The Semantics of Slavic za- and Metonymy

Bybee (1985: 87) has noted a universal connection between the categories of inceptive and perfective. One example of this connection is the fact that when active verbs are perfectivized in Slavic, a verb with a completive meaning results, e.g. proèitat' 'read through', whereas when stative verbs are perfectivized an inceptive meaning results, e.g., uznat' "find out/come to know'. Inasmuch as ingressivity falls in the general semantic category of inceptive, we can see this connection in the different ways in which prefixation with za- is productive in the Slavic languages. Dickey (2000a, b) demonstrates that in East Slavic and Bulgarian za- is primarily productive as an ingressive prefix (e.g., Ru zaigrat' 'begin to play', Bg zaèeta 'begin to read'), whereas in Cz, Sk, Sn and Pol prefixation with za- produces verbs best characterized as either momentary/delimitative (e.g., Cz zacvrlikat 'chirp briefly', Sk zaplakat 'have a little cry') or simply perfective (e.g., Cz zahrát 'play to the end', Pol zaspiewaç 'sing to the end').

As far as I know, only Holvoet (1990: 179) has even considered the semantic connection between ingressive za- in Ru and totalizing za- in Pol and Cz; however, his analysis ends rather incompletely with the suggestion that "when an action is begun, it must also continue for some minimal duration", i.e. in order to be categorized as the action in question. This paper attempts to account for the two related meanings of za- in the contemporary Slavic languages, in a more systematic way, by analyzing the use of za- as a perfectivizer in the west (e.g., in Cz, Sk, Pol) as a case of metonymy. Janda (1986: 114) has analyzed Ru ingressive za- as representing the path of a trajector (the agent) beyond a landmark, which represents zero-activity, into the activity. Similarly, Paillard and Fici-Guisti (1998) suggest that ingressive verbs in za- signal a path beginning with no-activity and ending with activity.

My somewhat altered suggestion is that ingressive za- (e.g., in Ru) signals the path of the trajector (the agent) beyond a landmark, which is the beginning of the activity. In this respect, I would suggest that there is a nearly universal ICM specifying that the prototypical event/situation has (1) a beginning, (2) a middle, and (3) an end, which together form a coherent gestalt. Thus, Ru ingressive zagovorit' signals the passing of the trajector beyond the landmark, which is the beginning of the talking-activity, into the middle of the talking-activity. From here, accounting for the totalizing/perfective meaning of Pol and Cz za- is fairly simple, involving a conceptual metonymy (cf. Lakoff 1987), i.e. a metonymical mapping whereby the original landmark (the beginning of the action) represents the entire event-beginning, middle and end. Accordingly, when the trajector passes beyond the landmark, it passes beyond the entire event, thus facilitating the total, perfective view.

This metonymical analysis allows for a straightforward explanation for the two senses of Slavic za-, and could very well account for the universal connection between ingressivity and perfecctivity noted by Bybee, although this is a matter for further investigation. Within Slavic, this metonymy could also have been a result of the merger of Slavic inchoative -nu- (e.g., Ru oslepnut' 'go blind') and Slavic semelfactive -nu- (e.g., Ru prygnut' 'hop [once]'). Although this metonymical model is not terribly useful for actually accounting for the categories of the Common Slavic verb, it might prove useful in the analysis of some contemporary Bg verbs suffixed with -na- such as svetna 'flash' and râsna 'spray', which according to Ivanova (1974: 120-21) are used both as ingressives and semelfactives.

The paper will discuss these issues in more detail as well as other issues relevant to the analysis.

References

Bybee, Joan L. (1985) Morphology: A study in the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dickey, Stephen M. (2000a) "Expressing ingressivity in Slavic: The contextually-conditioned imperfective past vs. the phase verb stat' and procedural za-", Journal of Slavic Linguistics 7(1): 11-44

Dickey, Stephen M. (2000b) Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Holvoet, Axel. (1990) "Zu den Aktionsarten des slavischen und baltischen Verbums", M. Kondratiuk, ed. Balto-s?owian´skie zwiàzki j´zykowie. Wroc?aw: Zak?ad narodowy imienia Ossoliƒskych, 177-84.

Ivanova, Kalina. (1974) Naèini na glagolnoto dejstvie v sâvremennija bâlgarski ezik. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bâlgarskata akademija na naukite.

Janda, Laura. (1986) A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot-. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.

Lakoff, George. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Paillard, Denis and Francesca Fici Guisti. (1998) "L'inchoation en russe: entre preverbes et auxiliaires. Le Langage et l'Homme 33(1): 79-94.