INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" X 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

vdUMIAccessing the World's Information since 1938 300 North 7eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Order Number 8812241

The Russian verbal prefixpo- as an invariant cognitive structure

Dick, Warren Harlan, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1988

Copyright ©1988 by Dick, Warren Harlan. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V

1. Glossy photographs or pages.

2. Colored illustrations, paper or______print

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page,

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost______in spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page(s)_lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages_

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed cis received______

16. Other______

UMI

THE RUSSIAN VERBAL PREFIX PO-

AS AN INVARIANT COGNITIVE STRUCTURE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of the Ohio State University

By

Warren Harlan Dick, B.A., M.A,

The Ohio State University

1988

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

A. Rugaleva

G. Beynen - / Adviser D. Robinson Department of Slavic and East European Languages & Literatures Copyright by Warren Harlan Dick 1988 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Gijsbertus K. Beynen, whom I admire for his

scholarly fortitude and prodigious bibliographic know­

ledge, unselfishly devoted his time and energy to

seeing this project through; I am very grateful to him

for his support and long-standing interest in my work.

My adviser. Dr. Anelya Rugaleva, served as my chief

informant and was ideal in that capacity; I greatly appreciate her help and suggestions. I also appreciate

the help of my other informants: Nataliya Verkho- shanskaya, Igor Savelev, Valery Kalensky, Ella

Kalensky, Irene Vertikoff, and Marina Shmulevich. I am especially grateful to Daniel Barber for his technical assistance in the preparation of this dissertation. No one else could have handled the task as competently as he, and I could have trusted no one else to be as careful. I sincerely appreciate his painstaking work and value his friendship. But some petty, malevolent, profligate personnel in the Slavic department made my association with OSU an unnecessarily prolonged and regrettable one. They will continue their policy of favoring their own kind — the sycophants and pseudo­ scholars .

ii VITA

1977 ...... E.A., George Washington University/ Washington/ DC

1979 ...... M.A./ George Washington University/ Washington/ DC

1977-1979 ...... Graduate Teaching Assis­ tant/ George Washington University/ Washington/ DC

1979-1980 ...... University Fellow/ The Ohio State University/ Columbus / Ohio

1980-1984 ...... Graduate Teaching Associ­ ate/ Research Associate/ and Fellow/ The Ohio State University/ Columbus/ Ohio

1985-present ...... Research Analyst/ Library of Congress/ Washington/ DC

PUBLICATION

"On Expressing the Direct Object in Russian: an Accusa­ tive Tendency:" Proceedings of the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference 1984: Slavic Section.

FIELD OF STUDY

Major Field: Slavic Linguistics

111 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... iii

PREFACE . . . 1

'Notes ...... 8

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION: VERBS, PREFIXES, AND PREDICATIONS 12

1.0. General Remarks on Verbal Prefixation . . 12

1.1. Multiple Meaning Analyses of Po- .... 17

1.1.1. BogusaTawski...... 20

1.1.2. Slovar* sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka ...... 24

1.1.3. Slovar* russkogo jazyka ...... ■ 27

1.1.4. The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary 28

1.1.5. Grammatika russkogo jazyka ...... 29

1.1.6. Pulkina and Zakhava- Nekrasova's Russian ...... 31

1.1.7. Unbegaun's Russian Grammar ...... 33

1.1.8. Accounting for Polysemy: Contextual Usages of a Single Core Meaning . . 34

1.2. Meaning or Meaninglessness of Prefixes? . 39

1.2.1. "Empty" Prefixes ...... 39

1.2.1.1. Tixonov ...... 40

1.2.1.2. Vinogradov ...... 41

IV 1.2.1.3. Bogusïawski ...... 42

1.2.1.4. Unbegaun ...... 44

1.2.2. Opponents of the Notion of Purely Grammatical Prefixes ...... 45

1.2.2.1. Karcsvski ...... 46

1.2.2.2. Maslov ...... 46

1.2.2.3. Isacenko ...... 48

1.2.2.4. van Schooneveld ...... 49

1.3.3. Resolution of the Controversy: A Definition of Prefix Meaning . . . 51

N o t e s ...... 55

II. COGNITIVE ABSTRACTION AND PREFIXATION ...... 63

2-0. Unit Processing of R e a l i t y ...... 63

2.1. Cognition and L a n g u a g e ...... 65

2.2. A Cognitive Model for P r e f i x e s ...... 68

2.3. The Concept of ’Focus' ...... 72

2.3.1. Skans ...... 74

2.3.2. Agrell ...... 76

2.4. Brief Summary of Prefixes as Cognitive Abstractions ...... 78

N o t e s ...... 80

III. THE COGNITIVE MODEL OF PO- ...... 83

3.0. Spatial Markers and Cognitive Space . . . 83

3.1. Po- and Geometric Conceptualization: Points and Line S e g m e n t s ...... 86

3.2. The Po - Na A x i s ...... 92 3.2.1. Po- and Na-: Comparative versus Superlative Relations . . , 97

3-2.2. The Decisive Difference: Association with the Positive or Nonpositive Cognitive Domain 99

3.3. Po- and Punctuality 104

3.4. The Invariant Cognitive Structure of a Po- Scenario ...... 105

Notes 114

IV. APPLICATION OF THE INVARIANT MEANING OF PO- . 120

4.0. The Underlying Invariant Structure of Po in Some Usage Patterns ...... 120

4.1. Inception as a Contextual Interpretation with Determinate Verbs of Motion . . . 121

4.2. Quantification in the Positive and Nonpositive Cognitive Domains ...... 124

4.3. Comparison: A Quantification . . . 130

4.4. The Principle of Linear Reduction 133

4.5. The Underlying Pattern: a Summary . 139

V. CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF PREFIXED VERB PARONYMS 142

5.0. Paronymy and Synonymy...... 142

5.1. Po- versus 0-/O b - ...... 147

5.2. versus Za- ...... 161

5.3. Po- versus 169

5.4. Po- versus U- ...... 176

5.5. Po- versus Ot- ...... 187

5.6. Po- versus V- ...... 193

VI 5.7. Results of Contrasting Prefixed Paronyms 196

N o t e s ...... 198

VI. MULTIPLE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF SCENARIOS: ANALYSIS OF FAMILIES OF PREFIXED VERB PARONYMS 204

6.0. Contrasts Within Families of Prefixed Verb Paronyms...... 204

6.1. Prefixed Forms of stroit* 'to build' . . 206

6.2. Prefixed Forms of plakat' 'to cry, to w e e p ' ...... 211

6.3. Calling and Beckoning: pozvat' / podozvat* , prizvat' ...... 215

6.4. The Russian Cognitive Geometry of 'Sending': slat' and Variations ...... 220

6.4.1. posylat'/poslat' 221

6.4.2. vysylat */vyslat' ...... 223

6.4.3. otsylat'/otoslat' ...... 226

6.4.4. prisylat'/prislat' ...... 227

6.4.5. podsylat'/podoslat' 228

6.4.6. zasylat'/zaslat ' ...... 229

6.4.7 The Different Fociof Sending . . . 230

6.5. Clearing Things up in R u s s i a n ...... 231

6.6. Prefixed Verbs of Motion: Po- versus Pro- , S-, Ü-, Pri- and V^- . . . 237

6.6.1. Motion: Po- versus Pro- ...... 238

6.6.2. Motion: Po- versus S - ...... 242

6.6.3. Motion: Po- versus U - ...... 246

6.6.4. Motion: Po- versus P r i - ...... 250

6.6.5. Motion: Po- versus Vy- ...... 253

via 6.6.6. Prefixes and Motion: Contrasts in Scenario Conceptualization ...... 256

6.7. Prefix Contrasts: Meaningful Distinctions on the Coanitive L e v e l ...... 259

VII. CONCLUSION...... 261

7.0. Summary of the Cognitive Model of Verbal Prefixation...... 261

7.1. The Invariant Framework of Po- ...... 262

7.2. Problems Areas for the Cognitive Model of Prefixation: Fossilization, Fusion/ and Desemanticization ...... 264

7.3. Some Other Avenues of R e s e a r c h ...... 266

N o t e s ...... 268

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Prefixes and Verb Classification Systems ...... 270

Appendix B. Analyzing Predications: Some Case Grammar N o t i o n s...... 277

Appendix C. Some Evidence for Spatial Abstrac­ tion in Thought Processes ...... 287

Appendix D. Other Analyses of Spatial Markers as Semantic Invariants ...... 292

Appendix E. Dialectal Use of Prefixes...... 301

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 305

Vlll PREFACE

This work presents the view that Russian verbal prefixes are code signals that trigger specific cogni­ tive representations of situations. Each prefix de­ notes a unique, metaphorically geometric structuring or template for shaping thoughts. Verbal prefixes mark linguistically relevant distinctions in the Russian system of perception. People the world over may be able to perceive and experience the same things, but different cultures and languages have developed differ­ ent ways of carving up reality in order to interpret it and interact with it for daily needs.^ If verbal pre­ fixes mark ways of cognitively representing situations, then it is obvious that descriptions through the prism of Russian perception differ considerably from their

English "equivalents." Russian prefix morphology is richer and more transparent.^

The purpose of this work is to provide an in-depth view and understanding of the Russian verbal prefix po- and how it fits into the general system of Russian 2 verbal prefixes. Po- is described as having a single invariant meaning, and this meaning is construed as a cognitive template which geometrically structures predications (here defined as descriptions of entities, phenomena, or occurrences). The cognitive-level spa­ tial metaphors of Russian prefixes involve the basic geometric concepts of points, lines, vectors, and planes.

Dissatisfaction with descriptions of verbal pre­ fixes as polysemous entities provided the impetus to undertake this project.^ In seeking a way to know and perceive what Russians do, the way they do, through the medium of prefixation, it seemed logical to start from the premise that at the root of all the multiple mean­ ings ascribed to a prefix lay a semantic common denom­ inator which would account for all the "meanings," and that discovering what this core meaning was involved gaining an intuitive grasp of the Russian world view and perceptual categorization scheme for processing the information of environmental dynamics. In light of this, multiple meaning analyses can be understood as attempts to correlate intuitively understood spatial cognitive constructs (which are by nature on the sub­ word level) with types of usage patterns, dictionary fashion. Such analyses also can be used to explain, in 3

a rough way, basic perceptual differences between

languages. Fo, for example, has no direct translation

in English, for there is no category corresponding to

it exactly.

But claiming a plurality of meanings per prefix is only one way of analyzing the nature of prefixes — one dependent on co-occurring verbs and special contexts, and further, one requiring interpretation of the data to extract an ultimate unifying principle or core concept. I am seeking a deeper, more fundamental meaning of prefixes, one underlying their various contextual manifestations. This deeper meaning should accourt for these contextual manifestations. Slavic prefixes usually are treated on a semantic level rather than on a cognitive one, which results in a plethora of lexical meanings for each prefix — a meaning-per-con- text approach. The problem of how to treat prefixes — on a semantic or on a cognitive level — depends on one's understanding and definition of the nature of the prefixes themselves. Prefixes straddle the boundary betweeen lexical and grammatical morphemes. Since prefixes, as a closed class, differ from the open class of content words, the cognitive approach taken here treats them as grammatical morphemes with fundamental spatial structuring properties, cooperating to express various context-specific meanings. 4

The methodology employed to arrive at the basic

invariant meaning of po- is twofold. First, various

contexts in which verbs prefixed with po- occur are

examined and compared, revealing that they share a

common underlying structure; predications with verbs

prefixed with po- lack graphic, three-dimensional

representations, and elements of the predication are

not particularly salient, which facts native informants

readily corroborate. Second, keeping in mind that po­

is part of a system and plays a particular role in that

system, the next step is to contrast situations involv­

ing verbs prefixed with po- with similar situations employing verbs with other prefixes. In comparing po- directly to other prefixes occurring in the same or similar contexts, discovering the sometimes subtle differences and contrasting the effects, the invariant semantic structure of po- shows up clearly. Russian has a vital system for forming contrasts with po-, which shows that Russian cognitive processes are capable of drawing fine distinctions, whether con­ sciously or unconsciously.

From studying manifestations of po- and contrasting the effect of po- with that of other prefixes, it was possible to hypothesize a geometric cognitive repre­ sentation of D O -, and test this construct on educated native speakers by comparing situations with other 5 prefixes and eliciting subjective/ extemporaneous comments on possible differences or shades of meaning/ which contributed in some way to refining the hypoth­ esis. Informants found the process of "getting inside the head" of a Russian somewhat distressing: often they were grasping at differences that they could feel but not verbalize adequately. It became obvious that it was a question of moulds of thinking processes/ of structuring cognitive phenomena. This work will at­ tempt to show that po- is a particular way of struc­ turing thought (cognitive representations) and even of sequencing thoughts/ without comprehensive concentra­ tion on extraneous details. Its particular facility for structuring situations one-dimensionally and chunk­ ing series of bits of information gives it an important

— and meaningful — place in the system of the Russian language.

The search for semantic invariants has its roots in the work of R- Jakobson/ whose study of phonological and morpohological distinctive features revealed that meaning is defined in terms of contrasts within a system/ and that these contrasts are based on a finite/ conventional set of perceptible differences which can be present or absent in various combinations.^ Subse­ quently van Schooneveld applied the concept of 6 distinctive features and binary oppositions to semantic analyses of Russian.®

The features described in this work are quite different, though. Prefixes are related to geometric and spatial metaphors, but the principle of binary oppositions is retained. In addition, the cognitive model of verbal prefixation presented here employs some

Case Grammar notions. Prefixes cannot be analyzed in isolation: they serve a purpose within a predication.

Central to a predication is a verb that predetermines what kinds of actants can collocate with it — i.e., the verb has valences for a set of deep-structure cases. And this arrangement of verb and deep-structure cases (objects, locations) fits into the particular cognitive framework denoted by a prefix.

Chapter I surveys some multiple meaning analyses of po- and initiates the search for the common denominator to these ’meanings.' Chapter II discusses the role of cognition in language and presents the argument for prefixes as cognitive abstractions. In Chapter III a cognitive model for po- is set up employing the con­ cepts of punctuality and lack of salience. Chapter IV contrasts various verbs prefixed with po- to show a common underlying (constant) meaning. Chapter V con­ trasts po- with other prefixes occurring with the same verbs, showing regular patterns in the structuring of 7 predications. Chapter VI examines contrasts involving po- and several prefixes with the same verb, again demonstrating the consistent pattern associated with a prefix as well as the Russian language's capacity for regularly communicating contrasts and nuances, marking relevant patterned distinctions. Chapter VII summar­ izes the theory of po- as an invariant cognitive struc­ ture.^ NOTES

^I am adopting the weak version of the Whorfian hy­

pothesis, which J. Peter Denny formulates thus: "...

languages facilitate certain patterns of thought by

making available efficient coding mechanisms for them,

whereas other thoughts may require greater effort at

coding" (Denny, 1979, 97).

In following de Saussure's assumption that the

speakers of a given language, in communicating, "...

tous reproduiront ... les mêmes signes unis aux mêmes

concepts" (de Saussure, 1915, 29), I am assuming that

Russian verbal prefix morphemes correlate with basic

underlying concepts, forming a set of recurrent cogni­

tive patterns which make meaningful linguistic and cultural distinctions for speakers of Russian.

^For students of Russian coming from languages which do not make the same distinctions as Russian,

i.e., do not have exactly corresponding cognitive

templates, learning to manipulate with ease the rather intricate system of codes which Russian verbal prefixes represent is a formidable task, and one not often mastered. To develop fluency in a foreign language, one has to acquire an understanding of the target 9 language's system of perception and be able to apply its cognitive grid (i.e., its way of looking at the world and processing its information) to the conditions or facts that one normally experiences through one's native language.

In this work, however, I am not presenting a meth­ odology for teaching the Russian system of verbal prefixation.

^Consider, for example, the situation of someone just becoming familiar with Russian's complex verbal prefix system. After learning first that za-, then po, and even vz- all mean the beginning of an action, the confusion of a beginning student is subsequently com­ pounded by statements to the effect that prefixes also just make a verb perfective — a concept in itself often poorly defined. The resultant picture that students receive is that prefixes do not have to mean anything, many prefixes can have the same meanings, and all of them have several meanings. Russian verbs end up looking like arbitrary, unlearnable enigmas. Stu­ dents are forced to wade through this morass of contra­ dictions and uncertainties, never getting a clear insight into what a prefix actually does to a verb, not to mention never experiencing or gaining an understand­ ing of the Russian way of describing reality. 10

"^According to Daniel Morrow,

"whereas content words express object and relation categories (e.g., car, run), gram­ matical morphemes express a relatively small set of conceptual distinctions that apply to most object and relation categories. These distinctions help organize objects and actions into situations, so they must be considered by language users in order to construct a dis­ course model, a representation of the de­ scribed situations. Therefore, grammatical morphemes cooperate with content words in order to express situations" (Morrow, 1986, 424) .

Morrow's definition of grammatical morphemes neatly describes prefix and verb (including subjects and objects) interaction in Russian. Morrow attempts to show that grammatical morphemes organize discourse processing, providing a structural mould for content words, and traces this line of reasoning back to Sapir

(Morrow, 1986, 423-426).

Madeleine Mathiot also distinguishes semantic analysis from cognitive analysis. She writes that in analyzing grammatical categories,

"analysis on the first level of abstraction constitutes semantic analysis; analysis on the second level of abstraction constitutes cogni­ tive analysis. Thus, semantic analysis is conducted on the basis of inferences drawn directly from the data, while cognitive analy­ sis is conducted on the basis of inferences drawn from the results of semantic analysis. In semantic analysis, the question asked is: What is the relation between the linguistic forms under investigation and that which they stand for? In cognitive analysis, the ques­ tion asked is: What do the results of the 11

semantic analysis reveal about the way in which the speakers of the language conceive of reality - more specifically, that aspect of reality referred to through the grammatical category under investigation? (Mathiot, 1979, 1- 2 )

^See Roman Jakobson's "Morfologiîeskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem" and "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums," both in Selected Writings, Vol.

II. The Hague: Mouton, 1971, pp. 154-183 and 3-5, respectively.

^See C. van Schooneveld, Semantic Transmutations:

Prolegomena to a Calculus of Meaning, (Bloomington:

Physsardt, 1978), passim.

note on examples: throughout this work, when no source is cited for an example, it was provided by a

Russian informant, or was contrived and tested on

Russian informants, or was taken in modified form from the Soviet press. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: VERBS, PREFIXES, AND PREDICATIONS

1.0. General Remarks on Verbal Prefixation

Verbs are language-specific labels for manifesta­ tions of energy — kinetic or potential — which re­ flect the dynamics of interaction and change within a speaker's own personal universe, as he sees it. Such a definition for verbs is a convenient starting point for discussing verbal prefixes — entities which modify or specify properties of verbs, adding information about how the energy situation and its development are per­ ceived.-

Verbs have valences for potential situations.

These valences correspond to particular language-

specific categories of physical reality or spatio-

temporal conditions which fall along the perceptual

discernment matrix of a particular language.^ in other

words, these are cognitive categories — reality broken

down as it is seen and experienced by speakers of a

certain language, probably reflecting quondam cultur­

ally relevant distinctions.^ In Russian the prefix po-

represents one such category.

12 13

Russian verbal prefixes form a system of cognitive categories each of which is a unique abstract spatial template within which to view or understand a situa­ tion. From every predication, i.e., a statement about an instance of a manifestation of energy, one can abstract an underlying skeletal spatial metaphor.^

According to the spatial framework marked by the pre­ fix, different features of the predication are high­ lighted: attention can be on the affected object, or certain features of the location can be implied, or the direction in which the action unfolds can be marked.

The view taken here is that of one invariant spa­

tial meaning per prefix. This single invariant meaning

is understood as an invariant structure superimposed on

the conceptualization of a given verbal situation.

Prefix cognitive templates are geometric abstractions, described in terms of points, planes, and vectors.

They can be construed as a kind of cognitive shorthand

for processing information, encoding and implying facts about a scenario (the configuration of objects and

spatial features for a particular instance of a mani­

festation of energy).^

A cautionary note on the redundancy principle must

be added here. Although Russian has a need to reiter­

ate information — confirming a bit of information and

assuring its truth value — one must guard against 14 indiscriminately assigning the meanings of accompanying surface adverbials or other co-occurring lexical items to prefixes. Absolute values and qualities are not part of the spatial nature of a prefix. Consider what happens if the literal definitions of the averbials in these examples are applied to po-:

Vo vremja antrakta my nemnogo pokurili.

Bol'noj nemnogo pobegal i ustal.

Skup ze byl do togo, êtO/ byvalo, postavit v cerkvi kopeednuju svedku pered obrazom Nikoly Marlikijskogo/ dut' pogorit — Lapsinov podojdet i zatusit. (Grigor'eva, 1966, 26)

In these examples, po- limits the duration of an action or limits the degree to which it can take place.

But does po- mean nemnogo 'a little'? Quantity inter­ pretations are context-dependent, for po- is also used

to indicate large quantities:

Katoliki VO Francii v odnu nod' pobili vsex protestantov. (Dal', III, 1382, 135)

Vsem plennym porubili golovy.

The transfer of literal meanings of expected redun­

dant items to some sort of meaning inventory for a

prefix results in self-contradictory definitions. In

fact, another set of such self-contradictory defini­

tions is associated with po-. Among the meanings 15 listed in the Grammatika russkogo jazyka are: naZalo dejstvija and zavergennost' dsjstvija (Grammatika rus­ skogo jazyka. I, 1960, 595-596). Thus po- can indicate both the beginning of an action (pobezat' 'to begin running in some direction,' poletet' 'to start flying in some direction') and the end of an action (postroit'

'to complete building,' pokondit' 'to end').

If one starts from the premise that prefixes have multiple meanings, one is forced to operate with sets of prefix homonyms — in effect, different morphemes.6

This approach is counterintuitive; different uses of a prefix are (patterned) individual instantiations of a common underlying conceptualization.^

In general, the context in which a verb appears accounts for the various readings a verb or prefix has.

One can also note a correlation between verb classes and the meanings that have been ascribed to prefixes; the interaction of a certain class of verbs with a prefix produces a predictable interpretation, e.g., po-

+ determinate verbs of motion creates inceptive ac­ tions, e.g., pobezat' 'to take off running in some direction,' but po- + indeterminate verbs of motion creates actions of quantified duration, e.g., pobegat'

'to do some running.' Linguistic categories such as aspect also have an effect on the interpretation given to a prefix. In addition, the way the cognitive 16 framework of a prefix interacts with the deep-case roles associated with a given verb also conditions the interpretation put on a prefixed verb or the prefix itself; this is actually what makes up part of the g context of a predication.

The verbal prefix functions as a semantic constant applied to a number of variables — the constituents of a predication, which include the location (abstract or concrete) and its features, actants, motion, change — in short, everything that can be associated with a verb- The predication, then, is analogous to a mathe­ matical formula the variables of which can be filled by situation-specific sets consisting of one or more elements; expanders such as adverbials can qualify the elements in a set or roughly gauge the number of ele­ ments in it.

On a deeper level, in collocations such as pokurit* nemnogo * to smoke a little' and pobit* vsex 'to kill every last one' the lexical items occurring with the verbs are redundant in the sense that they echo some quantificational feature in the prefix po-. And the

"meanings" of 'beginning' and 'end' specify some punc­ tuality — conception as a point. These different applications of po- involve a common seme — some kind of measurement — in setting the boundaries of a 17

predication. Analysis of "meaning" variation helps lay

the groundwork for a cognitive analysis.

The spatial abstractions which prefixes represent

are all cognitive conventions, storage and retrieval

aids. Perception may not always correspond to the

facts of reality; it may represent a convenient codifi­

cation. In addition, a speaker may choose to accent a

specific aspect of a scenario — a task handled by

choosing the appropriate prefix.

The problem of defining reality immediately arises.

I define reality as the set of all conditions external

to the entity (which defines itself) that separates or

discerns itself from these conditions.^ Reality is

perceived in terms of how it is useful to the entity:

it is carved up into segments and labeled. Specifi­

cally, a speaker has named categories for objects and

situations linguistically relevant to him. The speak­

er’s internal representation of reality, or cognitive

representation, is his way of structuring information

to understand the world around him. The point here is

that cognition and reality may overlap, but are not in a one-to-one correspondence.

1.1. Multiple Meaning Analyses of Po-

The traditional approach to describing and teaching

Russian verbal prefixes has been one of assigning a 18 number of meanings to each individual prefix. This is still the approach used in the Soviet Union to teach

Russian as a foreign language; prefix polysemy and homonymy are unquestioned topics of classroom instruc­ tion (Grigor'eva, 1966, 17-19; Barykina, 1981, 3+ff.).

Prefixes can be purely aspectual, having no effect on the meaning of the base verb, or they can add one or more of three types of actual meaning (real'noe znadenie): spatial, temporal, or quantitative

(Grigor'eva, 1966, 17-19). One prefix can have several meanings with the same base verb, one of which even can be 'aspectual,' e.g., sluzit' — posluSit* pridinoj 'to be the reason for' versus posluzit' 'to spend time serving somewhere' (Grigor'eva, 1966, 18, 20).

A description or listing of verb or prefix meanings does not take the role of context into consideration.

No attempt is made to see what common semantic terri­ tory underlies the various meanings. If in some cases a prefix merely perfectivizes a base verb, how can one predict when and where a prefix will add no meaning, or under what conditions which prefix can combine with which verb to make a "meaningful" difference or not?

There is something illogical and haphazard about an analysis of verbal prefixes which is not rooted in a solid, basic meaning which can account for various surface manifestations.10 19

Multiple meaning analyses of po- can, however, shed some light on the nature of the prefix by showing the types of meanings that it helps create, as well as the types of situations in which it occurs. These descrip­ tions serve partly as data upon which to perform a cognitive-level analysis and from which to abstract some common denominator — a spatial model for the prefix po-.

What follows here is a representative survey of some of the reference works presenting multiple meaning analyses of verbal prefixes that are easily accessible to American scholars of Russian. The survey includes three widely used dictionaries — the Slovar* sovre- mennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (SSRLJa) (1960),

Ozegov's Slovar* russkogo jazyka (1972), and Wheeler's

The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary (1972)— and three solid reference grammars — The Academy of Sci­ ences' Grammatika russkogo jazyka (1960), Pulkina and

Zakhava-Nekrasova's grammar Russian (1974), and

Unbegaun's Russian Grammar (1967). Advantages and disadvantages in the multiple meaning presentations of each of these works are pointed out. Some linguistic analyses of verbal prefixes also employ the multiple meaning approach. A leading representative of such analyses is Boguslawski, who carries the search for multiple meanings to extremes: it is with him that this discussion begins. 20

1.1,1. Boguslawski

The Polish scholar Bogusîawski treats Russian prefixes as polysemous morphemes, the majority of which he classes as "selective formants" (formanty selek- cyjne); these formants allegedly contain the same meaning as the verb bases with which they combine and

thus express processes (Boguslawski, 1963, 36). Here

is a brief summary in English of the meanings that he

lists for the prefix po- (Boguslawski, 1963, 48-51, 81,

83-84, 87, 97, 109, 113-117):

1. directed motion, goal-orientation: poprat', povoloZ'. With determinate verbs of motion, po- IS not marked for inchoativeness: the notion of 'goal' predominates. Po- emphasizes the first moments of leaving some location A in the direction of some location B (Bogusîawski, 1963, 48-49).

2. partial covering of the surface of an object: posypat* , polit'.

3. start of a process: poljubit'.

4. change in spatial conditions or characteris­ tics: porezat', pobrit', postrid'.

5. attenuation: pozabavit', poobsoxnut', poraz- mjat', podevel'nut'.

6. simple perfectivity: poumnet'. Simple perfec- tivity comprises the meanings of 'resultative- ness' (e.g., pobelet') and one-time actions (e.g., pozvat'). Po- regularly becomes an empty prefix in combination with the following semantic groups of verbs:

a. motion: pogladit*, pokolsbat*, pocelcvat', potrjasti. 21

b. making, producing: postroit'.

c. localization: polozit*, postavit*, po­ se jat ' .

d. change in color: poserebrit*, porySet*, posedet*.

e. covering: polakirovat*.

f. change, transformation (przeksztaZcanie): poznakomit*, pomirit*, poglupet*, popra- vet*, podruzit'sja, potoncat'.

g. meals: pozavtrakat* , poobedat*, pouSinat*.

h. apperception: pogljadet', posmotret*.

1. speech-related words: pobranit*, pozdoro- vat* sja, pokljast* sja, posovetovat*.

j. behavior with negative connotations: pole- nit* sja, poceremonit* sja, po2alit'.

k. behavior without either negative or posi­ tive connotations: pozertvovat*, posluSat* sja, pomiloserdstvovat*.

1. goal-oriented actions: popytat'sja, po- starat* sja, poxlopotat*.

m . phenomenon of a general mental nature: podumat*, pognu&at*sja, poôuvstvovat*, posëitat* sja.

n. hitting: pokolotit*.

o. abstract processes: povlijat*, podejstvo- vat*, posposobstvovat*, poterjat*.

7. distributive perfectivity: pobrat*, poo25upat'.

8. limitation: ponabljudat*, poneZniSat*, poSep- tat* sja, porazbirat'sja, pofantazirovat'. (The term 'quantification* also would be appropriate for this category.)

9. multiple instances of an action: poprygivat*, poZityvat'. 22

In addition, Bogusîawski uses very broad categories that encompass a number of different prefixes, result­ ing in a confusion of synonymous formants, e.g., the formants vy-, £-, u-, ot-, na- are all assigned the meaning of 'effecting' (Bogusîawski, 1963, 53). In his analysis, Bogusîawski depends too heavily on the modi­ fied base verb — the usually unprefixed verb form to which the prefix attaches — in extracting the meaning of a prefix. In fact, he even assigns the meaning

'kill' to the prefix za- (Bogusîawski, 1963, 63). He does this because of the prefix's association with certain base verbs and contexts. Obviously za- does not mean 'to kill,' but killing can be the logical interpretation of an action placed in a za- framework.

With za- the notion of performing an action beyond a certain point obtains: cutting, hacking, hewing, gor­ ing, gashing, etc., if done to excess (or in a za- framework,), imply death, e.g. zase2' ' to flog to death,' zarezat' 'to murder,' zastrelit' 'to shoot and kill.'^^ In all, Bogusîawski ascribes some 24 meanings to the prefix za-.

The number of prefix homonyms in this type of analysis is excessive; it will be shown that all the interpretations of prefix meanings based on semantic groupings of verbs are traceable to one invariant meaning — a structure — and that a prefix itself does 23 not inherently express notions such as ’to kill'. As stated earlier, prefixes do not reflect specific quali­ ties, truth-value propositions, or processes ("large quantity,' 'small quantity,' 'subject kills object,' etc.), but rather represent spatial abstractions on a cognitive level that provide convenient frameworks within which to consider specific instances of a verb's occurrence.

Even BogusZawski's category of "simple perfectiv­ ity" contains implications that po- homonyms contain the meanings of the semantic groupings of verbs with which they are associated. In amplifying the meaning inventory of po- he makes no attempt to establish a common underlying thread. This runs counter to the approach presented in my work — a search for an in­ variant meaning underlying contextual manifestations of the same préfixai morpheme. If a prefix contains information about a base verb, it is not as specific as

'eating' or 'engaging in behavior with negative social values.' The information would be in the form of a common cognitive abstraction of those processes or events, a common way of viewing them and storing them.

Attaching positive and negative values to a prefix should be avoided, since these qualities are situation- dependent. 24

Nonetheless, Bogusl’awski• s analysis is a major contribution to the study of Russian verbal prefixa­

tion, from the point of view of examining the predispo­

sition of certain prefixes to combine with certain

semantic classes of verbs. From this one can come to

understand the cognitive structure of actions (the

Russian conceptualization of them) — how verbs and

prefixes are compatible on a cognitive level, how actions are cognitively broken down into points, lines,

planes, etc.

1.1.2. Slovar' sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo

jazyka (SSRLJa)

The SSRLJA gives a total of six meanings for the

verbal prefix po-, listing them according to whether

the resultant prefixed verbs are perfective or imper-

fective. This division at first seems elegant, but on

inspection fails to incorporate verb pairs such as

posylat'/poslat' 'to send,' podavat'/podat* 'to serve ;

to proffer; to hand in,' or pomel^at'/pomestit' 'to

place.' Po-, of course, serves a purpose in these

verbs as well. A single underlying meaning would

account for them, also. Of the six "meanings," five

are for perfective verbs, one for imperfective verbs

(SSRLJa, X, 1960, 10-11). 25

Perfective verbs.

1. ZaverSennost', zakonZennost' dejstvija: poblednet*, pokrasit*, postavit*, postroit*.

2. NaZalo dejstvija: poexat*, polezt*/ poletet*, popolzti.

3. OgraniSennaja dlitel*riost* dejstvija, inogda v so5etanii s dopolnicel * nyro ottenkoir nezna?itel'noj ili nepolnoj mery dejstvija: polakomit* sja, popet*, postonat*, postojat*. (The SSRLJa defines this group of verbs with reference to the unprefixed base forms, e.g. popet* — pet* nekotoroe vremja, poditat* — citat* nekotoroe vremja.)

4. Dejstvie, soverSaemoe vserai ili mnogimi licami, libo rasprostranjaemoe na vse ili mnogie predmety: pobrosat* (vse ili mnogoe; vsex ili mnogix), poZalit* (vsex ili mnogix) , poprjatat* (vse ili mnogoe, vsex ili mnogix), poprjatat* sja (o vsex ili mnogix).

5. V soedinenii s nekotorymi pristavocnymi glagolami soverëennogo i (reZe) nesoverSennogo vidov ukazyvaet na soverZenie dejstvija vsemi, mnogimi licami, rasprostranenie dejstvija na vse, mnogie ob"ekty ili Ze na ograniZennost' mery dejstvija: povybegat* (vybevat* drug za drugom; o vsex ili mnogix), povyvezti (vyvezti vse ili mnogoe, vsex ili mnogix), povyexat* (vyexat*Î o vsex ili mnogix), pozakapyvat* (zakopat* vse ili mnogoe, vsex ili mnogih, odno, odnogo za drugim) , pozakopat* (zakopat* vse ili mnogoe, vsex ili mnogix), poistaskat* (istaskat* neskol*ko, v kakoj-libo stepeni), ponabit* sja (nabit*sja v mnozestve), popribivat* (pribit* vse ili mnogoe, odno za drugim), popribit* (pribit* vse ili mnogoe).

II. Imperfective verbs (usually with the -yva- or -iva- suffix).

Neopredelenno dlitel*noe povtorjajuSZeesja dejstvie, neredko s dopolnitel'nym ottenkom nepolnoty, oslablennoj mery dejstvija: pokurivat* (kurit* ponemnogu ili vremja ot vremeni), postanyvat* (stonat* slegka ili vremja ot vremeni), poigryvat* (igrat* 26

ponemnogu ili vremja ot vremeni), poZityvat' (5itaf ponemnogu ili vremja ot vremeni).

Without illustrative sentences or contexts, these fractionated meaning categories can be misleading. In verbs indicating a change of color, for example, is it necessarily the *zaversennost* dejstvija* interepreta- tion which always holds true?

Voëel Aleksej. Nastja poalela. Grunja vzgljanula na nee: — Teper' ponimaju, — podumala. (SSRLJA, X, 1960, 12)

The interpretation of poalela in this context is subject to debate. Nastja's blushing had a starting point, timed right at Aleksej*s entrance. Yet the blushing was a completed process, a result which held true for a certain duration. There is a problem when the meaning ascribed to a prefix contains an inherent contradiction; can it be that the meaning of po- is neither 'beginning' nor 'end,' but rather such interpretations result from context or combination with special classes of verbs?

This brings to mind one additional criticism of the

SSRLJa's approach: the verbs serving as examples of meaning-types are themselves not categorized or listed as members of groups of verbs which follow the same general pattern. Verb classifications can be a partial 27 solution to finding the invariant meaning of a prefix by showing the effect — a consistent pattern — that the combination of it and certain types of verbs produces; at the very least such classifications help systematize the multiple-meaning approach. If the

SSRLJa's presentation included information such as 'the inceptive meaning occurs with determinate verbs of motion,' it would enable one to make better use of this multiple-meaning approach.

1.1.3. Slovar' russkogo jazyka

Similar criticisms in general apply to the approach taken by oZegov's Slovar' russkogo jazyka. There are only four meaning categories listed in it, however

(OBegov, 1972, 482):

1. NaSalo dejstvija: popolzti, pobezat', pojti.

2. neznaSitel'naja ili nepolnaja mera dejstvija, soverèaemogo v teZenie korotkogo vremeni: pobalagurit*, povizZat', pospat', poprygat', pobegat', povarit'.

3. Mnogokratnost*/ neopredelennaja dlitel'nost' dejstvija (s suffiksami -yva, -iva): pokrikivat*, pozvanivat', pcpivat*.

4. Dejstvie, otnosjaZZeesja ko mnogim licam, pred- metam: poprjatat'sja. 28

1.1.4. The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary

Of the three dictionaries surveyed here, the one

offering the least useful information on po- the verbal 12 prefix is The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. it

lists only three meaning categories for po- (Wheeler,

1972, 526):

1. forms perfective aspect.

2. indicates action of short duration or of in­ complete character, as porabotat* ‘to do a little work’: pospat' 'to have a sleep.'

3. (+ suffixes -yva- , -iva-) indicates action repeated at intervals or of indeterminate duration, as pozvanivat' 'to keep ringing'; pokrikivat' 'to keep shouting.'

If the only argument in favor of the multiple- meaning approach is its possible usefulness to language learners as a systematic exposition of uses and con­ texts for various prefixed verbs, neatly arranged in learnable categories, then the utility of the Oxford's list is questionable: there is certainly an insuffi­ cient sampling of verbs. The amorphous category of

'forms perfective aspect' has no examples, and has to serve as a catch-all for any verb which does not fall into the other two categories. What sorts of verbs are simply perfectivized by the addition of po-? And what exactly does that mean? The data here are insuffi­ cient. 29

From the foregoing it is evident that it is impor­ tant to include remarks on nuances in meaning and interpretations according to particular contexts, as well as to make wide use of example sentences or entire situations illustrating verbs displaying particular characteristics. A logical classification scheme would help a student master the various uses of a prefix, even if they are labeled 'meanings' as a result of combination with verbs of a certain type or of use in special contexts, and also would be of benefit to scholars in developing verb taxonomies or understanding a prefix's range of applicability. In general, grammar books are more logical than dictionaries in this re­ gard; the principle of organization dominates, and a presentation geared toward pattern explication results.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Academy of

Sciences' Grammatika russkogo jazyka.

1.1.5. Grammatika russkogo jazyka

Although it does not illustrate specific categories with sentences, the Grammatika's organizational scheme is praiseworthy.^^ It lists three basic categories and subdivides each into groupings of related meaning- types. Thus, one does not have to contend with a list of seemingly unrelated meanings; some core, unifying concepts make the information more manageable. This 30 presentation entails seven sub-types (Grammatika russkogo jazyka, 1, 1960, 595-596):

1. Ogranicenie dejstvija:

a. Projavlenie dejstvija v nebol'soj mere. Glagoly s pristavkoj po- imejut znaSenie "slegka", "nemnogo", a takZe ukazyvajut na raprostranenie dejstvija po poverxnosti predmeta, napr.: pozolotit*, pomazat*, popudrit* , poserebrit*. Êta gruppa glagolov maloproduktivna i leksiceski ogranicena.

b. Utocnenie dejstvija. Pristavka po- nosit v glagol znacenie "v dannyj, opredelennyj moment" a ne "vsegda", "voobsde", napr.: gruZu i pogruzaju, kroju i pokryvaju, javljajus* i pojavljajus*.

V. Neprodolzitel'nost* dejstvija. Pristavka po- mozet vnosit* znacenie "nedolgo", "nemnogo". napr.: pobegat', poberec*, pobesedovat*, pobranit*, povarit *, povoevat*, pogovorit *, poguljat *, poderzaT* , podremat*, pozit* , poigrat*, pokormit*, pomolSat*, popisat*, poplakat*, porabotat', posvistat',~posidet* , postojat*, poudit*, poxodit*, poditat', a takfe pôveselit*sja, posmejat'sja. Pristavka po- mozet ukazyvat*, cto dejstvie vypolneno v odin priem: poblagodarit *, pogljadet *, podarit*, pozvat*, pozvonit*, pomanit*, poprobovat *, poprosit', popytat* sja, poradovat', porekomendovat*, posmotret', posovetovat *, postulat *, potorgovat'sja, potoropit*, potrebovat*, poxvalit*.

g. Nadalo dejstvija. Pristavka po- v sodetanii s ogranidennym kolidestvom glagolov, oboznadajudcih dvidenie ili psixideskoe sostojanie, duvstvo, ukazyvaet na nadalo dejstvija, napr.: pobedat*, povezti , povesti, poexat*, polezt*, poletet‘, poduvstvovat*, poplyt*.

2. Rezul*tativnost* dejstvija. Pristavka po- ukazyvaet na zaverdennost' dejstvija, na dovedenie dejstvija do rezul'tata, napr.: pobrit*, pomyt*, poobedat', postroit *, potudit*, poudinat*, poxoronit*. 31

3. Povtorjaemost'r posledovatel'nost' dejstvija.

a. Pristavka d o - v socetanii s suffiksom -yva- (-iva-) glagolov nesoverSennogo vida vnosit znacenie dlitel'nogo dejstvija/ protekaju55ego s nebol'Simi pereryvami i v neskol'ko oslablennom vide/ napr.: pobleskivat*, pogljadyvat* / pogovarivat', po^ulivat', podraznivat*/ pozvjakivat*/ poigryvat*/ popisyvat* , poprygivat*/ posvistyvat*, poskripyvat*/ postukivat* / potrjaxivat* , poxazivat*, poxlopyvat* / pog^ipyvat*.

b. Pristavka po- ukazyvaet na dejstvie/ prostirajuggeesja na neskol*ko ob"ektov ili 2e sovergaemoe neskol*kimi dejstvujuggiini licami/ napr.: on vse vegci pobrosal (t.e. brosal odnu vegg* za drugoj); poka ja byl na letnej praktike/ moi tovariggi pora'z"exalis' v otpusk (t.e. raz"exalis* ne vse odnovremenno/ a v predelax ukazannogo sroka v raznoe vremja i odin za drugim); sm. takZe podelit*/ poZarit*, poklevat*, pomerznut*/ pomolot*/ popadat* / poprjatat', porubit*/ posugit*, potopit*/ potocit* i t.p.

In the Grammatika * s presentation there is no dearth of examples/ and it has the convenience of logical groupings under a section devoted specifically to the verbal prefix po-.

1.1.6. Pulkina and Zakhava-Nekrasova's Russian

The organizational principle of Pulkina and Zakha­ va-Nekrasova's grammar Russian (1974) is different from that of the Grammatika; each prefix is not treated in a section unto itself/ but rather is treated in a number of sections according to topic/ over a number of pages.

But it has the advantage of illustrating each division of prefixed verbs with several entire sentences/ with 32 added commentary. So although verbs with po- may be mentioned in several places, one is actually shown how they are used. Po- is discussed under sections on verbs of motion and verbal aspect. In addition, there are five other categories under which it is discussed.

1. Completion of an action or process (Pulkina, 1974, 296-297):

K oseni novoe zdanie ëkoly postroili.

A group of verbs indicating a change in state or especially color fall in this category.

Idet do5d*. PoZerneli dorogi.

Ogni pogasli.

Volosy posedeli.

Letom na Sistom vozduxe on pozdorovel i po- polnel.

2. The beginning of an action (Pulkina, 1974,

300) :

Ja poSel bystrymi Sagami.

Podul sil'nyj veter.

V oktjabre polili doZdi.

3. The limitation of an action in time (Pulkina,

1974, 301-302):

Posle obeda do zanjatij ja poguljal.

Segodnja utrom ja porabotal nad svoej stat'ej. 33

4. Short duration, momentaneousness of an action

(Pulkina, 1974, 302-303):

poprosit *, poblagodarit', pocelovat *, potrebovat', poZalovat* sja, pozvonit *.

5. Multiprefixed verbs.

a. the completion of a number of separate

completed actions (Pulkina, 1974, 305):

Povytalkivali vsex iz komnaty.

b. perfectivizing imperfective verbs with the

suffix -va and the prefix ot- (Pulkina, 1974,

308) :

V auditorii pootkryvali vse okna.

In addition, the sections come with useful commen­ tary and often exercises, the chief value of rhe latter being as additional model sentences.

1.1.7. Unbegaun's Russian Grammar

Another often used grammar, Unbegaun's Russian

Grammar, offers the following brief presentation

(Unbegaun, 1967, 258-259):

1. commencement of action in a single direction (with determinate verb): poletet' 'to start to fly' poplyt' 'to begin to swim'

2. action of short duration (perf.): pokri?at' 'to utter a few cries' pospat' 'to have a nap' 34

3. action repeated at intervals (with the suffix -yva-/-iva~): postrelivat * 'to fire a shot from time to time '

4. cumulative result: porazbivat' 'to break one after another'

To this he adds 'mere perfectivization' (Unbegaun,

1957/ 212): stroit'/postroit' 'to build,' nravit'sja/ ponravit'sja 'to like,' Scadit'/pogcadit' 'to spare.'

More examples for all categories would be useful.

V.'ithout sufficient illustrative material this grammar in effect assumes that the user has a 'feel' for the

Russian language, and developing such a feel for the use of prefixes is difficult.

1.1.8. Accounting for Polysemy: Contextual Usages of a

Single Core Meaning

As can be seen from the preceding discussion of the information on po- in dictionaries and grammar books, both scholars and students of Russian are confronted with numerous possibilities for interpreting any new verb which they encounter.15

The crux of this argument is that the choice of prefix is motivated, that it is predictable (either

from the nature of the verb itself or the context in which it occurs). For non-native speakers to learn to

predict the appropriate prefixes is no easy task, and 35 one for which no simple solution exists. Learning to predict the occurrence of a particular prefix is partly dependent on knowing exactly what the prefixes mean, and establishing patterns of their usage. That knowledge in itself, however, is insufficient. One must be conversant with a sort of Russian world-view or reality as Russians see it — one which has the right verbs for the right situations, one which would allow one to describe a scene, event, or action and highlight it with just the right prefix. So the problem must be

tackled from two directions: 1) the prefixes them­ selves as abstract, meaningful entities, performing a modification on a verb, creating a particular mental representation or code for the event or occurrence described by the verb: and 2) the verbs themselves and

their modes of predication, with regard to situation-

specific circumstances (context). It will become clear

in this work that the actions of all verbs prefixed with po- have a common structural pattern. Po- is a

convenient code label for a particular cognitive pro­

cessing operation which Russian applies to situations

that fit a cognitive structuring pattern peculiar to

Russian.

The analyses of verbal prefixes discussed so far

assign prefixes a plurality of meanings based on their

occurrence in certain situations or with certain types 36 of verbs. Vîhat has been overlooked is that the inter­ pretations for these situations do not result from a change in meaning introduced only by the verbal prefix.

A combination of factors produces a given meaning. In fact, the meaning types attributed to prefix polysemy are equally attributable to the verbs themselves or the contexts in which they occur. It would be logical to set up a taxonomy of verbs to describe and predict the effect of certain prefix-verb combinations. But since verbs adapt to so many situations — and thus have an inherent tendency toward polysemy — one can be only moderately successful in categorizing verbs to illus­ trate the effect of the interplay of a verb with a certain prefix. Consider the verb polit', which can have two senses with reference to the phenomenon of rain: 1. to start pouring, and 2. to rain (for a cer­ tain time ) .

1. Ydrug poli1 dozd*.

2. Dozd' polil i perestal.

In these examples the same verb is used to fit dif­ fering scenarios. The multiple meaning approach would blame the prefix for having more than one meaning. But one can note as well the multisituational capability of the verb. At this point it becomes a question of which is more likely to be polysemous, the prefix — for which it is so elusive to determine the meaning, or the 37 verb — which lends itself more easily to a number of descriptive paraphrases. What the examples with polit' do show, though, is that a prefix does something other than categorize verbs into certain types. For a fuller discussion of verb classification and its limited utility as a method for investigating the nature and meaning of prefixes, see Appendix A.

Gallant argues that verbal prefixes highlight features inherent in the verbs that they modify

(Gallant, 1979, 37). But it is arguable whether the prefix takes on the meaning of a verb or whether it is somehow only compatible with that meaning. Verbs denote the energy state of a predication. This energy can be manifested in a number of ways (i.e., a verb fits into a number of contexts). Prefixes, in modi­ fying verbs, can be viewed as particular ways of dir­ ecting or channeling that energy, but as the examples with polit * show, context determines the interpretation of the entire predication. I postulate that verbal prefixes fit a verb into a certain framework — a geometric abstraction — creating a cognitive template or basic formula in which to view an action. The mind has the ability to adapt, generalize, and apply pat­ terns, and to use (geometric) abstractions/concepts to encode and process reality as language (cf. discussion in Herskovits, 1985, 344, 373—374). Each prefix 38 represents a single basic structural formula/ which contextual usage can shape and mask; contextual infor­ mation must be filtered to abstract the unique pattern.

Case Grammar (although it was not formulated to describe Slavic verbal prefixation) can be helpful in analyzing predications as context-dependent cognitive scenes. It considers the role of the participants in a scenario — the arguments of the verb, e.g., stative or manipulated objects, agents, sources, goals, etc.

Context conditions the presence of certain roles and fills them appropriately. The interaction of a verb with the different ways that its arguments are filled can explain the different uses of a single prefixed verb (polysemy), without assigning a plurality of

"meanings" to the prefix. To this extent. Case Grammar contributes to the construction of a cognitive model of verbal prefixation. It offers a way of understanding the mechanics of a situation, and thus can offer sup­ portive evidence for a particular structuring pattern for a scenario. For a fuller discussion on how Case

Grammar pertains to analyzing Russian prefixed verbs, see Appendix B.

As proposed here, the establishment of one, general meaning for each verbal prefix would explain its uses and account for its role in producing certain predict­ able effects in combination with certain verbs or in 39 certain contexts. From the survey of dictionaries and grammar books it has been shown that po- helps produce a number of interpretations for verbs or utterances.

Examining them will help extract a core meaning for the prefix.

1.2. Meaning or Meaninglessness of Prefixes?

1.2.1. "Empty" prefixes

Prefixes generally are treated as being capable of both adding numerous meanings to verbs, and in the case of at least most prefixes, viz. po- , o/ob- za-, u-, na-/ vz-, iz-, vy-, pri- , pro, and raz- , adding no meaning at all (Unbegaun, 1967, 212). In the latter case the prefixes are "empty," purely grammatical

((Aistovidovye ) , serving only to perfectivize the verb.

Members of the alleged aspectual pairs thus formed are

seen as semantically identical (Tixonov, 1964, 42).

Some examples are stavit'/postavit* 'to put,' stroit'/

postroit' 'to build,' delat'/sdelat' 'to do,' krepnut'/

okrepnut' 'to get stronger.' Among the proponents of

"empty" prefixes discussed here are Tixonov, Vino­

gradov, and BogusZawski. 40

1.2.1.1. Tixonov

Tixonov admits that the weakest link in the argu­ ment for purely grammatical prefixes is the claim that the prefixed and unprefixed members of a correlation are semantically identical (Tixonov, 1964, 43). To support this claim, Tixonov shows that the prefixed perfective form, with relatively few exceptions, dupli­ cates all the meanings of the unprefixed imperfective base verb, i.e., it is typical for both forms to dis­ play the exact same polysemy (Tixonov, 1964, 43). If a prefix alters the meaning of a verb, there is a ten­ dency for a secondary imperfective to be derived. But as Isacenko points out, many of the perfectives formed with "purely aspectual" prefixes also form secondary imperfectives; these imperfectives especially are used to describe particular instances (individual'noe upotreblenie) (Isacenko, 1960, 161-162). Isacenko claims that there is a definite difference in meaning between the unprefixed imperfectives and the secondary prefixed imperfectives: varit*/svarit*/svarivat' 'to boil,' platit'/uplatit'/uplagivat' 'to pay,' ditat'/ profitât'/probityvat' 'to read' (IsaZenko, 1960, 161-

162) .

Proponents of "empty" prefixes view both perfecti- vization and imperfectivization as grammatical procès- 41 ses of aspectual formation. Typifying this view,

Tixonov states

"Cleny prefiksal’nyh vidovyx par tipa stavit'- postavit*/ kak i cleny suffiksal'nyx par tipa otkryt'-otkryvat', javljajutsja leksiSeski identicnymi" (Tixonov, 1964, 45).

Opponents of "empty" prefixes generally consider per- fectivization a derivational process, because the addition of a prefix or the suffix -nu- affects the meaning or phasal interpretation of a verb.

1.2.1.2. Vinogradov

Vinogradov divides prefixes into those which add some meaning (real'noe znacenie) to a verb and those which are purely aspectual (cisto vidovye) (Vinogradov,

1947, 533). Treating prefixes as polysemous entities, he states that in combination with certain classes of verbs a prefix regularly may lose its meanings: the statistically most frequent aspectual prefixes are o- and po-, especially in combination with denominal verbs, e.g. osirotet' 'to be orphaned,' poxvalit' 'to praise' (Vinogradov, 1947, 534-535). Vinogradov con­ tends that prefixes with distinctive spatial and tem­ poral meaning ("s rezkim prostranstvennym i vremennym znaceniem"), viz. pro- , pere- , do-, nad- , pod- , ot-, almost never lose their meaning, but even they are 42 susceptible to desemanticisation (Vinogradov/ 1947/

536). But the fact is that all native Russian prefixes qualify or quantify space and time. Thus Vinogradov's explanation of this fact and categorization of these six prefixes are unsatisfactory.

1.2.1.3. Boguslawski

Boguslawski contends that both prefixation and suffixation create aspectual pairs: delat' 'to do / to make' stands in the same relation to sdelat' as za- pisyvat' 'to note down' does to zapisat' (Bogusiawski /

1963/ 99-100). He takes this line of reasoning a step farther/ claiming that a prefixed perfective can corre­ spond to an unprefixed imperfective as well as to its secondary prefixed imperfective — e.g./ otsyret' - syret'/otsyrevat' 'to become damp»' utonut' - tonut'/ utopat' 'to drown' (Boguslawski/ 1963/ 101-103/ 106-

107). In his view there is no real semantic difference between the prefixed and unprefixed imperfectives.

Prefix meanings just disappear in his analysis: he even explains away the formation of prefixed secondary imperfectives by the propensity of (prefixed) end- stressed or penultimately stressed Russian verbs to generate secondary imperfectives/ e.g. zapisat' -

zapisyvat' 'to note down/' zarabotat' - zarabatyvat'

'to earn' (BogusZawski/ 1963/ 104-106). 43

Thus he reduces the role of prefix morphemes to that of contentless appendages or carry-overs in a spontaneous/ phonologically-conditioned/ rule-governed process.

BogusTawski treats prefixed and unprefixed imper­ fectives such as syret' and otsyrevat * as competing forms in a scheme of aspectual correlations/ drawing an analogy to the historical competition of the Russian imperfective suffixes -a- and -iva- (Bogusïawski/ 1963/

105-106). Russian settled in favor of different suf­ fixes for different verbs/ e.g. zabavit'/zabavljat' 'to entertain/' and osvoit'/osvaivat' 'to master/' and in some cases has not resolved the dilemma/ e.g. prispos- obit' - prisposobljat'/prisposablivat' 'to adapt'

(Boguslawski/ 1963/ 105-106).

In support of his notion of simple perfectivity

(perfektywnosc prosta), Bogusîawski lists several prefixed perfective verbs which he alleges also are competing as aspectual correlates for unprefixed imper­

fective verbs. The alleged synonymy of doublets such as vzdorozat' - podoroZat' 'to become expensive/' vystirat' - postirat' 'to launder/' and isportit' - poportit' (prostoreSie) 'to spoil/' is taken as proof of the "emptiness" of the prefixes when in combination with certain verbs (BogusZawski/ 1963/ 108/ 116). 44

1.2.1.4. Unbegaun

Proponents of "empty" prefixes have an English- language audience as well. In his Russian Grammar/

Unbegaun claims that in some cases prefixes lose their meaning and serve only to perfectivize a verb

(Unbegaun, 1967, 211-212). In his view, prefixaticn is a bona-fide means of forming aspectual pairs. Using prefixed forms of delat' 'to do' as examples, he shows that the prefix s^- does nothing to modify the meaning of delat' , but that other prefixes alter the verb's meaning: vydelat' 'to manufacture,' dodelat' 'to com­ plete,' zadelat' 'to stop up,' nadelat' 'to commit, to make a certain quantity,' obdelat' 'to mount, to set, to urinate upon,' otdelat' 'to complete, to adorn,' peredelat' 'to alter,' poddelat' 'to counterfeit,' pridelat' 'to adjust, to fix' (Unbegaun, 1967, 211).

Unbegaun offers no explanation for how a prefix may be only a grammatical marker of perfectivity, or why different verbs have different purely perfectivizing prefixes. His statement that prefixes "lose their meaning" is strong; even in his example with delat' , one can claim that _s- has some meaning if for no other reason than that it can be opposed to some other prefix in combination with the same base verb. 45

1.2.2. Opponents of the Notion of Purely Grammatical

Prefixes

Essentially, postulating "empty" prefixes is a neat solution for making aspectual pair formation appear to be a regular, consistent feature of the Russian verbal system. Many scholars take an opposing position: prefixes always introduce some modification in the semantics of a base verb. Verbs may differ in aspect, but the formation of aspectual pairs is not an inherent property of the Russian verbal system. In fact, Isa­ cenko asserts that the vast majority of unprefixed imperfective verbs do not have exact perfective cor­ relates (Isa£enko, 1960, 175).

Nonetheless, the arguments of the proponents of

"empty" prefixes seem to hold some weight, especially in light of the fact that occasionally a prefix does nothing to contradict the meaning of the base verb.

Even Isacenko feels compelled to say:

Ne isklju£eno, £to v edini£nyx slu£ajax dejstvitel'no poslednie sledy leksi£eskogo zna5enija pristavki 'vyvetrilis'.' No êto li£' otdei'nye, £astnye slu?ai, pritom sravnitel'no redkie. (Isadenko, 1960, 175)

The problem here is twofold: 1. if prefixes are treated as simple perfectivizers, the rationale behind the use of some prefix or other is lost, seems to be without explanation, or is relegated to traditional use rooted 46 in antiquity: and 2. the lexical meaning or meanings assigned to prefixes must be reexamined, with reference to how the moaning of 'perfectivity' fits into that of a prefix.

Brief summaries of the views of Karcevski, Maslov,

IsaZenko, and van Schooneveld — all scholars opposed to the notion of "empty" prefixes — are given here.

1.2.2.1. Karcevski

According to Karcevski, suffixation is the only way of forming aspectual pairs, e.g. vyigrat' - vyigryvat'

'to win' (Karcevski, 1927, 107). The addition of a prefix to a base verb not only affects the verb's transitivity and aspect: it modifies the semantics of the verb as well (Karcevski, 1927, 96, 98). Karcevski characterizes perfectivization as a semantic operation in which a prefix creates "modalités" — e.g., sorvat'

'to pick,' porvat* 'to tear,' vyrvat' 'to pull out'

(Karcevski, 1927, 107-108). The existence of aspectual pairs is not an obligatory fact of the Russian verbal system.

1.2.2.2. Maslov

Maslov strongly supports Karcevski's analysis that perfectivization and imperfectivization constitute two diametrically opposed processes, the former being a 47 process which creates new lexical items, the latter being a purely grammatical process (Maslov, 1959, 176-

177). Since a prefix introduces shades of lexical meaning or creates Aktionsarten (sposoby dejstvija), it does not form aspectual pairs (Maslov, 1959, 177).

Prefixes, thus, are never completely "empty"; both lexical and "empty" prefixes change or specify

(suSivajut), however minimally, the meaning of a verb, while perfectivizing it (Maslov, 1959, 175-176). It may happen that a prefix's perfectivizing function stands out more, but its lexical meaning (derivative function — slovoobrazovatel'naja funkcija) is never lost (Maslov, 1959, 176). Maslov does not explain how this happens, though.

In addition, Maslov does not develop his contention that verbs such as osi abet */oslabevat' and slabet' 'to become weak' are close synonyms, but their meanings do not overlap completely (Maslov, 1959, 176). It is logical to assume that the two imperfective forms would not coexist if there were no reason. Khat Maslov may be hinting at is that a prefix tends to focus on a specific instance of the energy manifestation denoted by a verb. Prefixed and unprefixed verb synonyms form an opposition in terms of specific and general situa­ tions; the feature of boundedness that a prefix intro­ duces accounts for this. 48

The difference between verbs like oslabevat' and slabet' lies in their respective cognitive frameworks: the prefixed form is viewed within a marked spatial framework.

1.2.2.3. Isacenko

Isacenko is in agreement with Maslov that prefix­ ation always introduces a lexical or Aktionsart change in the meaning of a verb; prefixation precludes abso­ lute synonymy, therefore it cannot be a means of form­ ing aspectual pairs (IsaZenko, I960, 162, 168, 173).

The majority of unprefixed (prostye) imperfective verbs are unpaired — imperfectiva tantum (Isacenko, 1960,

174).

Isacenko divides prefixes into two types — quali­ fiers (kvalifikatory) and modifiers (modifikatory), according to the effect that they have on the meaning of the base verb (Isacenko, 1960, 222-224).

Qualifiers narrow the semantics of the base verb, adding specific shades of meaning. Verbs formed with qualifiers tend to form secondary imperfectives: razorvat'/razryvat' 'to tear apart,' sorvat'/sryvat'

'to pick,' otorvat'/otryvat' 'to tear off,' vyrvat'/vy- ryvat' 'to extract.'

Modifiers do not affect the semantics of the base verb: they concentrate attention on some phase of the 49 action denoted by the base verb. Examples are zagovorit' 'to begin to speak' and pogovorit' 'to talk for a while.'

This division has a disadvantage: it admits of prefix homonymS/ e.g. poxodit' nemnogo 'to walk a bit'

(delimitative Aktionsart) versus poxodit' na svoego otca 'to resemble one's father'; obxodit' ves' gorod

(total object Aktionsart) 'to walk around the whole town' versus obojti/obxodit' luzu 'to go around a puddle' (IsaZenko, 1960, 340-341). Thus in IsaZenko's analysis, prefixes have distinct spatial and Aktionsart meanings. (Karcevski and Maslov also assign multiple meanings to prefixes).

1.2.2.4. van Schooneveld

According to van Schooneveld, "empty" prefixes

("préverbes vides") are not devoid of meaning; their meanings are congruent with the natural outcomes of the processes denoted by the base verbs (van Schooneveld,

1958, 160-161). In denoting the particular way in which a process ends, a prefix perfectivizes a base verb.

In van Schooneveld's view, "préverbes vides" retain

their full meanings, but are redundant, because the

outcomes that they indicate are implied in the meaning

of the verbs which they perfectivize (van Schooneveld, 50

1958/ 161). He does not explain what these outcomes are/ but it would be logical to assume that they are some kind of spatial construct/ at least in the ab­ stract . 16

Van Schooneveld categorizes verbs according to the

"préverbe vide" with which they collocate; the labels that he chooses/ however/ are not spatial ones. In his terminology/ po- prefixed perfectives do not imply success; he characterizes the verb pomanit * 'to beckon/ to entice' as an act seen perfectively and opposes it to primanit' 'to lure/' which he characterizes as an act envisaged as successful (van Schooneveld/ 1958/

160). If one uses spatial criteria to contrast these two verbS/ however/ one will note that the difference between them is in the focus of the actions — where the attention is in the envisaged location of the actants (cognitive scenario). Kith the verb primanit', pri- marks the agent's location/ or indicates that the location is defined by the agent. Kith pomanit'/ the agent's location is irrelevant; the object and its location get greater attention. Nonspatial labels obscure the whole truth; the term "successful" has only limited validity for describing the nature of the

prefixed verb's semantics. In contrasting prefixed

verbs throughout this work/ reference will be made to

the arrangement of the components of the cognitive 51 scenario — objects and spatial features — and to differences in the aspects of the scenario which are focused on.

1.3. Resolution of the Controversy: a Definition of

Prefix Meaning

From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that even native speakers of Slavic languages have different conceptions of the nature of prefixation and expound radically different theories of it. Is one camp's native speaker intuition faulty? Or are both sides — those contending that prefixes always have meaning and those claiming that prefixes can be reduced to purely grammatical devices — groping at the truth?

The major difference between the analyses of pre­ fixes as meaningful or meaningless units stems from a fundamental posture on the nature of the Russian verbal system — whether or not there is an overriding ten­ dency for verbs to form aspectual pairs. The problem

is whether verbs have to pair off — by whatever means

— or whether prefixation is one means of viewing the perfectivity of an action (especially when two or more prefixes can combine with the same imperfective base verb and present different ways of viewing the perfec­

tivity) . The regularity of the verbal system that serves as common ground for both sides to base their 52 analyses upon is not that Russian verbs have to form aspectual pairs, but that perfectivization and imper­

fectivization are active processes in the Russian language.

Energy can be transformed in a number of ways, and since verbs are statements about energy situations,

Russian indicates a way of viewing the developmental possibilités of these energy situations through the use of verbal prefixes, which mark specific occurrences of

the energy manifestation denoted by the verb.

If the particular energy can be transformed in more

than one way, more than one prefix is possible- As with any reaction — chemical or physical — one out­

come is statistically more likely or usual. The less

the unexpectedness, the greater the probability, the

greater the "normalcy" or "neutrality." For aspectual

pair formation, this concept of neutrality is a func­

tion of expectedness and can be defined as a minimum of

unexpectedness. The concept of neutrality is important

for considering the formation of aspectual pairs —

minimizing semantic or lexical differences of the

members of an opposition. The value of unexpectedness

approaches zero with base verbs that combine with only

one prefix, yet a prefix nonetheless imposes a way of

viewing an occurrence and thus always adds something to 53 the structural conceptualization of a verb, with the possibility of thereby modifying its lexical content.

The nature of aspect and its interplay with pre­ fixation have to be reexamined.

Views on the meaning or meaninglessness of prefixes can be reconciled if an appropriate definition for the meaning of a verbal prefix can be formulated. As shown in section 1.1., there is a problem with defining prefixes in terms of the meaning of the base verbs with which they combine, or in terms of the effect that such a prefix + base verb combination creates. If one of the noted effects or meanings is not applicable, the prefix can be deemed "empty," and in the case of po-, the meaning inventory can run the gamut from 'zero' to

'small quantity' to 'large quantity' to 'beginning' to

'end' — enough contradictions to warrant a review of the word 'meaning.'

What is proposed here is the concept of the prefix as an invariant cognitive structure — a spatial ab­ straction — which can be applied to a variety of situations, thereby providing a framework within which to understand and internally represent a predication.

The meaning of a prefix is in the cognitive structuring that it imposes on a verb and it is this meaning which a prefix always retains. That cognitive structure itself, being part of the subword level, may not be 54 easily verbalizable. Cf. Maslov's unexplained conten­ tion that prefixed imperfectives and their unprefixed

imperfective counterparts, e.g. oslabevat' and slabet'

'to weaken,' are not completely synonymous (Maslov,

1959, 176). A prefix adds some kind of structuring, and in setting literal or figurative boundaries for a

predication, can imply at least the notion of "for this

instance." The contention here is that verbs like

oslabevat' and slabet' are pictured somewhat differ­

ently on a cognitive level: the prefix o- highlights or

bounds the deep-case object. That effect — important

or not — is not inherent in the unprefixed form: but

the possibility of its being supplied by imagination is

not ruled out.

Consider also the example of the zapisat' 'to note

down,' 'to cover with writing,' 'to start writing'

homonyms. It is the same prefix za- in all of them.

The invariant meaning of the prefix is applied in

different circumstances, qualifying different things —

the roles of object and location are filled differently

within the same spatial framework. 55

NOTES

^The definition of verbs proposed here is not

formulated with familiar terms like process, state, action, etc., yet nonetheless is consonant with these

conventional notions, subsuming them under the broader generalization of "manifestations of energy." Action

words describe manifestations of kinetic energy, where­

as nonaction words (denoting, for example, states of

being) describe potential energy situations. The

universe is dynamic, the progression of time meters its

processes, and languages have labels for perceived

changes — cognizably different manifestations of

energy.

Langacker proposes a notional definition for the

grammatical category of verbs — one also based on

cognitive processing — which is compatible with my

definition. He argues that all verbs are characterized

by a basic underlying conceptualization schema, at the

core of which is the notion of "process," which in­

volves "a series of relational configurations that

necessarily extend through conceived time, and are

scanned sequentially;" he acknowledges, however, that

there is no direct proof for this claim (Langacker,

1987, 55, 75). 56

^In Russian, verb valences — how the manifestation

of energy is perceived --- correspond primarily to

(spatial) prefixes, but also to suffixes. (The nature

of the modification is adverbial.) Consider the dif­

ferent spatial perceptions which the prefixes mark in

'chesé ways of writing: pcdpisat ' = to sign', nadpisat •

'to inscribe', vypisat' 'to copy out', vpisat' 'to

insert (a word or phrase)', ispisat' 'to fill up with

writing'. The semelfactive (single-phase) suffix -nu-

also affords an example of how a manifestation of

energy is perceived: stuknut' 'to knock' (with emphasis

on a discrete instance of knocking).

^"Researchers who are looking at semantic systems across language families are concerned with identifying universal features and describing how these are struc­ tured into particular semantic systems. In this view, a particular language may have compulsory or partic­ ularly efficient ways of coding certain variables which other languages lack. Such language structures would suggest a cultural emphasis on these factors for which an ecological basis could be sought" (Denny, 1979, 97).

^Annette Herskovits assorts that there is

"a level of geometric conceptualization that mediates between the perception or mental images of scenes and language. Geometric descriptions are the result of these processes of geometric conceptualization and of metonymy ... the spatial objects we relate are mental constructions, geometric conceptualizations ... Certainly, the selections, approximations and idealizations that give rise to the geo­ metric descriptions are not strictly linguis- 57

tic: they are inherent in our spatial know­ ledge, implicit in the way we move in the world among and toward objects, in the way we interact with the objects; they may also play a role in perception" (Herskovits, 1985, 373).

^"Verbal prefixes, like prepositions, ultimately make reference to abstract delimitation, dimension, and direction, eliciting metaphorical interpretations of these notions in nonspatial universes" (Flier, 1975, 219) .

^Commenting on the multiple meaning approach,

Michael Flier states that

"such atomism ignores contextual concerns and discourages the search for the systemic inter­ relation of meaning types on both the intra- and interprefixal planes. It is tantamount to a mere listing of apparent homonyms. After Jakobson we will assume ceteris paribus that each préfixai morpheme is semiotically linked with an invariant meaning manifested as vari­ ants depending on syntactic and lexical en­ vironment" (Flier, 1975, 219).

^According to Mathiot, the notion of "underlying concept" makes possible the transition from semantic to cognitive analysis. The underlying concept "is pos­ tulated on the basis of the total range of meaning variation exhibited by the grammatical category under investigation" (Mathiot, 1979, 2).

g Case Grammar posits systems of deep-structure cases to describe the underlying semantic relations between a verb and the elements with which it 58 collocates to form predications. Deep cases are not necessarily the same as surface cases, which are lan­ guage-specific, primarily syntactic, devices. Differ­ ent deep-case roles may be activated in the same verb for different situations. For more on Case Grammar and the effect of context and deep-case structure on the interpretations ascribed to prefixes, see Appendix B.

9 In terms similar to those expressed here, Maturana discusses in detail the interaction of an organism with its environment; his conclusions allow him to make generalizations about the nature of language (Maturana,

1980, 8-11, 30-35).

^'^In my view the only possible argument in favor of the multiple meaning approach — a counterintuitive description of prefix homonyms — is its possible utility for beginning language learners. But how useful is such a description if a student has to guess at how to perfectivize a verb, when meanings are not adequately systematized? Without general rules (or solid explanations of the invariant or even core mean­ ing of prefixes), every individual verb must be memo­ rized as a separate lexical item. Despite this, I am not making an attempt here to propose an alternative method for teaching beginning levels of Russian. 59

^^Perhaps not incoincidentally/ there is a sizeable group of Polish verbs with the prefix za- associated with the concept of killing: zamordowaé 'to assassin­ ate,' zaboêc 'to gore to death,' zabid 'to slay,' zagZ^dzid 'to exterminate,' et al.

12 Another comparable dictionary (and now widely available in paperback), Katzner's English-Russian,

Russian-English Dictionary, offers the same information on po- as the Oxford■

^^Relying on such incomplete data will cause the student to miss nuances in verbs or situations. How will he come to feel the inceptive element in poexat'

•to drive off in some direction' if he is led to con­ clude that it is merely the perfective of exat* 'to go by conveyence'? Situations involving a succession of events (with verbs such as pootkryvat* 'to open a series of objects') or quantities (pobivat'/pobit' 'to kill a [large] quantity o f ) would not be interpreted as such, if this list were to be relied on exclusively.

The verb pootkryvat' could even logically be misinter­ preted as 'to keep opening.' 60

l^For inclusion here I selected the presentation in

the 1960 edition of the Academy of Sciences' Grammar,

because of the number of examples and what I found to be a more elegant organizational format than that appearing in the two subsequent editions — Grammatika

sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (1970) and Russkaja grammatika (1982). The 1960 edition groups verbs

prefixed with po- into three broad categories, dis­

cussing subcategories of each. The 1982 edition di­

vides verbs prefixed with po- into five types, without

reference to broader unifying principles. The latest

edition does offer some illustrative sentences, though,

and includes an updated note on the nacinatel'nost*

'incipience' meaning ascribed to determinate verbs of

motion prefixed with po-, viz., this nacinatel'nost'

meaning can be lost when the verbs are used in the past

tense (Russkaja grammatika, 1982, 367). This fact can

be taken as a proof that conditional meanings ascribed

to prefixes are only context-dependent readings that

are not inherent in the actual core meaning of a pre­

fix .

^^Students in particular must choose a meaning

without having any basis for their selection, or more

safely, relegate the new item to the status of 'perfec­

tive member of the verb pair.' The situation is 61 considerably more complicated when the student wishes to prefix a Russian verb and add to it some special nuance or 'meaning.' He is faced with a bewildering array of polysemous prefixes/ most of which coincide in some "meaning(s)" or other. Of course the prefixes are not synonymous. But they may appear so/ especially with randomly assigned "meanings." Prefixes indicating the commencement of an action are one example. The student must choose pc- or vz- or za-. (This is one case in which the beginning student can be given a rough explanation, such as: use po- with determinate verbs of motion, use za- elsewhere, and since vz- is not productive in that meaning, memorize the relatively small number of inceptive vz- verbs.) But what does one do with the far more numerous set of prefixes which indicate the completion of an action, or just serve to perfectivize the verb? This is a good argument against the so-called empty prefixes, which are neither ran­ domly assigned nor interchangeable.

^^In his book Semantic Transmutations: Prolegomena to a Calculus of Meaning, van Schooneveld discusses the

role of prepositions and prefixes in designating the

perceptual arrangement of a scene, e.g., the merger of

an object with a location or the configuration of 62 objects in or relative to some local feature (van

Schooneveld, 1978).

^"^In this analysis, therefore, the only true aspec­ tual pairs are those formed through imperfective suf­ fixation, e.g. brosat'/brosi t' 'to throw,' resat */ reëit' 'to decide,' and those consisting of a prefixed perfective and its secondary imperfective, e.g. upako- vat'/upakovyvat' 'to pack up.'

But even so simple a construct as this is not without its measure of controversy. The imperfective suffix can make the status of an aspectual pair doubt­ ful. Consider the preryvisto-smjagcitel'nyj sposob dejstvija (attenuative-intermissive Aktionsart) — po-...-yva- , e.g. pokaëlivat' 'to cough a bit from time to time.' IChether or not this verb is paired with pokaSljat' 'to cough a few times or over a certain time’ is a moot question, although the difference between them is due in large part, if not entirely, to the difference in aspect. CHAPTER II

COGNITIVE ABSTRACTION AND PREFIXATION

2.0. Unit Processing of Reality

Pythagoras claimed that all things are numbers, and in a certain sense this is true on an abstract level of the reality of our everyday lives. We measure, however imprecisely, weighing our words and our thoughts. We size up people, their capabilities and motives. Mean­ while time ticks by. Everything from a chemical reac­ tion to love can be chronicled in terms of its dura­ tion. We will assign a numerical value to any feature of our reality, which we organize into discrete units with a variety of hierarchical interrelationships. By far, everything seems to be built around the number one: thus the unit is basic to categorization, compre­ hension, and communication. And what is considered

'one' is conditioned by the perception of an individ­ ual. Reality thus broken down into successive units becomes manageable, facilitating recognition and remem­ brance, serving an individual's interests. An individ­ ual can store, process, and use information in discrete

units or summed up into a larger unit. The unit is

63 64 efficient and convenient, connecting the poles of precision and generalization.

Reality is refracted through the prism of an indi­ vidual's perception, needs, desires, and socio-cultural milieu, and finds expression in language. Differences and distortions are to be expected, but who can rightly judge the absolute Reality? Each individual in his own context formulates his own interpretations relative to his context and himself. An individual understands and interacts with reality in terms of his mental represen­ tation of it; this, then, is the cognitive process of dividing reality up into distinctive units. A series of different objects encountered or a sequence of events all have relative positions and are subject to spatial ordering on the cognitive level as well; events and objects can be grouped or broken down into units which make a meaningful difference.

Spatial features demarcate units in a cognitive scene. Prepositions and prefixes, as spatial manipu­ lators, are convenient tools in the unit categorization process. Prepositions set up unit location scenes: udarit* po ro2e 'to sock someone in the puss,' polozit'

V Zemodan 'to put into a suitcase.' Verbal prefixes label events, i.e., create unit status by pointing to the relative inception of an action, e.g.. On vskoSil i pomcalcja k domu 'He jumped to his feet and rushed to 65 the house/’ an endpoint/ e.g. Muzej postroili za pol- tora goda 'The museum was built in a year and a half/' a set of actions quantified/ e.g./ Poezdila ona za svoju zizn' 'She spent her life traveling/' and by marking off single actions/ e.g. popytat'sj a 'to try

(in a given instance)/' poprosit' 'to ask (in an indi­ vidual instance)/' pozvonit' 'to get hold of by phone'

(making punctual contact). Because a prefix specifies some boundary/ it always marks off cognitive units as

it imposes its own perceptual format/ thus making events processable. In marking off single unit ac­

tions/ a prefix subsumes the meaning of perfectivity — situation-specific relevance or unitizing/ or as

Isacenko formulates it — marking an action as an entire/ closed event (celostnoe, somknutoe sobytie)

(IsacenkO/ 1960/ 173). In all these examples with po-/ note the close association of the prefix with the concept of punctuality: some point in physical space or on a time line is marked off in each predication with a

po- verb.l

2.1. Cognition and Language

Cognition involves mapping reality — mentally modelling it for the purpose of orienting oneself in a world of possibilities. Hence cognition inherently

involves modelling spatial relations; what is more/ 66 these relations and events within an observer's cognitive domain — the set of all observable inter­ actions — are perceived from the reference point of the observer, i.e., all locations are relative in a cognitive scenario — the cognitive representation of a predication complete with its locational features (cf.

Maturana, 1980, 8, 136). Cognition is largely a func­ tion of expectation: stimuli evoke representation models, and perception is tied to pattern recognition

(de Mey, 1902, 16-17). These facts have implications about the nature and function of Russian verbal pre­ fixes as structures that mark off ways of cognizing predications.

Entities are defined with reference to something from which they can be distinguished; the observer himself is the ultimate reference for a description of whatever he observes, including himself (Maturana,

1980, 8). Thus, inherent in the biological phenomenon of cognition is a principle of comparison which in­ volves the spatial representation of relative posi­ tions.

Human cognitive processes have language correlates; descriptions of predications correspond to one’s cogni­

tive awareness of energy patterns and the observed

interactions of entities. Language functions as a means of orienting an individual within a cognitive 67 domain (Maturana, 1980, 30). Language itself is a consensual domain which conventionally codes and labels divisions of reality, and in so doing provides a frame­ work for communication. Since cognition is a relative

process, the function of language is not to point to

independent entities (Maturana, 1980, 30). Any state­ ment is relative; nothing is purely denotational. Some

reference is needed for comparision, location is a

relative concept, and even time is relative. Along

with this the roles of apperception and template match­

ing are important in the orientation process.

We fit into a spatial environment, interact with

entities, events, and perform physical and mental manipulations. In projecting our interactions we

employ spatial reasoning. In receiving a sequence of

communicative descriptions, we perform a sequence of

successive orientations within our cognitive domains^

(Maturana, 1980, 33). Daily life is organized into

spatial abstractions, and a spatial organization prin­

ciple predominates when we set up hierarchical cate­

gories, when we get involved in interactions that have

underlying spatial representations (such as tossing a

coin or going to a market), and when we make value

judgements. We use some system of spatial analysis and 6 8 relative positions in dealing with reality. There is scientific evidence for this assertion. (See Appendix

C.)

2.2. A Cognitive Model for Prefixes

The Russian system of verbal prefixation is best analyzed from a cognitive point of view, for mental processes and abstractions are encoded in terras of everyday experience, and spatial metaphors, based on environmental features and perceptions of the environ­ ment, are employed to round out, complete, or modify a predication. (Consider, for example, the role of prepositions, especially in fleshing out background information.) According to Marc de Mey, a proponent of cognitivism, the cognitive view is based on the prin­ ciple that

any form of information processing, whether natural or artificial, requires a device that has in some way or another, an internal model or representation of the environment in which it operates. (de Mey, 1982, XV)

The Russian language has its own unique perception of reality, or world view, part of which involves the use of verbal prefixes to describe, color, or flavor — more exactly, to encode — a predication within the parameters of exactitude of which the language is capable or which it requires. Encoded in a verbal prefix is a spatial abstraction which makes a 69 meaningful difference in the language, when viewed as a component of the set of all verbal prefixes. This is similar to the notion of the phoneme; here we are dealing with language-specific "cognemes."^

Verbal prefixes play a particular role in repre­ senting knowledge, i.e., in this case, facts about events or situations as seen through the eyes of a

Russian. In general, prefixes (as well as preposi­

tions) offer ways of specifying an object and its location or indicate spatial arrangements, i.e., serve as a means of orientation in cognitive space. From studies done by Handel, DeSoto, and London (Handel,

1968) , and Cooper and Shepard (Cooper, 1984) , it is evident that we fill our cognitive space with actual spatial representations of physical reality and use

them as tools for understanding abstract concepts that do not necessarily have physical correlates. In other words, we use what we intuitively know about geometry

to represent and, understand situations in which the geometric organization itself is not of paramount

importance.

The ultimate connection between spatial modelling

and cognition implies the existence of spatial markers.

In Russian these spatial markers find one means of

expression in verbal prefixes, which play an important

role in setting up the cognitive geometry of 70 predications. Every prefix imposes a unique cognitive structure on a scenario: it sets a cognitive boundary, determines the location of an object, and entails particular spatial representations — from spatial abstractions to implied geometric features or rela­ tions. A verbal prefix contains implications about the cognitive representation of an object (punctual or three-dimensional} as well as its location (within the same plane, relative to a plane, relative to some barrier, or unmarked with respect to other features).

The mind has the capability of representing a three-dimensional object, visualizing it as a three- dimensional form. But in a communicative situation, especially involving a series of event descriptions, of many objects in various configurations, it may not be convenient to do so, considering the normal speed at which coherent speech is produced, heard, and decoded.

Representing every three-dimensional object and three- dimensional relation in a predication, not to mention a

string of quickly produced predications, would require an immense amount of concentration and attention to

details — details that probably would not be essential

or even marginally useful in supporting the meaning of

a message and that would be cumbersome and time-con­

suming to encode and decode, perhaps detracting from

the central import of a message. Too much information 71

at one time could be counterproductive to the goals of

communication and actually could hinder the decipher­ ment of a message. This would undermine the function

of language to orient a listener (message recipient).

From Handel/ De SotO/ and London's study on the use

of spatial organization in ratiocination (Handel/

1968)/ it is clear that we latch on to spatial abstrac­

tions/ finding them to be useful tools in the interpre­

tation of reality- It is therefore likely for spatial

abstractions to be employed in cognitive represen­

tations of predications. It is easy and convenient to

employ abstractions that provide orientation references

and serve as communication shorthand.

Verbal prefixes are such spatial abstractions/

forming cognitive frameworks for predications/ and

setting up a quickly interpretable scenario. A verbal

prefix lends shape and manageability to a predication/

while at the same time representing it as a unit in a

certain way. In addition to two-dimensional (e.g.

planes) and three-dimensional representations/ the

cognitive model of a predication can have these geomet­

ric components: points/ lines/ vectors (remember that

motion is part of the cognitive domain)/ and various

kinds of barriers which represent physical or psycho­

logical limits.^ The relevant model is conditioned by

the choice of prefix. A prefix even contains 72 presuppositions about scenario features to which there may be no direct reference in the surface utterance/ but are nonethelsss an implicit part of the cognitive scenery. A simple statement like On vyâel 'He stepped out/ he came out/' for example/ abstractly contains a vector (to represent the motion) and some stopping point relative to a source location which either now forms a backdrop for the deep-case object — 'he came out (to see us)/' or forms a barrier obscuring the new location of the deep-case object — 'he stepped out (of the room and went down the hall).' In either case vy- implies some geometric feature to which the new loca­ tion of the deep-case object is relative,- but with which it no longer has connection. Ke can orient the deep-case object in our cognitive space — and also can orient ourselves with respect to it.

The amount of geometric information communicated by a prefix/ despite its abstractness and simplification/ makes it difficult to describe the cognitive structure of each prefix; one must abstract a core spatial con­ struct.

2.3. The Concept of 'Focus*

We cannot concentrate on all the features of a scenario at once; we select one feature or one part/ section of a scenario upon which to focus our 73 attention. We size up a situation and choose to focus on whatever we deem to have the greatest relative importance.

Spatial organization in the cognitive domain is a matter of relative positions. Using reference markers we set up an orientation; the extent to which we can determine this orientation also conditions the relative salience of an object or its spatial arrangement.

Salience is the degree to which the relatively impor­ tant information stands out, marking a new orientation.

Actions are cognitively represented from the point of view of an observer or imaginer (code receiver/ interpreter); in this cognitive representation a fea­ ture or part of the scenario is highlighted. This is the concept of 'focus' - the center of attention in a predication and the area of greatest psychological or cognitive impact.

Different prefixes provide different types of focus, especially since they contain different presup­ positions about scenario features, i.e., use different reference markers in setting up the cognitive represen­ tation of an action.

In the early decades of the twentieth century, two scholars, Gunnar Skans and Sigurd Agrell, observed this phenomenon in Slavic prefixed verbs, but did not use the term 'focus.' Their observations are noted below; 74

extended interpretations have been added. From their

observations one can deduce that the focus of a predi­

cation is a function of how the deep-case object is re­

presented in a cognitive location or with respect to a

location which the verbal prefix hints at (i.e., the

configuration of deep-case roles). Préfixai presuppo­

sitions about location (concurrent or immediately

prior) narrow the focus.

2.3.1. Skans

Some verbs, which differ only in their choice of

prefix, are apparently synonymous (e.g. stemnet',

potemnet* 'to get dark’). These prefixes are not

purely perfectivizing, but actually reflect nuances in

the speaker's perception or attitude. Explaining the apparent synonymy of such verbs, Skans states

es müssen, wo ein Verbum mit verschiedenen entlokalisierten Prafixen perfektiviert wird, die Perfektivierungen feine Unterschiede besitzen, die sich schwer definieren lassen und deshalb gewohnlich unbeachtet bleiben. (Skans, 1932, 439)

In trying to get at the subtle meaning differences introduced by verbal prefixes we are dealing with a subliminal level and subjective attitudes; it is a question of morphemes and their nuances, which do not lend themselves easily to expression in words or full sentences. Geometric arrangement or feature 75 highlighting is perceived/ intuited/ comprehended/ but seems to remain expressible only on this sub-word level/ through the choice of spatial indicators (pre­ fixes/ prepositions, adverbs). Native speakers of

Slavic languages who consider any two or more verbs having the same lexical base but different prefixes synonymous are overlooking the fact that they know when to use which verb — without thinking about it.

To support his prefix nuance theory, Skans conduc­ ted a survey of educated native speakers of Czech in which the informants were asked to supply an appro­ priate verbal prefix in four different contexts using the same verb, konciti 'to end' (Skans, 1932). The result was a statistically significant grouping or separation of possible prefixes according to context and the informant's perspective or point of view con­ cerning the context. Prefix choice correlated with a certain natural salience of a feature of each context.

The relevant criteria for prefix choice were: 1) empha­ sis on the local meaning of the prefix for the action, and 2) relative importance of or focus on the subject

(Aktivitat, Passivitat beim Subjekt) (Skans, 1932,

440).^ Skans's criteria correlate well with the gen­ eral notion of 'focus.* The possibility of manipu­ lating situation focus is not discounted; it is inter­ esting to note that in addition to stressing the 76 difficulty in establishing the shades of meaning intro­ duced by prefixes for describing situations, Skans leaves much up to the personal preference of the speak­ er for use or selection of a prefix (Skans, 1932, 444).

The notions of attitude of the narrator/observer or participant/observer, point of view, drawing attention to or putting emphasis on some feature of the cognitive domain, and spatial representation of events are all compatible in a cognitive view. And all are integral parts of a cognitive model of verbal prefixes.

2.3.2. Agrell

The information which a prefix adds when perfec­ tivizing a verb essentially highlights spatial features of the situation being described, implying a certain kind of scenario from, in, or to which the action or state proceeds. (Keep in mind the proposed spatial model of encoding and decoding reality, and hence, abstractions.) Agrell shows how various implications result when the perfectivizing prefix of a verb is changed, although the prefixes themselves add no par­ ticularly new meaning to the verb (Agrell, 1908, 2).

He lists the following four Polish sentences with the verb koficzyd 'to end' and explains how they differ in the contexts that the prefixes imply (i.e., the pre­ fixes contain presuppositions about scenario features). 77

Each of these sentences can be translated roughly as

'he finished his work at home.'

1. Ukonczyl swoj^, prace w domu. 2. Dokonczyl swojej pracy w domu. 3. Zakonczyl swoj^ prace w domu. 4. Skonczyl swoj^ prace w domu.

In (1) the student most likely worked only at home.

The prefix do- in (2) implies that the beginning of the work was done elsewhere, for example, in school, and the rest was done at home. (Note the partitive geni­ tive complement.) The verb zakonczyd in (3) is inter­ preted to mean that the beginning and bulk of the work were done elsewhere, and only the very end of it — the finishing touches — was done at home. Agrell refers to these nuances as Aktionsarten 'modes of verbal action' (sposoby glagol'nogo dejstvija), signifying how the action is completed. From this it is possible to generalize that verbal prefixes are adverbial modi­ fiers. Agrell does not pursue this line of reasoning that far. He states that in example (4), there is no particular Aktionsart; the prefix s- just makes the action perfective (Agrell, 1908, 3-4).

The question which then arises, and is never tackled, is why s-? Why does it seem that _s- adds no special nuance to the context, but just creates a perfective verb? Is it lexically empty? The choice of prefix is not random. Other prefixes can be "empty," 78 too: as such they are not just isolated whims in Slavic languages.

Although Agrell does not state it explicitly, the distinctions that he draws in these four cases are based on location, with implied old and new locations according to the prefix involved. In other words, a certain spatial geometry is implied when using a verbal prefix, and this is especially apparent when there is a choice of prefix which allows contrasting nuances to be brought out. This all has an impact on non-Slavs working with Slavic languages. What one says contains implications for what is expected in the message and how it is interpreted. It is also easy to miss the nuance of a prefix when dictionaries define differently prefixed verbs the same way. The problem is not one of radically altered meaning; it is one of getting the flavor of the subtext.6

2.4. Brief Summary of Prefixes as Cognitive

Abstractions

In providing the skeletal framework of a cognitive scenario (the types of spatial arrangements or spatial metaphors used to represent unit occurrences of a manifestation of energy), verbal prefixes are a means of orienting an action, fitting it into the cognitive space of the orientee. As was shown earlier, extra 79 reference points facilitate interpretation. In fact/ prefixes do not just mark reference points; they pro­ vide some kind of shape — more exactly/ a spatial representation — for the context. Thus they serve as cues for organizing/ at least partially/ the data of a situation.

A cognitive model of prefixes accounts for the various ways of representing/ demarcating/ and unitiz­ ing actions. It avoids the denotative approach of assigning meanings to prefixes; instead it specifies prefix meaning as a construct — a spatial abstraction

(albeit hard to define) which forms the skeletal frame­ work of the cognitive representation of a predication.7 80

NOTES

^The unit actions represented by the verbs po- stroit*, poezdit', pozvonit' etc. can all be visualized as line segment-type units — sections on a time line or vectors with a contact point (thus also a line segment), with concentration or focus on some endpoint or goal. This notion of relational punctuality or line segment effect will be explored more fully later on, especially in Chapters IV and V.

2 Maturana defines cognitive domain as "the domain of all the interactions in which an autopoietic system can enter without loss of identity" (Maturana/ 1980/

136). Thus the cognitive domain is our internal repre­ sentation of reality/ containing a complete/ self- referential system of orientation. This is the sense in which the term 'cognitive domain' is used in this work.

^Incidentally/ one must not assume total semantic overlap of cognate prefixes in Slavic languages.

^According to Annette HerskovitS/ one type of geometric description 81

"involves viewing or conceptualizing an object as a point/ a line/ a surface/ or a strip — in other words as some simple geometric fig­ ure. So in;

the village on the road to London

the village is viewed as a point/ and the road as a line. Or in:

The top of the cloud cover is at 3000 feet.

the top of the cloud cover is viewed as a horizontal plane/ by some process of approx­ imation." (HerskovitS/ 1985/ 349).

SThis is analogous to a Case Grammar analysis showing the connection between prefix and deep-case object.

^One can draw parallels between Agrell's

Aktionsarten categories (he distinguishes 20) and cognitive scenarios: a certain scene calls for a cer­ tain prefix. It follows from Agrell's study that

Slavic languages have at their disposal the means

(i.e./ prefix formants) to distinguish different foci of cognitive impact/ as well as to make presuppositions about the cognitive (and even physical) background of a scenario or the immediately preceding scenario. In connection with this it is interesting to note that

Agrell devised schemata to represent his Aktionsarten categories employing points/ line segments/ and vec­ tors/ in which he indicated scenario boundaries and the 82 relevance of a particular prefix framework to another scenario (Agrell, 1908, 82).

^No attempt is made here to provide a description of the cognitive structure of every Russian prefix.

Descriptions, in any case, are elusive, since we are dealing with abstract predication templates, but with insight into spatial abstraction, descriptions can be formulated for all of them. CHAPTER III

THE COGNITIVE MODEL OF PO-

3.0. Spatial Markers and Cognitive Space

The cognitive environment consists of geometric abstractions and organizational principles for relating pieces of information. This environment is arranged around an observer, who can perceive what is in front of him and above ground easily and directly, but who does not have easy, direct access to information behind him or under him. This creates a binary division in the cognitive domain — a positive half in which the elements of reality have form, substance, and immediate salience, and a nonpositive half, which of necessity employs a higher degree of abstraction. In the non­ positive cognitive domain there is less visualization and less possibility for visualization; immediate

saliency is, by definition, not part of the picture.

It is logical for the human mind to associate other

concepts, such as value judgements, with one of the

halves of the cognitive domain. The spatially meta­

phorical adjective 'upright' is one example: 'big' and

'best' also have associations with the positive cogni­

tive domain.

83 84

Language is modelled on the perception of spatial conditions and employs extended spatial metaphors. The interaction of our particular human anatomy with the environment determines our perception; we are bipedal units which look forward and move forward with respect to a natural plane of reference — ground level (Clark,

1973, 28-34). Clark proposes that our biological make­ up determines our cognitive development, and offers this as an explanation for Chomsky's mysterious Lan­ guage Acquisition Device (Clark, 1973, 27-28). A child learns to apply language (spatial labels) to what Clark calls a perceptual space or P-space that has a priori biological constraints, i.e., the cognitive domain.

It is necessary to take human biology into account

in discussing cognition. The way we orient ourselves

in our environment is a direct function of our biologi­ cal arrangement. As a result of the nature of our bodies, we develop the fundamental notions of up/dcwn,

front/back, and left/right. We use these notions in an

intuitive Cartesian coordinate system (an arrangement

of X, y , and z axes with positive and negative direc­

tions) to locate objects and ourselves with respect to

some reference point (of. Clark, 1973, 31, 32).

Clark develops the notions of naturally positive

and negative cognitive space, relating them to the

interaction of our biology with the environment. 85

The human perceptual apparatus naturally defines three planes of reference (Clark, 1973, 33, 34). One of these is a vertical plane of symmetry separating right and left, according to our bodies' natural bi­ lateral symmetry. Since our senses are most sensitive to stimulation in the front of the body, our perception also defines a vertical plane of asymmetry running through the body dividing front and back. The third plane of reference is the horizontal plane at ground level, which is also a plane of asymmetry.

Clark proposes that directions away from the two planes of asymmetry are naturally positive or negative

(Clark, 1973, 33). Setting up a zero reference point is an orientation aid. Clark defines 'positive* as the presence of something and 'negative' as the absence.

What lies in front of the vertical plane is easily perceptible, and what lies behind it is not: moveover, forward is the characteristic direction in which humans move. Therefore objects in front lie in the positive cognitive domain, and those in back are in the negative domain. Objects above the horizontal plane of ground level are normally visible, touchable, audible, etc., whereas objects below ground level are not. Therefore upward is a naturally positive direction, and downward is a naturally negative one. The directions right and 86 left have no inherent biological connection with posi­ tive and negative values (Clark, 1973, 33-35).

The notions of positive and negative cognitive domains are applicable to the prepositions and prefixes which define spatial relations with respect to either a vertical (up/down) axis or a horizontal (front/back) 1 axis.

3.1. Po- and Geometric Conceptualization: Points and

Line Segments

Po- marks relations in the nonpositive cognitive domain. This is no surprise, considering the prefix's high degree of abstraction. Po- employs punctual ab­ stractions in every predication in which it occurs. It puts predications in a one-dimensional framework.

The prefix po- employs punctual abstraction in relating elements in a cognitive scenario. Po-'s domain of operation is a horizontal plane — a cogni­

tive correlate of ground level or a plane roughly

parallel with it. Other elements in the scenario can

be seen relative to this plane. These elements can be

seen to lie in vertical planes which intersect (make 2 contact with) the horizontal plane. The intersection

of the horizontal plane with a vertical planar surface

produces a line: the intersection of a vector within 87 one of the planes with the other plane produces a point.

Here are a few examples of the punctuality of po- and its line segment cognitive representations:

1. Action within the ground level plane.

Lejtenant poxodil po komnate.

The room defines the limits of a series of linear movements. A time factor is also being measured. Keep in mind that the Russian cognitive process treats time as a spatial metaphor. Po-, in summing up a series of line segment motions, marks off a segment of a time line.

2. Punctuated line segments.

Ona poSla po komnatam, ne znaja, 5to teper' delat* s soboj.

In connecting the deep-case object (ona) with several locations, the pojti po combination creates a series of line segments, the endpoints of which are the points of contact of the deep-case object and the rooms. The deep-case object is a moving vertical line segment making surface contact with the horizontal plane.

3. Vector in horizontal plane intersects something

in a vertical plane.

Nata^a poexala v muzej. 88

The action takes place linearly within the horizontal plane; the arrow of the vector makes punctual contact with an object with vertical dimensions outside the observer's (immediate) positive cognitive domain.

4. Measuring qualities.

Pri etix slovax glaza u nee potuskneli.

Po-, taking a measure along the horizontal plane, marks off a line segment (a linear quantification of the

quality of dullness or dimness), and applies this

(figuratively) to the vertical plane which it inter­

sects, i.e., the person through whom the vertical plane runs. The one-dimensional comparison marks the before and after difference of one feature or quality.

5. Measuring quantities, effects.

Razumnye dovody poAatnuli ego ubeZdenija.

The horizontal plane marks an all-inclusive line

segment as it intersects the metaphorically vertical

convictions. This is similar to (4): po- defines an

extent or scope over which a perceived difference in a

feature is manifested.

6. Measuring off change in location.

V sleduju25ij mig jal5ik s xudoZnikom byli uze V more, kotoroe srazu ie poglotilo ix. (Gurova, 1980, 239) 89

The role of the nonpositive cognitive domain is obvious here; the objects are out of the range of the observer

(and are thus reduced to punctual abstractions). Note that this effect of down, out of sight, is the result of the vertical plane entering the horizontal plane.

This is true of po- predications with cardinal verti­ cals and a cardinal horizontal surface, even when these relations are turned 90 degrees on the cognitive level:

Vy zametili, kapitan, cto oni srazu pcsli ko dnu? (Gurova, 1980, 239)

Sinking involves punctual contact with the surface of the water, and disappearing beneath its surface into nonrepresentation — the nonpositive cognitive domain.

But the cardinal horizontal surface of the water cor­ responds to a cognitive "vertical" plane — a boundary of the nonpositive domain.

7. Quantification of time and physical substances.

Posmejalis' , poveselilis*, popili samogonu.

The verbs posmejat'sja 'to laugh a bit' and povesel- it'sja 'to make merry' have inherent time lines as they take place within the horizontal plane. Po- quantifies or measures the actions linearly. Similarly, po- makes a relative measurement of the quantity of booze ingest­ ed (entering the nonpositive cognitive domain). Po- 90

denotes a one-dimensional quantification, whether of

some or of all the substance present in the time frame

of the predication, thereby also having temporal cor­

relations and the possibility of a linear cognitive

representation.

8. Punctual contact and line segment measurement.

-Lilja, - govorit ona glubokim grudnym golosom i podaet mne gorjacuju, malen'kuju ruku. Ja ostorozno beru ee ruku, poZimaju i otpuskaju. (Kazakov, 1985, 42).

Po- unitizes actions by quantifying their scope physi­

cally or temporally. It delimits the vector inherent

in podat' 'to hold out to', and takes a linear measure

of the hand with pozimat' 'to squeeze.' The act of

squeezing takes place in a certain time frame, and po-

also measures this time linearly. The hand-to-hand

contact is cognitively punctual.

Not all possible scenario types with po- have been

examined here, but the sampling is sufficient to demon­

strate the semantic invariant of po-: the cognitive

linear structuring of events, the representation of which is conditioned by the prefix's association with

the nonpositive cognitive domain. Po- relates the concepts of punctuality, measurement, quantification, comparison, seriality, and completion, employing the 91

simple construct of a relativizing point coplanar with

the state or action, i.e., indicating intersection with

the horizontal plane at one point or along a set of

points.

The distinctive meaning of po- is part of a system

of contrasts of spatial markers — prepositions and

prefixes — involving geometric relations and repre­

sentations, including the binary division of the cogni­

tive domain into positive and nonpositive halves.

Etymology and internal reconstruction also can be aids

in revealing the interrelationships of Russian spatial markers.

Understanding the relations involved in the concept of 'after' — associated with etymologically related

forms of po- as well as with the Russian preposition po when followed by the locative case — is helpful in establishing a cognitive model of po-. The concept of

'after' involves setting up a comparison. A temporal comparison is done over a time line, with relative positions for early/late, beginning/end. Comparisons of spatial features are done feature by feature, from A to B, thereby incorporating directionality and a linear construct. Thus, comparison is, by its nature as a cognitive process, linear. Comparison involves some type of linear representation or relation on the cog­ nitive level. 92

In Russian, when the directionality of the line is

marked or conditioned by context, the notion of goal

becomes prominent. Consider the verbal prefix po- in

these verbs: poslat* 'to send,' poexat' 'to drive off

in some direction,’ pozvat' 'to call (over to some­

one).' Directionality is an essential component of

each of these verbs; po- is compatible with this as it

sets up some comparison with an immediately preceding 4 scenario, i.e., creates event status.

3.2. The Po - Na Axis

The opposition between po/po- and na/na- provides evidence for po-* s being a spatial marker of the non­ positive cognitive domain. The relationships between po/po- and na/na- may not be obvious at first. But it is upon this relationship that the opposition between pod/pod- 'below, under' and nad/nad- 'above, over' is built. The three-dimensionality of these two spatial markers — 'below' and 'above' — makes it easy to visualize the contrasting locations with respect to some abstract horizontal plane. The formant -d" speci­ fies the addition of a point not coplanar with the plane of reference, thus indicating a relative position and setting up a three-dimensional scenario. Whatever the origin of -d", its effect as a three-dimensional- izer is unquestionable: pod, nad, and pered 'before, in 93

front of* have analogues in po, ria, and pere-. The proposed etymology for pod, nad, and pered (cf.

Preobrazhensky, 1951, 240; Pokorny, 1959, 40; Vasmer,

III, 1971, 37) is logical not only from the point of view of adding a formant; it is logical from a cogni­

tive point of view as well, which can be shown schemat­

ically.

( + )

nad

(-) za pered (+)

pod

(-)

The concepts, of 'above,' 'below,' 'front,' and

'back' all collocate with the instrumental case in

Russian in describing the static, relativized location

of an object. When motion is involved, the case re­

quired by the prepositions directly correlates with

whether the preposition focuses in on the positive or

nonpositive cognitive domain. 'Above' and 'in front 94 o f are part of the positive cognitive domain: 'below' and 'behind* are part of the nonpositive domain, since generally they modify things that the observer cannot perceive directly, e.g., byt' za uglom 'to be around the corner' and byt' pod zaborom 'to be under the fence.' When one uses £a or pod with motion, one is marking a transition from the positive cognitive domain to the nonpositive cognitive domain, thus initiating a change from the instrumental to the accusative case.^

Vor zabezal ^ ugol i byl takov.

Plennik podpolz pod zabor i ubeZal.

But motion remains within the positive cognitive domain with nad and pered, thus occasioning no shift in the case which the prepositions require.

Solnce podnjalos'/stojalo vysoko nad gorami.

Pered nim vyrosla/stojala temnaja figura.

In the above schematic representation, the inter­ section of the vertical and horizontal axes is a zero reference point — a canonical position for an observer who orients himself with respect to up/down and front/ back. Taken coplanarly, the two axes define the plane of symmetry which runs through the observer, dividing him into right and left halves. Viewed as cross-sec­ tions of planes, the vertical axis defines the plane of 95 asymmetry separating front and back, and the horizontal axis marks the horizontal plane. (The horizontal plane does not necessarily correspond to ground level, but is at least parallel with it, generally corresponding to some reference plane at eye level or lower.)

The spatial markers £a and pered mark an extra reference point with respect to the observer's vertical plane of asymmetry, either behind it or in front of it.

Nad and pod mark an extra point either above or below the observer's horizontal plane of reference. The instrumental case following these prepositions marks a three-dimensional arrangement.^ The Russian instru­ mental case always focuses on at least two objects or conditions at the same time, thereby usually setting up a three-dimensional cognitive representation.

At any rate, etymological evidence points to the

Indo-European source of go as a spatial marker of the nonpositive cognitive domain.^ On the other hand, n a , like nad, marks relations in the positive cognitive domain. and go differ primarily in the prominence which they give to the object that they relate to some location which normally has a planar abstraction, describes the prominence of an object within the cogni­ tive domain; the object stands out with respect to a cognitive planar surface. Na/na- and nad/nad- describe 95

relations with surfaces, tops of locations, and the naturally directly perceived upper world — the posi­

tive cognitive domain. Since both of these spatial markers focus on the positive cognitive domain, it is not surprising that there are a few instances when the verbal prefixes na- and nad- are confused, e.g., na- bavit' and nadbavit' 'to add to' and nastavit' and nadstavit' 'to lengthen (a garment)' (cf. Karcevski,

1927, 75).

Po/po- is not marked for the positive cognitive do­ main; it is used to indicate a lack of cognitive promi­ nence. This lack of cognitive prominence can imply punctual contact, even temporal punctuality (i.e., very short duration), one-dimensional relations with regard to a surface, a series of linear movements, etc. This is in stark contrast to na/na-, which implies a surface area against which an object stands out. Since na/na- marks relations in the positive cognitive domain, it makes objects show up well, gives them form, substance, or even marks a cognitively prominent quantity. Con­ trast, for example, the nouns naslednik 'heir' and posledovatel' 'follower.' The heir exists in the positive cognitive domain, the material world of the living; in general, one can visualize a transfer of property into his positive domain. But a follower 97

stands in some relation to a leader; the leader has cognitive prominence/ the follower is in his shadow,

i.e., not directly part of an observer’s positive cognitive domain.

Consider the representation of the relations be­

tween object and location in these phrases:

(1) udarit* kulakom po stolu 'to bang one’s fist on a table’

(2) postavit’ vazu na stol 'to put a vase on a table'

Brief punctual contact characterizes (1). The object

is prominent with regard to the surface area in (2).

3.2.1. Po- and Na-: Comparative versus Superlative

Relations

The fact that na- is more graphic and makes a

greater cognitive impact (i.e., is more intense) than

po- is apparent from its role as an intensifier in

adverbs such as nakrepko ’tightly,’ naskoro ’very

hastily’ and its role in forming the superlative degree

of adjectives and adverbs in the prefix nai- , e.g.,

naibol'si j 'the largest,’ naixudSij 'the worst,’ nai ta- ^ 9 lantlivejsij ’the most talented.’

In contrast, po- has less force, qualifying the

extent of a comparison in the comparative degree of

adjectives and adverbs, e.g., PotisoI ’Tone it down a 98 bit/' Oden*tes' poteplee 'Dress more warmly (than you are dressed now).'^® Remember that comparisons are essentially linear in nature# and that po-, having associations with the nonpositivs cognitive domain# does not provide fleshed out# three-dimensional repre­ sentations. In fact, although po- and na- can both depict relations involving an endpoint or a point of contact# na- marks the object's salience within the positive cognitive domain. In contradistinction to na-# po- forces a more abstract representation of an object and its relations — a point or a one-dimen­ sional unit generated through time or over a quantity of space (i.e.# a line segment) within a cognitive plane.

In Russian# a po- comparative involves the linear operation of 'repeat seme and quantify.' The linear arrangement of two items or qualities does not provide a lot of material against wnich an object or quality can be salient. Na- implies a surface everything on top of which lies in the positive cognitive domain.

Superlative relations mark a position of prominence in the positive cognitive domain: in a cognitive hier­ archy# the superlative is on top in a vertical organ­ ization scheme.

The comparative principle holds true for po- as a verbal prefix as well. This is most easily seen with 99

deadjectival verbs: pobagrovet* 'to turn purple/'

poumnet' 'to become wiser/' popolnet; 'to put on

weight.' A comparison is made of a certain feature of

the deep-case object at some prior time and a later

time; one feature in the template-matching operation

does not match up and is duly noted. Po- marks off an

amount of the quality sufficient to make a perceptual

difference/ i.e./ to mark a perceived change. This

looks as though it reflects an intuitive understanding

of the quantum theory; po- takes a linear measure of

energy quanta.

Not only deadjectival verbs illustrate the compara­

tive principle. Consider the perfective verbs popu- drit'sja and napudrit'sja 'to powder one's face.' Both verbs mark a change from a before to an after condi­

tion. In popudrit'sja just enough powder is applied to note the change. In napudrit'sja this change is sali­ ent; the face is covered with powder and attention is on it.

3.2.2. The Decisive Difference: Association with the

Positive or Nonpositive Cognitive Domain

Essentially the contrast between £o- and na- comes down to a difference in focus in the cognitive domain.

This can be shown schematically as follows: 100

{+)

na-

(-) za- pere- (+)

po-

(-)

This diagram shows the interrelationships between four spatial markers in two cardinal cognitive planes of orientation: the horizontal plane of asymmetry and the vertical plane of asymmetry. This arrangement does not mark points noncoplanar with these planes. Arranging these spatial markers on a coordinate system reveals some interesting facts:

1. It accounts for the difference between verbs like napudrit* sja and popudrit* sja 'to powder one's face* in terms of a cognitive, vertical opposition and its attendant and even metaphorical implications.

2. It shows that inceptive actions of verbs pre­ fixed with za- and po- are outside the positive cogni­ tive domain. The goal with determinate verbs of motion is normally beyond the range of the observer — outside his positive cognitive domain, e.g., poexat* v Sibir* 101

'to go off to Siberia*. Za- indicates the absorption of an object in an activity or process; it is cogni­ tively closed off/ e.g./ Ona gor'ko zaplakala 'She began to weep bitterly'. The process continues/ but an endpoint in the positive domain is not marked.

3. It accounts for the shared role of po- and pere- in forming distributive verbs/ e.g./ Vse stul'ja polomali and Vse stul'ja perelomali 'the chairs were all broken one after the other.' Native speakers visualize more of the process of breaking with pere- lomat*; pere- is in the positive cognitive domain.

A prefix's natural association with a part of the cognitive domain explains the multiple meanings often ascribed to it. A clear example is the prefix na-, which according to Townsend has a physical-spatial meaning in najti 'to come upon/' a more abstract sense

in najti 'to find/' an undefined abstract meaning in nastojat' 'to insist/' and allegedly "a sense quite

remote from 'on'" in nadelat' 'to do in quantity'

(Townsend/ 1975/ 123). The splintered meanings of all

these verbs are traceable to scenarios in the positive

cognitive domain. The actions take place in the posi­

tive part of the cognitive horizontal plane. One

directly experiences what one comes across. Similarly/

when one finds an object/ it enters one's positive

cognitive domain. When one insists on something/ one 102 is forcefully maintaining one’s goals and intentions in the positive cognitive domain. The intentions are not hidden: they are brought out into the open. A spatial metaphor is at work here, but after all, cognition plays on spatial metaphors. Doing in quantity also creates an effect in the positive domain; its effects stand out relative to the cognitive horizontal plane.

Thus a cognitive model accounts for alleged multi­ ple meanings, providing a description of the template and focus of a prefix, thereby predicting possible uses for it — uses that have associations with a prefix’s part of the cognitive domain.

Contrasts between verbal prefixes also show up in terms of natural associations with either the positive or nonpositivc cognitive domain. Consider the verbs nazvat* ’to name’ and pozvat’ ’to call over to,’ both based on the same root, zvat’ ’to call.’ The object of nazvat’ , whether it is a street or a person, is immedi­ ately part of the positive cognitive domain. A person is walking evidence for his name. On a cognitive level, the object of nazvat’ is observed directly and is not abstracted to a point. But with pozvat’, the person being called is on the periphery of or outside the caller’s positive cognitive domain. The verb pozvat' communicates an attempt at (cognitive) punctual contact, an instance of calling for the purposes of a 103 given situation. The calling has a vectoral represen­ tation. Compare also the colloquial use of the verb pair nazyvat* sja/nazvat'sja in the sense of 'to invite oneself/' (as in nazvat'sja k komu-libo v gosti). This verb pair describes the forcing of one's presence into the positive cognitive domain of others. (In reality/ the "hosts" are forced to deal with the presence of these "guests" directly.)

In summary/ na- allows for three-dimensional repre­ sentations of objects in relation to the horizontal plane of the cognitive domain. This translates into cognitive prominence — the scenario is within the positive cognitive domain. The positive cognitive domain is associated with the concepts of relatively large size, relatively large quantities/ overtness/ up and forward/ and whole objects/entities. The nonposi­ tive cognitive domain correlates with the concepts of relatively smaller sizes and quantities (or at least of nonsalient cognitive representations of sizes or quan­ tities) / nonovertness/ nonpositive directions/ and partial objects/entities. The primary opposition/ however/ is one of overtness/nonovertness/ i.e./ the relative salience of the spatial representations. Na- sets up more salient representations than po-; na- has a graphic quality attributable to its being a spatial marker of the positive cognitive domain. 104

3.3. Po- and Punctuality

As a spatial marker of the nonpositive cognitive domain, po- precludes multifaceted or three-dimensional

imagery or representations of scenarios. It depicts essential relations, reduced to the geometric abstrac­

tions of points, line segments, and vectors. The nonpositive cognitive domain is relational, function­ ally serving the purposes of orientation, but not in the graphic or flashier way of the positive cognitive domain. Representations in the nonpositive cognitive domain characteristically lack dimensionality: detailed visualization is, by definition, outside the nonposi­ tive cognitive domain.

Po- involves cognitive representations of one dimension at a time. (Lines — sequences of points — are one-dimensional.) Thus po- can mark the comparison of one feature or quality at a point in time (a signi­ ficant perceptual difference is marked):

Ego razozlili do togo, 5to lico u nego po- bagrovelo.

Cvety pomerzli.

Po- also serves to limit or mark off the scope of a location, state, or action: 105

Ob"javlenija pome^^’ajutsja na poslednej stranice.

Pojfivem — uvidim.

Revisser po^util s tancorami pered vystup- leniem.

And when a base verb inherently involves change in location (i.e., motion at least is implied), po- marks a punctual contact:

Ja zvonil neskol'ko raz, i ni razu tuda ne popal.

Po- quantifies or measures off the motion of a vector.

Being essentially a relational point, as a cogni­ tive abstraction, po- marks line segment relations — points generated through time or space within the horizontal cognitive plane. Po- relates objects, locations, states, and qualities in a linear fashion.

3.4. The Invariant Cognitive Structure of a Po-

Scenario

The basic meaning of the verbal prefix po- is present in each of its contextual manifestations, irrespective of the interpretations that are attached to it because of the particular nature of a verb and context. The cognitive model of po- explains away multiple meaning analyses of the prefix by showing that a basic seme — a recursively applied cognitive 106 structure — runs through every predication involving po-/ and that these "meanings" are all the result of the application of the same cognitive formula to a set 12 of different situations.

The invariant features of a po- predication are:

1. The coplanar cognitive representation of events and entities. This plane can correspond to an actual surface, as with the verb posypat' 'to sprinkle.'

2. Relational punctuality and linearity. Re­ sets up line segment-type cognitive representations.

An observer or scenario participant may enact the motion of a vector several times, moving an object to a location within his horizontal cognitive plane, as with posypat*. In relating objects to objects, or objects to locations, po-'s framework is linear. Relations are point-to-point.

A similar analysis obtains with intranstitive verbs. Po- marks the endpoint in reaching a perceived energy change; it makes a unidimensional feature com­ parison over time, e.g., pokrasnet' 'to blush,' where it marks a noticeable change in color. Or it marks a deep-case object's relation to a location over time, measuring off a segment of the time line, e.g., posi- det' 'to sit a while.'

3. Po-'s association with the nonpositive cogni­ tive domain accounts for its feature of reduction of 107 graphic imagery. Three-dimensional representations are not part of a po- predication. Punctuality and the unidimensional representation of relations are charac­ teristic of po-.

Po- specifies a way of viewing a predication as a unit; it is a means of according a predication event status, correlating it with a particular cognitive representation — a line segment with end focus. The lack of dimensionality in focusing on a point without regard to other features within the plane of the predi­ cation accounts for the lack of salience in the cogni­

tive representations of predications with po-.

The use of line segment relations affords numerous ways of making measurements — a cognitive eyeballing or comparison of quantities. (Comparisons may be with other templates of experience, and thus may be external

to the immediate predication.) The linear framework of

po- can mark temporal delimitation (poigrat* 'to play

for a while,' povarit' 'not to cook too long') as well

as limited quantities of substances (pomazat' 'to

grease, to smear'). The amounts measured off by po-

are not necessarily small, e.g., poxodit' mncgo 'to do

a lot of walking.'

vrith some po- verbs, a large number of deep-case

objects can be affected; the event denoted by the verb 108 applies to them all equally/ and po- sums up a number of related events as one cognitive unit. Consider this example with poleZ' * to die in battle':

V boju poleglo mnogo soldat. (02egov/ 1972/ 507)

The cognitive horizontal plane is the scene for numer­ ous prostrate bodies (line segments too numerous to be accorded anything but punctual representation) which are subsumed under one grand image; the event is re­ corded as a unit. Another example of the distributive effect of po- is pobrosat' vse ve^ci 'to throw a whole set of things one after the other.' The action is extended serially to a number of objects/ and the line segment motions form a grand (punctuated) cognitive line segment/ with an emphatic endpoint.

Endpoints also presuppose line segments/ and verbs indicating completed actions such as pobrit' 'to shave' and pokonZit' 'to end’ involve implicit line segment measurements/ as does the verb polinjat' 'to fade' in which one can also see the unidimensional comparison of a quality.

Another type of quantification which po- marks is

that of limiting an action within its natural bound­ aries/ e.g./ po?imat* ple^ami 'to shrug one’s shoul­ ders.' The frame of one's body naturally limits the 109 extent of the action of shrugging. In this verb the linearity of the motion as well as the comparison feature of marking a change in the positioning of the shoulders can be seen.

Po- also marks off quantities in verbs of the

Attenuative-Intermissive Aktionsart (preryvisto- smjagcitel'nyj sposob dejstvija) like pogovarivat* ’to say repeatedly, to rumor,’ posvistyvat’ ’to do a bit of whistling from time to time.' These verbs denote discrete instances of an action over a limited period of time; the imperfective suffix in combination with po- creates individual discrete acts/events over the linear progression of time. Since po- quantifies or limits the extent to which some energy is manifested, these verbs may have an attenuative quality, but this is in no way inherent in the meaning of the prefix.

Compare the multiple linear movements of the verbs in this passage from the Russian translation of T.

Dreiser’s The Titan with the corresponding passage from the English original:

A Dzenni umil’no kosilas’ na nego, postukivala xvostikom po krovati i 5ut’-5ut’ posevelivala~ uxom. (Kurell, 1959, 26)

Jennie would be watching him out of the corner of one loving eye, her tail tap-tapping on the bed, her free ear going up and down. (Dreiser, 1914, 24) 110

Note the punctuated quality of the tapping against the

bed frame which the anaphoric preposition jgo accentu­

ates. Each linear motion, sideways or up and down, is

measured off.

Vectoral line segments always have a beginning

point, at least a temporal one, and when corresponding

directly to some physical reality, a spatial one as

well. The spatial measuring of the (vectoral) line

segment occurs with motion involving a change of loca­

tion. Actions of directed motion are inherently line­

ar, e.g., popadat' 'to happen upon,' poplyt* 'to sail

off.' The combination of po- and determinate verbs of

motion, e.g., pojti 'to start off on foot,' povesti 'to

start leading' often is associated with the inceptive

effect. In marking off a line segment, po- sets up the

route of a vector. The agent/object gets only so far

before he disappears from the observer's positive

cognitive domain: two points define a line, and po-

marks off a segment which defines the continuing direc­

tion of the vector, from a point zero (= observer's

reference point) to some point at the edge of the

positive cognitive domain. What is seen is the begin­ ning stage of a directed motion, hence the interpreta­

tion of nadalo dejstvija. The basis for this interpre­

tation is still a line segment. Ill

Vectors do reach goals in po- verbs like porazit'

'to strike; to affect,' pozvat' 'to call over to

someone,' pozvonit' 'to ring someone up,' pokuSat'sja

'to attempt,' after which point what happens to the cognitive representations is uncertain; things go only so far before they or their effects fade into the nonpositive cognitive domain. These verbs all show a point of contact, and the skeletal form of each of the actions that they denote is a vector.

Linearity is the basis of the cognitive principle for setting up comparisons. Po- marks the presence of a perceived distinctive quality category (the "suffi­ cient quantum of energy") or of an additional amount of a quality supposed to be present. Thus po- comments on a noted change brought about by a measured increase in some form of energy.

Za vremja bolezni devodka sil'no poxudela.

It is clear from this example that the change is mea­ sured over time. Time, a single dimension, can be seen to move linearly. In setting up a point-to-point mental association, po- produces a line segment rela­ tion, which measures off or quantifies. In this sense po- behaves no differently with verbs having an atten- uative sense such as pokurit' 'to do some smoking' and pozat' 'to squeeze a little.' The quantification 112 effect is the feature common to the verbs poxudet' 'to get thin' / pokurit * , and po2’at* . Po- views each verb in the same cognitive structure: it does not have different meanings/ as the Slovar' sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka would lead one to believe with its list of meaning categories. Deadjectival verbs like pobelet' 'to turn white' mark the termina­

tion of a process; attenuative verbs like po2at' 'to squeeze a little' mark short-lived actions or actions

for which high degrees of energy are not expended (cf. discussion in SSRLJa, 10/ 1960/ 10). What the Academy

Dictionary is doing is assigning meanings according to

the semantics of the base verb. Contrast these two sentences :

(1) Derev'ja pobeleli ot ineja.

(2) Proâîajas' s ljubimoj devu^koj/ junoëa pozal ej ruku.

The major contrast between pobelet' and poZat'

concerns the relative permanence of the effects denoted

by the verbs. In (1)/ the process denoted by pobeleli

resulted in a termination/ with a relevant effect. The

trees will continue to look white for some time/ up to

a point where another change can be noted. With po-

3fat' / the act of squeezing implies ultimate release:

this fact forms the contextual semantics within which 113 to interpret the verb. The act of holding a hand (2) cannot continue after release. This is merely common sense; the facts of everyday experience bear this out.

Therefore there is no difference between the meaning of po- in pobelet' and its meaning in pozat'. The single invariant meaning — a linear measurement of energy — is applied to two contexts, two special energy config­ urations making a meaningful difference in the speak­ er's reality.

This section has shown that multiple meaning anal­ yses of po- are conditioned by the semantics of the base verb or by contextual uses of a verb. All the various "meanings" fit into the essentially linear

framework of po-. A fundamental unidimensional rela­

tional formula underlies all predications with po-. 114

NOTES

^Internal reconstruction is helpful in making the interrelationships of these spatial markers obvious.

Section 3.2. supplies supporting evidence for thiS/

■employing internal reconstruction.

^For similar notions of cognitive geometry, see

Gallant, 1979, 54-55, and Flier, 1975, 219 ff.

^Investigating the etymologies of prepositions and prefixes can be instructive in determining their cog­ nitive structures. A comparison with related forms in other languages as well as with forms within the same language can put one on the right track to unraveling

the core spatial relations indicated by a particular preposition or prefix. Because of the development over

time of divergent, language-specific uses, it is soon apparent that spatial markers must not be examined in

isolation, but must be viewed within the context of a

language's system of spatial markers.

The etymology of po (preposition, verbal prefix,

and nominal prefix) can be traced to Indo-European *po

and *pos, which have other related Indo-European forms

such as *apo and its extended root form *apo-tero, from 115 which the English preposition 'after* ultimately is derived (Pokorny, 1959, 53-54, 841; Vasmer, III, 1971,

292-293). Except for an isolated example from Old

Church Slavonic, viz., opaky 'again,' Slavic languages drew on the forms with apheresis (Pokorny, 1959, 54).

This is true of the etymology of also, which goes back to *n5 — a related form of *ano' which the

English preposition 'on' is ultimately derived

(Pokorny, 1959, 39-40).

Indo-European *apo is the source of Latin ab 'away from' and German ab 'away from,' as well as the English preposition 'of (Pokorny, 1959, 53). Pokorny consid­ ers that the Russian preposition po 'after,' used with the locative case, is derived from *pos, from which

Latin post 'after' also is derived (Pokorny, 1959, 54,

841). The original s is preserved in Old Church Sla­ vonic pozd" 'late' and Russian pozdnij 'late' (Pokorny,

1959, 841; Vasmer, 1971, 303). Otherwise, Slavic po, as prefix and preposition, goes back to Indo-European

*po, as do po- in Latin positus 'put (past participle)'

and Hittite pi ‘over there' (Vasmer, 1971, 292).

Whatever the original meaning of the Indo-European

source, the daughter forms all preserve some sort of

one-dimensional spatial relation: they set up some sort

of comparison between physical or temporal locations.

The differences between the directions in which the 116 meanings developed can be reconciled. Common to each is some abstract vector of indeterminate length, with a difference in focus: source ('away from') versus goal

('over there'). From this, one can abstract that

Slavic po essentially marks off some line segment over distance (relating locations, objects) or over time

(relating states). Both £o the preposition and po- the verbal prefix are goal-oriented in Russian. They do not focus in on a source location, although that posi­ tion may be occupied by an observer/participant, as in

Ja postavil stakan na stol.

4 Po the preposition, + accusative, also marks goals :

Povadilsja kuvSin po vodu xodit'. (Proverb)

This use of po + accusative is being replaced in modern

Russian by za + instrumental. A shift in focus is tak­

ing place, implying that the cognitive representations

also differ. It is interesting to note that both £o

and za can have the sense of English 'after.' Cf. the

goal-orientedness of 'after' in sentences such as "The

police are after him." Both £o and za share the fea­

ture of marking relations which are not in the positive

cognitive domain; it can be shown that Russian spatial 117 markers correlate with divisions of the cognitive domain/ and that these divisions form oppositions which can bo termed cognitively positive and nonpositive.

^I'hen motion is not an implicit part of a scenario/

za and pod + instrumental mark a static three-dimen­ sional arrangement in the nonpositive cognitive domain.

The vectoral abstraction of motion/ marked by the

accusative case following _za and pod, downplays three- dimensionality by not concentrating on the static

arrangement of object and plane of reference.

®In fact, the Lithuanian preposition po supplies

evidence for the etymological connection between Slavic

po and pod by having the meaning of 'after' when fol­

lowed by the genitive and dative and having the meaning

of 'under' when followed by the instrumental (Pokorny,

1959, 54).

7 Lithuanian po and Latvian pa- cover relations in

the nonpositive cognitive domain, from some neutral

plane on down. The etymologically related Albanian

proposition pa 'without' and privative prefix pa- (see

Pokorny, 1959, 54) also attest to primordial associa­

tions with the nonpositivo cognitive domain. 118 o By analogy, po- is seen as associated with the

nonpositive cognitive domain, along with pod-. Na:nad:

:po:pod.

9 Etymologically, nai- is the result of the fusion

of na- with the deictic particle -i- (Vasmer, III,

1971, 33).

^*^In Macedonian and Bulgarian po- is the formant of

the comparative degree, e.g., xubav:poxubav 'beautiful: more beautiful.'

^^Za- stands in contrast to voz-/vz-, which marks

the inception of an action in the positive cognitive domain. The opposition is one of 'into visibility or

perceptibility' (voz-/vz-) and 'not within visibility or perceptibility' (za-), or more exactly 'in the positive cognitive domain' and 'not in the positive cognitive domain.' This is obvious if one contrasts the nouns vosxod (solnca) 'sunrise' and zaxod (solnca)

'sunset.' Contrast also the phrases Caj vskipel 'the water reached a boil and can be used for tea* and Voda zakipela 'the water came to a rolling boil.' 119

l^For a discussion of other views of Russian prepo­ sitions and prefixes as unique geometric concepts — invariants — see Appendix D. CHAPTER IV

APPLICATION OF THE INVARIANT MEANING OF PO-

4.0. The Underlying Invariant Structure of Po- in Some

Usage Patterns

The postulated framework which po- provides for structuring predications — the relational extension of a point (generating a line segment) over time or over cognitive/ not necessarily physical/ distance — is applicable to a variety of contexts and can be shown to underlie predications with £ 0 . This chapter will examine some contexts of po- — inception with deter­ minate verbs of motion/ quantifications/ and compari-. sons — in order to reveal po-* s invariant punctual formula and to discuss the effect of reduced cognitive imagery and linearity. I will attempt to answer such questions as:

1. Is inception a requisite interpretation for

po- + determinate verbs of motion/ and is that

interpretation compatible with the cognitive model

of po-?

2. How does po-* s association with the nonpositive

cognitive domain affect the cognitive representa­

tions of Quantities?

120 121

3. How does the cognitive model of po- apply to

predications involving qualities — specifically

notions of comparison?

4.1. Inception as a Contextual Interpretation with

Determinate Verbs of Motion

Po-/ in creating the effect of inception with determinate verbs of motion, e.g., Posel ty von! 'Get out of here!' or tut on pobeZal k nej 'he up and ran over to her', marks off a line segment of a vector which has implied continuation to a goal. Po- allows only so much of the process of going to be visualized, especially if the goal is distant. The scenery in a po- predication is sparse: essentially two points in a cognitive plane are linked, without attention to any obstacles along the way, and normally this is done through the manipulation of punctual abstractions.

With verbs like pojti 'to set off on foot* and pobezat'

'to take off running,' the agent/object is brought to the endpoint of a line segment (within the observer's field of vision) and then disappears on its way to a goal in the nonpositive cognitive domain. The disap­ pearing of the agent/object is the result of the lack of dimensionality, i.e., punctuality, of the cognitive representation which is to intersect a goal in the nonpositive cognitive domain. (In the framework of 122 po-/ the agent/object eventually is abstracted to a point.)

The initial steps may cover only a short distance, or the time lapse before a goal is to be reached may be very short from the point of view of an observer, thus giving the effect of inceptive motion. The act of going has implied continuation, even when the goal is figurative and relatively close at hand:

(Teacher to students:) Poexalil

'Let's get started (and go through these exercises).'

In this example, po- adds the notion of "do just enough to get going."

The cognitive abstraction of a line segment ac­ counts for the inceptive meaning conventionally attrib­ uted to determinate verbs of motion prefixed with po-.

But po- with determinate verbs of motion need not always be indicative of an action in its inception, despite current opinion that,- as far as the modern

Russian language is concerned, such combinations are confined to that interpretation (Andreeva-Vasina, 1982,

127-128). Andreeva-Vasina writes that even when fol­ lowed by a prepositional phrase with d o , in phrases such as poexat' po Seleznoj doroge 'to go by railroad', 123 the "pristavka skoree ukazyvaet na naëalo dejstvija"

(Andreeva-Vasina/ 1982/ 127).

The commencement of an action is a punctual notion

— a concept with which po- is compatible. The initial line segment in the representation of On poSel na rabotu ’he went to work' may be so short as to be perceived as the starting point of an action which is implied to continue. The first steps of the agent/ object/ before he disappeared from view/ were toward the goal of his work place.

But consider what happens when the goal is not overtly mentioned in the utterance:

Na ulice bylo skol’zko i ja poletel.

In modern Soviet Russian/ the verb poletet*/ a determi­ nate verb of motion/ is used in the sense of ’to slip and fall/ (as on ice)'. In this example/ po- demar­ cates a distance of unspecified length — cognitively/ a line segment. In ja poletel 'I took a spill’ the distance covered is not mentioned/ although it is guessable from context. The goal here is an accidental one/ the result of the fact that before sliding/ the agent/object was moving in a certain direction. Motion takes place along a surface as it does with pojti 'to go by foot’ and poexat’ 'to go by conveyance'/ but the 124 interpretation of the action as being in its inception is highly unlikely.

When the context of poletet* is that of 'slipping and falling down*, the cognitive representation of the trajectory of the action differs from that of On poëel na rabotu most notably in the length of the line seg­ ment, and that in poletel, the entire action takes place over the length of the line segment. (With poSel this would be just the initial line segment.) The endpoint of the line segment representing poletet' is visualized (before the action punctually fades away); the action is completed. Therefore it would be contra­ dictory to assign the sweeping "meaning" of 'inception of an action' to verbs of the po- + determinate verbs of motion type.

Again we fall back on the fundamental concept

(framework) of po- as the means for marking off quan­ tities of time, distance, and objects, linearly.

4.2. Quantification in the Positive and Nonpositive

Cognitive Domains

Cognitive representations of quantities can be concrete or abstract. These representations may stand out clearly, or there may be some difficulty in setting up clear representations. Cognitive representations of quantities are formed according to whether they are 125 focused in the positive or nonpositive cognitive do­ main. If a quantity is located in the positive cogni­ tive domain, it is marked as salient; its cognitive representation will be graphic. If a quantity is located in the nonpositive cognitive domain, then there

is no concentration on the form and substance of the quantity, its grouping, or individual constituents.

There may be reasons for locating a quantity in the nonpositive cognitive domain, for example, when it is difficult to form a clear image of the quantity in one place at one time. If the constituents of a quantity are not all present at once or are situationally diffi­ cult to visualize, then the quantity is described from

the point of view of the nonpositive cognitive domain.

Both na- and po- can mark quantities, differing essentially in their associations with one of the halves of the cognitive -domain, e.g., napeô' pirozkov

'to bake a quantity of pastries,' nakupit' knig 'to buy a lot of books,' pobit* vraSeskie sily 'to destroy the enemy forces,' polomat' (vse) igruëki 'to break all the

toys.' Na-'s imagery is tied to the positive cognitive domain. The deep-case objects of naped' and nakupit' are prominent in the cognitive scenarios of these verbs; it is possible to visualize the whole set of objects associated with these verbs at one place, at

the time understood from the predication. In contrast. 126 po-'s focus is in the nonpositive cognitive domain; as a result, it is hard to focus attention on anything but an endpoint effect.

The verbs polomat* and especially pobit * do not allow graphic representations of their objects: their skeletal abstractions amount to a series of points forming line segments, or an overall summary line segment with an emphatic endpoint. Thus po- and na- form an opposition in terms of representations in the nonpositive or positive cognitive domain.

Context can diminish the extent of the po-/na- opposition when both prefixes occur with the same base verb, but the opposition between them is never neu­ tralized. An example is the pair of paronyms pokrast* and nakrast* , both meaning 'to steal a quantity.'

Despite the fact that the two verbs are very close in meaning, they differ primarily in their presentations of the perception of how the stealing takes place, i.e., each prefix preserves its focus in its respective half of the cognitive domain.

(1) Vor zabralsja v klet' i, na prostore, ObSarja steny vse, i pol, i potolok, Pokral bessovestno, 5to mog. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 907)

(2) Artel'nyj starosta vse vedra u baby svoej pokral, vse krySi posymal s bityx va- gonov. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 907) 127

(3) Za god oni ne nakradyvali stol'ko, skol'ko êti nakrali za odin mesjac. (SSRLJa, 7, 1958, 280)

(4) Gospodin Kunicyn negodjaj, merzavec pervoj ruki/ nakravïij sebe sostojanie samymi podlymi postupkami. (SSRLJA, 7, 1958, 280)

Note the difference in focus between the predica­

tions with po- and those with na-. In examples (1) and

(2), attention is on a deprived location. In (3) and

(4), attention is on the enriched thief and his vicin­

ity. In other words, the difference is one of 'into

the nonpositive cognitive domain' (po-) versus 'into

the positive cognitive domain' (na-). With pokrast',

the linear effect obtains — the victim's house is empty. The verb nakrast' focuses on the other end of

the process — the thief is happy. î^- makes the

thief's new possessions cognitively salient.

Po- has the effect of throwing the focus of a predication into the nonpositive cognitive domain, employing punctuality and an essentially linear frame­ work. As a secondary prefix it also fits the cogni­

tive arrangement of a predication modified by another prefix into this framework. This brings about a con­

trast in the quantitative dimension.

Verbs like na&it' and ponaSit' both mean 'to sew a quantity of.' The deep-case objects of naSit' are definitely in the positive cognitive domain; they are 128

immediately present within the context of the predi­

cation and can be visualized in a large pile. But this

cognitively large heap dissipates with ponaSit'»

Contrast these situations:

(1) Kama ponaSila stanov i rubasek na vsex detiSek.

(2) Mama nalila Stanov i rubaSek na vsex detiSek.

In (1) there is implied distribution. The heap of clothing is not visualized; it is parceled out. In

(2), however, a whole heap of clothing is visualized.

Emphasis is on this salient quantity. The grouping makes a cognitive impact. In contrast, it is hard to focus on the dispersed entities of (1) and form graphic representations of them. It is harder to compose a cognitive unit out of scattered entities, but such is the task of spatial markers of the nonpositive cogni­ tive domain like po-.

The immediacy of the whole quantity is part of the cognitive scenario of naëit'. A comment such as na- dolgo xvatit ‘there will be enough for quite some time' could easily follow (2), because the clothing is not seen as parceled out yet.

The verbs naexat* and ponaexat* 'to arrive in

(large) numbers' also contrast in terms of represen­ tations in the positive or nonpositive cognitive 129 domain. The verb naexat' marks an intrusion into the positive cognitive domain of an observer. A sentence like Ko rone naexali gosti 'Company popped in on me' could refer to just a few guests, but their arrival was unexpected and their presence is cognitively prominent, i.e., the guests stand out in the observer's positive cognitive domain. But in Gosti ponaexali '(a lot of) company came over (kept coming all that time)', the representations are thrown into the nonpositive cogni­ tive domain. The likely context of this utterance is that the guests kept coming, one after the other, at different times during the reference period of the predication, and the observer loses track of how many came and when they arrived. With the addition of po-.,

the guests are all abstracted into the nonpositive cognitive domain. Compare these two examples:

(1) Kogda naexali tolpoju K nej %enixi, iz ix rjadov Unyl i sir on udalilsja. (SSRLJa, 7, 1958, 192)

(2) Nikogda eëëe naêe selo ne videlo stol'ko narodu, skol'ko ponaexalo v ètot den'. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1224)

In (1), the crowd, moving all at once, has cogni­

tive prominence. This makes a big impression on the

observer. In (2), the people are uncountable entities:

it is difficult to visualize them all at once, and 130 punctual abstraction is necessary. Most likely there were numerous scattered arrival times, the punctual abstractions of which, when hooked together, form the characteristic line segments.

4.3. Comparison: A Quantification

When po- marks a change in a feature or quality, usually with deadjectival verbs, it is relating before and after stages in the condition of the deep-case object — in effect, setting up a comparison. In making the point-to-point comparison, po- traces a line segment, which actually measures a quantum of energy — the amount of energy needed to associate the change with a linguistically relevant label. Thus, at least in Russian, even qualities are quantifiable.

Consider the command Potoraplivajtes'I 'Make haste!'

Here an additional amount of energy is being specified:

po- is measuring off the amount of additional efforts

to hurry called for in a specific situation.

The fact that verbs like potusknet' 'to become dim'

and pokrasnet' 'to blush' involve implicit comparative

relations shows up clearly when Russian uses them to

translate English phrases containing explicit compar­

atives. Compare these passages from the Russian trans­

lation of Tolkien's The Hobbit with the corresponding

passages of the English original. Note the 131 correspondence between the English comparative forms and the Russian verbs prefixed with po-.

Takim vot sposobom mister Biggins dostig nakonec mesta, gde derev'ja po oboim beregam poredeli i skvoz' nix progljanulo svetloe nebo. (Raxmanova, 1976/ 155)

In this way at last Mr. Baggins came to a place where the trees on either hand grew thinner. He could see the paler sky between them. (Tolkien, 1978, 180)

The verb poredeli marks a reduction in the quantity of trees sufficient to note a change. The English original continues the comparison between the color of the sky and that of the trees, which the Russian trans­ lator ignores; apparently poredeli creates enough space between the trees for Russians to visualize the con­ trast between the sky and trees clearly.

This next example describes a contrast between the splendor of former times and the desolation of the present. In this passage the Russian translator felt the need to set up linear comparative relations three times in a fairly free rendition.

Priroda vokrug sdelalas' skudnoj i unyloj, kraski potuskneli, togda kak, po slovam To- rina, v bylye vremena otliJalis' sveZest'ju i raznoobraziem. Trava poredela, isSezli dere­ v'ja i kusty — ot nix ostalis' po2ernev3ie korjavye pni. (Raxmanova, 1976, 168) 132

The land about them grew bleak and barren, though once, as Thorin told them, it had been green and fair. There was little grass, and before long there was neither bush nor tree, and only broken and blackened stumps to speak of ones long vanished! (Tolkien,- 197S,- 195)

It is significant that the translator chose to use a series of po- verbs in structuring the translation of this passage. She presents feature-by-feature compar­ isons as the heroes move through the desolate terri­ tory, thereby echoing or supporting the cognitive representation of their linear movement.

The connection between comparisons and quantities is obvious in this example:

-Tjuk polegZaet sliS’kom skoro, esâfe zaxotite, Ztoby meâki stali tjaZelee, kogda provizija nacnet podxodit* k koncu. (Raxmanova, 1976, 120)

"It will get lighter all too soon. Before long I expect we shall all wish our packs heavier, when the food begins to run short." (Tolkien, 1978, 137)

Every day their packs will be lighter by a certain amount: the degree of lightness corresponds to a quan­ tity of consumed rations. The Russian text, paral­ leling the English, even uses a comparative adjective, tjafelee, to contrast with the verb in the preceding sentence, polegcaet: the semes are antonymous, but the relations are both comparative. 133

In this next example, the verb poradovat* sja also

indicates the quantification of a quality;

-On razneset vdrebezgi naë sklon, 5toby ot- rezat* nam dostup vnutr'. A esli pri êtom razdavit nas, ^to tern bol'ëe poraduetsja. (Raxmanova, 1975, 189)

"He will break all this side of the Mountain to bits, if necessary, to stop up our en­ trance, and if we are smashed with it the better he will like it." (Tolkien, 1978, 219)

The verb poraduetsja measures off an amount of the emotion of joy which a certain event will cause, and

the quantification and the comparison are all the more marked by the phrase tern bol'êe. The sense here is

that of 'that much more,' which appears as "the better"

in Tolkien's phrasing.

In this section, comparisons were likened to linear measurements. Po- can measure a quality to mark a

cognitive distinction, i.e., to note a perceived change

when enough of a quality is present.

4.4. The Principle of Linear Reduction

A corollary of the cognitive model of the verbal

prefix po- is the principle of linear reduction.

Actions are abstracted to basic core relations result­

ing in a linear cognitive representation which marks

distinctive points in the progression of time and aids 134

in the chunking of events. Because of this simple

linear construct, po- is important for listing sequen­ ces in a narration, and consequently, for speeding up

the pace of the narration by not encoding nonessential or distracting facts (such as three-dimensional repre­ sentations) in the cognitive scenario. Kith less

information for an observer to concentrate on or be distracted by, the linear reduction of po- allows actions to flow into each other and move along more

rapidly.

The nondimensional representation of objects or

events (i.e., as points) is a function of po-* s associ­

ation with the nonpositive cognitive domain. In relat­

ing points, the mind traces a line segment. There is

textual evidence for the stringing along of line seg­

ments .

In this example a summary endpoint presupposes a

line segment, which stands in for a number of actions;

the actions are summed up and are reduced to linear

abstractions :

Oni priveli poni, pogruzili na nix gorSki s zolotom, perevezli podal'ëe i zakopali nevda- leke ot tropy, ëeàSej vdol ’ reki. Oni t S ’d'a- tel'no zakoldovali êto mesto i proiznesli mnogo zaklinanij, rassêfityvaja vernut'sja sjuda za zolotom. PokonZiv s ètim, oni seli na poni i zatrusili opjat* po doroge, veduS^ej na vostok. (Raxmanova, 1976, 44) 135

Then they brought up their ponies/ and carried away the pots of gold, and buried them very secretly not far from the track by the river, putting a great many spells over them, just in case they ever had the chance to come back and recover them. When that was done, they all mounted once more, and jogged along again on the path towards the East. (Tolkien, 1978, 53)

The line segment structure parallels the linear pro­ gression of events.

Po-'s linear reduction directs a vector toward signaling a particular instance in a sequence of nar­ ration :

UslySav svist strel, pronzitel'nyj zvuk trub, drakon sover^enno obezumel ot jarosti. Uze davnym-davno nikto ne osmelivalsja dat' emu otpor. Nikto i sejZas ne posmel b y , esli by ne celovek s ugrjumym goxosom — Berd bylo ego imja: on begal vzad i vpered, podbadrivaja Strelkov, ugovarivaja burgomistra srazat'sja do poslednej strely. (Raxmanova, 1976, 204)

At the twanging of the bows and the shrilling of the trumpets the dragon's wrath blazed to its height, till he was blind and mad with it. No one had dared to give battle to him for many an age; nor would they have dared now, if it had not been for the grim-voiced man TÊard was his name), who ran to and fro cheering on the archers and urging the Master to order them to fight to the last arrow. (Tolkien, 1978, 235-236)

A single purpose is indicated; goal—directed actions corresponding to the daring of posmet' 'to dare' are given the reduced cognitive representation of a line. 136

Point-to-point (man-to-dragon) relations are involved in the basic abstraction of the scenario.

Fo- also marks off single actions having line segment representations:

-Ja pokon^u ^ toboj vse otnoS'enija. Smotri, ne popadajsja mne bol'se! - On povernulsja i kriknui vniz cerez stenu: - Henja predalil (Raxmanova, 1976, 229)

"And I will let you go at that — and may we never meet again I" Then he turned and spoke over the wall. "I am betrayed," he said. (Tolkien, 1978, 262)

The abstractions of these verbs mark point-to-point relations: pokon&it' 'to end' marks the endpoint of a line segment: popadat'sja 'to come across one's path' marks the punctual contact of a vector with a goal: and

povernut'sja 'to turn' involves measuring off a segment of the motion of turning. This series of po- verbs,

unidimensionally marking off quanta of energy, conveys a striking effect of sharpness and abruptness to the

actions. There is a linear series of individual ac­

tions, which are chunked off with a minimum of cogni­

tive scenery.

A series of po- verbs often marks a quick succes­

sion of events:

Teper' on uverenno i metko poslal strelu v olenja. Prizemliv^is', zver' pogatnulsja, ego 137

poglotila t'ma lesa, posly^alsja zvuk spotyka- juS5ixsja kopyt/ potom vse stixlo. (Raxmanova, 1976, 126)

Now he sent a swift and sure shot into the leaping beast. As it reached the further bank it stumbled. The shadows swallowed it up' but they heard the sound of hooves quickly falter and then go still. (Tolkien, 1978, 144)

These events marked off by po- take place in rapid succession. The underlying thread of linearity ac­ counts for this.

This next example also illustrates linear chunking:

Pust' ix rassazivajutsja po lodkam, dumal on, naplevat'. Slavno budet pooxotit'sja za nirai, kogda oni poplyvut, a to i tak peremrut ot goloda. A poprobujut sunut'sja na susu — on budet tut kak tut. (Raxmanova, 1976, 204)

They could all get into boats for all he cared. There he could have fine sport hunting them, or they could stop till they starved. Let then try to get to land and he would be ready. (Tolkien, 1978, 236)

The structure of each of the projected events in this sequence is linear; each has a goal-directed vector as an underlying abstraction.

In Russian, sequences of verbs prefixed with po- occur frequently. The verbs can be of different types, e.g., they do not have to be all verbs of motion or verbs of any other classification. A multiple-meaning 138 analysis would ascribe a set of different meanings to each occurrence of po-, when in reality each occur­ rence of po- would be reinforcing an overall linear framework, applying a linear formula to a sequence of events. In this next example such a sequence of verbs prefixed with po- also indicates a rapid succession of the speaker/observer's thoughts:

Ne xotite li nemnozko pobyt' s nami i popet'? H i poedete dal'Se srazu? (Raxmanova, 1976, 50)

Are you going to stay a bit and sing with us, or will you go straight on? (Tolkien, 1978, 59)

The linear structures of the verbs are parallel.

The linear reduction of a predication with po- is obvious when compared to one of similar semantics employing another prefix. A contrast of the verbs vystroit' and postroit', both meaning 'to build,' shows that a predication with vystroit' necessarily involves more cognitive scenery:

Bango, otec geroja nasej povesti, vystroil dlja nee (i otcasti na ee den'gi) roskoëhuju xobbi5’'ju noru, rosko^nej kotoroj ne bylo ni Pod Xolmom, ni 2a Xolmom, ni Po Tu Stcronu Reki, i Zili oni tarn do konca svoix dnej. (Raxmanova, 1976, 7)

Bungo, that was Bilbo's father, built the most luxurious hobbit-hole for her (and partly with her money) that was to be found either under The Hill or over The Hill or across The Water, 139

and there they remained to the end of their days. (Tolkien, 1978, 16-17)

The hobbit-hole stands out in relation to all the others in the Shire; vy- makes the deep-case object prominent with respect to a cognitive location.

But po- does not have that effect; it does not require cognitive scenery beyond its temporal or spa­ tial line segment:

Takoj slucaj ne podvora^ivalsja dolgo, tak 2fto Bil'bo Bèggins uspel stat' vzroslym xobbitom, let ètak okolo pjatidesjati; on zil-poZival v prekrasnoj xobbid’ej nore, postroenno j otcom, v toj samoj, kotoruju ja tak podrobno opisal v nacale glavy, i kazalos', on nikuda uie ne dvinetsja s mesta. (Raxmanova, 1976, 7)

The chance never arrived, until Bilbo Baggins was grown up, being about fifty years old or so, and living in the beautiful hobbit-hole built by his father, which I have just de- scribed for you, until he had in fact appar­ ently settled down immovably. (Tolkien, 1978, 17)

In this example the hobbit-hole is not pictured in

relation to anything else. The linear reduction of po-

marks the endpoint of a line segment of a single

action, without a flurry of description. The hobbit-

hole exists after this point. 140

4.5. The Underlying Pattern: a Summary

The cognitive model of po- presented in this work proposes that po-/ on a cognitive level, can be reduced to an abstract, geometrically-based formula — the relational extension of a point in space or time, cognitively forming a line segment bridging any cogni­ tive distance, with focus on a goal endpoint and not on the initial point. The punctuality of po- correlates with nonsalient cognitive representations. Further­ more, according to the model, the basic geometric formula of po- is applied recursively to the various contextual manifestations of the prefix.

In this chapter, applying the cognitive model of po- to some contextual manifestations of verbs prefixed with po- has revealed two major points:

1. Context conditions the interpretations that multiple meaning approaches ascribe to po-, e.g., poletet * in the senses of 'to fly off (in some direc­ tion)' and 'to slip and fall'. The model does not break down; both uses of poletet' involve trajectories with end focus. Kith flying, the goal usually is not immediately at hand, hence the attribution of incep­ tiveness to the trip. But with falling, the endpoint is attained immediately.

2. Po- signals the same cognitively reapplied pattern in a number of contexts. The essential linear 141

formula remains intact when applied to a) spatial contexts (delimitation of a course or trajectory)/ e.g./ poletet' 'to slip and fall'/ b) entities in large quantities (punctualization)/ e.g./ gosti ponaexali 'a

lot of company came over'/ and c) comparisons and the abstract measuring of qualities (denoting the quantity

sufficient to mark a perceptible difference or the endpoint of a process)/ e.g./ devu^ka pokrasnela 'the girl blushed'. It was shown that po- also can have the general effect of sequencing objects (linearly) or

structuring events (linearly). Kith sparse cognitive

scenery and reduced attention to extraneous details or

features requiring extra visualization (facts traceable

to association with the nonpositive cognitive domain)./

po- can have the effect of speeding up a narration.

Chapter IV examined different occurrences of po- to

demonstrate the invariant cognitive structure of the

prefix. Chapter V also seeks to demonstrate the invar­

iant structure of po-/ but by contrasting po- with

other prefixes. CHAPTER V

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF PREFIXED VERB PARONYMS

5.0. Paronymy and Synonymy

Contrasting situations involving different prefixed

forms of the same base verb (odnokorennye pristavodnye glagoly) reveals consistent patterns of cognitive

structuring. This methodology graphically illustrates

the invariant structure of po-.

There are a number of verb paronyms in Russian —

base verbs (or verbal roots) with differing prefixes —

which occasionally are so close in meaning that even

native speakers are hard-pressed to see any distinction

at all. Verbs of this sort communicate the same essen­

tial facts of the situation being described; effec­

tively there is no change in the core meaning of the

utterance/ which fact is often reflected by no change

in the English translation of the verb/ e.g./ vystro­

it* / postroit' — 'to build'; otoslat' , poslat'/ vy-

slat' — 'to send.' Dictionaries often give circular

definitions for verbs like these/ e.g./ potemnet' =

stemnet' — 'to get dark' (SSRLJa/ 10/ 1960/ 1596) and

142 143 vyrugat'/ zarugat' = obrugat' — 'to scold ’(SSRLJa,:

2, 1951, 1201: 4, 1955, 860).

Gauging the extent of the synonymity of such verb paronyms should take into account more than simply +/- truth values. Different prefixed forms of the same verb exist for a reason — they fill a function which makes a difference to the language. Getting at that difference will enable those without native speaker

intuition to use apparently synonymous forms correctly.

But if some paronyms do not differ in their message content or in the basic truth value of that message content, then in what ways do they differ? The answer lies in what exactly a verbal prefix does, namely, set up a particular cognitive framework within which to describe and process information. Thus the verbs contain different presuppositions about the scenarios

in which they are to be employed.

The role which prefixes play in fleshing out or

constructing a scenario and setting its limits can be

seen more clearly when paronyms are contrasted in

actual utterances; differences in arrangement and

presentation or representation of data show up. These

differences are traced directly to the invariant mean­

ing of a given prefix — a spatial or geometric ab­

straction on a cognitive level which is associated with

the processing of information from or about the real 144 world. This information is "put through a sieve" as it is perceived/ and is encoded/ stored/ and decoded according to certain skeletal abstractions which are part of a language-specific cognitive geometry. The

Russian system of verbal prefixation is rich in the number of distinctions that it can make.l

Additionally/ individual paronyms may tend to be used for particular contexts and develop associations with certain concepts or acquire context restrictions.

The verb otsylat' * to send' , for example/ is often used with money. (When the money is being sent in as pay­ ment the verb can be translated as 'remit.') A verb paronym can become stylistically marked/ e.g./ the officialese uterjat' versus the neutral poterjat' 'to lose'/ or even fall out of use/ e.g./ otobedat' in the meaning of poobedat' 'to eat lunch'. Of the paronyms vyiskat' and izyskat' 'to search for and find/' izy- skat' is considered bookish/ and of the paronyms vy- prosit' and isprosit' 'to obtain by asking/' isprosit' is obsolescent (Cyganova/ 1972/ 62). Explanations can be sought in the application of a prefix's cognitive framework to particular or potential scenarios/ and the penchant for languages to develop fixed collocations/ i.e./ automatic associations that take less thought and less time to manipulate. 145

Not all paronyms approach the status of synonyms.

Some even become entirely different lexical items. Cf. zarazit' 'to infect' and porazit' 'to strike, to im­ press.' On a metaphorical level, though, the base verb is construed the same way in both paronyms (the unpre­ fixed verb razit' 'to strike, to hit' is archaic or poetic). The difference in meaning is due to the cognitive structure which each prefix imposes on some scene, and to the association with certain concepts or situations which fossilized with the prefixed verbs at some point in the language's development.

Contrasting verb paronyms by pointing out the invariant meanings of the verbal prefixes leads one to discover the implications which a prefix contains for interpreting a scenario, and how one's focus of atten­ tion is manipulated. In connection with this, the role of prefixatipn in providing smooth transitions in a connected text needs to be explored.

Contrasting perfective verb paronyms is particu­ larly important in refuting the notion of the 'empty' prefix. Mere perfectivity is not the only information being communicated by apparently competing prefixes. A unit action is marked off or limited within the con­ straints of a certain spatial framework; there are implications as to the scenario is to be 'visual­

ized.' The use of a certain prefix in forming 146 perfectives even may not be considered the literary norm; the standard language may prefer a specific framework/ deeming that/ for most circumstances/ it is more appropriate. For example/ as will be shown in section 5.4./ u- has greater relative intensity than po- (the deep-case object is affected in a more far- reaching way). Cf. On umer and On pomer/ both meaning

* he died.' The po- form is stylistically colored.

Death is a fairly serious matter after all/ and the situation usually calls for an indication of some intensity: _u- has the effect of 'closing o f f the deep- case object [i.e. the deceased] from observers/ and thus it is logically applied to this context.

Discerning the difference between perfective verb paronyms is more difficult because the meaning

'+ perfective' is added in prefixation/ and the fact that the action is viewed in its entirety overshadows the geometry of how it is bounded and where it is cut off. If one focuses exclusively on the endpoint one can miss the subtle nuances between otblagodarit' and poblagodarit' 'to thank/' ostric' and postriô' 'to cut

(hair)/' stemnet' and potemnet' 'to get dark.* The choice of prefix is motivated; a particular spatial arrangement/ along with scenario feature implications/ communicates a speaker's intent/ manipulates the 147 listener-decoder's perception of the action/ and can help supply logical cohesiveness in a connected text.2

This chapter examines the invariant meanings of some of the prefixes that contrast with po- in verb paronyms. The material is not exhaustive/ contrasting

po- only with the prefixes o-/ob-/ za-, _s-/ u / ot-/ and

V - . This sampling/ however/ is sufficient to afford a clear illustration of how po-'s meaning consistently

stands out in relation to that of the other prefixes/ all of which impose their unique structuring patterns on predications. The contrasts are not necessarily of

the nature of clear-cut co-occurrence restrictions; nuances in usage are often finer/ reflecting a choice

— unconscious or deliberate — to represent a scenario

a certain way or to highlight some aspect of it.

Sentences illustrate the contrasts between pairs of

prefixed verb paronyms.^

5.1. Po- versus 0-/0b-

Being the two most common allegedly 'empty' pre­

fixes/ (of. Vinogradov/ 1947/ 534)/ one would think

that paronyms formed with po- and o- would have perhaps

no difference in meaning. But it is difficult to argue

that a language would allow parallel items to coexist

(as complete synonyms) without making a distinction

between them. It is true that paronyms such as 148 postric'/ostric' 'to cut (hair)/' pocarapat'sja/ocara- pat'sja 'to get scratched/' polyset'/oblyset' 'to get bald' essentially do not differ in meaning; they relate the same information/ but differ in focus and in their spatial abstractions of the scenario. Thus Vinogra­ dov's claim that po- and o- frequently are merely "sim­ ple formal markers of perfectivity" (Vinogradov/ 1947/

534) does not take into consideration the speaker's perception of the spatial framework or his psycholog­ ical motivations.

The prefix o- highlights a deep-case object without reducing it to a punctual abstraction. Whatever the object is/ it is perceived/coded as having dimension/ and this feature of dimension is important in the spatial abstraction of the scenario.4

A point has no dimension. Consequently the objects of po- verbs are visualized more abstractly. In con­ trast/ salience.of an object is what is important in a predication with an o- verb.

For example/ the facts communicated by polyset' and oblyset' 'to get bald' are the same/ yet oblyset' draws attention to the bald person or his head. This concen­ tration of o-/ob- on the object (person described) is evident in these examples (SSRLJa/ 8/ 1959/ 229):

BuSman kazalsja kakim-to jurodivym starikom/ oblysevsim/ obezzubevSim. 149

-Ja lezal v Tambove celyj mesjac bol'nym. Mozste sebe predstavit'/ daze oblysel - vse volosy vylezli.

In both examples the focus is on the person; he stands out.

Note that the comprehensive or "all-around" view provided by the prefix o-/ob- makes sentences such as

Golova oblysela ' Ke has gotten bald' or Maku&ka ob- lysela 'He has gotten bald on top' possible, but that such sentences with the prefix po- are impossible, because it does not provide the same focus: *Golova polysela.

In polyset', focus seems to be on the endpoint of the process (one is free to visualize as much as one wants), with no loss in intensity, as can be seen in

this example: On sovsem polysel 'he went completely bald.’ This utterance is matter-of-fact; note that no special emphasis is on the person himself or the impor­

tance of why he should stand out in some 'three-dimen­

sional' way.

The verbs postri^' and ostri5' 'to cut (hair)' form

another contrast involving hair. They differ in the

amount of attention given to the objects with which

they collocate: postrig' volosy, mal'cika 'to cut hair;

to give a boy a haircut'; ostrig' golovu, ovcu 'to give

the head a certain look with a haircut; to shear a 150 sheep.' Note o-'s affinity for round objects in gener­ al. O- makes the affected person or thing stand out.

In the case of cutting hair, it is the hair which is affected directly, but o- focuses in on the new look of the head. The action of cutting and what is cut

(volosy 'hair') or its metonymical correlate (mal'Zik

'boy') are the natural accompaniments of postriê’'* .

Golova ego, ocevidno, nedavno ostriZennaja pod maSinku, losnilas’ na solnce. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 1192)

The verb ostric*, from context, can have such strong associations with the image of a head that the word head need not be mentioned:

U nego byli krasivye lokony, bledno-zolotye. Soned’ka beregla ix i ne strigla. On prosil ostrid*' , potomu îto ego vo dvore draznili devdonkoj . . .

I vot on isdez so dvora i javilsja nagolo ostridennyj i blagouxajuscij cvetoînym odekolonom. (Lobanova, 1980, 289)

Again, £- concentrates attention on the object: first, on the boy's desire to get a haircut so that he would not look like a girl, and second, on the shocking sight he presented to his mother.

Ostrid' can even take volosy as an object, when it is specifically the hair itself which is in focus. 151

Temno-rusye volosy ego byli korotko ostrilfeny i zaSesany kak-to visockami vpered. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 1192)

In this example the focus is entirely on the hair itself and its particular styling. Hair is the salient feature of the predication. Note also the adverbial modifier korotko 'short,' which helps focus in on the hair.

Po- does not emphasize the object. In postric' it takes a unidimensional measurement of it or the action as a unit. It puts some sort of "ruler" over the internal representation of the action.

Ja podumal o tom, 5to Kolju nado svodit' v parikmaxerskuju postriS'. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1553)

Note the repetition of the prefix po- and the conse­ quent linear framework of the utterance. One quick trip (svodit' 'to take down to some place and bring back') will be made to get the haircut over with.

Kolja's appearance is not the main item of focus.

The use of postriZ' for quantitative measures is evident in this next example:

Ucastok [lesa] ètot let Serez 10-15 budet stoit' oSen' dorogo, teper' 5e emu cena gro5. ByvSij vladelec sil'no postrig ego. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1553) 152

The effects are summed up and quantified; this is the central message of the sentence. The entire wooded lot need not be visualized. In this context ostric' is not possible.

The object-centeredness of o~ is evident in con­ trasting pocarapat'sja and ocarapat'sja * to get scratched.' In this example attention is concentrated on the object — the person who gets scratched.

Ja rabotala v sadu i ocarapalas', podrezyvaja rozy.

Note that a whole scene is supplied as a stage for the person to draw attention to herself. Contrast this three-dimensional scenario effect with the absence of such an effect in this example with po-:

Ja vcera oS’en* sil'no pocarapalas' .

No further information has to follow. The action is given limits without emphasizing the three-dimensional nature of the injured person.

In these examples with the two verbs meaning 'to get scratched' the prefixes themselves do not comment on the intensity of the action (the seriousness of the injury)/ but there is a difference in cognitive impact.

The choice of prefix determines what the attention is focused on and affects how the utterance is visualized. 153 manipulating the coding and storage of salient fea­ tures. (Simply stated/ the injured person using ocara­ pat * sja is a better object of pity.)

The verbal prefixes po- and o- gauge the extent of the deep-case object's involvement in the world of facts and information. The difference between the paronyms poznakomit' and oznakomit* 'to acquaint' consists in the relative importance of the effect of the experience on the person (object-experiencer).

The two prefixes take different approaches in providing a person with some kind of knowledge. O- concentrates on the importance of the effect on the person, how he is 'wrapped up' in the information. As a result, oznakomit' implies thoroughness. Po-'s approach is piecemeal, linear. The object-experiencer

tends to be minimally affected. These features of

linearity and lack of in-depth involvement make po­

znakomit* , poznakomit'sja the verbs to use when people meet (for the first time). The meeting is one-on-one, with no comprehensive exchange of information. If

oznakomit', oznakomit'sja are used to describe people

coming in contact with people, the sense is that of

'really getting to know each other.'

Pervye dva, tri uroka s det'mi, toi'ko 2to postupivlimi v Skolu, moZho upotrebit' na to. 154

ctoby ... oznakomit'sja s nimi i oznakomit' ix s soboju. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 755)

The focus here is on total immersion in the classroom situation, on intensive teacher-pupil contact.

Typical Russian redundancy is often helpful in determining a feature or nuance of a verb. The adverb* in the next two examples (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 755) empha­ size the 'thoroughness' which oznakomit'sja implies.

V stabe divizii Lubencov probyl dva casa. On podrobno oznakomilsja s obstanovkoj na ètom udastke, nanes vse dannye na kartu.

Menja udivljaet, kakim obrazom Dobroljubov, nedavno ostaviv Skol'nuju skam'ju, mog tak osnovatel'no oznakomit'sja s xoroSimi inostrannymi sodinenijami.

These two examples show that the person acquiring the information is the central focus of the scenario and is somehow immersed in it.

In contrast, poznakomit' puts people in contact with other people or things, without implying anything in-depth.

Prebyvanie v Moskve i v Peterburge v 1836 g . prineslo Kol'covu mnogo novyx vpedatlenij i poznakomilo ego so mnogimi predmetami, kotoryx on ne znal do êtogo vremeni. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 790)

Punctual contact summed up over a period of time pro­ duces the linear effect. In this example Kol'cov does 155 not stand cut relative to his experiences. This seems to be typical of po-, not giving added weight or atten­ tion to any one element in a scenario, but threading things together, connecting objects with locations, marking an object at an elapsed time, etc.

Po-, however, does not deal exclusively with super­ ficial knowledge in poznakomit *. The prefix does comment on the method of acquiring knowledge — by punctual contact — and does not rule out the possi­ bility of being thorough in that way:

Ja detal'no poznakomilsja so stankom. Èto oZen' xoroSij proizvoditel'nyj stanok. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 790)

The examination is done bit by bit. Po- makes contact with each component, and over time, a connected string of dots is produced. To make the examiner stand out in this context is uncalled for, and not unexpectedly, it is not possible to replace poznakomit'sja with oznako­ mit ' sja here. The methodical, 'linear' examination is the essential import of this utterance.

This next example illustrates a point by point linear flow of information:

Teper' pozvol'te mne pokoroce poznakomit' vas s zizn'ju geroini moej povesti. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 790) 156

The methodological/ linear structure of the narration will put the reader in contact with bits of information relating to the heroine/ acquainting him more closely

(pokoroce) with the details of her life. The sequence of information over time produces a line. The two po- verbs in this sentence measure off line segments/ and this measurement is emphasized by the same prefix on the adverb pokoroce modifying poznakomit* , making an implicit linear comparison with the vector representing poznakomit* vas.

A pair of sentences that differ only in their verbal prefixes will serve to illustrate further the contrast between po- and o-. Imagine that the first sentence is uttered by a child/ the second by a grad­ uate student in marine biology:

Mne xotelos* poznakomit'sja s okeanom.

Mne xotelos* oznakomit * sja s okeanom (s ego floroj i faunoj/ so stroeniem dna).

The first can be, thought of as a wish to be brought

into contact with the ocean; the child is not focusing on himself bombarded with a literal sea of information.

The graduate student/ though/ views himself figura­

tively surrounded by more sense impressions and first­

hand opportunities to acquire knowledge; he wishes to be immersed in ocean-related information. 157

Kith the verbs poradovat' and obradovat' 'to glad­ den, to cheer someone up,' again an essentially linear

representation of an action (with punctual objects) is

opposed to the salience of an affected object.

The object of obradovat' has form and dimension,

characteristics which are not forgotten while it is

spotlighted in an utterance.

Skoro on usnul, i poslednej ego mysl'ju bylo to, 5to kto-to oblaskal i obradoval ego, £to v ego 2izni sover%Tlos' cto-to ... xorolee i radostnoe. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 354)

Throughout the attention is on the person (and what he

feels). The repetition of the prefix ob- stresses the

placement of this focus; the man is in the center of

the scenarios of both oblaskat' 'to shower with affec­

tion' and obradovat' 'to make happy.'

But with poradovat' the focus is not on the person

experiencing the joy. The action unfolds linearly, but

no one is highlighted in the center of the scenario;

Kak nam prijatno! Nesmotrja na svoju bolezn', vy priëlil Gospoda, pozvol'te vas poradovat': Fedor Lukic priSel! (SSRLJA, 10, 1960, 1350)

The focus here is not on the objects (= persons)

being made cheerful. Po- marks the specific instance.

Since there are plural objects, multiple vectors can be 158 visualized. Keep in mind that po- also provides a

(linear) comparison with the immediately preceding state: whatever the company's mood was up to that point/ the arrival of Fedor is to make them happier.

This comparative feature is also present in this example :

K jugu nebo rascistilos' bylo/ poradovalo prozra5noj golubiznoj i vnov' zavoloklos' oblakami. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1350)

Those experiencing the joy are not even directly men­

tioned, which shows that they do not occupy a position of prominence in the scenario. The verb obradovat' could not be used here; throughout it is the sky and

its activities that are in focus. Man is an accidental observer.5

The object-centeredness of o- and the linearity of

po- form the contrast between the verbs osmelivat * sja/ osmelit'sja and smet*/posmet' 'to dare.' Ozegov de­

fines osmelit'sja as 'posmet', reSit'sja' (oZegov,

1972, 422) , but obviously there is some difference in

how the actions named by osmelit'sja and posmet' are

perceived, especially considering that the combination

of o-...-sja focuses in on the person who is daring,

not on the act of daring or the course which has been

determined upon. Osmelit'sja accentuates the role of 159 the darer/ and thus bears implications which posmet * does not/ namely that the action involves forethought and hesitation/ but is undertaken because it is deemed necessary (Lobanova/ 1980/ 219). Furthermore/ osmel­ it ' sja is used in situations involving interactions between people/ whereas posmet' is used to describe going against established/ accepted principles or values (Lobanova/ 1980/ 219):

NaruSiv vekovye tradicii/ 2en22ina osmelilas' snjat' cadru.

On posmel naruSit' zakon.

The prefixes o- and po- focus in on different elements of the scenario/ and from this essential difference in focus stem the particular usage patterns and the various implications. 0- marks an object as the salient feature of a scenario; in this case it is the actant who stands out.^ On the other hand/ posmet' draws attention to neither of these facts; it marks off or quantifies a number of steps constituting the ac­ tion. Po- even adds a little directionality/ marking the initial steps of an action which is to follow/ much as it does with verbs of motion: Oni Sli prjamo/ a potom posli napravo.

The verb posmet* does not comment on the need to perform a certain action or the prior state of "getting 160 up the nerve" to undertake an action. These human features are concomitants of o-'s focus on the actant, and can be read into the interpretation of the situ­ ation. In the obsolete phrase osmeljus' dolozit* 'if I may report,* for example, o- marks the person (and his need) to interject himself into a situation; in this polite address to superiors he makes himself noticed.

Thus o- lets him stand out in the scenario. The verb posmet * could not achieve this same effect, for it focuses not on the person daring, but rather on the course or line of action being pursued.

Owing to the particular frameworks which po- and o- irapose on predications, it is no wonder that some verb paronyms have different sets of objects with which they collocate. Differences in focus and spatial abstrac­ tion of the scenario account for this. Consider po- darit' 'to give a gift' and odarit' 'to endow, to gift.'

On 25edro odaril obitel'.

Oni odarili detej igru^kami.

Prepodavatel'nica podarila mne kniZku na dobruju pamjat'.

Note the difference in the surface cases of the animate gift recipients. O-'s capacity for focusing in on the affected object accounts for the accusative case (the 161 case of the entire object) in those sentences. In contrast/ po- presents a simple point-to-point trans­

ference of property/ which makes the dative case the

logical choice.

5.2. Po- versus 2a-

One clue to the difference between po- and za-

comes from their complementary distribution as formants

of ingressive verbs. A spatial metaphor is at work

here as well. To create ingressive verbs/ po- combines

primarily with determinate verbs of motion/ and za-

combines with verbs denoting activities/ including

indeterminate verbs of motion/ e.g./ pobezat' 'to take

off running' versus zabegat' 'to start running

(around).' The opposition is clearly one of conceiving

an action as linear (po- shows a line segment with

implied vectoral extension) versus viewing an action

take place relative to a temporal starting point which

corresponds to a burst of energy/ with the action

continuing in some unbounded plane. (Po- involves a

clearly defined punctual endpoint.)

Although both po- and za- mark relations in the

nonpositive cognitive domain/ a za- scenario is spa­

tially more involved than a po— one. In a za— scenario

there is some kind of real or imaginary blocking or barrier. After all, za-'s cognitive territory lies behind the vertical plane of asymmetry; the observer cannot have direct access to phenomena there. In a predication with za-the object's representation is based on apperception. Za- sets up a representation based on how the observer remembers the object or matches it up with something comparable in his cogni­ tive repertory of images and patterns. In a za- sce­ nario, an observer may only be able to postulate what is supposed to be there by drawing on his own experi­ ence. In the sentence Studentka zacerknula slovo 'the student crossed out the word,' an observer can only assume that a word lies under the black marks. In any case, something was there, and if the word is totally covered, one can only make logical, though indirect, assumptions about its having been there.

It can be shown that za- involves spanning an object or location which is at least planar in the abstract; three-dimensional effects are not ruled out, but the verbal action involves an area, and the ob­ ject's relation to it and some observer. The action covers or traverses some area, which if not specified, is indefinite (and thus subjectively unbounded).

Compare zabegat', where the action continues on some area after the state of running has been entered (the time spanned to achieve the new energy state is very 163

short) with zabrosat' * to heap on, to bespatter,' where an object is covered (or bespattered) with some other object that traversed some distance to it and including

it, and zastroit* 'to put up buildings over an area,' e.g., zastroit' plo^gad*, where the location is spanned and covered within the boundaries specified by the word

(ploëôad'). Some subjective distance may be measured off, and then the deep-case object's position relative to it may be gauged, e.g., daleko zaplyt' 'to swim way beyond some point.' In this case the interpretation of

'excess' can result. In sum, za- involves a spatially more complex scenario than po-; the added dimension of relative position or location in general gives za- greater intensity, as can be seen in the following examples.

The verb zaterjat* sja 'to get (very) lost' conveys involvement of objects in a spatially complex scenario in this example:

NastojaêSim morjakam niSego ne stoilo vskarabkat'sja na skolo5ennuju naspex ogradu, a zatem, razgorjaSennye bystrym begom i vinom, prijateli bez kolebanij sprygnuli na zapretnuju zemlju, s gromkimi krikami i p'janym gikan'em poneslis' dal'Se i vskore zaterjalis' v labirinte zlovonnyx izvilistyx ulic. (Berezina, 1980, 49)

Once on the other side of the barricade, the drunkards get involved in a spatially complex scenario (multiple 164

'barriers') — a maze marks this effect, adding an intensity that poterjat'sja 'to get lost' could not.

The choice of zaterjat'sja in this context is delib­ erate, considering the first member of the compound predicate, poneslis' 'dashed off.' Sequences of po- prefixed verbs are frequent. Choosing za- as the prefix in this context deliberately blocks a unidimensional description of the progression of events, and shifts the focus to the objects' (the drunkards') relative position to the spatial features of the unknown setting. Za- conjures up more imagery, hence the term 'greater intensity.'

Po- neither demands nor draws attention to an involved context. No special connotations are added to how the object was lost, and no special circumstances need be mentioned.

V magazine ob"javli po radio, 2?to poterjalsja mal'5ik.

Adult to child: Ne poterjajsja opjat'.

The verb poterjat'sja comments on a state that is reached in terms of cognitive geometry, a point in time at which the object is in new, different, cognitively

unspecified circumstances. The verb makes an objective assessment of the change in the object's position; a

sort of linear measurement is taken. 165

Note how za- can exceed this objective measurement/ using it as a reference point for the object's position :

Soglasno oficial'nym dannym/ kotorye zaniZeny po men'Sej mere v 5 raz/ Zislo bol'nyx rakom na 10.000 Zitelej za period 1965-1985 gg. vozroslo V Zetyre raza.

A limit (the actual figures) is exceeded/ and the resultant figures are an exaggeration. The verb pair zaniZat'/zanizit' 'to lower by an extra amount; to falsify with lower figures; to understate' carries the sense of 'beyond objectivity' because za- indicates an object position relative to some scenario marker.

Relative location of an object at the action's endpoint plays no role with po-.

Ceny na èti tovary ponizilis'.

The measurement is one-dimensional/ to the point/ and the sense is comparative; a prior state is measured against a subsequent/ actual one. Za- takes this arrangement literally one step farther/ adding a third element whose position is relative to the second one/ spanning some measurable distance. As a result/ po- nizit' 'to lower' indicates the actual extent of a

change (i.e./ makes an objective linear measurement)/ 156 whereas the extra step involved in zanizit' distorts reality on paper, but does not change the actual state.

Note that za- can be used to indicate that the action denoted by the verb extends beyond the point marked off by po-, strongly implying some purpose or activity in a 'surface area.' Compare poslat' pis'mo

'to send a letter' and zaslat' spionov 'to send in spies.' The scenario with za- is more complex — the spies land in their area of operation, crossing polit­ ical and geographic barriers. Sending a letter to a foreign country does not bring any of this to mind with simply poslat' 'to send.' Po- glosses over intervening obstacles. Its linear framework does not take them into account. With poslat', what is important is the nexus of the affected object with its goal at some elapsed time T.

Za- and po- differ in their cognitive abstractions of objects. This is especially apparent in contexts where the object and location are coreferential. Verbs meaning 'to load' (zagruzif and pogruzit') are a good

illustration of this. The object of zagruzif is a

nonpunctual location — a platform or container.

(After all, some spanning is involved, as in zastroit'

'to put up buildings in some location.')

Dokery zagruzili sudno uglem. 167

This is in stark contrast to the use of pogruzit' in a very linear scenario:

Ugol’ pogruzili v trjumy.

These verbs even pair off with their own antonyms

* to unload/’ according to the dimensionality of the cognitive representations of their objects:

pogruzit' - vygruzit'

zagruzif - razgruzif

The cognitive spatial abstraction of the object of zagruzit' is clearly nonpunctual; some space is occupied. When the object and the location of the action are coreferential/ za- defines boundaries within which the action takes place — at least two points (or

two line segments) and the set of points between them.

Po- makes point to point contact/ za- makes point to area contact.9 Occasionally the three-dimensional objects which

occur with zagruzit * can also collocate with pogruzit*.

Although the Slovar* sovremennogo russkogo literatur-

nogo jazyka labels such usage ’colloquial' (SSRLJa/ 10/

1960/ 203)/ it is completely in line with po-’s usual

effect. The object-location/ whether it be a ship or a 168 train car, is conceived punctually. The speaker se­ lects po- for its tremendous capability to reduce, for a reason. It helps move a sequence of actions along, without concentrating on some surface area or implying activity, or in the case of zagruzit*, storage for some purpose, in the area.

Consider the linear, quick summary of events in this sentence:

Pogruzili korabl', perevezli bogomol'cev. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 263)

These activities obviously took time, but they are subsumed as a couple of connected points which mark off unitized, related actions — line segments or legs of a completed journey.

In this next example, time elapses and is marked off.

derez neskol'ko minut perron byl o2i22en, zaqadoSnyj poezd pogruSen. (SSRJLa, 10, 1960, 263)

The train does not loom large in the scenario: the focus is on the changed condition of the platform.

(Po- does not detract from the attention that o- puts on the platform.) Note that the action takes place quickly: there is no need to imagine how freight is begin arranged. The abstract representation is a line 169 segment connecting the point where a set of objects was with the train.

5.3. Po- versus S-

Both po- and _s- focus in on the endpoint of an action as they make it into a discrete/ processable unit. But there is a difference on the level of cognitive abstraction.

Po-/ in its punctual gauging of objects and actions, traces one vector. It marks some endpoint which measures off or quantifies. The resultant spatial abstraction is a line segment — a point moving through a limited amount of time, or a basic linear measurement of an object or quality.

The cognitive abstraction of involves more than one vector. S- focuses in on the convergence of the vectors, thereby creating a punctual resolution. This basic invariant meaning of creates different effects according to context and scenario content.

Kith indeterminate verbs of motion, two vectors are involved; the second one converges with the first

(often its starting point) after attaining the goal and performing some function there:

Ja s"ezdil v bank. 170

The vectors may define the size or dimensions of the object of a transitive verb, or the location which it occupies. With both transitive and intransitive verbs, the new location (endpoint of the action) is construed as punctual. On the level of cognitive abstraction the resolution point of the action can be coplanar with the object's location, e.g., s”exalis' deputaty 'the depu­ ties convened,' or noncoplanar with it, e.g., snimat' sijapu 'to take off a cap.' The fact that always

involves a resolution point accounts for the strong resultative meaning usually ascribed to the prefix.

A good illustration of po-'s linear reduction versus s^'s punctual resolution can be seen in a con­

trastive analysis of podelat' and sdelat', both trans­ lating as 'to do, to make.'

One could perhaps argue that the use of podelat' in

the following example from a Russian fairy tale is appropriate to the language of fairy tales, which has a

style and flavor distinct from the modern literary

language. Note, however, the marked linearity of the

action.

Vlezaet v kcrcv's uSko sirota — vylezaet iz drugogo i stanovitsja krasavicej, a vsja ee rabota uze podelana. (Anikin, 1985, 12) 171

The linear metaphor is quite clear in this example.

The process of finishing the work parallels the change in the girl. The work is done by magic, and there is no conception of how it is done, and consequently there is no need to concentrate on dimensionality. Also several chores could be involved, which abstractly form a linear sequence.

The use of sdelana 'done' in this context would emphasize resolution from multiple points to a single point, giving a definite feeling of resultativeness.

It would destroy the linear framework which po- rein­ forces, and the focus would no longer be just the summary endpoint of a single vector.

The fine distinction is lost in translation.

In marking off unit line segments, po- often draws attention to specific instances.

Ni&ego ne podelaes'. '(In a particular instance) nothing can be done.'

The cognitive structure is linear. There may be no concrete information to draw on, and hence, nothing to resolve. (If there were, sdelat* would be used.) If one used sdelaes' instead of podelae^', the sentence

Nicego ne sdelaeS' would take on the sense of 'not accomplishing* anything. The difference in meaning is 172 the result of the difference in the cognitive abstrac­ tions. English might handle the two this way:

You can't do a thing (about it). (Note the situation-specific markers.)

You won't get anything done. (There will be no result.)

With transitive verbs s^- has the effect of involv­ ing the entire object; this totalizing effect is the result of reducing the object to a point (which has no dimension). Contrast these typical examples with s"est* and poest' 'to eat.'

Mal'cik s"el (ves') sup.

PoeS' supu, ty esce ne poproboval moj Zudesnyj sup.

First off/ the difference between total and partial objects hits one. In the first sentence the soup

'disappears' — "The boy cleaned up the soup." In the second example/ po- measures off a quantity: the pot of soup might go down an inch or two. The interpretation of 'partial object' is only contextual/ though. Po-'s linear yardstick can measure off an entire quantity — it works really well with count nouns in this way.

For example/ when a plurality of objects is in­ volved/ po- extends the same action to all affected objects/ producing the distributive or serial effect. 173

(Again, the punctuated abstraction is linear.) Verbs of killing (poubivat', pobit*) and eating (poest*), among others, illustrate this. The agent performs the action over a set of patients (one set, one action, summed up at an endpoint = perfective).

Ostal'nye vosem* volkov esSe puêde stali bojat'sja kota da barana: koli dvenadcat* [volkov] smogli poest*, a os'meryx i podavno poedjat. (Andreeva-Vasina, 1982, 128)

The cat and ram cannot swallow eight entire creatures at once, but the hapless wolves can all be consumed one after the other. The 'set* notion is supported by the use of the form os'meryx '(a set of) eight.* The members of the set are points in a linear sequence.

Effectively po- marks off a series of line seg­ ments, summing them up with emphasis on the endpoint.

This can be represented graphically on an action line, punctuated by the relevant occurrences:

When an action involves plural objects, it is less likely that the mind will concentrate on each one, forming a distinct image of each, especially when they are considered types of the same token. Apparently the

Russian mind treats them as points in this case.

Compare s*'est* volka * to eat up a wolf with poest ' 174 vsex volkov * to eat all the wolves.' can resolve one individual three-dimensional object. When (cogni­ tively) there are too many of them, they are treated as points. Thus po- marks totality with punctually con­ ceived plural objects.

If no object is mentioned, poest * is used; s"est* , however, demands that some object be present in the context.

Ja (esce) ne poel.

This utterance means "at this point in time I have not eaten, and I am not saying what I was about to have for dinner."

Both s"e s t' and poest * form secondary imperfec- tives. Again one can observe the contrast between a single object being reduced to naught (s"edat') and specific punctual instances of eating, involving a number of objects judged to be the same (poedat').

Compare these examples:

Ja kazdoe utro s"edaju po jabloku.

"UvaZaemye damy i gospoda! Prosim vas ne volnovat'sja, esli uvidite v komnate mysek. Èti bezobidnye malen'kie Zivotnye zakupleny nami special'no, tak kak oni poedajut jadovityx paukov i tem samym obespeèivajut vam bezopasnost'". (Iz gazetnogo fel'etona)

The invariant meanings of po- and £- also explain the differences between intransitive verb paronyms. 175

Consider the verbs potemnet' and stemnet' 'to get dark/' which are treated as synonyms (Dal'/ 4/ 1882/

322; SSRLJa/ 10/ 1960/ 1596).

These verbs are selected for a specific utterance according to which of their cognitive structures better fits into a scenario or best logically follows an immediately preceding scenario.

Po-'s linear effect comes through again:

Poobedal on veselo i posle obeda ... nemnozko £osibaritstvoval na postele/ poka ne potemnelo. (SSRLJa/ 10.- 1960/ 1596)

Just count the number of po-'s in this sentence!

There is a distinct linear sequencing of actions.

In conjunction with a deadjectival verb/ po- contributes the notion of comparison. In potemnet* the quality of 'darkness' is arrived at. One can look at this as a linear measurement of the quality.

Na dvore potemnelo.

This example states that 'it got dark/darker outside/' implying that after a certain time/ the quality of darkness was duly noted.

But in this next example/ stemnet' makes no linear comparisons/ and no linear progression of time is implied. 176

Davno U2?e stemnelo. (SSRLJa, 13, 1962, 831)

There is a reference point in the (recent) past; it did not just get dark, nor did someone just notice it and measure that quality with po-. The punctual resolution of creates the effect of "darkness closing in" with the verb stemnet'.

Kogda oni nakonec ocutilis' na drugom beregu, sovsem stemnelo. (Raxmanova, 1976, 34)

Darkness closed in (from all around). Note the prefix anaphora: £ovsem £temnelo. Russian informants, when asked, tended to use this collocation in providing examples with stemnet*.

S- and raz- can pair off antonyms, e.g.,svjazat*

'to tie' and razvjazat' 'to untie.' In support of the argument that stemnet' has a 'closing in' effect, consider that stemnelo 'dusk has fallen' is opposed to rassvelo 'dawn has broken': darkness closes in and light diffuses out."^

5.4. Po- versus U-

Paronyms with po- and u- differ most notably in the parameter of intensity. As will be shown in this section, u- has relatively greater intensity, and predictably so, considering the spatial abstraction of 177

its framework. Greater intensity means greater object

involvement, and since _u-'s framework involves relative

positions, the extra measurement presupposed therein

contributes to the greater attention that the object receives. The notion of relative measurement is

readily apparent in the verbs uglubljat'/uglubit* 'to

deepen* and urezât'/urézat' 'to trim, to shorten by

cutting,' in which the object undergoes the effects of

an imposed relative measurement. An entire linear measurement of the object, however, is not made.

Of course, a certain linearity and capacity for

measuring are features shared with po-. But u-'s

action extends relative to some point, object, or

location. One can see that this invariant structure of

_u- is very close to that of ^ the preposition. Compare

these two sentences showing an action and its conse­

quence :

Vor ukral sumku.

Den'gi sejêfas u vora.

In both sentences, the thief and the stolen money are

in close association, closed off from other informa­

tion, i.e, these elements form a cognitive set. The

agent becomes a relative location for the money in

both. 178

U-'s construct of a presupposed relative location can be applied in a number of different scenarios with specific effects according to the deep-case structure of the predication. In the examples that follow, note that the prefixes combine with different types of verbs

(e.g., stative, factitive, transitive, etc.), imposing their same cognitive abstraction and creating certain effects according to the deep-case structure.

One of u-'s effects is the 'separation effect,' which happens whenever the roles of deep-case object and location are not coreferential. The object is cognitively closed off with regard to some scenario marker — a cognitively nonpunctual feature implicit or explicit in the predication — and may not be observ­ able .

Skazav mne lis' dva-tri slova, ona totdas udalilas' v svoju kajutu vmeste s misterom Uajetom. (Gurova, 1980, 233)

The woman is out of the range of the observer. She reaches a point at which we lose sight of her: she disappears behind the door of her stateroom — the scenario marker with which she is in close association.

Her position relative to it is then out of sight.

Meanwhile one can sense the separation effect: the 179 observer is left alone on deck to contemplate the mystery.

This effect is in sharp contrast to po-'s frame­ work. Po- does not make any measurement relative to scenario markers. An object is taken to a certain point/ or some quantity is marked off, etc. A limit is set and reached punctually/ as in:

Ona posla v svoju komnatu.

In this sentence the deep-case object is linked to a goal — the endpoint of a (cognitively) linear motion.

But no information is conveyed about being closed off in a room. All that is being stated is the vectoral relation linking the distance between two points.

In this next example/ po- connects points in a completed circuit:

Gosti seli za stol/ i posudina/ iz kotoroj vejalo zapaxom indijskix priprav/ po&la po krugu.

In the foregoing example with udalit* sja 'to go off

(somewhere)/ to withdraw/' however/ a completion point is reached and exceeded/ with the object remaining somewhere in the vicinity (i.e./ behind the door)/ or association with such a limit/ goal/ etc. creates greater cognitive distance from the starting point.

This is the separation effect of u-. (See Section

5.6.3. ) 180

With u." the exceeded point can be seen as some limit or barrier that marks the object as being in some new state or location. Thus the object can be out of the range of an observer, or totally absorbed in some sensation or condition and oblivious to other stimuli.

U- involves an object in a certain state more than po- does.

U-'s greater intensity entails greater attention to the spatial circumstances of a scenario. There is more spatial imagery with _u-, because it marks an object's location relative to something else. Compare the linear statement of fact of pomestit' 'to put into' with the more involved spatial circumstances of umes- tit' 'to fit into.' One has to visualize more with umestit'. Or compare polozit' 'to put (into)' with ulozit' 'to pack': again the prefix u- shows how the object fits into a location. The arrangement of sce­ nario components (objects, locations, i.e., relative positions) is of prime importance with u-.

Viewing the deep-case object's position with regard to a location is also characteristic of stative verbs like usidet' 'to sit.' With usidet', the deep-case object and its location form a sort of cognitive set, apart from external circumstances. (This is a varia­ tion of the separation effect.) 181

PogoZim letnim dnem trudno usidet' doma.

The person sitting home is closed off from the outside world. Contrast this with posidet' 'to sit (for a while)'/ where the object's position is not relative to any other location or object.

Porucil ja ej vesti vsju statistiku. Dumaju/ posidi^' nad anketami v sto dvadcat' paragrafov - pouspokoiS’* s ja. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1472)

Some amount of sitting is to be done. The sitter is not confined relative to some other object or location: in fact in this example there is no involvement with a particular location. Here is £ 0 -'s linear template; prefix anaphora reinforces it. Sequential actions are measured off and individuated. One can measure the linear progression of time in terms of quantities of information to digest. With time it is expected that a change will occur (a comparison) in the emotional state of the sitter, paralleling going through a measured quantity of work: the sitter will calm down.

The deep-case object's relationship to a location gives usidet' an intensity which posidet' does not have. The deep-case object is more involved in the act of sitting which usidet' denotes. In the example

illustrating its use, it is the fact of not partici- 182

pating in other activities — being closed off from

them — which usidet* marks.

The location need not be cognizable. Nonetheless

u- marks a separation. 12 Consider the verb pair umi-

rat*/umeret' 'to die.' The absence of the deceased is

felt; he is "somewhere else," and not observable.

There is some type of barrier, which marks the object's being in a different state or cognitive location.

On the other hand, po- marks the endpoint of a linearly construed event. The verb pair pomirat'/

pomeret* 'to die' does not focus on the deep-case object's relationship to changed circumstances (i.e., its cognitive location), and consequently, does not focus on the absence of it (for those who were affected by its death) — hence, the lesser intensity of po-.

The extra intensity of u- may be inappropriate, especially when the deep-case object is plural. (There may be some type of serial effect.)

Vperedi sine more, pozadi baba-jaga — i 2zet i paliti Pomirat' by vsem, da ZamorySek do- gadliv byl: ne zabyl on zaxvatit* u baby-jagi plato&ek... (Afanas'ev, 1976, 133)

It is not that pomirat' just adds a folksy flavor; the potential endpoints are marked and that is all. The verb umirat' would involve more cognitive scenery than the situation warrants. Remember, too, that po- speeds 183 up a narration, and that things are happening fast at this point: Baba Jaga is in hot pursuit of the brothers. "They would have all been snuffed out on the spot..."

Considering the different cognitive abstractions of po- and i:-, the difference between umeret ' and pomeret ' cannot be one of stylistic register alone. The liter­ ary language perhaps prefers the greater intensity of umeret', because the separation effect of is appro­ priate for cognitive representations of death.

The paronyms podivit' and udivit* ’to amaze/- and

podivit'sja and udivit'sja 'to be amazed’ also involve a cognitive location which is a state or condition, as well as differ in stylistic register and intensity.

The verb podivit’ is indicated as a colloquial variant of udivit’ (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 375). But as with po­ meret ’ and umeret’, the differences go beyond stylistic register.

From the examples which follow, it will be clear

that u- puts the deep-case object in a stronger state

of amazement than po-, i.e., it has greater intensity.

Po- makes a quantitative assessment of the effect on

the deep-case object: goes beyond this objective

point and concentrates on the object in its new state.

Note the resultant lesser intensity of podivit’sja: 184

Èddison/ Zelovek ne stol* sil'noj voli/ xotja po-svoemu toze dostatoZno upornyj, podivilsja smelosti Kaupervuda i ego umen'ju vladet* soboj. (Kurell, 1959, 16)

Addison, who was the weaker man of the two and yet forceful in his own way, admired this courageous stand on Cowperwood's part. (Dreiser, 1914, 14)

In this context it is obvious that podivit'sja is not a colloquial variant of udivit * sja. The latter verb certainly would be too forceful here; the two verbs differ in the extent of the amazement that they convey. The astonishment of udivit* sja is a few de­ grees beyond the "admiration" of podivit * sja. The

Russian translator chose the verb podivit * sja to trans­ late the word "admire" in the English original.

The verbs podivit'sja and udivit * sja contrast in the extent of their deep-case objects* involvement in the state that they denote. Po- constates that the state of marvel has been reached (punctually), whereas u- goes just beyond this, exposing the deep-case object

to more of this state. Note u-*s greater intensity in

the next two examples.

Na traktornyx sanjax byk Vas'ka dostavlen byl k stancii zeleznoj dorogi. I zdes* narod, stekSijsja k sanjam, uï na êfto priuZennyj ko vsjakim cudesam, udivljalsja [gigantskomu, sinemu] byku. (Orlov, 1981, 141) 185

The crowd did not just gawk at the huge, blue bull.

The sight produced an effect (the crowd of people is exposed to this phenomenon, their position is viewed relative to it) — a more far-reaching effect than podivit * sja could indicate. Orlov, in specifying that this was a sophisticated crowd of Muscovites, further stresses that this was no "ordinary" marvel. This somewhat redundant fact backs up the greater intensity of _u-.

The verb pair udivljat'sja/udivit*sja expresses the notion of being caught up in wonder or amazement.

Vse gromZe slyâalos* burlenie ljudej za ogradoj i konnicej. "I cego vsex êtot byk vzvolnoval?— udivl jalsja Danilov.— Nu priS'lo by sjuda 2(elovek desjat* ljubitelej— i ladno... A tut Xodynka!" (Orlov, 1981, 144)

The verb udivljat'sja marks the fact that Danilov feels isolated from other people — all the faddists.

He does not share their excitement, and views himself in a position relative to the "bullmania" sweeping

Moscow.

In the linear framework of podivit* sja, the deep- case object is affected — period. But in the more involved framework which u- gives to udivit*sja, the deep-case object is in a state of wonderment — closed off and caught up in it. There is more object 186 involvement with udivit'sja, therefore it has greater _ 13 intensity.

The difference in intensity between po- and u- can also affect the grammatical subject of a verb/ e.g., poterjat' and uterjat' 'to lose.' Owing to the separa­ tion effect of _u-, the subject of uterjat' , the loser, gets more attention, and this verb has become marked as

"officialese" (Ozegov, 1972, 731). Thus a news report can stress how a loss affected a certain person.

P. Syrkan, sofer-professional, uterjal udosto- verenie, sdaval ekzameny S’est' raz, ne sdal.

Getting his license revoked definitely had a serious effect on the man's career as a d r i v e r . 14 verb poterjat' is more likely to be used in just relating the fact of the loss of a physical object — with no added emotional coloring or extra cognitive scenery.

On poterjal udostoverenie. Karman u nego porvan.

In this example it is clear that the license fell out of his pocket. Attention is not on the fact that the license is in new circumstances: the thought is not carried quite that far. Abstractly, a line segment has been lopped off: an instance of a loss occurred. 187

5.5. Po- versus Ot-

The major difference between po- and ot- is that the framework of ot- contains a source locative (to which there may be no explicit reference in the surface structure) / whereas in po-* s framework the source location gets no attention — in terms of cognitive scenery it is vague or not present. Yet/ when it comes to describing completed actions/ some paronyms with these prefixes come very close in meaning. Despite this/ a difference in the cognitive conceptions of their actions is always present.

Consider the verbs poobedat* and otobedat' 'to have lunch.' In poobedat' po- has its usual effect of marking off a unit line segment. There are no impli­ cations that the eater is immediately moving on to another activity or location; the endpoint of the eating process is denoted/ but even in a sequence of events the action of the po- modified verb does not lead obligatorily into the subsequent action:

Poobedal on veselo i posle obeda ... nemnozko posibaritstvoval na postele/ poka ne potemnelo. (SSRLJa/ 10, 1960, 1596)

Every po- verb in this sentence marks off an individual act or event in its linear development. Thus there is a listing or series of completed events. 188

Po-'s punctuality shows up in this next example: the graphic (nagljadno-primernoe) use of the perfective po- verbs punctualizes individual actions/ creating a series of line segments.

Doraa on po5ti ne Zivet: s utra brodit po sosedjam; v odnom meste poobedaet/ v drugom pouZinaet. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1259)

Po- cnreads the points of these habitual actions.

In contrast, the verb otobedat * contains the notion of moving away from a source location with the possi­ bility of getting on with some other activity: ot- adds some physical or psychological distance from the act of eating lunch.

Posetiv Èddisona v banke i otobedav zatem zaprosto u nego doma, Kaupervud priâel k vyvodu, 5to s ètim finansistom ne sleduet krivit' dusoj. (Kurell, 1959, 16)

Cowperwood has had some time to think about things after lunch, and he has gotten away from Addison's

house - the source locative or scene where lunch took place. The choice of the prefix ot- is further moti­ vated by the context: Cowperwood is leaving town right

then to take a trip.

Notice that the action described by otobedat' can

lead right into a subsequent action: 189

Davajte otobedaem, a potom pojdem v kino.

The participants in the proposed action are to move on to another activity (immediately). Thus they are distanced from a source location. Informants felt that in this example otobedat' conveyed the sense of getting lunch over with — one has to eat anyway — and would be used especially in the context of a spur-of-the- moment suggestion. This interpretation is logical for the context of moving on to a new activity. This example would be rendered in English as: "Let's grab a bite (for lunch) and then take in a movie."

Some informants felt that/ in general/ otobedat' sounds old-fashioned or snobbish/ and that it would most likely be used ironically in modern Russian.

Younger informants felt that the preceding example did not sound quite natural to them. But one informant supplied a context in which otobedat * not only sounded natural/ but conveyed just the right flavor/ i.e./

provided the appropriate cognitive framework for the

situation :

mother to daughter: Ne tjani vremja: otobedala i sadis' za uroki. 'stop wasting time playing with your food and get to your homework'

The context is that of getting dinner over with and

moving on to a new scenario. 190

In any case, po- and ot- always contrast on the cognitive level: po- in poobedat' marks the endpoint of a linearly construed act of eating (------*) and ot- in otobedat' runs a vector from the endpoint of the act of eating on to other activities (— ---> Logi­ cally poobedat', with an implied process before the endpoint, can represent an action of longer duration than otobedat' ; the action of otobedat' has even less substance.

Oblomov otobedal naskoro v traktire. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 1497)

The use of the adverb naskoro 'hastily' patently marks this feature in ot-'s cognitive structure. The modern verb otobedat' is classed in a special Aktionsart category — the finitive — in which "dejstvie is&er- pyvaet sebja" (Rojzenzon, 1970, 214). Ot-'s cognitive abstraction accounts for this: an activity is seen as ended (before another begins).

The contrast between the verbs poblagodarit* and otblagodarit' 'to thank' also involves the presence or absence of a source locative. In the deep-case struc­ ture of otblagodarit' the agent (thanker) is also a source locative. As a result, otblagodarit' has the sense of 'repaying with thanks' or 'expressing grati­

tude by doing something for someone.' In other words. 191 the action is viewed as coming from the grateful per- 15 son.

The source locative is not an explicit part of the cognitive abstraction of po-. Po- marks off line segments involving punctual entities. There is no emphasis on giving something of oneself.

-A vot esli my najdem ego, vy esde ne raz poblagodarite menja. (Raxmanova, 1976/ 85)

"If we can only find him again/ you will thank me before all is over." (Tolkien/ 1978, 97)

Remember that the vector which po- marks off ends with the entity with which it makes contact (here the person being thanked). In addition, po- is a good choice of prefix here because a number of punctual instances of

thanking are suggested (especially in the Russian

translation — ne raz 'more than once'). This line

segment effect contrasts sharply with the source

locative focus of ot-. The subject of otblagodarit'

(the agent) is also an important part of the cognitive

configuration. The following two examples with

otblagodarit', taken from the Russian translation of

Tolkien's The Hobbit, are quoted along with the

corresponding passages of the English original to show

that the choice of the prefix ot- was motivated by the

source locatives inherent in the original context. 192

Gnomy prokriSali pros2al'nye slova, obeSSaja kogda-nibud' otblagodarit* povelitelja orlov, — i pjatnadcat* gromadnyx ptic vzmyli v nebo. (Raxmanova, 1976, 101)

The dwarves were crying farewells and prom­ ising to repay the lord of the eagles if ever they could, is off rose fifteen great birds from the mountain's side. (Tolkien, 1978, 115)

The eagles had rescued the dwarves from what looked like certain death. The dwarves owed more than just verbal thanks.

-Ty prosto objazan otobrat* svoi sokroviSda. Cas, kotoryj predskazyvali stariki, nastal. Cem mozem — tem vam pomozem, no i vy uz otblagodarite nas, kogda otvojuete korolevstvo. (Raxmanova, 1976, 166)

"You must claim your own. The hour is at hand, spoken of old. What help we can offer shall be yours, and we trust in your gratitude when your kingdom is regained." (Tolkien, 1978, 193)

Expression of gratitude is expected (from a speci­ fic source.) Repetition of the prefix ot- reinforces source locative imagery in this passage; the prefix anaphora keeps related acts consistently coded with the same cognitive structure. Ot- modifies different

features of a scenario, depending on the context or the semantics of the individual verb. In analyzing the deep-case structure of ot- prefixed verbs, one must ask

the question of where or how the agent is viewed with 193 respect to the location (source locative): in other words / in which direction does the vector of ot- point?

With the verbs otvoevat* 'to win back, to reconquer* and otobrat' 'to take back', for example, the arrow faces the agent — he is taking back what was his own.

Here the deep-case roles of location and object are coreferential.

The source location or starting point of an action receives no attention (on the cognitive level) with po: in terms of cognitive scenery it is vague or not pres­ ent.

5.6. Po- versus V-

The verbs vljubit'sja 'to fall in love' and po-

1jubit' 'to start loving' clearly show a difference in

focus. The two verbs can describe the same basic

facts, yet they have two major features which condition nuances in their meanings: 1- an active versus passive

structure (non-reflexive versus reflexive); 2. differ­

ent prefixes, affecting the spatio-temporal configura­

tion of the deep-case object (its focus), thus affect­

ing our perception of the deep-case object in the

situation.

In poljubit', po- marks the punctual contact made

by the extension of the emotion to the object of affec­

tion. An amount of love is quantified to sum up the 194 verbal information and formulate it as a single processable unit. The object of affection appears in the surface case of the accusative.

In vljubit'sja, it is the grammatical subject

(nominative case) which is seen as the deep-case object put into a state: v^- marks the location of the deep- case object, the phrase v nee further specifying this

'location.'

The verb poljubit' often has associations with strong emotions, as evinced by accompanying adverbials.

This is logical since the focus is not on the person in love, but on some quantum of energy expended on the object of affection. It is not uncommon to use po­ ljubit ' with phrases such as vsej duëoj 'with all one's heart' or na vsju ?izn* 'for all one's life.' The essential linearity of the po- predication makes it ideal for such measurements.

The reflexive form, poljubit'sja, naturally indi­ cates strong emotion:

Poljubilis' ljubov'ju takoj, èto vovek nikogda ne konZaetsja... (Isakovskij, 1979, 192)

The reciprocity of the reflexive form is like a double bond: each of the objects issues a vector to the other.

One cannot deny a certain inceptive sense to po­

ljubit' : 195

Ona poljubila ego s pervogo vzgljada. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1146)

But note the neat linear measurement of the scenario

- po-), with implied continuance of the vector of the action.

With vljubit* sja the focus is on the experiencer-

No other information has to follow.

On brosal na Oksanu dolgie teplye vzgljady. £to moglo eto oznacat', krome... krome odnogo. Jaëka vljubilsja. (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 455)

Jaska is absorbed his emotion.

The verb vljubit* sja forms a secondary imperfective

— vljubljat*sja. (The verbs poljubit*, poljubit * sja cannot form secondary imperfactives.) It can have the

* cancellation effect* (annulirovannost*), as well as indicate repetition, as Lermontov demonstrates in Bêla, when PeSforin says:

"Potom pustilsja ja v bol*Soj svet, i skoro obSîestvo mne takze nadoelo: vljubljalsja v svetskix krasavic, i byl Ijubim, — no ix ljubov* toi'ko razdrazala moe voobrazenie i samoljubie, a serdce ostalos* pusto."

Throughout this passage PeZorin focuses on himself and his own feelings. (Even the word order pustilsja ja draws attention to this fact.) With vljubljalsja the 196 focus is on Pecorin, and those society beauties are relegated to modality s t a t u s .

5.7. Results of Contrasting Prefixed Paronyms

Contrasting pairs of prefixed verb paronyms reveais consistent (cognitive) structuring patterns associated with each prefix. By contrasting po- with other pre­ fixes occurring with the same verbs, this analysis has demonstrated that po- and other prefixes as well have invariant meanings, i.e., they regularly structure predications in a particular way. The concepts of punctuality, vector and line segment representations, and lack of salience are associated with po- regularly.

Nearly synonymous paronyms reflect different conceptualizations of a scenario. Prefixes differ in their cognitive representations, and invariantly impose their own particular framework on a predication.

Although the main emphasis of this work is on showing the invariant meaning/structure of po-, this contras­ tive analysis, in describing and comparing differences in effects, has presented some preliminary data on the invariant meanings of some other prefixes. 0-/ob- spotlights deep-case objects, without resorting to punctual abstraction; za- involves at least planar representations in its scenarios: u- employs relative 197 locations/ sometimes with the separation effect: ot- involves a vector and attaches significance to a source locative/ but any goals or after-effects are out of focus; and punctualizes deep-case objects within a cognitve location (which can be a state or concept). 198

NOTES

^There can be variations in cross-linguistic per­ ceptions- Human minds are capable/ in theory/ of forming the same cognitive abstractions/ but not all languages provide labels for each. Moreover/ a culture or group of speakers may develop a set way of looking at an action over a period of time -- different Slavic languages may 'prefer' different prefixes for the same concept/ e.g., Russian ubit* , Polish zabié 'to kill.'

2 A good illustration of prefix use for text cohe­ sion (supplying scenario details to help scenes fit together in sequence/ even if there seems to be a certain measure of 'redundancy') is provided by vy- slat';

Prisluga byla totcas vyslana, dveri zaperty/ i ogon' potulen. (SSRLJa/ 2, 1951/ 1260)

Vy- presupposes a backdrop for the object (the ser­ vant). The word 'house' does not have to be mentioned: when the door closes behind the prisluga, its existence is implied. But this fact comes as no surprise. The 199 use of the prefix vy- sets one up to expect such a possibility.

^Contrasts with other prefixes are illustrated in

Chapter VI; pod-, pri- / vy-, vz-/ raz-, and pro- re­ ceive mention with contrasting examples, being system­ atically treated in verb groups composed of variously prefixed forms of the same base verbs. Contrasts of po- with na- were treated in Chapter III. In the quoted example sentences in both Chapters V and V I , underscoring is added to highlight the verbs under discussion.

'^Since o- is associated with concrete representa­ tions in which the deep-case object stands out, it is a spatial marker of the positive cognitive domain, thus contrasting fundamentally with po-.

^The reflexive verb zavoloklos' ’clouded over,’ besides preserving the parallel syntactic construction, reinforces this emphasis on the sky, which is seen acting in its own right. The thought could have been

formulated so that the nonreflexive, impersonal verb

zavoloklo could have acted on the sky. This would have made the image less dynamic. 200

ôThe case frame of the verb 'to dare' contains an agent and an object. These roles are coreferential in osmelit'sja; the agent makes himself bold. Both the factitive and the reflexive semes are marked morph­ ologically.

7 Both figuratively and literally po- can mark a line of action and thus even focus on a goal: a (refer­ ence) point away from the observer/actant defines the quintessential line segment relation.

g When the deep-cases of Object and Location are coreferential/ as in this last instance# the boundaries are all-inclusive. Otherwise the Object's position is relative to some scenario marker (or barrier).

9 There is a "striking" difference# for example# between porazit* 'to strike' and zarazit' 'to infect.’

Contact is punctual with porazit'. But with zarazit'# after contact has been made# the action spreads over

the (animate) object; za- does not admit of a punctual conceptualization of the object here.

^^Cf. the uses of s + instrumental meaning 'with#'

where the actants are all in one plane# e.g., xodit' v

kino s druz'jami 'to go to movies with friends#' and 201

_s + genitive meaning 'off, from the surface of,' where

the elements of a scenario are not all coplanar, e.g., upast' s kry^i 'to fall off a roof.'

^^It is interesting to note that stemnet' is used

to denote the coming of night, i.e., natural complete darkness. If, however, the context is that of a solar eclipse or a storm, the verb used is potemnet'. Cf.

po-'s use with comparisons: perceived changes in quan­

tities of light parallel the linear progression of

time. Note the use of posvetlet' 'to grow light(er)'

in the same contexts as its antonym potemnet', describ­

ing a sequence of changes (involving inherent compari­

sons of the qualitites light and dark — and their

quantities):

ïerez polcasa zatmenie kon5ilos' (ili: groza proëla), opjat' posvetlelo.

12 What has been termed u - 's separation effect does

not occur when the Object and Location are corefer­

ential, i.e., the action affects the object and takes

place on the object. A good example is the pair ukra-

S'at'/ukrasit' 'to adorn, to decorate.* The object of

the verb is viewed relative to the way it is affected.

(Whatever is adorning the object is relative to it.)

When the roles of Object and Location are different. 202

i.e./ the object can be put in another location/ the

separation effect (closing off of the two together) occurs.

^^According to native speaker intuition/ udivit'sja

concentrates on the person's state of mind or emotions/

thus corroborating the notions of the greater intensity

of 2" and the greater involvement of the deep-case object in the state of marvel. This emphasis on the

person allows udivit'sja to be used without a comple­ ment in the dative case, e.g., Ja prjamo udivilsja.

The verb podivit'sja, on the other hand/ usually/

perhaps always/ implies the object of wonderment. With

podivit'sja the emphasis is on something external/ not

on the experiencer of the state or feeling.

propose that la- keeps the focus on the object

and its new location/ relative to the subject/ if there

is one. In a sentence like Dokumenty uterjany/ the

papers most likely are not recoverable: the separation

effect obtains. In contrast/ with poterjat', po- marks

off the object as lost/ but focuses in on neither the

uncognizable location of the object nor on the loser.

With po- there is a sort of comparison: the object was

present/ now it is not. 203

l^The case frame of otblagodarit' is

[A / 0/ B/ LJ/A—Lf O—lex

The roles of Agent and (source) Location are coref­ erential .

In contrast/ the case frame of poblagodarit' does not involve a Location: [A, 0, B]/0-lex.

^^If we compare the following two nearly synonymous sentences in a Case Grammar framework/ the most striking difference between them is that the deep-case object is different in each sentence.

1) On poljubil ee. [E, O]

2) On vljubilsja v nee- [0/ E]/0=E +modality

In 1) the deep-case object with poljubil is ee: On fills the role of experiencer. In 2), On not only experiences the emotion/ he is also the deep-case object/ the object which is in the state of love.

(Object and Experiencer are coreferential.) The prepo­ sitional phrase V nee is secondary to the predication.

Its importance to the information content of the sen­ tence is not to be underplayed/ yet the focus of the predication is on the Object/Experiencer. CHAPTER VI

MULTIPLE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF SCENARIOS:

ANALYSIS OF FAMILIES OF PREFIXED VERB PARONYMS

6.0. Contrasts Within Families of Prefixed Verb Paro­

nyms

Families of prefixed verb paronyms/ formed when several prefixes occur with the same base verb/ illus­ trate the different possibilities that the language has for envisaging how the basic energy of a verb unfolds.

In other wordS/ the multiple possibilities offer dif­ ferent ways of conceptualizing a scenario. Each prefix contains presuppositions about the scenario itself — what aspects of it are important or have cognitive prominence. Thus/ each prefix contributes its own unique structuring pattern appropriate to the descrip­ tion of a context.

Chapter V examined only two-way contrasts between

po- and another prefix occurring with the same (or a

similar) base verb. This chapter investigates the distinctions made when a base verb combines with sever­ al prefixes. Examining multiple instances of

204 205 occurrences of different prefixes will show that pre­ fixes replay individual themes traceable to their invariant abstractions, and thereby form regular con­ trasts with po-. This analysis of families of prefixed verb paronyms thus contributes solid evidence for the invariant structure of verbal prefixes, and of po- in particular.

The paronym families discussed in this chapter were chosen to illustrate the nature of the distinctions marked by the prefixes, especially when their contrasts do not seem to affect the overall meaning of the verb.

Sometimes the question of synonymy can arise, but then native Russians select prefixes automatically, and the contrasts must exist for some purpose, not readily apparent from a surface inspection of the truth-value semantics of an utterance. Paronym families illustrate the fine cognitive distinctions that Russians can draw in conceptualizing a scenario. The préfixai inventory of cognitive representations makes sometimes fine, but typically Russian distinctions — - distinctions which may not find surface means of expression in English.

For example, English may render the verbs poslat', prislat', and vyslat' all as 'to send.'

The following paronym families will illustrate the cognitive-level contrasts between a number of verbal prefixes: the prefixed forms of stroit' 'to build,' 206 plakat' 'to cry,' zvat' 'to call,' slat' 'to send,' the verbal root - jasn- 'clear,' and verbs of motion. Not every prefixed variant of each family is discussed, however. The purpose is to show that po- contrasts with other prefixes consistently in the same way: descriptions of the invariant structures of other prefixes are to be understood as only premilinary at this stage. I have attempted to show that each member of the paronym families discussed stands in a meaning­ ful contrast to each other prefixed member, and that this contrast is not only in strict reference to po-, for po- should not be seen as the mere foil of other

"flashier" alternative cognitive abstractions.

6.1. Prefixed Forms of stroit' 'to build'

The prefixes which combine with the base verb stroit' focus in on specific aspects of the building scenario and moreover include implications about the scenario itself and what is in the Russian's mind. The focus is accordingly on the structure itself, the location, or some blending of these two.

Both vystroit' and postroit' are normally paired with stroit' in the sense of 'constructing an edifice'

(cf. Ozegov, 1972, 712). But it can be demonstrated that the Russian has more in mind than just the con­ struction of some building when using vystroit': the 207 structure is seen as fitting into a particular scenario or is seen in relation to terrain features, a previous state, a site, or even as the embodiment of an idea.

Thus vystroit' falls into the 'blend' category.

Although postroit' does not preclude information about location in the sentences in which it is used, this information is not implied in postroit' itself

(whereas it is in vystroit')■ There is, of course, some location, but it is not defined relative to any­ thing else. Essentially, po- here keeps the focus on the structure itself, without regard to the background, neighboring buildings, etc. With however, there is always an implicit close relation between what is built and where it is, and consequently, what kind of impact it makes on the speaker/perceiver.

Some examples will make this clear.

Rjadom s institutom vystroili novoe obSd'eS'itie. (Lobanova, 1980, 263)

Vdol’ à’osse v poselke byli vystroeny kotteddi dlja rabodix. (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 1250)

The buildings (dormitories and cottages) mentioned in both these sentences stand out in relation to something else (the college and highway): they are not isolates in an abstract scenario.

But vy- does not always demand a concrete backdrop: 208

Berestov vystroil dom po sobstvennomu planu, zavel u sebja sukonnuju fabriku/ utroil doxody i stal poSitat' sebja umnejSim Selovekom vo vsem okolodke. (SSRLJA, 2, 1951/ 1250)

Here an idea has been fleshed out. It is not just a fact, it is an accomplishment which stands out in relation to a man's life. This is very similar to what vy- does in this next example.

A i deneg-to bylo dva franka da neskol'ko santimov! Ne velik kapitall Kamennyj dom ne vystroië'! (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 1250)

No explicit backdrop is mentioned, but the object stands out. (The adjective kamennyj here has the connotations of 'large' and 'fine' — qualities which would make the house stand out.) The background impli­ cations involve getting together financial resources that would make it possible to 'flesh out' such a structure. It is interesting to note the obligatory use of the adjective to modify the structure here. The quality is accentuated, much in the same way as with vykrasit* 'to paint (often drawing attention to the color).'

In this next example, keeps the stark plane of destruction in mind: 209

Vidis’ / 5to fricy s gorodom sdelali? Kirpi? — i bol'se nidego ... A my vot Sivy. A gorod... Novyj vystroim. (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 1250)

With vy- the object stands out against its location.

The town is envisaged as part of the landscape in the

future. This part and parcel view is an important

feature of the focus of vy-, and keeps vystroit* dis­

tinct from otstroit' in contexts where their meanings are extremely close.

Posle vojny gorod byl otstroen zanovo. (Lobanova, 1980, 263)

Here the starting point — the gorod 'town* damaged in

the past — serves to constrast with the later, com­

pleted construction. In this example it is unlikely

that the town had been utterly destroyed in the war; more than just a few bricks of it remained to trigger

the appearance of otstroit'. This explains why one

says vystroit* novyj gorod * to build a new town,* and

otstroit* gorod zanovo * to rebuild the town.*

Relative location is unmarked in postroit*. The

structures in focus are endpoints, and background is

irrelevant.

Ètu cerkov* postroili russkie zodcie. (Lobanova, 1980, 263) 21C

-Po professii ja inZener. Poka 2ivu/ ja postroil na Rusi desjatka dva velikolepnyx mostov. (SSRLJa, 10, 1960, 1556)

The linear reduction principle is evident in these examples with po-. Basic elements are connected, without regard to intervening temporal or spatial accidentals. Even though a location is named in one

(na Rusi 'in Russia'), it is rather vague, and the two dozen bridges are summed up or strung along without specifying relative locations. The objects do not stand out with full-fledged representations.

The description of a construction or arrangement of parts relative to the comprising entity itself is handled by ustroit* 'to arrange, to construct.' Po- does not focus in on components per se.

Na uroke zoologii my izudali, kak ustroen glaz strekozy. (Lobanova, 1980, 265)

When the focus is on the location being built on, zastroit' 'to build up an area' is the verb used. The prefix za- helps mark off the area in which construc­ tion is taking place:

Pustyr' mezdu teatrom i metro zastroili novymi domami. (Lobanova, 1980, 263) 211

The different prefixed forms of stroit* discussed here contain different implications about the building scenario. Vy- focuses in on an object relative to some location or background, thus giving it cognitive promi­ nence. Po-/ in contrast, does not locate a building with regard to any scenario features; it summarily presents information, employing punctual abstraction.

Ot- is used when additional construction is described, implying completion of the undertaking as a whole. U- implies the relative arrangement of the components of a structure. With za-, an area becomes a building site, and is no longer directly observable.

6.2. Prefixed Forms of plakat* 'to cry, to weep'

The prefixes which combine with the base verb plakat * can be categorized according to an intensity scale; moreover, suffixation also can be seen to play a role in expressing the intensity of the action.

Each prefix adds its own particular focus or im­ plies a certain manner in which the 'crying' is done.

As adverbial prisms these prefixes cannot be synony­ mous; different situations require different prefixes.

The act of crying itself involves many features which compose its scenario: the expenditure of emotion,

tears, a time span, reasons, degrees of grief, etc.

There is a prefix to highlight each feature and 212

indicate the extent of the weeper's involvement in the action.

For example/ vsplaknut' 'to shed a few tears' is defined as "nemnogo poplakat'" 'to cry a little bit'

(Ozegcv/ 1972/ 98). Yet the two verbs are not syno­

nymous. The prefix vs- communicates the notion of attaining a threshold/ and thus in this case the rush

of emotion is brought to the forefront. The feeling

which vs- adds in vsplaknut' is comparable to that

which it adds in vskipet' 'to boil up'; the tears have

welled up. The verb poplakat' does not draw attention

to this fact.

Consider these sentences (Lobanova/ 1980/ 287):

Rebenok poplakal i uspokoilsja.

Na vokzale/ provozaja do5'/ daze otec vsplaknul.

In the second sentence/ the suffix -nu- accentuates

the shortness of the duration: the point at which tears

started coming out was reached.

In poplakat'/ po- makes no comment on how the state

of crying was reached; it does, however, quantify the

action/ without focusing in on the tears themselves or

on other components of the weeping scenario. (Cf.

linear reduction.) 213

Contrasting English definitions of the two verbs are instructive: poplakat' - to do some weeping; and vsplaknut' - to have tears come to one’s eyes.

If one wishes to extend the period of crying with reference to a block of time which is taken up entirely by the crying, one uses the verb proplakat’ 'to spend

(a certain amount of) time crying.' Pro- thus would

have greater relative intensity than po-.

The verb zaplakat' 'to start crying' likewise

implies longer duration than vsplaknut'. Although za-

marks the transition to the state of crying, it lacks

emphasis on the threshold energy for getting into that

state. In that sense, vs- is not just an unproductive

formant of ingressive verbs, as Vinogradov maintains

(Vinogradov, 1947, 530).

The verb rasplakat'sja conveys the meaning of

beginning to cry with great intensity. Note that as in

vsplaknut' vs- was accompanied by an attenuative suf­

fix, here ras- is used in tandem with -sja for the

augmentative effect. This is not merely the operation

of the redundancy principle; the meanings of the pre­

fixes themselves allow the selection of a particular

suffix. For example, vs- indicates the attainment of a

state, whereas za- implies more the continuance of the

action state (cf. vskipet' 'to reach a boil' and 214 zakipet' 'to start boiling'). Thus za- is less compat­ ible with -nu-.

The -sja in rasplakat'sja is important for putting the focus on the weeper, the 'deep-case object under­ going the action.' Depending on the nature of the verbal action, a prefix can have a transitivizing effect on the verb, since it can highlight and thereby objectify one of the features of the semantics of a verb. In this case the reflexive particle -sja returns the focus to the deep-case object.

If the semantics of the prefix objectifies a compo­ nent in the verb's scenario, the verb becomes transi­ tive. An example is oplakivat' 'to mourn (for),' where the focus is on a (concrete) object of grief or dis­ tress .

Ona dolgo oplakivala syna, nelepo pogibsego v avarii. (Lobanova, 1980, 288)

The verb vyplakat' 'to cry and thus obtain relief from the cause of emotional duress; to obtain one's objective through tearful entreaties' is similar, in that the weeping scenario involves more than the weep­ er, whether it is the emotion or distress to be worked through, or the result the crying is supposed to obtain

(vyplakat' gore 'to cry one's grief away' versus vy­

plakat' razregenie 'to turn on the tears and get 215 permission'). But to return the focus to the weeper,

-sja is added, and the base verb's original intransi­ tivity is preserved.

Poxoroniv mu%a, ona vyplakalas' i êtim xot' na vremja oblegZila svoe gore. (Lobanova, 1980, 287-88)

The skeletal structure of vyplakat'sja is thus analogous to that of vyspat'sja — 'to have a good cry,' and 'to have a good night's sleep, respectively.

In summation, the different prefixed forms of plakat' mark relative degrees of intensity, focus in on the action as a unit (poplakat'), focus in on the cause for the weeping (vyplakat', oplakat'), and focus in on the person experiencing the emotion (rasplakat'sja, vyplakat'sja). The invariant meaning of each prefix is what makes it possible to manipulate the focus of the action in so many ways, to mark degrees of intensity, and lastly to predict what will be in focus.

6.3. Calling and Beckoning: pozvat', podozvat',

prizvat'

Calling in Russian presupposes specifying the actual or desired location of the person or thing being summoned. The prefix can focus on the linear act of calling out and getting attention (pozvat*), or getting the person or animal being called to some location 216 relative to the caller (podozvat'), or calling the person or thing for some purpose/ to some cognitive scene for future activities (prizvat').

The verb pozvat' is goal-oriented: the vector from the caller to the target listener forms a single line segment. The caller does not have a position of promi­ nence in the cognitive scenario. Focus is on making contact with the target listener. No attention is drawn to other scenario features or obstacles.

In this example/ the hero/ BilbO/ is about to enter a secret passage to a treasure chamber/ guarded by a

Dragon :

On skazal/ 2?to vo vsjakom slu?ae zajdet ynutr' i / mo2’et byt'/ daZ'e sdelaet s desjatok Sagov/ d'toby V krajnem slufae bylo komu pozvat' na pomos?'. (Raxmanova/ 1976/ 175)

Bilbo wants to be sure to make contact with those on

the outside. There is a one-way focus: get their attention. The act of calling itself/ however/ has

implications of getting a reaction — the implication

in this case being that the dwarves would come in and

help. When it is explicit that the target listener is

to move to the vicinity of the caller/ the verb pod-

zyvat*/podozvat' 'to call over' is used- The prefix

pod- marks the relative location of the caller. 217

On podozval dvux gnomov/ i oni v volnenii naZali podnimat'sja vtroem po stupen'kam... (Raxmanova, 1976, 170)

The verb podozvat' focuses in on the caller and his immediate vicinity. In this instance, the use of vtroem 'the three of them together' is redundant, echoing the effect of the prefix in an obvious way.

The result of the calling gets all three to the same relative location — that of the caller.

Sentences with podozvat' often explicitly name the relative location — the location to which the object is expected to move.

k sebe. Ona podozvala ego k stolu. poblize.

The caller puts herself into the scenario; she is part of the cognitive scenery being specified in the propo­ sition. The movements are considered relative to the caller's position and any other scenario markers cor­ responding to the spatial reality of the situation.

In contrast, pozvat' has focus away from the cal­ ler; on a cognitive level the caller initiates a goal- directed vector. Yet even pozvat' can involve a re­ sponse to the calling, but notice how the initiator of the calling in the next example holds himself aloof 218 from the situation. He is not even directly involved in the calling; he has some servants do it:

Vizu, iz restorana mnogo prislugi vysypalo k nam / i vse pered djadeju S’ut' ne v tri pogibeli gnutsja, a on iz koljaski ne 2’evelitsja i velel pozvat* xozjaina. PobeZali. Javljaetsja francuz — toze s bol’Sim poZteniem, a djadja ne ^evelitsja. .- (Leskov, 1981, 53)

The calling results in the Frenchman's coming up to the carriage — the caller's location — but the act is not conceived the same way as it would be with podozvat'.

The carriage and Uncle are temporarily out of focus with pozvat'. The focus is on one leg of the process

— making contact with the Frenchman. Uncle had the servants 'go call,' 'go get' (pozvat'} him. This directed vector is further carried through by the immediately succeeding verb — pobezali 'they took off

(in the Frenchman's direction).' Po- marks off indi­ vidual, single acts.

The point of view or focus is quite different with prizyvat'/prizvat'; the focus is on the arrival of some deep-case object at a certain place (or cognitive scene). This verb pair is used in the sense of 'to appeal,' 'to call up for military duty,' or 'to ask for participation in a cause.' The semantics of pri— im­ plies that some activity is to follow, in effect, linking logically related predications. (The second 219

predication may only be implied/ but it is cognitively

marked by pri- ).

Stanislavskij prizyval aktera Zit' na scene/ fit' / if fa bol'fuju pravdu i peredavaja ee zriteljam. (SSRLJa/ 11/ 1961/ 494-495)

Here the second predicate is fit' 'to live' — to bo

thorougly involved in the theater. Although both

prizvat' and podozvat * concern getting an object to

some location/ the locations for both differ with

respect to the initiator of the calling. With podo­

zvat ' the focus is on the caller and his vicinity:

there are no further implications beyond the object's

moving to the agent's vicinity. With prizvat',

however/ the initiator of the calling does not put

himself in the scenario. And there is a reason — a

cognitive location where the agent desires something to

take place.

Evfrosin'ja xodila vokrug traktora i prizyvala na golovu svoego muza ... vse suffestvujuscie i nesuféestvujusfie v prirode bedy. (SSRLJa/ 11/ 1961/ 495)

Here prizyvat' can be translated as 'to call down on.'

The caller is not in the vicinity of what she wants to take place. The word bedy 'misfortunes' implies the second predication. 220

This section has shown that in Russian, prefixes

can mark the directionality of the skeletally vectoral

act of calling as well as presuppose features of the

setting where the calling takes place. Po- sets up a

goal-oriented vector, issuing from one point and making

contact with another. With both pod- and pri- , the

location of the object being summoned is important:

pod- implies motion to the vicinity of the caller: pri-

relativizes the object to a scene for another action to

take place.

6.4.0. The Russian Cognitive Geometry of 'Sending*:

slat' and Variations

Russians can view the process of sending from a number of different angles, and according to the choice of prefix, imply something about the configuration of the scenario or focus in on some aspect of it. The prefixes encode information on important or (contextu­ ally) relevant spatial features and arrangements and even hint at attitudes of the people involved. These focal distinctions extend to both aspects: all prefixed forms of slat' form secondary imperfectives.

Each of the verbs examined in this section — poslat' , vyslat*, otoslat* , prislat', podoslat*, and zaslat' (all of which can be translated by the simple

English 'to send') — shows a different cognitive 221 abstraction of the sending scenario, and contains different implications of what is included in the scenario. The prefix contains information on punctual or nonpunctual abstractions, and even on the directness of the act of sending (of. poslat * versus podoslat').

6.4.1. posylat'/poslat '

Po- creates the effect of a line segment, a unit­ ized action, as a point moving through space (and time) traces a line. No attention is paid to the form, substance, or details of the object of posylat'/po- slat': it might as well be a point. Something or some person is being manipulated, and the form or dimensions of the named entity are irrelevant to the linear frame­ work of the predication. What is important is the nexus of object and location (here = goal) after some time T. This line segment effect is apparent even with the imperfective form, where a series of discrete

(linear) acts can be denoted:

Posle predstavlenija artistka vsegda posylaet vozdu2nye pocelui publike.

When the form of the object being sent does not have to stand out, po- is used and a discrete act of sending is formulated. Note its use in a linear se­ quence of events: 222

ReSiv matematiîeskuju zadaZu, on napisal stat'ju i xotel poslat' ee v Zurnal "MatematiZeskie zametki".

There is no allusion to the starting point of the act of sending, and the object and its goal are ab­ stract. The information being conveyed is that a unit, linear action (part of a series of related actions) is to make a point of contact upon completion. In other words, the cognitive abstraction formed is a line segment.

Because po- connects objects and locations simply and seemingly directly, without regard to the acci­ dentals of reality, it is used to help speed up a narration, providing a linear chunking of events. In this example from Puskin's Anêfar, po- helps emphasize that the mission was carried out quickly, and that the servant conscientiously had only the thought of ful­ filling his mission in mind. No external circumstances are recounted; the skeletal facts essentially amount to a retraced line segment.

No 5eloveka Zelovek Poslal k Anô'aru vlastnym vzgljadom: I tot posluâho V put' potek, I k utru vozvratilsja s jadom.

Prefix anaphora ensures the linear effect. The struc­ ture of the act of sending is point-to-point. Any 223

difficulties associated with the journey are glossed

over. We can picture the first steps of the servant as

he runs off, and the narration time is so compressed

that he is back from his mission in the next line.

With poslat' po- does not focus directly on the goal or

imply that some action is to take place once the goal

is reached. (With pri- and za-, for example, this

location is a new stage for some subsequent action or

on which something is to happen. Punctuality, however,

implies a contact point, not an area — hence po-* s

unit line segment effect, and the lack of dimension­

ality in the conceptualization of the goal. (Po-

precludes the "3-D effect.")

The fact that po- quantifies or marks off a unit of distance is sometimes very obvious:

Po^li ty ego podal'2'eî 'Get him out of here,' 'Tell him to go to hell'

The echoing of the verbal prefix in the adverb doubly marks the unit line segment. It is a question of achieving a certain amount of distance between the speaker and the object.

6.4.2. vysylat'/vyslat *

This verb pair differs from posylat'/poslat' in that it puts greater attention on the object and that 224

the vector of the action does not proceed from a punc­

tually abstract source. (For the object to stand out,

it must appear relative to some backdrop: it cannot

stand out against a point.) The fact that the action

starts off somewhere is kept in view. In contrast, po- does not draw attention to the spatial circumstances of

the starting point of the action of poslat'.

In this example, the object of vyslat' stands out

in relation to the source from which it is sent:

Ty prosil vyslat' tebe, esli dostanu, novyx plastinok dlja patefona. Neuzeli ja ne poslal? (SSRLJa, 2, 1951/ 1260)

The verb vyslat' focuses in on the records. First

they had to be obtained. Once obtained, they could be

shipped out. This makes the source of the sending

relevant to the scenario focus: vy- highlights the

records against this information. In selecting vy- the

starting boundaries of the action were deemed important

enough to include in the action's cognitive representa­

tion. The action of vyslat' is formulated or visual­

ized from the point of view of the addressee. The

speaker chooses vyslat' to bring his point home to the

addressee. Then when he uses poslal, he is choosing to

represent the action from his own point of view: was

not the linear action completed? There is no need to 225

say 'Look at me' twice. The focus is shifted for

effect. In using poslat', the act of sending is mea­

sured off. The goal is punctually reached, and the

action is conceptualized as a unit line segment.

Because vy- highlights an object relative to some

scene or backdrop, verbs formed with it can occur in

contexts involving a sense of urgency or immmediacy.

The object moves away from the scene. Adverbial modi­

fiers supply the actual feeling of haste or urgency.

Prisluga byla totcas vyslana, dveri zaperty, i ogon' potusen. (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 1260)

What is in focus is the maid’s (or servants') movement

from the house. A situation in which the object stands out relative to a source location calls for vyslat'.

The source location may be understood from context, and need not be named explicitly or even implied (as the word ’door' implies 'house' in the foregoing exam­ ple) in a sentence with vyslat *.

Na standju vyslali za nim trojku loS’adej. (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 1260)

When vy- is used, the source location is not con­ ceived punctually; it has some scope. As shown in these examples, vy- implies a source location even when 226 one is not explicitly named. When the source is named the contrast with the highlighted object can be stark:

V 1944 g . ves* krymskotatarskij narod byl ogul'no obvinen v izmene i pogolovno vyslan iz predelov Kryma v Uzbekistan, Kazaxstan, Ural i nekotorye rajony Rossii. (Materialy Samizdata, 1986, 5842-1)

The prefix ob- in obvinen 'charged; accused' gives comprehensive object focus; switching to vy- relativ- izes this focus to a territory, creating an emphatic sense of disassociation from the source. The attention is on the displaced people as their homeland looms in the distance, behind them.

6.4.3. otsylat'/otoslat'

The vector of the act of sending has its focus on the vicinity of the source from which it emanates when this verb pair is used. The prefix ot- in this verb pair contributes a sense of 'source deprivation* to the scenario: the focus is on the removal of the object from the vicinity of the source.

U menja staru2ka-mat', polovinu Zalovanija budu otsylat' ej na propitanie. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 1637)

The son is expressing his point of view; the money is coming from him. The verb posylat* does not focus in 227

on the source vicinity. VJith otsylat' it is not merely a question of a unit line segment.

In this next example, the agent gets some letters

out of his vicinity:

Otoslav pjat'-âest' pisem, on opjat' pogruz- ilsja V svoj nedug — skuku. (SSRLJa, 8, 1959, 1637)

The subject completes the act of sending off letters;

the focus then returns to the subject and his activi­

ties. (Using poslat * would create a different effect;

one would feel that a linear sequence of events was

recounted. The subject's expenditure of energy and

immediate surroundings would not receive attention.)

6.4.4. prisylat*/prislat*

With this verb pair, pri- keeps the focus on the

goal area, and implies that some related action is to

follow in that area. Note that the goal of prisylat'/

prislat' is not an abstract point.

RazreSite mne oznakomit'sja s soderzaniem prislannyx buroag, — proiznes Makarov i raspecatal konvert. (SSRLJa, 11, 1961, 784)

The sent object has a certain immediacy in the context,

and its proximity to the receiver is marked. 228

6.4.5. podsylat'/podoslat*

Scenarios with podsylat'/podoslat' are rather involved. The vector of this act makes no pretense of being simple and direct. The action, and all its implications, are relative to external circumstances

(cf. pod as preposition, where object location is specified relative to some other object, producing a three-dimensional effect — punctual location relative to a plane) which need not be specified. Pod- stands in for them. Given the cover afforded by the spatial configuration, the clandestine nature of the sending operation is a natural interpretation.

Consider the underhandedness of the following action :

Stalin podoslal ubijcu k Trockomu.

Note the indirect involvement of the agent. Pod-'s relativity helps describe the indirect manipulation of the object (i.e., assassin). The assassin was a Mexi­ can, and Trotsky was killed in Mexico. Stalin, of course, was nowhere near there at the time. Stalin located someone who agreed to assassinate Trotsky — na samom dele on nikogo ne posylal.

Compare this use of podoslat' with that of poslat * in Angar, where the manservant is sent directly on a mission, which is summed up linearly (Section 6.4.1.). 229

6.4.6. zasylat'/zaslat*

Za- also indicates relative location of an object

— location relative to some contextual parameter. The framework includes some barrier or boundary, actual or psychological. The process of sending with zasylat'/ zaslat' involves spanning some location; therefore the location can not be conceived as a punctual abstrac­ tion .

In many situations, the transgression of a boundary implies continued activities (on some surface area).

When a barrier is exceeded it is not a question of simple sending:

Specsluzby Pakistana zasylajut v Kabul i drugie afganskie goroda svoix kadrovyx sotrudnikov. Sobrannye s ix pomo2Z'ju spionskie svedenija peredajutsja zatem CRU. (Sovetskaja Litva)

The agents' locations are relative to political bor­ ders; the act of sending is not seen as a simple vector without other reference points. And the places where

the spies land are not conceived punctually; they open

up to vistas of activity.

The goals mentioned with poslat' are endpoints;

with zaslat' they become stages for the sending pur­

pose . 230

Since za- presupposes that the location of the object of the verb is relative to some reference mark­ er , zaslat * can also be used in sentences like the

following, without reference to some purpose or activ­ ity after the goal is passed.

Gruz kuda-to zaslali. (SSRLJa, 4, 1955, 951)

The extra reference marker creates the effect of span­ ning an object or location.

6.4.7. The Different Foci of Sending

Examining the different prefixed forms of slat' has shown that each correlates with a particular cognitive abstraction, highlighting different aspects of the arrangement of the components of the sending scenario: the agent, the object, and their relations, if any, to

(cognitively implicit or explicit) locational features.

Kith po-, individual acts of sending can be conceptu­ alized in their vectoral simplicity (starting point to goal point), without reference to locational complex­ ity- Po- marks off (focuses on) the endpoint of unit acts of sending. Kith vy- the object being sent stands out with respect to some background, because vy- pre­ supposes background information in the cognitive imag­ ery of its scenarios. Ot- marks source deprivation — 231

removal of the object being sent from the vicinity of

the agent. Pri- focuses on the goal — most likely

conceived three-dimensionally — which the object is to

reach. Pod- marks the indirect involvement of the

agent: the object is involved in some mission upon

reaching the vicinity of the mentioned goal. Za- marks

a spanning: objects are sent relative to some boundary,

real or psychological, with the resulting contextual

interpretations that the objects are involved in unob­

servable activities beyond the boundary or are just

unobservable because of exceeding or missing their

destination.

6.5. Clearing Things up in Russian

The prefixes po- ob-, u-, and vy- combine with the

root jas/n- 'clear' to form verb pairs that provide

different perspectives on how "light is cast" on infor­

mation. The focus provided by the prefixes even

changes the translation for the verbs in English: 'to

explain' versus 'to find out.'

With deadjectival verbs, po- expectedly introduces

the notion of comparison: the object's condition A is

compared with a condition B — a change or modification

(perhaps even intensification of an already present quality, depending on context). O?egov gives the

following definition of pojasnjat'/pojasnit': 'Sdelat' 232 bolee jasnym/ ob"jasnit', istolkovat'' (O?egov/ 1972,

529). This definition reflects the notion of compari­ son (sdelat* bolee jasnym = to make clearer), whereas that of ob"jasnit' does not: 'Sdelat* jasnym, ponjatnym

(to make clear)' (Ozegcv, 1972, 402).

In ob"jasnit* the focus is on what is explained, e.g., pravilo, povedenie. The object of ob"jasnit * is viewed in its own right, not as part of a linear pro­ cess: the light is focused on (and around) it. The explanation will be more exhaustive than with po- jasnit'. No prior information has to be known, sup­ plied, or implied.

uS’enye do six por ne mogut ob"jasnit* eto zagadoînoe javlenie. (Lobanova, 1980, 31)

Ob"jasnit* cannot be replaced with pojasnit' in this example because there is probably nothing known about the phenomenon and because it is precisely that phenomenon (in its own right) which is in focus. Po- would imply that something additional (maybe clinching) was learned. The comparative function throws the abstraction of the sentence into a linear framework which is unwarranted in this context.

To clear up a certain point pojasnit* is used.

With pojasnit*, po- punctually marks off a certain 233

feature (sets up a linear comparison) within a larger context.

— Spodobilis'/ batjuMka, otblesk videt'? — Net/ — otved'aet/ — otbleska ne spodobilsja/ a vot ... êtak vot bylo. On s?al kulak i podnjal, kak podnimajut za vixor mal'ZiSek. — Podnjalo? ——D a . Monaxini stali krestit'sja/ i ja toïe, a djadja pojasnil: — Teper' mne/ — govorit/ — proS’deno! Prjamo s samogo sverxu/ iz-pod kumpcla/ razverstoj desnicej sZalo mne vse vlasy vkupe i prjamo na nogi postavilo... (Leskov/ 1981/ 62)

The effect which po- has here is very much like that of putting a period at the end of a sentence which has been left hanging. II'ja Fedoseid/ in describing these sensations to the nuns and his nephew who wit­ nessed him having this mystical experience, is supply­ ing some additional information to which they could not have access by visual means alone. A linear framework is called for here; Leskov describes the scene as it progressed. It has been the subject of paragraphs of description; there is no need to throw the whole thing into focus (i.e./ use ob"jasnit *) in order to comment on the happenings. Leskov has gauged the proceedings linearly; in effect/ using pojasnit*, he took a linear measurement of them (with concentration on the end­ point) to elucidate them. 234

Concentration on individual points with again, a linear representation of the action (a vector threading individual points over a period of time), is apparent in this example:

Kogda my smotreli fil'm, prepodavatel' pojasnjal otdel'nye êpizody.

It is interesting to note that in this utterance elicited from a native speaker, the object of the verb is plural, which contributes to the linear effect

(i.e., a sequence of 'dots').

The verbs ujasnjat'/ujasnit* 'to figure out' and vyjasnjat'/vyjasnit' 'to find out' involve a noticeable shift in focus: the agent-subject shares directly in the benefit of the information. In terms of spatial abstraction, the agent-subject's relation to the object position is different; it is more important. The subject of these two verbs is the observer or receiver of the information. A Case Grammar formulation of this would make the roles of Agent and Benefactive corefer- ential.

The prefix u- closes off a scenario in which agent and object are in close association:

U?enik ujasnil (sebe) pravilo.

Ja ne ujasnil (sebe), ê?to on xodet. 235

The grammatical subject of ujasnit' is trying to be enlightened or rather, to cast light on something for

his own benefit. U- closes the subject off from a

prior condition or scene, or starting point. Cf. udalit'sja (v kajutu) 'to go off to one's stateroom'; ugovorit'sja 'to make arrangements to.' With ujasnit' , subject and object are closed off together.

Whereas with ujasnit' the subject and object are viewed together (as adjacent entities), with vyjasnit' the subject is the observer of the object, which in its turn, is part of another spatial arrangement or is made to stand out from it. The subject extracts pertinent information from what he observes:

Sergej Petroviê to2’e vmeste s drugimi podnjalsja na kran — emu xotelos' obodrit' ljudej i zaodno vyjasnit*, mnogo li ostalos' raboty na kranah. (SSRLJa, 2, 1951, 1340)

Vy- is used to discriminate the object of the verb from other information, and make it discretely discernible.

This next example illustrates the notion of extracting information from a scenario:

Kuda 2?e devalsja Gêndal'f? Êtogo ne znali ni oni, ni gobliny, da gobliny ne stali êtogo vyjasnjat'. (Raxmanova, 1976, 58) 236

Some work may have to be done in order to have a

fact stand out:

Nado vyjasnit* vse èti voprosy.

Pojdi vyjasni u sekretarja, gde novye materialy.

The vector of the action of vyjasnit* brings informa­

tion to the agent-observer.

The four prefixes discussed in this section, po-

ob-/ U - , and vy-, all clearly focus in on different

aspects of a scenario, viewing it in four cognitively

different spatial frameworks. Recapping these frame­

works we have:

pojasnjat'/pojasnit* — makes something clear for

others. The agent, ’light,' and object (information,

subject of explanation) form a linear arrangement. The

verb makes the object relatively clearer.

ob"jasnjat'/ob"jasnit* - has a comprehensive focus on

the object. If, in a given context, the roles of Agent

and Benefactive are coreferential, then the agent also

'stands in the light,' but still is not prominent in

the cognitive scene.

ujasnjat'/ujasnit' — views the grammatical subject in

figurative proximity to the grammatical object (he reaches an understanding of it), with the prefix u-'s usual effect of separating the actants associated with it from their previous locations or states, as well as 237 from other stimuli or information that may be concur­ rent with the action. vyjasnjat'/vyjasnit' — keeps the agent-subject on the receiving end of the information vector. There is a source locative or background scenario (which is not punctually abstract, as with ot-), perhaps vague, yet present, against which the subject directly observes the object or from which he extracts some abstract information about it.

6.6.0. Prefixed Verbs of Motion: Po- versus Pro-, S-,

U-, Pri-, and Vy-

Russian verbs of motion are a special family of paronyms, illustrating a wide range of contrasts. But in some contexts these contrasts are not so apparent, especially to non-Russians. In selecting a prefix, the implications of the scenario must be taken into ac­ count. It is necessary to determine the focus. Each prefix sets up o-r implies basic patterns of cognitive imagery, making certain aspects of a motion scenario cognitively prominent. An understanding of the invariant meaning of a prefix is helpful here. One way to arrive at such an understanding is to examine the function or role of prefixes in certain situations and to contrast them. 238

This section will contrast verbs of motion prefixed with po-/ pro- / ^-/ u-/ pri- / and vy-. These prefixes can occur in overlapping contexts and thus seem to offer nearly synonymous interpretations — until one considers their underlying cognitive representations for a given scenario as well as any scenario features that they imply. Moreover, students of Russian as a second language frequently err in using these prefixes with verbs of motion (see Fursenko, 1966, 36+ff). The material presented here — much of it drawn from

Fursenko*s analysis of student mistakes — thus will be useful to non-native speakers of Russian. Situational contrasts provide material for deriving the basic, invariant meaning of a prefix: these contrasts will consolidate the argument for the role of spatial impli­ cations of a scenario in triggering the appearance of a particular prefix.

6.6.1. Motion: Po- versus Pro-

With verbs of motion, pro- can create the meaning of crossing a certain distance while moving into some­ thing or somewhere. There is some overlap with the functions of po- and v-. Consider this situation:

Rabofee vremja davno u2e isteklo, no rasstro- ennyj Ivan Ivanoviêf ne speSil ujti iz kliniki. 239

On proSel v posleoperacionnuju palatU/ po- smotrel bol'nyx-serde5nikov, pogovoril s nimi. (Fursenko, 1966, 38)

It would be possible to change pro- to vo- if Ivan

Ivanovi? were assumed to be right next to the post­ operation room. Po- could also be used, since there is a sequence of actions, but pro- is used here because the actions following the verb of motion take place in the same place (the post-operation room): if po- were used these subsequent actions could be viewed as the goal of the motion — po&el posmotret* , pogovorit'

'went over to look in on and chat with' (Fursenko,

1966, 41). This goal-oriented interpretation of po- is based on its simple linear nature: with a determinate verb of motion, a vector is produced, which disregards other facts or objects in the scenario. Pro- on the other hand, draws attention to some other features in the spatial scenario: the action in its verb of motion takes place relative to some other object, location, or distance. This relativity to something else in the scenario distinguishes it from po-. Even without an actual verb of motion this function of pro- can be detected.

On prospal svoju ostanovku.

Schematically: initial location------^ stop ----- final location

^0 K \ 240

The rider and his new location have merged at some time relative to his intended destination.

The use of pro- implies certain conditions or arrangements of objects in the scenario, which need not be made explicit in the surface utterance. In the sentence On vstal i prosel k oknu, the man had to make his way around objects (or something) separating him from the window; compare this with On vstal i podoSel k oknu/ which implies that he went right over to the window (Fursenko, 1965, 40).

Even cliché formulas with pro- are traceable to the relevant contextual spatial features of a scenario.

Proxodite, razdevajtes* , sadites'.

Projdite v kabinet.

Pro- occurs when the vector of motion is to cross a psychological or physical barrier. In the two examples above, pro- traces a linear distance beyond a thresh­ old. The motion takes place with respect to a scenario

feature, which is at least understood from context.

It is apparent that with pro- some kind of backdrop is present in the predication, delimiting the scope of the predication and defining a set of reference points to which it is relevant. With verbs of motion plus the reflexive particle (e.g., projtis' 'to stroll, to pace 241

up and down,' probejfat * sja ' to do a little running [to

stretch one's muscles or as a warm-up]'), it contrib­

utes the notion of 'a little,' or 'back and forth.'

These verbs are close in meaning to indeterminate verbs

prefixed with po- (e.g., poxodit' 'to do some walking,'

pobegat' 'to run a little,' poezdit* 'to travel'),

since these verbs also can imply the notion of 'a

little' (Fursenko, 1966, 42).

The following passage from S. L'vov's Spasite naSi dusi illustrates the closeness in meaning between these

two kinds of verbs, and also serves to contrast their

functions; the prefixes literally indicate how these actions fit into the scenario.

A vot i sobaka i 5asovoj! V palisadnike stoit akkuratnaja soba5'ja budka, i pered nej na dlinnoj cepi vzad i vpered be^aet vyxolennaja 2’ernaja ovdfarka. A 2ut' pobliâe k domu toZe vzad i vpered xodit, bes^umno stupaja, ne to pop, ne to monax v o5kax na delovitom lice, s dlinnymi £ernymi volosami, v dlinnoj £ernoj rjase. U nego v rukax raskrytaja kniga, i, poxaZivaja, on pogljadyvaet to v nee, to po storonam.

"DeJurnyj!" — dogadyvaetsja Asja. Ona saditsja na skamejku naprotiv vorot seminarii. 2fdet. Za ogradoj vse proxaZivaetsja i proxaZivaetsja besS’umnaja £ernaja ten' na krasnom fone steny da povizgivaet ov£arka, £alujas' na svoju cep'. (Fursenko, 1966, 42-43)

At first the sentry's walking is not measured with

reference to anything else; poxaZivaja indicates that 242

some walking or pacing is being done (an iteration of

line segments). One can visualize discrete steps, as

one can visualize discrete instances of looking in the

book or shooting glances off to the sides with the

immediately following verb, pogljadyvaet.

Asya's view of the scene then picks up more infor­ mation. The moving figures are viewed as part of their

location. The sentry's route literally is measured

off, and his pacing back and forth is emphasized by the

reiteration of the verb proxazivaetsja. The figure in

black moves relative to a red backdrop. The use of

poxaZivaet in this instance is not possible. As a

final comment, the dog's whines, of course, are not

measured off with respect to anything else; with po­

vizgivaet, the fact that there are instances of whining

is all that is being stated.

Thus, with verbs of motion, po-'s simple linearity,

which functions without regard to local features, is

opposed to pro- 's essentially linear motion, which is

relative to objects, locations, or barriers that are

part and parcel of the cognitive imagery of pro- sce­

narios. Note that the goal-orientedness often associ­

ated with the vector -underlying po- predications is an

interpretation resulting from the contextual use of

certain verbs, such as determinate verbs of motion. 243

The iterative verbal suffix -yva/-iva blocks this usual concomitant of the simple vector of po.

5.6.2. Motion: Po- versus S-

Determinate verbs prefixed with po- (pojti 'to go by foot in some direction,' poexat* 'to go by convey­ ance in some direction') and indeterminate verbs pre­ fixed with £- (sxodif 'to make a trip to some place on foot/' s"ezdit' 'to make a trip to some place with the aid of a vehicle') can occur in the same contexts with little difference in meaning, when the intent to go somewhere is being expressed (Fursenko, 1966, 44). The verbs poj ti , poexat' express the action of setting off for a goal, whereas s x o d i f , s"ezdit' express the notion of reaching the goal and returning from it (of. the multiple vector formula of £-, discussed in Section

5.3.). But if one intends to go somewhere, it is not important whether he stresses the fact of leaving or the presumed returnt the action is as yet unreal

(Fursenko, 1966, 44). Moreover, pojti/poexat' are not used to imply a permanent change of location. Po- makes reference to a specific event and punctuates it.

Since after that point other things normally happen

(exceptions: pomer 'died,' podox 'kicked the bucket'), the notion of temporariness can be associated with predications with po- (of. the contextual notion of 244

'for a little while'). So if one sets off for somewhere for a while, one's return is understood from context; it just is not emphasized (Fursenko, 1966,

44). Thus the degree to which the verbs pojti and sxodif can be synonymous depends on how important it is to stress the leaving or the returning, and when the return is implied anyway, the distinction blurs.

Fursenko shows this with these sentences:

Sxozu posiZu u nix Zasok.

Pojdu posiZ’u u nix dasok. (Fursenko, 1966, 44)

Both sentences communicate the same fact, but the speaker undeniably has formed a certain image of his

'going' in his mind, and of how this action fits into the larger scheme of things. Using sxoZu, the speaker emphasizes completing the action; pojdu is more linear, focusing on taking off for the visit. Since no ex­ tended context was provided for the sentences, the use of one or the other depends on the speaker's subjective point of view, and would reflect a response to a fore­ going scenario. In expressing the desire to get a visit over with, it may be preferable to use sxodif, and if a series of other actions is planned, pojti is the likely choice. Thus, a phrase such as ... a ot nix uZ prjamo v biblioteku could appropriately follow a 245 phrase such as Pojdu posizu u nix gasok/ but would not be suitable after SxojTu posiZu u nix jfasok.

In general, + indeterminate verbs is used to express leaving for rather short periods of time. The use of the word Zasok 'a subjectively short hour' in the foregoing examples helps to blur the distinction between the two verbs further. Only po- + determinate verbs can be used, however, to express being away for subjectively long times; in fact, a definite regularity can be observed (Fursenko, 1966, 45).

On poedet v biblioteku na ves* d e n '.

On s"ezdit v biblioteku na polfasa.

On s"ezdit v biblioteku za polôasa.

The scope of the action is more limited with s"ez- dit'-type verbs: the motion and implied or specified other actions are completed within a set time span.

These verbs cannot take an imperfective infinitive. A phrase such as sxo^u pozanimajus' 'I'll stop down and study (for a relatively short time)' is possible, but

*sxo?u zanimat'sja is grammatically impossible: pojti, however, can be followed by both aspects: pojdu po­

zanimajus ' and pojdu zanimat'sja 'I'll go and study,'

for relatively short and long periods of time, respec­

tively. These sentences illustrate this restriction

(Fursenko, 1966, 45): 246

Zavtra ja sxo3fu (pojdu) v biblioteku# pozanimajus' neskol'ko ê’asov.

Zavtra ja pojdu v biblioteku zanimat'sja (t.e probudu tarn dolgo).

With sxodit'/s"ezdit', both the motion and action which is the goal of the motion are timed# i.e.# given temporal constraints. With pojti/poexat' this timing refers specifically to the action which is the goal of

the motion. This goes to show that two actions can be lumped together and taken as a whole (sxoZu pozanima­

jus' )# or viewed separately and serially (pojdu za- nimat'sja).

6.6.3. Motion: Po- versus U-

Focus plays a major role in requiring the use of

po- or j:- with verbs of motion# and the distinction between these two prefixes leads to situation-specific restrictions. If the opposition is not examined from a geometric point of view# one simply can say that u- has a relatively greater degree of intensity. (This was extablished in Section 5.4.) For example# one cannot

say Vcera ve5erom on poexal na rodinu# meaning that he

has left permanently: u- refers both to long-term or

permanent changes in location and to short term ones

(Fursenko# 1966# 46). 247

The contrast between and po- here consists primarily in the perception and representation of the deep-case agent/object undergoing the motion relative to its initial position. Basically, po- measures off a line segment with a vector that implies a certain goal; u- marks the absence of the agent/object from the speech scenario by fixing it to a new location, which need not be mentioned or even known. In the context

Gde tvoja mama? Ona uS'la, it is impossible to replace uê'la with poêla. What is being stated here is not linearity; attention is on the fact that mama is in a different location (and therefore absent from the speech context). The pronominal function of the prefix u- is obvious here; it stands in for an unnamed loca­

tion .

With the agent/object gets a more firm connec­

tion with the goal of its motion; the focus is away

from the source, thus permitting the interpretation of

some barrier (desired, psychological, or of physical distance) to the former source location.

Normally po- is used to express the intention of going somewhere or to express a future action of a

temporary nature (Fursenko, 1965, 47):

Ja xoZu letom poexat' na jug.

Ja sobirajus' pojti k nemu zavtra. 248

Esli budet xorosaja pogoda/ my poedem za gorod?

Zavtra ja poedu v biblioteku.

If po- is replaced with ja- in any of these sen­ tences, a secondary interpretation results: 'I do not want to stay here, I will not stay here, I will not be here' (Fursenko, 47).

Consider the use of the verbs pojti and uexat* in the following exchange, in which Sir Henry Baskerville feels that Sherlock Holmes is abandoning him.

— Prekrasno. Esli ne o2ibajus', naâi druz'ja Stèpltony priglasili vas segodnja k obedu? — Nadejus' , vy to2"e pojdete? Oni ljudi gostepriimnye i budut oèfen' rady vam. — K soi'aleniju, my s Uotsonom dolSfny uexat* v London.

— Mne toÿe zaxotelos' uexat' v London, — skazal baronet. — Podemuja dol2fen sidet' zdes' odin? (Volzina, 1966, 138-139)

"Very good. You are engaged, as I understand, to dine with our friends the Stapletons to-night." "I hope that you will come also. They are very hospitable people, and I am sure that they would be very glad to see you." "I fear that Watson and I must £ 0 to London."

"I have a good mind to go to London with you," said the baronet. "Why should I stay here alone?" (Doyle, 1977, 147) 249

The verb pojdete implies a goal to which Sir Henry expects Holmes and Watson to accompany him. At the moment of this utterance, all three are at Baskerville

Hall. Sir Henry's mind is not on the fact that

Baskerville Hall would be empty once the three of them set off together.

But then Holmes switches the focus to London, where he ostensibly will be absorbed in urgent business. He and Watson will be "closed off" in London.

Sir Henry will be left alone. He feels deserted.

In expressing his desire to accompany his friends, he is wishing himself to be in circumstances other than the loneliness of the moors. Increased complexity of the cognitive scenario is the motivation for the choice of uexat'; cf. the interpretation of 'I do not want to stay here' associated with _u- when expressing the intent to go somewhere. U- puts the deep-case object and the goal in close association, making the deep-case object's absence form the source cognitively prominent.

The use of verbs like pojti and ujti can be prob­ lematic for English speakers when they both translate

'to leave.' What has to be kept in mind is what is actually in focus. Does the absence of the agent/ object have to stand out? Is the agent/object viewed as somehow 'bound' to the new location? An affirmative answer to either question is a cue to use ujti. 250

Po- is used when only a certain part of the process of going can be or is being visualized, when the skele­ tal framework of the predication demands nothing more than simple linearity. The first few steps of the motion define the line which goes to the destination.

Thus it is possible to use po- even in the context of leaving permanently, once that fact is already known:

Zavtra on uez^aet. On poedet rano utrom. On poedet na avtobuse. (Fursenko, 1966, 47)

Only so much of the process of going has to be visu­ alized to decribe the moment of departure and the means of transportation; a simple linear template handles both pieces of information.

6.6.4. Motion: Po- vs. Pri-

Although po- and pri- seem to have a sharp distinc­ tion in focus when they occur with verbs of motion, po- keeping the initial part of the vector in focus, with continuation to the goal implied (------>) and pri- focusing in on the vector's destination, the pathway of the motion being implied, understood, or unimportant

(....>• ), students of Russian as a second language frequently err by using pri- instead of po- to indicate the attainment of the goal (Fursenko, 1966, 47). An important feature which the two prefixes share is the 251

'vague' pathway; neither one draws attention to what happens between start and finish. Furthermore, since po- implies reaching the destination, there is even more potential to miss the distinction between po- and pri-.

The major differences to be grasped between the two prefixes are the difference in focus and the difference in the scenarios which each implies. Basically, pri- implies components to the scenario other than simple linearity; the goal has greater dimensionality than just an endpoint. As a result, there is a difference in supposition between the two prefixes. A sentence like Zavtra ja pridu k nemu 'I shall have arrived at his house tomorrow' is possible if a prior agreement to meet has been made. The intention of going is already known; only confirmation is being given (Fursenko,

1966, 48). This occasions a shift in focus.

Since future tense forms of verbs of motion with the prefix pri- normally only confirm or deny the intention of going somewhere, and thus contain no new information, they are usually accompanied by scenario completers — words which specify when or under what conditions the action will be carried out, and which are the rheme of the sentence (Fursenko, 1966, 48). 252

Ja pridu k nemu v pjat' 5asov vexera.

Ja pridu k nemu, esli i drugie tovariS^i pridut.

Ja Zelaju prijti k nemu pervym.

In addressing someone about an action involving the addressee, ordinarily only pri- can be used (Fursenko,

1966, 49):

Ja xo5u priexat' k tebe zavtra.

Vy priedete k nam?

These sentences illustrate a focus on the goal , not on

the intention of making a trip. The involvement of the

second person in these sentences directs the focus of

the motion; there is no simple objective description of

motion as in sentences without second person pronouns.

It is possible, however, to use verbs of motion pre­

fixed with D O - in sentences with the second person in

certain situations. Consider the following example

(Fursenko, 1966, 49): Two guys are waiting for a train,

and one says to the other:

1) -Nu, vy poedete ko mne?

2) -Nu, vy priedete ko mne?

The first sentence can have two interpretations:

(la) The one extending the invitation plans to go home

and take the other with him. (lb) The one extending 253 the invitation is not taking the train, but the action is to take place very soon. In (2) the action is to take place in the future, with the invitation-extender already being home at the time. Clearly, the speaker's position in the proposed action relative to the addres­ see determines which prefix is used; in other words, it is a matter of sentence focus.

6.6.5. Motion: Po- versus Vy-

Verbs of motion prefixed with vy- can indicate the moment of departure, as can those prefixed with po-.

Since both prefixes focus in on the initial phase of the motion, it is possible for non-natives to misuse them.

The main area of overlap between the two prefixes is in sentences in which the goal and departure time are stated. One can say both of these sentences

(Fursenko, 1966, 51):

My vyexali tuda v dva Zasa.

My poexali tuda v dva 5asa.

There is very little difference in meaning between these two sentences; the difference is largely in the speaker's mental image of the scenario. When vy- is used, the immediate surroundings at the initial phase come into play. In other words, there is asource 254 locative or backdrop for the motion which does not have to be stated explicitly. Compare the use of vyletet* for airplane departures (generally from an airport):

Samolet vyletel rovno éerez das posle ob"javlenija posadki. (Fursenko, 1966, 50).

Po-, on the other hand, with determinate verbs of motion, indicates a punctual starting point, and makes no comment on the three-dimensional world at either start (as with vy-) or finish (as with u-). No back­ drop is brought into view. The template is linear and the abstract vector bears no other implications. With determinate verbs of motion po-'s vector is goal-ori­ ented, and this goal measures off the cognitive line segment.

Po- cannot be used in sentences which describe the scene of departure but which make no reference to a goal :

My vyexali iz Kieva v 2 d’asa.

*My poexali iz Kieva v 2 dasa.

Vy- concentrates on the scene of departure. Since po- in poexat' looks ahead to a goal, it is incompatible with the context of the backward glance described in the preceding examples. 255

A general rule can be formulated for sentences in which the goal and departure time are stated: the less

specific the departure time, the less chance there is

to use vy-. This sentence is impossible:

'Letom my vyedem na jug. [Fursenko, 1966, 51)

A possible explanation for this is that the source location is harder to peg down or visualize over a rather broad or indefinite span of time; in addition, essentially nothing more than a linear template is needed in this context to express the desire of going

somewhere. The immediacy of one's initial location has

little relevance to the proposition.

The notion of vy- and immediacy, both of time and

location, is emphasized by its special use with emer­ gency situations. Examples (Fursenko, 1966, 50):

Vertolet sro2fno vyletel na mesto proisSestvija.

Poluîiv telegrammu, on bystro sobralsja i vyletel na rodinu.

With vy- the object shows up (sometimes against a

background); it is given prominence. Cf. verbs like

vymyt' 'to wash (to get something clean),' vybrit' 'to

shave (to make clean-shaven).' This fact coupled with 256 the implied or explicitly named initial location ac­ counts for the relatively greater intensity of vy-.

Motion scenarios employing vy- require the immedi­ acy of a departure scene — an image serving as a backdrop for the moving object. A verb like vyexat' would be used in contexts like kogda nastupala groza

•as the storm came up* and srazu posle zavtraka 'right after breakfast.' Po-, in contrast, focuses on a goal point when imagery at the starting point is irrelevant: the representation to the target destination is a line segment, and that is all that is necessary, as in the context of "Let's go, let's get started, let's leave I"

Russian renders this with Nu, poexali! or Nu, po^li!

But the prefixes vy- and u-, entailing information about the scene of the incipient motion and information about association with a distant location, respective­

ly, would add unnecessary cognitive baggage and there­

fore are impossible in this context: *Nu, vyexaliI

*Nu, uexali!

6.6.6. Prefixes and Motion: Contrasts in Scenario

Conceptualization

Different prefixes can be used with verbs of motion

to describe the same situations, which fact can lead

one to conclude that the essential differences between

the prefixes are neutralized in some contexts. But the 257 cognitive model of prefixation explains how distinc­

tions are maintained, even in contexts where prefixed paronyms approach the status of synonyms. Russian is capable of expressing fine distinctions in the i;oncep-

tualization of a scenario by manipulating basic cogni­

tive abstractions — verbal prefixes. These abstrac­ tions contrast in their presuppositions about the cognitive importance of features contained in a sce­ nario. Each prefix employs particular geometric ab­ stractions in representing a scenario.

Through contrasting six of the prefixes occurring with verbs of motion — po-, pro- , s^-, jj-, pri- , and vy- — this section has shown that the same motion situation can be described from different points of view, in effect, conceptualized differently. Each prefix makes different facts relevant to the conceptu­ alization of a scenario.

With verbs of motion, as with other verbs, po- employs punctual abstraction and simple linearity. The linearity can be a goal-directed vector (as with pojti

•to go off on foot in a certain direction') or a quan­ tification of repeated line segments (as with poxodit*

'to do some walking* or poxazivat* * to pace*). With po-, local features of the scene of motion do not receive cognitive representation or are not cognitively prominent. But the representation of local features 258 comes into play with other prefixes. Only preliminary findings on the cognitive abstractions of other pre­ fixes are given here, for the sake of comparision with po-.

Pro- marks off a vector which moves relative to an object or location, including real or psychological barriers. Sometimes the relative location serves to measure off the vector. Pro- traces a line segment relative to a backdrop, in distinction from vy-, which marks an object standing out against a backdrop or moving away from the departure scene.

The multiple-vector formula of s- can be associated with a short period of time spent at a goal, the impli­ cation of a return trip (the extra vector) being strong. A verb like s"ezdit* 'to drive down to (and come back)' involves the total trip time as well as the time spent in an activity at the goal: Oni s"ezdjat v magazin za poltora 2asa 'They will have done their shopping and be back in an hour and a half.' S- han­ dles the motion and the activity at the goal in one time frame — multiple vectors resolving to a point — whereas po- views the motion and subsequent activity separately, as serial events: Oni pojdut v biblioteku i provedut tarn celyj den' za rabotoj. 'They are going to the library and will spend the whole day studying.' 259

2" marks the absence, desired or actual, of an object from its initial location, involving the object with a goal or some activity at a goal.

Pri- draws attention to an attained goal, which is not a punctual abstraction, as with po-. The circum­ stances at the goal are cognitively prominent, for the motion is described from the point of view of the goal.

6.7. Prefix Contrasts: Meaningful Distinctions on the

Cognitive Level

Contrasting the various prefixed forms of a verb

illustrates that differences in prefixation are indica­

tive of differences in the cognitive-level representa­

tions of the base verb scenario. In describing the perception of a verb's interaction with a given con­

text, prefixes presuppose or imply certain facts about

the scenario and its components. Prefixes focus on a

specific aspect of the base verb scenario and so can

convey a speaker's point of view. Differences in focus

show up well in contrasting the members of prefixed verb paronym families. (Consider the different points

of view that posylat' den'gi 'to get money to someone/

some place' and otsylat' den'gi 'to deprive oneself of money by sending it' can express.)

In addition to showing where to attach cognitive

prominence in a scenario, prefixes also denote the kind 260 of cognitive imagery relevant to the conceptualization of the scenario — any relevant scenery or backdrop if necessary, or actual or relative location/time, as well as the types of basic geometric abstractions involved

(points, lines, planes, three-dimensional arrange­ ments) .

This study of paronym families has shown that the various prefixed forms of a verb are not whimsically synonymous. It has been demonstrated that the appear­ ance of a particular prefix correlates with the spatial and psychological implications of a context and with an individual's perception of the cognitive impression he records and conveys. In contrasting prefixed verb paronyms, po- has been seen to maintain a consistent, systematic opposition to other prefixes. The scenery of a po- predication is sparse, and involves the regu­ lar application of a unidimensional formula. This formula is always distinct from the cognitive represen­ tations of other prefixes. As a result, paronym fami­ lies represent multiple cognitive-level contrasts in the conceptualization of a scenario. CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

/

7.0. Summary of the Cognitive Model of Verbal Prefix­

ation

The model of verbal prefixation presented here involves the interaction of objects and locations as pictured by an observer who makes use of some basic geometric principles to orient himself relative to his external circumstances as well as to order these ex­ ternal circumstances so as to be able to understand them and interact with them. In Russian, prefixes, as cognitive geometric constructs, are devices for coding representations of energy scenarios, providing a struc­ ture for cognitive units. Each prefix creates a unique cognitive event status for a predication, for a prefix contains its own special geometric implications.

As far as verbal prefixes are concerned, the loca­

tions of predications are cognitive locations, and the planes, points, lines, vectors, and three-dimensional

forms used in cognitive processes are modelled after

spatial reality and used metaphorically. Mental

261 262 processes/ phenomena/ and representations have to be

located: the keyword in understanding cognition is orientation.

7.1. The Invariant Framework of Po-

Po-'s invariant effect is the one-dimensional unit processing of reality. The punctual nature of po- has

the effect of creating "line segment"-type actions/

i.e./ a description of the action over time can be rendered by an abstract diagram of a line segment. The

course of a point through time generates a line/ and with po- we are dealing with only a part of the line/

or line segment. This invariant skeletal abstraction of predications employing verbs prefixed with po- has

been demonstrated in this work/ and can be seen as the

semantic common denominator of the multiple meanings

conventionally attributed to po-. Some type of linear

cognitive representation is common to all predications

for which po- provides the (cognitive geometrical)

framework/ whether they can be construed as measure­ ments in a broad sense/ (linear) comparisons of single

features/ points of contact/ or series of interrelated

points.

The length of the line segment of the cognitive

representation established by po- will vary according

to the semantics of the context; po- itself can not be 263 said to possess any inherent duration. Thus po- in posidet' 'to sit for a while' does not mean 'for a little while;' it only helps complete that meaning in an appropriate context. The time line is even shorter in a context like Mal'SiSka srazu poZuvstvoval oznob

'the little boy started shivering right away.' The verb posidet' has an endpoint in time, and makes a quantified linear measurement. The endpoint in the sentence with poZuvstvovat' 'to start feeling' is the

Experiencer (= animate goal), i.e., the boy, who is the point of contact for the vectoral representation of the verb. The core meaning imparted by the prefix po- is a question of geometric abstraction — the imposition of a cognitive framework — and not a question of marking absolute amounts, beginnings, or ends.

Po-'s domain of operation is the horizontal cogni­ tive plane, which serves to orient its linear framework

— a linear relational formula for making implicit

(linear) measurements, making comparisons (measuring one feature against another), and marking off quan­ tities of distance, time, and volumes.

In sequences of narration, po- produces the linear reduction effect. Actions move along faster; a vector progresses from cognitive unit to cognitive unit. The effect of speeding up a narration is attributable to 264 po-'s being a spatial marker of the nonpositive cogni­ tive domain. Predications with £o- lack the salience of the positive cognitive domain. Predications with po- do not involve special/ graphic representations of objects or location features. This fact has been demonstrated especially through contrasts with other prefixes.

7.2. Problem Areas for the Cognitive Model of

Prefixation: Fossilization/ Fusion/ and

Desemanticization

Over time a word can become fixed to a special context and acquire a specialized meaning. With the severe narrowing of the semantic range of a verb/ the connection between prefix and base verb may seem re­ mote/ and the contribution of the prefix to the verb's meaning may seem obscure. There are some prefix + verb combinations in the modern language which can be seen as inherited symbolic formulas of communication: the pristine rationale behind the use of a particular prefix — the structuring pattern selected to represent the concept — may have limited psychological validity for speakers of the contemporary language. In creating a specialized meaning/ a prefix and base can become fused: these prefixed verbs on a synchronic level are 265 not readily analyzable as prefix + verb combinations.^ Some Russian examples are: pomogat'/pomod* 'to help,' ponimat*/ponjat' 'to under­ stand,' poludat'/poludit' 'to receive.' Despite the fact that the meaning of these verbs was restricted by narrow contextual use, one can contend that the prefix po- has not been desemanticized in them, for the frame­ work of each verb involves linearity and punctual contact.2 The cognitive model of po- accounts for the preservation of this linear effect, but it is a moot point as to how much impact the ancient historical motivation for po- in these verbs has on the minds of the contemporary people using them, and how much of the cognitive structuring of predications with these verbs is traceable to a po- that no longer may be felt. The verb pomnit' 'to remember' provides evidence that modern Russians do not analyze the po- in it as a separate component of the verb, for they add a second po- to mark a particular instance of remembering, as in popomnite moe slovo 'mark my words.'

It seems probable, but cannot be proven, that modern Russians subconsciously employ a po- framework when setting up their cognitive representations of these verbs. If cognitive structures are preserved intact, then one cannot speak of the desemanticizion of a prefix. At any rate, fused prefix-verb combinations 266 are a problematic area. It is difficult to determine the cognitive status of po- in these verbs on the synchronic level.

7.3. Some Other Avenues of Research

After discussing the invariant structure of the

Russian verbal prefix po-, and showing the consistency with which that structure is applied in a variety of contexts, it is logical to set up descriptions of the other Russian verbal prefixes to complete the picture of the Russian cognitive geometry of prefixation begun in this work. Other prefixes can be described in terms of invariant spatial cognitive structures as well.

Some preliminary work along those lines was seen in

Chapters 5 and 6, with prefixes tending to set up the same types of underlying contrasts. The concept of verbal prefixes as invariant spatial frameworks for the cognitive structuring of predications neatly explains the recurrence of a set of basic scenario patterns and resolves the problems associated with attributing multiple meanings to prefixes. The cognitive model also accounts for the consistent, intuitive application of very real but difficult-to-define invariant struc­ tures (i.e., prefixes) to a number of different cate­ gories of verbs. Perceptual/cognitive categories subsume semantic ones. 267

As speakers of English trying to use Russian, it would be useful for us to learn what situations fit a

particular Russian cognitive mould. In other words, when does the Russian mind require a construction using

a verb prefixed with po-, or for that matter, some

other prefix from its general inventory?^

Learning to predict when to use po- or any of the

other verbal prefixes is a topic for further investi­

gation. A possible methodology for this involves the

careful study of Russian translations of English texts,

examining extended contexts of prefixed verbs, and

rationalizing the need to impose the framework of a

particular prefix.

The next step is to carry the study of the cogni­

tive abstractions of prefixes beyond Russian, and

compare the use and structure of Russian prefixes with

their cognate counterparts in other Slavic languages. 268

NOTES

^According to Flier/ "it is highly likely that the historical prefixes in verbs like zabyt*, na^at', po&it'/ are no longer felt to be prefixes; the combi­ nation of prefix and verb has been lexicalized" (Flier/

1975/ 226).

2 Helping and receiving both entail vectoral opera­ tions on an abstract level/ with vectors reaching the endpoints of the person receiving aid or the recipient making contact with an object. I would argue that

'understanding' is also conceived as a linear process

— getting a hold of a quantum of information. But one

can debate the extent to which the prefix po- rein­

forces the linearity of these actions in the minds of

modern Russians.

^It should be pointed out that prefix use is not

entirely uniform within all the varieties — regional/

socioeconomic/ or individual — of Russian. There is

not necessarily always a single correct prefix from the

point of view of all speakers of the language. The

cognitive model presented here has been based on the 269 standard language. Individual variation and dialects should be taken into consideration. In some instances, dialect usage may not conform with the somewhat fossil­ ized literary norms of the standard language. If a form does not appear in a dictionary, it is no guaran­ tee that it cannot crop up in some context in the living language. An individual's choice of prefix may reflect a deliberate cognitive structuring of a predi­ cation, representing a scenario the way he pictures it.

Differences in cognitive processing are hard to mea­ sure, hard to study, hard to prove, but it is likely that discrepancies in the use of a prefix might indi­ cate just that. For more on considering dialect phe­ nomena, see Appendix E. Appendix À- Prefixes and verb classification systems

Traditional verb classification systems are only marginally useful for explaining the polysemy of some

prefixed verbs, e.g., poskakat* nedolgo 'to gallop for

a short while’ and poskakat' v tu storonu 'to take off

at a gallop in that direction,' and for grouping pre­

fixed verbs according to the effect that the interac­

tion of the prefix and the base verb creates, e.g., the

inceptive meaning of atelic verbs prefixed with za-;

zabegat' 'to begin running around,' zakricat' 'to start

shouting.' (Atelic verbs are those which have no built-

in endpoint: the activity which they denote can be

stopped at any time and it would still be true to say

that it took place. Telic verbs have a necessary

terminus: an object is obligatorily affected or a

built-in goal is attained, e.g., 'to build a house.'

Cf. Kucera, 1983, 175, 179.)

Classifications for verbs such as active/stative,

transitive/intransitive have no validity when dealing

with prefix selection. For example, the same prefix

combines equally well with reflexive and nonreflexive

270 271 verbs: popolnit* 'to supplement/ to fill up/' popol- nit'sja 'to get filled up.' The patiens is present in both verb types as either subject or object. The same prefix can note its condition in a reflexive or non­ reflexive verb.

Prefixes also modify both active and stative verbs.

Therefore this division does not shed light on what exactly a prefix does with a given verb: pospat' 'to get some sleep,' popudrit' 'to powder': poperet' 'to throw someone out.'

One classification system that has some relevance to marking the distinction which prefixes make to base verbs is the system of dividing verbs into four clas­ ses, viz. accomplishments, achievements, activities, and states — proposed by Vendler (1957), and the subsequent modifications to it proposed by Kourelatos

(1978) and Kucera (1983). (There are disparities in the classification of some verbs.)

Vendler's classification scheme, since it was designed to explain differences in English verbs (which are analogous to Slavic aspectual and Aktionsarten differences), is best illustrated with examples from

English (Vendler, 1967, 97-121: Mourelatos, 1978, 416):

Accomplishments are actions with intrin­ sic duration: only after some point in time can they be said to have occurred: to close, to open, to cover, to run a mile, to paint a picture, to grow up. 272

Achievements concentrate on a specific moment in time — the beginning or climax of an act — without concentrating on its dura­ tion: to start/ to stop/ to find/ to spot/ to reach/ to recognize/ to win (the race)/ to be born/ to die.

Activities are processes that have the same truth value over any period of time in which they occur/ for they have no inherent endpoint or result: to run (around)/ to push/ to pull/ to walk/ to laugh/ to swim.

States involve no dynamics and do not constitute a change: to know/ to hate/ to love/ to desire/ to want.

Accomplishments are forms of directed energy. They have inherent duration/ although a Russian perfective form may focus in on the completion or result of a process. Accomplishments are ontologically related to activities. Often they correspond to single instances of activities. Applied to Russian/ notice how the addition of a prefix changes both the aspect and the class of the verb: tolkat * * to push' (activity): vy- tolkat' 'to throw out' (accomplishment).

Similarly/ achievements are ontologically related to states/ being bounded expressions of them/ although there are few correspondences that differ by the pres­ ence of a prefix: znat' 'to know' (state): uznat', priznat' 'to recognize' (achievement). Vendler's classification system can be a useful tool for language learners to group prefixed verbs that fit a certain 273 pattern. For example, the term 'activities' covers those verbs with which the prefix za- combines to describe "the commencement of an action": zaplakat' 'to start crying': zaigrat' 'to strike up, to start play­

ing.' The addition of the prefix za- changes the class of the verb, but it is here that one notices that

Vendler's classification is not adequate for the pur­

poses of Russian. A different system of categorizing

semantic situations is necessary: the prefix za- in modifying a process changes it into an event. Events are inherently countable occurrences (Mourelatos, 1978,

415). Here the prefix za- marks a change, creating a

specific manifestation of the verb at a given time.

Mourelatos refines Vendler's classification system

into a ternary one of "topic-neutral categories":

events, processes, and states (Mourelatos, 1978, 422-

423). The topic-neutral categories, unlike Vendler's, do not cover only situations involving human or animate

subjects.

Mourelatos's terminology is better suited for

describing the difference between Russian determinate

and indeterminate verbs of motion. Compare the direc­

ted energy of determinate verbs of motion — specific

occurrences — e.g., bezat' 'to run (off somewhere)',

letet' * to fly (somewhere)' (events) with their inde­

terminate counterparts, e.g., begat* 'to run (around)': 274 letat' 'to fly (around)' (processes or activities).

But when we start adding prefixes we run out of dis­ tinctive categories.

Vendler's system does not accommodate the Russian aspectual system (Mourelatos, 1978, 415). Kucera tries to account for aspect within a framework of processes, events, and states, generally considering imperfective verbs to be processes and perfective verbs to be events: he futher subdivides processes into activities, possible accomplishments, and incipient achievements, arc events into perfective atelic verbs of the posidet' type (mostly prefixed with po- and pro- ), accomplish­ ments, and achievements (Kucera, 1983, 176-177).

Vendler's system of verb classification treats verbs as lexical types, and thus cannot account for verb polysemy. The solution is to set up categories of verb predication, which is what Mourelatos tries to accomplish in his ternary system (Mourelatos, 1978,

419). One must consider how a verb is used, whether or not there is a difference in the surface form of the verb. Consider poskakat* nedolgo 'to gallop a short while' (process) and poskakat* tuda 'to gallop over

there* (event). Another example, ambiguous from the point of view of verb class, is the sentence On risuet.

In Russian the imperfective present tense does not

distinguish unbounded activity descriptions or 275 activities/processes (He draws; he does sketches) from possible accomplishments (He is drawing). The mention of an object such as portret/ though, marks this as a possible accomplishment; it unitizes the action. The prefixed perfective is also an accomplishment: K subbote on narisuet portret. Thus, it is not a ques­ tion of the lexical type of verb, but of the predi­ cation .

The verb 'to see' is classified as a state accord­

ing to Vendler, but since it denotes a countable occur­ rence, is an event according to Mourelatos (Mourelatos,

1978, 422). The event denoted by videt' 'to see' would then be subcategorized as a "development" (corres­ ponding to Vendler's accomplishment); the perfective uvidet' 'to catch sight o f would then be subcategor­

ized as a "punctual occurrence" (corresponding to

Vendler's achievement) (Mourelatos, 1978, 425). The punctual occurrence category can encompass various

Aktionsarten (sposoby dejstvija) — inception, ces­

sation, climaxes, single acts, etc.

At any rate, prefixation can play a role in chang­

ing the perception of a situation denoted by a base verb — changing the categorization of the situation.

A proper classification system for Russian would ac­

count for all changes made by prefixes. If a prefix

adds a meaningful difference, then the system should 276 have an appropriate meaningful class or subclassifi­ cation. Contrast the imperfective verbs Zit' 'to live* and poZivat' 'to live, to be getting on.' Both verbs would have to be categorized as processes. But po- in poZivat' marks a specific section of the living pro­ cess. It does not create an event; it merely adds the qualifier 'as for this particular period of time.'

Despite the elegance of Mourelatos's system, it cannot be used to explain why a prefixed verb is in a given category, or why the same prefix can occur in all categories, or exactly why the same prefixed verb can be classified in two categories.

Thus verb classification systems as such are inade­ quate for the purposes of describing the effects of prefixation in Russian. The key is to consider predi­ cations — the role of the verb and its interaction with possible arguments (objects, locations, etc.), in other words, the verb and its valences (the modes in which it can transform or quantify energy). Appendix B. Analyzing Predications: Some Case Grammar

Notions

The Case Grammar notions presented here are a synthesis of notions taken from various Case Grammar models developed by Fillmore (1968/ 1971/ 1977)/ Chafe

(1970)/ Anderson (1971/ 1977) and Cook (1976)/ adapted for a description of Russian verbs. Case Grammar notions are useful in analyzing Russian prefixed verbs and for contrasting the structure of synonymous verbs/ especially prefixed paronyms — verbs based on the same root but having different prefixes/ e.g./ poslat*, otoslat* / vyslat' 'to send.'

Case Grammar is a system for analyzing the seman­

tics of a predication through a set of deep structure

cases which help build cognitive scenes. The verb is

central/ and has valences for arguments — nouns/ noun

phrases/ temporal and local features — some of which

are obligatory in the case frame or cognitive set-up of

the deep-case relations of a particular verb. (A

predicate also can be realized as a noun or adjective

in the surface structure/ especially in Russian.)

277 278

There is no general agreement on the number of deep-cases to use. The presentation of case frames here is a modified version of that used in Cooks' Case

Grammar Matrix Model (Cook, 57-68). Examples of cor­ respondences between deep cases and Russian surface

cases appear at the end of this section.

Here is a brief description of the deep cases used

in this work:

1. The Object (O) is an obligatory role, present

in the case frame of every verb. Some kind of object

is predicated in every kind of verb — transitive,

intransitive, stative, etc. It corresponds to affected

and effected objects, to things and stimuli which are

experienced or are described as being located some­

where, and to subjects of intransitive verbs in gen­

eral. The Object is marked Os with stative verbs, and

O when some process is involved. It usually corres­

ponds to the Russian surface cases of nominative and

accusative. (But note: no object has to be mentioned

in the surface structure.)

2. The Agent (A) is the role of the person, thing,

or force which actively or intentionally undertakes the

action described by the verb. Typical surface case

correlates in Russian are the nominative and instru­

mental . 279

3. The Experiencer (E) is a sort of animate goal, associated with verbs of sensation, emotion, cognition, and communication. There is a high correlation between it and the surface case of dative in Russian, but it also corresponds to the nominative. (Russian allows many deep-case roles to be chosen as 'subject,' i.e.,

to be realized as surface nominatives.)

4. The Beneficiary (B) is an animate goal with verbs of transfer of property. The Experiencer and

Beneficiary have different semantic status, although

they frequently coincide with the dative case in Rus­

sian .

5. The Location (L) is a source, goal, or static

location, which is an integral part of the semantics of

a verb, and not just a modal case. (Modal cases are

options for adding information about the predication,

oftentimes an extra location when one is already im­

plicit in the case frame of a verb.) Location is a

cover term for the various types of spatial arrange­

ments in which an object can be predicated. According

to the cognitive scenario, a Location can have the

value of +/- directionality — an important feature in

analyzing case frames. Verbs of motion or of intrinsic

location such as 'to contain' have the role of Location

in their case frames. 280

Deep-case roles can be ccreferential• The surface subject of the verb pojti 'to go (somewhere)* is an agent who intends to get somewhere, but it is also the thing moving (cognitively, a moving object is being pictured). Thus, the subject of KaSa po^la v magasin corresponds to two deep-case roles at once — Agent and

Object, The case frame of pojti is written as

[A , O, Lj/A = 0.

A role present in the case frame of a verb but which is not manifested obligatorily in the surface structure is termed ’deletable.'

Furthermore, a role may be lexicalized, i.e., understood from the semantics of a verb, or morphol­ ogically encoded in it.

Consider the verb vskricat' 'to scream, to produce screams.' Every verb has an Object in its case frame: here it is the effect, or krik produced. The Object is lexicalized in the verb. Someone can hear the sounds; the role of Experiencer is thus implicit in the case frame of the verb. But an Experiencer need not be mentioned in the surface structure, i.e., it is de­ letable. The screamer is not seen as an Agent in vskricat*; the act may be spontaneous, not volitional.

But the screamer produces the sounds, and is seen as the source of them. (Note that with source-goal rela­ tions, one role often is either deleted or is a modal 281 case.) Therefore the case frame of vskricat * is

[L , 0/ E]/0—lex/ E—del.

Case Grammar is a useful tool for analyzing in­

stances of verbal polysemy, showing that a single

surface verb can correspond to two or more deep struc­

tures. According to Grigor'eva, po- adds different

temporal qualities to the same base verb: these two

pairs of examples illustrate this (Grigor'eva, 1956,

23} :

la. Tut veter podul kak raz s toj storony, kuda nado kriîat*. [0, L] L=goal

lb. Magnetizer ... vytjanul moju pravuju ruku i naZal proizvodit' nad nej svoi manipuljacii: potret, poduet, poxlopaet. [A, 0, L]/0-lex, L-del or L=time

2a. Vdrug polil dozd'. [0, L] L=goal

2b. Dozd' polil i perestal. [O, L] L-del or L is cognitively unimportant or even replaced by time.

The verbs in examples la and 2a are used in contexts to

convey information about the inception of the actions;

in examples lb and 2b the durations of the actions are

quantified. The polysemy of these verbs is not the

result of different meanings of prefix homonyms. The

invariant cognitive geometry of the prefix po- is

applied to two slightly different deep structure ar­

rangements . 282

The inceptive effect is precipitated by a Location marked for directionality. In other words, some kind of goal is present or activated in the case frame of the verbs, and is marked by adverbials that indicate starting points or by source modalities like s toj storony 'from that direction'

The verbs podut' 'to blow' and polit' 'to pour' argue for one basic deep case of Location, for which context provides refined interpretations. In example la directionality is supplied by context, and in 2a an observer, participant, or even Experiencer is certainly implied. In examples lb and 2b the locations of the verbs in question are cognitively bounded; they extend over a determined area — a hand in lb, an area rele­ vant to an observer of rainfall in 2b. Thus in the deep structure of sentences lb and 2b the seme of delimitation is echoed. The actions in all four exam­ ples are linear; directionality becomes salient when there is an explicit or implicit cognitive reference point or cognitively prominent goal (the vector of the wind blowing toward someone or the vector of rain falling down).

The framework of linearity can be preserved another way as well: quantities of air and rain are measured off with a concomitant progression of time (the theme of implicit repeated vectors is cognitively summed up 283 as one vector, following the direction of the passage of time.) The action is then cognitively abstracted over time as a line segment; po- cuts off the time line at the cessation point of the action. Process/activity verbs like pobegat* 'to run (around)' are similarly analyzable; the path of haphazard running is unravelled as a line (segment) over time, quantifying it and measuring it off. (On a cognitive level, measurement implies linear measurement.) Thus effectively in lb and 2b the deep-case location is cognitively ignored

(but not forgotten), as well as deleted in the surface structure.

Case Grammar analysis explains the polysemy of the verb zapisat' 'to note down,' 'to cover (with writ­ ing),' 'to start writing' and zapisat'sja ' to get absorbed in writing,' as well as 'to overdo (some) writing.' Gallant analyzes five different za- homonyms here, which highlight five different features ("mean­

ings") inherent in the semantics of the base pisat' 'to write': fixation, covering, beginning, absorption, and exhaustion (Gallant, 1979, 21). But these meanings are

the result of how deep-case roles are filled; the prefix za- fits different deep-structure arrangements

into its framework. Gallant's examples are reanalyzed here according to differences in case frames, instead of differences in prefix meaning or differences in 284 arbitrarily selected features of the semantics of the base verb just as arbitrarily reiterated by the prefix:

1. On zapisal svoi raysli v tetradi. [A/ 0/ L] L=goal

2. On zapisal vsju stranicu karakuljami. [A/ 0/ L]/0—lex

The writing (the Object) is implied in the verb: karakuljami is a modal expander. This sentence could also be analyzed in terms of an object selection rule.

Essentially/ the verb pisat' has a lexicalized object in its case frame: On piset [A/ 0]/0-lex. But the verb permits different types of metonymy — the 'writ­ ing' can be specified/ labeled (as in zapisat' svoi mysli) or replaced by its 'location/' when the two are conceived together (zapisat* vsju stranicu). The Loca­ tion is given prominence and raised to the Object position: [A/ O, L]/ 0=L. The roles of Object and

Location can be seen as coreferential.

3. Posle dolgogo pereryva on snova zapisal. ÎA / 0/ LJ/O—del/ L-del

Less attention is given to what is being written and where it is being written than to the fact that writing is being done at all. The location of the action is a temporal one.

4. On zapisalsja/ ne zametil vremeni. [A/ 0/ L]/A-del/ A=0 285

The particle -sja, in general, marks a deleted Agent, and it blocks the usual list of objects associated with the verb in its transitive form. The Agent role is not activated; it is replaced by an Object which is af­ fected by the act of writing. The Location here is temporal.

5. Ja zapisalsja, âeja bolit. [A , O, Lj/A—del, A=0=L

The situation is similar to (4), but the Object is seen as the scene of the action.

In these five examples, the same three case roles are juggled and filled or not filled differently, thus creating the "meanings" mistakenly attributed to the prefix. In each example the prefix za- focuses on a different aspect of the writing scenario, largely depending on what is selected to fill the role of

Object.

Thus the meanings attributed to a (prefixed) verb are a function c'l deep-case role assignment of the components of a scenario within the cognitive framework of a particular prefix. Prefixes themselves do not have multiple meanings; they impose the same structure on different elements of a predication according to context. It is the verb itself which has valences for 286 different contexts, allowing for variations in the manifestation of energy.

Sample Case Frames for Reference

On razbil stakan. [A, O]

Stakan razbilsja. [O]

Ona bledna/poblednela. [O]

Noc'. [Os]

Valerij vysokij. [Os, Os]

Temneet- [0]

Mal'diki vybezali vo dvor. [A, 0, L]/A=0 (dvor is a modality of goal)

Mne nravitsja eta kartina. [E, 0]

Xolodno. [E, 0]/E-del

Otec podaril synu magnitofon. [A, B, 0]

Babuska polucila otkrytku ot vnuka. [B, O, L] (L=source)

Jurij nosit rubaSku v kletku. [L, 0]

Ona otnesla rebenka v spal'nju. [A, O, L] (spal'nju is a modality of goal) Appendix C. Some Evidence for Spatial Abstraction in

Thought Processes

Human spatial imagination seems to employ the geometry of the external world in modelling various physical processes. In fact, the human mind even uses geometric principles in the categorization and compari­ son of data: spatial organization is an underlying aid in the process of ratiocination.

The studies summarized here point to these conclu­ sions .

I. Mental Rotation of Objects

Cooper and Shepard did a series of experiments to

investigate the nature of imagined spatial operations,

i.e., what the mind has to visualize before interacting

with an entity or particular spatial configuration, or

when judging whether or not some geometric form is a

familiar, known entity (an operation of matching it

with an existing cognitive model or pattern). Cooper

and Shepard state that

287 288

"the ability to represent objects or arrange­ ments of objects and their transformations in space clearly is valuable in managing the concrete realities of everyday life/ making it possible to plan actions and to anticipate outcomes" (Cooper/ 1984/ 105).

They are referring specifically to the ability to recognize an object which appears somewhat different when seen from different angles or displayed in dif­

ferent orientations/ as well as to the time that it takes for the recognition to be made.

Subjects were shown a series of drawings of geomet­ ric shapes rotated in space. When a pair of drawings of the same shape in different orientations was presented/ the time that it took to recognize the shapes as identical was measured and was found to be proportional to the angular difference in the orienta­ tions shown. Comparison time increased proportionally with the increased angular difference in orientation/

leading the investigators to conclude that the subjects

had to put one of the shapes through mental rotations

in order to match it up with the other (Cooper/ 1984/

107). From all their experiments/ Cooper and Shepard established that mental rotation is the basis for making this kind of comparison/ and that the time that

it takes to complete a mental rotation increases in

direct proportion to the angle of rotation (Cooper/

1984/ 111, 113). Furthermore/ they were able to 289 establish that the subjects mentally represented the rotation of the drawings of the objects three-dimen-

sionally (Cooper, 1984, 111).

The studies by Cooper and Shepard can be used to

illustrate these corollaries about the process of

cognition :

1. Thought processes mirror three-dimensional reality. Component dimensions (points, lines, planes) also have mental representations.

2. Spatial visualization is a cognitive skill for orienting oneself.

3. Template-matching or comparison involves rela­

tive positionings and an orientation reference.

4. Motion, as a property of physics, is also a property of cognition, and plays a role in mental representations and in setting up relative positions in

a cognitive scenario.

5. Predications have mental representations; chan­

ges in position, form, or energy state correlate with

specific cognitive "gyrations." Objects are visualized

as part of a manifestation of energy, within a spatial

configuration. A process thus can be represented

geometrically. 290

II. Spatial Representation in Reasoning

Handel/ DeSotO; and London ran a study in which students were given the task of solving linear syl­ logisms which were variations of the formula: X is better than Y/ Z is worse than Y / is X worse than Z?

(Handel/ 1968). The study concluded that spatial representation underlies the ability to solve linear syllogisms. Comparisons are mentally visualized in a spatial arrangement. Notions such as 'better' or

'worse' are tied to spatial axes/ but concepts such as

'lighter hair' or 'darker hair' do not have preferred directions of reasoning (Handel/ 1968/ 352). In sol­ ving syllogisms/ premises are ordered in a cognitive space and visualized top to bottom, or left to right

(Handel/ 1968, 352). The investigators concluded that

it is easier to represent relationships vertically in this cognitive space and to order from the top element to the bottom element. (Handel, 1968, 357)

In addition to this principle of directionality, the reasoning process also uses end-anchoring — the high­ est and lowest elements aid in organizing the middle elements (Handel, 1968, 357). End-anchoring is used in solving syllogisms which have different relation words in the two premises, such as 'lighter hair' and 'darker hair' (Handel, 1968, 352). 291

Thus reasoning involves ordering elements/ assign­ ing them relative positions within a cognitive domain.

Anchor points (= reference points) facilitate the ordering. Handel, DeSoto, and London's study shows that even our abstract reasoning employs a spatial format, that the ordering and placement of elements in a cognitive location are an inherent part of the human

thought process and of our way of dealing with and representing reality. Spatial representation and

spatial metaphor are basic to cognition. Appendix D. Other Analyses of Spatial Markers as

Semantic Invariants

Included here for comparison are brief critiques of two basically cognitive models of spatial markers that employ distinctive feature analyses to systematize the differences between spatial markers. Gallant's model

(1979)/ although dealing primarily with the prefix vz-/

treats the relationship between verb and verbal prefix/ relying on the Case Grammar notion that the verb inher­ ently has valences for the types of arguments (roles)

that can occur with it for particular situations (Gal­

lant/ 1979/ 48). To formulate predications/ speakers

select from a set of binary semantic features. Pre­

senting a different analysis/ van Schooneveld (1978)

treats all Russian spatial markers/ applying his own

list of five distinctive features to them. These

distinctive features mark how spatial relations are

perceived. In his attempt to describe each

preposition/prefix as unique/ marked for the presence

or absence of these features/ van Schooneveld neglects

292 293 to emphasize the centrality of the verb and does not draw clear distinctions in spatial terms of the indi­ vidual markers of different kinds of spatial relations.

Despite this, his analysis merits attention in that it formulates a system of Russian spatial markers with reference to cognitive processes.

I. Gallant's Concept of Verbal Prefixation

Gallant maintains that verbal prefixes can be described in terms of an invariant set of semantic features (Gallant, 1979, 7). This assertion seems to contradict his central hypothesis, though, that

prefixes do not add meaning to the verbs with which they occur, but rather represent the specification of features already contained in the verbal base. (Gallant, 1979, 7)

Thus he builds the prefix-base verb relationship around a type of redundancy: only certain prefix + verb com­ binations are possible, because "the semantics of the prefix implies that of the verb and vice-versa" (Gal­ lant, 1979, 18).

What Gallant is saying is that the cognitive abstraction of a prefix must be compatible with the semantics of the base verb. But Gallant's corollary that the prefix takes on the various core meanings of the semantic classes of the verbs with which it occurs 294 is not acceptable in terms of the cognitive model of this work.

But Gallant's thesis that verbal prefixes provide a framework within which to view the action of the verb accords with the model of prefixation presented here.

The cognitive geometry of Gallant's system (Gallant,

1979, 54-63) does not involve an explicit opposition between positive and nonpositive cognitive domains, but it does involve two axes — a horizontal and a vertical

— which represent surfaces, thresholds, or limits.

His framework can also include derived planes and volumes. Gallant describes prefixes as consisting of at least two semantic features: one or more frame features, i.e., the feature of the cognitive geometry associated with it, and one relational feature, which specifies how the action is viewed relative to the framework. He interprets the axes as not literally geometric in nature — the horizontal axis corresponds to the threshold of perception or natural flow of movement and the vertical axis corresponds to conven­ tional relations.

Flier's model of verbal prefixation (to which

Gallant refers) also employs the notion of an orien­ tation domain — a mental representation of spatial configurations which handles abstract, essentially nonspatial descriptions as well (Flier, 1975, 219 ff.). 295

This domain (the scene denoted by a prefixed verb) is assigned distinctive features, combinations of which produce unique invariant meanings for prefixes.

Gallant, in assigning features to describe the invariant structure of prefixes, treats them "not as separate lexical items but rather as manifestations of the selection of variable features of the verbal base”

(Gallant, 1979, 54). He describes the prefix vz- as being [+ horizontal + transgression] (Gallant, 1979,

54-55). The horizontal feature represents, according to the semantics of the verb, either a physical surface or a threshold of awareness, sound, excitation, etc.

The transgression feature indicates the violation of a surface or the crossing of a threshold. In contrast, he considers za- to have the features [+ vertical + transgression] (Gallant, 1979, 55). His system of features, whether or not one agrees with the labels that he assigns them, succeeds in defining and inter­ relating some of Russian's nearly indefinable prefixes.

But do prefixes actually specify features in the base verb, as Gallant proposes? It is the contention here that prefixes provide a framework for recording cognitive impressions of how energy-matter-change relations develop or are marked off. In that sense some verbs have multiple possibilities and thus can select several prefixes. Prefixes provide compatible 296 energy channels/ but do not take on meanings outside their own cognitive spatial structures.

With slight modifications to Gallant's analysis, one can define 'features' as formants of Procrustean beds in which predications are forced to lie. What does not fit can be lopped off, i.e., a deep-case role can be deleted on the surface. Likewise, roles can be crammed together, i.e., coreferential.

II. van Schooneveld's Distinctive Feature Analysis and

the Invariant Feature of Po-

In his analysis, van Schooneveld treats preposi­

tions and verbal prefixes as one category, trying to define a semantic invariant for them in terms of dis­

tinctive features. His set of five distinctive fea­

tures is an attempt to categorize basic types of spa­

tial relations in some hierarchy of orders of percep­

tion which accounts for the role of the observer in

relation to the spatial arrangement.

Although van Schooneveld mentions binary opposi­

tions and series of binary oppositions, he does not

refer to the fundamental opposition of positive and

nonpositive. Yet from his analysis it would seem that

he is aware of its existence, especially in describing

the extent to which the (deep-case) object stands out 297 or blends with other facts of the cognitive environ­ ment .

Van Schooneveld does not make use of Case Grammar notions in his analysis. Furthermore, in discussing the different ways spatial markers relativise objects and locations, he does not use the concept of coplanar and noncoplanar relativity; therefore his discussion is difficult to follow.

A summary of van Schooneveld's distinctive feature analysis is presented here, reformulated in the termin­ ology of Case Grammar and the cognitive model presented in this work. This departure does not change the substance of his analysis; it actually simplifes and clarifies his ideas. (Cf. van Schoooneveld, 1978,

13-42.)

1. Dimensionality. A subset of the observer's perceptual universe is set up. (Deep-case) objects are amalgamated with a specified location. Example: v/v-.

2. Duplication. Object and background location remain perceptually distinct. Example: za/za-.

3. Extension. The Object and Location stand in a situation-specific relationship to each other. The object of a preposition or the deep-case object of a predication are affected minimally. Example: po/po-. 298

4. Restrictedness. The immediately preceding

Object- Location relationship is negated, with end results in the nonpositive or positive cognitive domain depending on the position of the observer. Thus this feature marks the difference between a prior modifica­ tion relationship and a new relationship. Examples: iz/iz-/ vy-. Iz implies an 'in' that is no longer valid.

5. Objectiveness. Locations are relative, with observation fixed in the positive cognitive domain

(although the endpoint may be at the very edge of the positive domain). An omniscent observer, independent of the situation, views the relations. Examples: pered, nad/nad-.

According to van Schooneveld, po/po- is difficult to define because its only distinctive feature is extension (van Schooneveld, 1978, 96). The concepts of

'extension* and 'spatial extendedness' are compatible with the linearity of the cognitive model of po-.

Although van Schooneveld does not state so explicitly, the extension feature both relates and quantifies (cf. van Schooneveld, 1978, 100-101).

In his analysis he makes no mention of the inherent punctuality of po/po-; nor does he develop the concept of spatial markers as cognitive structures in general. 299

The concept of punctuality could be used to advantage when he notes the predilection of po/po- for collec­ tives and plurals/ for example, razojtis* po domam 'to go to their respective homes' and pcbrosat' 'to throw all or many' (van Schooneveld, 1978, 97, 103-104). The examples can be represented as a series of vectors reaching endpoints. Plurality impedes focusing on all elements of a set individually, with concrete represen­ tations; the cognitive process of representing plural entities obviously favors punctual abstraction.

According to van Schooneveld's analysis, the verbal prefix po- indicates that the deep-case object is affected minimally (van Schooneveld, 1978, 104). This fact is basically true, but one wonders to what extent the semantics of the verb itself affects this interpre­ tation, It would seem that verbs like polomat' 'to break,' pobit* 'to kill (a large number),' and postro- it' 'to build' do not combine with the notion of mini­ mally affected deep-case object. If van Schooneveld were to make use of an explicitly linear model of po-, he could show the capacity of po- for one-dimensional feature qualification and explain the usual minimal effect by means of a perceived feature difference between the before and after situations.

In discussing changes in a quality (poblednet' 'to become pale' versus okamenet' 'to become petrified'). 300 van Schooneveld does not use the concept of salience.

He states that the deep-case object retains its iden­ tity with po-/ and that the deep-case object as an entirety is involved with o- (van Schooneveld/ 1978/

105). Eut the entire deep-case object is affected in poblednet * and verbs like pokrasnet' 'to blush/' po- belet' 'to turn white/' The difference between po- and o- is one of a one-dimensional cognitive set-up (a linear comparison of a quality) versus a three-dimen­ sional one. The connotation of "minimally effective process" which according to van Schooneveld occurs also in attenuative verbs like popet' 'to do some singing' is analogous to the notion in this work of a sufficient quantum of energy for the perception of a change. Appendix E. Dialectal Use of Prefixes

The perceptual system or cognitive grid of a lan­ guage is not monolithic: there is some room for indi­ vidual variation. For example/ the use of verbal prefixes in Russian dialects does not always conform to the codified expectations of the standard literary language. This is natural/ since even the cognitive domains of any two individuals are never the same

(Maturana/ 1980/ 33).

It is necessary to recall two important points when discussing dialectal usage. First/ the reality of the daily lives of speakers of dialects — their byt — differs in some respects from that of speakers of the

literary norm/ and that these differences affect their

outlook and influence the expression of their percep­

tions. Second/ the speaker of a dialect may uncon­

sciously or deliberately choose to describe and encode

an occurrence in a particular cognitive framework/

relating information from his point of view without

feeling constraint from dictionary norms. Nonstandard

301 language forms are insufficiently studied: the dialect- speaker's choice of verbal prefix should be examined within a cognitive framework.

Unfortunately, the tradition of ascribing multiple meanings to verbal prefixes lives on in modern schol­ arship in the descriptions of dialect phenomena.

Definitions of these meanings are generated on the basis of isolated examples and context-dependent in­

terpretations. For example, one of the meanings given

to a dialectal occurrence of po- is "napravlenie

dejstvija sverxu vniz," on the basis of this sentence

from a fairy tale:

Djatel, djatel! Polezaj s dubu doloj. (Andreeva-Vasina/ 1982, 127)

Po- does nothing to contradict the sentence seman­

tics of "getting down" set up by the preposition £- +

genitive and the adverb doloj, but does not contain

that meaning itself. There must be a reason for selec­

ting po-, for slezat' 'to get o f f could just as easily

have been used. The £- of slezat' would add nothing to

the sentence semantics, though, being the expected,

redundant reflex echoed in the preposition _s. With the

choice of polezat' 'to move in some direction' it seems

that the speaker is setting up a simple, goal-directed

point-to-point trajectory, comparable to that of "podi

sjudal" 'come here I' 303

In fairy tales, verbs expressing the beginning of an action (or where such an interpretation would be expected in the literary language) often occur with the prefix po-, when the literary language would have za- or na-. Examples (Andreeva-Vasina, 1982, 128):

Kuda poxoce^' - tuda i leti.

Vo lesax derev'ja polatalisja.

Po5la na vysku, naSla krinku masla, da i pocala ee.

There is no need to deny the contention that the verbs in these examples express nacinatel'nost', but this is, nonetheless, a contextual interpretation resulting from an analysis which does not account for the invariant cognitive structure of prefixes, but which applies context-dependent meaning concepts. In these three examples the notions of point of contact and linearity are present; the reason for the choice of this partic­ ular framework needs to be examined, from the point of view of cognitive structures and not the point of view of merely curious nonstandard forms.

It is interesting to note that in the examples with poxoce^' and posatalisja, motion is involved; there must be a reason for marking the linearity of the motion, for Satat'sja 'to sway’ is not inherently unidirectional. With poxoceg*, context makes way for a 304 clear resemanticization of the base verb, and po- sets up a goal-directed vector.

In the examples with poà'ala 'began' it is a ques­

tion of the po-/na- opposition, marking the punctuality

or salience of what follows. Historically, the verb

'to begin' had forms with different prefixes (po-, na-,

za-) and eventually the form with na- fossilized in the

standard language, probably on the basis of a dominant

cognitive pattern that developed in Russian. Differ­

ences in the nuances of the different prefixed forms of

'to begin' in Old Russian have yet to be investigated.

From this discussion it can be seen that dialectal

use of po- still sets up representations of overall or

abstract underlying linearity. Application of a cogni­

tive model of prefixation to the study of dialectal

differences in prefixing verbs would contribute to a

better understanding of the structure of dialects and

to a better understanding of the people who speak them. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afanas'ev/ A. N. Narodnye russkie skazki. Intirod. V. P. Anikin. Moskva: Xudozestvennaja Literatura, 1976.

Agrell/ Sigurd. "Aspektanderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte. Ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Praverbia und ihrer bedeutungsfunktionen." Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, N.F. Afd. 1, Bd. 4, Nr. 2 (1908)/ I-VII, 1-128.

Anderson/ John. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

------. On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Croom Helm, 1977.

Andreeva-Vasina, N. I. "Iz nabljudenij nad pristavocnym slovoobrazovaniem glagolov v severnyx skazkax." In Dialektnaja Leksika, 1979. Leningrad: Nauka, 1982, pp. 119-135.

Anikin, V. P., ed. Russkie narodnye skazki. 1975; rpt. Moskva: Detskaja Literatura, 1985.

Avilova, Natal'ja Sergeevna. Vid glagola i semantika glagol'nogo slova. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Nauka," 1976.

Barykina, Aleftina Nikanorovna, Valerija Vasil'evna Dobrovol'skaja, and Stella Naumovna Merzon. Izucenie glagol'nyx pristavok. Second ed. Moskva: Russkij jazyk, 1981.

Berezina, Ê. , trans. "Korol' Euma." In Rasskazy. By Edgar Poe. Moskva: Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1980, pp. 46-55.

305 306

Bogusiawski/ Andrzej. Prefiksacja czasownikova we wsp63Tczesnym j^zyku rosyjskim.rosyjskim. Wroclaw; Kydawnictwo Polskiej Akaaemii Akao( Nauk/ 1963.

Boryê/ VJiesiaw. Prefiksacja imienna w jgzykach s2fowiafiskich. Monografie Slawistyczne / 32. Wrociaw: Kydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1975.

Chafe, Wallace L . Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Clark, Herbert H. "Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child." In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. Ed. Timothy E. Moore. New York: Academic Press, 1973, pp. 27-63.

Cook, Walter A. "Five Models of Case Grammar." Accompanies Case Grammar Seminar, Georgetown University, n. p., 1976.

Cooper, Lynn A. and Roger N. Shepard. "Turning Something Over in the Mind." Scientific American, Dec. 1984, Vol. 251, No. 6, pp. 10é-l07, llO-ll4.

Cyganova, V. N. "Sinonimiceskie êkvivalenty glagolov s pristavkoj vy-." In Sinonimy russkogo jazyka i ix osobennosti. Ed. A. P. Evgen'eva. Leningrad: Nauka, 1972, pp. 59-72.

Dal', Vladimir. Tolkovyj slovar* zivogo velikorusskogo jazyka. 2nd ed. 1882; rpt. Moskva: Russkij Jazyk, 1980.

de Mey, Marc. The Cognitive Paradigm. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1982.

de Saussure, Ferdinand. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot, 1915.

Denny, J. Peter. "The 'Extendedness' Variable in Classifier Semantics: Universal Features and Cultural Variation." In Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf Revisited. Ed. Madeleine Mathiot. Contributions to the Sociology of Language, No. 27. The Hague: Mouton, 1979, pp. 97-119.

Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan. The Hound of the Baskervilles. New York: Buccaneer Books, 1977. 307 Dreiser, Theodore- The Titan. New York: John Lane Company, 1914.

Dzemakulova, È. M. "O strukturnoj sootnositel'nosti pristavoînogo derivata i predloznogo soSetanija." U5enye zapiski tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universitéta, 537 (1980), 25-38.

Fillmore, Charles J. "The case for case." In Universels in Linguistic Theory. Ed. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, pp. 1-88.

------. "Some Problems for Case Grammar." In Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics. Ed. Richard J. O* Brien. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 1971, pp. 35-56.

------. "The case for case reopened." In Kasustheorie, Klassification, semantische Interpretation. Ed. Klaus Heger, and Jânos S . Petofi. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1977, pp. 3-26.

Flier, Michael S. "Remarks on Russian Verbal Prefixation." Slavic and East European Journal, 19, No. 2 (1975), pp. 218-225.

Forsyth, J. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197b.

Fursenko, D. I. "Nekotorye nabljudenija nad upotrebleniem pristavodnyx glagolov dvizenija." In Russkij jazyk dlja studentov-inostrancev. Moskva: Vysëaja Skola, 1966, pp. 36-59.

Gallant, James. Russian Verbal Prefixation and Semantic Features; An Analysis of the Prefix vz-. Slavistische Beitrage, 135. München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1979.

Glovinskaja, M. Ja. Semantideskie tipy vidovyx protivopostavlenij russkogo glagola. Moskva: Naüka','15ô2.------

Grammatika russkogo jazyka. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Russkogo Jazyka. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1960. 308 Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo litersturnogo jazyka. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Russkogo Jazyka. Ed, N. Ju. Svedova. Moskva: Nauka, 1970.

Grigor'eva, V. P. "0 mnogoznaSnosti i omonimii pristavo5nyx glagolov." Russkij jazyk dlja studentov-inostrancev. Moskva: VysSaja Sxola, 1966, pp. 17-35.

Gurova, I., trans. "Prodolgovatyj jascik.” In Rasskazy. By Edgar Poe. Moskva: Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1980, pp. 231-240.

Handel, Stephen, Clinton B. DeSoto, and Marvin London. "Reasoning and Spatial Representations." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7 (1968), 351-357.

Herskovits, Annette. "Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions." Cognitive Science, 9 (1985), 341-378.

IsaSenko, A. V. Grammatiôeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Vol. II. Bratislava: Vydavatei'stvo Siovenskej Akadémie Vied, 1960.

Isakovskij, Mixail Vasil'eviS. Stixotvorenija. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Sovetskaja Rossija, 1979.

Jakobson, Roman. "Morfologiceskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem." In Selected Writings, 'ol. II. The Hague: Mouton, 1971, pp. 154-183.

------. "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums." In Selected Writings, Vol. II. The Hague: Mouton, 1971, pp. 8-l5.

Karcevski, Serge. Système du verbe russe. Prague: Legiografie, 1927.

Katzner, Kenneth. English-Russian, Russian-English Dictionary. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

Kazakov, Jurij. "Goluboe i zelenoe." In Izbrannoe. Moskva: Xudozestvennaja Literatura, 1985, pp. 42- 6 6 .

Krievu-Latviesu Vârdnîca, I. Riga: Latvijas Valsts Izdevniecîba, 1959. 5C9 KuÔera, Henry. "A Semantic Model of Verbal Aspect." American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists^ Vol. TT Linguistics. Ed. Michael S. Flier. Columbus: Slavica, 1983.

Kurell/ V. and T. Ozerskaja, trans. Titan. By Theodore Dreiser. Kyjiv: DerSavne vydavnictvo xudozn'oji literatury, 1959.

Langacker/ Ronald W. "An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar." Cognitive Science, 10 (1986), 1-40.

------. "Nouns and Verbs." Language, Vol. 63, No. 1 (1987) , pp. 53-94.

Latviesu-Krievu Vârdnîca, vol. II. Riga: Avots, 1981.

Leskov, N. S. LevSa: povesti i rasskazy. Kiev: Dnipro, 1981.

Lobanova, N. A. and I. P. Slesareva. Ucebnik russkogo jazyka dlja inostrannyx studentov-filologov. Sistematizirujuêâij kurs (tretij god obudenija). Moskva: Russkij jazyk, 1980.

Martinet, André. Éléments de linguistique générale. 2nd ed. I960: rpt. Paris: Armand Colin, 1970.

Maslov, Ju. S. "Glagol'nyj vid v sovremennom bolgarskom literaturnom jazyke (znadenie i upotreblenie)." Voprosy grammatiki bolgarskogo 1iteraturnogo jazyka. Edi sl Ë1 Bernâtejn. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1959, pp. 157-312.

Mathiot, Madeleine (with the assistance of Marjorie Roberts). "Sex Roles as Revealed Through Referential-Gender in American English." In Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf Revisited. Ed. Madeleine Mathiot. Contributions to the Sociology of Language, No. 27. The Hague: Mouton, 1979, pp. 1-47.

Maturana, Humberto R. "Biology of Cognition." In Autopoiesis and Cognition, by Humberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varela. Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 42. Ed. Robert Cohen and Marx Wartofsky. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1980. 310 Miller, George A., introd. Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought. Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg. Ed. George A. Miller and Elizabeth Lenneberg. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Morrow, Daniel G . "Grammatical Morphemes and Conceptual Structure in Discourse Processing." Cognitive Science, 10 (1986), 423-455.

Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. "Events, Processes, and States." Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1978), 415- 434.

Orlov, Vladimir. Al'tist Danilov. Moskva: Sovetskij Pisatel’, 1981.

Ozegov, S. I. Slovar* russkogo jazyka, 9th ed. Moskva: Sovetskaja Ênciklopedija, 1972.

Piernikarski, Cezar. Czasowniki z prefiksem po- w jgzyku polskim i czeskim na tie Rodzajôw akcji w jgzykach sjfowianskich. Rozprawy Uniwersytetu Marszawskiego, 83. Warszawa: PaAstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1975.

Pixlak, A. I. "OtraZenie znaZenij pristavocnyx sposobov dejstvija v Russko-êstonskix slovarjax." Ucenye zapiski tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta'^ 537 ( 1980) , 70-99.

Pokorny, Julius. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch. Bern: A. Francke AG Verlag, 1959.

Preobrazhensky, A. G. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.

Pulkina, I., and E. Zakhava-Nekrasova. Russian (A Practical Grammar with Exercises). Trans, v. Korotky. Ed. R. Dixon and G. Konorova. 2nd ed. Moscow: "Russky Yazyk," 1974.

Rassudova, O. P. Upotreblenie vidov glagola v russkom jazyke. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universitéta, 1968.

Raxmanova, N ., trans. Xobbit, ili tuda i obratno. By J. R. R. Tolkien. Leningrad: Detskaja Literatura, 1976. 311 Rojzenzon/ L. I. "Aktionsartnye znaSenija i strukturno-semantiSeskie tipy slavjanskix glagolov." Trudy saniarkandskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta/ No. 194 (1970), 201-217.

------. "0 mnogopristavoînyx glagolax russkogo jazyka." Russkij jazyk v Skole, No. 6 (1966), pp. 87-95.

Russkaja Grammatika. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Russkogo Jazyka. Moskva: Nauka, 1982.

Seljakin, M. A. "Distributivno-summarnyj sposob dejstvija russkogo glagola." uSenye zapiski tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, FZ4 (1980), 43-53.

Skans, Gunnar. "Zur Bedeutungslehre der tschechischen Verbalprafixe ." Slavia, XI (1932), 437-445.

Soudakoff, Dorothy. "The Prefixes pere- and pre- : A Definition and Comparison.” Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1975), pp. 230-5^8:------

Spagis, Anna Andreevna. Parnye i neparnye glagoly v russkom jazyke. Moskva : ProsveSienie, 1969.

SSRLJa: Slovar* sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka, vol. I-XVII. Moskva-Leningrad, 1950-1965.

Tixonov, A. N. "Cistovidovye pristavki v sisteme russkogo vidovogo formoobrazovanija." Voprosy jazykoznanija, No. 1 (1964), pp. 42-52.

Tolkien, J. R. R. The Hobbit or There and Back Again (revised ed.). New York: Ballantine Books, 1978.

Townsend, Charles E. Russian V7ord-Formation. 1968: rpt. Cambridge: Slavica, 1975.

------. "A Semantic Profile of the Russian Preverb U - . " Folia Slavica, 2 (1978), 329-339.

Unbegaun, B. 0. Russian Grammar. 1957: rpt. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. van Schooneveld, C. H. "The So-Called ’Préverbes Vides' and Neutralization." In Dutch Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of 312 Slavicists." •S-Gravenhage: Mouton & Co., 1958, pp. 159-161.

------. Semantic Transmutations: Prolegomena to a Calculus of Meaning, Vol. 1. The Cardinal Semantic Structure of Prepositions, Cases, and Paratactic Conjunctions in Contemporary Standard Russian. Bloomington: Physsardt, 1978.

Vasmer, Max. Ëtimologiceskij slovar' russkogo jazyka. Trans. O. Trubadev. Moskva : Progress, 1971.

Vendler, Zeno. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.

Vinogradov, v. V. Russkij Jazyk (GrammatiZeskoe udenie o slove). Moskva/Leningrad : Gosudarstvennoe Ucebno-Pedagogi?eskoe Izdatel’stvo Ministerstva Prosves5enija RSFSR, 1947.

Volzina, N., trans. "Sobaka Baskervilej." In Vol. Ill of Artur Konan Doji', Sobranie soZinenij v vos'mi tomax . By Arthur Conan Doyle. Moskva : Pravda , 1966, pp. 5-164.

V.'heeler, Marcus. The Oxford Russian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Zemskaja, E. A. "Tipy odnovidcvyx pristavoSnyx glagolov v sovremennom russkom jazyke." In Issledovanija po grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazykal Ed. n"I sl Pospelov and N. Ju. Svedova. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1955, pp. 5-41.

------, M. V. Kitajgorodskaja, and E. N. Sirjaev. Russkaja Razgovornaja Rec?. ObëZie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis” Moskva : Nauka , 1981,