Database of aspect triplets in Polish, Czech and Russian : presentation, considerations and case studies

Abstract

The article discusses the significance of (bi-imperfective) aspect triplets in the aspect systems of Slavic languages, concerning both their status in the contemporary stages and their significance in the evolution of these systems. From either of these perspectives, the determination of aspect triplets crucially hinges on the role assigned to Natural Perfectives, i.e. perfective stems whose prefixes show some semantic overlap with meaning components of unprefixed (i.e. simplex) imperfective stems. Another crucial point to be accounted for is whether secondary imperfectives (IPFV2), i.e. stems derived with suffixes from prefixed perfective stems, really oust imperfective simplex stems (IPFV1) in their lexical relation to Natural Perfectives. A closer look at diachronic facts shows that this need not be the case; in fact, it has often not been the case, and a triplet relation between two imperfective stems and a perfective stem (with the latter serving as semantic and morphological pivot) is by no means deemed to be instable.

These general points provide the background for the presentation of a comprehensive database of potential aspect triplets in Polish, Czech and Russian from 1750 to 2020. This database provides a tool necessary for the study of aspect triplets from a diachronic perspective, i.e. with an account of their dynamics. Apart from methodological issues connected to the creation of such a database, the article also gives insights into possible ways of how the database may open the door for in-depth studies. The database can also be used as an expanded list of Natural Perfectives in Czech, Polish, and Russian since 1750, as well as a starting point for investigations of near synonyms (also in applications for language learners).

In general, aspect triplets constitute a rather heterogeneous class. This corresponds to intricacies which, to a large extent, repeat those known from debates about aspect pairs and which show aspect triplets to be a gradable concept (just as are aspect pairs). Heterogeneity, and gradability, is caused by the degree at which IPFV1 and IPFV2 stems tend toward complementary functions of imperfective stems and, jointly with this, whether both stems show an identical range of polysemy and valency patterns. Moreover, IPFV1 stems may differ as for the number of triplets they enter into, which, in turn, depends on their meaning range. Other factors relevant for a subclassification of aspect triplets are related to (i) their “age” and provenance (based on inherited Slavic roots vs borrowings, time of borrowing), and, in this connection, (ii) attestation rates of triplets over time, which are the best available proxy for the persistence of aspect triplets. Moreover, one may consider (iii) comparative token frequencies of the imperfective stems in a triplet and (iv) the productivity of particular prefixes, together with suffixes. The mentioned parameters have been changing, and a closer view at the dynamics of aspect triplets discloses insights into hitherto less prominent properties of the architecture of the whole aspect system in Slavic languages.