macedonian verbal aspect: east or west

Dutch Contributions to the Fifteenth International Congress of Slavists, Minsk: Linguistics (SSGL 40). Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, 2014, 127-153.

MACEDONIAN VERBAL ASPECT: EAST OR WEST?

JAAP KAMPHUIS

SUMMARY

The functions of verbal aspect in the various Slavic languages have been an important subject of research over the past few decades. From this research a typology of Slavic verbal aspect has emerged. Macedonian has not been included in the most recent studies and thus is absent in the typology. In the present paper I will provide a bird’s-eye view of Macedonian verbal aspect and try to show the position of Macedonian in the typology of Slavic verbal aspect as presented in Dickey (2000).

0. Introduction The verbal systems of all Slavic languages are characterized by an important aspectual dichotomy: the opposition between perfective and imperfective verbs. Generally speaking, perfective verbs present an event in its totality, without regard to the internal structure of the event, while imperfective verbs present the internal structure of an act. In the words of Comrie (1976: 3): “aspects are different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation”. The use of aspect varies among languages, however (see e.g., Smith 1997: 61-62), and over the past few decades it has become clear that there is no such thing as the Slavic verbal aspect.

Stunová (1993) compares Russian and Czech with respect to aspect usage in iterative contexts, sequences of events and the historical present and shows that there are systematic differences between the two languages. Dickey (2000) takes this comparison one step further and studies the differences in aspect usage between eight different modern Slavic languages in his book Parameters of Slavic Aspect. Based on the behavior of the various languages in a number of contexts, he comes to the conclusion that there is an eastern and a western type of aspect usage, with Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Bul-garian representing the eastern type (hereinafter: the eastern group) and Czech, Slovak, Sorbian and Slovene representing the western type (the west-ern group). There are two transitional zones: Polish and BCS;1 in certain

1 BCS = Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (in Dickey 2000 this corresponds to SC: Serbian and Croatian); Other abbreviations used in the present paper are: Bg = Bulgarian, Cz = Czech, Mk = Macedonian, OCS = Old Church Slavonic, Ru = Russian, Sn = Slovene, ipf = imperfective, pf =

JAAP KAMPHUIS 128

contexts these transitional languages behave as members of the eastern group and in others as members of the western group. Macedonian has not been included in Dickey’s study.

Macedonian verbal aspect has not been the subject of a lot of research. An exception is Friedman (1985), who compares Russian, Macedonian and Bul-garian aspect usage and shows that Bulgarian takes up an intermediate posi-tion between Russian and Macedonian. A systematic treatment of Macedoni-an with regard to the recently established typology of Slavic verbal aspect is still lacking though.

In this paper I will present an introduction to aspect usage in Macedonian and try to clarify the position of Macedonian within the typology of Slavic verbal aspect as outlined by Dickey.

0.1 Macedonian Macedonian is an eastern South Slavic language, closely related to Bulgarian. The Macedonian standard language is quite young; the first steps towards codification were made in 1944, and in the years after that a new literary lan-guage was formed, based on a number of dialects spoken in the territory of the Macedonian Republic in former Yugoslavia (B. Koneski 1952/2004: 53-59). A bundle of isoglosses that passes over the Macedonian linguistic area shows that Macedonia is linguistically a transitional zone between BCS and Bulgarian (Ivić 1956: 16).

Because there are many dialects in Macedonian and given the huge differ-ences between those dialects, it can be difficult to treat Macedonian as a unity. Native speakers are often unsure as to what is acceptable in standard Mace-donian and, moreover, they are sceptical as to the usefulness of dialect exam-ples for the description of Macedonian. The examples in this paper have all been checked for acceptability in standard Macedonian by native speakers of various dialects and, wherever it is useful, dialectal information is included. When no source is indicated for a Macedonian example, the example has been produced by a native informant, either spontaneously, or as a transla-tion of an existing example in another Slavic language.

Macedonian is an interesting language when it comes to the verbal system, because of the rich inventory of verbal forms. Unlike most Slavic languages, but like Bulgarian and to a lesser extent Serbian (and Croatian), Macedonian has retained the synthetic past tense forms and analytic tense forms that were present in Old Church Slavonic and even added some forms to it. This results in the following verbal system:

perfective, aor = aorist, fut = future, impf = imperfect, perf = perfect, pres = present. In examples superscript p is used to mark perfective verbs, and i to mark imperfective verbs.

MACEDONIAN VERBAL ASPECT: EAST OR WEST? 129

Synthetic tense forms Analytic tense forms Present (pf/ipf) Future (pf/ipf) Aorist (pf)2 Future-in-the-past (pf/ipf) Imperfect (pf/ipf) Sum-perfect (pf/ipf)3 Ima-perfect (pf/ipf) Pluperfect (pf/ipf)

Table 1: Macedonian finite tense forms4

It is important to note that, even though we refer to the forms in Table 1 as “tenses”, there are, in fact, aspectual oppositions between several of these tenses as well. Friedman (1985) uses the term “subordinate aspect” for the opposition between aorist and imperfect to indicate that we are dealing with an added aspectual opposition in the past.

With regard to the use of particular verbal forms in various contexts, there is one important peculiarity of the Macedonian verbal system that really sets it apart from all other Slavic languages, making a comparison with these lan-guages more of a challenge: Macedonian does not allow the use of stand-alone present tense forms of perfective verbs in the main clause, while other Slavic languages do allow this to a greater or lesser extent. We will see various examples of this phenomenon in the following paragraphs. Macedonian, however, does use perfective present tense forms after certain particles and conjunctions (ќе, да, ако), so for the purpose of comparison, we will treat these constructions as examples of the perfective present.5

2 In a number of dialects, the imperfective aorist is still in use. The form, however, is no longer considered part of the standard language and has been replaced by either a perfective aorist or an imperfective imperfect, depending on the telicity of the predicate (Friedman 1993: 292). 3 There are in fact two perfects with sum: one with an l-participle that will be discussed in greater detail in § 4 on general factual contexts and one with the past passive participle, or the so-called -n/-t participle. An example of the latter is Јас сум доста долго седен ‘I have been sitting here long enough’ (Mišeska-Tomić 2011: 140). This perfect will receive no further attention in this paper. 4 Not included are modal forms (like the imperative, or conditional forms with би) and forms that are exclusively used for reported speech. 5 To my knowledge, there are two exceptions to the rule that in Macedonian perfective present tense forms do not occur independently in the main clause. Firstly, in sentences inquiring after the reason behind the non-occurrence of an event, like: Зошто не ја раздигнеш масата? ‘Why don’t you clear the table?’ And secondly, in constructions with ако ‘if’ + 2x perfective present like Ако падне, падне. ‘If he falls, he falls.’ or Ако дојде, дојде. ‘If he comes, he comes.’ In this article the use of perfective present forms in conditional clauses introduced by the conjunction ако ‘if’ will not be discussed. The particle ќе is mainly used for the analytical future, while да, among other things, is used as a subordinating conjunction. In § 3.1 we will see that in Bulgarian, Macedonian and BCS the construction used for the analytical future has other functions besides future reference.

JAAP KAMPHUIS 130

0.2 Method To get an idea of the functions of verbal aspect in Macedonian and the posi-tion of Macedonian in the typology of Slavic verbal aspect, we shall take a closer look at the aspectual behavior of Macedonian in a number of contexts which have shown to be sensitive to aspectual variation between the various modern Slavic languages: habitual expressions (§ 1), historical present (§ 2), performatives (§ 3), general factual expressions (§ 4), and sequences of events (§ 5). Each of these contexts deserves a study of its own, however, the purpose of the present paper is to provide a bird’s-eye view of Macedonian aspect. In all contexts the Macedonian aspect usage will be compared to that of other Slavic languages, in order to be able to determine the position of Macedonian within the typology of Slavic verbal aspect.

The rich inventory of verb forms means that comparison with other Slavic languages, like Russian, which has a smaller inventory of finite verb forms, is less straightforward than a comparison between Russian and Czech, for in-stance, where aspect is often the only variable. However, since in most cases tense and aspect are independent categories,6 a comparison with other Slavic languages that have different tense systems is still possible, as the following paragraphs will show.

0.3 Hypothesis There are several indications that Macedonian takes up a transitional position between BCS and Bulgarian, or, in other words, between the eastern group and the transitional zone toward the western group. Firstly there is the bun-dle of isoglosses between western Bulgarian and Serbian that fans out over the Macedonian linguistic area. Secondly there are the results of the study of Friedman (1985) showing that Bulgarian verbal aspect takes up an intermedi-ate position between Russian and Macedonian. If Macedonian does indeed hold this transitional position, this would imply that the typology of Slavic verbal aspect is more fine-grained than the original classification into four main groups (eastern group, western group and two transitional zones) by Dickey (2000).

Furthermore, it is possible that, even though tense and aspect are inde-pendent categories, the rich inventory of verb forms in Macedonian has an influence on aspect usage. To check for this, comparison with Bulgarian, which has a similar tense system, is necessary.

6 Of all Macedonian tense forms, it is only in the case of the aorist that there is no such independ-ent relation, as already indicated in Table 1.


1. Habitual expressions A habitual expression is an utterance in which an event is presented as being repeated an indefinite number of times. Indefinite here means that we are dealing with unbounded repetition, as opposed to bounded repetition in which there is a limit to the number of times an event is repeated (e.g. a few times, five times).

Habitual expressions are interesting with regard to verbal aspect, because there are two levels on which the aspect could work (Stunová 1993: 35). First, there is the micro level, on which the individual event can be conceptualized as a total or completed event (in terminative predicates), which means that the event has reached its inherent boundary. For example, for write a letter the inherent boundary is reached when the letter is finished. Second, there is the macro level, on which the unbounded repetition of the micro level event is expressed. For the event write a letter, this means that the total event write a letter is presented as being repeated an indefinite number of times.

Mønnesland (1984: 54) argues that when we are dealing with a total event on the micro level, some Slavic languages stress the totality on the individual level and use perfective verbs in habitual expressions, while in other Slavic languages the unboundedness on the macro level takes precedence, resulting in the use of imperfective verbs. This does not explain, however, why either level takes precedence.

Dickey (2000: 49-94) shows that Slavic languages differ in their aspectual choice in habitual expressions, depending on the meaning of verbal aspect in the groups. In the western group, totality on the individual level is a sufficient condition for the use of perfective verbs (cf. also Stunová 1993: 190 for Czech). In the eastern group, totality alone does not sanction the use of a perfective verb. For the use of a perfective verb “an additional context of sequentiality must be present on the micro level of an individual repetition” (Dickey 2000: 93). Barentsen (1998: 49-50) had already come to a similar conclusion for Russian and calls this additional condition for the use of perfective verbs секвентная связь (“sequential connection”).

The condition of a sequential connection is fulfilled whenever an event is linked to either a preceding or a subsequent event. So in the eastern group, when the context is a single recurring event, without mention of either pre-ceding or following events, imperfective verbs are used because the condition of a sequential connection has not been met. Perfective verbs are only used when the event can be sequentially connected to another event. In the re-mainder of this paper we will see several ways in which events can be sequen-tially connected.

Below, Macedonian aspect usage in habitual expressions will be compared to that of other Slavic languages. We will consider cases with and without sequential connections, and we will treat habitual expressions in the past separately. The latter is necessary because aspect usage in past habitual ex-

JAAP KAMPHUIS 132

pressions can deviate from that in present habitual expressions (Dickey 2000: 77). Also, Macedonian employs a specialized tense form, the so-called “fu-ture-in-the-past” or “perfective imperfect” (see for the difference note 13) in past habitual expressions, which makes it an all the more interesting context to look at.

1.1 Habitual expressions in the present An example showing the difference in aspect usage between Russian and Czech is given by Dickey (2000: 52-53): (1) Vypijep, pres jednu skleničku vodky dennĕ. (Cz)

‘He drinks one glass of vodka a day.’ (2) Каждый день он *��p, pres/�� i, pres по одной рюмке водки.

(Ru)7

The difference in aspect usage can be explained in terms of the theories of Dickey and Barentsen as outlined above: Czech is a member of the western group, so the totality on the micro level sanctions the use of a perfective verb. In Russian, which is a member of the eastern group, the lack of a sequential connection prohibits the use of a perfective verb.

Since Macedonian does not allow a stand-alone perfective present in this main clause, there are two options: either Macedonian uses an imperfective verb and behaves like a member of the eastern group, or it uses a perfective verb in combination with one of the particles mentioned above and behaves like a western language.

In the translation of example (1), a single habitual event, Macedonian pat-terns like Russian in not allowing the use of a perfective present: (3) Тој �� p, pres/ � ��i, pres по една чаша вотка на ден. (Mk)8

In this respect, Macedonian differs from BCS, the transitional zone toward the western group; BCS, like Czech, does allow the use of perfective present forms in such habitual expressions, while Bulgarian, the Slavic neighbor on the other side, behaves like Macedonian in this context (Dickey 2000: 52-53): (4) Svaki dan popijep, pres po jednu čašicu votke. (BCS) (5) Той * � �p, pres/ � ��i, pres чаша водка всеки ден. (Bg)

7 In Dickey (2000) all Cyrillic examples are given in transliteration. 8 It should be noted that Macedonian informants also mention the simplex imperfective пие ‘drinks’ as an acceptable alternative for испива. The prefixed испива strongly emphasizes the recurring complete emptying of the glass, while пие is the more neutral option, not addressing the question whether the glass was completely emptied. This, however, does not change the aspect usage, since we are still dealing with an imperfective verb.


As discussed above, in languages of the eastern group perfective verbs do occur in habitual expressions. However, this can only happen when the addi-tional condition of sequential connection is met. This is why in so-called “habitual correlative constructions”, perfective verbs do occur. The following example shows such a construction in Macedonian. In this construction the imperfective verb in the main clause expresses the unbounded repetition on the macro level, while the perfective verb in the dependent clause expresses the total occurrence of the dependent event directly connected to the occur-rence of the event in the main clause. Thus, in the dependent clause we find a perfective verb expressing habituality: (6) Кога и �� ја ��p, pres песната, ми �� i, pres. (Mk)9

‘Whenever I hear that song, I’m disgusted.’

Example (6) is an example of what Bondarko in his typology of habitual con-structions in Russian (1971: 198) calls a кратно-парная конструкция (“ha-bitual-pair construction”), a construction in which two events recur together. In Macedonian, the dependent clause in these constructions is often intro-duced by кога/кој/како и да ... ‘whenever/whoever/however’ etc. This is not always the case, though, as shown in the next example, where the perfective verb in the habitual-pair construction is introduced by the particle ќе: (7) Солзи ми �� i, pres секогаш кога �� ја ��p, pres оваа песна.10

(Mk) ‘Tears fill my eyes, every time I hear this song.’

In Bulgarian we have a similar construction, yet without the obligatory sub-ordination to a particle as in Macedonian: (8) Сатирата ни еi, pres в страшна криза - всичко, що �� p, pres,

�� i, pres. (Bg, Lindstedt 1985: 192) ‘Our satire is in a terrible crisis - everything we write gets published.’

Another habitual correlative construction Bondarko distinguishes (1971: 207) is the кратно-цепная конструкция (“habitual-chain construction”), in Russian often introduced by imperfective бывает, followed by the habitual events denoted by perfective present forms. In Macedonian we find a similar construction. Just like in Russian, the construction is introduced by an imper-fective present and the repetitive events occur as mostly perfective presents, which in Macedonian are accompanied by the particle ќе (K. Koneski 1999: 271): 9 http://grid.mk/news/4228f2cf-1dfd-4b83-a348-ffddf5c8aae2/koga-i-da-ja-slushnam-pesnata-mi-se-gadi (January 2013). 10 http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=YTHmKtkc10k (January 2013).

JAAP KAMPHUIS 134

(9) Големите авантуристи ��i, pres најневозбудлив живот... ��p, pres, самите �� си ��p,pres појадок, �� p, pres одре-ден број километри, ��i /p?, pres 11, �� ги ��p, pres инстру-ментите, �� p, pres и ��p, pres. (Mk)

‘Big adventurers lead the most boring lives… They’ll get up, cook a meal for themselves, cover a certain number of kilometers, eat, inspect their instruments, rest and go on.’

1.2 Habitual expressions in the past In the eastern group of Slavic languages the use of perfective verbs in habitual expressions in the past is even more restricted than in the present tense (Dickey 2000: 77). And, other than in habitual expressions in the present, the transitional zone BCS now seems to pattern with the eastern group in not allowing perfective past forms:12 (10) Za večeru sam obično *kupiop, past/kupovaoi, past salamu. (BCS; Dickey

2000: 73) ‘For dinner I usually bought salami.’

Russian shows the same aspect usage here: (11) На ужин ја *!� �p, past/�!��i, past себе обычно колбасу. (Ru)

And Macedonian, too, does not allow the use of a perfective verb in this con-text: (12) За вечера обично си *!� �p, aor/!��i, impf салами. (Mk)

However, BCS has the option of using a conditional construction to express habituality in the past, in which case perfective verbs denoting completed events do occur: (13) Za večeru bih obično kupiop salamu. (BCS, Dickey 2000: 74)

Macedonian has a similar construction, viz. the so-called future-in-the past (минато идно време) consisting of a perfective imperfect13 in combination 11 Bi-aspectual according to Koneski (1961), a judgement which could result from BCS influence, where the verb ručati, which in his dictionary is given as an equivalent of Macedonian руча, is regarded as bi-aspectual. However, the verb is imperfective according to Murgoski (2004). 12 However, in the western part of the BCS language area, the use of perfective verbs in past habitual expression does occur. This shows that the transitional status of BCS is also a geograph-ical reality (cf. Dickey 2000: 87, with references) 13 Future-in-the-past tense forms can be formed of both perfective and imperfective verbs, but in this habitual function only perfective forms are used, a clear continuation of the OCS perfective imperfect (cf. Kalsbeek 2012: 345). Furthermore, example (16) shows that the construction also occurs with the particle да, in which case it is no longer a future-in-the-past, which is defined as a


with the particle ќе, a construction that is also used in conditional expres-sions. Kalsbeek (2012: 345) also notes the similarities between this BCS condi-tional construction and the Macedonian/Bulgarian perfective imperfect. The use of the perfective imperfect in this context goes back as far as Old Church Slavonic, were it was already in use for past habitual-pair constructions (ibidem). And today in Macedonian, the perfective imperfect still only occurs in habitual expressions when we are dealing with correlative constructions. This shows that the absence of a sequential connection, which is the typical eastern restriction on the use of perfective verbs, also precludes the use of the perfective imperfect in Macedonian. That is why (14) is unacceptable, where-as (15) is a perfectly acceptable and frequently found construction: (14) * За вечера обично �� си !��p, impf салами. (Mk) (15) За вечера обично �� си !��p, impf салами и �� си ��"��p, impf.

(Mk) ‘For dinner I would usually buy salami and eat until I was satisfied.’

We find a similar construction with кога/кој/како и да ... ‘whenev-er/whoever/however’ etc. in the dependent clause, comparable to the con-structions we found in present habitual expressions (cf. example (6)). Just like in (15), the events are expressed by a perfective imperfect, only now with the particle (кога и) да: (16) Кога и �� "��p, impf, �� p, impf со сите. (Mk)14

‘Whenever he would come, he would greet everyone.’

Note that the use of the perfective imperfect is similar to that of the perfective present, in that both are exclusively used in subordination to certain parti-cles/conjunctions, the most frequently used of which are ќе and да.

The other languages in the eastern group, except for Bulgarian, do not have similar constructions, which limits their use of perfective verbs in past habitual further than in Macedonian. However, as a member of the eastern group with a tense system similar to the Macedonian tense system, Bulgarian uses the perfective imperfect for past habitual events, and not only in habitu-al-pair constructions (Dickey 2000: 76), like the Macedonian examples above, but in habitual-chain constructions as well (Pašov 1999/2005: 145):

construction of ќе with an imperfect. These two facts combined show that in habitual construc-tions we are not dealing with a subtype of the future-in-the-past, but rather with a partially overlapping construction that is better referred to as a perfective imperfect. 14 http://star.vest.com.mk/default.asp?id=13653&idg=2&idb=340&rubrika=Revija (January 2013).

JAAP KAMPHUIS 136

(17) #$��p, impf се вечер изморен, ��p, impf при огнището, ��p, impf си лулата... (Bg) ‘He would return tired in the evening, sit down by the fireplace, light up his pipe...’

Note that Bulgarian perfective imperfects do occur without particles, just as the perfective present we saw in (8); this seems to be a systematic difference between Bulgarian and Macedonian. Macedonian informants were unsure as to the acceptability of the use of perfective imperfects in this construction: (18) ?�� p, impf/&�� i, impf навечер изморен, ?��

��p, impf/� � ��i, impf покрај каминот, ?�� ја ��p, impf/� �"��i, impf лулата. (Mk)

Lack of context could be the reason for their insecurity with regard to this example. When overtly introduced by an imperfective verb (cf. K. Koneski 1999: 272), habitual-chain constructions are accepted, like in example (9) with a present tense habitual expression. This is the same in the case of (18): when the sentence is introduced with Секогаш беше таков ‘He always was like this’ it becomes acceptable to native informants.

1.3 Macedonian within the typology of habitual expressions The use of perfective aspect in habitual expressions in Macedonian is rather limited. When it concerns present tense habituals, the restrictions are similar to those in the eastern group, where only in correlative constructions perfec-tive verbs can occur in habitual expressions. In the past tense, Macedonian has the opportunity of employing a verb form that most other languages lack: the perfective imperfect. This tense form is responsible for the fact that per-fective verbs in past habitual expressions are more common in Macedonian than they are in other languages of the eastern group, except for Bulgarian, which employs the same tense form albeit to a lesser degree according to Friedman (1985: 240). Interestingly, the condition for the use of perfective imperfects is still the same as in present tense habituals: only when a sequen-tial connection with another event is present can Macedonian employ these perfective verb forms. This sets Macedonian apart from BCS, which uses a similar construction for past habitual events, only without the restriction of a sequential connection, as is shown by example (13).

So, with regard to the position of Macedonian in the typology of habitual expressions, it is safe to say that Macedonian behaves as a member of the eastern group, even though it has greater freedom to employ perfective verbs in past habitual expressions.


2. Historical present Historical present is the use of present tense forms to denote past events. Slavic languages vary in terms of the degree in which they allow the use of perfective verbs in the historical present. In the western group, perfective present tense forms are often encountered in the historical present, while in the eastern group we find almost exclusively imperfective present forms. Just as with habitual expressions, the condition for the use of perfective verbs in the eastern group, viz. the existence of a sequential connection, can explain the different behavior of the two main groups. Below, an example of the his-torical present in Czech is shown: (19) Ponenáhlu křeče povolíp, pres a Prokop slézái, pres s kozlíku, chvěje se na

celém těle. (Stunová 1993: 172) ‘Gradually the cramp subsides and Prokop gets off the box, his whole body trembling.’

In Russian we find either imperfective present forms in the historical present, or we find perfective past forms, like in the Russian translation of the above example:15 (20) Постепенно судорога ��'��p, past. Прокоп ��p, past с козел, охва-

ченный неуемной дрожью. (Ru)

According to Dickey (2000: 154), the reason why Russian and other members of the eastern group do not use perfective forms in the historical present lies in the fact that present tense narration is incompatible with temporally con-tiguous, contrasting situations, which is a necessary condition for the use of perfective verbs in the eastern group. Barentsen (1985: 223) follows a similar path of reasoning linking the incompatibility of the perfective aspect with the historical present in Russian to the fact that the events in the historical pre-sent are presented in an isolating manner, other than in past tense narration, where the events are presented as forming a chain. So even if the events are presented sequentially, they are not sequentially connected.

The approaches of Barentsen and Dickey are similar in the sense that they see the key concept of the historical present (events not sequentially connect-ed) as the opposite of the key concept of the eastern perfective aspect (se-quential connection). This approach can explain why in the eastern group perfective verbs are very rarely found in the historical present. The historical present is, however, not incompatible with totality, which is why the perfec-

15 Switches between imperfective present en perfective past do even occur text-internally in languages of the eastern group and Polish (cf. Dickey 2000: 136 for Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Polish).

JAAP KAMPHUIS 138

tive aspect occurs relatively frequently in the historical present in the western group (for Czech cf. Stunová 1993: 178-180).

Below we will first look at an example of the Macedonian historical pre-sent, showing that Macedonian also restricts the use of perfective verbs in the historical present. Then we will look at some examples showing the circum-stances in which perfective verbs do occur in the historical present in Mace-donian.

2.1 The historical present in Macedonian In Macedonian, we find almost exclusively imperfective verbs in the historical present. In case of total events, secondary imperfectives are often used: (21) Потоа се �"��i, pres децата и се �' ��i, pres да ја

отворатp, pres вратата на автомобилот. +��i, pres по каросеријата и од куќата ��i, pres маж и ��i, pres да ги бркаi, pres. (Mk, Galton 1976: 28) ‘After that children appear who try to open the door of the car. They knock on the bodywork of the car and a man comes running out of the house and starts chasing the children.’

In none of the instances above, the imperfective present forms can be re-placed by perfective present forms; this would render the sentence ungram-matical. This situation is similar to the situation in Russian and the other members of the eastern group, including Bulgarian. However, in BCS the situation is already different; here we frequently find perfective verbs in the historical present: (22) Izvadip, pres naočari, metnep, pres ih na nos [...] (BCS, Galton 1976: 101)

‘He takes his glasses, puts them on his nose [...]’

So, with regard to the historical present BCS patterns like the western lan-guages.

2.2 Special cases of the historical present Dickey (2000: 141-145) discusses a number of special cases in which eastern Slavic languages also allow perfective verbs in the historical present. One use of the perfective present as historical present resembles the use of the habitual correlative constructions we saw above in the discussion of ha-bitual expressions. An example of this “correlative historical present” for Bulgarian comes from Maslov (1959: 247):


(23) Днес не вървешеi, impf … Изгърмяхp, aor си патроните. ,�� p, pres го проклетия му заек, ��p, pres си краката, ��'��p, pres се в храста-лака и го нямаi, pres никакъв. (Bg)

‘Today things didn’t go well... I shot up all my cartridges. You wound the damned hare, it takes to flight, hides in the bushes, and is nowhere to be found.’ (Translation Dickey 2000: 142)

Macedonian informants do not accept perfective verbs in this example, but use imperfective present forms instead: (24) Денеска не одешеi, impf баш најдобро. Си ги испукав патроните. Го

��i, pres/*�� p, pres проклетиот зајак, ми �'��/��i, pres/*�� '��p, pres, �� !��i, pres/*�� p, pres во шумите и никаде го немаi, pres. (Mk)

The use of perfective present forms in this example would not render the sentence ungrammatical, but would convey a meaning of habituality and the sentence would no longer be an example of a historical present. So Macedo-nian seems to restrict the use of the perfective present in the historical present even further than other members of the eastern group, including Bulgarian.

Another construction in which languages of the eastern group employ per-fective verbs in the historical present is introduced by как in Russian and by equivalents of как in other languages of the eastern group. The construction is used to express suddenness, unexpectedness, and exceptionality of an event (cf. Dickey 2000: 144; Forsyth 1970: 152): (25) Задрались, а Гришка – ить он же взгальный! – как ��;�p, pres

Петра вилами в бок... (Ru, Forsyth 1970: 152) ‘They started to fight, and Grishka – what a madman! – stuck a pitch-

fork right in Petro’s side...’

Macedonian does not have an equivalent construction with како, but in some instances it uses a construction with ќе + perfective present in the historical present to convey a similar meaning: (26) Вчера се шетам низ град и кој ��p, pres? Иван! (Mk) ‘So I was walking through the city yesterday and who do you think I

walked into? Ivan!’16

According to Dickey (2000: 145), in cases like this, the sudden event is se-quentially linked to the existing state of affairs, which makes the use of per-

16 In this specific instance English does not allow the use of the historical present, unlike e.g. Dutch, in which the translation would be: ‘Loop ik gisteren door de stad en wie denk je dat ik tegenkom? Ivan!’

JAAP KAMPHUIS 140

fective verbs in the historical present possible for languages in the eastern group.

2.3 Macedonian within the typology of the historical present The restrictions on the use of perfective verbs preclude most instances of perfective aspect in the historical present in languages in the eastern group. Macedonian patterns with the eastern group when it comes to the use of perfective verbs and generally does not allow perfective verbs in the historical present.

In Macedonian there is no equivalent to the как + perfective present con-structions, and it does not allow perfective verbs in the correlative historical present constructions. This indicates that Macedonian restricts the use of perfective verbs in the historical present even further than languages in the eastern group. This is in line with the observation of Galton (1976: 103) that Macedonian and Bulgarian only very rarely use perfective verbs in the histor-ical present.

Since in BCS perfective verbs are frequently used in the historical present, the dividing line between the eastern and the western pattern of usage in this case lies between BCS and Macedonian.

3. Performatives Performative utterances (performatives for short) are utterances that not only describe an event, but at the same time constitute an event in themselves. These are utterances like “Thank you”, or “I baptize you”.

In Slovene, both perfective and imperfective verbs occur in performatives: (27) Zahvalimp, pres se. (Sn, Mencej 1906: 48)

‘Thanks.’ (28) Obljubljami, pres. (Sn, Žagar 2011: 169)

‘I promise.’

The exact circumstances for the choice of aspect in Slovene deserve a separate study. However, the general picture is: in Slovene both perfective and imper-fective verbs are used in performatives. The aspect usage in performatives in the rest of the western group is comparable to that of Slovene (Dickey 2000: 201), although Slovene seems to allow perfective verbs to the greatest extent (Galton 1976: 92). In the eastern group, however, perfective verbs are very rare in performatives. We are again dealing with the situation that a total event does not sanction the use of perfective verbs in the eastern group, while it is a sufficient condition for the use of perfective verbs in the western group (Dickey 2000: 201).

Below we will discuss some examples of performatives in Macedonian, paying special attention to other South Slavic languages, more specifically


BCS and Bulgarian, because these languages, like Macedonian, regularly use analytic future forms in performative utterances.

3.1 Performatives in South Slavic Macedonian heavily restricts the use of perfective verbs in performatives, which is in line with the general rule of excluding stand-alone perfective pre-sent forms from the main clause. Examples similar to (27) and (28) can only be found with imperfective verbs: (29) Ти �� '��i, pres/*��ти ��'��p, pres. (Mk)

‘Thank you.’ (30) + ��i, pres/* ��ти ��p, pres. (Mk)

‘I promise you.’

Russian, a member of the eastern group, allows perfective present tense forms in performatives only with a limited number of verba dicendi like in (31): (31) Ты дурак. Вот что тебе �!��p, pres! (Ru, Dickey 2000: 178)

‘You’re stupid. I’ll tell you that much!’

Dickey (2000: 201-202) argues that in the case of performatives there is an extra dividing line in Slavic, in addition to the general dividing line between the western and the eastern group, because South Slavic (except for Slovene) never allows perfective present forms in performatives. However, South Slav-ic languages do use perfective analytic future forms. The Bulgarian and Mac-edonian renderings of (31) show this specific South Slavic behavior: (32) <� !��p, fut само, че си глупак! (Bg, Dickey 2000: 179) 17 (33) ��ти !��p, pres само, дека си глупак! (Mk) BCS is the only other Slavic language with a similar analytic future construc-tion (Slovene has a different construction) and it also uses this in performa-tive utterances, as shown by example (34). (34) =>@[]_`[@>p, fut toliko da je u nekim govorima [...]. (BCS, Ivić 1991:

123) ‘We’ll just mention that in some of the dialects [...].’

The Macedonian translation of this form, in (35), uses the same construction: (35) ��p, pres само дека во некои дијалекти [...]. (Mk)

17 Note that the Bg and BCS forms that are conventionally glossed as fut(ure) are morphologically similar to the Macedonian perfective present with ќе. The Macedonian forms with ќе are glossed as pres(ent), just as throughout the rest of the paper.

JAAP KAMPHUIS 142

In the examples (31) - (35), the performative verb comes together with some “additional content” besides the lexical content of the verbum dicendi in ques-tion itself, which is a slightly different situation from the Slovene example (27) where we are dealing with a stand-alone performative verb. In Macedo-nian even an example similar to (27), in which a person expresses his grati-tude, can be constructed with ќе and a perfective present, when this addition-al content is present (in this case the things the speaker wants to thank his conversational partner for): (36) �� ти ��'��p, pres, не само за сите убави моменти, туку за

тоа што ти беше дел од нив. (Mk) ‘But I just want to thank you, not only for all the beautiful moments,

but for the fact that you were there in those moments.’

So, it seems that in all cases where South Slavic uses the analytic construction with a perfective present form, the performative verb does not stand alone but refers to some other content in the same utterance as well. This is remi-niscent of what we have seen in the other contexts (habitual expressions, historical present) where the use of a perfective verb always required a se-quential link to another event. It would be interesting to see whether Russian, and other members of the eastern group, behave in the same way and wheth-er this “additional content” is indeed the event that the performative verb is sequentially connected with. That question is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.

3.2 Macedonian within the typology of performatives Macedonian behaves as a member of the eastern group in restricting the use of perfective verbs in performative utterances. In a limited number of con-texts, Macedonian allows the use of perfective verbs in performatives. In those special cases, the performative verb does not stand on its own, but in-troduces or refers to some other content in the utterance.

The fact that South Slavic uses analytic future forms does not mean that it has to be treated as a separate group with regard to aspect usage. We have seen the Macedonian construction with ќе in habitual expressions and the historical present as well, and treated it as a perfective present construction. By doing so, we allowed for a comparison to be made between aspect usage in Macedonian and Slavic languages that use other constructions. There is no reason to treat the analytical future constructions in performatives any differ-ently.

4. General/factual use of the imperfective In this paragraph we will look at the use of imperfective verbs to present a past event as an isolated fact, called the “general-factual” use of imperfective verbs. We will concentrate on achievements, verbs that refer to a change in


situation without a process phase, since it is with these verbs that a difference in aspect usage between the various Slavic languages occurs (Dickey 2000: 97). Languages in the eastern group use an imperfective verb here, to empha-size the lack of sequential connection. The use of imperfective verbs has a dissociative effect, the event stands out as isolated from its surroundings. Languages in the western group do not use the imperfective aspect in this dissociative function and use perfective verbs in this context.

To give some idea of how Macedonian relates to the other Slavic languages in this regard, we will take a brief look at two types of imperfective general-factual types that are known to occur in Russian: the actional type and the existential type (cf. Padučeva 1996: 43-46, 48-52). Finally we will discuss a function of the imperfective aspect in the eastern group, called “reversed action” that shows similar characteristics to the general-factual function.

4.1 The actional general/factual In the so-called actional type of the general-factual (Padučeva 1996: 48-52), the focus is on the circumstances of the event. It concerns questions begin-ning with who/what/where, like in the classical Russian example of an action-al general-factual: (37) Где апельсины �!�� i, past? (Ru, Padučeva 1996: 49)

‘Where did you buy the oranges?’

The use of the imperfective verb here stresses the surprise of the speaker about the fact that there are oranges for sale. The speaker shifts the focus away from the result of the event, the oranges in the bag, and focuses instead on the circumstances of the event of buying.

Macedonian uses one of its perfect tenses, the so-called sum-perfect, in a similar vein, to express surprise (cf. B. Koneski 1952/2004: 472), but it does so using a perfective verb: (38) Од каде � ги !� �p, perf портокалите? (Mk)

Note that the use of an imperfective verb (e.g. купувавi, impf) is not ungram-matical here; it would, however, force a different interpretation on this sen-tence: the event would either be reinterpreted as being an accomplishment, with this utterance accentuating the duration of the event, or as expressing unbounded repetition. In both cases we are no longer dealing with a single completed event, as is the case in examples (37) and (38).

For a proper understanding of (38) it should further be noted that in Mac-edonian the aorist and the imperfect are the standard past tenses, whereas the perfect, that is used here, is a specialized tense form. This so-called sum-perfect is often used in an evidential function, indicating that the speaker has not witnessed the event himself, that we are dealing with hearsay. Example (38) does not concern a non-witnessed event, which is clear in this case, be-

JAAP KAMPHUIS 144

cause it concerns a question and not the assertion of an event the speaker has either witnessed or not. In (38) we are dealing with the so-called mirative function of the sum-perfect.

Both hearsay evidential and mirativity share the component of dissocia-tion. Hearsay is dissociative in the sense that we are not dealing with a direct-ly witnessed event, while mirativity dissociates the events from its temporal surroundings, making it an object of surprise. This is comparable to the func-tion of the imperfective verbs in Russian.

4.2 The existential general/factual The existential type of general-factual expressions is different from the ac-tional type in that it does not shift the focus from the result of the event to the circumstances of the event, but purposely leaves the temporal succession in which it took place out of the picture, to focus on the simple occurrence of the event. Rassudova (1968: 88) gives the following example for Russian: (39) Однажды он уже ��i, past выговор за опоздание. (Ru)

‘He has already once received a reprimand for being late.’

Dickey (2000: 101) shows that the western Slavic languages do not allow an imperfective verb in this context: (40) Jednou už dostalp, past/*dostavali, past napomenutí za spoždení. (Cz)

Macedonian patterns with the western languages and the transitional zones BCS and Polish in not allowing an imperfective verb in this context. In order to convey a similar dissociative meaning as Russian does with the imperfec-tive verb, Macedonian uses one of its perfect tenses. This time it is the so-called ima-perfect: (41) Тој �� веќе еднаш ��' ��p, perf/*��' ��i, perf казна за доцнење.

(Mk)18

The use of an imperfective verb in this sentence would be ungrammatical, because of the fact that neither a durative interpretation, nor a repetitive interpretation of this event is available, like there was in (38).

The use of the ima-perfect here is comparable to the use of the sum-perfect in the actional type. The ima-perfect has an evidential function as well, it is used in inferential sentences, when the occurrence of the event can be in-

18 An informant notes that in eastern dialects of Macedonian (in this case the dialect of Kočani) one could encounter an imperfective aorist here as well: добива, something that also occurs in Bulgarian (Lindstedt 1985: 231; Dickey 2000: 98). This shows that Macedonian is not just a transi-tional zone between Bulgarian and Serbian, but that it constitutes a transitional zone in itself, much like BCS (cf. Dickey 2000: 87, 201; see also note 12).


ferred by the traces it left, or by general logic, but is not directly witnessed. Again this is a kind of dissociation. Furthermore, it is used as an experiential perfect, as in our example (41). Contrary to the case of the sum-perfect, the ima-perfect does not carry any connotation of surprise, making it unfit for utterances like (38).

The link between the sum-perfect and the actional general-factual on the one hand and the ima-perfect and the existential general factual on the other hand needs more research. It is probably no coincidence that both forms are in use both in evidential and general-factual contexts, and in typical perfect usage (a present result of a past event). It is, however, also clear that there is wide regional variation in the use of the two perfects (Mišeska-Tomić 2011: 123-124), so that the acceptability of (38) and (41) might vary per region.

Bulgarian, which has a tense system similar to Macedonian, in this case, as opposed to Macedonian, behaves as a typical eastern language in using an imperfective verb. However, it uses an imperfective perfect, and as such is comparable to Macedonian: (42) Веднъж вече е ��i, perf забележка за закъснение. (Bg)

Another tense form Bulgarian uses in general-factual contexts is the imper-fective aorist (Lindstedt 1985: 231), which, as was mentioned earlier, in Mace-donian only occurs in a number of dialects, but is no longer part of the stand-ard language. For an extensive treatment of the differences in meaning between the two constructions in the general-factual context see Lindstedt (1985: 231-234).

In a recent study, however, Dickey (forthc.) characterizes Bulgarian as a somewhat peripheral member of the eastern group with regard to the gen-eral-factual context; the reason for this is that in general-factual contexts it employs the perfective aspect relatively frequently compared to the other eastern languages. So, even though Bulgarian patterns more like an eastern language than Macedonian does, it might be that in Bulgarian too the aspect usage in general-factual contexts is influenced by the tense system. Sell (1994: 100) comes to the same conclusion when comparing Bulgarian and Russian aspect usage in general-factual contexts. The difference with Macedonian may have to do with the fact that Bulgarian has only one perfect, etymologi-cally related to the Macedonian sum-perfect, while Macedonian has the op-tion of using the ima-perfect as well.

4.3 Reversed action In Russian and other languages of the eastern group, imperfective aspect is often used to indicate that the result of an event has been annulled in one way or another, which is known as “reversed action” (Rassudova 1984: 68; Dickey 2000: 110). In those cases it is not merely a dissociation from the direct con-text of the action, but a dissociation from the result of the action that sanc-

JAAP KAMPHUIS 146

tions the use of imperfective aspect. Although reversed action is not consid-ered to be a subtype of the imperfective general factual, the typological simi-larity (the dissociative effect of the imperfective aspect) makes it suitable for treatment in this paragraph.

An example of reversed action is a question that can be asked when a win-dow that was open before, is now closed: (43) Ты *��!��p, past/��!��i, past окно? (Ru, Rassudova 1984: 68)

‘Did you open the window?’

The perfective открыл is not ungrammatical, but could never be used in a situation with a closed window. For the western group perfective aspect is perfectly acceptable in this context: (44) {|[}~[�p, past/Otvírali, past jsi okno? (Cz, Dickey 2000: 112)

Dickey (2000: 112-113) notes that imperfective aspect in Czech is only appro-priate in case the window is shut, while perfective aspect can be used in both instances. In Slovene the use of imperfective verbs is limited to certain con-texts, like when asking a child if he opened the window, so it is even more restricted. In Macedonian the imperfective is never used to refer to an an-nulled result, so the use of the imperfective aspect to ask after a single event of shutting a window is always precluded: (45) Го �� p, aor/*��i, impf ли прозорецот? (Mk)

The use of the imperfective отвараше is not ungrammatical, yet it would force a different interpretation on this sentence, either habitual or, less prob-ably, processual. With this, Macedonian differs from both neighbors. BCS prefers imperfective verbs in this context, although perfective verbs are ac-cepted as well (Dickey 2000: 112). Bulgarian patterns with the eastern lan-guages (Lindstedt 1985: 234-240) in using imperfective verbs in this case. Note however, that Bulgarian does not use the standard imperfective imperfect to convey a meaning of reversed action, but imperfective aorists or imperfective perfects, like in the following example: (46) Кой е ��i, perf чантата ми? (Bg; Lindstedt 1985: 234)

‘Who has opened my bag?’

The use of the perfect in this context is reminiscent of the use of the perfect in Macedonian and Bulgarian in general-factual contexts. The question of why Macedonian does not use a perfect in this context can, unfortunately, not be addressed in this paper, but this fact may indicate that there are still subtle differences between dissociation in general factual contexts and in reversed action.


4.4 Macedonian within the typology of the general factual Surprisingly, Macedonian behaves like a language from the western group when it comes to the use of aspect in general factual expressions. However, just as with the past habitual expressions, we see that Macedonian uses its extensive inventory of verbal forms to cover functions that in other languages are covered by aspect alone. It is certainly no coincidence that Bulgarian also uses specialized tense forms (imperfective perfect and imperfective aorist) in this context. Given the fact that in Macedonian the restrictions on the use of the perfective aspect in contexts that we have discussed so far are the same as those in the eastern languages, it seems that in this case we are dealing with language-specific restrictions on the use of the imperfective aspect. In Mace-donian imperfective aspect clearly does not signal any kind of dissociation, which sets it apart from imperfective aspect in other eastern languages.

Finally, when it comes to reversed action, Macedonian differs from all oth-er Slavic languages. It most clearly differs from the eastern group by allowing perfective verbs in cases where the result has been reversed, but it also differs from the western group by not allowing imperfective verbs at all. Here, the Bulgarian behavior is the same as with the general-factual contexts: it uses an imperfective perfect (not an imperfect).

5. Sequences of events Slavic languages differ greatly when it comes to the use of aspect in sequences of events. When narrating a series of past events that have occurred in succes-sion, languages in the eastern group use perfective verbs, while languages in the western group allow the use of imperfective verbs in these sequences. Ivančev (1961: 38) gives the following example for Czech, among others: (47) Jednou vzal jsemp, past klarinet a pískali, past... (Cz) ‘Once I picked up the clarinet and started playing ...’ (Translation

Dickey 2000: 214)

According to Galton (1976: 70), this use of imperfective verbs in sequences of events has a function of seamlessly linking the event coded in the imperfec-tive aspect to the preceding event. Dickey (2000: 218) argues that the fact that in the eastern languages the imperfective aspect is used to deny the existence of a sequential connection (cf. § 4 on the imperfective general-factual), makes it incompatible with coding events that are presented as having a “sequential relationship with other situations”. So in Russian the translation of (47) would be: (48) Раз как-то ��p, past кларнет и �� p, past ... (Ru; Dickey 2000: 214)

Below, we shall see some examples of sequences of events in Macedonian. The behavior of Macedonian can tell us something about aspect usage in the

JAAP KAMPHUIS 148

other languages, because Macedonian clearly uses the perfective aspect in the same way as the eastern languages (cf. § 1 on habitual expressions, § 2 on the historical present and § 3 on performatives), but this is not the case for the use of the imperfective aspect (cf. § 4 on the general factual context). If, as Dickey argues, it is indeed the denial of the existence of a sequential connec-tion that makes imperfective verbs incompatible with sequences of events, then Macedonian, where this characteristic of the imperfective aspect seems absent, should allow imperfective verbs in sequences of events to a larger extent than the eastern languages. However, Macedonian turns out to behave as an eastern language in not allowing imperfective verbs in sequences of events, as we shall see below.

5.1 Sequences of events in Macedonian As already indicated above, Macedonian generally does not allow imperfec-tive verbs in sequences of events. The only possible translation of (47) is with two perfective verbs: (49) Еднаш го ��p, aor кларинетот и �� p, aor. (Mk)

In some cases imperfective verbs do occur in a sequence of events in Mace-donian, for example when the duration of the event is emphasized: (50) Еднаш го ��p, aor кларинетот и �� i, impf до сабајле. (Mk)

‘Once I picked up the clarinet and played until the morning.’

This kind of exception occurs in languages of the eastern group as well (Dick-ey 2000: 215).

In Bulgarian the imperfective aorist is occasionally used in sequences of events. In (51) we see an example where Bulgarian uses an imperfective aorist, and the Macedonian translation in (52) shows how standard Macedonian copes with this situation: (51) Бойчо �� p, aor пак зад един камък и ��!�i, aor да види Ма-

рия, како тръгне... Той чака цял час. (Bg, Ivančev 1961: 35) ‘Bojčo hid again behind a rock and waited to see Marija leave... He

waited a whole hour.’ (Translation Dickey 2000: 215) (52) Бојчо ��!� p, aor пак зад енда карпа и ��!��i, impf/��!�p, aor да

ја види Марика како заминува... Тој чекашеi, impf цел саат. (Mk)

In this case the speaker has the choice of presenting the event as either an aterminative event, emphasizing the duration of the event (much like in (50)), or a terminative event, presenting the waiting as a fixed portion of time, by means of the prefix po-. However, the examples in which Macedonian allows the use of imperfective verbs in sequences of events are exceptions. So


in the translation of (53), where Bulgarian uses an imperfective aorist again, Macedonian only allows the use of perfective aorists: (53) Стремски !�� p, aor и ��!�i, aor. (Bg, Ivančev 1961: 35)

‘Stremski knelt and started crying.’ (54) Стремски !��!��p, aor на колена и ��!�p, aor/*��i, impf. (Mk)

It should be noted that, even though Bulgarian has the option of using an imperfective aorist, it only does so infrequently (Dickey 2000: 216). Bulgari-an, just like Macedonian, normally uses perfective aorists in sequences of events. So, it seems probable that even if the loss of the imperfective aorist has had influence on the aspectual behavior of Macedonian in sequences of events, it can only partially account for the lack of imperfective verbs in se-quences in Macedonian.

In BCS, the transitional zone towards the western group, imperfective verbs occur much less frequently in sequences of events than in the western group (Ivančev 1961: 47). Dickey gives some examples of the use of imperfec-tive verbs in sequences of events in BCS, but he too comes to the conclusion that this usage is infrequent.

5.2 Macedonian within the typology of sequences of events Macedonian generally does not allow the use of imperfective verbs in se-quences of events and thus patterns with the languages of the eastern group. The fact that Macedonian uses perfective verbs here, even though the imper-fective aspect has no inherent incompatible characteristic that would prohibit its use (like in the eastern group), indicates that it is in fact a characteristic of the perfective aspect to code sequences of events in Macedonian. The same seems to be true for BCS, where perfective verbs are preferred in sequences of events as well.

It would be interesting to study the development of this aspectual behavior in the eastern languages in more detail. Dickey (2012) shows that the eastern characteristic of the imperfective aspect, viz. the denial of the existence of a sequential connection, is a relatively late development. The question is whether this development is responsible for the absence of imperfective verbs in sequences of events, or that these languages already preferred perfective verbs in sequences of events before this development. The Macedonian data seem to support the latter.

6. Conclusion We have gone through a number of contexts to establish the aspectual behav-ior of Macedonian and to compare it with other Slavic languages. In Table 2 below the aspectual behavior of the various languages is represented schemat-ically:

JAAP KAMPHUIS 150

Feature West BCS Mk Bg East PF in single present habituals + + - - - PF in present habituals (habitual correlative) + + + + + PF in single past habituals + +19 - - - PF in past habituals (habitual correlative) + + + + - PF in historical present + + - - - PF in performatives + - - - - No IPF in general factual for achievements + + + - - No IPF in reversed action +/- +/- + - - IPF in sequences of events + +/- - - -

Table 2: Aspectual behavior of the various Slavic languages20

Of course, Table 2 does not reflect all the nuances that have been discussed in this paper, but it does make clear the fact that Macedonian is a transitional zone between Bulgarian and BCS. Dickey (2000: 201) indicates that BCS in itself is a transitional zone as well, with the westernmost dialects of Croatian behaving more like a western language than, for example, Serbian dialects. All this shows that South Slavic is a fine-grained transitional zone. Bulgarian behaves like a member of the eastern group in most but not all contexts. Mac-edonian stands midway between Bulgarian and the established transitional zone BCS. It is, therefore, impossible to decide whether Macedonian is an eastern language or the easternmost language of the transitional zone; the transition is more subtle than a categorization in four main groups indicates. In any case, Macedonian is closer to the eastern group than it is to the west-ern group.

With regard to the possible influence of the specific inventory of verb forms in Macedonian on the aspect functions, there are three main observa-tions: First, the use of specialized tense forms does not necessarily make a comparison between languages impossible. For example, in the case of the Macedonian perfective imperfects in past habitual expressions, the typical eastern condition of a sequential connection still applies (see § 1.2). In a simi-lar vein, the analytic future tenses used in South Slavic performatives are perfectly comparable to the perfective present forms used in performatives in other Slavic languages (see § 3.1).

Secondly, the rich inventory of verb forms can lead to deviating aspectual behavior. In some cases the deviation is small. Again, the use of perfective imperfects in past habitual expressions makes for a good example; it only creates extra freedom in using perfective verbs in habitual expressions, alt-

19 Unlike Dickey (2000) I do consider the use of perfective conditionals as indicative of the aspectual behavior of BCS in habitual contexts. 20 + = feature is present, - = feature is absent, +/- = feature is present to a limited extent. When a context has not specifically been discussed for one of the languages/groups of languages in this article, the information comes from a similar table in Dickey (2000: 260).


hough it maintains the specific eastern restriction on the use of the perfective aspect, the sequential connection (see § 1.2). In other cases there is a funda-mental difference in aspectual behavior. This can be illustrated by the Mace-donian use of the perfective perfect in general-factual contexts, where eastern languages use an imperfective verb (see § 4.1 and 4.2). Here, the Macedonian perfect creates the dissociative effect that in the eastern languages is estab-lished by the use of the imperfective aspect.

Thirdly, even in cases where Macedonian employs a specialized tense form that seems to have the same function as a particular aspectual form in the eastern languages, the use of those tense forms cannot completely explain the different aspectual behavior. This becomes clear when we compare Macedo-nian with Bulgarian, which has a similar tense system. A good example is the Bulgarian use of imperfective perfects in the general-factual context (see § 4.2). While one could argue that the use of the perfect tense makes the use of the imperfective aspect superfluous in Macedonian, it certainly does not do so in Bulgarian, even though Bulgarian, like Macedonian, uses specialized tense forms in general-factual contexts.

Leiden University

REFERENCES

Barentsen, A.A. 1985 ‘Aspect’, ‘Tijd’ en de conjunctie POKA. Over betekenis en gebruik van enkele

vormen in het moderne Russisch. Amsterdam. 1998 “Priznak «sekventnaja svjaz’» i vidovoe protivopostavlenie v russkom jazyke”.

In: M.Ju. Čertkov (ed.), Tipologija vida: problemy, poiski, rešenija, 43-58. Moskva.

Bondarko, A.V. 1971 Vid i vremja russkogo glagola (značenie i upotreblenie). Moskva.

Comrie, B. 1976 Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems.

Cambridge. Dickey, Stephen M.

2000 Parameters of Slavic Aspect. Stanford, CA. 2012 “On the development of the imperfective general-factual in Russian”. Scando-

Slavica 58/1, 7-48. forthc. The Evolution of Slavic Aspect. Unpublished book manuscript, to appear in

2014. Forsyth, J.

1970 A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge. Friedman, Victor A.

1985 “Aspectual usage in Russian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian”. In: M. Flier, A. Timberlake (eds.), The Scope of Slavic Aspect, 234-246. Columbus, Ohio.

JAAP KAMPHUIS 152

1993 “The loss of the imperfective aorist in Macedonian”. In: R.A. Macguire, A. Timberlake (eds.), American Contributions to the Eleventh International Con-gress of Slavists, 285-302. Columbus, Ohio.

Galton, H. 1976 The Main Functions of the Slavic Verbal Aspect. Skopje.

Ivančev, S. 1961 “Kontekstovo obuslovena ingresivna upotreba na glagolite ot nesvăršen vid v

češkija ezik”. Godišnik na Sofijskija universitet 54/3, 1-152. Ivić, P.

1956 Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika. Uvod i štokavsko narečje. Novi Sad. 1991 Iz istorije srpskohrvatskog jezika. Niš.

Kalsbeek, J. 2012 “Zoranić’s verbs: imperfect and conditional in 16th century Čakavian”. In: R.

Genis et al. (eds.), Between West and East. Festschrift for Wim Honselaar, 341-349. Amsterdam.

Koneski, B. 1952/2004 Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik. Skopje. 1961 Rečnik na makedonskiot jazik. Skopje.

Koneski, K. 1999 Za makedonskiot glagol. Skopje.

Lindstedt, J. 1985 On the Semantics of Tense and Aspect in Bulgarian. Helsinki.

Maslov 1959 “Glagol’nyj vid v sovremennom bolgarskom literaturnom jazyke”. In: S.B.

Bernštejn (ed.), Voprosy grammatiki bolgarskogo literaturnogo jazyka, 157-378. Moskva.

Mencej, J. 1906 “Zur Präsensfrage perfektiver Verba im Slovenischen (Praesens effectivum)”.

Archiv für slavische Philologie 28, 40-51. Mišeska Tomić, O.

2011 “The Macedonian “have” and “be” perfects”. In: N. Motoki (ed.), Gramma-ticalization in Slavic Languages: From Areal and Typological Perspectives. (http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no23_ses/contents.html 31-08-2012)

Mønnesland, S. 1984 “The Slavonic frequentative habitual”. In: C. De Groot, H. Tommola (eds.), As-

pect Bound: A Voyage into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology, 53-76. Dordrecht.

Murgoski, Z. 2004 Golem makedonsk0-angliski rečnik. Skopje.

Padučeva, E. 1996 Semantičeskie issledovanija. Moskva.

Pašov, P. 1999/2005 Bălgarska gramatika. Plovdiv.

Rassudova, O.P. 1968 Upotreblenie vidov glagola v russkom jazyke. Moskva. 1984 Aspectual Usage in Modern Russian. Moskva. Translation of Rassudova 1968.


Sell, George J. 1994 A Comparison of Verbal Aspect in Russian and Bulgarian. Unpublished PhD

dissertation, University of North Carolina. Smith, Carlota S.

1997 The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht. Stunová, Anna

1993 A Contrastive Study of Russian and Czech Aspect: Invariance vs. Discourse. Am-sterdam.

Žagar, I.Ž. 2011 “Performativity as tense and aspect”. International Review of Pragmatics 3/2,

168-193.

macedonian verbal aspect: east or west

Documents