – prigotovitʼ, ʻto prepareʼ,
čitatʼ - pročitatʼ, ʻto readʼ, delatʼ – sdelatʼ, ʻto do/makeʼ, videtʼ – uvidetʼ, ʻto seeʼ). Since
this is a very debated topic, an exhaustive analysis should be carried out to establish what
prefixes can actually have a mere perfectivizing function.
3.1.2. Sublexical Variation
Some prefixes introduce sublexical variations, i.e. change the Aktionsart, which can
be seen as the structure of the event in terms of time and intensity of action. Different prefixes
can add to a single verb to form a number of sublexical types, like in the example below154:
69
(101) kuritʼ
ʻto smokeʼ
dokuritʼsja
ʻto smoke so much that negative effects emergeʼ
zakuritʼ
ʻto light up, to begin to smokeʼ
zakuritʼsja
ʻto smoke too much and to fall illʼ
nakuritʼ
ʻto fill with smokeʼ
nakuritʼsja
ʻto smoke oneʼs fill/a lot/enoughʼ
pokuritʼ
ʻto smoke a bitʼ
prokuritʼ
ʻto smoke for a certain period of timeʼ
Sometimes a prefix can have both an aspectual and a sublexical function:
ʻto think (PER)ʼ
(102) podumatʼ
ʻto think for a whileʼ
It follows that one prefix may not only have different meanings, but also different modifying
functions.
According to Townsend (1980, 118), only few sublexically modified prefixed verbs
form the corresponding imperfective through suffixation (cf. sections 2.1. and 2.2.). This is
probably connected with the degree of lexical/semantic autonomy the new word reaches (in
the mind of native speakers) with respect to the original verb.
3.1.3. Lexical Variation
Prefixes may create new complex verbs which differ from the original ones from a
semantic point of view. As a rule, Russian prefixes have a primary/directional meaning155 and
a number of secondary/abstract meanings that metaphorically derive from it. This implies
the creation of a network of interlinked meanings (cf. section 4.2.). Sottofattori (1991, 26)
distinguishes between “modification” and “mutation”156, depending on whether the overall
meaning of the complex verb is compositional in meaning or not; i.e. a “modification” occurs
when the semantic contribution of the prefix is clearly recognizable, whereas, a “mutation”
implies that the overall meaning of the prefixed verb is idiomatic or opaque. Examples of
modification are given under (103)157:
(103)
a)
datʼ ʻto giveʼ + raz- ʻdispersionʼ → razdatʼ ʻto
distributeʼ
70
give/hand out, to
b)
čitatʼ ʻto readʼ + pere- ʻrepetition/ all or a lotʼ → perečitatʼ ʻto read again/to
read all or a quantity ofʼ
c)
govoritʼ ʻto speakʼ + vy- ʻoutʼ → vygovoritʼ ʻto speak out, to pronounceʼ
Examples of mutation are given under (104)158:
(104) a) žitʼ ʻto liveʼ + na-
→ nažitʼ ʻto earn, to gainʼ
b) žitʼ ʻto liveʼ + o-
→ ožitʼ
c) žitʼ ʻto liveʼ + pri-
→ prižitʼ ʻto beget (usually of extra-marital unions)ʼ
ʻto resurrectʼ
In both cases, since the union of prefix and verb forms a new lexical item, a
corresponding derived imperfective is requested to generate the aspectual pair. As for the
meanings of all prefixes, cf. section 4.
3.2. Syntactical Variations
The addition of prefixes to a verbal base may produce changes in its a-structure and
subcategorization frame.
First of all, prefixes impose the type of PrepP complement the verb takes after
prefixation. In other words, the presence of a given prefix influences the selection of the
PrepP that follow the verb, as most prefixes have potential corresponding prepositions which
are similar in meaning. Table 7 illustrates some of these correspondences, which, in some
cases, even imply homonymy of the two elements159.
Table 7160
Prefixes
vvzvydozaiznaotperepod-
Prepositions
v
na
iz
do
za
iz
na
ot
čerez
k
71
The addition of a prefix induces the verb to take an argument which semantically corresponds
to the prefix itself and, therefore, functionally ʻcompletesʼ the structure of the verb. (105)
gives some examples of this process:
(105) a)
devatʼ ʻto putʼ + v- → vdevatʼ ʻto put in(to)ʼ
E.g.: vdevatʼ nitku v igolku (accusative) ʻto thread a needleʼ
b) valitʼ ʻto throw down/overthrowʼ + vz- → vzvalitʼ ʻto (off)load, to shift st161 on sbʼ
E.g.: vzvalitʼ mešok na spinu ʻto hoist a pack onto oneʼs shoulderʼ; vzvalitʼ
otvetstvennostʼ/vinu na + accusative (acc.) ʻto shift/put the blame on sbʼ
c) pisatʼ ʻto writeʼ + vy- → vypisatʼ-vypisyvatʼ (-sja) ʻto write out/dischargeʼ
E.g.:vypisatʼ iz bolʼnicy (genitive) ʻto discharge from hospitalʼ; vygljadyvatʼ-vygljanutʼ iz okna (genitive) ʻto look out of the windowʼ
d) čitatʼ ʻto readʼ + do- → dočityvatʼ-dočitatʼ ʻto read as far asʼ
E.g.: dočitatʼ knigu do konca/ do serediny ʻto read the book to the end/to read half
the bookʼ
e) choditʼ ʻto go (on foot)ʼ + za- → zachoditʼ ʻto drop in/call for/pick upʼ
E.g.: on zašel za nej ʻhe picked her upʼ
f) gnatʼ ʻto chaseʼ + iz- → izgnatʼ-izgonjatʼ ʻ to exileʼ
E.g.: izgnatʼ iz strany ʻto exileʼ
g) bežatʼ ʻto runʼ + na- → nabežatʼ ʻto run/smash intoʼ
E.g.: nabežal na nee ʻhe bumped into herʼ
h) govoritʼ ʻto speakʼ + ot- → otgovarivatʼ- otgovoritʼ ʻto dissuade fromʼ
E.g.: otgovoritʼ ot + genitive (gen.) ʻto dissuade fromʼ
i) choditʼ ʻto go (on foot)ʼ + pere- → perechoditʼ ʻto crossʼ
E.g.: perechoditʼ čerez dorogu ʻto cross the roadʼ
j) gotovitʼsja ʻto prepare oneselfʼ + pod- → podgotovitʼsja-podgotavlivatʼsja162 ʻto
prepare forʼ
E.g.: podgotovitʼsja k ekzamenu (dative) ʻto prepare an examinationʼ
Clearly, prefixes influence the quantity and the quality of arguments the verb takes. They
usually add an argument that consists in a PrepP complement where the preposition
corresponds to the prefix itself.
Apart from the selection of PrepP complements, prefixes may influence the
transitivity163 of the verb. For example, the verb gotovitʼ means ʻto prepareʼ and can be used
both transitively and intransitively:
72
(106) a)
On gotovil obed
ʻHe prepared a lunchʼ
b)
Ona gotovit chorošo
ʻShe cooks very wellʼ
In sentence (106a) the verb takes the object (in the accusative), whereas in (106b) the same
verb is used intransitively. By adding the prefix pri- to gotovitʼ we obtain the corresponding
perfective verb (with no lexical change), whose valency does not change. If we add another
prefix such as za- to that same verb, only the transitive reading becomes possible and nonobligatory internal arguments are added: a temporal complement “na + acc.” and/or a goal
complement “dlja + gen.”, like in the examples below:
(107) On zagotovil drova na zimu
ʻHe stocked up firewood for the winterʼ
On zagotovil korm dlja skota
ʻHe stocked up feedstuff for the livestockʼ
Now we will consider another example, i.e. the verb govoritʼ ʻto speakʼ. It may be used both
transitively (with the meaning ʻto sayʼ) and intransitively (with the meaning ʻto have a talkʼ
or ʻto speak about/withʼ)164. Its corresponding perfective is skazatʼ165; therefore, all prefixes
adding to govoritʼ have lexical or sublexical functions:
-
vygovoritʼ
TRANS ʻto speak out, pronounceʼ + acc.;
-
dogovoritʼ
TRANS ʻto finish sayingʼ + acc.;
-
zagovoritʼ
a. INTR ʻto begin to speakʼ;
b. TRANS ʻto talk sbʼs head off/to cast a spell overʼ + acc.;
-
nagovoritʼ
a. TRANS ʻto talk, say a lotʼ;
b. INTR ʻto slander, calumniateʼ + a+acc.;
-
nedogovoritʼ
TRANS ʻnot to say allʼ;
-
ogovoritʼ
TRANS ʻto calumniateʼ + acc.;
-
otgovoritʼ
TRANS ʻto dissuade fromʼ + acc. +
-
peregovoritʼ
a. INTR ʻto exchange remarks (with)ʼ + s+instr.;
ot+gen.;
b. INTR ʻto talk (about)ʼ + o+prepos.;
c. TRANS ʻto out-talkʼ
-
pogovoritʼ
INTR ʻto have a talkʼ;
73
-
podgovarivatʼ
TRANS ʻto incite toʼ + acc. + infinitive (inf.);
-
prigovoritʼ
TRANS ʻto sentence (to)ʼ + acc. + k+dat.;
-
ugovoritʼ
TRANS ʻto persuade (to)ʼ + acc. + inf.
The list above shows that transitivity is one of the features affected by the addition of the prefix
to the verb: some prefixed verbs preserve only the transitive (e.g. nedogovotritʼ, ogovoritʼ,
otgovoritʼ, podgovoritʼ) or the intransitive (e.g., pogovoritʼ) reading, others keep the duality
of the original verb (e.g. peregovoritʼ, zagovoritʼ) but change the type of complements. For
example, the intransitive nagovoritʼ, ʻto calumniateʼ, takes na+acc., whereas govoritʼ takes
s+instr. and/or o+prepos.:
(108) a.
On govoril
s druzʼjami
ob etom
He talk[pass.] with friends[instr.] about this[prepos.]
ʻHe talked with (his) friends about thisʼ
b.
On nagovoril
na svoego soseda
He calumniate[pass.] his neighbour[gen.]
ʻHe calumniated his neighbourʼ
c.
*On nagovoril s druzʼjami ob etom
d.
*On govoril na svoego soseda
Finally, prefixes affect selective restrictions of the verb. For example, if we consider pisatʼ
ʻto writeʼ, we notice that it is a transitive verb which requires an inanimate NP/object:
(109) Jurij
Jurij[nom.]
pisal
pisʼmo
write[pass.masch.]
letter[acc.]
ʻJurij wrote a letterʼ
*Jurij
pisal
ee
Jurij[nom.]
write[pass.masch.]
she[acc.]
*ʻJurij wrote her[object]ʼ
Jurij
vypisal
ego
Jurij
discharge[pass.masch.] he[acc.] from the hospital
iz bolʼnicy
ʻJurij discharged him from the hospitalʼ
The addition of the prefix vy- creates a new complex verb whose requirements in terms of
selective restrictions are different from those of the original simple verb. As a matter of fact,
74
vypisatʼ, ʻto write out/dischargeʼ takes an animate NP/object; therefore, after adding the
prefix, the feature of the verb [±animate] shifts from negative to positive.
In conclusion, the presence of prefixes affects the syntactic pattern of the original
verb in relation to:
-
number and type of complements (subcategorization frame);
-
transitivity;
-
selective restrictions.
4. Prefixes and their Meanings
The semantics of verbal prefixes is very complicated, as almost every prefix has
more than one meaning and can attach to different verbs, producing different effects. The
“primary” meaning of a prefix is said to be “concrete” or “directional” and applies to the socalled “verbs of motion”, which are used a great deal in Russian and convey almost every
type of movement, be it on foot or by car, one-directional or bi-directional, etc.. Most of the
several “secondary” or “abstract” meanings of each prefix move away from the corresponding
concrete meaning166.
4.1. Main meanings of verbal prefixes
The list below is based on data from the “Russkaja Grammatika” (1980, 355-90),
Townsend (1980, 123-33), Sottofattori (1991, 41-74) and Perillo (2000, 466-74). Excluded
from the list are what we have called “non-aspectual” prefixes. Moreover, the perfectivizing
action of each prefix is assumed and therefore it will not be showed with all the other meanings.
The productivity of some prefixes will be indicated with the abbreviations “PROD.” and
“NON PROD.”, and their occurrence in colloquial and slang speech with “colloq.”167. Finally,
allomorphs are inserted in the list with their context of occurrence in brackets168.
v- / vo- ( _ CC) / vʼʼ- ( _ e)
1. in, into (abstract and physical) (PROD.)
vojti
to go in
vpisatʼ
to inscribe
vobratʼ
to absorb, to inhale
v_sja
75
1. attention and intensity of action (PROD.)
vdumatʼsja
to think over, to meditate
vslušatʼsja
to listen attentively
vz- / vzo- ( _ CC) / vzʼʼ- ( _ e / ja) / vs- ( _ C [-sonore] )
1. up, physical and abstract (PROD.)
vzojti
to go up
vospitatʼ
to bring up
2. begin to do suddenly or with intensity (sublexical) (PROD.)
vzdumatʼ(sja)
to get into oneʼs head, to think of/up suddenly
vzrevetʼ
to let out a roar
vz_sja
1. begin to do intensely (PROD. colloq.)
vzachatʼsja
to exclaim ah!
voz- / vozo- ( _ CC) / vozʼʼ- ( _ e / ja) / vos- ( _ C [-sonore])
1. up
(NON PROD.)
vozvesti
to raise
voschoditʼ
to ascend
2. re/again (NON PROD), back (as answer to another action)
vozobnovitʼ
to renew
vozroditʼ
to regenerate, to revive
voznagraditʼ
to reward
vozdatʼ
to render, to repay
3. begin to do intensely or suddenly (PROD.)
vozgorditʼsja
to become proud
vozlikovatʼ
to begin exulting
vy1. out (PROD.)
vyjti
to go out
vypisatʼ
to write out
vyskazatʼ
to say out
vyrvatʼ
to pull/tear out
2. do or finish successfully (idea “out” may be expressed) (PROD.)
76
vydumatʼ
to invent
vyigratʼ
to win
vyprositʼ
to get out of, to obtain (by begging)
vysmotretʼ
to scrutinize, to spy out
3. do accurately until the desired final result is achieved
vybelitʼ
to decorate/bleach with care
vygladitʼ
to iron with care
vypisatʼ
to write out carefully
4. be subject to the action denoted by the original verb for a certain period of time and
eventually resist (PROD. colloq.)
vyžitʼ
to survive
vystojatʼ
to keep standing (for a long time)
5. finish (sublexical) (PROD.)
vypitʼ
to drink up
vykuritʼ
to finish smoking
vy_sja
1. exhaustion of action, reach oneʼs fill, satisfaction (PROD. colloq.)
vygovoritʼsja
to come clean, to spill the beans
vyplakatʼsja
to work it off in tears, to have oneʼs cry out
vyspatʼsja
to sleep oneself out
do1. reach a certain point, physical or temporal (PROD.)
dojti
to go as far as
dorabotatʼ
to work (until)
dobelitʼ
to decorate to a certain point
2. add (PROD.)
dokupitʼ
to buy in addition
doplatitʼ
to pay in addition, to pay the remainder
3. finish (sublexical)
doslušatʼ
to listen to the end
dopitʼ
to drink to the end
do_sja
1. do to a certain point:
a) do successfully
77
dogovoritʼsja
to come to an agreement
dozvonitʼsja
to ring until one gets an answer, to get through (on telephone)
dozvatʼsja
to call until one gets an answer
dobuditʼsja
to succeed in waking after a number of attempts
dokopatʼsja
to reach by digging
b) negative, unpleasant effects/consequences
dobegatʼsja
to run until exhaustion
doprygatʼsja
to jump until it hurts
dorabotatʼsja
to overwork and tire oneself out
za1. alter course (with verbs of motion) (PROD.)
zajti
to drop in (on the way)
2. behind (za+acc.) (PROD.)
zajti
to go behind
zabrositʼ
to throw behind
3. deeply, far away
zabežatʼ
to push ahead, to penetrate running, to run into
4. fix or make permanent by some action
zapisatʼ
to write down
5. acquisition (obtain st) (PROD.)
zarabotatʼ
to earn
zavoevatʼ
to conquer
6. close, block, fill
zadelatʼ
to stop/block up,to close off/up
zapolnitʼ
to fill up/in/out (a form)
7. do in advance or foresee (PROD.)
zagotovitʼ
to prepare in advance
zadumatʼ
to plan, to conceive the idea of
zakupitʼ
to stock up with
8. spreading of the action on the surface of the object or part of it/cover something
(PROD.)
zamytʼ
to wash off/out
zastiratʼ
to wash off (a stain)
zakapatʼ
to stain dripping
78
zacvesti
to break into blossom
9. one action immediately follows another (with few verbs only)
zapitʼ
to wash down with, to take with/after
zaestʼ
to take with
zakusitʼ
to take with
10. subject to extreme or excessive action (with unpleasant consequences) (PROD.)
zadaritʼ
to (over)load with gifts
zakormitʼ
to overfeed
zacelovatʼ
to cover with (too many) kisses
11. begin to (sublexical) (PROD.)
zaplakatʼ
to begin to cry
za_sja
1. do very intensely, overdo (sublexical), sometimes with a negative nuance (PROD.
colloq.)
zaučitʼsja
to study too hard , to overstudy
zadumatʼsja
to become lost in thought/thoughtful
zasidetʼsja
to sit too long
iz- / izo- ( _ CC) / izʼʼ- ( _ e / ja) / is- ( _ C[-sonore])
1. out (PROD.)
ischoditʼ
to originate, to proceed from
ispolnitʼ
to carry out
izgnatʼ
to exile, to banish
2. spreading of action on the whole object, in all directions (PROD.)
izletatʼ
to fly over
izrisovatʼ
to cover with drawings
3. intense action (PROD.)
iz-zjabnutʼ
to be numb with cold, to feel chilled to the marrow
4. do to an extreme (out), use/do to exhaustion (sublexical) (PROD.)
iznositʼ
to wear out (clothes)
ispisatʼ
to use up (pencil or paper) in writing
iz_sja
1. do to an extreme (out), use/do to exhaustion (sublexical) (PROD.)
ispisatʼsja
to write oneself out
2. acquisition or loss because of the repetition of action (PROD.)
79
izveritʼsja
to lose faith
iznervničatʼsja
to become nervous
izolgatʼsja
to become accustomed to lying, to become an inveterate, hardened liar
na1. on, to, against (approach and impact) (PROD.)
najti
to find, to come on
nabežatʼ
to bump/run into
2. spreading of action on the surface of the object
namazatʼ
to smear, to spread on
3. convey the type of sound
naigratʼ
to play sketchily, to hint at (playing)
4. accurate completion of action (PROD.)
nagladitʼ
to iron with care
načistitʼ
to clean, to shine (with care)
5. do in quantity, often something bad (sublexical) (PROD.)
nabratʼ
to collect quantity of
nadelatʼ
to make/do a lot of
nagovoritʼ
to say a lot of things
na_sja
1. do to satiation, to oneʼs fill, often something bad (sublexical) (PROD.)
nagovoritʼsja
to talk oneʼs fill, to talk oneself out
napitʼsja
to drink oneʼs fill, to slake oneʼs thirst, to get drunk
nad- / nado- ( _ CC) / nadʼʼ- ( _ e / ja)
1. super, over, add (PROD.)
nadpisatʼ
to inscribe
nadsmatrivatʼ
to supervise, to oversee
naddatʼ
to add (over and above)
2. partial completion of action (PROD. only with verbs denoting destruction, division)
nadorvatʼ
to tear slightly
nadrezatʼ
to cut slightly, to make an incision in
nedo1. under, insufficiently (PROD.)
80
nedoocenitʼ
to underestimate
negoplatitʼ
to underpay
niz- / nizo- ( _ CC) / nis- ( _ C[-sonore])
1. de, down (NON PROD.)
nischoditʼ
to descend, to go down
nizložitʼ
to depose
o- / ob- / obo- ( _ CC) / obʼʼ- ( _ e / ja)
1. around: encompassing and going round
obojti
to go round, to outflank running
osmotretʼ
to inspect, to look around
opisatʼ
to describe (a circle), to circumscribe
2. spreading of action on more than one object
obzvonitʼ
to call everyone on the phone
obegatʼ
to look in on, to run round to see all oneʼs acquaintances
3. a more abstract idea of encompassment (a transitive verb meaning approx. ʻsubmitʼ or
ʻexposeʼ to the action or thing in the root)
opisatʼ
to describe
obdumatʼ
to think over
ocenitʼ
to evaluate, to price
4. cheat, do badly by (get around), the action “submitted to” is viewed as pejorative (PROD.
colloq.)
obmeritʼ
to cheat in measuring, to give short measure to
5. do better than (PROD.)
obygratʼ
to win
6. do to excess, sometimes with unpleasant effects
obkormitʼ
to overfeed
o_sja
1.do badly, with mistakes and imperfections (PROD.)
ogovoritʼsja
to make a slip of tongue (in speaking)
opisatʼsja
to misspell, to make a slip of the pen
oslušatʼsja
to disobey
2. do to excess, sometimes with unpleasant effects (PROD. colloq.)
obʼʼestʼsja
to overeat
81
opitʼsja
to overdrink, to drink to excess
3. recover, get over (NON PROD.)
odumatʼsja
to recover, to get over, to change oneʼs mind, to think better of sb
4. get used to, get the hang of (PROD. colloq.)
obletatʼsja
to become more airworthy
5. do intensely and for a long time (PROD.)
obchochotatʼsja
to die with laughter, to laugh oneʼs head off
ot- / oto- ( _ CC) / otʼʼ- ( _ e / ja)
1. off, away from (PROD.)
otojti
to step away, to move off
otbitʼ
to beat off
otvintitʼ
to unscrew
otrezatʼ
to cut off
2. dis, de (NON PROD.)
otsovetovatʼ
to dissuade
otdumatʼ
to change oneʼs mind
3. re, back (as answer) (NON PROD.)
otdaritʼ
to reciprocate a gift
otdatʼ
to give back
otplatitʼ
to pay back, to re-pay
otomstitʼ
to take revenge
4. do too much, unpleasant effects, loss of consciousness (NON PROD.)
otležatʼ
to make numb by lying
otsidetʼ
to make numb by sitting
5. accurate and full completion (PROD.)
otlakirovatʼ
to varnish, to lacquer
otremontirovatʼ
to repair
otgladitʼ
to iron with great care
6. finish (sublexical), interruption and completion/improvement (PROD.)
otdelatʼ
to put the finishing touches
otslužitʼ
to serve out oneʼs
otguljatʼ
to have spent/finished
otdežuritʼ
to complete the shift, to come off duty
ot_sja
82
1. reach the normal condition (sublexical)(PROD. colloq.)
otdyšatʼsja
to recover oneʼs breath
otospatʼsja
to recover oneʼs lost sleep
2. completion of action to get rid of it or because of impossibility to go on (PROD. colloq.)
otbegatʼsja
to be unable to run any longer
3. get away with
otšutitʼsja
to get away with a joke, to make a joke in reply
otmolčatʼsja
to seal oneʼs lips, to keep silent
otpisatʼsja
to give a purely formal reply
pere- / pre1. trans, across, through, over, change of direction, transformation (PROD.); also preperejti
to cross over, to shift
peredatʼ
to hand over
pereslatʼ
to redirect, to forward
perelitʼ
to pour into (somewhere else), to decant
perenesti
to transfer
perežitʼ
to experience, to live through, to outlive
perenočevatʼ
to stay overnight (through), to spend the night
pererabotatʼ
to craft, to convert
2. interrupt (PROD.); also preperestavatʼ
to stop
perechvatitʼ
to intercept, to catch
perechotetʼ
to stop wanting
3. re/again (PROD.)
perepisatʼ
to rewrite
peredelatʼ
to redo
4. split up in half
pererubitʼ
to chop/split in two
perepilitʼ
to saw in two
5. weak or short action (NON PROD.)
perekuritʼ
to break for a smoke
peredochnutʼ
to pause for breath, to take a short rest
6. action extended to all of or a quantity of something, one after another (sublexical) (PROD.)
perelovitʼ
to catch all of
83
perestreljatʼ
to shoot all of
perebitʼ
to slaughter all or many
7. over (exceedingly or excessively), often with negative effects (PROD.)
perekuritʼ
to smoke too much
pereutomitʼ
to tire out, to overwork, to get over-exhausted
pereplatitʼ
to overpay
pereigratʼ
to overplay, to overact, to overdo
8. spend a certain period of time (PROD., especially colloq.)
pereždatʼ
to wait (through) for some time
perezimovatʼ
to (pass the) winter
perenočevatʼ
to spend the night
9. prevalence (PROD., especially colloq.)
perekričatʼ
to outcry, to shout above
peresporitʼ
to defeat in argument
pere_iva/yva/va _ sja169
1. reciprocal action
perepisyvatʼsja
to correspond
peregovarivatʼsja
to exchange talk with
po1. begin to (sublexical) (PROD.)
pojti
to start off (on foot)
poljubitʼ
to come to love, to grow fond of, to fall in love with
2. diminution of time or intensity of action (sublexical) (PROD.):
-
do for a short time
pokuritʼ
-
to have a smoke
do to some extent (often added to prefixed perfective verbs)
porazvlekatʼ
-
to amuse a little
(po_iva/yva/va) do from time to time and/or with diminished intensity
počitivatʼ
to read a little bit from time to time
pogljadyvatʼ
to peep/glance from time to time
3. spreading of action, involvement of many objects (often added to prefixed perfective verbs)
(PROD. colloq.)
povybitʼ
to break everything
popadatʼ
to fall in many or many times
84
pod- / podo- ( _ CC) / podʼʼ- ( _ e / ja)
1. up to, approaching (PROD.)
podojti
to go up to
podgotovitʼ
to train up to, to prepare for
2. under, sub (PROD.)
podpisatʼ
to subscribe
podderžatʼ
to support
podložitʼ
to lay under
3. movement from the bottom upwards (PROD.)
podprygnutʼ
to jump upwards
podbrositʼ
to throw upwards (but also throw under)
4. underhandedly (may include the idea”come up to”) (PROD.)
podkupitʼ
to bribe
podskazatʼ
to prompt, to suggest
podgovoritʼ
to instigate, to incite stealthily
podslušatʼ
to eavesdrop, to overhear
podsmotretʼ
to spy
5. add, supplement, a little more (PROD.)
podrabotatʼ
to earn extra
podsolitʼ
to add more salt
6. (pod _ yva/iva/va) accompaniment, with verbs denoting sound (PROD.)
podpetʼ
to echo
podygratʼ
to accompany singing
7. a little, not completely (sublexical) (PROD. especially colloq.)
podlečitʼ
to cure/treat a little
podsochnutʼ
to dry a little
podvintitʼ
to screw up a little more, to tighten
podogretʼ
to heat up slightly
pod_sja
1. win somebody over, ingratiate (PROD. colloq.)
podolʼstitʼsja
to ingratiate oneself with
podlizatʼsja
to lick sbʼs boots
pre1. intensity, exaggeration
85
preuveličitʼ
to exaggerate
preumenʼšitʼ
to minimize, to belittle
pri1. to, ad, a- (do up to a certain aim, go to a certain point) (PROD.)
prijti
to arrive, to go to
pridumatʼ
to invent, to devise, to think up
prizvatʼ
to call (up), to convene
pritjanutʼ
to attract, to pull (up)
2. add (PROD.)
pristroitʼ
to add (to a building), to build on to
prikupitʼ
to buy some more
pripisatʼ
to write something more, to add st writing
3. approaching, contact
privalitʼ
to lean, to come alongside
pristavitʼ
to put/lean against
4. union, link
prišitʼ
to sew on(to)
prisochnutʼ
to adhere in drying
prikleitʼ
to glue, to stick
5. slightly (sublexical) (PROD.)
pripodnimatʼsja
to raise oneself slightly
priutichnutʼ
to quiet down somewhat
prilečʼ
to lie down for a while, to have a lie-down
pri_sja
1. habit (PROD.)
prižitʼsja
to get used/acclimatized, to settle down
prinjuchatʼsja
to get used to the smell
2. accuracy and intensity (NON PROD.)
prigljadetʼsja
to stare at, to scrutinize
prismotretʼsja
to look closely/attentively
pro1. across/through (PROD.)
projti
86
to go through (on foot)
prostrelitʼ
to shoot through
prospatʼ
to sleep through, to oversleep
provalitʼsja
to collapse, to fall through, to fail an exam
2. past, (near)by (NON PROD.)
projti
to go past (on foot)
3. let something go, skip, pass over, also pro_sja (sometimes at oneʼs expense) (PROD. colloq.)
progljadetʼ
to overlook
proguljatʼ
to be absent from work/school, to miss
progovoritʼsja
to shoot oneʼs mouth off
proboltatʼsja
to let the cat out of the bag
4. cover a certain distance (PROD.)
proechatʼ
to pass/drive/ride by/through
5. do for (or through) a specific length of time (sublexical) (PROD.)
prorabotatʼ
to work for a specific period
prosidetʼ
to sit for a specific period
6. loss, expenditure of time, money, etc. (PROD. colloq.)
prokuritʼ
to spend on smoking
propitʼ
to squander/spend on drink, to drink away
7. spreading of action, intense and accurate action (PROD.)
produmatʼ
to think over carefully
provaritʼ
to boil thoroughly
progretʼ
to heat, to warm up carefully
8. do briefly and singularly
prozvenetʼ
to resound, to ring, to resonate
prolajatʼ
to give a bark
pro_sja
1. do for a limited amount of time, with calm and pleasure (sublexical) (PROD. colloq.)
proguljatʼsja
to take a walk/stroll
2. come back to a normal condition
prospatʼsja
to sleep it off (oneʼs drunkenness)
prodyšatʼsja
to get oneʼs breath back
raz- / razo- ( _ CC) / razʼʼ- ( _ e / ja) / ras- ( _ C[-sonora])
1. dis, di ,disperse, divide, spread (PROD.)
razdatʼ
to distribute
87
razložitʼ
to distribute
raz-dvinutʼ
to move/slide apart, to extend
razbrosatʼ
to throw about, to spread/scatter/strew
2. spreading of action on the whole surface or on many objects
razlinovatʼ
to rule
razrisovatʼ
to cover with drawings
3. understand something in detail (PROD. colloq.)
razgljadetʼ
to discern
rastolkovatʼ
to explain in detail/word by word
4. dis, de, un, annul, also with a few prefixed perfectives (PROD.)
razdumatʼ
to change oneʼs mind
razljubitʼ
to stop loving
razuveritʼ
to stop believing, to persuade to the contrary
5. intensification of action (sublexical), sometimes with a negative nuance, also with a few
prefixed perfectives (PROD. colloq.)
razukrasitʼ
to decorate all up
razobidetʼ
to offend greatly
razvolnovatʼsja
to get excited/agitated
raz_sja
1. intensity, growth or excess (sublexical) (PROD. especially colloq.)
razgovoritʼsja
to warm to oneʼs topic
razospatʼsja
to be fast asleep
2. spread, go towards many directions (PROD.)
razojtisʼ170
to disperse
s- / so- ( _ CC / i / o ) / sʼʼ- ( _ e / ja)
1. down
sojti
to go down
složitʼ
to lay/put down
2. away/off (from)
snesti
to carry away/off
smestitʼ
to displace
sčistitʼ
to clean off
3. go there and back with a precise goal
sbegatʼ
88
to run for (go and back)
svoditʼ
to take (and come back)
4. union
svjazatʼ
to bind, to tie
skleitʼ
to glue together
spajatʼ
to solder together
sšitʼ
to sew together
5. make a copy of
spisatʼ
to copy down/off
srisovatʼ
to copy a drawing
6. consume of material
skormitʼ
to feed, to nourish
snositʼ
to wear out
spoitʼ
to give to drink
7. semelfactive meaning (PROD.)
s-umničatʼ
to say or to do a thing to show off oneʼs intelligence
s-originalʼničatʼ
to do or attempt to do something original, to put on an act, to try to be
clever
s-choditʼ
to make a trip, to go and come back once (on foot)
s_sja
1. reciprocal, agreement (PROD. colloq.)
spisatʼsja
to exchange letters with (and come to agreement)
srabotatʼsja
to work well together
2. come together from different places (PROD.)
sbežatʼsja
to come running, to gather
sojtisʼ
to meet, to come together
sbežatʼsja
to come running from different places
3. unpleasant condition due to intense action (PROD. colloq.)
srabotatʼsja
to wear oneself out
stoskovatʼsja
to pine for
u1. away (PROD.)
ujti
to leave
unesti
to carry away
2. loss/diminution of material (NON PROD.)
89
usochnutʼ
to dry up/out, to wither
ušitʼ
to take in (dressmaking)
3. submit to, often do successfully (despite difficulties, if any)
ugovoritʼ
to persuade
umeritʼ
to moderate
ustyditʼ
to (put to) shame
4. spread out and cover (PROD. colloq.)
u-sypatʼ
to strew/cover with
umazatʼ
to smear, to spread
u-stlatʼ
to cover with
5. reach an unpleasant condition (PROD. colloq.)
ukačatʼ
to make (air/car/sea-) sick
6. move something inside a certain space (PROD.)
upisatʼ
to get in, to fit in (something written)
7. keep still
uležatʼ
to lie down (keeping still)
u_sja
1. reach unpleasant effects due to intense and prolonged action (PROD. colloq.)
ubegatʼsja
to get tired from running a lot
2. comfortably and for a long time (NON PROD.)
ulečʼsja
to lie down (comfortably), to be flat out
usestʼsja
to take a seat, to sit down, to put oneʼs feet up
The list above should not be considered as a complete reference, but rather a brief
account of the complexity of the semantics of Russian verbal prefixes. In this field, a large
amount of work has been carried out, see e.g. Flier (1985a), Gallant (1977), Gvozdanović
(1992), Janda (1985), Krongauz (1998), Manzini (1995) and Russell (1985). Here we attempt
to express some general considerations.
First of all, both lexical and sublexical modifications may be conveyed by more
than one prefix171. For example, the inchoative meaning is expressed by the prefixes vz(_sja), voz-, za-, po-, whereas the terminative meaning by prefixes such as vy-(_sja), do-, ot-.
Intensification of action is conveyed by v_sja, iz-, pre-, raz-(_sja), s-, u- (the last three prefixes
imply negative or unpleasant consequences due to intense action), whereas an action carried
out intensely and accurately is expressed by prefixes pri- and pro-. The meaning “addition”
can be conveyed by nad-, pod- and pri-. Furthermore, one of the complete meanings of a
90
prefix can in actual fact be composed by two different sub-meanings. For example, vz_sja
contains both inchoation and intensity, voz- both inchoation and suddenness and ob_sja both
intensity and duration. Moreover, a single prefix can even contain two opposed meanings.
For example, the prefix pod- means both “under”, in verbs such as podpisatʼ, ʻto subscribeʼ,
and “upwards”, in verbs such as podbrositʼ, ʻto throw upwardsʼ. This mixing of meanings
produces a number of polysemous verbs whose meaning is recognizable only by the given
context. The result of this polysemy and of this plurality of prefixes expressing the same
meaning is that the semantic action of prefixes is difficult to formalize, as their contribution
varies according to the kind of verb they add to172.
In the list above, only verbs which are compositional in meaning are indicated, as
the list itself was aimed at illustrating the semantic contributions of prefixes. However, there
are many prefixed verbs which are non-compositional in meaning and in which the semantic
function of the prefix is not clearly distinguishable. Many of them are frozen forms, i.e.
forms which are no longer analysable as derived complex items. In other words, the prefix
is phonologically recognizable, but no longer has any semantic or grammatical function and
the verbal base is not an autonomous word anymore. The verbs in (110), for example, are no
longer analysable as complex words173:
(110) iz-menitʼ
ʻto changeʼ
voz-vratitʼ
ʻto come backʼ
pod-nimatʼ
ʻto raiseʼ
The bases menitʼ, vratitʼ and nimatʼ cannot occur as independent words, but are ancient roots
which are now fused with the prefix.
Further, there are prefixed verbs whose overall meaning cannot be deduced by adding
up the meanings of their elements; they differ from frozen forms because they can still be
analysed as complex prefixed words174. The difference with respect to other prefixed verbs
consists in their having semantic opacity175:
(111) o-žitʼ
pri- žitʼ
ʻto resurrectʼ
ʻto beget (usually of extra-marital unions)ʼ
In conclusion, prefixes and their meanings are very difficult to label as precise and
closed units. Many scholars have attempted to classify them, but there is no model that
accounts for their use and behaviour in a systematic way. In the following section, we give a
91
brief account of how the semantics of prefixes has been dealt with in the past and of recent
developments in this field.
4.2. Brief History of the Semantic Studies of Russian Verbal Prefixes
Verbal prefixes are crucial for the verbal system of Russian, therefore, their semantics
has always been intensely studied by scholars.
The first problem was to decide whether prefixes were to be considered onemeaning or polysemous. Tichonov (1962) asserts that each prefix has only one meaning
and, consequently, there are many homonymous prefixes conveying different meanings.
On the contrary, van Schooneveld (1978) claims that each prefix is polysemous. The latter
hypothesis seems to be the most elegant, since in Tichonovʼs view an enormous number of
homonymous distinct prefixes would exist, whose meanings are somehow linked to each
other. The study of prefixal semantics has developed on the grounds of the “polysemous”
hypothesis, giving rise to the widely accepted idea that prefixes have one primary, concrete
(or spatial) meaning from which a number of secondary (abstract) meanings are derived
through metaphorical processes. For example, Zaliznjak (1995), analysing the prefix za-,
gives some examples of metaphorical shift starting from the spatial meaning:
BEHIND
IN
→ COVER, HIND, ANNIHIL
→ BECOME, BEGIN
The spatial idea of “behind” can be associated with the more abstract ideas of “cover”/“hind”
and, as an extreme consequence, “annihil”. At the same time, the idea of “going in(to)”
implies that something is starting or changing.
Zaliznjak (1995) states that an appropriate model has not yet been developed; this
model would need to meet two basic requirements:
-
the interpretation of new words;
-
the prediction of new words.
As Zaliznjak says, in order to interpret new words correctly, the meaning of the prefix
should be invariable, and its union with the verb should be regarded as either an addition
of lexical information (totally different from the ones of the stem) or an iteration of the
meaning of the stem itself. According to Zaliznjak, the concept of “semantic autonomy” of
the prefix corresponds to the level of transparency of its semantic contribution to the stem
and mainly depends on the “age” of the prefixed verb. If a complex verb is rather young, it
92
will probably turn out to be more compositional in meaning; if it is older, it could easily tend
to lexicalization. Of course, frozen forms and what we have called “modifications” should
be excluded from a potential analysis of the semantics of prefixes. Moreover, Zaliznjak
admits that the meanings of prefixes are not totally predictable at present, as their complexity
prevents them being “pigeonholed” into closed boxes.
In this respect, an interesting proposal has been suggested by Janda (1985 and 1988).
It consists in a cognitive model that aims at providing “a valid description not only of the
semantic contributions of the prefix, but of the syntactic relationships between the resulting
verb and its arguments as well” (Janda 1988, 327). Janda states that the role of Russian verbal
prefixes is “comparable to that of a director; it establishes a setting, gives a general plot to the
action and casts arguments of the verb in specific roles” (1988, 327). Consequently, Janda
identifies a “cognitive space”, to be composed of:
-
landmark LM (i.e. the domain)
-
trajectory TR (i.e. the type of movement with respect to the LM)
The overall semantics of a prefix is called a “configuration”, which consists of :
-
a prototypical176, central meaning (with sub-meanings, if any)
-
secondary, peripheral meanings
Janda adds that at least one sub-meaning of a configuration should be spatial, whereas the
others are “metaphorical extensions of that sub-meaning” (1988, 328). Secondary meanings
are related to the central one through a number of “links”. The position of a (sub-)meaning
in the configuration/network helps one understand how frequently that same meaning is used
(the more central, the more frequent; the more peripheral, the less frequent). Janda claims
that this model has predictive power. As for a-structure, the author asserts that some verbs
undergo transitivization as a result of prefixation (cf. section 3.2. above). For example, the
verb pitʼ, ʻto drinkʼ, can be used both transitively and intransitively. The prefix pere- selects
the intransitive reading and transitivizes it, giving rise to perepitʼ, ʻto out-drink, to drink sb
under the tableʼ177:
(112) On perepil gostej
*On pil gostej
ʻHe drank the guests under the tableʼ
ʻHe drank the guestsʼ
Jandaʼs proposal is interesting because it gives an elegant account of the semantic
diversity and complexity of prefixes. Of course, with a view to avoiding the risk of remaining
on a merely theoretical field, the model should be applied to each and every prefix.
93
5. Prefixed Verbs as a Base for Further Morphological
Operations
As prefixed verbs can be considered as single (complex) lexical entries, they can
undergo further morphological modifications, such as prefixation and, first and foremost,
suffixation, which is aimed at forming deverbal nouns and adjectives.
5.1. Prefixation
As for prefixation, we should first of all distinguish between recursion (or iteration) and
multiple prefixation. The former consists in the iteration of the same prefix, the latter in the
combination of two different prefixes applying to the same verb.
5.1.1. Recursion
A morphological operation is recursive when it can be applied twice to the same
base. In other words, if a word which has undergone a certain derivational operation can
be subject to that same operation again, then that operation turns out to be recursive. The
term “recursion” often refers to two slightly different processes: the iteration of the same
morphological operation in general or the iteration of the same particular element within a
word. In this section we use the term in this last sense178.
According to Beljakov, Guiraud-Weber (1997) and Kantor (1978), Russian verbal
prefixes are not recursive, even though examples of recursive verbal prefixes can be found at
the earlier stages of the Russian language (e.g. popojti, popovesti, popobežatʼ)179.
5.1.2. Multiple prefixation
Multiple (i.e. double or even triple) prefixation is a common phenomenon in the
Russian language, especially in the colloquial sphere. Beljakov, Guiraud-Weber (1997)
classify “secondary” prefixes (i.e. prefixes adding to prefixed verbs) on the basis of their
productivity:
-
productive: do-, na-, pere-, po-, pod-, pri-;
-
little productive: za-, ot-, pro-, raz-;
-
non productive: vy-, iz-, o-, s-.
Prefixes v-, vz-, voz-, nad- and u- do not take part in “secondary” prefixation. According to
Guiraud-Weber (1988), secondary prefixes have especially quantitative meanings, whereas
inchoative, terminative and durative prefixes cannot occur in a secondary prefixal position.
94
In addition, Beljakov, Guiraud-Weber (1997) state that secondary prefixes do not have spatial
meanings. Of course, lexicalized forms such as obnjatʼ ʻto embraceʼ, podnjatʼ ʻto raiseʼ and
otvergnutʼ ʻto turn awayʼ cannot be considered cases of multiple prefixation. There follow
examples of double prefixation:
(113) pere-pod-gotovitʼ
ʻto prepare againʼ
pere-iz-bratʼ
ʻto elect againʼ
po-y-bivatʼ
pri-u-deržatʼ
ʻto hold a littleʼ
pod-vy-pitʼ
ʻto drink a littleʼ
According to Guiraud-Weber (1988), also triple prefixation can occur in spoken language, e.g.:
(114) po-na-vy-delyvatʼ
po-na-pri-dumyvatʼ
ʻto make, to produce (pejorative)ʼ
ʻto invent (pejorative)ʼ
As for aspect, secondary prefixes seem to perfectivize the verb they add to as “primary”
prefixes do. Kantor (1978), speaking of multiprefixal verbs of the type “po+prefix+verb”,
claims that “every verb with this formation is perfective regardless of derivation”. Therefore,
as Beljakov, Guiraud-Weber (1997) say, the function of secondary prefixes consists in adding
further semantic or stylistic nuances.
5.2. Suffixation180
Suffixation plays a very important role in nominal, adjectival and verbal Russian
morphology. It is the most productive means of building new words and it makes use of a
large number of suffixes. We will deal with some of the main suffixes participating in the
formation of the major classes of nouns and adjectives deriving from prefixed verbs181.
5.2.1. Deverbal Nouns
5.2.1.1. Abstract Nouns
Abstract deverbal nouns denote either the action (process) conveyed by the verb, or
the result (or the product) of that same action. The main suffixes used to form these nouns
are –ie (neutral), -ø (masculine), -ka (feminine) and –stvo (neutral).
The suffix -ie is by far the most productive suffix in the formation of deverbal abstract
95
nouns in Russian. It is realized as –tie, -enie and -nie in accordance with the phonological
context of occurrence182. Some examples follow:
(115) prožitʼ ʻto spend lifeʼ
otvlečʼ ʻto distractʼ
→ prožitie
ʻliving, livelihoodʼ
→ otvlečenie
ʻdistractionʼ
rassmotretʼ ʻto examineʼ → rassmotrenie ʻexaminationʼ
If two nouns are formed from both members of an aspectual pair, the one from the imperfective
will denote the process of action, whereas the one from the perfective will denote the result
or product of the action. Moreover, more than one noun may be formed from the same verb
through different suffixes, which select distinct meanings of the verb. An example is given
below183:
m. 1 ʻto supportʼ
(116) podderživatʼ (IMP) - podderžatʼ (PER)
m. 2 ʻto maintainʼ
podderživatʼ (IMP) (m.1) + -nie →
podderživanie
ʻsupportingʼ
podderžatʼ
(PER) (m.1) + -ka →
(PROCESS)
podderžka
ʻsupportʼ
(RESULT)
podderžatʼ
(PER) (m.2) + -nie →
podderžanie
ʻmaintenanceʼ
According to Townsend (1980, 158), suffixes –ø and –k(a) are less “predictable”
than –ie, but still productive. Some examples follow:
(117) vzgljanutʼ ʻto have a glanceʼ →
perevoditʼ ʻto translateʼ
→
perevod
ʻtranslationʼ
osmotretʼ ʻto inspectʼ
→
osmotr
ʻinspectionʼ
ocenitʼ
→
ocenka
ʻevaluationʼ
→
zapiska
ʻnoteʼ
→
perestanovka185 ʻtranspositionʼ
zapisatʼ
ʻto evaluateʼ
ʻto write downʼ
perestavitʼ ʻto transposeʼ
96
vzgljad184 ʻglanceʼ
5.2.1.2. Nouns Denoting Persons186
The most productive suffix forming agentive nouns is –telʼ187. Few examples are
given under (118):
(118) poddelatʼ – poddelyvatʼ ʻto forgeʼ
→ poddelyvatelʼ ʻforgerʼ
podatʼ – podavatʼ ʻto present, to hand inʼ → podatelʼ ʻbearer (of a letter, etc.)
Other productive suffixes are –ec and –ščik:
(119) vychoditʼ ʻto go out ofʼ → vychodec ʻa person coming from a certain social
groupʼ
vydumatʼ ʻto inventʼ
→ vydumščik ʻinventorʼ
5.2.1.3. Nouns Denoting Objects
The most productive suffixes which form nouns denoting objects are -telʼ188, -lka and
–ok. Examples are given below:
(120) rastvoritʼ ʻto dissolveʼ
zažigatʼ
ʻto light upʼ
→
rastvoritelʼ
ʻsolventʼ
→
zažigalka
ʻcigarette lighterʼ
nedomerok
ʻundersize objectʼ
nedomeritʼ ʻto undermeasureʼ →
5.2.2. Deverbal Adjectives
Suffixation is the main means by which adjectives are derived in Russian. Some
suffixes add to verbal stems (prefixed verbs) to form both qualitative and relational
adjectives.
5.2.2.1. The Suffix -n
It is the main suffix in the ambit of adjectival derivation and builds both qualitative
and relational adjectives from verbs. Apart from –n, other enlarged suffixes take part in the
formation of adjectives, e.g. –lʼn and –telʼn. See the examples below:
(121) pere-nos-i-tʼ ʻto transferʼ
raz-rez-a-tʼ ʻto cutʼ
o-pis-a-tʼ
→ perenos-n-yj189 ʻportableʼ
→ razreza-lʼn-yi ʻcutting/sharpʼ
ʻto describeʼ → opisa-telʼn-yj ʻdescriptiveʼ
97
5.2.2.2. Suffixes Forming Qualitative Adjectives
The main suffixes forming qualitative adjectives from (prefixed) verbs, apart from
–n, are -ist, -liv and –čiv:
(122) razmach-nu-tʼ-sja ʻto swing, brandishʼ → razmaš-ist-yj190 ʻsprawlingʼ
posluš-a-tʼ-sja ʻto obeyʼ → posluš-liv-yj ʻobedientʼ
zadum-a-tʼ-sja ʻto fall into deep thoughtʼ → zadum-čiv-yj ʻthoughtfulʼ
Summing up, suffixation is the derivational process which most enriches Russian
lexicon, as it takes part not only in imperfective derivation, but also in the formation of nouns
and adjectives deriving from prefixed verbs. This is evidence of the important semantic role
prefixes play in the Russian language, as the verbs derived by prefixation can be turned into
new nouns and adjectives that contribute to enlarge the lexicon of the language.
6. Conclusion
This chapter offered both a formalization of Russian prefixes and a description of
the modifying and creative role they play within the verbal system. The action of prefixes
intermingles with the realization of aspectual pairs, which represent the basis of the Russian
verbal system. Nonetheless, verbal prefixes are to be considered not only a grammatical but
also a lexical means through which a large number of new verbs can be formed. In addition,
the presence of prefixes affects the syntactical properties of the simple verbs they add to.
This set of modifications seems to be very similar to the one previously noted for English
particles. Therefore, a comparative analysis will be carried out in the following chapter in
order to make these correspondences explicit.
98
Notes Chapter II
96
As we will see, pisatʼ and napisatʼ maintain the same lexical meaning ʻto writeʼ, but differ in aspect, since
the former is imperfective, the latter perfective.
The data in Table 2 are based on the Russkaja Grammatika (1980, 355-72), Sottofattori (1991, 41-74) and
97
Townsend (1980, 122-33). Table 2 does not contain allomorphic variants of prefixes (as for allomorphic variants
cf. section 4).
98
The abbreviations “IMP” and “PER” mean, respectively, imperfective and perfective.
99
Some imperfective verbs such as gazirovatʼ, ʻto carbonateʼ, maskirovatʼ, ʻto maskʼ, montirovatʼ, ʻto
assembleʼ, formirovatʼ, ʻto formʼ, centralizovatʼ, ʻto centralizeʼ, become bi-aspectual after the addition of the
prefix de-/dez-.
100
According to Sottofattori (1991, 45), all verbs with the prefix dis- are imperfective.
101
According to Sottofattori (1991, 73), all verbs with the prefix so- are imperfective.
102
In this respect, Šanskij (1968, 117) says that prefixes of foreign derivation “are to be found only in a
small number of words (in the main, words with a non-Russian non-derivative stem) and […] do not play an
important part as morphemes of contemporary Russian”.
103
It is worth noticing that Latin prefixes appear in a number of loanwords, e.g. degustirovatʼ ʻto carry out a
tasting ofʼ, dissonirovatʼ ʻto strike a discordant noteʼ, reabilitirovatʼ ʻto rehabilitateʼ, through which they might
have entered the Russian language.
104
The prefix pere-, as well as most Russian verbal prefixes, is polysemous. Here it has the same meaning of
the prefix re-, i.e. “repetition of action”.
105
The verb čuvctvovatʼ, ʻto feelʼ may be both transitive (plus accusative) and intransitive, while sočuvctvovatʼ,
ʻto sympathise withʼ is only intransitive and takes the dative. Dejstvovatʼ, ʻto actʼ, for example, is intransitive,
as well as sodejstvovatʼ, ʻto contributeʼ, but the latter takes the dative.
106
The prefix pere- first adds to žitʼ, then the prefixed verb perežitʼ (PER), ʻto experienceʼ, undergoes
imperfective derivation by means of the suffix -va. Now so- can adjoin to the verb. As for imperfective
derivation, cf. section 2.2.
107
Many of these are loan translations from Latin or German; they consist of Slavic morphemes/roots and Latin
prefixes.
108
According to Di Sciullo (1994), these properties are something different from the traditional “aspect”, which
includes information about the relative time at which the event occurs and its state of completion.
109
According to Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993), “re- and dé- are VP adjuncts while a-/en- are V adjuncts in
structures such as apporter and emporter”.
110
E.g.: Marie a fuit pendant une heure, ʻMary fled for an hourʼ, but Marie sʼest en-fuit en une heure, ʻMary
escaped in an hourʼ (cf. Di Sciullo & Klipple 1993).
111
E.g.: refaire ʻto redoʼ, décharger ʻto unloadʼ (cf. Di Sciullo & Klipple 1993).
99
112
E.g.: re-re-mettre, ʻto put back againʼ, re-dé-faire ʻto reundoʼ, but *a-a-ménager, ʻto arrange up upʼ, *trans-
em-porter, ʻto transcarry toʼ (cf. Di Sciullo & Klipple 1993).
113
E.g.: re-em-porter, ʻto carry backʼ, but *a-re-porter ʻto report toʼ (cf. Di Sciullo 1994).
114
E.g.: Il lʼa amené à Marie ʻHe took it/her/him to Maryʼ.
115
According to Di Sciullo (1994), “this can be seen with semantically related verbs such as mener ʻto bringʼ and
porter ʻto carryʼ. While most prefixes can be adjoined to porter, only some prefixes give rise to interpretable
structures with mener”, e.g. a-mener ʻto bring toʼ, but *in-mener ʻto bring inʼ.
116
Cf. section 4.2., Chapter I.
117
As we will see in the following sections, the peculiarity of Russian/Slavic verbal aspect allows it to become
the basic criterion on which one can make a distinction between verbal prefixes in Russian.
118
By “external semantics” we mean what is expressed in point bʼ of Table 3.
119
This may be due to the fact that these prefixes are not really productive within the Russian verbal system.
120
This is most evident in prefixed verbs of motion, but also in other (abstract) types of verbs.
121
E.g.: a-consej-ar ʻto adviseʼ, a-prision-ar ʻto imprisonʼ (cf. Varela & Haouet 2001).
122
E.g.: des-hacer ʻtoundoʼ, re-hacer ʻto do over againʼ, pre-cocinar ʻto pre-cookʼ (cf. Varela & Haouet
2001).
123
E.g.: argumentar (INTR) ʻto argueʼ → contra-argumentar una cosa (TRANS) ʻto argue against somethingʼ,
but: fabricar coches (TRANS) ʻto fabricate carsʼ → pre-fabricar coches (TRANS) ʻto prefabricate carsʼ (cf.
Varela & Haouet 2001).
124
E.g.: volar ʻto flyʼ [-telic] → sobrevolar ʻto overflyʼ [+durative] (cf. Varela & Haouet 2001).
125
E.g.: cruzar (por) la calle ʻto cross (through) the streetʼ → re-cruzar (*por) la calle ʻto re-cross (through)
the streetʼ (cf. Varela & Haouet 2001).
126
Verbs with Latin prefixes may at most be biaspectual.
127
This is true for all the Latin prefixes, except for so-; cf. section 1.1., Chapter II.
128
However, they may co-occur with A-PXs. In this case, they always occupy the external position.
129
Cf. the discussion about the Unitary Base Hypothesis (UBH) in section 2.3.
130
E.g. demilitarizacija ʻdemilitarizationʼ, disproporcija ʻdisproportionʼ, predvoennyj ʻpre-warʼ, sodružestvo
ʻco-operationʼ.
131
Cf. the discussion about the Unitary Base Hypothesis (UBH) in section 2.
132
Even though the question of aspect and aspectual pairs in Russian is farther more complicated, we must here
limit ourselves to these few considerations.
133
Example from Gebert (1991, 253).
134
Example from Gebert (1991, 268).
135
Cf. section 3.
136
Cf. Pulʼkina e Zachava-Nekrasova (1991, 280) and Townsend (1980, 134-41).
100
137
Cf. William 1981, quoted in Bisetto, Mutarello, Scalise (1990).
138
Cf. Bisetto, Mutarello, Scalise (1990).
139
Here the general noun denoting the action is formed from the imperfective perepisyvatʼ. This may be due to
the fact that the meaning of the pair perepisyvatʼ-perepisatʼ ʻto re-write/to copyʼ is inherently “imperfective”,
that is, denotes an iterated and durative action.
140
Cf. section 5.1.
141
Examples taken fron Isačenko (1975).
142
As for combinations of prefixes, cf. Beljakov, Guiraud-Weber (1997), Guiraud-Weber (1988) and Kuznecova
– Efremova (1986).
143
Cf. the above discussion on Latin and proper Russian prefixes, section 1.1.
144
Data and examples taken from Townsend (1980, 149-150 and 212-3).
145
For an account of the meanings of verbal prefixes cf. section 4.
146
Cf. section 1.4.
147
Cf. section 4.1.
148
149
Cf. section 4.1.
The preposition pri- means “by, at” and pod- means “under”.
150
Cf. section 1.4.
151
It is worth noting that the prefix raz- adding to nouns and adjectives maintains only the meaning of
“intensification”, which is only one of the several meanings of raz- when added to verbs (cf. section 4.1.). This
may lead one to think that these are different though homonymous prefixes.
152
Translation from Italian by the author.
153
Here the circumfix v_sja denotes intensity of action.
154
Examples (101) and (102) are taken from Townsend (1980, 119).
155
According to Townsend (1980, 123), this primary/directional meaning is similar to the meaning of
prepositions, to which prefixes are historically related. Also Šanskij (1968, 118) states that the “majority of
prefixes […] have developed from prepositions […]. Almost every prefix has its corresponding preposition and
[…] the real meanings of many prefixes correspond to the space-time meanings of prepositions”.
156
Terms translated by the author. The original ones are “modificazione” and “mutazione”.
157
Examples (103a/b) taken from Sottofattori (1991, 31).
158
Examples taken from Sottofattori (1991, 33).
159
Here “correspondence” between prefixes and prepositions is seen in terms of occurrence; i.e. the use of a
prefix often modifies the a-structure of a verb in such a way that it will consequently take a PrepP complement
in which the preposition semantically corresponds to the prefix and may even be homonymous to the prefix
itself. In this respect, Šanskij (1968, 118) speaks of “tautological repetition”, i.e. “when a verb is combined
with a preposition plus case-form”, e.g. vojti v gorod ʻto go into the townʼ, dobežatʼ do finiša ʻto run to the
101
endʼ.
160
Data taken from Sottofattori (1991, 37).
161
St stands for “something” and sb for “somebody”.
162
Here -sja is not a circumfix: the particle –sja (with reflexive meaning) adds to the verb gotovitʼ, ʼto prepareʼ,
then the prefix adds to the whole verb gotovitʼsja, ʻto prepare oneselfʼ.
163
In the discussion, the terms “transitive” and “intransitive” will be abbreviated with TRANS and INTR
respectively.
164
The intransitive reading implies the use of two non-obligatory external arguments, that is s ʻwithʼ plus
instrumental (instr.) and o ʻaboutʼ plus prepositive (prepos.).
165
This is one of the many cases of suppletivism Russian verbs undergo with relation to aspectual change.
166
Another equivalent terminology is proposed by Schupbach (1978). He distinguishes two basic meanings of
the prefixes: displacement (primary) and quantification (secondary). As for proposals about semantic analyses
of prefixes, cf. section 4.2. below.
167
The source for the productivity of prefixes is the “Russkaja Grammatika” (1980). Since our data are integrated
with other sources, not all prefixes have their productivity indicated.
168
The allomorphic variants are taken from “Russkaja Grammatika” (1980, 355-72), Sottofattori (1991, 41-74)
and Townsend (1980, 123-33).
169
Many prefixes combine not only with the postfixal particle –sja, but also with the suffix –iva / -yva / -va. This
type of complex words is not discussed here.
170
-Sʼ is the allomorph of the particle –sja when it occurs after a vowel.
171
As already pointed out, aspectual power is common to all prefixes.
172
It would be interesting to study the behaviour of prefixes with relation to their bases: why should a prefix
choose a given base rather than another? What is the role of semantics here?
173
The examples are taken from Sottofattori (1991, 34) and Townsend (1980, 134).
174
This is what we have called “mutations”.
175
The examples are taken from Sottofattori (1991, 33).
176
Here it is clear that Jandaʼs cognitive model has borrowed some elements from Roschʼs prototype model (cf.
Rosch 1975 or 1978).
177
The example is taken from Janda (1988, 342).
178
Multiple prefixation, instead, will be discussed in the following section.
179
Examples cited in Beljakov, Guiraud-Weber (1997).
180
The data for the discussion are taken from Townsend (1980, 151-92 and 215-32).
181
For an exhaustive explanation of meanings and use of suffixes, cf. Townsend (1980).
182
Cf. Townsend (1980, 153-5).
183
In the example (116) “m.” stands for meaning.
102
184
The root of vzgljanutʼ is vzgljad; the final –d is elided with the addition of the verbal suffix -nu-. This is why
the noun vzgljad, derived by –ø suffixation, ends with a –d.
185
186
Some verbs in –stavitʼ have corresponding abstract nouns in –stanovka, rather than in –stavka.
Feminine nouns are derived from the masculine counterpart through suffixes such as -nica (adding to nouns
in -telʼ), -ka (substitute for the suffix –ec) and –ščica/-čica (substitute for the suffix –ščik).
187
The suffix -telʼ also forms instrumental nouns; cf. section 5.2.1.3.
188
The suffix -telʼ also forms agentive nouns, cf. section 5.2.1.2.
189
The suffix –yj is an inflectional suffix which represents the nominative case of singular masculine
adjectives.
190
The change from razmach to razmaš is due to consonant mutation, which is a very common phenomenon
in Russian.
103
Chapter III
A Comparative Analysis
The third and last chapter deals with the comparison between verb-particles in English
and prefixed verbs in Russian. The thesis this work upholds and attempts to corroborate is
that there is some kind of correspondence between English particles and Russian prefixes.
Generally speaking, this correspondence consists in acting as morphological elements aimed
at creating new lexical items. More specifically, these elements share the same function: they
build up new verbs by acting as modifiers of the semantic and grammatical frames of the
simple verbs they add to.
In the light of the previous chapters, the following analysis will compare the features
of the two types of complex verbs and point out their similarities and differences. First, we
will deal with particles and prefixes from a formal point of view: the two elements will be
regarded as modifiers of the verb (i.e. as adjuncts that do not change the category of the
base), and their modifying action on the semantics, aspect/Aktionsart and syntactical frame
of the original verb will be dealt with. Then, some diachronic and typological considerations
about particles and prefixes will be discussed. Finally, we will propose a brief account of
the semantic correspondences we found between some of the English and Russian complex
verbs at issue, and consequently, between particles and prefixes.
1. Particles and Prefixes as Verb Modifiers
1.1. Lexical and Aspectual/Aktionsart Modifications
The previous chapters dealt with the modifying action of particles and prefixes on the
verbal stem. The modifications introduced by these elements were divided into:
-
aspectual modifications
-
sublexical/Aktionsart modifications
-
lexical/semantic modifications
These types of modifications turned out to be more or less common to both verb-particles
and prefixed verbs.
As for aspectual and Aktionsart modifications, one should note that a different
terminology has been used for English and Russian. In section 4.2. (Chapter I), we pointed
104
out that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between aspect and Aktionsart, because
different definitions are used in accordance with the linguistic tradition of the language at
issue. In the first chapter, we used the broadest definition of aspect, which includes both the
strictu sensu aspect and Aktionsart191. The aspectual meanings denoted by English particles
are the following: perfective/completive, ingressive, intensifying, terminative, exhaustive,
effective, durative. In the second chapter, we maintained the traditional definition of aspect
and Aktionsart used in Russian and Slavic linguistics: the term “aspect” denotes only the
opposition between the perfective and imperfective aspect of the verbs, whereas Aktionsart
“covers most of the types of derivational aspect found among languages” (Dahl 1999). In
Table 6, section 2.1. (Chapter II), the main differences between imperfective and perfective
have been sketched:
-
perfective:
imperfective:
1)
completion of action and realization of the resulting state;
2)
inchoation;
1)
durative meaning;
2)
iterative meaning;
3)
accomplished fact.
According to Isačenko (1975), Russian Aktionsart prefixes convey the following meanings:
1) phasal meaning (ingressive, evolutive, delimitative, resultative (resultative proper,
terminative, (per)durative, finitive, total/exhaustion, cumulative));
2) quantitative meaning (attenuative, momentaneous);
3) iterative meaning (iterative proper, diminutive iteratives);
4) distributive meaning (object-distributive, subject-distributive).
Comparing aspectual and Aktionsart meanings denoted by Russian prefixes with aspectual
meanings introduced by English particles, many similarities emerge. We noticed that
both Russian prefixes and English particles convey the following meanings: completive,
ingressive/inchoative, durative, exhaustive, terminative. It is evident that the Russian
aspectual/Aktionsart system is more developed and complete than the English one. This is
due to two structural factors:
1) Russian has a well-established and morphologically-marked aspectual system;
2) verbal prefixation in Russian is a very productive morphological means through which
new verbs can be formed, also due to the semantic specialization (i.e. metaphorical
shifts of meanings) that prefixes have undergone and are still undergoing.
Apart from this, one could say that both Russian prefixes and English particles can
serve as aspect/Aktionsart markers and may convey the same meanings. Table 8 distinguishes
between aspectual and Aktionsart modifications. The distinction is based on the definitions
105
given for Russian prefixes (cf. Table 6), therefore, the so-called “aspectual” modifications
brought about by English particles will be redistributed in accordance with these definitions.
As for the semantics of verb-particles, they were divided into:
-
systematic combinations192: the Ps that produce consistent changes in the verbal
stem either have an intensifying function, or maintain the lexical meaning of the
corresponding adverb;
-
metaphorical
combinations193:
they
are
non-systematic
and
therefore
unpredictable combinations and can be divided into transparent metaphors and
opaque metaphors; many metaphorical (transparent) combinations are derived
from corresponding V+Advs constructions.
Russian prefixes194, instead, excluding merely aspectual and sublexical meanings, were
distinguished into:
-
modifications: the resulting prefixed verb is compositional in meaning, i.e. the
semantic contributions of the prefix and the base are still recognizable and their
sum constitutes the overall meaning of the complex verb;
-
mutations the resulting prefixed verb is non-compositional in meaning, i.e. the
overall meaning of the complex verb does not coincide with the sum of the
meanings of its parts.
Table 8 (following page) shows the results of the comparison between English
particles and Russian prefixes and gives a unitary interpretation of their modifying action.
Russian prefixes are certainly more semantically stable than English particles. This
may be due to the fact that Russian verbal prefixation is an established and productive process
that creates new words and guarantees the functioning of the whole verbal system, which is
based on the aspect category. On the contrary, the English verbal system is mainly based on
tenses, which are responsible for aspectual differentiations. In this respect, particles play a
minor role. The development of aspectual meanings in the verbal particles, as well as prefixes,
can be traced back to well-known phenomena such as “bleaching” and “metaphorical shift”,
but it seems that post-affixation in English is not as settled as Russian prefixation. Despite
being intensely studied, the semantics of Russian prefixes has not yet been completely
formalized. This difficulty in sketching a proper semantic scheme of Russian prefixes is due
to their complex polysemy and to the subsequent unpredictability of the output verbs. This
problem is common to particles as well: given a hypothetical series of meanings per particle,
it is not always possible to predict either the meaning of the resulting verb, or whether that P
will add to that verb rather than another. There always remains a margin of unpredictabilty,
which is at present wider for English than for Russian196.
106
Table 8
Verb-Particles
Prefixed Verbs
aspectual modification
1) completive meaning,
prefixed perfectives195:
(with no semantic change)
e.g.: to mix up, to fade out;
1) completion of action,
2) inchoative meaning, e.g.
e.g. na-pisatʼ ʻto writeʼ, po-
to stand up, to quiet down,
stroitʼ ʻto build (up)ʼ;
to doze off, to talk away, to
2) inchoation, e.g. u-znatʼ
light in.
ʻto come to knowʼ, poljubitʼ ʻto fall in loveʼ.
Aktionsart modification
1) terminative, e.g. to wait
1) terminative, e.g. ot-
(modification in terms of
out, to read through;
obedatʼ ʻto finish having
time or intensity of action)
2) exhaustion, e.g. to wear
lunchʼ, vy-kuritʼ ʻto finish
out, to talk out, to play out.
smokingʼ;
2) exhaustion, e.g. za-kuritʼ
ʻto smoke (st) out/to fill
with smokeʼ; srabotatʼsja
ʻto wear oneself outʼ,
nagovoritʼsja ʻto talk
oneself outʼ.
lexical modification 1:
systematic combinations,
motion verbs, e.g.
literal (resulting verb
e.g. to put away, to give
jti ʻto go inʼ, vy-jti ʻto go
compositional in meaning)
over
outʼ
transparent metaphor, e.g.
modifications, e.g. pere-
metaphorical/abstract
to knock out, to simmer
čitatʼ ʻto re-writeʼ, vy-
(interpretable resulting
down
govoritʼ ʻto speak outʼ
opaque metaphors / frozen
mutations, e.g. na-žitʼ ʻto
totally idiomatic (resulting
forms, e.g. to carry off, to
earnʼ, pri-žitʼ ʻto begetʼ (of
verb non compositional in
give in
extra-marital unions)
v-o-
verb)
meaning)
107
Interesting cognitive studies have been carried out on Russian verbal prefixes. One of these
is the above-mentioned article by Janda (1988), which proposes a cognitive model that aims
at providing a description of the semantic contributions of the prefixes. In this article, other
cognitive studies are quoted, e.g. Lindner (1981), dealing with the English particles up and
out, and Brugman (1981), dealing with the particle over. Janda states that English particles
can be described in cognitive terms in a way similar to Russian prefixes. Further, the prefix
pere- “performs about the same function as the English verb particle over in approximately
two-thirds of its submeanings” (Janda 1988). This means a comparative analysis between
prefixes and particles is possible and even desirable.
As already pointed out, both particles and prefixes play an active role in the enrichment
of the lexicon. The evidence of their productivity consists in a series of considerations. First
of all, both single prefixed verbs and verb-particles are subject to sense development, which
makes them polysemous. In addition, this polysemy is accompanied by a differentiation of
meaning depending on the base. At the same time, one base can join to several prefixes or
particles, creating other new combinations197.
In conclusion, English particles and Russian prefixes seem to have similar semantic
and aspectual/Aktionsart properties. Since the Russian aspectual system is morphologicallymarked, the use of prefixes in this respect is governed much more by rules than the use of
particles in English. Besides this fact, we found that Aktionsart modifications brought about
by prefixes are more numerous than those introduced by English particles. The latter cannot
convey meanings such as attenuation (both quantitative and temporal), distribution of the
action on many people or objects, delimitation to a certain period of time or cumulation of
action. In English, these meanings are conveyed by adverbial phrases external to the V-P or
by the use of tenses. As regards semantic modifications, both particles and prefixes can give
rise to transparent and opaque metaphors.
A more extensive use of prefixes with respect to English particles can be noted in
literal modifications. This is due to the fact that in this case particles and prefixes maintain
their literal meanings. Whereas Russian has a large number of motion verbs which can be
attributed to this group, English motion verbs are expressed by V+Preps or V+Advs, which
cannot be considered as proper V-Ps for syntactical reasons (cf. section 2.4., Chapter I).
Therefore, systematic combinations in English are formed through the addition of either
intensifying particles or particles which maintain the meaning of the homonymous adverbs.
These considerations lead one to think that, despite the differences due to structural reasons,
both particles and prefixes act as modifiers of the verb, introducing the same type of semantic
and aspectual/Aktionsart modifications.
108
1.2. Syntactical Modifications
As illustrated above, both particles and prefixes can be considered as modifiers of
the semantic structure of the verb as well as of its aspect and Aktionsart. However, the
previous analyses have showed that these elements may also change the a-structure of the
verb. Sections 4.3. (Chapter I) and 3.2. (Chapter II) illustrate the functional changes that
particles and prefixes, respectively, introduce into the verbal base.
The types of functional-grammatical modifications that can be introduced by both
particles and prefixes are the following:
-
modification of transitivity (TRANS → INTR and INTR → TRANS)198;
-
modification of the number and types of arguments199;
-
modification of the selective restrictions of the verb200.
As for transitivity, Janda (1988, 342) states that the “transitivization of verbs through
prefixation in Russian has a parallel in the use of verb particles in English”. It has been
showed during the discussion that the addition of particles and prefixes affect the transitivity
of the original verb. Some examples are given below:
(123) E.
to cough (INTR) → to cough up (blood) (TRANS)
to work (INTR) → to work out (the details) (TRANS)
to show (TRANS) → to show up/off (INTR)
R.
govoritʼ ʻto speakʼ (TRANS/INTR) → vygovoritʼ ʻto speak out, to pronounceʼ
(TRANS)
govoritʼ ʻto speakʼ (TRANS/INTR) → pogovoritʼ ʻto have a talkʼ (INTR)
rabotatʼ ʻto workʼ (INTR) → vyrabotatʼ ʻto work outʼ (TRANS)
Thus, particles and prefixes have the same power of changing the transitivity of the verb they
add to, both from transitive to intransitive and vice versa.
Moreover, particles and prefixes affect the number and type of obligatory/nonobligatory complements required by the subcategorization frame of the verb. Let us consider
again examples (60) and (108), which are presented together in (124):
(124) E.
Will you please hand the secret folders to the police?
Will you please hand over the secret folders?
Will you please hand over the secret folders to the police?
*Will you please hand the secret folders?
109
R.
On govoril s druzʼjami
ob etom
He talk[pass.] with friends[instr.] about this[prepos.]
ʻHe talked with (his) friends about thisʼ
On nagovoril
na svoego soseda
He calumniate[pass.masch.] his neighbour[gen.]
ʻHe calumniated his neighbourʼ
*On nagovoril s druzʼjami ob etom
*On govoril na svoego soseda
As already discussed in the previous sections, the addition of over to the verb to hand makes
the internal argument (goal) to the police non-obligatory, whereas, the prefixation of govoritʼ,
ʻto speakʼ, by means of the prefix na- changes the type of argument required by the verb201.
Finally, particles and prefixes may change the selective restrictions of arguments,
changing the valency of their features. Let us consider examples (66) and (109) once again:
(125) E.
to argue a case
to argue down an opponent
R.
*Jurij
pisal
ee
Jurij[nom.]
write[pass.]
she[acc.]
*ʻJurij wrote her[object]ʼ
Jurij
vypisal
ego
Jurij
discharge[pass..] he[acc.]
iz bolʼnicy
from the hospital
ʻJurij discharged him from the hospitalʼ
To argue wants an object with the [-human] feature, whereas, after adding down, the new
verb to argue down requires a [+human] object. Similarly, pisatʼ ʻto writeʼ wants a [-animate]
object, but vypisatʼ ʻto dischargeʼ requires a [+animate] object.
Summing up, English particles and Russian prefixes not only change the semantics
and aspectual frame of the verb they add to, but also affect its syntactical properties, creating
new argument structures.
2. Some Diachronic and Typological Considerations
As mentioned in section 3.2. (Chapter II), prefixes in Russian impose the type of
110
PrepP complement the verb will take. The preposition usually corresponds to the prefix from
a semantic point of view, therefore it contributes to “complete” or intensify the meaning of
the verb. According to Townsend (1980, 123), prefixes are historically related to prepositions;
this is why all verbal prefixes have corresponding homonymous prepositions (except for vz-,
vy-, niz-, pere- and raz-) and their primary/directional meanings are similar to the meanings of
prepositions. Also English particles are related to both prepositions and adverbs. At present,
their addition to the verb merely affects the number and type of complements but there does
not seem to be a selection of the prepositions that follow.
In actual fact, particles have another type of (historical) relationship with prepositions
and adverbs. In section 2.4. (Chapter I), we sketched some criteria to distinguish particles
from other parts of the speech such as prepositions and adverbs. The latter elements come
after a verb just as particles do, but their behaviour denotes their complete syntactical
independence from it. However, in many cases particles maintain an adverbial and/or
prepositional meaning. As a consequence, there are several borderline cases in which the
postverbal element cannot be clearly identified because of its ambiguous behaviour at a
syntactical level. This ambiguity is due to the “unstable” role particles play in complex verb
formation. Their role and function are still evolving, as their entrance in verbal derivation
traces back to the period between OE and ME, after the falling of the English prefixal/
inflectional system and the beginning of a general tendency towards postmodification.
It is worth noting that English and Russian are typologically different languages:
the former is tendentially isolating (at least at the level of simple words), the latter is highly
inflectional. Before losing its inflectional endings, English was endowed with a rich verbal
prefixal system, similar to Russian nowadays. After the change of word order from OE to
ME (SOV→SVO) and the fall of the inflectional system, postmodification began to prevail
and particles were introduced. Therefore, the formal status of particles today can be regarded
as a consequence of the syntactical/typological type of language to which English belongs.
Consequently, it seems reasonable to associate particles and prefixes despite their formal
difference, as their nature was similar until English underwent changes due to historical
variations. Therefore, though English prefixes shifted in postverbal position, becoming
postfixes or particles, their modifying action remained invariable.
In conclusion, it seems that the English particle-based system is much less clear and
stable than Russian verbal prefixation. Nevertheless, the two derivational processes are at
present an important source for the creation of new verbal items in the respective languages.
This section has showed how particles and prefixes can be compared and regarded as
corresponding, though formally different, derivational processes.
111
3. Searching for Semantic Correspondences
This section will show some data to corroborate the hypothesis of the correspondence
between English particles and Russian prefixes. In other words, we have attempted to find
some semantic correspondences between verb-particles and prefixed verbs. The data below
are mainly based on the Oxford Russian Dictionary (2000)202.
The starting point of the analyses consists in English verbs. This is due to practical
reasons. The criteria that rule the choice of verbs for the analysis are the following:
1) the verbs chosen have general and “open” meanings, e.g. to work, to write, to think,
etc.;
2) verbs have also been chosen on the grounds of Fraserʼs considerations about the
English simple verbs that most frequently appear with particles (cf. section 2.3.).
However, some verbs such as to set or to keep have been excluded due to the fact that their
meanings are too general and, consequently, the meanings of the V-Ps derived from them
cannot always be clearly traced back to the original verbal stem. Also other verbs such as
to run and to go have been excluded because their correspondent verbs in English would be
V+Preps or V+Advs and not proper V-Ps.
3.1. The Data
The simple verbs are given in English and Russian (imperfective form). A list of the
derived verbs then follows. Here the Russian prefixed verbs are given only in their perfective
form. When the verb is imperfective, it is followed by the abbreviation (IMP). In some cases,
possible contexts or semantic clarifications of the verb are inserted in brackets.
to do – delatʼ
a) to do over – peredelatʼ
(ʻto do againʼ)
b) to do up (e.g. a room) – otdelatʼ (e.g. komnatu)
to drink – pitʼ
a) to drink up – dopitʼ
to eat – estʼ
a) to eat away – razʼʼestʼ
b) to eat up – doestʼ
112
(ʻto corrodeʼ)
to fall – padatʼ
a) to fall apart – raspadatʼsja
(ʻto break up, to fall into piecesʼ)
b) to fall out – vypadatʼ
(ʻto fall, to be eliminatedʼ)
c) to fall upon – napadatʼ
(ʻto attackʼ)
to hear – slušatʼ
a) to hear sb out – vyslušatʼ
(ʻto listen to the endʼ)
to lay – ložitʼ / stavitʼ
a) to lay aside – otložitʼ
(ʻto saveʼ)
b) to lay out – vystavitʼ
(ʻto arrange for displayʼ)
c) to lay out (e.g. clothes) – vyložitʼ
(e.g. odeždu)
to look – smotretʼ
a) to look (a)round – osmotretʼ
(ʻto inspectʼ)
b) to look about/around – osmotretʼsja
c) to look into – rassmotretʼ (IMP)
(ʻto examineʼ)
d) to look over/round (e.g. an exhibition) – osmotretʼ (e.g. vystavku)
e) to look over/through – prosmotretʼ
(ʻto scrutinizeʼ)
to make – delatʼ
a) to make over– peredelatʼ
(ʻto refashionʼ)
to play – igratʼ
a) to play off – pereigratʼ
(ʻto replayʼ)
b) to play out – doigratʼ
(ʻto play to the endʼ)
c) to play over – pereigratʼ
(ʻto play againʼ)
d) to play through – sygratʼ/proigratʼ
(ʻto play to the endʼ)
e) to play up – obygratʼ
(ʻto give emphasis to)
to put – ložitʼ / stavitʼ
a) to put aside/away/by – otložitʼ
(ʻto saveʼ)
b) to put in– vstavitʼ
(ʻto insertʼ)
c) to put off – otložitʼ
(ʻto postponeʼ)
d) to put out– vystavitʼ
(ʻto thrust out, to ejectʼ)
113
e) to put out – vyložitʼ
(ʻto arrange (to be seen)ʼ)
f) to put up– vystavitʼ
(ʻto display, e.g. for saleʼ)
to read – čitatʼ
a) to read off – pročitatʼ
(ʻto read to the end with attentionʼ)
b) to read out – pročitatʼ (ʻto read aloudʼ)
c) to read over - perečitatʼ
(ʻto read againʼ or ʻto read allʼ)
d) to read through – pročitatʼ
(ʻto read (all) with attentionʼ)
e) to read up (on) – podčitatʼ
(ʻto examine with attentionʼ)
to speak – skazatʼ
a) to speak out – vyskazatʼ
(ʻto express oneself plainlyʼ)
to take – bratʼ
a) to take apart– razobratʼ
(ʻto dismantleʼ)
b) to take away– ubratʼ/otobratʼ
(ʻto removeʼ)
to talk – govoritʼ
a) to talk away – progovoritʼ
(ʻto spend some time talkingʼ)
b) to talk over– obgovoritʼ
(ʻto discussʼ)
to think – dumatʼ
a) to think out (e.g. an argument) – produmatʼ (ʻto deviseʼ)
b) to think out/over (e.g. a matter) – obdumatʼ (ʻto reflect uponʼ)
c) to think through (e.g. oneʼs ideas) – produmatʼ (ʻto reflect uponʼ)
d) to think up (e.g. an excuse)– pridumatʼ (e.g. otgovorku)
e) to think up – vydumatʼ
(ʻto inventʼ)
to work – rabotatʼ
a) to work out (e.g. a plan) – vyrabotatʼ/razrabotatʼ (e.g. plan)
b) to work on – obrabotatʼ
114
c) to work on – obrabotatʼ
(ʻto beat upʼ)
d) to work up – pererabotatʼ
(ʻto elaborateʼ)
to write – pisatʼ
a) to write away/off (e.g. a catalogue) – vypisatʼ (e.g. katalog)
b) to write down (e.g. an address) – zapisatʼ (e.g. adres)
c) to write in (e.g. his name) – vpisatʼ (e.g. ego imja)
d) to write off (e.g. a debt/a car) – spisatʼ (e.g. dolg/mašinu)
e) to write out (e.g. a cheque) – vypisatʼ (e.g. ček)
f) to write out (e.g. homework) – perepisatʼ (e.g. domašnee zadanie)
g) to write oneself out – ispisatʼsja
h) to write up (e.g. the incident) – opisatʼ (e.g. incident)
Naturally, this is just a brief investigation of the semantics of verb-particles and prefixed
verbs. A wider range of verbs should be taken into consideration to outline precise semantic
correspondences between certain particles and prefixes. However, the data above allow us to
single out some of these correspondences, of which Table 9 gives an account.
Table 9
Particle-Prefix
out - vy
Data
Meaning
to fall out – vypadatʼ
1) literal, concrete meaning (“out”);
to hear sb out – vyslušatʼ
2) more abstract meaning, i.e.
to lay out – vyložitʼ
attainment of a result;
to lay out – vystavitʼ
3) completion of action
to put out– vystavitʼ
4) repetition of action
to speak out – vyskazatʼ
to work out – vyrabotatʼ
to write out – vypisatʼ
over – pere
to do over – peredelatʼ
1) repetition of action
to make over– peredelatʼ
2) transformation change
to play over – pereigratʼ
to read over - perečitatʼ
through – pro
to look through – prosmotretʼ
1) to do something with attention
to play through – proigratʼ
or to the end
to read through – pročitatʼ
to think through– produmatʼ
115
(a)round – o/ob
to look (a)round – osmotretʼ
1) a more abstract idea of
to look around – osmotretʼsja
encompassment, i.e. “expose to”
to look round – osmotretʼ
over – o/ob
to look over – osmotretʼ
1) a more abstract idea of
to talk over– obgovoritʼ
encompassment, i.e. “expose to”
to think over – obdumatʼ
apart – raz
to fall apart – raspadatʼsja
1) idea of destruction
to take apart– razobratʼ
aside/away – ot
in – v
to lay aside – otložitʼ
1) abstract idea of putting aside,
to put aside – otložitʼ
i.e. to save
to put in– vstavitʼ
1) insertion of something
to write in – vpisatʼ
out – pro
to read out – pročitatʼ
1) abstract idea of “out”, i.e.
to think out – produmatʼ
towards the outside
2) attainment of a result
up – do
up – vy
to drink up – dopitʼ
1) to finish, to do something to the
to eat up – doestʼ
end
to put up– vystavitʼ
1) to do successfully
to think up – vydumatʼ
In order to confirm the validity of the data in Table 9, the analysis should be extended to all
the English and Russian verbs that can occur with a particle or a prefix respectively. For the
time being, we limit ourselves to notice that some particles and prefixes seem to correspond
from a semantic point of view: both of them seem to undergo figurative shifts of their concrete
(adverbial or prepositional) meanings (e.g. the pairs aside/away – ot and (a)round – o/ob )
and to convey the same type of Aktionsart, e.g. up – do, out – vy and through – pro.
The comparative analysis carried out in this last chapter has made explicit the
features shared by both English particles and Russian prefixes and allows us to draw the end
conclusions of this work.
116
Notes Chapter III
191
The most common distinction between the strictu sensu aspect and aktionsart, pointed out by Dahl (1999), is
the following: aspect is a grammatical category aimed at indicating the speakerʼs perspective on a situation (e.g.
completed, ongoing, beginning, ending, continuing, repeating, etc.), whereas aktionsart regards the inherent
nature of the situation itself (e.g. telic/atelic, stative/dynamic, punctual/durative, etc.).
192
Cf. par. 4.1.1., Chapter I.
193
Cf. par. 4.1.2., Chapter I.
Cf. the preliminary distinction between Latin/non aspectual and Russian/aspectual prefixes in sections 1.1.
194
and 1.4.
195
The durative meaning conveyed by the imperfective of the Russian verbs has a counterpart in the durative
meaning of some English verb particles such as to live on, to drive on/along, to hold out, to work away.
196
This may be due to the fact that English verbal post-affixation is a relatively young process.
197
In particular, approx. 16 particles can add to more or less 50 (according to Bacchielli 1986, 99) simple verbs,
whereas 22 verbal prefixes can add to a much larger number of simple and complex verbs.
198
Cf. examples (61)-(64) for English and section 3.2. (Chapter II) for Russian.
199
Cf. examples (59)-(60) for English and (105), (107) and (108) for Russian.
200
Cf. examples (65)-(66) for English and (109) for Russian.
201
Govoritʼ wants s+instrumental and/or o+prepositive, whereas nagovoritʼ wants na+accusative.
202
Other sources such as Dobrovolʼskaja (2001), Grande Dizionario Russo-Italiano Italiano-Russo, and
Ragazzini (1995), Dizionario Inglese-Italiano Italiano-Inglese, have been consulted.
203
Con il simbolo P designeremo nel corso della trattazione le particelle dellʼinglese che distingueremo dalle
preposizioni (Prep).
204
Simpson (1983) afferma che il “Direct syntactic encoding” in Kaplan & Bresnan (1980) e Bresnan (ed.)
(1982) è simile al “Projection principle of government and binding” in Chomsky (1981).
205
La rianalisi, o ristrutturazione, è una “operazione sintattica che modifica la struttura senza modificare lʼordine
lineare della stringa” (Beccaria, a cura di, 1996, 626). Per quanto riguarda i V-P quindi, i due singoli elementi
vengono “rianalizzati” come un unico verbo complesso.
206
Il test è stato utilizzato dai due autori per analizzare i compound-like phrases dellʼitaliano. È sembrato
opportuno estenderlo alla presente analisi, considerando che lo scopo del test è lo stesso, ovvero stabilire se
determinate costruzioni siano parole complesse o sintagmi. Il test era stato originariamente proposto da ten
Hacken (1994).
207
“In morphology we define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the right-hand member of that
word” (Williams 1981, 248).
208
Fraser (1976, 25-7) fa comunque notare che esistono casi in cui alcuni elementi avverbiali o interiezioni
possono comparire tra V e P.
117
209
I casi di derivazione imperfettiva da verbi prefissati con significati sublessicali (Aktionsart) sono piuttosto
rari (cfr. Isačenko 1962/1975).
210
As for the UBH and the MUBH cf. Scalise (1994, 210-7 and 212-3).
211
Le fonti sono Oxford Russian Dictionary (2000), Dobrovolʼskaja (2001) e Ragazzini (1995).
212
Only verbs with proper Russian/Slavic prefixes will be listed. Derived prefixed imperfectives will not be
considered.
118
Conclusion
Conclusion
The aim of this work has been to demonstrate that English post-verbal particles and
Russian verbal prefixes have the same functions in the formation of complex verbs. The
introductory discussion on the lexical status of English verb-particles has showed how V-Ps
should be considered as discontinuous predicates whose structure is created in morphology,
but remains visible to syntax. Given that V-Ps are lexical units, we moved on to establish
what type of complex words they belong to. The hypothesis we put forward is that of
“postfixation”. The “postfix”, i.e. the particle, acts as an adjunct or modifier of the verb: it
modifies the aspectual, semantic and syntactical frames of the original verb without changing
its category and without becoming the head.
The discussion then moved on to address Russian prefixes. An introductory distinction
between Latin and Russian/Slavic prefixes allowed us to single out the latter as the subject
matter of the discussion. Then, we considered Russian prefixes from a formal point of view,
i.e. we analysed their behaviour as a morphological process, taking into consideration their
important role within the aspectual system. Finally, these, like English particles, have been
seen to act as modifiers and to introduce semantic, aspectual/Aktionsart and a-structure
modifications into the simple verb they add to. A list of prefixes with the corresponding
lexical and sublexical meanings has been offered in order to understand better the variety of
meanings they convey.
After carrying out the analysis of both verb-particles and prefixed verbs, we attempted
to make a comparison between the two on the basis of their modifying functions. On the one
hand, the comparison has been quite straightforward for semantic and syntactical modifications,
which seem to correspond. On the other hand, the relationship of prefixes with the category
of aspect, which rules the Russian verbal system, has made a terminological clarification on
aspect necessary. The definitions of aspect and Aktionsart typical of the Russian linguistic
tradition have then been applied to English in order to facilitate the comparison. The result
is that particles and prefixes indeed share the same range of functions within the respective
verbal systems, though Russian prefixes turned out to have a more prominent and established
role in the aspectual and Aktionsart field. The functional similarities of particles and prefixes
have been partially traced back to historical factors: English particles are the heirs of OE
prefixes, as their birth is due to the fall of the OE prefixal system and to the subsequent
structural changes of the language. Consequently, particles may have inherited the functions
119
of old prefixes. This might be the reason why nowadays particles, despite their post-verbal
position and separability from the verb, seem to have the same functions as prefixes. In
addition, since both particles and prefixes are historically related to prepositions, they seem
to share the same type of semantic evolution: both have a primary spatial meaning and a
series of secondary abstract meanings derived from it, including aspectual and Aktionsart
ones.
The third chapter ends with a semantic comparative analysis of a number of particles
and prefixes. The result is that some particles and prefixes do seem to correspond, at least
in some of their lexical (or sublexical) meanings. Therefore, a deeper and more systematic
investigation on the semantics of these elements would be desirable not only for linguistic
reasons but also for educational purposes. It is known that, due to their semantic complexity,
both verb-particles in English and prefixed verbs in Russian are among the major difficulties
learners face when they first approach these languages. A comprehensive comparative
analysis would undoubtedly facilitate the understanding of their use and meanings to foreign
learners.
To conclude, we trust that this work has succeeded in showing that, in spite of their
different “surface” structures, English particles and Russian prefixes have the same functions
as morphological elements taking part in complex verb formation.
120
Appendix
Appendix 1: English Verb-Particles
to add up to
to carry on
to eat up
to argue down
to carry out
to fade out
to babble on
to carry through
to fall about
to bang away
to cast down
to fall apart
to bank away
to catch on
to fall down
to bank up
to catch up with
to fall in
to batter around
to check up on
to fall off
to battle out
to chime in
to fall out
to be through
to chip away
to fall upon
to bear through
to churn up
to fasten up
to beat up
to clean up
to fiddle away
to bind up
to close down
to fight out
to blot out
to coil up
to figure out
to blow down
to come out
to find out
to bolt down
to cough up
to finish off
to break down
to curl up
to fire away
to break out
to cut for
to flatten out
to break up
to deed over
to gather up
to bring about
to deliver over
to get at
to bring up
to deliver up
to get down
to broaden out
to die off
to get on
to build up
to die out
to give in
to bunch up
to do over
to give out
to burn down
to do up
to give over
to burn out
to doze off
to give up
to burn up
to draw out
to go away
to cable in
to drink down
to go in
to cache away
to drink up
to go off
to call up
to drive along
to go on
to calm down
to drive on
to gobble down
to carry back
to dry up
to gobble up
to carry off
to eat away
to gulp down
121
to hammer away
to mount up
to put through
to hand over
to move along
to put up
to hang up
to move on
to put upon
to heal up
to mull over
to quiet down
to hear out
to nail up
to read off
to hear sb out
to offer up
to read out
to heat up
to paint up
to read over
to hoard up
to pair off
to read through
to hold out
to pass away
to read up (on)
to hold up
to paste up
to ride away
to hurry up
to pay off
to roll up
to jog along
to pile up
to rope in
to jog on
to pin up
to rope off
to keel over
to pine away
to run off
to keep on
to pitch in
to run out
to knock out
to play off
to sail in
to lay aside
to play out
to save up
to lay out
to play over
to say back
to lengthen out
to play through
to scream down
to lie down
to play up
to screw up
to light in
to pull in
to seal up
to link up
to pull off
to search out
to live on
to push along
to section off
to lock up
to push on
to sell out
to look about
to put across
to separate out
to look around
to put aside
to set out
to look into
to put away
to set up
to look over
to put back
to shake up
to look round
to put by
to shoot up
to look through
to put down
to show off
to look up
to put in
to show up
to make out
to put off
to shut down
to make over
to put on
to shut off
to measure out
to put out
to simmer down
to mix up
to put over
to sit down
122
Appendix
to sit on
to take apart
to tuck up
to sit up
to take away
to turn out
to sleep off
to take off
to wait out
to smash up
to take out
to wear down
to speak out
to take up
to wear out
to speed up
to talk away
to well at
to spread out
to talk out
to well over
to stand in
to talk over
to well up
to stand out
to taper off
to widen out
to stand up
to think back
to widen up
to stick up
to think out
to wind up
to stir up
to think over
to wolf down
to stock up
to think through
to work away
to store away
to think up
to work on
to store up
to throw away
to work out
to stow away
to throw back
to work up
to strap up
to throw down
to write down
to stretch out
to throw through
to write in
to summarize up
to throw up
to write off
to swallow down
to tie down
to write oneself out
to swallow up
to tie up
to write out
to swig down
to tighten up
to write up
to swill down
to track down
123
Appendix 2: Russian Prefixed Verbs212
dobegatʼsja
ʻto run until exhaustionʼ
dobelitʼ
ʻto decorate to a certain pointʼ
dobežatʼ
ʻto run to the endʼ
dobuditʼsja
ʻto succeed in waking after many attemptsʼ
dočitatʼ
ʻto read as far asʼ
doestʼ
ʻto eat upʼ
dogovoritʼ
ʻto finish sayingʼ
dogovoritʼsja
ʻto come to an agreementʼ
doigratʼ
ʻto play out, to play to the endʼ
dojti
ʻto go as far asʼ
dokopatʼsja
ʻto reach by diggingʼ
dokupitʼ
ʻto buy in additionʼ
dokuritʼsja
ʻto smoke too much (negative effects)ʼ
dopisatʼ
ʻto finish writingʼ
dopitʼ
ʻto drink up/to the endʼ
doplatitʼ
ʻto pay in addition, to pay the remainderʼ
doprygatʼsja
ʻto jump until it hurtsʼ
dorabotatʼ
ʻto work (until)ʼ
dorabotatʼsja
ʻto overwork and tire oneself outʼ
doslušatʼ
ʻto listen to the endʼ
dozvatʼsja
ʻto call until one gets an answerʼ
dozvonitʼsja
ʻto get through (on telephone)ʼ
ischoditʼ
ʻto originate, to proceed fromʼ
ispisatʼ
ʻto use up (pencil or paper) in writing
ispisatʼsja
ʻto write oneself outʼ
ispolnitʼ
ʻto carry outʼ
izgnatʼ
ʻto exile, to banishʼ
izletatʼ
ʻto fly overʼ
iznervničatʼsja
ʻto become nervousʼ
iznositʼ
ʻto wear out (clothes)ʼ
izolgatʼsja
ʻto become accustomed to lyingʼ
izrisovatʼ
ʻto cover with drawingsʼ
124
Appendix
izveritʼsja
ʻto lose faithʼ
izzjabnutʼ
ʻto be numb with coldʼ
krasnetʼ
ʻto reddenʼ
nabežatʼ
ʻto run/smash intoʼ
nabratʼ
ʻto collect quantity ofʼ
načistitʼ
ʻto clean, to shine (with care)ʼ
naddatʼ
ʻto add (over and above)ʼ
nadelatʼ
ʻto make/do a lot ofʼ
nadorvatʼ
ʻto tear slightlyʼ
nadpisatʼ
ʻto inscribeʼ
nadrezatʼ
ʻto cut slightly, to make an incision inʼ
nadsmatrivatʼ
ʻto supervise, to overseeʼ
nagladitʼ
ʻto iron with careʼ
nagovoritʼ
ʻto say a lot of thingsʼ
nagovoritʼsja
ʻto talk oneʼs fill, to talk oneself outʼ
naigratʼ
ʻto play sketchily, to hint at (playing)ʼ
najti
ʻto find, to come onʼ
nakuritʼ
ʻto fill with smokeʼ
nakuritʼsja
ʻto smoke oneʼs fill/a lot/enoughʼ
namazatʼ
ʻto smear, to spread onʼ
napadatʼ
ʻto attack, to fall uponʼ
napisatʼ
ʻto writeʼ
napitʼsja
ʻto drink oneʼs fill, to get drunkʼ
nažitʼ
ʻto earn, to gainʼ
nedogovoritʼ
ʻnot to say allʼ
nedomeritʼ
ʻto undermeasureʼ
nedoocenitʼ
ʻto underestimateʼ
negoplatitʼ
ʻto underpayʼ
nischoditʼ
ʻto descend, to go downʼ
nizložitʼ
ʻto deposeʼ
obʼʼestʼsja
ʻto overeatʼ
obchochotatʼsja
ʻto die with laughter, to laugh oneʼs head offʼ
obdumatʼ
ʻto think out/overʼ
obegatʼ
ʻto run round to see all oneʼs acquaintancesʼ
obgovoritʼ
ʻto talk overʼ
125
obkormitʼ
ʻto overfeedʼ
obletatʼsja
ʻto become more airworthyʼ
obmeritʼ
ʻto cheat in measuring, to give short measuresʼ
obojti
ʻto go round, to outflank runningʼ
obrabotatʼ
ʻto work onʼ
obygratʼ
ʻto play up, to give emphasis to, to winʼ
obzvonitʼ
ʻto call everyone on the phoneʼ
ocenitʼ
ʻto evaluateʼ
odumatʼsja
ʻto recover, to change oneʼs mindʼ
ogovoritʼ
ʻto calumniateʼ
ogovoritʼsja
ʻto make a slip of tongue (in speaking)ʼ
opisatʼ
ʻto describe, to write upʼ
opisatʼsja
ʻto misspell, to make a slip of the penʼ
opitʼsja
ʻto overdrink, to drink to excessʼ
oslušatʼsja
ʻto disobeyʼ
osmotretʼ
ʻto look (a)round/over, to inspectʼ
osmotretʼsja
ʻto look about/aroundʼ
otbegatʼsja
ʻto be unable to run any longerʼ
otbitʼ
ʻto beat offʼ
otdaritʼ
ʻto reciprocate a giftʼ
otdatʼ
ʻto give backʼ
otdelatʼ
ʻto do up, to put the finishing touchesʼ
otdežuritʼ
ʻto complete the shift, to come off dutyʼ
otdumatʼ
ʻto change oneʼs mindʼ
otdyšatʼsja
ʻto recover oneʼs breathʼ
otgladitʼ
ʻto iron with great careʼ
otgovoritʼ
ʻto dissuade fromʼ
otguljatʼ
ʻto have spent/finishedʼ
otlakirovatʼ
ʻto varnishʼ
otležatʼ
ʻto make numb by lyingʼ
otložitʼ
ʻto put aside/away/by, to postponeʼ
otmolčatʼsja
ʻto seal oneʼs lips, to keep silentʼ
otobedatʼ
ʻto finish having lunchʼ
otobratʼ
ʻto take away, to removeʼ
otojti
ʻto step away, to move offʼ
126
Appendix
otomstitʼ
ʻto take revengeʼ
otospatʼsja
ʻto recover oneʼs lost sleepʼ
otpisatʼsja
ʻto give a purely formal replyʼ
otplatitʼ
ʻto pay back, to repayʼ
otremontirovatʼ
ʻto repairʼ
otrezatʼ
ʻto cut offʼ
otsidetʼ
ʻto make numb by sittingʼ
otslužitʼ
ʻto serve out oneʼs timeʼ
otsovetovatʼ
ʻto dissuadeʼ
otšutitʼsja
ʻto get away with a joke, to make a joke backʼ
otvintitʼ
ʻto unscrewʼ
otvlečʼ
ʻto distractʼ
ožitʼ
ʻto resurrectʼ
perebitʼ
ʻto slaughter all or manyʼ
perechoditʼ
ʻto crossʼ
perechotetʼ
ʻto stop wantingʼ
perechvatitʼ
ʻto intercept, to catchʼ
perečitatʼ
ʻto read again/over, to read all or a quantity ofʼ
peredatʼ
ʻto hand overʼ
peredelatʼ
ʻto do/make over, to do againʼ
peredochnutʼ
ʻto pause for breath, to take a short restʼ
peregovarivatʼsja
ʻto exchange talk withʼ
peregovoritʼ
ʻto exchange remarks, to talk, to out-talkʼ
pereigratʼ
ʻto play off/over, to replay, to overplayʼ
pereizbratʼ
ʻto elect againʼ
perejti
ʻto cross over, to shiftʼ
perekričatʼ
ʻto outcry, to shout aboveʼ
perekuritʼ
ʻto smoke too muchʼ
perelitʼ
ʻto pour into (somewhere else), to decantʼ
perelovitʼ
ʻto catch all ofʼ
perenesti
ʻto transferʼ
perenočevatʼ
ʻto spend the nightʼ
perenositʼ
ʻto transferʼ
perepilitʼ
ʻto saw in twoʼ
perepisatʼ
ʻto write out, to copy, to rewriteʼ
127
perepisyvatʼsja
ʻto correspondʼ
perepitʼ
ʻto outdrink, to drink sb under the tableʼ
pereplatitʼ
ʻto overpayʼ
perepodgotovitʼ
ʻto prepare againʼ
pererabotatʼ
ʻto work up, to craft, to convertʼ
pererubitʼ
ʻto chop/split in twoʼ
pereslatʼ
ʻto redirect, to forwardʼ
peresporitʼ
ʻto defeat in argumentʼ
perestavatʼ
ʻto stopʼ
perestavitʼ
ʻto transposeʼ
perestreljatʼ
ʻto shoot all ofʼ
perestroitʼ
ʻto build againʼ
pereutomitʼ
ʻto tire out, to overwork, to get overexhaustedʼ
perevoditʼ
ʻto translateʼ
perevypolnitʼ
ʻto fulfil againʼ
pereždatʼ
ʻto wait (through) for some timeʼ
perezimovatʼ
ʻto (pass the) winterʼ
perežitʼ
ʻto experience, to survive, to outliveʼ
počitatʼ
ʻto read for a whileʼ
podatʼ
ʻto present, to hand inʼ
podbrositʼ
ʻto throw upwardsʼ
podčitatʼ
ʻto read up (on), to examine with attentionʼ
poddelatʼ
ʻto forgeʼ
podderžatʼ
ʻto supportʼ
podgotovitʼ
ʻto train up to, to prepare forʼ
podgotovitʼsja
ʻto prepare forʼ
podgovoritʼ
ʻto instigate, to incite stealthilyʼ
podkupitʼ
ʻto bribeʼ
podlečitʼ
ʻto cure/treat a littleʼ
podlizatʼsja
ʻto lick sbʼs bootsʼ
podložitʼ
ʻto lay underʼ
podogretʼ
ʻto heat up slightlyʼ
podojti
ʻto go up toʼ
podolʼstitʼsja
ʻto ingratiate oneself withʼ
podpetʼ
ʻto echoʼ
128
Appendix
podpisatʼ
ʻto signʼ
podprygnutʼ
ʻto jump upwardsʼ
podrabotatʼ
ʻto earn extraʼ
podskazatʼ
ʻto prompt, to suggestʼ
podslušatʼ
ʻto eavesdrop, to overhearʼ
podsmotretʼ
ʻto spyʼ
podsochnutʼ
ʻto dry a littleʼ
podsolitʼ
ʻto add more saltʼ
podumatʼ
ʻto think for a whileʼ
podvintitʼ
ʻto screw up a little more, to tightenʼ
podvypitʼ
ʻto drink a littleʼ
podygratʼ
ʻto accompany singingʼ
pogovoritʼ
ʻto have a talkʼ
pojti
ʻto start off (on foot)ʼ
pokuritʼ
ʻto have a smokeʼ
poljubitʼ
ʻto come to love, to fall in love withʼ
ponapridumyvatʼ
ʻto invent (pejorative)ʼ
ponavydelyvatʼ
ʻto make, to produce (pejorative)ʼ
poobedatʼ
ʻto have lunchʼ
popadatʼ
ʻto fall in many or many timeʼ
porazʼʼechatʼsja
ʻto leave one after anotherʼ
porazvlekatʼ
ʻto amuse a littleʼ
poslušatʼsja
ʻto obeyʼ
postroitʼ
ʻto build (up)ʼ
poubivatʼ
povybitʼ
ʻto break everythingʼ
povytaskivatʼ
ʻto drag/pull outʼ
poženitʼsja
ʻto get marriedʼ
poznatʼ
ʻto become acquainted withʼ
pozvonitʼ
ʻto callʼ
preumenʼšitʼ
ʻto minimize, to belittleʼ
preuveličitʼ
ʻto exaggerateʼ
pridumatʼ
ʻto invent, to devise, to think upʼ
prigljadetʼsja
ʻto stare at, to scrutinizeʼ
prigotovitʼ
ʻto prepareʼ
129
prigovoritʼ
ʻto sentence (to)ʼ
prijti
ʻto arrive, to go toʼ
prikleitʼ
ʻto glue, to stickʼ
prikupitʼ
ʻto buy some moreʼ
prilečʼ
ʻto lie down for a while, to have a liedownʼ
prinjuchatʼsja
ʻto get used to the smellʼ
pripisatʼ
ʻto write something more, to add st writingʼ
pripodnimatʼsja
ʻto raise oneself slightlyʼ
prišitʼ
ʻto sew on(to)ʼ
prismotretʼsja
ʻto look closely, attentivelyʼ
prisochnutʼ
ʻto adhere in dryingʼ
pristavitʼ
ʻto put/lean againstʼ
pristroitʼ
ʻto add (to a building), to build on toʼ
pritjanutʼ
ʻto attract, to pull (up)ʼ
priuderžatʼ
ʻto hold a littleʼ
priutichnutʼ
ʻto quiet down somewhatʼ
privalitʼ
ʻto lean, to come alongsideʼ
prižitʼ
ʻto beget (usually of extramarital unions)ʼ
prižitʼsja
ʻto get used/acclimatized, to settle downʼ
prizvatʼ
ʻto call (up), to conveneʼ
proboltatʼsja
ʻto let the cat out of the bagʼ
pročitatʼ
ʻto read off/out/aloud/throughʼ
produmatʼ
ʻto think out/through, to think over carefullyʼ
prodyšatʼsja
ʻto get oneʼs breath backʼ
proechatʼ
ʻto pass/drive/ride by/throughʼ
progljadetʼ
ʻto overlookʼ
progovoritʼ
ʻto talk awayʼ
progovoritʼsja
ʻto shoot oneʼs mouth offʼ
progretʼ
ʻto heat, to warm up carefullyʼ
proguljatʼ
ʻto be absent from work/school, to missʼ
proguljatʼsja
ʻto take a walk/strollʼ
proigratʼ
ʻto play throughʼ
proigratʼ
ʻto play through, to play to the endʼ
projti
ʻto go past/through (on foot)ʼ
prokuritʼ
ʻto smoke for a certain period of timeʼ
130
Appendix
prolajatʼ
ʻto give a barkʼ
propitʼ
ʻto squander/spend on drink, to drink awayʼ
prorabotatʼ
ʻto work for a specific periodʼ
prosidetʼ
ʻto sit for a specific periodʼ
prosmotretʼ
ʻto look over/throughʼ
prospatʼ
ʻto sleep through, to oversleepʼ
prospatʼsja
ʻto sleep it offʼ
prostrelitʼ
ʻto shoot throughʼ
provalitʼsja
ʻto collapse, to fall through, to fail an examʼ
provaritʼ
ʻto boil thoroughlyʼ
prožitʼ
ʻto live, to spend lifeʼ
prozvenetʼ
ʻto resound, to ring, to resonateʼ
raspadatʼsja
ʻto fall apartʼ
rassmotretʼ
ʻto examine, to look intoʼ
rastolkovatʼ
ʻto explain in detail/word by wordʼ
rastvoritʼ
ʻto dissolveʼ
razʼʼechatʼsja
ʻto departʼ
razʼʼestʼ
ʻto corrode, to eat awayʼ
razbrosatʼ
ʻto throw about, to spread/scatterʼ
razdatʼ
ʻto give/hand out, to distributeʼ
razdumatʼ
ʻto change oneʼs mindʼ
razdvinutʼ
ʻto move/slide apart, to extendʼ
razgljadetʼ
ʻto discernʼ
razgovoritʼsja
ʻto warm to oneʼs topicʼ
razlinovatʼ
ʻto ruleʼ
razljubitʼ
ʻto stop lovingʼ
razložitʼ
ʻto distributeʼ
razmachnutʼsja
ʻto swing, to brandishʼ
razobidetʼ
ʻto offend greatlyʼ
razobratʼ
ʻto take apart, to dismantleʼ
razojtisʼ
ʻto disperseʼ
razospatʼsja
ʻto be fast asleepʼ
razrabotatʼ
ʻto work outʼ
razrezatʼ
ʻto cutʼ
razrisovatʼ
ʻto cover with drawingsʼ
131
razukrasitʼ
ʻto decorate all upʼ
razuveritʼ
ʻto stop believing, to persuade to the contraryʼ
razvolnovatʼsja
ʻto get excited/agitateʼ
sbegatʼ
ʻto run for (go and back)ʼ
sbežatʼsja
ʻto come running, to gatherʼ
schoditʼ
ʻto go and come back once (on foot)ʼ
sčistitʼ
ʻto clean offʼ
sdelatʼ
ʻto do/makeʼ
skleitʼ
ʻto glue togetherʼ
skormitʼ
ʻto feed, to nourishʼ
složitʼ
ʻto lay/put downʼ
smestitʼ
ʻto displaceʼ
snesti
ʻto carry away/offʼ
snositʼ
ʻto wear outʼ
sochnutʼ
ʻto dryʼ
sojti
ʻto go downʼ
sojtisʼ
ʻto meet, to come togetherʼ
soriginalʼničatʼ
ʻto do something original, to put on an actʼ
spajatʼ
ʻto solder togetherʼ
spisatʼ
ʻto write off, to copy down/offʼ
spisatʼsja
ʻto exchange letters withʼ
spoitʼ
ʻto give to drinkʼ
srabotatʼsja
ʻto wear oneself out, to work well togetherʼ
srisovatʼ
ʻto copy a drawingʼ
sšitʼ
ʻto sew togetherʼ
stoskovatʼsja
ʻto pine forʼ
sumničatʼ
ʻto say/do st to show off oneʼs intelligenceʼ
svaritʼ
ʻto cook, to boilʼ
svjazatʼ
ʻto bind, to tieʼ
svoditʼ
ʻto take (and come back)ʼ
sygratʼ
ʻto play through, to play to the endʼ
ubegatʼsja
ʻto get tired from running a lotʼ
ubratʼ
ʻto take awayʼ
ugovoritʼ
ʻto persuade (to)ʼ
ujti
ʻto leaveʼ
132
Appendix
ukačatʼ
ʻto make (air-/car-/sea-) sickʼ
ulečʼsja
ʻto lie down (comfortably), to be flat outʼ
uležatʼ
ʻto lie down (keeping still)ʼ
umazatʼ
ʻto smear, to spreadʼ
umeritʼ
ʻto moderateʼ
unesti
ʻto carry awayʼ
upisatʼ
ʻto get in, to fit in (something written)ʼ
usestʼsja
ʻto take a seat, to sit down, to put oneʼs feet upʼ
ušitʼ
ʻto take in (dressmaking)ʼ
usochnutʼ
ʻto dry up/out, to witherʼ
ustlatʼ
ʻto cover withʼ
ustyditʼ
ʻto (put to) shameʼ
usypatʼ
ʻto strew/cover withʼ
uvidetʼ
ʻto seeʼ
uznatʼ
ʻto come to know, to learnʼ
vdevatʼ
ʻto put in(to)ʼ
vdumatʼsja
ʻto think over, to meditateʼ
vobratʼ
ʻto absorb, inhaleʼ
vojti
ʻto go inʼ
voschoditʼ
ʻto ascendʼ
vospitatʼ
ʻto bring upʼ
vozdatʼ
ʻto render, to repayʼ
vozgorditʼsja
ʻto become proudʼ
vozlikovatʼ
ʻto begin exultingʼ
voznagraditʼ
ʻto rewardʼ
vozobnovitʼ
ʻto renewʼ
vozroditʼ
ʻto regenerate, to reviveʼ
vozvesti
ʻto raiseʼ
vpisatʼ
ʻto write inʼ
vslušatʼsja
ʻto listen attentivelyʼ
vstavitʼ
ʻto put inʼ
vybelitʼ
ʻto decorate/bleach with careʼ
vychoditʼ
ʻto go outʼ
vydumatʼ
ʻto think up, to inventʼ
vygladitʼ
ʻto iron with carʼ
133
vygljanutʼ
ʻto look out of the windowʼ
vygovoritʼ
ʻto speak out, to pronounceʼ
vygovoritʼsja
ʻto come clean, to spill the beanʼ
vyigratʼ
ʻto winʼ
vyjti
ʻto go outʼ
vykuritʼ
ʻto finish smokingʼ
vyložitʼ
ʻto lay/put outʼ
vypadatʼ
ʻto fall, to be eliminated, to fall outʼ
vypisatʼ
ʻto write away/off/outʼ
vypitʼ
ʻto drink (up)ʼ
vyplakatʼsja
ʻto work it off in tears, to have oneʼs cry outʼ
vyprositʼ
ʻto get out of, to obtain (by begging)ʼ
vyrabotatʼ
ʻto work outʼ
vyrvatʼ
ʻto pull/tear outʼ
vyskazatʼ
ʻto speak outʼ
vyskazatʼ
ʻto speak/say outʼ
vyslušatʼ
ʻto hear sb out, to listen to the endʼ
vysmotretʼ
ʻto scrutinize, to spy outʼ
vysochnutʼ
ʻto dry outʼ
vyspatʼsja
ʻto sleep oneself outʼ
vystavitʼ
ʻto put/lay out, to eject, to put up, to displayʼ
vystojatʼ
ʻto keep standing (for a long time)ʼ
vyžitʼ
ʻto surviveʼ
vzachatʼsja
ʻto exclaim ah!ʼ
vzdumatʼ(sja)
ʻto get into oneʼs head, to think of/up suddenlyʼ
vzgljanutʼ
ʻto have a glanceʼ
vzojti
ʻto go upʼ
vzrevetʼ
ʻto let out a roarʼ
vzvalitʼ
ʻto (off)load, to shift st on sbʼ
zabežatʼ
ʻto push ahead, to penetrate runningʼ
zabrositʼ
ʻto throw behindʼ
zacelovatʼ
ʻto cover with (too many) kissesʼ
zachoditʼ
ʻto drop in, to call for, to pick upʼ
zacvesti
ʻto break into blossomʼ
zadaritʼ
ʻto (over)load with giftʼ
134
Appendix
zadelatʼ
ʻto stop/block up,to close off/upʼ
zadumatʼ
ʻto plan, to conceive the idea ofʼ
zadumatʼsja
ʻto become lost in thought, thoughtfulʼ
zaestʼ
ʻto take withʼ
zagotovitʼ
ʻto stock upʼ
zagovoritʼ
ʻto begin to speak, to cast a spell overʼ
zajti
ʻto drop in (on the way), to go behindʼ
zakapatʼ
ʻto stain drippingʼ
zakormitʼ
ʻto overfeedʼ
zakrasnetʼ
ʻto begin to turn redʼ
zakupitʼ
ʻto stock up withʼ
zakuritʼ
ʻto light up, to smoke st out, to fill with smokeʼ
zakuritʼsja
ʻto smoke too much and to fall illʼ
zakusitʼ
ʻto take withʼ
zamytʼ
ʻto wash off/outʼ
zapisatʼ
ʻto write downʼ
zapitʼ
ʻto wash down with, to take with/afterʼ
zaplakatʼ
ʻto begin to cryʼ
zapolnitʼ
ʻto fill up/in/out (a form)ʼ
zarabotatʼ
ʻto earʼ
zasidetʼsja
ʻto sit too longʼ
zastiratʼ
ʻto wash off (a stain)ʼ
zaučitʼsja
ʻto study too hard, to over-studyʼ
zavoevatʼ
ʻto conquerʼ
zažigatʼ
ʻto light upʼ
135
References
AARTS, B. (1989), Verb-Preposition Constructions and Small Clauses in English, in “Journal
of Linguistics” 25, 277-90.
ACKERMANN, F. & G. WEBELHUTH (1997), The Composition of (Dis)Continuous
Predicates: Lexical or Syntactic?, in “Acta Linguistica Hungarica”, 44 (3-4), 317-40.
ACKERMANN, F. & G. WEBELHUTH (1998), A theory of predicates, Stanford, CSLI.
ARONOFF, M. (1976), Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MIT Press.
AZZARO, G. (1992), Semantic Syntax: English Phrasal Verbs, in “Textus”, 5, 83-110.
BACCHIELLI, R. (1986), Termini frasali inglesi: aspetti e forme di produttività lessicale,
Urbino, Quattro Venti.
BAKER, M. C. (1988), Incorporation, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BARYKINA, A. N., V. V. DOBROVOLʼSKAJA i S. N. MERZON (1979), Izučenie
glagolʼnych pristavok, Moskva, Izdatelʼstvo «Russkij jazyk».
BAUER, L. (1983), English Word Formation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BAUER, L. (1999), Head and Modifier, in Brown, K. & J. Miller (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia
of Grammatical Categories, Elsevier, 184-86.
BECCARIA, G. L. (a cura di) (1996), Dizionario di linguistica e di filologia, metrica,
retorica, Torino, Einaudi.
BECKER, T. (1992), Compounding in German, in Scalise, S. (ed.), The morphology of
compounding, “Rivista di Linguistica”, 4 (1), Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier, 5-36.
BELJAKOV, V. i M. GUIRAUD-WEBER (1997), O nekotorych svojstvach vtoričnych
136
References
glagolʼnych pristavok, in “Russian Linguistics”, 21 (2), 165-75.
BERG, T. (1998), The (In)Compatibility of Morpheme Orders and Lexical Categories and
its Historical Implications, in “English Language and Linguistics”, 2 (2), 245-62.
BISETTO, A., R. MUTARELLO e S. SCALISE (1990), Prefissi e teoria morfologica, in
Berretta, M., P. Molinelli e A. Valentini (a cura di), Parallela 4, Morfologia/Morphologie,
Atti del V Incontro Italo-Austriaco della Società di Linguistica Italiana (Bergamo 2-4 ottobre
1989), Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 29-41.
BISETTO, A. & S. SCALISE (1999), Compounding: Morphology and/or Syntax?, in Mereu,
L. (ed.), The Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
BOLINGER, D. (1971), The Phrasal Verb in English, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University
Press.
BOOIJ, G. (1992), Compounding in Dutch, in Scalise, S. (ed.), The Morphology of
Compounding, “Rivista di Linguistica”, 4 (1), Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier, 37-60.
BRESNAN, J. (ed.) (1982), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge
(Mass.), MIT Press.
BRINTON, L. J. (1988), The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers and
Post-Verbal Particles, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BRUGMAN, C. (1981), Story of over, M. A. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
CHOMSKY, N. (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris
Publications.
COLLINS COBUILD ENGLISH GRAMMAR (1998), The Cobuild Series from the Bank
of English, HarperCollins Publishers.
de la CRUZ, J. M. (1975), Old English Pure Prefixes: Structure and Function, in “Linguistics”,
145, 47-82.
137
CURME, G. O. (1931), Syntax. A Grammar of the English Language, Vol. 3, Boston, D. C.
Heath.
DAHL, Ö (1999), Aspect: Basic Principles, in Brown, K. & J. Miller (eds.), Concise
Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Elsevier, 30-37.
DENISON, D. (1985), The Origins of the Completive up in English, in “Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen”, 86, 37-61.
DIENSBERG, B. (1990), English Phrasal Verbs Expressing Aspect and Aktionsart?. Review
of Brinton, L. J. (1988), The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers
and Post-Verbal Particles, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), in “Folia Linguistica
Historica” XI/1-2, 187-97.
DIKKEN, M. den (1995), Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic and Causative
Constructions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
DI SCIULLO, A. M. (1994), Prefixes and the Geometry of the Event, ms.
DI SCIULLO, A. M. & E. KLIPPLE (1993), Prefixes as Adjuncts, Université du Quebec
a Montreal, 1-10, ms. (Published as Modifying Affixes (1994), “Proceedings of WECOL”,
XXIII, University of Washington).
DI SCIULLO, A. M. & E. WILLIAMS (1987), On the Definition of Word, Linguistic Inquiry
Monographs 14, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Press.
DIXON, R. M. W. (1991), A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles,
Oxford, Clarendon Press.
DON, J., J. KERSTENS & E. RUYS, Lexicon of Linguistics, web site: http://tristram.let.
uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
DOWTY, D. R. (1979), Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
DRESSLER, W. U. & L. MERLINI BARBARESI (1986), How to Fix Interfixes? On the
138
References
Structure and Pragmatics of Italian (and Spanish, Russian, Polish) Antesuffixal Interfixes
and of English “Intermorphemic Elements”, in “Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae”, Tomus 36 (1-4), 53-67.
FLIER, M. S. (1985a), Syntagmatic Constraints on the Russian Prefix pere-, in Flier, M. S. & R.
D. Brecht (eds.), Issues in Russian Morphosyntax, Columbus (OH), Slavica Publishers, 138-54.
FLIER, M. S. (1985b), The Scope of Prefixal Delimitation in Russian, in Flier, M. S. & A.
Timberlake (eds.), The Scope of Slavic Aspect, Columbus (OH), Slavica Publishers, 41-58.
FRASER, B. (1976), The Verb-Particle Combination in English, New York/San Francisco/
London, Academic Press.
GALLANT, C. J. (1977), Russian Verbal Prefixation and Semantic Features: an Analysis of
the Prefix vz-, Dissertation, Abstract-Intern., AnnArbor MI 1977, 38, 760A-61A.
GEBERT, L. (1991), Parte terza. Il sintagma verbale. La questione dellʼaspetto, in Fici
Giusti, F., L. Gebert e S. Signorini, La lingua russa. Storia, struttura, tipologia, Roma, La
Nuova Italia Scientifica, 235-292.
GOH, G.-Y. (2001), The Advent of the Prepositional Passive: an Innovation of Middle
English?, in “English Studies”, 82 (3), 203-17.
GRIGORJAN, V. M. (1984), Prefiksalʼnye glagoly i ich upravljajuščie svojstva v sovremennom
russkom jazyke, Izdatelʼstvo AN Armjanskoj S.S.P., Erevan.
GRIMSHAW, J. (1990), Argument Structure, Cambridge, MIT Press.
GUÉRON, J. (1990), Particles, Prepositions, and Verbs, in Mascaró, J. & M. Nespor (eds.),
Grammar in Progress, Dordrecht, Foris, 153-66.
GUIRAUD-WEBER, M. (1988), Aspect du verbe russe, Essai de présentation, Aix-enprovence, 24-56.
GVOZDANOVIĆ, J. (1992), The Verbal Prefixes po- and pro- in Russian: Their Meanings
139
and Uses, in Barentsen, A. A., B. M. Groen & R. Sprenger (eds.), Studies in Russian
Linguistics, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 111-23.
HACKEN, P. ten (1994), Defining Morphology. A Principled Approach to Determining the
Boundaries of Compounding, Derivation, and Inflection, Hildesheim-Zurich-New York, Ge
org Olms Verlag.
HARTMANN, D. (1999), Particles, in Brown, K. & J. Miller (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia
of Grammatical Categories, Elsevier, 217-7.
HILTUNEN, R. (1983), The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English
Phrasal Verbs: the Evidence from some Old and Early Middle English Texts, in “Annales
Universitatis Turkuensis”, 160, series B, Turku (Finland), Turun Yliopisto.
IACOBINI, C. (1991), La prefissazione nellʼitaliano contemporaneo, Tesi di Dottorato,
Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”.
IACOBINI, C. et S. SCALISE (1997), Les limites de le complexité: lʼHypothèse de la Base
Unitaire en préfixation, Forum de Morphologie, Lille 28-29 Avril 1997, ms.
ISAČENKO, A. V. (1962/1975), Die Russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Teil I, Formenlehre,
Halle (Saale), Niemeyer.
JACKENDOFF, R. (1977),
Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT
Press.
JANDA, L. A. (1985), The Meanings of Russian Verbal Prefixes: Semantics and Grammar,
in Flier, M. S. & A. Timberlake (eds.), The Scope of Slavic Aspect, Columbus (OH), Slavica
Publishers, 26-40.
JANDA, L. A. (1988), The Mapping of Elements of Cognitive Space onto Grammatical Relations:
An Example from Russian Verbal Prefixation, in Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive
Linguistics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 327-43.
JAWORSKA, E. (1999), Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases, in Brown, K. & J. Miller
140
References
(eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, Elsevier, 304-11.
JOHNSON, K. (1991), Object Positions, in “Natural Language and Linguistic Theory”, 9,
577-636.
JONAH LIN, T.-H. (2000), Review of Alsina, A., J. Bresnan & P. Sells (eds.) (1997), Complex
Predicates, Stanford (CA), CSLI Publications, in “Journal of Linguistics”, 36, 397-405.
JOWETT, W. P. (1950), On Phrasal Verbs, in “English Language Teaching”, 5, 152-7.
KANTOR, M. (1978), Aspects and Procedurals in Multiprefixal Verbs in Slavic, in Birnbaum,
H. (ed.), American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, Zagreb
and Ljubljana September 3-9 1978, in “Linguistics and Poetics”, vol. 1, Columbus (OH),
Slavica Publishers, 432-48.
KAPLAN, R. & J. BRESNAN (1980), Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for
Grammtical Representation, Occasional Paper 13, The Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT.
KAYNE, R. (1985), Principles of Particle Constructions, in Guéron, J., H.-G. Obenauer &
J.-Y. Pollock (eds.), Grammatical Representation, Dordrecht, Foris, 101-40
KENNEDY, A. G. (1920), The Modern English Verb-Adverb Combination, Stanford
University, California.
KIEFER, F. (1992), Compounding in Hungarian, in Scalise, S. (ed.), The Morphology of
Compounding, “Rivista di Linguistica”, 4 (1), Torino, Rosenberg & Sellier, 61-78.
KIPARSKY, P. (1982), From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology, in Hulst, van der H. &
N. Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations (I), Dordrecht, Foris, 131-75.
KONISHI, T. (1958), The Growth of the Verb-Adverb Combination in English – a Brief
Sketch, in Araki, K., T. Egawa, T. Oyama and M. Yasui (eds.), Studies in English Grammar
and Linguistics: A Miscellany in Honour of Takanobu Otsuka, Tokyo, Kenkyusha, 117-28.
KOOPMAN, H. (1991), The Verb Particle Construction and the Syntax of PPs, Ms., UCLA.
141
KOOPMAN, H. (1993), The Structure of Dutch PPs, Ms., UCLA.
KRONGAUZ, M. A. (1998), Pristavki i glagoly v russkom jazyke: semantičeskaja
grammatika, Moskva, Škola «Jazyki Russkoj Kulʼtury» (Studia Philologica).
KRUISINGA, E. (1931), A Handbook of Present-day English, Part II, English Accidence
and Syntax, vol. I, 5th edition, Groningen, P. Noordhoff.
LAPOINTE, S. (1980), The Theory of Grammatical Agreement, PhD. Dissertation, University
of Mass., Amherst.
LEVIN, J. F. (1985), A Systems Matrix Model and Aspect: NA!, in Flier, M. S. & A. Timberlake
(eds.), The Scope of Slavic Aspect, Columbus (OH), Slavica Publishers, 12-25.
LINDNER, S. (1981), A Lexical-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions
with out and up, PhD Dissertation UCSD (University of California, San Diego).
LIPKA, L. (1972), Semantic Structure and Word Formation: Verb-Particle Constructions in
Contemporary English, München, Wilhelm Fink.
LIVE, A. (1965), The Discontinuous Verb in English, in “Word”, 21, 428-51.
MANZINI, M. (1995), Analisi semantica dei prefissi verbali russi za-, pere-, do- e ot-,
Bologna, Pitagora Editrice.
MARCHAND, H. (1960/1969), The Categories and Types of Present-Day English WordFormation, Münich, Verlag C. H. Beck.
MEREU, L. (ed.) (1999), Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, CILT (Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory), 180, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
MILLER, D. G. (1993), Complex Verb Formation, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
NEELEMAN, A. (1994), Complex Predicates, Dissertation, University of Utrecht.
142
References
PALMER, F. R. (1974), The English Verb, London. Longman.
PERILLO, F. S. (2000), La lingua russa allʼuniversità. Fonetica, morfologia e sintassi, Bari,
Cacucci Editore.
PESETSKY, D. (1993), Zero Syntax I: Experiencers and Cascades, Cambridge, (Mass.),
MIT Press.
POTTER, S. (1965), English Phrasal Verbs, in “Philologica Pragensia”, 8, 285-9.
POUTSMA, H. (1926), A Grammar of Late Modern English, Groningen, P. Noordhoff.
PULʼKINA, I. e E. ZACHAVA-NEKRASOVA (1991), Il Russo. Grammatica pratica con
esercizi, Mosca, Russkij Jazyk e Genova, Edest.
PUSTEJOVSKY, J. (1988), The Geometry of the Event, in Tenny C. (ed.), Studies in
Generative Approaches to Aspect, Lexicon Project Working Papers 24, Centre for Cognitive
Science, MIT, 19-39.
ROCA, I. M. (ed.) (1992), Thematic Structure. Its Role in Grammar, Berlin/New York,
Foris Publications.
ROSCH, E. (1975), Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories, in “Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General”, 104, 192-233.
ROSCH, E. (1978), Principles of Categorization, in Rosch, E. & B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition
and Categorization, Hillsdale (N.J.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 27-48.
ROSS, J. R. (1967), Constraints on Variables in Syntax, PhD Dissertation, Cambridge
(Mass.), Mit Press.
RUSSELL, P. (1985), Aspectual Properties of the Russian Verbal Prefix na-, in Flier, M. S. &
A. Timberlake (eds.), The Scope of Slavic Aspect, Columbus (OH), Slavica Publishers, 59-75.
RUSSKAJA GRAMMATIKA (1980), vol. I, Akademija Nauk URSS, Moskva, Nauka.
143
SAMUELS, M. L. (1972), Linguistic evolution with Special Reference to English, Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics 5, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ŠANSKIJ, N. M. (1968), Russian Word Formation, Pergamon Press.
SCALISE, S. (1984), Generative Morphology, Foris, Dordrecht.
SCALISE, S. (1994), Morfologia, Bologna, Il Mulino.
SCHOONEVELD, C. H. van (1978), Semantic Transmutations: Prolegomena to a Calculus
of Meaning, Vol. I, The Cardinal Semantic Structure of Prepositions, Cases, and Paratactic
Conjunctions in Contemporary Standard Russian, Bloomington.
SCHUPBACH, R. D. (1978), Semantic Features and Russian Verb Prefixation, in Birnbaum,
H. (ed.), American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, Zagreb
and Ljubljana September 3-9 1978, in “Linguistics and Poetics”, vol. 1, Columbus (OH),
Slavica Publishers, 616-36.
SELKIRK, E. (1982), The Syntax of Words, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 7, Cambridge
(Mass.), MIT Press.
SIEGEL, D. (1977), The Adjacency Condition and the Theory of Morphology, in “NELS”,
189-97.
SIMPSON, J. (1983), Discontinuous Verbs and the Interaction of Morphology and Syntax,
in Proceedings of the WCCFL 2, 275-86.
SOTTOFATTORI, E. (1991), I prefissi dei verbi russi: natura, significati, uso, Vicenza, Egida.
SPENCER, A. (1991), Morphological Theory, Oxford, Blackwell.
STIEBELS, B. & D. WUNDERLICH (1994), Morphology Feeds Syntax: The Case of
Particle Verbs, in “Linguistics”, 32, 919-68.
STOWELL, T. (1981), Origins of Phrase Structure, Cambridge (Mass.), MIT Dissertation.
144
References
TAHA, A. K. (1960), The Structure of Two-Word Verbs in English, in “Language Learning”,
10, 115-22.
TICHONOV, A. N. (1962), Čistovidovaja pristavka na- v sovremennom russkom jazyke,
Trudy Samarkandskogo gosuniversiteta, 118, Samarkand, 141-54.
TOWNSEND, CH. E. (1980), Russian Word Formation, Columbus (OH), Slavica Publishers.
TRAUGOTT, E. C. (1982), From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some
Semantic-pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization, in Lehmann, W. P. & Y. Malkiel (eds.),
Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 4, Amsterdam,
John Benjamins, 245-71.
VARELA, S. y L. HAOUET (2001), For a Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of the
Lexicon: Prefixed Verbs, in “Cuadernos de Lingüística del I. U. Ortega y Gasset”, 8, 53-69.
VASILENKO, E., A. EGOROVA e E. LAMM (1985), Gli aspetti del verbo russo, Mosca,
Russkij Jazyk.
WILLIAMS, E. (1981), Argument Structure and Morphology, in “The Linguistic Review”,
1, 81-114.
WHORF, B. L. (1956/1964), Language, Thought and Reality, Cambridge (Mass.), Mit
Press.
ZALIZNJAK, A. A. (1995), Opyt modelirovanija semantiki pristavočnych glagolov v
russkom jazyke, in “Russian Linguistics”, 19 (2), 143-85.
ZEMSKAJA , E. A. (1992), Slovoobrazovanie kak dejatelʼnostʼ, Moskva, Nauka.
ZUBIZARRETA, M. L. (1987), Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in Syntax,
Dordrecht, Foris.
ZWANENBURG, W. (1994), Les préfixes ont-ils une catégorie?, Recherches de Linguistique
Française et Romane dʼUtrecht, 89-102, Ms.
145
Dictionaries
Cambridge International Dictionary of English (1995), Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press
DOBROVOLʼSKAJA, J. (2001), Grande Dizionario Russo-Italiano Italiano-Russo, Milano,
Hoepli.
KOVALEV, V. (1995), Russo Russkij, Dizionario Russo-Italiano, Italiano-Russo, Bologna,
Zanichelli.
KUZNECOV, S. A. (2000), Bolshoj Tolkovyj Slovarʼ Russkogo Jazyka, Sankt Peterburg,
Noring.
KUZNECOVA, A. – EFREMOVA, T. F. (1986), Slovarʼ morfem russkogo jazyka, Moskva,
Russkij Jazyk.
Oxford Russian Dictionary, Russian-English English-Russian (2000), Third Edition, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
PICCHI, F. (1999), Grande Dizionario Inglese-Italiano Italiano-Inglese, Milano, Hoepli.
RAGAZZINI, G. (1995), Dizionario Inglese-Italiano Italiano-Inglese, Bologna, Zanichelli.
TICHONOV, A. N. (1985), Slovoobrazovatelʼnyj slovarʼ russkogo jazyka : v dvuch tomach,
Moskva, Russkij Jazyk.
Websterʼs New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1979), Deluxe Second Edition, U.S.A.,
Dorset & Baber.
146

complex verb formation in english and russian

Transcription

Similar documents

Connect the Dots

Shark`s Tale - GreatSchools

Exhibition–Bazaar of New Russian and West Literature

Kallima - Press Release - Exhibit-e

VOL. E98-D NO. 3 MARCH 2015 The usage of this PDF file must

Regular Meeting for the Study of the History of English @ College of

Università Ca` Foscari – Venezia Facoltà di Scienze MM. FF. NN.

View as PDF - Teach Secondary

This Power Point is about SUBJECTS and OBJECTS

THE VERB HOTEL BUS