COMPLEX VERB FORMATION IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN 2002...postverbal particle as a preposition that is...

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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


- 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


E.g.: to pine away, to hammer away, to eat away, to bang away, to work away


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


(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


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


51 Of course, this mostly depends on intonation.


48


53 Once more, Fraser proposes to trace this back to prosodic reasons.

54 By “complicated” Fraser means a NP which includes intonational drops.


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.



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


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.


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.


85 The suffix –less forms adjectives from nouns.


87 Examples from Selkirk (1982, 54) and Bacchielli (1986, 139).

88 Cf. note 36.

50


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


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


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-, redo

not seem to change the a-structure of the original verb, even though so- may change it, as in

the case of the verbs above105. Moreover, Latin prefixes seem to occupy an external position

with respect to Russian prefixes. If we consider the verb 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


(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


- 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.




149 The preposition pri- means “by, at” and pod- means “under”.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

COMPLEX VERB FORMATION IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN 2002...postverbal particle as a preposition that is...

Documents

Transcript of COMPLEX VERB FORMATION IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN 2002...postverbal particle as a preposition that is...