Post on 24-Feb-2021
COMPLEX VERB FORMATIONIN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN
«TESI DI LAUREA» IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICSUNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, ITALY
JULY 2002
FRANCESCA MASINI
Supervisor: Prof. Sergio ScaliseAssistant 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
I
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 52.1. Words or Phrases? 62.2. Compound or “Postfixed” Words? 82.3. What Kind of Verbs with Particles? 102.4. Criteria for Distinguishing Particles from Other Parts of Speech 12
3. Conditions for V-P Separability 153.1. Are V-Ps Discontinuous Verbs? 153.2. Restrictions on the Position of P 173.3. Semantics and Syntactical Cohesion 20
4. Particles as Modifiers of the Verb 21 4.1. Semantic Modifications 22 4.1.1. Systematic Combinations 22 4.1.2. Metaphorical Combinations 25 4.2. Aspectual and Aktionsart Modifications 26 4.3. Functional-grammatical Modifications 29
5. V-Ps as a Base for Further Morphological Operations 32 5.1. Deriving Nouns from V-Ps 32 5.2. Deriving Adjectives from V-Ps 35 5.3. Deverbal Nouns/Adjectives and Affixation 36 5.3.1. Nominal Inflection: Plurals in –s 36 5.3.2. Deverbal Agentive Nouns in –er and their Interaction with Inflection 37 5.4. Special Instances of V-Ps and Noun Derivation 40 5.5. V-Ps and Prefixes 42
6. Conclusion 43
Notes Chapter I 44
II
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
Chapter II: Prefixed Verbs in Russian 51
1. The Subject Matter: Prefixed Verbs in Russian 511.1. Slavic/Russian vs. “Latin” Verbal Prefixes 511.2. The Analysis by Di Sciullo & Klipple (1993) and Di Sciullo (1994) 531.3. The Analysis by Varela & Haouet (2001) 551.4. Prefixes in Russian: Aspectual vs. Non Aspectual 56
2. Verbal Prefixation as a Morphological Process 572.1. Verbal Prefixes and Aspect 572.2. Imperfective Derivation 612.3. A Formal Description of Prefixes 622.4. Prefixed-postfixed Verbs 66
3. Prefixes as Modifiers of the Verb 683.1. Aspectual and Semantic Variations 68 3.1.1. Pure Aspectual Variation 69 3.1.2. Sublexical Variation 69 3.1.3. Lexical Variation 703.2. Syntactical Variations 71
4. Prefixes and their Meanings 754.1. Main Meanings of Verbal Prefixes 754.2. Brief History of the Semantic Studies of Russian Verbal Prefixes 92
3. Prefixed Verbs as a Base for Further Morphological Operations 94
5.1. Prefixation 94 5.1.1. Recursion 94 5.1.2. Multiple Prefixation 94
5.2. Suffixation 95 5.2.1. Deverbal Nouns 95 5.2.1.1. Abstract Nouns 95
5.2.1.2. Nouns Denoting Persons 97 5.2.1.3. Nouns Denoting Objects 97 5.2.2. Deverbal Adjectives 97 5.2.2.1. The Suffix -n 97 5.2.2.2. Suffixes Forming Qualitative Adjectives 98
6. Conclusion 98
Notes Chapter II 99
III
Contents
Chapter III: A Comparative Analysis 104
1. Particles and Prefixes as Modifiers of the Verb 1041.1. Lexical and Aspectual/Aktionsart Modifications 104
1.2. Syntactical Modifications 109
2. Some Diachronic and Typological Considerations 110
3. Searching for Semantic Correspondences 1123.1. The data 112
Notes Chapter III 117
Conclusion 119
Appendix 1: English Verb-Particles 121Appendix 2: Russian Prefixed Verbs 124
References 136
IV
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
1
Introduction
IntroductionThis 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.
3
Verb-Particles in English
Chapter IVerb-Particles in English
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
4
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
5
Verb-Particles in English
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
6
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(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?
7
Verb-Particles in English
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
8
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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”.
9
Verb-Particles in English
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.
10
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 → Modern English
be-lucan 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:
11
Verb-Particles in English
- 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.
12
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
13
Verb-Particles in English
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 functional-
syntactical 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 particles ̓ “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
14
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
15
Verb-Particles in English
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 Lexical-
Functional 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 a-
structure, 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
16
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
17
Verb-Particles in English
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
18
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(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
19
Verb-Particles in English
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 intuitive-
20
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
21
Verb-Particles in English
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).
22
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 CombinationsAlthough 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/
23
Verb-Particles in English
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.
24
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
25
Verb-Particles in English
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
26
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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-Ps ̓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
27
Verb-Particles in English
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, 243-
6), 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
down1) ingressive (cf. Poutsma 1926, Curme 1931)
E.g.: to lie down, to sit down, to quiet down
28
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
2) completive (cf. Live 1965)
E.g.: to burn down, to wear down, to shut down
out1) 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
off1) 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
through1) completive/terminative (cf. Poutsma 1926)
E.g.: to carry through, to read through
2) effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to put through
3) durative effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to bear through
away1) 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)
29
Verb-Particles in English
E.g.: to pine away, to hammer away, to eat away, to bang away, to work away
3) effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to pass away
on1) 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)
over1) effective (cf. Curme 1931)
E.g.: to put over
in1) 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)
30
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(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) a) He sleeps late on Saturdays
b) I can usually sleep off a hangover
(62) 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) 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
31
Verb-Particles in English
(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.
32
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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:
33
Verb-Particles in English
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
34
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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-ish-
ness80;
-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).
35
Verb-Particles in English
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 P
V -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 -able
V 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, stand-
36
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 V-
P, 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-P-
derived 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 -sThe 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, grown-
up-s, break-through-s, look-out-s
The tree is as follows:
37
Verb-Particles in English
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:
38
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(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:
39
Verb-Particles in English
N
N P
V 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:
40
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(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
41
Verb-Particles in English
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
42
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 V-
Ps. 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.
43
Verb-Particles in English
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.
44
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
Notes Chapter I1 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.
45
Verb-Particles in English
19 “In morphology we define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the right-hand member of that
word.” (Williams 1981, 248).
20 Di Sciullo and Klipple speak of French prefixes as “modifiers”, i.e. “elements which are predicates of an
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).
23 Of course, prefixed verbs did not disappear, but the high productivity they had in the past started to fade
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.
27 Especially phonologically monosyllabic verbs ending in liquid or nasal consonants, e.g. batter (around),
battle (out), widen (out).
28 The UBH is “a hypothesis proposed by Aronoff (1976) and Scalise (1984) which says that Word Formation
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 verbs ̓or to the class of ʻabstract nounsʼ,
but rules which attach an affix to both the class of ̒ transite verbs ̓and the class of ̒ abstract nouns ̓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,
46
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 horseback ̓
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 me ̓
(6) dat John [PRO me op ti] wil bellen
that John me up wants ring
ʻthat John wants to phone me ̓
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) (weil) er die Zeitung oft nicht ausliest
(because) he the newspaper often not out+read
47
Verb-Particles in English
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.
ʻYes ̓ /lit. re-, anew/
(10) ʻEgész ʻnap ʻszedte ʻössze a ʻholmiját
ʻHe was picking up his things all dayʼ
In the latter example, szedte össze ʻwas picking up ̓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 ʻcorrupt ̓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-law ̓ → adj.szvagier-ski = szvagier-ow-ski
Russian: mužik ʻpeasant ̓ → adj. mužik-ov-skij
Spanish: polvo ʻdust ̓ → 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 Example taken from Fraser (1976, 18).
51 Of course, this mostly depends on intonation.
52 Example taken from Fraser (1976, 18).
48
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
53 Once more, Fraser proposes to trace this back to prosodic reasons.
54 By “complicated” Fraser means a NP which includes intonational drops.
55 Example taken from Fraser (1976, 19).
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 As for the restrictions on the base cf. section 2.3.
61 As for the restrictions on the base cf. section 2.3.
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
49
Verb-Particles in English
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 Examples from Selkirk (1982, 26).
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 Examples from Selkirk (1982, 109).
85 The suffix –less forms adjectives from nouns.
86 Examples from Selkirk (1982, 109).
87 Examples from Selkirk (1982, 54) and Bacchielli (1986, 139).
88 Cf. note 36.
50
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
51
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
Chapter IIPrefixed Verbs in Russian
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- + pisat ̓ʻto write ̓ → napisat ̓ʻto writeʼ96
pro- + guljat ̓ʻto walk ̓ → proguljat ̓ʻto walk for a whileʼ
za- + rabotat ̓ʻto work ̓ → zarabotat ̓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:
informirovat ̓(IMP/PER) ʻto inform ̓→ dezinformirovatʼ(IMP/PER) ʻto misinformʼ
orientirovat ̓(IMP/PER) ʻto orient ̓→ dezorientirovat ̓(IMP/PER) ʻto disorientʼ
b) dis- (from Latin dis-)100:
garmonirovat ̓(IMP) ʻto be in harmony with ̓→ disgarmonirovat ̓(IMP) ʻto be out
of tuneʼ
kvalificirovatʼ(IMP/PER) ʻto rank, to test ̓ → diskvalificirovat ̓ (IMP/PER) ʻto
disqualifyʼ
52
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
c) pred- (from Latin pre-):
videt ̓ʻto see ̓(IMP) → predvidet ̓ʻto foresee ̓(IMP)
skazat ̓ʻto say ̓(PER) → predskazat ̓ʻto predict ̓(PER)
d) re- (from Latin re-):
konstruirovat ̓ʻto construct ̓(IMP) → rekonstruirovat ̓ʻto reconstruct ̓(IMP)
organizovat ̓ʻto organise ̓(IMP/PER) → reorganizovat ̓ʻto reorganise ̓(IMP/PER)
e) so- (from Latin co-)101:
čuvctvovat ̓ʻto feel ̓(IMP) → sočuvctvovat ̓ʻto sympathise with ̓(IMP)
dejstvovat ̓ʻto act ̓(IMP) → sodejstvovat ̓ʻto contribute ̓(IMP)
Table 2
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,
Proper Russian Prefixes Latin Prefixesv- de-vz- dis-voz- pred-vy- re-do- so-za-iz-na-nad-nedo-niz-o-ot-pere-po-pod-pre-pri-pro-raz-s-u-
53
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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 konstruirovat ̓ʻto construct ̓ (of Latin
derivation) and remains imperfective, whereas the latter is formed by the Russian prefix
pere-104 and the verb stroitʼ ʻto build ̓ (of Slavic derivation), whose union gives rise to a
perfective verb. As for functional-grammatical changes, the prefixes de-, dis-, pred-, re- do
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 sopereživat ̓(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)
Pereživat ̓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, ̒ to share the same feelings/experiencesʼ, so-
na-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
54
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
verb
aʼ. are Vmax adjuncts, i.e. are outside the
maximal a-structure domain of the verb109
b. semantically modify subparts of the
internal aspectual structure of the event
and may affect both the Aktionsart and the
a-structure110
bʼ. semantically modify the whole event,
giving rise to a second related event, and
produce aspectual modifications of the
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
55
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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,
such as “dar, poner”, ʻto give, to put ̓
(parasynthesis)121
aʼ. add semantic information not intrinsic
to the event, i.e. cause a sort of aspectual
modification such as “reversion, repetition,
previous occurrence”122
b. cannot omit their complements (N
compl. Incorporated) and modify the
a-structure
bʼ. produce no changes in subcategorization
requirements and a-structure123
c. modify the Aktionsart124 cʼ. delimit a specific Aktionsart reading of
the verb125
56
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 L-
PXs 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
57
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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
(forming multi-prefixed verbs)
eʼ. are not recursive and cannot co-occur128
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.
58
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 pisat ̓ - napisatʼ ʻto writeʼ, delat ̓– sdelatʼ ʻto do/makeʼ, varit ̓– svaritʼ ʻto
cook/boilʼ, stroit ̓ – postroitʼ ʻto buildʼ, as the perfective verbs napisatʼ, sdelatʼ, svarit ̓
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.
59
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
Table 6
Perfective Imperfective
With verbs denoting change, it asserts that
the process leads to establish a resulting
state, i.e. it implies the completion of
action. E.g.:
Vanja uže napisal pisʼmo
ʻVanja already wrote the letterʼ
The perfective verb here means that the
letter is finished.
With verbs denoting change, imperfectives
can have two meanings:
1) durative, e.g.:
V pjat ̓časov Vanja pisal pisʼmo
ʻAt 5 pm Vanja was writing a letterʼ
2) iterative, e.g.:
Oni vstrečalis ̓každyj denʼ
ʻThey used to meet every dayʼ
With stative verbs, it denotes the beginning
of action, i.e. the starting point of the state
itself, e.g.:
Ja uznala ob ètom včera
ʻI learned about it yesterday ̓
With stative verbs, it denotes accomplished
facts (in this case it is called “resultative
imperfective”), e.g.:
a) Včera ja chodil v kino
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:
60
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(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.
61
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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) pisat ̓(IMP) ʻto write ̓+ pod- → podpisat ̓ʻto sign ̓(PER) + -yva → podpisyvat ̓
ʻto sign ̓(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) podpisat ̓(PER) – podpisyvat ̓(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) dopisat ̓(PER) – dopisyvat ̓(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
62
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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;
63
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
2. Influence on suffixation:
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-brat ̓ ʻto elect againʼ
po-y-bivat ̓ ʻto kill (one after another)ʼ
Verb Noun denoting the action conveyed
by the verb
Agentive noun
pisatʼ
ʻto write ̓(IMP)
pisanie
ʻwritingʼ
pisatelʼ
ʻwriterʼ
napisatʼ
ʻto write ̓(PER)
napisanie
ʻspelling/way of writing ̓
*napisatelʼ
perepisatʼ
ʻto re-write, to write out/
to copyʼ
perepisyvanie139
(also perepiska)
ʻcopyingʼ
*perepisatelʼ
(perepisčik ʻcopyistʼ)
dopisatʼ
ʻto finish writing, to addʼ
*dopisanie *dopisatelʼ
64
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
4. Restrictions on the base:
a) Syntactical/grammatical restrictions: verbal prefixes add to both transitive
((95a)) and intransitive verbs ((95b)):
(95) a. pisat ̓ ʻto write ̓ → zapisat ̓ʻto write downʼ
čitat ̓ ʻto read ̓ → perečitat ̓ʻto read againʼ
b. sochnut ̓ʻto dry ̓ → vysochnut ̓ʻto dry out ̓
krasnet ̓ʻto redden ̓ → zakrasnet ̓ʻto begin to turn redʼ
As for aspect, prefixes can add both to imperfectives (forming new
perfective verbs) ((96a)) and perfectives (forming double-prefixed verbs)
((96b)):
(96) a. govorit ̓ ʻto speak ̓ (IMP) → zagovorit ̓ ʻto begin to speak ̓
(PER)
čitat ̓ʻto read ̓(IMP) → počitat ̓ʻto read for a while ̓(PER)
b. pod-gotovit ̓ʻto prepare/train ̓(PER) → pere-pod-gotovit ̓ʻto
retrain ̓(PER)
razʼ̓ -echatʼsjaʻto depart ̓(PER) → po-razʼ̓ -echatʼsja ʻto leave
one after another ̓(PER)
Moreover, prefixes may be added to bi-aspectual verbs in order to
emphasize their perfective meaning in certain contexts:
(97) organizovat ̓ → sorganizovat ̓ 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 ʻto go inʼ
znat ̓ʻto know ̓ → poznat ̓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.
65
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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 ʻgroup ̓→ podgruppa ʻsubgroupʼ
so- (co-)
so + avtor ʻauthor ̓→ soavtor ʻco-authorʼ
pri- (addition, attachment)
pri + gorod ʻtown ̓→ prigorod ʻsuburbʼ
pro- (pro)
pro + communist ʻCommunist→ procommunist ʻpro-Communistʼ
raz- (intensification of meaning)
raz + krasavica ʻa beautiful woman ̓→ razkrasavica ʻa very beautiful womanʼ
Prefixes adding to adjectives
pre- (intensification of meaning)
pre + dobryj ʻkind ̓→ predobryj ʻextremely kindʼ
pro- (pro)
pro-amerikanskij ʻAmerican ̓→ proamerikanskij ʻpro-Americanʼ
66
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
raz- (intensification of meaning)
raz + vesëlyj ʻgay ̓→ razvesëlyj ʻextremely gayʼ
so- (co)
so + pričastnyj ʻparticipating ̓→ 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, ʻpro-
Communistʼ, 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, ̓ to 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”:
67
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
a. circumfix hypothesis
V
Pref V -sja
b. [ [Pref + V]V + sja ]V
V
V -sja
Pref 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
68
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
Example (99) illustrates how prefix__sja should be treated as a circumfix:
(99) a) v- + dumat ̓ʻto think ̓+ -sja → vdumatʼsja153 ʻto think over, to meditate ̓
b) *v-dumatʼ
c) dumatʼ-sja (only impersonal) ʻto seemʼ
Vdumat s̓ja 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-dumat ̓ is agrammatical and dumat s̓ja is completely different
in meaning with respect to the output verb.
This structure reminds us of Italian parasynthetic verbs such as ingiallire ʻto yellow ̓
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:
69
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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 VariationAs 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- + zvonit ̓(IMP) → pozvonitʼ(PER) ʻto callʼ
na- + pisat ̓ (IMP) → napisat ̓ (PER) ʻto writeʼ
po- + stroit ̓ (IMP) → postroit ̓ (PER) ʻto buildʼ
s- + delat ̓ (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. pit ̓– vypitʼ, ʻto drinkʼ, pisat ̓–
napisatʼ, ʻto writeʼ, obedat ̓– poobedatʼ, ʻto have lunchʼ, gotovit ̓– prigotovitʼ, ʻto prepareʼ,
čitat ̓ - pročitatʼ, ʻto readʼ, delat ̓– sdelatʼ, ʻto do/makeʼ, videt ̓– 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 VariationSome 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:
70
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(101) kurit ̓ ʻto smokeʼ
dokuritʼsja ʻto smoke so much that negative effects emergeʼ
zakurit ̓ ʻto light up, to begin to smokeʼ
zakuritʼsja ʻto smoke too much and to fall illʼ
nakurit ̓ ʻto fill with smokeʼ
nakuritʼsja ʻto smoke oneʼs fill/a lot/enough ̓
pokurit ̓ ʻto smoke a bitʼ
prokurit ̓ 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) podumat ̓
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 give ̓+ raz- ʻdispersion ̓→ razdatʼ ʻto give/hand out, to
distribute ̓
71
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
b) čitatʼ ̒ to read ̓+ pere- ̒ repetition/ all or a lot ̓→ perečitatʼ ̒ to read again/to
read all or a quantity ofʼ
c) govoritʼ ʻto speak ̓+ vy- ʻout ̓→ vygovoritʼ ʻto speak out, to pronounceʼ
Examples of mutation are given under (104)158:
(104) a) žitʼ ʻto live ̓ + na- → nažit ̓ ʻto earn, to gainʼ
b) žitʼ ʻto live ̓ + o- → ožit ̓ ʻto resurrectʼ
c) žitʼ ʻto live ̓ + pri- → prižit ̓ ʻto beget (usually of extra-marital unions)ʼ
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 Prepositionsv- v vz- navy- izdo- doza- zaiz- izna- naot- ot
pere- čerezpod- k
72
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
The addition of a prefix induces the verb to take an argument which semantically corresponds
to the prefix itself and, therefore, functionally ʻcompletes ̓the structure of the verb. (105)
gives some examples of this process:
(105) a) devat ̓ ʻto put ̓+ v- → vdevat ̓ ʻto put in(to) ̓
E.g.: vdevat ̓nitku v igolku (accusative) ʻto thread a needle ̓
b) valit ̓ ʻto throw down/overthrow ̓+ vz- → vzvalit ̓ ʻto (off)load, to shift st161 on sbʼ
E.g.: vzvalit ̓ mešok na spinu ʻto hoist a pack onto oneʼs shoulderʼ; vzvalitʼ
otvetstvennostʼ/vinu na + accusative (acc.) ʻto shift/put the blame on sbʼ
c) pisat ̓ʻto write ̓+ vy- → vypisatʼ-vypisyvat ̓(-sja) ʻto write out/discharge ̓
E.g.:vypisat ̓iz bolʼnicy (genitive) ʻto discharge from hospitalʼ; vygljadyvatʼ-vy-
gljanut ̓iz okna (genitive) ʻto look out of the window ̓
d) čitat ̓ʻto read ̓+ do- → dočityvatʼ-dočitat ̓ʻto read as far asʼ
E.g.: dočitat ̓knigu do konca/ do serediny ʻto read the book to the end/to read half
the bookʼ
e) chodit ̓ʻto go (on foot) ̓+ za- → zachodit ̓ʻto drop in/call for/pick up ̓
E.g.: on zašel za nej ʻhe picked her upʼ
f) gnat ̓ʻto chase ̓+ iz- → izgnatʼ-izgonjat ̓ʻ to exile ̓
E.g.: izgnat ̓iz strany ʻto exileʼ
g) bežat ̓ʻto run ̓+ na- → nabežat ̓ʻto run/smash intoʼ
E.g.: nabežal na nee ʻhe bumped into herʼ
h) govorit ̓ʻto speak ̓+ ot- → otgovarivatʼ- otgovorit ̓ʻto dissuade fromʼ
E.g.: otgovorit ̓ot + genitive (gen.) ʻto dissuade from ̓
i) chodit ̓ʻto go (on foot) ̓+ pere- → perechodit ̓ʻto crossʼ
E.g.: perechodit ̓čerez dorogu ʻto cross the roadʼ
j) gotovitʼsja ʻto prepare oneself ̓+ 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 prepare ̓and can be used
both transitively and intransitively:
73
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
(106) a) On gotovil obed
ʻHe prepared a lunch ̓
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 non-
obligatory 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 talk ̓
or ʻto speak about/withʼ)164. Its corresponding perfective is skazatʼ165; therefore, all prefixes
adding to govoritʼ have lexical or sublexical functions:
- vygovorit ̓ TRANS ʻto speak out, pronounce ̓+ acc.;
- dogovorit ̓ TRANS ʻto finish saying ̓+ acc.;
- zagovorit ̓ a. INTR ʻto begin to speakʼ;
b. TRANS ʻto talk sbʼs head off/to cast a spell over ̓+ acc.;
- nagovorit ̓ a. TRANS ʻto talk, say a lotʼ;
b. INTR ʻto slander, calumniate ̓+ a+acc.;
- nedogovorit ̓ TRANS ʻnot to say allʼ;
- ogovorit ̓ TRANS ʻto calumniate ̓+ acc.;
- otgovorit ̓ TRANS ʻto dissuade from ̓+ acc. + ot+gen.;
- peregovorit ̓ a. INTR ʻto exchange remarks (with) ̓+ s+instr.;
b. INTR ʻto talk (about) ̓+ o+prepos.;
c. TRANS ʻto out-talkʼ
- pogovorit ̓ INTR ʻto have a talkʼ;
74
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
- podgovarivat ̓ TRANS ʻto incite to ̓+ acc. + infinitive (inf.);
- prigovorit ̓ TRANS ʻto sentence (to) ̓+ acc. + k+dat.;
- ugovorit ̓ TRANS ʻto persuade (to) ̓+ 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 this ̓
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 pisal pisʼmo
Jurij[nom.] write[pass.masch.] letter[acc.]
ʻJurij wrote a letterʼ
*Jurij pisal eeJurij[nom.] write[pass.masch.] she[acc.]
*ʻJurij wrote her[object]ʼ
Jurij vypisal ego iz bolʼnicy
Jurij discharge[pass.masch.] he[acc.] from the hospital
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,
75
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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 so-
called “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) / vʼ̓ - ( _ e)
1. in, into (abstract and physical) (PROD.)
vojti to go in
vpisat ̓ to inscribe
vobrat ̓ to absorb, to inhale
v_sja
76
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
1. attention and intensity of action (PROD.)
vdumatʼsja to think over, to meditate
vslušatʼsja to listen attentively
vz- / vzo- ( _ CC) / vzʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja) / vs- ( _ C [-sonore] )
1. up, physical and abstract (PROD.)
vzojti to go up
vospitat ̓ 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
vzrevet ̓ to let out a roar
vz_sja1. begin to do intensely (PROD. colloq.)
vzachatʼsja to exclaim ah!
voz- / vozo- ( _ CC) / vozʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja) / vos- ( _ C [-sonore])
1. up (NON PROD.)
vozvesti to raise
voschodit ̓ to ascend
2. re/again (NON PROD), back (as answer to another action)
vozobnovit ̓ to renew
vozrodit ̓ to regenerate, to revive
voznagradit ̓ to reward
vozdat ̓ to render, to repay
3. begin to do intensely or suddenly (PROD.)
vozgorditʼsja to become proud
vozlikovat ̓ to begin exulting
vy-1. out (PROD.)
vyjti to go out
vypisat ̓ to write out
vyskazat ̓ to say out
vyrvat ̓ to pull/tear out
2. do or finish successfully (idea “out” may be expressed) (PROD.)
77
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
vydumat ̓ to invent
vyigrat ̓ to win
vyprosit ̓ to get out of, to obtain (by begging)
vysmotret ̓ to scrutinize, to spy out
3. do accurately until the desired final result is achieved
vybelit ̓ to decorate/bleach with care
vygladit ̓ to iron with care
vypisat ̓ 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.)
vyžit ̓ to survive
vystojat ̓ to keep standing (for a long time)
5. finish (sublexical) (PROD.)
vypit ̓ to drink up
vykurit ̓ to finish smoking
vy_sja
1. exhaustion of action, reach one s̓ 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
do- 1. reach a certain point, physical or temporal (PROD.)
dojti to go as far as
dorabotat ̓ to work (until)
dobelit ̓ to decorate to a certain point
2. add (PROD.)
dokupit ̓ to buy in addition
doplatit ̓ to pay in addition, to pay the remainder
3. finish (sublexical)
doslušat ̓ to listen to the end
dopit ̓ to drink to the end
do_sja1. do to a certain point:
a) do successfully
78
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
za-1. alter course (with verbs of motion) (PROD.)
zajti to drop in (on the way)
2. behind (za+acc.) (PROD.)
zajti to go behind
zabrosit ̓ to throw behind
3. deeply, far away
zabežat ̓ to push ahead, to penetrate running, to run into
4. fix or make permanent by some action
zapisat ̓ to write down
5. acquisition (obtain st) (PROD.)
zarabotat ̓ to earn
zavoevat ̓ to conquer
6. close, block, fill
zadelat ̓ to stop/block up,to close off/up
zapolnit ̓ to fill up/in/out (a form)
7. do in advance or foresee (PROD.)
zagotovit ̓ to prepare in advance
zadumat ̓ to plan, to conceive the idea of
zakupit ̓ to stock up with
8. spreading of the action on the surface of the object or part of it/cover something
(PROD.)
zamyt ̓ to wash off/out
zastirat ̓ to wash off (a stain)
zakapat ̓ to stain dripping
79
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
zacvesti to break into blossom
9. one action immediately follows another (with few verbs only)
zapit ̓ to wash down with, to take with/after
zaest ̓ to take with
zakusit ̓ to take with
10. subject to extreme or excessive action (with unpleasant consequences) (PROD.)
zadarit ̓ to (over)load with gifts
zakormit ̓ to overfeed
zacelovat ̓ to cover with (too many) kisses
11. begin to (sublexical) (PROD.)
zaplakat ̓ to begin to cry
za_sja1. 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) / izʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja) / is- ( _ C[-sonore])
1. out (PROD.)
ischodit ̓ to originate, to proceed from
ispolnit ̓ to carry out
izgnat ̓ to exile, to banish
2. spreading of action on the whole object, in all directions (PROD.)
izletat ̓ to fly over
izrisovat ̓ to cover with drawings
3. intense action (PROD.)
iz-zjabnut ̓ to be numb with cold, to feel chilled to the marrow
4. do to an extreme (out), use/do to exhaustion (sublexical) (PROD.)
iznosit ̓ to wear out (clothes)
ispisat ̓ to use up (pencil or paper) in writing
iz_sja1. 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.)
80
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
izveritʼsja to lose faith
iznervničatʼsja to become nervous
izolgat s̓ja to become accustomed to lying, to become an inveterate, hardened liar
na-1. on, to, against (approach and impact) (PROD.)
najti to find, to come on
nabežat ̓ to bump/run into
2. spreading of action on the surface of the object
namazat ̓ to smear, to spread on
3. convey the type of sound
naigrat ̓ to play sketchily, to hint at (playing)
4. accurate completion of action (PROD.)
nagladit ̓ to iron with care
načistit ̓ to clean, to shine (with care)
5. do in quantity, often something bad (sublexical) (PROD.)
nabrat ̓ to collect quantity of
nadelat ̓ to make/do a lot of
nagovorit ̓ to say a lot of things
na_sja 1. do to satiation, to one s̓ 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) / nadʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja)
1. super, over, add (PROD.)
nadpisat ̓ to inscribe
nadsmatrivat ̓ to supervise, to oversee
naddat ̓ to add (over and above)
2. partial completion of action (PROD. only with verbs denoting destruction, division)
nadorvat ̓ to tear slightly
nadrezat ̓ to cut slightly, to make an incision in
nedo-1. under, insufficiently (PROD.)
81
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
nedoocenit ̓ to underestimate
negoplatit ̓ to underpay
niz- / nizo- ( _ CC) / nis- ( _ C[-sonore])
1. de, down (NON PROD.)
nischodit ̓ to descend, to go down
nizložit ̓ to depose
o- / ob- / obo- ( _ CC) / obʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja)
1. around: encompassing and going round
obojti to go round, to outflank running
osmotret ̓ to inspect, to look around
opisat ̓ to describe (a circle), to circumscribe
2. spreading of action on more than one object
obzvonit ̓ to call everyone on the phone
obegat ̓ to look in on, to run round to see all oneʼs acquaintances
3. a more abstract idea of encompassment (a transitive verb meaning approx. ʻsubmit ̓or
ʻexpose ̓to the action or thing in the root)
opisat ̓ to describe
obdumat ̓ to think over
ocenit ̓ to evaluate, to price
4. cheat, do badly by (get around), the action “submitted to” is viewed as pejorative (PROD.
colloq.)
obmerit ̓ to cheat in measuring, to give short measure to
5. do better than (PROD.)
obygrat ̓ to win
6. do to excess, sometimes with unpleasant effects
obkormit ̓ 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.)
obʼ̓ estʼsja to overeat
82
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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) / otʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja)
1. off, away from (PROD.)
otojti to step away, to move off
otbit ̓ to beat off
otvintit ̓ to unscrew
otrezat ̓ to cut off
2. dis, de (NON PROD.)
otsovetovat ̓ to dissuade
otdumat ̓ to change oneʼs mind
3. re, back (as answer) (NON PROD.)
otdarit ̓ to reciprocate a gift
otdat ̓ to give back
otplatit ̓ to pay back, to re-pay
otomstit ̓ to take revenge
4. do too much, unpleasant effects, loss of consciousness (NON PROD.)
otležat ̓ to make numb by lying
otsidet ̓ to make numb by sitting
5. accurate and full completion (PROD.)
otlakirovat ̓ to varnish, to lacquer
otremontirovat ̓ to repair
otgladit ̓ to iron with great care
6. finish (sublexical), interruption and completion/improvement (PROD.)
otdelat ̓ to put the finishing touches
otslužit ̓ to serve out oneʼs
otguljat ̓ to have spent/finished
otdežurit ̓ to complete the shift, to come off duty
ot_sja
83
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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- / pre-1. trans, across, through, over, change of direction, transformation (PROD.); also pre-perejti to cross over, to shift
peredat ̓ to hand over
pereslat ̓ to redirect, to forward
perelit ̓ to pour into (somewhere else), to decant
perenesti to transfer
perežit ̓ to experience, to live through, to outlive
perenočevat ̓ to stay overnight (through), to spend the night
pererabotat ̓ to craft, to convert
2. interrupt (PROD.); also pre-perestavat ̓ to stop
perechvatit ̓ to intercept, to catch
perechotet ̓ to stop wanting
3. re/again (PROD.)
perepisat ̓ to rewrite
peredelat ̓ to redo
4. split up in half
pererubit ̓ to chop/split in two
perepilit ̓ to saw in two
5. weak or short action (NON PROD.)
perekurit ̓ to break for a smoke
peredochnut ̓ 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.)
perelovit ̓ to catch all of
84
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
perestreljat ̓ to shoot all of
perebit ̓ to slaughter all or many
7. over (exceedingly or excessively), often with negative effects (PROD.)
perekurit ̓ to smoke too much
pereutomit ̓ to tire out, to overwork, to get over-exhausted
pereplatit ̓ to overpay
pereigrat ̓ to overplay, to overact, to overdo
8. spend a certain period of time (PROD., especially colloq.)
pereždat ̓ to wait (through) for some time
perezimovat ̓ to (pass the) winter
perenočevat ̓ to spend the night
9. prevalence (PROD., especially colloq.)
perekričat ̓ to outcry, to shout above
peresporit ̓ to defeat in argument
pere_iva/yva/va _ sja169
1. reciprocal action
perepisyvatʼsja to correspond
peregovarivatʼsja to exchange talk with
po-1. begin to (sublexical) (PROD.)
pojti to start off (on foot)
poljubit ̓ 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
pokurit ̓ to have a smoke
- do to some extent (often added to prefixed perfective verbs)
porazvlekat ̓ to amuse a little
- (po_iva/yva/va) do from time to time and/or with diminished intensity počitivat ̓ to read a little bit from time to time
pogljadyvat ̓ to peep/glance from time to time
3. spreading of action, involvement of many objects (often added to prefixed perfective verbs)
(PROD. colloq.)
povybit ̓ to break everything
popadat ̓ to fall in many or many times
85
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
pod- / podo- ( _ CC) / podʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja)
1. up to, approaching (PROD.)
podojti to go up to
podgotovit ̓ to train up to, to prepare for
2. under, sub (PROD.)
podpisat ̓ to subscribe
podderžat ̓ to support
podložit ̓ to lay under
3. movement from the bottom upwards (PROD.)
podprygnut ̓ to jump upwards
podbrosit ̓ to throw upwards (but also throw under)
4. underhandedly (may include the idea”come up to”) (PROD.)
podkupit ̓ to bribe
podskazat ̓ to prompt, to suggest
podgovorit ̓ to instigate, to incite stealthily
podslušat ̓ to eavesdrop, to overhear
podsmotret ̓ to spy
5. add, supplement, a little more (PROD.)
podrabotat ̓ to earn extra
podsolit ̓ to add more salt
6. (pod _ yva/iva/va) accompaniment, with verbs denoting sound (PROD.)
podpet ̓ to echo
podygrat ̓ to accompany singing
7. a little, not completely (sublexical) (PROD. especially colloq.)
podlečit ̓ to cure/treat a little
podsochnut ̓ to dry a little
podvintit ̓ to screw up a little more, to tighten
podogret ̓ to heat up slightly
pod_sja1. win somebody over, ingratiate (PROD. colloq.)
podolʼstitʼsja to ingratiate oneself with
podlizatʼsja to lick sbʼs boots
pre- 1. intensity, exaggeration
86
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
preuveličit ̓ to exaggerate
preumenʼšit ̓ to minimize, to belittle
pri-1. to, ad, a- (do up to a certain aim, go to a certain point) (PROD.)
prijti to arrive, to go to
pridumat ̓ to invent, to devise, to think up
prizvat ̓ to call (up), to convene
pritjanut ̓ to attract, to pull (up)
2. add (PROD.)
pristroit ̓ to add (to a building), to build on to
prikupit ̓ to buy some more
pripisat ̓ to write something more, to add st writing
3. approaching, contact
privalit ̓ to lean, to come alongside
pristavit ̓ to put/lean against
4. union, link
prišit ̓ to sew on(to)
prisochnut ̓ to adhere in drying
prikleit ̓ to glue, to stick
5. slightly (sublexical) (PROD.)
pripodnimatʼsja to raise oneself slightly
priutichnut ̓ to quiet down somewhat
prileč ̓ to lie down for a while, to have a lie-down
pri_sja1. 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
pro-1. across/through (PROD.)
projti to go through (on foot)
87
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
prostrelit ̓ to shoot through
prospat ̓ 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 one s̓ expense) (PROD. colloq.)
progljadet ̓ to overlook
proguljat ̓ 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.)
proechat ̓ to pass/drive/ride by/through
5. do for (or through) a specific length of time (sublexical) (PROD.)
prorabotat ̓ to work for a specific period
prosidet ̓ to sit for a specific period
6. loss, expenditure of time, money, etc. (PROD. colloq.)
prokurit ̓ to spend on smoking
propit ̓ to squander/spend on drink, to drink away
7. spreading of action, intense and accurate action (PROD.)
produmat ̓ to think over carefully
provarit ̓ to boil thoroughly
progret ̓ to heat, to warm up carefully
8. do briefly and singularly
prozvenet ̓ to resound, to ring, to resonate
prolajat ̓ to give a bark
pro_sja1. 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) / razʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja) / ras- ( _ C[-sonora])
1. dis, di ,disperse, divide, spread (PROD.)
razdat ̓ to distribute
88
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
razložit ̓ to distribute
raz-dvinut ̓ to move/slide apart, to extend
razbrosat ̓ to throw about, to spread/scatter/strew
2. spreading of action on the whole surface or on many objects
razlinovat ̓ to rule
razrisovat ̓ to cover with drawings
3. understand something in detail (PROD. colloq.)
razgljadet ̓ to discern
rastolkovat ̓ to explain in detail/word by word
4. dis, de, un, annul, also with a few prefixed perfectives (PROD.)
razdumat ̓ to change oneʼs mind
razljubit ̓ to stop loving
razuverit ̓ 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.)
razukrasit ̓ to decorate all up
razobidet ̓ 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 ) / sʼ̓ - ( _ e / ja)
1. down
sojti to go down
složit ̓ to lay/put down
2. away/off (from)
snesti to carry away/off
smestit ̓ to displace
sčistit ̓ to clean off
3. go there and back with a precise goal
sbegat ̓ to run for (go and back)
89
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
svodit ̓ to take (and come back)
4. union
svjazat ̓ to bind, to tie
skleit ̓ to glue together
spajat ̓ to solder together
sšit ̓ to sew together
5. make a copy of
spisat ̓ to copy down/off
srisovat ̓ to copy a drawing
6. consume of material
skormit ̓ to feed, to nourish
snosit ̓ to wear out
spoit ̓ to give to drink
7. semelfactive meaning (PROD.)
s-umničat ̓ to say or to do a thing to show off oneʼs intelligence
s-originalʼničat ̓ to do or attempt to do something original, to put on an act, to try to be
clever
s-chodit ̓ 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
sojtis ̓ 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
u-1. away (PROD.)
ujti to leave
unesti to carry away
2. loss/diminution of material (NON PROD.)
90
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
usochnut ̓ to dry up/out, to wither
ušit ̓ to take in (dressmaking)
3. submit to, often do successfully (despite difficulties, if any)
ugovorit ̓ to persuade
umerit ̓ to moderate
ustydit ̓ to (put to) shame
4. spread out and cover (PROD. colloq.)
u-sypat ̓ to strew/cover with
umazat ̓ to smear, to spread
u-stlat ̓ to cover with
5. reach an unpleasant condition (PROD. colloq.)
ukačat ̓ to make (air/car/sea-) sick
6. move something inside a certain space (PROD.)
upisat ̓ to get in, to fit in (something written)
7. keep still
uležat ̓ to lie down (keeping still)
u_sja1. 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
91
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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-menit ̓ ʻto changeʼ
voz-vratit ̓ ʻto come backʼ
pod-nimat ̓ ʻto raise ̓
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-žit ̓ ʻto resurrectʼ
pri- žit ̓ ʻto beget (usually of extra-marital unions) ̓
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
92
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 one-
meaning 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 → COVER, HIND, ANNIHIL
IN → 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
93
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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 ʻHe drank the guests under the tableʼ
*On pil gostej 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.
94
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
95
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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 raise ̓and
otvergnutʼ ʻto turn away ̓cannot be considered cases of multiple prefixation. There follow
examples of double prefixation:
(113) pere-pod-gotovit ̓ ʻto prepare againʼ
pere-iz-brat ̓ ʻto elect againʼ
po-y-bivat ̓ ʻto kill (one after another)ʼ
pri-u-deržat ̓ ʻto hold a littleʼ
pod-vy-pit ̓ ʻto drink a littleʼ
According to Guiraud-Weber (1988), also triple prefixation can occur in spoken language, e.g.:
(114) po-na-vy-delyvat ̓ ʻto make, to produce (pejorative)ʼ
po-na-pri-dumyvat ̓ 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 Nouns5.2.1.1. 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
96
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
nouns in Russian. It is realized as –tie, -enie and -nie in accordance with the phonological
context of occurrence182. Some examples follow:
(115) prožit ̓ʻto spend life ̓ → prožitie ʻliving, livelihoodʼ
otvleč ̓ʻto distract ̓ → otvlečenie ʻdistractionʼ
rassmotret ̓ʻto examine ̓ → rassmotrenie ̒ examinationʼ
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) podderživat ̓(IMP) - podderžat ̓(PER)
m. 2 ʻto maintainʼ
podderživat ̓ (IMP) (m.1) + -nie → podderživanie
ʻsupporting ̓ (PROCESS)
podderžat ̓ (PER) (m.1) + -ka → podderžka
ʻsupportʼ
(RESULT)
podderžat ̓ (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) vzgljanut ̓ ʻto have a glance ̓ → vzgljad184 ʻglanceʼ
perevodit ̓ ʻto translate ̓ → perevod ʻtranslationʼ
osmotret ̓ ʻto inspect ̓ → osmotr ʻinspectionʼ
ocenit ̓ ʻto evaluate ̓ → ocenka ʻevaluationʼ
zapisat ̓ ʻto write down ̓ → zapiska ʻnoteʼ
perestavit ̓ʻto transpose ̓ → perestanovka185 ʻtranspositionʼ
97
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
5.2.1.2. Nouns Denoting Persons186
The most productive suffix forming agentive nouns is –telʼ187. Few examples are
given under (118):
(118) poddelat ̓– poddelyvat ̓ʻto forge ̓ → poddelyvatel ̓ʻforgerʼ
podat ̓– podavat ̓ʻto present, to hand in ̓ → podatel ̓ʻbearer (of a letter, etc.)
Other productive suffixes are –ec and –ščik:
(119) vychodit ̓ʻto go out of ̓ → vychodec ʻa person coming from a certain social
group ̓
vydumat ̓ʻto invent ̓ → 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) rastvorit ̓ ʻto dissolve ̓ → rastvoritel ̓ ʻsolventʼ
zažigat ̓ ʻto light up ̓ → zažigalka ʻcigarette lighterʼ
nedomerit ̓ʻto undermeasure ̓→ nedomerok ʻundersize objectʼ
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-t ̓ʻto transfer ̓ → perenos-n-yj189 ʻportableʼ
raz-rez-a-t ̓ ʻto cut ̓ → razreza-lʼn-yi ʻcutting/sharpʼ
o-pis-a-t ̓ ʻto describe ̓ → opisa-telʼn-yj ʻdescriptiveʼ
98
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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, brandish ̓→ razmaš-ist-yj190 ʻsprawlingʼ
posluš-a-tʼ-sja ʻto obey ̓→ posluš-liv-yj ʻobedientʼ
zadum-a-tʼ-sja ʻto fall into deep thought ̓→ zadum-čiv-yj ʻthoughtful ̓
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.
99
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
Notes Chapter II96 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.
97 The data in Table 2 are based on the Russkaja Grammatika (1980, 355-72), Sottofattori (1991, 41-74) and
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 ̒ to strike a discordant noteʼ, reabilitirovatʼ ̒ to 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 feel ̓may be both transitive (plus accusative) and intransitive, while sočuvctvovatʼ,
ʻto sympathise with ̓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 hour ̓(cf. Di Sciullo & Klipple 1993).
111 E.g.: refaire ʻto redoʼ, décharger ʻto unload ̓(cf. Di Sciullo & Klipple 1993).
100
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 to ̓(cf. Di Sciullo & Klipple 1993).
113 E.g.: re-em-porter, ʻto carry backʼ, but *a-re-porter ʻto report to ̓(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 ̒ to bring ̓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 b ̓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 imprison ̓(cf. Varela & Haouet 2001).
122 E.g.: des-hacer ʻtoundoʼ, re-hacer ʻto do over againʼ, pre-cocinar ʻto pre-cook ̓ (cf. Varela & Haouet
2001).
123 E.g.: argumentar (INTR) ̒ to argue ̓ → contra-argumentar una cosa (TRANS) ̒ to argue against somethingʼ,
but: fabricar coches (TRANS) ʻto fabricate cars ̓→ pre-fabricar coches (TRANS) ʻto prefabricate cars ̓(cf.
Varela & Haouet 2001).
124 E.g.: volar ʻto fly ̓[-telic] → sobrevolar ʻto overfly ̓[+durative] (cf. Varela & Haouet 2001).
125 E.g.: cruzar (por) la calle ʻto cross (through) the street ̓→ re-cruzar (*por) la calle ʻto re-cross (through)
the street ̓(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).
101
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
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-perepisat ̓ʻto re-write/to copy ̓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 Cf. section 4.1.
149 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
102
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 gotovit s̓ja, 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 ʻwith ̓ plus
instrumental (instr.) and o ʻabout ̓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.
103
Prefixed Verbs in Russian
184 The root of vzgljanut ̓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 Some verbs in –stavitʼ have corresponding abstract nouns in –stanovka, rather than in –stavka.
186 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.
104
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
Chapter IIIA 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
105
A Comparative Analysis
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: 1) completion of action and realization of the resulting state;
2) inchoation;
- imperfective: 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
106
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
107
A Comparative Analysis
Table 8
Verb-Particles Prefixed Verbs
aspectual modification
(with no semantic change)
1) completive meaning,
e.g.: to mix up, to fade out;
2) inchoative meaning, e.g.
to stand up, to quiet down,
to doze off, to talk away, to
light in.
prefixed perfectives195:
1) completion of action,
e.g. na-pisat ̓ʻto writeʼ, po-
stroit ̓ʻto build (up)ʼ;
2) inchoation, e.g. u-znat ̓
ʻto come to knowʼ, po-
ljubit ̓ʻto fall in loveʼ.
Aktionsart modification
(modification in terms of
time or intensity of action)
1) terminative, e.g. to wait
out, to read through;
2) exhaustion, e.g. to wear
out, to talk out, to play out.
1) terminative, e.g. ot-
obedat ̓ʻto finish having
lunchʼ, vy-kurit ̓ʻto finish
smokingʼ;
2) exhaustion, e.g. za-kurit ̓
ʻto smoke (st) out/to fill
with smokeʼ; srabotatʼsja
ʻto wear oneself outʼ,
nagovoritʼsja ʻto talk
oneself outʼ.
lexical modification 1:
literal (resulting verb
compositional in meaning)
systematic combinations,
e.g. to put away, to give
over
motion verbs, e.g. v-o-
jti ʻto go inʼ, vy-jti ʻto go
outʼ
lexical modification 2: metaphorical/abstract (interpretable resulting
verb)
transparent metaphor, e.g.
to knock out, to simmer
down
modifications, e.g. pere-
čitat ̓ʻto re-writeʼ, vy-
govorit ̓ʻto speak outʼ
lexical modification 3: totally idiomatic (resulting
verb non compositional in
meaning)
opaque metaphors / frozen
forms, e.g. to carry off, to
give in
mutations, e.g. na-žit ̓ʻto
earnʼ, pri-žit ̓ʻto beget ̓(of
extra-marital unions)
108
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 morphologically-
marked, 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.
109
A Comparative Analysis
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. govorit ̓ʻto speak ̓(TRANS/INTR) → vygovorit ̓ʻto speak out, to pronounce ̓
(TRANS)
govorit ̓ʻto speak ̓(TRANS/INTR) → pogovorit ̓ʻto have a talk ̓(INTR)
rabotat ̓ʻto work ̓(INTR) → vyrabotat ̓ʻto work out ̓(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/non-
obligatory 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?
110
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
R. On govoril s druzʼjami ob etom
He talk[pass.] with friends[instr.] about this[prepos.]
ʻHe talked with (his) friends about this ̓
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 eeJurij[nom.] write[pass.] she[acc.]
*ʻJurij wrote her[object]ʼ
Jurij vypisal ego iz bolʼnicy
Jurij discharge[pass..] he[acc.] 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 ̒ to write ̓wants a [-animate]
object, but vypisatʼ ʻto discharge ̓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
111
A Comparative Analysis
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.
112
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 – delatʼa) to do over – peredelat ̓ (ʻto do againʼ)
b) to do up (e.g. a room) – otdelat ̓(e.g. komnatu)
to drink – pitʼa) to drink up – dopitʼ
to eat – estʼa) to eat away – razʼ̓ est ̓ (ʻto corrodeʼ)
b) to eat up – doestʼ
113
A Comparative Analysis
to fall – padat ̓a) to fall apart – raspadatʼsja (ʻto break up, to fall into piecesʼ)
b) to fall out – vypadat ̓ (ʻto fall, to be eliminatedʼ)
c) to fall upon – napadat ̓ (ʻto attackʼ)
to hear – slušatʼa) to hear sb out – vyslušat ̓ (ʻto listen to the endʼ)
to lay – ložit ̓/ stavitʼa) to lay aside – otložit ̓ (ʻto saveʼ)
b) to lay out – vystavit ̓ (ʻto arrange for displayʼ)
c) to lay out (e.g. clothes) – vyložit ̓ (e.g. odeždu)
to look – smotretʼa) to look (a)round – osmotret ̓ (ʻto inspectʼ)
b) to look about/around – osmotretʼsja
c) to look into – rassmotret ̓(IMP) (ʻto examineʼ)
d) to look over/round (e.g. an exhibition) – osmotret ̓(e.g. vystavku)
e) to look over/through – prosmotret ̓ (ʻto scrutinizeʼ)
to make – delatʼa) to make over– peredelat ̓ (ʻto refashionʼ)
to play – igratʼa) to play off – pereigrat ̓ (ʻto replayʼ)
b) to play out – doigrat ̓ (ʻto play to the endʼ)
c) to play over – pereigrat ̓ (ʻto play againʼ)
d) to play through – sygratʼ/proigrat ̓ (ʻto play to the endʼ)
e) to play up – obygrat ̓ (ʻto give emphasis to)
to put – ložit ̓/ stavitʼa) to put aside/away/by – otložit ̓ (ʻto saveʼ)
b) to put in– vstavit ̓ (ʻto insertʼ)
c) to put off – otložit ̓ (ʻto postponeʼ)
d) to put out– vystavit ̓ (ʻto thrust out, to ejectʼ)
114
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
e) to put out – vyložit ̓ (ʻto arrange (to be seen)ʼ)
f) to put up– vystavit ̓ (ʻto display, e.g. for saleʼ)
to read – čitatʼa) to read off – pročitat ̓ (ʻto read to the end with attentionʼ)
b) to read out – pročitat ̓ (ʻto read aloudʼ)
c) to read over - perečitat ̓ (ʻto read again ̓or ʻto read allʼ)
d) to read through – pročitat ̓ (ʻto read (all) with attentionʼ)
e) to read up (on) – podčitat ̓ (ʻto examine with attentionʼ)
to speak – skazatʼa) to speak out – vyskazat ̓ (ʻto express oneself plainlyʼ)
to take – bratʼa) to take apart– razobrat ̓ (ʻto dismantleʼ)
b) to take away– ubratʼ/otobrat ̓ (ʻto removeʼ)
to talk – govoritʼa) to talk away – progovorit ̓ (ʻto spend some time talkingʼ)
b) to talk over– obgovorit ̓ (ʻto discussʼ)
to think – dumatʼa) to think out (e.g. an argument) – produmat ̓ (ʻto deviseʼ)
b) to think out/over (e.g. a matter) – obdumat ̓ (ʻto reflect uponʼ)
c) to think through (e.g. oneʼs ideas) – produmat ̓(ʻto reflect uponʼ)
d) to think up (e.g. an excuse)– pridumat ̓(e.g. otgovorku)
e) to think up – vydumat ̓ (ʻto inventʼ)
to work – rabotatʼa) to work out (e.g. a plan) – vyrabotatʼ/razrabotat ̓(e.g. plan)
b) to work on – obrabotat ̓
c) to work on – obrabotat ̓ (ʻto beat upʼ)
d) to work up – pererabotat ̓ (ʻto elaborateʼ)
115
A Comparative Analysis
to write – pisatʼa) to write away/off (e.g. a catalogue) – vypisat ̓(e.g. katalog)
b) to write down (e.g. an address) – zapisat ̓(e.g. adres)
c) to write in (e.g. his name) – vpisat ̓(e.g. ego imja)
d) to write off (e.g. a debt/a car) – spisat ̓(e.g. dolg/mašinu)
e) to write out (e.g. a cheque) – vypisat ̓(e.g. ček)
f) to write out (e.g. homework) – perepisat ̓(e.g. domašnee zadanie)
g) to write oneself out – ispisatʼsja
h) to write up (e.g. the incident) – opisat ̓(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 Data Meaning
out - vy to fall out – vypadat ̓
to hear sb out – vyslušatʼ
to lay out – vyložitʼ
to lay out – vystavit ̓
to put out– vystavitʼ
to speak out – vyskazatʼ
to work out – vyrabotatʼ
to write out – vypisatʼ
1) literal, concrete meaning (“out”);
2) more abstract meaning, i.e.
attainment of a result;
3) completion of action
4) repetition of action
over – pere to do over – peredelatʼ
to make over– peredelatʼ
to play over – pereigratʼ
to read over - perečitatʼ
1) repetition of action
2) transformation change
through – pro to look through – prosmotretʼ
to play through – proigratʼ
to read through – pročitatʼ
to think through– produmatʼ
1) to do something with attention
or to the end
116
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
(a)round – o/ob to look (a)round – osmotret ̓
to look around – osmotretʼsja
to look round – osmotretʼ
1) a more abstract idea of
encompassment, i.e. “expose to”
over – o/ob to look over – osmotretʼ
to talk over– obgovoritʼ
to think over – obdumatʼ
1) a more abstract idea of
encompassment, i.e. “expose to”
apart – raz to fall apart – raspadatʼsja
to take apart– razobratʼ
1) idea of destruction
aside/away – ot to lay aside – otložitʼ
to put aside – otložit ̓
1) abstract idea of putting aside,
i.e. to save
in – v to put in– vstavitʼ
to write in – vpisatʼ
1) insertion of something
out – pro to read out – pročitatʼ
to think out – produmatʼ
1) abstract idea of “out”, i.e.
towards the outside
2) attainment of a result
up – do to drink up – dopitʼ
to eat up – doestʼ
1) to finish, to do something to the
end
up – vy to put up– vystavitʼ
to think up – vydumatʼ
1) to do successfully
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.
117
A Comparative Analysis
Notes Chapter III191 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.
194Cf. the preliminary distinction between Latin/non aspectual and Russian/aspectual prefixes in sections 1.1.
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.
118
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
119
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
120
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
121
Appendix
to add up to
to argue down
to babble on
to bang away
to bank away
to bank up
to batter around
to battle out
to be through
to bear through
to beat up
to bind up
to blot out
to blow down
to bolt down
to break down
to break out
to break up
to bring about
to bring up
to broaden out
to build up
to bunch up
to burn down
to burn out
to burn up
to cable in
to cache away
to call up
to calm down
to carry back
to carry off
to eat up
to fade out
to fall about
to fall apart
to fall down
to fall in
to fall off
to fall out
to fall upon
to fasten up
to fiddle away
to fight out
to figure out
to find out
to finish off
to fire away
to flatten out
to gather up
to get at
to get down
to get on
to give in
to give out
to give over
to give up
to go away
to go in
to go off
to go on
to gobble down
to gobble up
to gulp down
to carry on
to carry out
to carry through
to cast down
to catch on
to catch up with
to check up on
to chime in
to chip away
to churn up
to clean up
to close down
to coil up
to come out
to cough up
to curl up
to cut for
to deed over
to deliver over
to deliver up
to die off
to die out
to do over
to do up
to doze off
to draw out
to drink down
to drink up
to drive along
to drive on
to dry up
to eat away
Appendix 1: English Verb-Particles
122
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
to hammer away
to hand over
to hang up
to heal up
to hear out
to hear sb out
to heat up
to hoard up
to hold out
to hold up
to hurry up
to jog along
to jog on
to keel over
to keep on
to knock out
to lay aside
to lay out
to lengthen out
to lie down
to light in
to link up
to live on
to lock up
to look about
to look around
to look into
to look over
to look round
to look through
to look up
to make out
to make over
to measure out
to mix up
to mount up
to move along
to move on
to mull over
to nail up
to offer up
to paint up
to pair off
to pass away
to paste up
to pay off
to pile up
to pin up
to pine away
to pitch in
to play off
to play out
to play over
to play through
to play up
to pull in
to pull off
to push along
to push on
to put across
to put aside
to put away
to put back
to put by
to put down
to put in
to put off
to put on
to put out
to put over
to put through
to put up
to put upon
to quiet down
to read off
to read out
to read over
to read through
to read up (on)
to ride away
to roll up
to rope in
to rope off
to run off
to run out
to sail in
to save up
to say back
to scream down
to screw up
to seal up
to search out
to section off
to sell out
to separate out
to set out
to set up
to shake up
to shoot up
to show off
to show up
to shut down
to shut off
to simmer down
to sit down
123
Appendix
to sit on
to sit up
to sleep off
to smash up
to speak out
to speed up
to spread out
to stand in
to stand out
to stand up
to stick up
to stir up
to stock up
to store away
to store up
to stow away
to strap up
to stretch out
to summarize up
to swallow down
to swallow up
to swig down
to swill down
to take apart
to take away
to take off
to take out
to take up
to talk away
to talk out
to talk over
to taper off
to think back
to think out
to think over
to think through
to think up
to throw away
to throw back
to throw down
to throw through
to throw up
to tie down
to tie up
to tighten up
to track down
to tuck up
to turn out
to wait out
to wear down
to wear out
to well at
to well over
to well up
to widen out
to widen up
to wind up
to wolf down
to work away
to work on
to work out
to work up
to write down
to write in
to write off
to write oneself out
to write out
to write up
124
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
Appendix 2: Russian Prefixed Verbs212
dobegatʼsja ʻto run until exhaustionʼ
dobelit ̓ ʻto decorate to a certain pointʼ
dobežat ̓ ʻto run to the endʼ
dobuditʼsja ʻto succeed in waking after many attempts ̓
dočitat ̓ ʻto read as far asʼ
doest ̓ ʻto eat upʼ
dogovorit ̓ ʻto finish sayingʼ
dogovoritʼsja ʻto come to an agreementʼ
doigrat ̓ ʻto play out, to play to the endʼ
dojti ʻto go as far asʼ
dokopatʼsja ʻto reach by diggingʼ
dokupit ̓ ʻto buy in additionʼ
dokuritʼsja ʻto smoke too much (negative effects)ʼ
dopisat ̓ ʻto finish writingʼ
dopit ̓ ʻto drink up/to the endʼ
doplatit ̓ ʻto pay in addition, to pay the remainderʼ
doprygatʼsja ʻto jump until it hurtsʼ
dorabotat ̓ ʻto work (until)ʼ
dorabotatʼsja ʻto overwork and tire oneself outʼ
doslušat ̓ ʻto listen to the endʼ
dozvatʼsja ʻto call until one gets an answerʼ
dozvonitʼsja ʻto get through (on telephone)ʼ
ischodit ̓ ʻto originate, to proceed fromʼ
ispisat ̓ ʻto use up (pencil or paper) in writing
ispisatʼsja ʻto write oneself outʼ
ispolnit ̓ ʻto carry outʼ
izgnat ̓ ʻto exile, to banishʼ
izletat ̓ ʻto fly overʼ
iznervničatʼsja ʻto become nervousʼ
iznosit ̓ ʻto wear out (clothes)ʼ
izolgatʼsja ʻto become accustomed to lyingʼ
izrisovat ̓ ʻto cover with drawingsʼ
125
Appendix
izveritʼsja ʻto lose faithʼ
izzjabnut ̓ ʻto be numb with coldʼ
krasnet ̓ ʻto reddenʼ
nabežat ̓ ʻto run/smash intoʼ
nabrat ̓ ʻto collect quantity ofʼ
načistit ̓ ʻto clean, to shine (with care)ʼ
naddat ̓ ʻto add (over and above)ʼ
nadelat ̓ ʻto make/do a lot ofʼ
nadorvat ̓ ʻto tear slightlyʼ
nadpisat ̓ ʻto inscribeʼ
nadrezat ̓ ʻto cut slightly, to make an incision inʼ
nadsmatrivat ̓ ʻto supervise, to overseeʼ
nagladit ̓ ʻto iron with careʼ
nagovorit ̓ ʻto say a lot of thingsʼ
nagovoritʼsja ʻto talk oneʼs fill, to talk oneself out ̓
naigrat ̓ ʻto play sketchily, to hint at (playing)ʼ
najti ʻto find, to come onʼ
nakurit ̓ ʻto fill with smokeʼ
nakuritʼsja ʻto smoke oneʼs fill/a lot/enough ̓
namazat ̓ ʻto smear, to spread onʼ
napadat ̓ ʻto attack, to fall uponʼ
napisat ̓ ʻto writeʼ
napitʼsja ʻto drink oneʼs fill, to get drunkʼ
nažit ̓ ʻto earn, to gainʼ
nedogovorit ̓ ʻnot to say allʼ
nedomerit ̓ ʻto undermeasure ̓
nedoocenit ̓ ʻto underestimateʼ
negoplatit ̓ ʻto underpayʼ
nischodit ̓ ʻto descend, to go downʼ
nizložit ̓ ʻto deposeʼ
obʼ̓ estʼsja ʻto overeatʼ
obchochotatʼsja ʻto die with laughter, to laugh oneʼs head offʼ
obdumat ̓ ʻto think out/over ̓
obegat ̓ ʻto run round to see all oneʼs acquaintancesʼ
obgovorit ̓ ʻto talk over ̓
126
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
obkormit ̓ ʻto overfeedʼ
obletatʼsja ʻto become more airworthyʼ
obmerit ̓ ʻto cheat in measuring, to give short measuresʼ
obojti ʻto go round, to outflank runningʼ
obrabotat ̓ ʻto work on ̓
obygrat ̓ ʻto play up, to give emphasis to, to winʼ
obzvonit ̓ ʻto call everyone on the phoneʼ
ocenit ̓ ʻto evaluateʼ
odumatʼsja ʻto recover, to change oneʼs mindʼ
ogovorit ̓ ʻto calumniateʼ
ogovoritʼsja ʻto make a slip of tongue (in speaking)ʼ
opisat ̓ 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
osmotret ̓ ʻto look (a)round/over, to inspect ̓
osmotretʼsja ʻto look about/aroundʼ
otbegatʼsja ʻto be unable to run any longerʼ
otbit ̓ ʻto beat offʼ
otdarit ̓ ʻto reciprocate a gift ̓
otdat ̓ ʻto give backʼ
otdelat ̓ ʻto do up, to put the finishing touchesʼ
otdežurit ̓ ʻto complete the shift, to come off dutyʼ
otdumat ̓ ʻto change oneʼs mindʼ
otdyšatʼsja ʻto recover oneʼs breathʼ
otgladit ̓ ʻto iron with great careʼ
otgovorit ̓ ʻto dissuade fromʼ
otguljat ̓ ʻto have spent/finishedʼ
otlakirovat ̓ ʻto varnishʼ
otležat ̓ ʻto make numb by lyingʼ
otložit ̓ ʻto put aside/away/by, to postponeʼ
otmolčatʼsja ʻto seal oneʼs lips, to keep silentʼ
otobedat ̓ ʻto finish having lunchʼ
otobrat ̓ ʻto take away, to removeʼ
otojti ʻto step away, to move offʼ
127
Appendix
otomstit ̓ ʻto take revengeʼ
otospatʼsja ʻto recover oneʼs lost sleepʼ
otpisatʼsja ʻto give a purely formal replyʼ
otplatit ̓ ʻto pay back, to repayʼ
otremontirovat ̓ ʻto repairʼ
otrezat ̓ ʻto cut offʼ
otsidet ̓ ʻto make numb by sittingʼ
otslužit ̓ ʻto serve out oneʼs timeʼ
otsovetovat ̓ ʻto dissuadeʼ
otšutitʼsja ʻto get away with a joke, to make a joke backʼ
otvintit ̓ ʻto unscrewʼ
otvleč ̓ ʻto distractʼ
ožit ̓ ʻto resurrectʼ
perebit ̓ ʻto slaughter all or many ̓
perechodit ̓ ʻto crossʼ
perechotet ̓ ʻto stop wantingʼ
perechvatit ̓ ʻto intercept, to catchʼ
perečitat ̓ ʻto read again/over, to read all or a quantity ofʼ
peredat ̓ ʻto hand overʼ
peredelat ̓ ʻto do/make over, to do again ̓
peredochnut ̓ ʻto pause for breath, to take a short restʼ
peregovarivatʼsja ʻto exchange talk withʼ
peregovorit ̓ ʻto exchange remarks, to talk, to out-talkʼ
pereigrat ̓ ʻto play off/over, to replay, to overplayʼ
pereizbrat ̓ ʻto elect againʼ
perejti ʻto cross over, to shiftʼ
perekričat ̓ ʻto outcry, to shout aboveʼ
perekurit ̓ ʻto smoke too muchʼ
perelit ̓ ʻto pour into (somewhere else), to decantʼ
perelovit ̓ ʻto catch all of ̓
perenesti ʻto transferʼ
perenočevat ̓ ʻto spend the nightʼ
perenosit ̓ ʻto transferʼ
perepilit ̓ ʻto saw in twoʼ
perepisat ̓ ʻto write out, to copy, to rewrite ̓
128
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
perepisyvatʼsja ʻto correspondʼ
perepit ̓ ʻto outdrink, to drink sb under the tableʼ
pereplatit ̓ ʻto overpayʼ
perepodgotovit ̓ ʻto prepare againʼ
pererabotat ̓ ʻto work up, to craft, to convertʼ
pererubit ̓ ʻto chop/split in twoʼ
pereslat ̓ ʻto redirect, to forwardʼ
peresporit ̓ ʻto defeat in argumentʼ
perestavat ̓ ʻto stopʼ
perestavit ̓ ʻto transpose ̓
perestreljat ̓ ʻto shoot all ofʼ
perestroit ̓ ʻto build againʼ
pereutomit ̓ ʻto tire out, to overwork, to get overexhaustedʼ
perevodit ̓ ʻto translateʼ
perevypolnit ̓ ʻto fulfil againʼ
pereždat ̓ ʻto wait (through) for some timeʼ
perezimovat ̓ ʻto (pass the) winterʼ
perežit ̓ ʻto experience, to survive, to outliveʼ
počitat ̓ ʻto read for a whileʼ
podat ̓ ʻto present, to hand in ̓
podbrosit ̓ ʻto throw upwardsʼ
podčitat ̓ ʻto read up (on), to examine with attentionʼ
poddelat ̓ ʻto forge ̓
podderžat ̓ ʻto supportʼ
podgotovit ̓ ʻto train up to, to prepare forʼ
podgotovitʼsja ʻto prepare forʼ
podgovorit ̓ ʻto instigate, to incite stealthily ̓
podkupit ̓ ʻto bribeʼ
podlečit ̓ ʻto cure/treat a littleʼ
podlizatʼsja ʻto lick sbʼs bootsʼ
podložit ̓ ʻto lay underʼ
podogret ̓ ʻto heat up slightlyʼ
podojti ʻto go up toʼ
podolʼstitʼsja ʻto ingratiate oneself withʼ
podpet ̓ ʻto echoʼ
129
Appendix
podpisat ̓ ʻto sign ̓
podprygnut ̓ ʻto jump upwardsʼ
podrabotat ̓ ʻto earn extraʼ
podskazat ̓ ʻto prompt, to suggestʼ
podslušat ̓ ʻto eavesdrop, to overhearʼ
podsmotret ̓ ʻto spyʼ
podsochnut ̓ ʻto dry a littleʼ
podsolit ̓ ʻto add more saltʼ
podumat ̓ ʻto think for a whileʼ
podvintit ̓ ʻto screw up a little more, to tightenʼ
podvypit ̓ ʻto drink a littleʼ
podygrat ̓ ʻto accompany singingʼ
pogovorit ̓ ʻto have a talkʼ
pojti ʻto start off (on foot)ʼ
pokurit ̓ ʻto have a smokeʼ
poljubit ̓ ʻto come to love, to fall in love withʼ
ponapridumyvat ̓ ʻto invent (pejorative)ʼ
ponavydelyvat ̓ ʻto make, to produce (pejorative)ʼ
poobedat ̓ ʻto have lunchʼ
popadat ̓ ʻto fall in many or many timeʼ
porazʼ̓ echatʼsja ʻto leave one after anotherʼ
porazvlekat ̓ ʻto amuse a littleʼ
poslušatʼsja ʻto obey ̓
postroit ̓ ʻto build (up)ʼ
poubivat ̓ ʻto kill (one after another)ʼ
povybit ̓ ʻto break everythingʼ
povytaskivat ̓ ʻto drag/pull outʼ
poženitʼsja ʻto get marriedʼ
poznat ̓ ʻto become acquainted withʼ
pozvonit ̓ ʻto callʼ
preumenʼšit ̓ ʻto minimize, to belittleʼ
preuveličit ̓ ʻto exaggerateʼ
pridumat ̓ ʻto invent, to devise, to think upʼ
prigljadetʼsja ʻto stare at, to scrutinizeʼ
prigotovit ̓ ʻto prepareʼ
130
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
prigovorit ̓ ʻto sentence (to) ̓
prijti ʻto arrive, to go toʼ
prikleit ̓ ʻto glue, to stickʼ
prikupit ̓ ʻto buy some moreʼ
prileč ̓ ʻto lie down for a while, to have a liedownʼ
prinjuchatʼsja ʻto get used to the smellʼ
pripisat ̓ ʻto write something more, to add st writing ̓
pripodnimatʼsja ʻto raise oneself slightlyʼ
prišit ̓ ʻto sew on(to)ʼ
prismotretʼsja ʻto look closely, attentivelyʼ
prisochnut ̓ ʻto adhere in dryingʼ
pristavit ̓ ʻto put/lean againstʼ
pristroit ̓ ʻto add (to a building), to build on toʼ
pritjanut ̓ ʻto attract, to pull (up)ʼ
priuderžat ̓ ʻto hold a littleʼ
priutichnut ̓ ʻto quiet down somewhatʼ
privalit ̓ ʻto lean, to come alongsideʼ
prižit ̓ ʻto beget (usually of extramarital unions) ̓
prižitʼsja ʻto get used/acclimatized, to settle downʼ
prizvat ̓ ʻto call (up), to conveneʼ
proboltatʼsja ʻto let the cat out of the bag ̓
pročitat ̓ ʻto read off/out/aloud/throughʼ
produmat ̓ ʻto think out/through, to think over carefullyʼ
prodyšatʼsja ʻto get oneʼs breath backʼ
proechat ̓ ʻto pass/drive/ride by/through ̓
progljadet ̓ ʻto overlookʼ
progovorit ̓ ʻto talk awayʼ
progovoritʼsja ʻto shoot oneʼs mouth off ̓
progret ̓ ʻto heat, to warm up carefully ̓
proguljat ̓ ʻto be absent from work/school, to missʼ
proguljatʼsja ʻto take a walk/strollʼ
proigrat ̓ ʻto play through ̓
proigrat ̓ ʻto play through, to play to the endʼ
projti ʻto go past/through (on foot)ʼ
prokurit ̓ ʻto smoke for a certain period of timeʼ
131
Appendix
prolajat ̓ ʻto give a barkʼ
propit ̓ ʻto squander/spend on drink, to drink awayʼ
prorabotat ̓ ʻto work for a specific periodʼ
prosidet ̓ ʻto sit for a specific periodʼ
prosmotret ̓ ʻto look over/through ̓
prospat ̓ ʻto sleep through, to oversleepʼ
prospatʼsja ʻto sleep it off ̓
prostrelit ̓ ʻto shoot throughʼ
provalitʼsja ʻto collapse, to fall through, to fail an examʼ
provarit ̓ ʻto boil thoroughly ̓
prožit ̓ ʻto live, to spend lifeʼ
prozvenet ̓ ʻto resound, to ring, to resonateʼ
raspadatʼsja ʻto fall apart ̓
rassmotret ̓ ʻto examine, to look intoʼ
rastolkovat ̓ ʻto explain in detail/word by word ̓
rastvorit ̓ ʻto dissolveʼ
razʼ̓ echatʼsja ʻto departʼ
razʼ̓ est ̓ ʻto corrode, to eat awayʼ
razbrosat ̓ ʻto throw about, to spread/scatterʼ
razdat ̓ ʻto give/hand out, to distributeʼ
razdumat ̓ ʻto change oneʼs mindʼ
razdvinut ̓ ʻto move/slide apart, to extendʼ
razgljadet ̓ ʻto discernʼ
razgovoritʼsja ʻto warm to oneʼs topicʼ
razlinovat ̓ ʻto ruleʼ
razljubit ̓ ʻto stop lovingʼ
razložit ̓ ʻto distributeʼ
razmachnutʼsja ʻto swing, to brandish ̓
razobidet ̓ ʻto offend greatlyʼ
razobrat ̓ ʻto take apart, to dismantleʼ
razojtis ̓ ʻto disperse ̓
razospatʼsja ʻto be fast asleepʼ
razrabotat ̓ ʻto work outʼ
razrezat ̓ ʻto cutʼ
razrisovat ̓ ʻto cover with drawingsʼ
132
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
razukrasit ̓ ʻto decorate all upʼ
razuverit ̓ ʻto stop believing, to persuade to the contraryʼ
razvolnovatʼsja ʻto get excited/agitateʼ
sbegat ̓ ʻto run for (go and back) ̓
sbežatʼsja ʻto come running, to gatherʼ
schodit ̓ ʻto go and come back once (on foot)ʼ
sčistit ̓ ʻto clean offʼ
sdelat ̓ ʻto do/makeʼ
skleit ̓ ʻto glue together ̓
skormit ̓ ʻto feed, to nourishʼ
složit ̓ ʻto lay/put downʼ
smestit ̓ ʻto displaceʼ
snesti ʻto carry away/offʼ
snosit ̓ ʻto wear out ̓
sochnut ̓ ʻto dry ̓
sojti ʻto go downʼ
sojtis ̓ ʻto meet, to come togetherʼ
soriginalʼničat ̓ ʻto do something original, to put on an act ̓
spajat ̓ ʻto solder together ̓
spisat ̓ ʻto write off, to copy down/offʼ
spisatʼsja ʻto exchange letters with ̓
spoit ̓ ʻto give to drinkʼ
srabotatʼsja ʻto wear oneself out, to work well togetherʼ
srisovat ̓ ʻto copy a drawing ̓
sšit ̓ ʻto sew together ̓
stoskovatʼsja ʻto pine for ̓
sumničat ̓ ʻto say/do st to show off oneʼs intelligenceʼ
svarit ̓ ʻto cook, to boilʼ
svjazat ̓ ʻto bind, to tie ̓
svodit ̓ ʻto take (and come back) ̓
sygrat ̓ ʻto play through, to play to the endʼ
ubegatʼsja ʻto get tired from running a lot ̓
ubrat ̓ ʻto take awayʼ
ugovorit ̓ ʻto persuade (to) ̓
ujti ʻto leaveʼ
133
Appendix
ukačat ̓ ʻto make (air-/car-/sea-) sick ̓
ulečʼsja ʻto lie down (comfortably), to be flat out ̓
uležat ̓ ʻto lie down (keeping still) ̓
umazat ̓ ʻto smear, to spread ̓
umerit ̓ ʻto moderateʼ
unesti ʻto carry awayʼ
upisat ̓ ʻto get in, to fit in (something written) ̓
usestʼsja ʻto take a seat, to sit down, to put oneʼs feet up ̓
ušit ̓ ʻto take in (dressmaking) ̓
usochnut ̓ ʻto dry up/out, to wither ̓
ustlat ̓ ʻto cover with ̓
ustydit ̓ ʻto (put to) shameʼ
usypat ̓ ʻto strew/cover with ̓
uvidet ̓ ʻto seeʼ
uznat ̓ ʻto come to know, to learnʼ
vdevat ̓ ʻto put in(to) ̓
vdumatʼsja ʻto think over, to meditateʼ
vobrat ̓ ʻto absorb, inhaleʼ
vojti ʻto go inʼ
voschodit ̓ ʻto ascendʼ
vospitat ̓ ʻto bring up ̓
vozdat ̓ ʻto render, to repayʼ
vozgorditʼsja ʻto become proudʼ
vozlikovat ̓ ʻto begin exultingʼ
voznagradit ̓ ʻto rewardʼ
vozobnovit ̓ ʻto renewʼ
vozrodit ̓ ʻto regenerate, to reviveʼ
vozvesti ʻto raiseʼ
vpisat ̓ ʻto write in ̓
vslušatʼsja ʻto listen attentivelyʼ
vstavit ̓ ʻto put in ̓
vybelit ̓ ʻto decorate/bleach with careʼ
vychodit ̓ ʻto go out ̓
vydumat ̓ ʻto think up, to inventʼ
vygladit ̓ ʻto iron with carʼ
134
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
vygljanut ̓ ʻto look out of the window ̓
vygovorit ̓ ʻto speak out, to pronounceʼ
vygovoritʼsja ʻto come clean, to spill the beanʼ
vyigrat ̓ ʻto winʼ
vyjti ʻto go outʼ
vykurit ̓ ʻto finish smokingʼ
vyložit ̓ ʻto lay/put outʼ
vypadat ̓ ʻto fall, to be eliminated, to fall outʼ
vypisat ̓ ʻto write away/off/outʼ
vypit ̓ ʻto drink (up)ʼ
vyplakatʼsja ʻto work it off in tears, to have oneʼs cry outʼ
vyprosit ̓ ʻto get out of, to obtain (by begging)ʼ
vyrabotat ̓ ʻto work out ̓
vyrvat ̓ ʻto pull/tear outʼ
vyskazat ̓ ʻto speak out ̓
vyskazat ̓ ʻto speak/say outʼ
vyslušat ̓ ʻto hear sb out, to listen to the endʼ
vysmotret ̓ ʻto scrutinize, to spy outʼ
vysochnut ̓ ʻto dry out ̓
vyspatʼsja ʻto sleep oneself outʼ
vystavit ̓ ʻto put/lay out, to eject, to put up, to displayʼ
vystojat ̓ ʻto keep standing (for a long time)ʼ
vyžit ̓ ʻto surviveʼ
vzachatʼsja ʻto exclaim ah!ʼ
vzdumatʼ(sja) ʻto get into oneʼs head, to think of/up suddenlyʼ
vzgljanut ̓ ʻto have a glanceʼ
vzojti ʻto go upʼ
vzrevet ̓ ʻto let out a roarʼ
vzvalit ̓ ʻto (off)load, to shift st on sbʼ
zabežat ̓ ʻto push ahead, to penetrate runningʼ
zabrosit ̓ ʻto throw behindʼ
zacelovat ̓ ʻto cover with (too many) kissesʼ
zachodit ̓ ʻto drop in, to call for, to pick up ̓
zacvesti ʻto break into blossomʼ
zadarit ̓ ʻto (over)load with giftʼ
135
Appendix
zadelat ̓ ʻto stop/block up,to close off/upʼ
zadumat ̓ ʻto plan, to conceive the idea ofʼ
zadumatʼsja ʻto become lost in thought, thoughtfulʼ
zaest ̓ ʻto take withʼ
zagotovit ̓ ʻto stock upʼ
zagovorit ̓ ʻto begin to speak, to cast a spell over ̓
zajti ʻto drop in (on the way), to go behindʼ
zakapat ̓ ʻto stain drippingʼ
zakormit ̓ ʻto overfeedʼ
zakrasnet ̓ ʻto begin to turn red ̓
zakupit ̓ ʻto stock up withʼ
zakurit ̓ ʻto light up, to smoke st out, to fill with smokeʼ
zakuritʼsja ʻto smoke too much and to fall illʼ
zakusit ̓ ʻto take withʼ
zamyt ̓ ʻto wash off/outʼ
zapisat ̓ ʻto write downʼ
zapit ̓ ʻto wash down with, to take with/afterʼ
zaplakat ̓ ʻto begin to cryʼ
zapolnit ̓ ʻto fill up/in/out (a form)ʼ
zarabotat ̓ ʻto earʼ
zasidetʼsja ʻto sit too longʼ
zastirat ̓ ʻto wash off (a stain)ʼ
zaučitʼsja ʻto study too hard, to over-study ̓
zavoevat ̓ ʻto conquerʼ
zažigat ̓ ʻto light upʼ
136
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
137
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.
138
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
139
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-en-
provence, 24-56.
GVOZDANOVIĆ, J. (1992), The Verbal Prefixes po- and pro- in Russian: Their Meanings
140
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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
141
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.
142
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 Word-
Formation, 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.
143
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.
PUL̓ KINA, 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.
144
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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.
145
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.
146
Complex Verb Formation in English and Russian
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 Slovar ̓ Russkogo Jazyka, Sankt Peterburg,
Noring.
KUZNECOVA, A. – EFREMOVA, T. F. (1986), Slovar ̓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 slovar ̓russkogo jazyka : v dvuch tomach,
Moskva, Russkij Jazyk.
Webster s̓ New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1979), Deluxe Second Edition, U.S.A.,
Dorset & Baber.