At the heart of the notoriously complex Russian aspectual system is a sim ple rule whereby a perfective verb is formed by the addition of a prefix to an imperfective verb. Thus perfective verbs are formed from delat' 'do' and pisat' 'write' by adding the prefixes s- and nasdelat' and napisat'. Since Russian has nineteen different perfectivizing prefixes that create aspectual pairs (Rrongauz), the question arises as to how native speakers of Russian know which prefix to choose for a given verb. Is the choice arbitrary, or are there linguistically significant generalizations motivating the choice of pre fix? As a first step in a larger project on prefixation and semantic classes, I offer in this paper a study of perception verbs. I argue that for this semantic class the choice of prefix is indeed motivated. The contribution of my study can be summarized as follows. First, I demonstrate that the two prefixes u and po- are dominant for perception verbs. Second, it is shown that u- com bines with verbs of so-called passive perception, while po- is used for active perception. Third, I argue that these correlations are motivated by conceptual overlap between stem and prefix. In particular, it is shown that u- involves movement away from an implicit observer's domain of accessibility, and that this meaning is compatible with the meaning of passive perception verbs. As for po- and active perception, I suggest that atelicity is relevant for both stem and prefix. My argument is structured as follows. After a brief overview of the data in section 2,1 discuss the notions of active and passive perception in section 3, before I turn to verbal prefixation in sections 4 through 6. Conclusions and implications are summarized in section 7. 2. Data
[1]
Zeno Vendler,et al.
Verbs and Times
,
1957,
The Language of Time - A Reader.
[2]
Stephen M. Dickey.
A prototype account of the development of delimitative po- in Russian
,
2007
.
[3]
Å. Viberg.
The verbs of perception: a typological study
,
1983
.
[4]
Carlota S. Smith,et al.
The Parameter of Aspect
,
1991
.
[5]
P. Cubberley.
On the "Empty" Prefixes in Russian.
,
1982
.
[6]
G. Lakoff,et al.
Metaphors We Live By
,
1980
.
[7]
A. Goldberg.
Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure
,
1995
.
[8]
R. Langacker.
Foundations of cognitive grammar
,
1983
.
[9]
Charles Edward Townsend.
Russian word-formation
,
1968
.
[10]
Tuomas Huumo,et al.
Is perception a directional relationship? On directionality and its motivation in Finnish expressions of sensory perception
,
2010
.
[11]
Inna Tolskaya,et al.
Unifying prepositions and prefixes inRussian : conceptual structure versus syntax
,
2007
.
[12]
Tore Nesset,et al.
Path and Manner: An Image-Schematic Approach to Russian Verbs of Motion
,
2008
.
[13]
Alan Timberlake,et al.
A reference grammar of Russian
,
2004
.