Aspect in Russian as Grammatical Rather than Lexical Notion: Evidence from Heritage Russian (Глагольный видврусскомязыкекакграмматическое(а нелексическое) явление) Author(s): Asya Pereltsvaig and Ася Перельцвайг Source: Russian Linguistics, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2008), pp. 27-42 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40297128 . Accessed: 14/05/2013 13:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Russian Linguistics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use to JSTOR Terms and Conditions RussianLinguistics (2008) 32: 27-42 DOI 10. 1007/s 1 1 1 85-007-90 18-8

Aspectin Russian as grammaticalrather than lexical notion:Evidence from Heritage Russian Глагольный вид в русском языке как грамматическое (а не лексическое) явление

Asya Pereltsvaig(Ася Перельцвайг)

Publishedonline: 19 January2008 © SpringerScience+Business Media B.V. 2007

Аннотация В данной статье рассматриваются изменения, происходящие в системе глагольного вида в языке тех иммигрантов, для которых русскийявляется родным, но не доминирующимязыком. По результатамэтого исследования делаются выводы как о видовой системе в языке иммигрантов, так и о видовой системе в русском языке в целом. В данной статье, во-первых, продемонстрировано, что, вопреки ожидани- ям, основанным на изучениидиахронических изменений в языке, а также изменений в лексиконе иммигрантов, такие факторы, как частота формы в исходном языке и внешние воздействия в результате языкового контакта, не играют заметной роли в перестройке видовой системы в языке иммигрантов. Во-вторых, утверждается, что, так как изменения в видовой системе и в лексиконе являются результатом воздей- ствия различных факторов, то глагольный вид в русском языке в целом является грамматическим, а не лексическим понятием.

1 Introduction

This paperexamines the aspectualsystem of HeritageRussian, which for the purposesof thispaper is denned as the languageof those Russian emigrantswho have some native- like skills in Russian but whose dominantlanguage is not Russian,but anotherlanguage (I focushere on speakerswhose dominantambient is AmericanEnglish, although some comparisonto other geographicalvarieties of Diaspora Russian,jazyk russkogo zarubez'ja, are made throughoutthe paper). Althoughdifferent classifications of Heritage Russian speakershave been made in the literature(cf. Fishman 1964; Kagan and Dillon 2001, interalia), in thispaper I do notdistinguish between various subgroups of Heritage Russianspeakers, focusing on thequalitative similarities in thetypes of departuresfrom the base normof ContemporaryStandard Russian (CSR) in termsof the speakers'choices of

I am gratefulto EkaterinaProtassova, Aneta Pavlenko, Steven Franks, Alia Smyslova,and Roumyana Slabakovafor helpful discussions. All remainingerrors are mine. A. Pereltsvaig(И) StanfordUniversity, Margaret Jacks Hall, Building460, Stanford,CA 94305-2150,USA e-mail: asya_pereltsvaig @ yahoo.com

£) Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 28 A. Pereltsvaig aspectualforms rather than on thequantitative differences in thenumber of suchdepartures fromCSR.1 The goals of this studyare two-fold:first, I aim to identifythe factorsthat define the aspectual systemof HeritageRussian, especially in relationto factorsthat have been previouslyidentified as playinga role in lexical attrition;second, I seek to shed a new light on the long-standingissue in (non-Heritage)Russian aspectology,namely whether aspect in Russian is a whollylexical distinctionor at least a partiallygrammatical distinction (similarto tenseand ). HeritageRussian is subjectto pressuresfrom two directions:pressures internal to the source language (that is, CSR) and pressuresfrom the speakers' ambientlanguage (for most speakersin this study,this is AmericanEnglish, although other play a role as well, as will be discussedbelow). Amongpressures internal to thesource language are competence-relatedfactors, that is the knowledgeof the grammaticalsystem itself, as well as such performance-relatedfactors as the frequencyof a given word, form or constructionin the source language. All of these factors- system-internalpressures, frequencyof certainstructures and externalinterferences from other languages - are known in historicallinguistics as potentialtriggers for language change in diachronicterms (the passingof the languagefrom generation to generation)and the same factorsare expected to play a role in languagechange on a moreshort-term scale amongHeritage speakers. In thispaper, I show thatthese expectations are not met,specifically that neither frequency nor externalinterferences play a role in the restructuringof the aspectual systemamong HeritageRussian speakers.This leaves only the system-internalpressures as the possible factorthat defines the aspectual system of HeritageRussian; in myearlier work (Pereltsvaig 2001, 2005) I have proposedthat such system-internalpressure is thedisconnect found in CSR betweenlexical and grammaticalaspect. The same disconnectis said to affectthe acquisitionof the CSR aspectual systemby monolingualRussian children;both children and Heritagespeakers seem to use the same strategy:when in doubt,revert to .2 The importanceof the findingsfrom this study,namely that the aspectual systemof HeritageRussian is unlikewhat is knownabout lexical attrition,in thatthe formeris not affectedby eitherfrequency of thegiven forms in thesource language or the interferences fromthe speakers' ambient language, is twofold:first, it createsa morecomplicated picture of language attritionthan has been assumed so far,one wherebyvarious parts of the languagesystem are vulnerableto influencesof differentfactors; second, the results of this studyshed a new lighton the old problemin Russian aspectology,namely the question whetheraspect is a lexical or a grammaticalnotion. The formerposition is adoptedin the worksof IsaSenko,Janda, Maslov, as well as in manyRussian dictionaries,whereas the latterposition is takenfor instance by Comrie (1976). The HeritageRussian data in this paper stronglysupports the latterposition, namely that Russian aspect is a grammatical ratherthan lexical notion. The logic of thisargument is as follows:since thechoice between aspectual formslike citat' - procitat'(4o read IMPF- PERF') is not subjectto the same factorsas are lexical choices in general,the aspectualdistinction is a grammaticalone.

1 In a recent study Bar-Shalom and Zaretsky (2006) reportno departuresfrom CSR in termsof the choice of aspectual forms in their pool of speakers. This is, however, unsurprising,as it is not the case that all Diaspora Russian speakers undergo the same changes in their linguistic system. The speakers considered in this study are fairlyextreme in theirloss of Russian. 2This is despite the apparent early knowledge of grammatical aspect by very small children even before they have clearly identifiableverbs (cf. Gagarina 2000a).

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspect in Heritage Russian 29

The paperis organizedas follows:in Sect. 2, 1 providesome backgroundinformation on Russianaspect and brieflyreview the previous findings regarding the loss/restructuringof aspectby Russianimmigrants. Section 3 examinesthe role thatthe frequency in thesource language and the influenceof the speakers' ambientlanguage play in lexical attrition. Sections4 and 5 are concernedwith the role that these factors play in definingthe aspectual systemof HeritageRussian. In Sect. 4, 1 considerthe frequency of aspectualforms in CSR, in Sect. 5- the potentialtransfer from the speakersambient language. In each of these sections,I will firstoutline the predictionsof the two alternativehypotheses with respect to aspect underattrition, then analyze the available data to show thatthe hypothesesfail to accountfor it. The last sectionprovides a summaryof findings,and positsquestions for futureresearch.

2 Background

2.1 Aspect in ContemporaryStandard Russian

Before I embarkon an explorationof aspect in HeritageRussian, I brieflyreview the basic factsabout aspect in ContemporaryStandard Russian (CSR) necessaryto understand the Heritagelanguage factsto follow;therefore, many notionsand phenomenathat are irrelevantfor my study of HeritageRussian will be ignoredhere (a moredetailed discussion of aspect in CSR can be found in Arefiev1999; Babko-Malaya 1999; Forsyth1970; Pereltsvaig2005; Smith 1991; Spagis 1961; Timberlake2004 and the referencescited therein). As is well-known,CSR distinguishestwo morphologicalaspects: imperfectiveand perfective.This formalcontrast appears in all finiteand non-finiteforms, including imperatives,, and .In additionto speakers'intuitions, one can relyon a batteryof teststhat distinguish the two aspects (cf. Arefiev1999, 12-15; Smith 1991, 338-340). The morphologicalpatterns relating perfective and imperfectiveverbs are quite complex and will not be discussed here. Semantically,many in Russian are said to formthe so-called aspectual pairs, which are pairs synonymousin all respects - otherthan their morphological aspect. For instance,verbs like citaV procitat' 'to read IMPF - PERF' forman aspectual pair, whereasdocitaf 4o completereading.PERF' does not forman aspectualpair witheither of these two verbsbecause it adds the meaningof - completion,not presentin citaf procitat*.Although in practice,it is not alwayseasy to determinewhich verbs are semanticallyidentical except for their aspect, in thispaper this is determinedon thebasis of speakerintuitions.

2.2 Previousresearch on aspect in HeritageRussian

To date, littleresearch has been done on aspect in HeritageRussian. Many studies of HeritageRussian entirely on generalpsycho- and socio-linguisticaspects of language attrition(e.g., Donitsa-Schmidt1999); othersinvestigate specific linguistic phenomena, but do notdiscuss aspect among them (e.g., Leisio 2001; Pereltsvaig2004). A pioneeringwork on the subjecthas been Polinsky(1994), abundantwith data fromAmerican Russian and interestinggeneralizations.3 Specifically, Polinsky's data indicatethat Russian emigrants

3The term American Russian refersto Heritage Russian of speakers in the USA and is contrasted with Israeli Russian, Finnish Russian, German Russian, etc.

fi Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 30 A. Pereltsvaig make occasional mistakesin the use of aspectual forms.Sometimes their choice of the aspectual formis consistentwith that of monolingualspeakers in Russia (even if other errorsare made):4

(1) a. ImmigrantRussian oni upali v ljubov' theyfell.PERF in love b. CSR oni vljubilis' theyfell-in-love.PERF 4hey fellin love'

Yet, in otherutterances the same speakersmay choose aspectual formsthat are either odd or totallyungrammatical from the point of view of CSR. The mainclaim of Polinsky's paper is thatspeakers undergoing severe attrition use verbalaspectual morphologyon a verb-by-verbbasis ratherthan dependingon the contextand encode lexical aspectual notionssuch as .This idea findsfurther support in Pereltsvaig(2001, 2005), where it is argued that verbal aspectual morphologyin HeritageRussian encodes neitherthe viewpointaspect (in the sense of Smith 1991), nor telicityin the compositionalsense. Instead,Pereltsvaig (2005) draws a distinctionbetween verbs that denote events with a bounded Path, on the one hand, and verbs with no Path or with a non-bounded Path, on the otherhand; an example of this (formalized as the [±P] ) is the pair write-doodle:the verb write implies an action towardan end-point on a Path (whetherwhat is writtenis a single letter,a word,a paragraphor a book), while the verb doodle implies aimless writing.Pereltsvaig (2005) shows thatthis distinction is encoded linguisticallythrough a numberof language-specificcontrasts (the readeris referredto Pereltsvaig2001, 2005 for tests for the [dbP] feature).In HeritageRussian verbsthat denote events with bounded Paths are retainedin the perfectiveform, whereas verbs that denote events withouta Path or with a non-boundedPath are retainedin the imperfective.Therefore, when lexical aspect (as definedhere) and viewpointaspect do not coincide, HeritageRussian speakersappear to make mistakesin theirchoice of the aspectual form.For instance,when an eventdenoted by a verb withouta bounded Path is viewed from outside (in Smith's 1991 terminology),a CSR speaker would chose a perfectiveverb, whereas a Heritage Russian speaker uses the imperfective counterpart:

(2) a. HeritageRussian (context:describing a shortvisit to Princeton) mne nravilos' v Princeton me.DATliked.IMPF in Princeton b. CSR mne ponravilos' v Prinstone me.DATliked.PERF in Princeton 'I liked it in Princeton'

throughoutthis paper, italics indicate code-switching or code-mixingand verbforms of interestto the discussionare highlightedwith boldface. Unless otherwise indicated, examples come fromthe author's corpusof HeritageRussian.

Ф Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspect in Heritage Russian 31

Conversely,when an eventdenoted by a verbwith a boundedPath is viewed frominside (again, in Smith's 1991 terminology),a CSR speakerwould chose an imperfectiveform, whereasan HeritageRussian speakeruses a perfective: (3) a. HeritageRussian ja nikogdane procital ta kniga I never not read.PERFthat.NOM book.NOM b. CSR ja nikogdane cital tu knigu I never not read.IMPFthat.ACC book.ACC 'I have neverread thatbook' - Note thatin manyinstances the two distinctions - Pathand perfectivitycoincide and both CSR and HeritageRussian use thesame form.In fact,it has been suggestedin theliterature (cf. Andersenand Shirai 1996; Comrie 1976; Forsyth1970 interalia) that(Contemporary Standard)Russian and scores of otherlanguages exhibit the so-called DistributionalBias, namely,telic verbs (or [+P] verbs,in Pereltsvaig's2005 terminology)tend to appear more oftenin the perfective,whereas atelic verbs(or [-P] verbs,in Pereltsvaig's2005 terminology)tend to appearin theimperfective. The differencebetween CSR and Heritage Russian can be seen as a matterof degree: while in CSR the correlationbetween lexical and grammatical/morphologicalaspect is a tendency,in HeritageRussian it is a rule. Fromthis it followsthat Heritage Russian should exhibit frequency effects: the association betweenlexical and viewpointaspects would be most pronouncedfor those [+P] verbs thatare foundmore frequentlyin the perfectivein CSR and forthose [-P] verbs that are foundmore frequently in the imperfectivein CSR. This is the FrequencyHypothesis, whichI will examinein detail in Sect. 4. BeforeI proceedto discuss aspect in Heritage Russian,let us considerthe factorsthat lexical attrition.

3 Lexical attrition

Numerousstudies of HeritageRussian as well as otherHeritage languages show that,as faras lexical attritionis concerned,both frequency of a givenlexical itemin the speakers' sourcelanguage and interferencefrom their ambient language determine in largepart which words(and )are retainedand whichones are lost. In thispaper, I will provide some illustrativeexamples fromHeritage Russian and otherHeritage , but the same phenomenahave been attestedin otherHeritage languages, such as Heritage Italian,Heritage Swedish and HeritageNorwegian, to name only a few(cf. Bettoni1991; Hjelde 1996; Klintborg1999; Milani 1996). First,the frequency of a givenitem in thespeakers' source language has been shownto affectthe rateof retention/loss;for instance, Polinsky (2005) has studiedlexical attrition of lexical categories (verbs, nouns, and adjectives) among Heritage Russian speakers and shows thatfor all threecategories there is a correlationbetween frequency in CSR (accordingto Brown 1996) and the retentionof items underattrition (measured in the percentageof translationaccuracy and reactiontimes): the higherthe frequencythe more likelythe speakersto retainthe item,and vice versa. The importanceof the interferencefrom the speakers' ambientlanguage in lexical attritionhas also been widely noted in the literature:bilingual speakersoften transfer lexical informationfrom one language to the otherin the formof loanshifts,lexical or

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 32 A. Pereltsvaig grammaticalcaiques and collocations(cf. e.g., Moskovich1978; Moskovichand Moonblit 1993; Zemskaja and Glovinskaja2001). An exampleof a loanshiftis: (4) как baloncik iz kotorogovysel vozdux as balloon fromwhich went-outair 'as a flatballoon' (CSR: baloncik 'littlebottle', 'balloon')

Here, a HeritageRussian speakeruses thediminutive form of balon, whichin CSR means 'bottle,can' to referto a balloon (in CSR, vozdusnyjsarik). A possible reasonbehind this loanshiftis theobvious phonetic similarity between the Russian form balon and theEnglish wordballoon.5 For examplesof loanshiftsin HeritageItalian and HeritageNorwegian, see Hjelde (1996) and Milani (1996), respectively. An illustrativeexample of a lexical caique/collocationin HeritageRussian is given in (1) above, repeatedbelow (5); othertypical examples include imet' golovnuju boV (lit. 'have a headache' insteadof the CSR bolit golova lit. 'aches the head'), vzjat*avtobus (lit. 'take a bus' insteadof theCSR poexat' na avtobuselit. 'go on a bus'), and numerous others.

(5) a. ImmigrantRussian oni upali v ljubov' theyfell.PERF in love b. CSR oni vljubilis' theyfell-in-love.PERF 'theyfell in love' Like loanshifts,lexical caiques havebeen attestedfor various Heritage languages; see Henzl (1981) forexamples from American Polish and AmericanCzech, and Milani (1996) and Bettoni(1991) forexamples from Heritage Italian. Finally,not only the meaning,the collocational use and the phonologicalform are transferredfrom one language to another,but also the informationabout selectional restrictionsa given lexical item imposes on its .Particularly vulnerable to such transferis theselection of prepositionsby governingverbs. In theillustrative example below (6), the HeritageRussian speakeruses the prepositiondlja 'for' insteadof na 'on', which is idiomaticallyused with this particularverb in CSR. Similar examples from AmericanSwedish and AmericanPolish are foundin Henzl (1981) and Klintborg(1999), respectively. (6) rabotal dlja CIA workedfor CIA 'workedfor CIA'

To recap, both the frequencyof a given item in the speakers' source language and the interferencefrom their ambient language have been shownto play a definingrole in lexical attrition.In the remainderof this paper,I will show thatthese factorsdo not determine thechoice of verbalaspectual forms in HeritageRussian, thus suggesting that attrition of aspect does not fall underthe moregeneral heading of lexical attrition.

5Another potential (albeit, less likely) source of this loanshift is that particular speaker's familiaritywith the Hebrew word balon 'balloon'.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspect in Heritage Russian 33

4 Frequency in the source language

As discussedin theprevious section, the frequency of a givenitem in thespeakers' source languageplays a role in definingthe course of lexical attrition.In this section,I discuss therole of frequencyin determiningthe choice (and ultimately,the retention) of aspectual formsin HeritageRussian. A priori,it is not inconceivableto view the loss of certain aspectual verb formsin HeritageRussian as part of a largerprocess of lexical attrition. Justas HeritageRussian speakerslose certainnouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions (orjust partsof lexicalentries, such as encodinginherent case-assigning properties of verbs and prepositions;cf. Polinsky1997), it is not implausiblethat they would also lose certain aspectual formsof verbs.In fact,this view would followif one is to adopt the widely accepted (in Russian aspectologicalliterature) view thatthe relationbetween aspectual formsof a verb is lexical in much the same way as the relationbetween synonymous verbs.For instance,Isacenko (1960), Maslov (1948, 1974), and othersbelieve thatthe - - relationbetween the imperfectiveand perfectiveforms of 'read' citat' and procitat' is thesame as betweenxodit' 'walk' and marsirovaf'march'. I can, thus,hypothesize that HeritageRussian speakersretain forms that are more frequentin theirsource language, thatis in CSR.6 Accordingto Comrie(1976, 1 17, citingJosselson 1953, 20-22), theperfective aspect is morefrequent overall in CSR thanthe imperfective. However, it has also been notedthat the ratioof perfectiveand imperfectiveverbs changes depending on thetense and mood of the verb;for example, imperative forms are morefrequently imperfective than perfective (57% vs. 43%, accordingto Steinfeldt1963, 26), whereasin the and in the tense: perfectiveverbs predominate (infinitive: 48% imperfectivevs. 52% perfective;past 34% imperfectivevs. 66% perfective).Similarly, according to Comrie (1976, 117, citing Josselson1953, 20-22), "in theFuture the predominance of thePerfective is even greater" different (syntheticperfective future is comparedto analyticimperfective future). Moreover, aspectual pairs exhibitdifferent patterns of frequency.Therefore, the only meaningful Russian is predictionthat the FrequencyHypothesis can make withrespect to Heritage withreference to specificaspectual pairs: the memberof a given aspectualpair whichis less morefrequent in CSR is hypothesizedto be retainedin HeritageRussian, whereas the I will frequentmember of theaspectual opposition is expectedto be lost. In whatfollows, arguethat this hypothesis is not borneout by thedata. for Throughoutthis paper, frequency is determinedon thebase of threefrequency lists CSR. The firstand the oldestlist is Steinfeldt(1963), whose figuresrepresent the number of occurrencesin the corpus; the obvious disadvantagesof thislist in generaland forthe which purposesof this studyare its age (it was composed in the Soviet times, greatly affectsthe results), its limitedsize, and its beingbased on writtensources (which typically are not a large part of the inputfor Heritage speakers). The second and the newestlist is Sharoff(2002), whose figuresrepresent the numberof occurrencesper millionwords in the corpus. The thirdlist- Brown (1996)- is differentin the presentation;its figures are the rankingsfrom the most frequentword of Russian (i.e., 1) to the 10,000thmost

here I assume thatrelative 6Since longitudinalinput data forthe specific Heritage speakers are not available, as well. This frequencies of aspectual forms in CSR in general are applicable to Heritage speakers' input and formsof assumption is furthersupported by the fact that relative frequencyof imperfective perfective other the verbs studied here (namely, whetherthe perfectiveis more frequentthan the imperfectiveor the below in the main way around) is constant across three frequencylists for CSR that I have consulted (see text).

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 34 A. Pereltsvaig frequentword. Hence, forboth Steinfeldt's and Sharoffslists the higherthe number,the morefrequent the item, whereas for Brown (1996) exactlythe opposite obtains - thehigher the number,the lowerthe frequency(for clarity's sake, I will referto Brown's figuresas markednessrather than frequency;this implies statisticalmarkedness only). The reader shouldnot assume thatthree different lists were used because of systematicdiscrepancies amongthem; in fact,it is surprisingto whatextent the threelists coincide in determining the more frequentmember of aspectual oppositions.For more detailed descriptionsof thesecorpora the readeris referredto the originalsources. Let us firstconsider data that supportthe FrequencyHypothesis, that is aspectual pairs in which the more frequentmember of the opposition is retainedin Heritage Russian. For example, the perfectivevzjat' Чаке' is retainedin (7) insteadof the im- perfectivebrat* 'take'.7 The perfectiveis also morefrequent than the imperfective in CSR: (7) a. HeritageRussian ty ne voz'mi etot dish you not take.PERFthis dish b. CSR ne beri eto bljudo not take.IMPFthis dish 'don't take thisdish'

Table 1 Frequencyof / ; brat'\ perfectivevs. imperfective'take' vVat' (PERF) (IMPF)

Frequency(Steinfeldt 1963) 311 106 Frequency(Sharoff 2002) 752.82 322.82 (Brown 1996) 132 419

Similarly,sometimes it is theimperfective member of theaspectual opposition that is more frequentin CSR and is also theone thatis retainedin AmericanRussian. This is thecase withthe verbnravit'sja/ponravit'sja 'please': (8) a. HeritageRussian (context:describing a shortvisit to Princeton) mne nravilos' v Princeton me.DATliked.IMPF in Princeton b. CSR mne ponravilos' v Prinstone me.DATliked.PERF in Princeton 'I liked it in Princeton' -- Table 2 Frequencyof perfectivevs. imperfective ponravit'sja / nmvit'sja 'please' (PERF) (IMPF)

Frequency(Steinfeldt 1963) 52 86 Frequency(Sharoff 2002) 104.05 196.05 Markedness(Brown 1996) 1897 548

7 Here and below,the frequency form marked with / is theone retainedin HeritageRussian. fi Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspectin HeritageRussian 35

Thus, both perfectiveand imperfectivemembers of the aspectual oppositionsmay be retainedwhen theyare morefrequent in CSR. However,it is not alwaysthe case thatthe morefrequent member in CSR is retainedin HeritageRussian. In particular,both perfective and imperfectiveforms may be retainedwhen theyare less frequent.For example,the perfectiveprocitat' 'read' is less frequentthan the imperfectivecitat' 'read', but it is the perfectivethat is retained:

(9) a. HeritageRussian ja nikogdane procital ta kniga I never not read.PERFthat.NOM book.NOM b. CSR ja nikogdane cital tu knigu I never not read.lMPFthat.ACC book.ACC 'I have neverread thatbook'

- - " " Table 3 of Frequency / ] atatZ ', perfectivevs. imperfective'read' Pwcltat (PERF) (IMPF)

Frequency(Steinfeldt 1963) 52 185 Frequency(Sharoff 2002) 86.22 36 1.44 Markedness(Brown 1996) 1584 230

Example (10) illustratesthe situationwhere the imperfectivemember of the oppositionis retainedin HeritageRussian despitebeing less frequentin CSR:

(10) a. HeritageRussian ja pokazyv^ju tebja moja sobaka I show.lMPF you my.NOMdog.NOM b. CSR ja pokazu tebe svoju sobaku I will-show.PERFyou self's.ACCdog.ACC 'I am going to show you my dog' " " Table4 Frequencyof """"! \ ] r . . lr • иpokazat / иpokazvvat perfectivevs. imperfective 'show' (PERF) (IMPF)

Frequency(Steinfeldt 1963) 131 85 Frequency(Sharoff 2002) 26 1. 16 162.4 1 Markedness(Brown 1 996) 316 556

To sum up, the FrequencyHypothesis, namely the hypothesisthat it is the morefrequent memberof the aspectualopposition that is retainedin HeritageRussian, cannot account forall thedata. But how muchof thedata can it accountfor? An analysisof errorsin the productioncorpus gives the followingfigures: the morefrequent member of the aspectual oppositionis retainedin only 50% of the pairs in my corpus. This is representedby the graphin Fig. 1.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36 A. Pereltsvaig

Figure 1 The predictivepower of theFrequency Hypothesis

Thus,the Frequency Hypothesis can accountfor half of theerrors. Given only two possible choices (perfectivevs. imperfective),this hypothesis appears to have as good a predictive power as flippinga coin. Hence, I conclude thatfrequency does not play an important role in determiningwhich aspectual formsare retainedin HeritageRussian. In the next section,I will argue thatinterference from the speakers' L2 does not play a role in the restructuringof the aspectual systemin HeritageRussian either.

5 Interferencefrom the speakers9ambient language

A plausible explanationfor the changes in the use of verbalaspectual formsin Heritage Russian would be the interferencefrom the speakers' ambientlanguage. Accordingto this InterferenceHypothesis, language attritionreduces to grammaticalborrowing of constructionsand phenomenafound in the speakers'ambient language (which is forthem also the dominantlanguage). Again, this hypothesisis not a prioriunreasonable since it has been shown in the attritionliterature that interference from the dominantlanguage shapes various attritionphenomena. In additionto the above-mentionedinterference in the lexical domain (see Sect. 3), various grammaticalphenomena have been shown to be subject to interference.For instance,Leisio (2001) examined interferencefrom two contactlanguages - Finnishand Swedish- with respectto past participleconstructions, word orderin noun phraseswith a genitivephrase and case assignmentto subjectsand objects in Finland Russian. Zemskaja and Glovinskaja(2001) show thatmany speakers of HeritageRussian exhibitinterference in the widened use of lightverb constructions (especiallywith the verbimet' 'have, own'). Thus, it is not initiallyimplausible to expect HeritageRussian speakersto exhibitinterference also in the domain of aspect. However, in what followsI show thatthis hypothesis is not borneout by the factseither. Specifically,four arguments are put forwardbelow to rule out interferencefrom the speakers'ambient language: 1. A detailedexamination of the aspectualsystem of AmericanRussian (thatis, Heritage Russian in the USA) in comparisonwith the aspectual systemof (American)English shows thatthe formeris not closer to the latterthan the aspectualsystem of CSR is. 2. More generally,speakers of HeritageRussian are shown to make the same typesof errorswith the same classes of verbs regardlessof theirlevel of proficiencyin the ambientlanguage, the lengthof exposureto or dominanceof the ambientlanguage, or the contextof acquisition(ESL instructionvs. naturalisticexposure). 3. The same typesof errorswith the same classes of verbsare also foundregardless of the natureof the aspectual systemin the ambientlanguage that the Heritagespeakers are exposed to (e.g., English,Hebrew, German, Swedish, etc.). 4. The same associationbetween morphological aspect and lexical semanticproperties of the verb is foundin the productionof monolingualchildren at a certainage (approx.

<£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspect in Heritage Russian 37

between2 and 3 years old) and in colloquial speech of monolingualadult Russian speakers(especially, in iterativecontexts, discussed in Zemskaja and Glovinskaja2001). Considerfirst the argumentinvolving American Russian: accordingto the Interference Hypothesis,we wouldexpect the aspectual system of AmericanRussian to be verysimilar to that of (American) English. In English, grammaticalaspect is markedthrough the oppositionof whatis traditionallycalled tenses: and progressive.Note thatlexical aspect is not markedin Englisheither on the verb itselfor throughcase markingon the directobject, as it is in some otherlanguages (cf. Babko-Malaya1999 on Russian;Kiparsky 1998 on Finnish;Ramchand 1997 on ScottishGaelic; Svenonius2001, 2002 on Icelandic). Given thegeneral similarities, the Interference Hypothesis predicts that American Russian speakerswould assimilatethe Russian perfective to theEnglish perfect tenses and the Russian imperfectivemorphology to the English progressivetenses. Since in English we findcontext-sensitive alternations (e.g., has brokenvs. is breaking,or has played vs. is playing),the Interference Hypothesis predicts similar alternations in American Russian. However,this is not what is found.As has been mentionedin Sect. 2.2 above, a given verbis typicallyretained in HeritageRussian (includingAmerican Russian) only in one form,either perfective or imperfective.Thus, we do not findthe expectedcontext sensitivealternations. A weaker version of the InterferenceHypothesis predicts that American Russian the speakers would transferonly one of the English aspects: either they would use the imperfectivein the same way thatprogressive is used in English or theywould use to show perfectivein the same way thatperfect is used in English.However, as I proceed immediatelybelow, neither of thesepredictions is borneout. Consider firstthe correlationbetween the Russian imperfectiveand the English pro- gressive.Both can be used forongoing dynamic events; however, the Englishprogressive the -ingcannot be used withstative verbs (hence, the ungrammaticalityof *Johnis liking borsch).If AmericanRussian used imperfectivemorphology in the same way as English American uses the progressive,we would expectto findno imperfectivestative verbs in Russian. However,the exact opposite is foundin AmericanRussian: stativeverbs are retainedexclusively in the imperfective,even whereCSR requiresthe perfective: (11) a. HeritageRussian (fromPolinsky 1996) my i videli etot dom i my i ne ljubim tarn we and saw this house and we and not like.lMPF there b. CSR my i videli etot dom i nam ne ponravilos' tarn we and saw this house and us.DAT not pleased.PERF there 'we saw thishouse and we didn'tlike it there' с English *we are not likingit there Hence, American Russian speakers do not assimilate the use of the imperfective morphologyto thatof the Englishprogressive. Now considerthe putativecorrelation between the Russian perfectiveand the English has perfect.The lattercan be used to referto the resultstate, as in Barbara painted her nails black, which can be used to state that Barbara's nails are black. Thus, the referto followingprediction emerges: American Russian speakerswill use perfectiveto theresult state. Yet, again quitethe opposite is true:American Russian speakersuse stative imperfectiveforms (denoting the result state of a dynamicevent) instead of theperfective,

& Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 38 A. Pereltsvaig which would be appropriatein the given contextin CSR. For instance,in the example below the speakerdescribes his actionswhen invitedfor a job interview;instead of using theperfective forms podstric'sja 'get a haircut'and nadet' 'put on' denotingnon-habitual completedevents, the speakeruses stativeverbs nosit' 'wear' and byV 'be' to denotethe resultstates of his actions.8Thus, the putative correlation between the use of theperfective morphologyand thatof the Englishperfect is not foundin AmericanRussian. (12) a. HeritageRussian i budu nosit' korotkievolosy i ja budu s galstuk and will wear.lMPFshort hair and I will-be with tie b. CSR ja podstrigus' i nadenu galstuk I will-get-haircut-self.PERFand will-put-on.PERFtie 'I will get a haircutand will put on a tie' What is remarkableis thatspeakers of HeritageRussian are shown to make the same typesof errorswith the same classes of verbsregardless of theirlevel of proficiencyin the ambientlanguage, the length of exposureto or dominanceof theambient language, or the contextof acquisition(ESL instructionvs. naturalisticexposure): the same typesof errors were foundin the speech of HeritageRussian speakerswho are moreor less proficientin English,those were exposed to formalEnglish classes and thosewho were not. Furthermore,the InterferenceHypothesis is also contradictedby the data involving speakersexposed to differentambient languages. Under the InterferenceHypothesis, we expect to see a differentpattern in aspectual markingamong HeritageRussian speakers withdifferent ambient languages. However, this expectation is also notmet. Unfortunately, little is known about the aspectual systemsin Israeli or Finland Russian (and further studiesare necessaryin this respect).However, Zemskaja and Glovinskaja(2001, 248) discuss a HeritageRussian speakerwhose ambientlanguage is notEnglish and she makes the same typesof errorsin her HeritageRussian as do AmericanRussian speakers(as describedabove). In particular,for the speakerdiscussed by Zemskaja and Glovinskaja (2001), a womanthey refer to as АО, HeritageRussian is her thirdlanguage in the order of dominanceand verylimited in scope, withSwedish being hermost dominant language (e.g., she is reportedto count in Swedish) and Germanbeing her second strongestand also theambient language of hercurrent environment (she was bornin Germanybut spent most of her childhoodand youthin Sweden; she is marriedto a non-Russian-speaking German,with her formaleducation being partiallyin Swedish and partiallyin German).9 For this speaker,potential interferences would be fromSwedish and/orGerman, both of which have aspectual systemsdifferent from that of English; yet,АО makes the same types of errorswith the same types of verbs as AmericanRussian speakersdescribed above do:

(13) a. SpeakerАО (context:telling about one completedaction) ja uvelicivala odnu fotografiju I enlarged.IMPFone photo

8The by? is morphologicallyperfective, but semantically stative (cf. Franks1995). 9Thisspeaker belongs to thethird-generation of the 1st wave of immigrants.For more details on herhistory and speech,see Zemskajaand Glovinskaja(2001, 241-256).

4li Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspect in Heritage Russian 39

b. CSR Ja uvelicila odnu fotografiju I enlarged.PERFone photo 'I enlargedone photo'

(14) a. SpeakerАО (context:telling about her aunt's abilityto draw) ona toze narisovala xoroso she too drew.PERFwell b. CSR ona toze risovala xoroso she too drew.IMPFwell 'she too drewwell'

These mistakescan be comparedto thevery similar data fromthe American Russian corpus givenbelow. 'Enlarge' is similarin its lexical semantics(except, of course,) to 'grow' and 'draw'- to 'write':

(15) a. HeritageRussian (AmericanRussian corpus) esli ty use naturalfertilizers, i u tebja eti cvety rastet if you use naturalfertilizers and by you these flowersgrow.IMPF b. CSR eti cvety vyrastut these flowersgrow.PERF 'if you use naturalfertilizers, these flowerswill grow'

(16) a. HeritageRussian (AmericanRussian corpus) ona naucila menja napisat' she taught.PERFme to-write.PERF b. CSR ona naucila menja pisat' she taught.PERFme to-write.lMPF 'she taughtme how to write'

Finally,even monolingualspeakers of Russian,both children and adults,presumably under no interferenceof otherlanguages, often revert to using verbalaspectual morphologyto encode lexical ratherthan grammatical aspect. This is verytypical of childrenacquiring Russian in a monolingualenvironment, in particular,children in the so-called Optional Infinitivestage, namely the stage when infinitives are used insteadof finiteforms (this stage typicallylasts between ages of 1;6 and 2;2). Althoughthis stage is foundin thedevelopment of variouschild languages, two importantcharacteristics distinguish the Optional Infinitive stage in child Russian fromthat in child English or child Greek: first,in child Russian infinitivesdo nothave a modal meaning;second, even in theinfinitives aspectual opposition is retained.So what does the perfective-imperfectiveopposition encode at this stage of childRussian development? According to Gagarina(2000b, 157) and Gagarina(2003, 139), aspectual morphologyat this stage denoteslexical ratherthan grammatical aspect (as it does in CSR). In particular,she also bringsforward data thatcontradict earlier proposals by Brun (1999) and Brunet al. (1999), who claim thatwith infinitival verbs the aspectual morphologycorrelates with the temporalinterpretation: "the eventsin the past tense are overwhelminglyexpressed through the verbsin perfectiveaspect, while the presenttense

Й Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 40 A. Pereltsvaig interpretationis almostalways expressed through imperfective verbs" (Brun 1999, 9). The followingexamples fromBrun et al. (1999) illustratetheir claim: in (17a) the perfective infinitivesignifies a past tense interpretation,whereas in (17b) the imperfectiveinfinitive signifiesa presenttense interpretation:

(17) a. PERF= past interpretation Sasha P. (1;8) afterhe had put on his pants: odet' to-put-on.PERF '(he) has put (the pants)on' b. IMPF = presentinterpretation Sasha J. (1;6 / 2;4) describesthe actionsof his sisterwho is playingwith her toystroller in the same room:10 kaeat' koljasoeku to-swing.IMPFstroller.DIM '(she) is swingingthe stroller'

However,Gagarina shows that the choice of aspectual morphologydoes not always correlatewith the temporalinterpretation but always correlateswith the lexical aspect of the verb. For instance,in (17a) odet* 'put on' and in (18a) slomat' 'break' denote boundevents and thereforeperfective is used, whereaskacat' 'swing' in (17b), and guljat* 'walk' and exat' 'go/drive'in (18b) denote non-boundevents and thereforeimperfective is used:

(18) a. PERFbut non-pastinterpretation Vanja (2;2) startsto breaka toycar door,commenting on his action: sjamat' (= slomat') break.PERF '(I) am breaking(car door)' b. IMPFbut past interpretation Roma (age not indicated)describes how he wentfor a walk withdaddy: guljat9 papa, masina exat'. walk.IMPFdaddy car go.IMPF '(I) was walking(with) daddy,went (by) car'

Hence, I conclude thateven withoutany possible interferencefrom another language, monolingualchildren acquiring Russian make the same types of errorswith the same typesof verbs as do HeritageRussian speakers:both groups of speakersuse aspectual morphologyto encode lexical aspect ratherthan grammaticalaspect. To conclude, the InterferenceHypothesis makes wrongpredictions with respect to the aspectual marking in HeritageRussian.11 As has been concluded at the end of the previous section,the FrequencyHypothesis does not muchbetter than the InterferenceHypothesis.

10The firstage indicated is the child's mental age and the second age is his physical age. The reader is referredto Brun et al. (1999) fordiscussion. 11 This result is particularly interestingin the context of Bardovi-Harlig's (1992, 262) findings that interferencefrom the speakers' firstlanguage does not play a role in the choice of aspectual forms by second language learners of English. Thus, it appears that neither the firstlanguage plays a role in the acquisition of the second, nor does the second language play a role in the attritionof the first,as far as aspect is concerned.

%\ Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Aspectin HeritageRussian 41

6 Conclusions

In this paper, I show that neitherthe frequencyof aspectual formsin CSR nor the interferencefrom the speakers' ambient language play an importantrole in theattrition of aspect in HeritageRussian. In thisrespect, attrition of aspect differsfrom lexical attrition, thussuggesting that aspect in Russian is a grammaticalrather than lexical distinction.

References

Andersen,R. W., & Shirai,Y. (1996). The primacyof aspectin firstand second languageacquisition: The Pidgin-Creoleconnection. In W. C. Ritchie& Т. К. Bhatia(Eds.), Handbookof second language acquisition(pp. 527-570). San Diego. Arefiev,A. (1999). Intervalsemantics of Russianaspect. MA thesis.University of Troms0. Babko-Malaya,O. (1999). Zeromorphology: A studyof aspect, structure, and case. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Rutgers University. http://ling.rutgers.edu/papersA5abko.pdf (8-6-2007). Bardovi-Harlig,K. (1992). The relationshipof formand meaning:A cross-sectionalstudy of tenseand aspectin theinterlanguage of learnersof Englishas a secondlanguage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 253-278. Bar-Shalom,E. G., & Zaretsky,E. (2006). Preservationof aspectual distinctionsin Russian-English bilingualchildren. Paper presentedat SLS 2006. Bloomington.http://www.indiana.edu/~sls2006/ Abstracts/Barshalom&ZaretskySLS.doc(10-1-2007). Bettoni,С (1991). Languagevariety among Italians: Anglicisation, attrition and attitudes.In S. Romame (Ed.), Languagein Australia(pp. 263-269). Cambridge. Brown,N. J.(1996). Russianlearners' dictionary: 10,000 wordsin frequency order. London. Russian. Brun,D. (1999). Temporalinterpretation of root infinitives during the Optional Infinitive stage in Paperpresented at ConSOLE 7. Bergen. Brun,D., et al. (1999). Aspectand its temporal interpretation during the Optional Infinitive stage in Russian. In A. Greenhill,et al. (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development(Vol. 1, pp. 120-131). Sommerville. ivmn. Comrie,B. (1976). Aspect.An introductionto thestudy oj veroaiaspect ana reiaieaргошетл. nw Donitsa-Schmidt,S. (1999). Languagemaintenance or shift:Determinants of language choice among boviet in Education immigrantsin Israel. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation.The OntarioInstitute for Studies of theUniversity of Toronto. /u. Fishman,J. A. (1964). Languagemaintenance and language shift as a fieldof inquiry.Linguistics, У, 51- Forsvth,J. (1970). A grammarof aspect.Usage and meaningin theKussian vero. ^amonage. Franks,S. (1995). Parametersof Slavic morphosyntax.New York. In A. Alexiaaou, Gagarina,N. (2000a). The acquisitionof aspectuality by Russian children: The earlystages. et al. (Eds.), Paperson languagechange and languageacquisition (ZAS Papersin Linguistics,15) (pp. 232-246). In E. et al. Gagarina,N. (2000b). Earlyverb development in one Russian-speakingchild. Lang, (Eds.), Firstverbs: On theway to miniparadigms(ZAS Papersin Linguistics,18) (pp. 143-162). in three Gagarina,N. (2003). The earlyverb development and demarcationof stages Russian-speaking children.In D. Bittner,et al. (Eds.), Developmentof verbinflection in firstlanguage acquisition. A cross-lineuisticperspective (pp. 131-169). Berlin. Henzl,V. M. (1981). Slavic languagesin the newenvironment. In С A. Ferguson& S. B. Heath(Eds.), Languagein theUSA (pp. 293-321). Cambridge. In P. S. Ureland& I. Clarkson Hjelde,A. (1996). The genderof used in AmericanNorwegian. (Eds.), Language contactacross the NorthAtlantic (Linguistische Arbeiten, 359) (pp. 297-312). Tubingen. Isacenko,A. V. (1960). Grammaticeskijstroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenus slovackim.Morfologija (T. 2). Bratislava. Josselson,H. H. (1953). The Russianword count and frequencyanalysis oj grammaticalcategories oj standardliterary Russian. Detroit. on the learner. Kagan,O., & Dillon,K. (2001). A new perspectiveon teachingRussian: Focus heritage The Slavic and East EuropeanJournal, 45(3), 507-5 18. he Kiparsky,P. (1998). Partitivecase and aspect.In M. Butt& W. Geuder(Eds.), I projectionoj arguments: Lexicaland compositionalfactors (CSLI LectureNotes, 83) (pp. 265-307). Stanford.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 42 A. Pereltsvaig

Klintborg,S. (1999). The transienceof American Swedish. Lund. Leisio, L. (2001). Morphosyntacticconvergence and integrationin FinlandRussian. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Tampere*http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5029-9.pdf (10-1-2007). Maslov,Ju. S. (1948). Vid i leksiceskoeznacenie glagola v sovremennomrusskom literaturnom jazyke. hvestijaAkademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenieliteratury ijazyka, 7(4), 303-316. Maslov,Ju. S. (1974). Zur Semantikder Perfektivitatsopposition.Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 20, 107- 122. Milani,C. (1996). Languagecontact among North-American people of Italianorigin. In P. S. Ureland& I. Clarkson(Eds.), Languagecontact across the North Atlantic (Linguistische Arbeiten, 359) (pp. 479- 501). Tubingen. Moskovich,W. (1978). Interferenceof Hebrewand Russianin Israel. In V. Raskin& D. Segal (Eds.), Slavica Hierosolymitana(Vol. II, pp. 215-234). Jerusalem. Moskovich,W., & Moonblit,V. (1993). Dva esse о evrejsko-russkixjazykovyx kontaktax. In W. Moskovich, et al. (Eds.), Jewsand Slavs (Vol. I, pp. 242-266). St. Petersburg. Pereltsvaig,A. (2001). Whatdoes AmericanRussian morphology tell us aboutsyntax? Paper presented at NELS. New York. Pereltsvaig,A. (2004). Agreementin theabsence of :Gender agreement in AmericanRussian. In D. Stojanovid(Ed.), Psycholinguisticsin Slavic (Special issue of CahiersLinguistique d'Ottawa, 32) (pp. 87-107). Pereltsvaig,A. (2005). Aspect lost, aspect regained:Restructuring of aspectualmarking in American Russian.In P. Kempchinsky& R. Slabakova(Eds.), Aspectualinquiries (Studies in NaturalLanguage and LinguisticTheory, 62) (pp. 369-395). Dordrecht. Polinsky,M. (1994). Whathappens when you lose aspect:American Russian. Paper presented at theUCLA symposiumon aspect. Polinsky,M. (1996). AmericanRussian: An endangered language? Ms., Universityof California, San Diego. http://ling.ucsd.edU/-.polinsky/publications.html(8-8-2007). Polinsky,M. (1997). AmericanRussian: Language loss meetslanguage acquisition. In W. Browne,et al. (Eds.), Annualworkshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics(Michigan Slavic Materials,39) (pp. 370-406). AnnArbor. Polinsky,M. (2005). Wordclass distinctionsin an incompletegrammar. In D. D. Ravid & H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot(Eds.), Perspectiveson languageand languagedevelopment (pp. 419-434). Dordrecht. Ramchand,G. С (1997). Aspectand predication:The semanticsof argumentstructure. Oxford. Sharoff,S. (2002). The frequencydictionary for Russian, http://www.artint.ru/projects/frqlist/frqlist-en.asp (8-8-2007). Smith,C. S. (1991). Theparameter of aspect.Dordrecht. Spagis,A. A. (1961). Obrazovaniei upotreblenievidov glagola v russkomjazyke. Moskva. Steinfeldt,E. (1963). Russianword count. 2500 wordsmost commonly used in modernliterary Russian. . Svenonius,P. (2001). Case and eventstructure. In N. Zhang(Ed.), ZAS workingpapers, 26, 197-218. Svenonius,P. (2002). Icelandic case and the structureof events.Journal of ComparativeGermanic Linguistics,5, 197-225. Timberlake,A. (2004). A referencegrammar of Russian.Cambridge. Zemskaja,E. A., & Glovinskaja,M. Ja.(Eds.) (2001). Jazykrusskogo zarubezja. Obscieprocessy i recevye portrety(Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband, 53). Moskva.

чу Springer

This content downloaded from 128.135.12.127 on Tue, 14 May 2013 13:49:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions