Symposium to honour Peter HarderCopenhagen, February 28th, 2020

The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen and The Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics

Björn Wiemerwiemerb@uni-mainz.de

How do old morphological patterns mature?And how does morphological theory have to account for them?

Roadmap1. Slavic aspect (PFV:IPFV opposition):

Premises of a classificatory system conditioned by stem-derivation1.1. Synchronic state1.2. Diachronic background: types of involved changes

2. Morphology and the lexicon• morphological models: Item-and-Process, Word-and-Paradigm• lexemes and paradigms• verb stems, morphemes and syntax (in generativism)• a pladoyer for morphological relatedness

3. Maturation and complexity

4. In place of a conclusion

1.1. Synchronic stateFirst of all,

• no monofunctional unequivocal morphemes mark either of the two aspects.• Instead, we have patterns of stem-derivation. The most productive ones (across Slavic languages) look like these:

1. Slavic aspect (PFV : IPFV opposition): Premises of a classificatory system conditioned by stem-derivation

Compare V. Lehmann (1988; 1999; 2004), Mende et al. (2011):• PFV : IPFV is motivated by the lexical function of the verb stem.• lexical and grammatical function of prefixes are combined.

In addition:• suffixes are productively employed to create lexical “copies“ of prefixed stems.→ Looks like inflection, but …

Morphological structure of word forms• stems = word-forms minus affixes marking either tense, agreement, or change of syntactic class (non-finite forms)• Slavic aspect is a property of stems, not of particular word forms

what is traditionally considered inflection (tense, agreement) is added to stems, already determined for aspect no syncretism: concatenative marking of aspect vs ‘inflectional categories’ some suffixes involved in determining aspect (PFV vs IPFV) show allomorphy depending on tense (present vs

infinitive stem): no fusion, but systematic formal variation depends on values of categories “outside of the stem”

Polis

h

[± telicity] relevant: POLISH(7a) Napisz-ę list w trzy godzin-y / *trzy godzin-y.

write[PFV]-FUT.1SG letter-(ACC.SG) in 3 hour-ACC.PL 3 hour-ACC.PL

‘I’ll write a/the letter in three hours / *(for) three hours.’[closed interval; bounded]

(7b) Będ-ę pisa-ł list trzy godzin-y / *w trzy godzin-y.FUT-1SG write[IPFV]-L_PTCP-(M.SG) letter-(ACC.SG) …‘I’ll write a/the letter (during) three hours / *in three hours.’

[open interval; no boundary indicated]

[± telicity] is irrelevant:(8a) Pewnie wybior-ę się gdzieś z koleżank-ami potańcz-ę. (NKJP)

certainly go_out[PFV]-FUT.1SG REFL somewhere with female_colleagues-INS.PL dance[PFV]-FUT.1SG

‘I will certainly go out somewhere and dance with colleagues.’ [closed interval; bounded](8b) Wybiera-my się na przyjęci-e. Tam będzi-emy tańczy-ć.

go_out[IPFV]-PRS.1PL REFL on reception-ACC there FUT-1PL dance[IPFV]-INF

‘We are going to a reception. We will dance there.’ [open interval; no boundary indicated]

Furthermore,• the aspect opposition is binary: PFV vs IPFV (leaving apart a minority of bi-/an-aspectual stems).• this applies to both telic and atelic stems (however defined), i.e. regardless of actionality classes and of pairedness.• the basic feature is [+ bounded] for pfv. stems.• Simultaneously, aspect restricts the ways in which other grammatical categories are expressed (e.g., future).

The aspect opposition has been interfering with different categories, or categorial distinctions, from word-form via clauseup to discourse level. This interaction has eventually yielded many restrictions on these levels, so that the distribution of pfv. vs ipfv. stems – and their paradigmatic relations – have become tighter (i.e. more predictable, reliable).

⇒ Tendency toward complementary inventories of(a) grammatical forms (finite and non-finite)(b) combinatorial potential(c) functions on very different levels (see next slide):

actionality pluractionality modality illocutionary distinctions presupposition management

Largely, this tendency toward complementary distribution applies to abstract classes (PFV : IPFV), not to actionality features as such, to a large extent independently from

(a)telicity. to “unpaired” stems (perfectiva / imperfectiva tantum) as well.

Restrictions of aspect choiceLevel Examples (Polish)word form# (i) simplex prefix+simplex: budowaćIPFV z-budowaćPFV / prze-budowaćPFV

‘build build / rebuild‘(ii) PFV+present tense stem: ⊃ future / ‘irrealis‘ (e.g. dispositional modality)(iii) imperative (± NEG): Otwórz! PFV – Nie otwieraj! IPFV

‘Open! – Don‘t open!‘ (in relation to single situation)(iv) adverbial participles (converbs): pisz-ąc IPFV (sim.) napisa-wszyPFV (ant.)

complex predicate / (v) phasal verb + IPFV / *PFV: zaczął budowaćIPFV / *zbudowaćPFV ‘started building‘clause (vi) modals: Można otworzyćPFV / otwieraćIPFV okno ‘(one) can open the window‘

⇒ circumstantial / deontic(vii) FUT-auxiliary + IPFV / *PFV: Będziemy słuchaćIPFV / *posłuchaćPFV uważnie.

‘We will listen attentively.‘

illocution (viii) prohibitive preventive: Nie mówIPFV mu! Nie powiedzPFV mu (przypadkiem)!‘Don‘t tell him! – Don‘t tell him (inadvertently)!‘

(ix) illocutionary polarity: Czemu nie zamieszkaszPFV na samotnej wyspie?‘Why don‘t you start living on a lonely island?‘

presupposition (x) OpowiedzPFV proszę! Opowiadaj!IPFV (Bo już czekamy i pękamy od ciekawości.)management ‘Tell us, please! – Tell us! (We are already waiting and very curious.)‘# Some restrictions on word-form level have a direct impact on clause level.

(Wiemer 2008; 2017, Wiemer/Seržant 2017)

In sum: productive stem-derivation+ independence of [± telic] distinction+ interaction with other categorial contrasts⊃ pragmatic strengthening _→ classes of verb stems with an increasingly complementary distribution over two different function sets

expansion:• regardless of [± telic] distinction• interaction with categories:

(a) verbal forms,(b) notional distinctions.

Gradual appearance of classificatory aspect (PFV : IPFV opposition).

1.2. Diachronic background: types of involved changes

Involved types of change: grammaticalization?

Chr. Lehmann‘s parameters (1995 [2015]):Only paradigmatic tightening can be applied,but only provided we look at the combinatorial restrictions of stems and their function inventories(determined by grammatical oppositions and/or discourse features).

Heine & Kuteva (2002): phonetic erosion – no: the morphemes “have been staying“ at their places for more than a millenium;

the “morphotactic technique“ is still older (several waves of renewal for suffixes since PIE.) decategorialization – no desemanticization – maybe, but not very telling extension (context generalization) – partly yes, but combined with severe restrictions

(> complementary distribution of morphologically related stems)

Boye & Harder (2012): „Grammaticalization is the diachronic change that gives rise to linguistic expressions that are by convention ancillary and as such discursively secondary.” (2012: 21)(i) element-based: possible discursively primary use > conventionalized discursively secondary use – d.n.a.(ii) a construction creates inferences which become routinized and the asserted part of meaning – d.n.a.(iii) reinterpretation of a word order pattern – d.n.a.

In particular cases, the machinery leading to the establishment of the PFV : IPFV opposition as a classificatory categoryresults from hypoanalysis, i.e. a form-function reanalysis by which a contextually conditioned semantic/functional property of a syntactic unit becomes its inherent property (Croft 2000: 126f.).

looks like a (refined) variety of pragmatic strengthening (Traugott 1989 etc.). reminiscent of B&H (2012)‘s type (ii), but does not imply any change in form.

IRREALIS: pfv. stems in the present tenseOld Church Slavonic(9) slěpъ že slěpьca ašte voditъIPFV. oba vъ jěmǫ vъpadeta sę PFV

‘when a blind person leads a(nother) blind, both (will) fall in a pit.’(Codex Zographiensis, Mt XV, 14; cit. from Galton 1976: 86; my translation, BW)

Serbian(10) Zemlja se okrećeIPFV oko Sunca, a za 24 sata se okrenePFV oko sebe.

‘The Earth revolves around the Sun, and in 24 hours it revolves around itself.’(cit. from Galton 1976: 86; my translation, BW)

(11) Meni moja stara majka govori da uranimPFV svako jutro na vodu.‘My old mother says me that every morning I should get up to fetch water.’

Polish(12) W takim bałaganie każdy się pogubiPFV.

‘In such a mess everybody gets lost.’

FUTUREPolish(13) Spotkamy sięPFV za godzinę.

‘We‘ll meet in an hour.‘

The probably most prominent case:• present tense stem + PFV > pfv. future (North Slavic) / dependent or ‘irrealis’ clauses (South Slavic).

V. Lehmann (1999: 208): approximation to idealized grammatical categoriesFor a given opposition applies:1. The distribution over [simple or extended] stems of a PoS reaches its maximum.2. Forms and functions are obligatory.3. Forms are organized in oppositions marked in a maximally regular way.4. Functions map on maximally abstract oppositions.

Consequently...a more comprehensive model of grammatical change (that might be called “extended grammaticalization“) is called for. Itshould be more independent of the manner in which the emergent category is expressed morphosyntactically:“the morphological type of a language severely restricts the possible pathways of formal change“ (Hengeveld 2017: 30),so does the morphological type of a specific category, or subsystem, of a language.

To summarize:• aspect [± bounded]• Whatever modal and/or tense meanings (etc.) are added, or strengthened, aspect “stays“ where it originated.

That is, aspect does not turn into anything else (on any higher scope level).• Instead, extensions into tense and modality are possible only because aspect has established firmly and remains

dominant.

Inflectional categories vs classificatory categories (based on productive stem-derivation)

Zaliznjak‘s classical definition„grammemes [= grammatical meanings] of inflectional categories characterize particular word forms of a paradigm byopposing them to other word forms of the same paradigm. By contrast, a grammeme of a classificatory categorycharacterizes the entire paradigm by opposing it to other paradigms.“(Zaliznjak 1967: 31f.; translation BW)„граммемы словоизменительных грамматических категорий характеризуют отдельные словоформы парадигмы, противопоставляя их другим словоформам той же парадигмы. Граммема классифицирующей грамматической категории, напротив, характеризует парадигму в целом, противопопоставляя ее другим парадигмам.“

Cf. Mel‘čuk (1993 ff.), Laskowski in GWJP/I (1998: 45f.), Plungjan (2000: 125; 2011: 53f.).

The traditional inflection—derivation divide is to a large extent artificial and highly theory-dependent.This divide is based mainly on the (explicit or implicit) notion of basic lexical units (‘lexemes’) and its relation toparadigms (cf. Spencer 2013).

2. Morphology and the lexiconor: Claims to be raised if the stem-derivational and classificatory properties of Slavic aspect are taken seriously

In a system of classificatory-derivational aspect, verb stems are organized in actionality groups just like the aspect grams of a system with inflectional aspect organize actionality distinctions for one and the same lexeme (Tatevosov 2016: 314, 321, 357).

This may include not only pairs, but also triplets (and even more complex derivational relations).

IPFV PFV IPFVpo-kopat‘

(8) kopat‘vs-kopat‘ vskap-yva-t‘

(9) SIMPLE PROGR.dig be dig(g)-ing

+ limit.⊃ ‘once‘

+ limit.+ repet.+ gen.-fact.

+ duration

(+ duration)+ (unrestricted) repetition+ general-factual (“simple fact“)

RUSSIAN ENGLISH

function inventory

inventory of word forms(finite, non-finite)

set of combinatorialrestrictions

“inflectionalist“ viewpointPFV – IPFV pair

ONE lexeme(= verb in one meaning)

How to treat aspect pairs (or triplets, or actionality groups)?

ONE (complex) paradigm

“classificationalist“ viewpointPFV – IPFV pair

TWO (synonymous) lexemes(tending toward complementary distribution)

TWO (intersecting) paradigms

function inventory

inventory of word forms(finite, non-finite)

set of combinatorialrestrictions

ONE (complex) paradigm

“paradigmaticist“ viewpointPFV – IPFV pair

TWO (synonymous) lexemes

Why can‘t we alternatively assume?..

Morphological theory: a combination of two approaches seems reasonable1) Item-and-Process:

• inasmuch as the patterns of stem derivation and reflexes of the interaction of stems with ‘inflectionalendings‘ are concerned, namely regular morphonological changes (allomorphy).

2) Word-and-Paradigm:• inasmuch as the functional relations between stems (ideally including all non-finite forms) and their

grammatical (sensu largo) restrictions are concerned. The latter are conditioned by the membership in thegrammatical class (PFV : IPFV) and the actionality class of the deriving stem (the last one in the chain).

For all other purposes:• get rid of the inflection—derivation divide; rather study ‘lexical relatedness‘ (Spencer 2013).

Interim summary1. Morphology cannot remain focused on morphemes, but (also) has to deal with relations between stems.2. Tight function sets (incl. categorial restrictions) are no less important than stem-derivational patterns.3. Which significance has to be ascribed to the formal unification of stem-derivational patterns?

Item-and-Process:• In a moderate IP-approach, we can still accept morphemes as objects of analysis (parts of word forms).• However, we need not assume that the order of morphemes (and of their contribution to grammatical

meaning) corresponds to the order of steps in syntactic derivation (trees), as generative linguists want tohave it (see slides 21-22). Such reasoning has been inherited from Item-and-Arrangement approaches.

• IP is useful inasmuch as the patterns of stem derivation and reflexes of the interaction of stems with‘inflectional endings‘ are concerned, namely regular morphonological changes (allomorphy).

• Many of distributional properties in the choice of aspect cannot be explained if we don‘t base our analysison stems and function sets (see slides 7-8). Actually, we would miss the point for the architecture of a classificatory category

THEREFORE…

… we need to complement our analytical tools from considerations based onWord-and-Paradigm:

• “establishes correspondences between different sets of grammatical properties and the different forms of a word that realize each one of these sets of properties.“ (Fábregas/Scalise 2012: 31)

• „words match a schema, and a schema subsumes words“ (Haspelmath/Sims 2010: 46); see (3.24).• Such an approach does justice to the functional relations between stems (ideally including all non-finite

forms) and their grammatical (sensu largo) restrictions. The latter are conditioned by the membership in thegrammatical class (PFV : IPFV) and the actionality class of the deriving stem (the last one in the chain).

• Highly intransparent allomorphy, suppletive forms and combinations of synthetic and analytic forms can beunited into one paradigm, provided the distribution of functions corresponds to a pattern.

• However, the notion of ‘morphological correspondence’ (Haspelmath/Sims 2010: 47; see 3.26) has to bemade more “flexible“:

aspect derivation in Slavic is less unified (in linear terms) than, e.g., number marking on nouns, and weneed to allow for more formal variation (for pre- and suffixation plus less productive patterns).

+ more restricted (less productive) patterns+ tantum + biaspectual stems

Lexical relatedness (Spencer 2013)„The discussion of paradigms so far has been restricted to inflectional properties or the properties expressed by functionwords such as auxiliary verbs. However, we can also talk about paradigmatic relations holding between words in thelexicon, in precisely those cases where there seems to be a systematic relation between sets of lexemes which isencoded in some way in the grammar of the language. In other words, if there exist such things as derivationalparadigms. Moreover, such paradigms exist not just for derivational morphology but also for compounding, in the sense that it is a grammatical matter whether a language permits compounding and if so what types.“(2013: 10f., emphasis added; compare slide 16)

4 types of information (‘lexical attributes‘) for a lexical entry (= lexeme):(i) morphophonological form (FORM)(ii) syntactic category (SYN)(iii) representation of meaning (SEM), predicate + arguments (= variables)(iv) lexemic index (like a key in a relational database) (LI) – defines a lexical entry as such.

Each distinct lexeme is given its own index.

Lexical entries are provided for stems, since the concept of ‘root‘ proves to be problematic, at least from a typologicalpoint of view:

• widespread existence of discontinuous stems (or roots),• in many languages it’s very difficult to identify roots as such,• „In many cases the root will be one of those stems and will often be the default stem, but this doesn’t have to

be the case.“ (2013: 32). → for Spencer, ‘morphemes‘ can be done without.

4 types of information („lexical attributes“) for a lexeme:(i) morphophonological form (FORM)(ii) syntactic category (SYN)(iii) representation of meaning (SEM),

predicate + arguments (= variables)(iv) lexemic index (like a key in a relational database) (LI)

– defines a lexical entry as such.Each distinct lexeme is given its own key.

What is lacking to give a fuller account of Slavic aspect:• information about function inventory, and concomitantly• information about combinatorial restrictions, both

paradigmatic (e.g., converbs, participles) and syntagmatic (e.g., phasal verb, future marker, passive AUX)(See slides 7, 14-16.)

trivial aspect pairs (or triplets)

trivial aspect pairs (or triplets): participles, action nouns

aspect pairs (or triplets) in which the prefix causes modification (e.g., introduces a resultative subevent) under certain circumstances

“ordinary“ synonyms

affixes causing lexical modification

Verb stems, morphemes and syntax (in generativism)Generative assumptions

• Item-and-Arrangement reasoning• morphology is part of syntax and morphemes participate in the stepwise generation of more complex

units and of sentence semantics, among others of aspectual semantics on clause level.

Figure 1: Structure of the finite clause(X' and Minimalism; Tatevosov 2015)

Tatevosov (2015: §5)• aspect is assigned above vP, i.e. relatively late in the process of

syntactic derivation• ⊃ aspect is never a property of the stem• morphocentric view on actional composition:

prefixes can function as atomic units which essentiallycontribute to actionality

• certain prefixes add a resultative subevent to the meaning of the stem/root

Certain prefixes contribute a resultative subevent:Russian(14a) Vanja pisalIPFV (stat‘ju). || pisa || = λy λx λe [writeA (e) ∧ initiator (x)(e) ∧ theme (y)(e)]

‘Vanja wrote / was writing (an article).‘(14b) Vanja na-pisalPFV *(stat‘ju). || napisa || = λy λx λe λs [writeA (e) ∧ initiator (x)(e) ∧ theme (y)(e)

‘Vanja wrote / has written *(an article).‘ ∧ CAUSING (s)(e) ∧ writes(s) ∧ arg(y)(s)]

→ Aspect is not distinguished on the level of the stem (pisa- vs napisa-); (2015: 277).

traditional view (incl. most formal semanticists):(15a) [... [TP ... [VP [V pisa-IPFV]… ]]](15b) [... [TP ... [VP [V napisa-PFV]… ]]]

Tatevosov‘s alternative:(16a) [... [TP ... [FP IPFV … [VP [V pisa-]… ]]]](16b) [... [TP ... [FP PFV … [VP [V napisa-]… ]]]]

Figure 2: Structure of action nouns (Tatevosov 2015: 280)

vP

The purported proof: action nouns

(17) Razumeetsja, ja dogadalsja, čto Deržavin pišet stixi na moe čtenie, i ne ošibsja. Toroplivo pisala ego drožaščaja ruka i besprestanno stirala napisannoe. Mne pokazalos‘, čto pisanie prodolžalos‘ s polčasa. (2015: 288)‘Of course, I was able to guess that Deržavin is writing verses following my recitation, and I was right. His trembling hand was writing hastily, time and again erasing what had been written. It seemed to me that this process (of writing) lastet/was lasting more or less for half an hour.‘

(18) Puškin otmečal, čto načal napisanie [= pisanie] poėmy ešče v Licee. (www.russianculture.ru; 2015: 284)‘Puškin remarked that he had started the writing of this poem already in his lyceum years.‘

(19) Pjat‘ knig o syščike Ivane Orače sostavljajut cikl proizvedenij detektivnogo žanra, odnoj iz kotoryx javljaetsja roman «Samoubijstvo isključaetsja». Napisanie ??(cikla) prodolžalos‘ na protjaženii vsej tvorčeskoj žizni Vadima Peunova.(http://peunov.dn.ua; 2015: 288)‘Five books about the detective Ivan Orač make up a cycle of prose of the detective genre, one of which is the novel„Suicide is excluded“. The writing ??(of the cycle) lasted Vadim Peunov‘s entire creative life.‘

(20) Opjat‘ že, nepostroenie kommunizma ob“jasnjaetsja ne texničeskim progressom, a tem, čto ego posle 1956 godanikto uže i ne stroil. (2015: 295)‘Again, the non-building of communism (= the fact that communism hasn‘t been built) is explained not fromtechnical progress, but from the fact that after 1956 nobody was building it (= was concerned with building it).‘

• no relevance of phasal (more precisely: ingressive) verb (see 18), since• resultative subevent included with prefixed (“pfv.“) stem (see narrow scope reading in 20 and requirement of

direct object in 19) and its lack with the simplex (“ipfv.“) stem (see 17)

The purported proof: action nouns (cont‘d)

• no relevance of phasal (more precisely: ingressive) verb (see 18), since• resultative subevent included for prefixed (“pfv.“) stem (see narrow scope reading in 20 and requirement of direct

object in 19) and its lack with the simplex (“ipfv.“) stem (see 17)

However,• why can the prefixed nominalized stem occur in the scope of an ingressive verb, if it implies a resultative subevent?• what about non-predicative participles and, first of all, infinitives?

Alternative explanation (twofold):

• semantic The (productivity of the) derivation of action nouns depends not on the aspect of the verb stems, but on their actionality class (cf. Pazel‘skaja 2003; 2006; Kukla 2013: 196-202),first of all on the [± telic] feature, which motivates pfv.:ipfv. aspect.

→ earlier “layer“ in the diachronic development is concerned

• “diachronic maturity“ action nouns belong to the grammatical periphery of verbs, at least in Russian.

Compare with action nouns, e.g., in Polish: • less restrictions on type level (lexical input);• better integration into morphosyntax (e.g., used to meet valency requirements of transitives and ditransitives);• higher token frequency.

In general, Polish action nouns• are mostly used in accordance with the aspect of the deriving verb stems;• show a better approximation to complementary functional distribution for aspectual pairs

(corresponding to finite forms) than do Russian deverbal nouns (Pčelinceva 2016: 303f.).

Russian action nouns have not “matured“ enough to become full-fledged members of paradigmatic formsindicating functions for which ipfv. : pfv. verbs (verb stems) are otherwise distributed in Russian.

‘Diachronic maturity‘ in Russian, action nouns belong to the grammatical periphery of verbs, in terms of• type and token frequency,• integration into verbal government and other syntagmatic requirements,• integration into functional inventories of aspect choice.This is in stark contrast with infinitives, particularly in Russian.

3. Maturation and complexity

Cf. Dahl (2004):• related to more typical instances of grammaticalization

In the case of stem-derivational (and classificatory) aspect:• on the one hand, degeneration, e.g.

pfv. present > pfv. future ipfv. stems “copy“ events denoted by pfv. stems where actionality doesn‘t play a role (e.g., presupposition management):

choices motivated by (diachronically primary) core functions?⊃ accretion of heterogeneous functions (with inevitable conflicts)

• on the other hand, no loss of original distinctions, namely actionality features are maintained (see “non-trivial“ aspect functions) PFV : IPFV (i.e. [± bounded]) opposition remains dominant [± bounded] opposition is even strengthened – via

paradigmatic tightening spread in the lexicon (first telic, then atelic stems) unification of stem-derivational patterns (?)

4. Instead of a conclusion

4.1. Concerning Slavic aspect:1. Morphological patterns can be very stable and renovate over millenia, morpheme slots stay were they once

established themselves. Stems mature as parts of lexically and morphologically related units in a network of heterogeneous function.

2. Maturation is favored by the unavoidable interaction with other categories (or categorial oppositions) and because speakers have to “make sense“ of a binary choice between stemsbelonging to one of two classes (PFV : IPFV).

3. Correspondingly, complexity does not increase for morphological patterns as such (these may even become moreregular and transparent). Complexity increases on the level of interaction with grammatically and pragmaticallyconditioned oppositions and their hierarchies (in cases of conflict).

4. The reliability of the assignment of values of different functions to IPFV vs PFV stems increases (i.e. strengthens).This is tantamount to saying that predictability of aspect choice increases(and correspondingly entropy of choice decreases).

4.2. More general:1. Morphology cannot remain focused on morphemes, but (also) has to deal with relations between stems.

2. To do justice to the morphological architecture of Slavic aspect, Item-and-Process and Word-and-Paradigmapproaches have to be combined. This may apply to other grammatical oppositions as well.

3. Regardless of the “technical“ solution concerning the relation between lexical units (‘lexemes‘) and paradigms, not all lexical units need not have the full inventory of functions and combinatorial possibilities at their disposal.(This is not untypical in particular for so-called inherent inflection as well, although it may better correspond to IP-assumptions.)

And finally ...4. Maturation is a more adequate (and more comprehensive) concept than grammaticalization.

Thank you !

ReferencesBoye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012: A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88, 1-44.Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman. Fábregas, Antonio & Sergio Scalise. 2012: Morphology (From Data to Theories). Edinburgh: Edinburgh U.P.Galton, Herbert. 1976: The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: MANU.GWJP/I: Grzegorczykowa, Renata, Roman Laskowski & Henryk Wróbel (red.) 1984: Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego.

Morfologia, t. I. Warszawa: PWN.Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010: Understanding Morphology. 2nd edition. London, New York: Routledge.Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge U.P.Hengeveld, Kees. 2017: A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In: Hengeveld, Kees, Heiko Narrog & Hella Olbertz (eds.): The

Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 13-37.Janda, L.A., A. Andresen, J. Kuznetsova, O. Lyashevskaya, A. Makarova, T. Nesset & S. Sokolova. 2013: Why Russian Aspectual Prefixes

Aren’t Empty (Prefixes As Verb Classifiers). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavica Publ.Kukla, Julia. 2013: Das Verb und sein Abstraktum im Russischen. München: Sagner.Lehmann, Christian. 1995: Thoughts on grammaticalization. München, Newcastle: Lincom Europa. [Berlin: Language Science Press, 2015.]Lehmann, Volkmar. 1988: Der russische Aspekt und die lexikalische Bedeutung des Verbs. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 48-1, 170-181.Lehmann, Volkmar. 1999: Sprachliche Entwicklung als Expansion und Reduktion. In: Anstatt, Tanja (ed.). Entwicklungen in slavischen

Sprachen. München: Sagner, 169-254.Lehmann, Volkmar. 2004: Grammaticalization via extending derivation. In: Bisang Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.):

What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 169-186.Mel’čuk, Igor‘ A. 1993 ff.: Cours de morphologie générale: théorique et descriptive. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal etc.Mende, Julia et al. 2011: Vid i akcional‘nost‘ russkogo glagola. Opyt slovarja. München: Sagner.Pazel‘skaja, Anna G. 2003: Aspektual‘nost‘ i russkie predikativnye imena. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2003-4, 72-90.Pazel‘skaja, Anna G. 2006: Nasledovanie glagol‘nyx kategorij imenami situacii. Moskva: MGU (unpubl. PhD thesis).

References (cont‘d)Pčelinceva, Elena Ė. 2016: Ot glagola k imeni: apektual‘nost‘ v russkix, ukrainskix i pol‘skix imenax dejstvija. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka.Plungjan, Vladimir A. 2000: Obščaja morfologija. Vvedenie v problematiku, Moscow: URSS.Plungjan, Vladimir A. 2011: Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju semantiku: grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie sistemy v jazykax mira,

Moscow: Izdatel’stvo RGGU.Spencer, Andrew. 2013: Lexical Relatedness (A Paradigm-based Model). Cambridge etc.: CUP.Tatevosov, Sergej G. 2015: Akcional‘nost‘ v leksike i grammatike. Moskva: JaSKTatevosov, Sergej G. 2016: Glagol’nye klassy i tipologija akcional’nosti. Moscow: JaSK.Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989: On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.

Language 65-1, 31-55. Wiemer, Björn. 2008: Zur innerslavischen Variation bei der Aspektwahl und der Gewichtung ihrer Faktoren. In: Gutschmidt, Karl, Ulrike

Jekutsch, Sebastian Kempgen & Ludger Udolph (eds): Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongreß, Ohrid 2008. München: Sagner, 383–409.

Wiemer, Björn & Ilja A. Seržant. 2017: Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us? In: Bisang, Walter & Andrej Malchukov (eds): Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios. Berlin: Language Science Press, 230–307.

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1967: Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moskva: Nauka.