CC BY
69
A. L. Malchukov
ИЛИ РАН, St. Petersburg — JGU, Mainz
CONSTRAINING SYNTAGMATIC GRAMMEME INTERACTION: A SYNOPSIS1
«Сочетания различных сем в грамматических значениях не являются целиком произвольными: одни комбинации встречаются в большом количестве языков, тогда как другие, логически вполне возможные, не встречаются почти никогда {...) Было бы крайне заманчиво изучить все подобные тенденции, но мы вынуждены оставить эту проблему в стороне». (И. А. Мельчук [Mel'chuk 1998: 14])
«Таким образом, мы вплотную подошли к очень важному в теоретическом отношении вопросу: проявляется ли каким-либо закономерным образом наличие/отсутствие взаимозависимости категорий, а тем самым и возможность их взаимодействия, в структуре семантического представления словоформы глагола». (В. С. Храковский [Xrakovskij 1996: 26])
1. Introduction: Typology of syntagmatic dependencies between grammatical categories
Although almost any grammatical description of a language contains information about interaction between grammatical categories, there are still few typological studies that focus on this issue. To my knowledge, the only work which explicitly address this issue from a typological point of view are the studies by Viktor Samuilovich Xrakovskij [1990, 1996, 2003], as well as Aikhenvald and Dixon [1998]2. Xrakovskij [1996] represents a pioneering case study of interaction of verbal categories, focusing on the interaction of mood (in particular, imperative, as opposed to indicative) with tense, aspect, voice and person agreement. He concludes that imperative frequently induces
1 I acknowledge the Russian Scientific Foundation for financial support (grant 14-18-03406).
2 Equally few are monographic studies which specifically address category interaction in individual languages or cross-linguistically: in this connection a study by Poupynin [1999] on tense/aspect interaction in Russian, and a typological study by de Haan [1997] on interaction of modality and negation should be mentioned.
changes in the grammemes belonging to other categories, leading to the loss of a category altogether (e.g. tense), of some grammeme of a category (e.g., the passive is normally lacking an imperative), or of some function of a grammeme (as in the case of reinterpretation of aspectual values in the imperative), or else leading to a change in its formal expression (cf. the use of special forms of person agreement in imperative as compared to indicative). Further, Xrakovskij makes the important point that results of grammeme interaction may be asymmetrical: more often than not, (only) one of the grammemes changes its meaning when combined with another grammeme (the one undergoing the semantic shift is called recessive, the one inducing the change is called dominant). With regard to imperative, his conclusion is that imperative normally acts as a dominant category with respect to other categories.
The paper by Aikhenvald and Dixon [1998] is broader in scope, as it studies mutual dependencies between various grammatical categories, both verbal and nominal, in a wide range of languages. One of the most general results of this study is to show that interpretation/ availability of nominal categories is more often determined by verbal categories than the other way round (for example, case marking of arguments may depend on choices in the TAM system). Some other unilateral dependencies have been noted as well; for example, negation is found to be more likely to influence availability/realization of other categories, but is hardly affected by other categories itself. However, many other dependencies have been found to be bi-directional; for example either a choice of number or a choice of case system can impose restrictions on members of the other category.
Yet, it seems that further cross-linguistic generalizations can be established in this field once a more fine-grained approach is adopted to category interaction. That is, it is important to distinguish between three distinct albeit related phenomena in the domain of interaction between grammatical categories, which are treated indiscriminately in [Aikhenvald, Dixon 1998].
1) The choice of grammeme X of category x excludes category y (e.g., in imperatives/subjunctives tense distinctions are normally missing);
2) The choice of grammeme X of category x excludes grammeme Y of category y (for example, perfective aspect in many languages is incompatible with the present tense);
3) The choice of grammeme X of category x leads to formal lack of distinction between grammemes Y1 and Y2 of category y (e.g., in many languages there is a larger number of distinct case forms in singular than in plural).
Admittedly, this classification may be less clear-cut in certain cases; for example, if the number of grammemes is restricted to two, the first case is indistinguishable from the third. On the other hand, if a grammeme X may exclude (possibly, for different reasons) all gram-memes of y, then the second case converges with the first one. Yet these cases should be kept distinct, since the motivation behind these types of category interaction may be different. In particular, the third case, dealing with neutralization/syncretism, has usually been related to mark-edness: combinations of unmarked members of categories are known to be less restricted, as compared to the marked one (see §5). This is different from the case of the second type, which is - inasmuch as it is cross-linguistically recurrent - due to functional incompatibility: here we are dealing with absolute restrictions on certain combinations rather than with relative preferences. The first case is probably the most complex, since exclusion of different members of a certain grammati-ccal category may be due to both factors (see 6.2 below for an account of gender/number dependencies, or tense/mood dependencies).
The present paper continues the typological research into category interaction initiated by Viktor Samuilovich Xrakovskij, as well as earlier studies under the rubric of markedness (see, e.g., [Plank, Schellinger 1997]). Here I shall mostly concentrate on the cases of the second kind (called hereafter 'infelicitous combinations', occasionally abbreviated as IC), where grammemes X and Y are functionally incompatible and therefore a combination of these values is systematically excluded.
In the following section I exemplify different types of infelicitous combinations as well as outcomes of grammeme conflicts. In section 3 I will discuss one of the most spectacular case of infelicitous combination, the case of perfective presents, in more detail (see [Malchukov 2011] for discussion of other infelicitous combinations in the domain of verbal categories). Section 4 provides a brief discussion of the factors determining the resolution of infelicitous combinations, while Section 5 summarizes the factors, constraining grammeme combinations in general. Section 6 provides a unified picture of the interacting factors relying on the notion of local markedness and markedness hierarchy. Finally,
section 7 summarizes the main results of the study and poses questions for further research.
2. Types of infelicitous combinations and their outcomes: some illustrations
Note that since infelicitous combinations are infelicitous for functional reasons, effects of grammeme conflicts will be observed independently of the mode of expression of the respective categories. Yet the outcome of a grammeme conflict may be different depending on the structural properties of the language. If the respective values are expressed cumulatively, as is typically the case in a fusional language, one should expect that the infelicitous combination will not be expressed at all, which will result in a paradigm gap. For example, in Romance languages the distinction between perfective and imperfective (aorist/imperfect) is restricted to past tense and is not found in the present (see below for further discussion). If categories are expressed independently, as is often the case in agglutinative languages, the outcome may be more diverse.
In the latter case we can imagine three primary techniques for conflict resolution of infelicitous combinations: 1) the infelicitous combination is not available at all, due to the mutual incompatibility of the categories in question; 2) the infelicitous combination is available, but involves a change of meaning of one of the grammemes (the 'recessive' grammeme, in the terms of [Xrakovskij 1996]); 3) the infelicitous combination is available, but involves a change of meaning in both grammemes.
In the first case the resolution rules are similar to what we observed in cases of cumulative expression: semantic incompatibility leads to a gap in a paradigm. Consider, for example, the interaction between modal categories in Korean, as described in [Sohn 1994]. In Korean, the categories of (epistemic) mood and illocutionary force, which cross-linguistically are most often expressed cumulatively, constitute independent categories. Yet not all theoretically possible combinations of moods (indicative, retrospective, requestive and suppositive) and illocutionary force markers (declarative, interrogative, imperative and propositive) are found. While declaratives and interrogatives combine with indicative and "retrospective" (i.e. experiential) moods (see (1)-(3)), imperatives and propositives (the latter expressing the 'let's do V' meaning) share the requestive mood (see (4)-(5)):
KOREAN [Sohn 1994: 338, 339, 342, 40, 45]
(1) Ka-n-ta / ka-te-ta. go-IND-DC go-RETR-DC 'S/he goes/went (I noticed)'.
(2) Mek-ess-n-unya eat-PST-IND-INT.PLN 'Did (s/he) eat?'
(3) W-ass-te-la. come-PST-RETR-DC 'S/he came (I noticed)'.
(4) Po-si-p-si-o! see-SH-AH-REQ-IMP.DEF 'Please, look!'
(5) Wuli ilccik ttena-si-p-si-ta!
we early leave-SH-AH-REQ-PROP 'Let's leave early!'
Notably, other theoretically conceivable combinations (declaratives and interrogatives with requestive mood, or imperatives and propositives with indicative and retrospective moods) are not found [Sohn 1994]. Such patterns, where only "natural" combinations of gram-memes are available, while less natural combinations are avoided, will be explained as instantiations of local markedness in 6 below.
The second case, where one grammeme (the recessive one) undergoes a semantic shift when combined with another grammeme (the dominant grammeme), is illustrated here with case of imperativeperson interaction from the Tungusic languages Even [Malchukov 2001]. As is well known, the combination of the imperative with the first person is functionally infelicitous: most languages disallow this combination [Birjulin, Xrakovskij 1992; van der Auwera et al. 2004], or else one of the grammeme (or both, as in Even) can be reinterpreted. Thus, for Even, in combinations of 1st person forms with the 'second' (distant) imperative in -dA- either grammeme may be dominant. On the one hand, in combination with the 1st person singular, forms in -dA- have developed the future tense function. This reinterpretation is clear from the fact that form in -dA-ku may be used in questions:
EVEN
(6) Hor-de-j! gO-IMP-REF.SG 'Go (later)'
(7) Hor-de-ku? Inge, hor-li-e! go-IMP-lSG OK go-IMP-PTCL 'May I go? OK, go'
On the other hand, the combination of the distant imperative with the 1st p. pl. exclusive marker -(k)un, which in other moods indicates a set of persons excluding the hearer (cf. Hor-ri-vun 'We left (without you)' vs. Hor-ri-t 'We left (with you)'), results in reinterpretation of the person marker. The latter has developed an inclusive reading, which is semantically more compatible with the function of the imperative speech act:
EVEN
(8) Hor-de-kun! go-IMP-lPL.EXCL 'Let's go!'
To conclude: if two grammemes are functionally incompatible, the infelicitous combination will either not be available at all, or else cause a shift in meaning on the part of one or both of the grammemes. In what follows, I shall focus primarily on the second case of asymmetric infelicitous combinations, which involves a 'dominant' and a 'recessive' grammeme. Cases of the first type (exclusion) will be also relevant for the following discussion, inasmuch as recurrent cross-linguistic incompatibility is a hallmark of an infelicitous combination and thus can be used as a diagnostic for an infelicitous combination.
3. Infelicitous combinations in the domain of verbal categories: a case of perfective presents
One of the best studied cases of infelicitous combinations in the aspecto-temporal domain is the semantic incompatibility of perfective aspect with the present tense3. As repeatedly noted in the literature
3 There are different explanations for incompatibility of present and perfective proposed in the semantic literature. In my view, the most straightforward explanation has been outlined by Eckardt [2002: 35] in her brief
[Comrie 1976; Bybee et al. 1994: 83; Bache 1995], this grammeme combination is systematically avoided, due to the semantic incompatibility of the perfective aspect, which imposes a bounded, 'closed' view of the situation, and the (central) meaning of the present tense, locating an event at the moment of speech. The effects of this semantic incompatibility can be observed irrespective of the mode of expression of tense/aspect categories. Thus, in flectional languages, where aspecto-temporal values are expressed cumulatively, this feature combination is not found; compare the situation in the Romance languages, where the perfective has past time reference only [Comrie 1976]. Where categories of tense and aspect are expressed independently, as in Slavic languages, this grammeme combination is available, but involves reinterpretation of one or the other of the two grammemes.
As is well known, Slavic languages differ in the way that perfective presents are interpreted (see, e.g., [Bondarko 1971: 250ff.; Comrie 1976: 66-71; Breu 1994])4. In South Slavic languages, such as Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, the default meaning of a perfective present is generic present (narrative or habitual); see [Comrie 1976: 66-71; Breu 1994]:
BULGARIAN [Comrie 1976: 69]: (9) Speglednet se, pousmixnet, devojki (...)
glance.PFV.PRES.3PL REFL smile.PFV.PRES.3PL girls
'The girls (used to) look at one another, smile at one another.'
By contrast, in East Slavic languages, such as Russian, a perfective present is normally interpreted as future:
discussion of the meaning of the simple present in English. Eckardt assumes a Reichenbachian framework, coupled with some additional assumptions, which are fairly standard in the literature. Within this approach, present is defined as identity of Reference (topic) Time to the Time of Utterance (R=S), perfective aspect is defined as running Time of Event included into the Reference Time (e c R), and it is further assumed (with Hinrichs [1986] and Klein [1994]) that the Time of Utterance (S) is a point, while the Time of the Event (e) is an interval. Given these assumptions it is clear that the present can't combine with the perfective, as the point of time can't include an interval.
4 There is a vast literature on the interaction of tense and aspect in Slavic; my account is closest to [Breu 1994] (and from a more general perspective to other "interactional" approaches to the aspecto-temporal domain, such as [Bache 1995; Smith 1997; Johanson 2000]).
RUSSIAN (10a) On idet.
he go.IMFV.PRES.3SG 'He goes'.
(10b) On pri-det.
he PFV-go.PRES.3SG 'He will come'.
Only in certain contexts (such as in the presence of the habitual particle byvalo or modal negation nikak ne (see [Bondarko 1996] for other contexts) can the present perfective forms have a generic interpretation:
RUSSIAN (11) On byvalo pri-det,
he PTCL PFV-go.PRES.3SG 'He used to come and say (...)'
As the tense form in (12)-(13) is used to refer to the present when derived from imperfective verbs, and to the future or generic present when combined with perfectives, the meaning of this form in Russian is traditionally defined as non-past or as ambiguous between present and future (see [Bondarko 1971]). Yet formally, we are dealing here with a present form, which is completely parallel to the present forms in South Slavic. Note also that while perfective presents can refer to the (generic) present5, imperfective presents cannot (cases of temporal transposition aside) refer to the future. Also in diachronic perspective it is clear that the present was originally the basic meaning of this form [Bondarko 1971: 51; Comrie 1976]; hence the rise of the future meaning can be attributed to the clash with the perfective value within an emerging aspectual opposition.
Breu [1994] also attributes the difference between South Slavic and East Slavic languages to the fact that in South Slavic the (present) tense is dominant with respect to the aspect, while in East Slavic the aspectual meaning (perfective) is dominant with respect to the temporal one. In our terms, the difference between Slavic languages relates to
5 And even to actual present when the incompatibility between present and perfective is suspended in special contexts, such as in performative use; Poprosu vyjti [ask.pfv.1sg leave] 'I ask you to leave'.
skazet (...).
say.PFV.PRES.3SG
the fact that in Bulgarian the (present) tense is a dominant category and the (perfective) aspect is a recessive category while in Russian the aspectual grammeme (perfective) is dominant while the temporal one is recessive6.
Since the infelicity of the perfective present combination is se-mantically motivated, IC effects will be observed independently of the concrete mode of expression of tense and aspect categories in the particular language. In this context it is instructive to compare Russian to Finnish, as the outcome of the grammeme conflict is similar in these two languages, even though Finnish differs radically from Russian in the expression of aspectual distinctions. As is well known, Finnish lacks verbal aspect, but an aspectual distinction can be rendered through a case alternation on the object (therefore one sometimes speaks of "aspectual case" in Finnish). The accusative marking of the object as in (12) is used to express perfective meaning, while the use of the partitive case as in (13) is used to express imperfective meaning:
Outi read.PAST.3SG book.PART
'Outi was reading a book'.
Notably, if a verb is in the (unmarked) present, rather than in the imperfect (past) as in the above examples, the use of the perfective construction (with the object in the accusative) yields the future meaning, similarly to what we observed for Russian:
6 This characterization somewhat simplifies the pattern of tense-aspect interaction in Bulgarian. According to Maslov [1984: 153-178], while imperfect tense of perfective verbs predictably expresses iterative meaning (mostly in subordinate clauses), the aorist tense of imperfective verbs can both express delimitative or perdurative meaning, but also have iterative or 'general factual' uses. The latter uses are not expected on the scope approach, but can be arguably attributed to the unmarked status of the imperfective aspect in the aspectual opposition (cf. the 'general factual' use of imperfective aspect in Russian).
FINNISH [Sulkala, Karjalainen 1992: 306,308]
(12) Outi luki
Outi read.PAST.3SG 'Outi read a book'.
kirjan. book.ACC
(13) Outi luki
kirjaa.
FINNISH [Sulkala, Karjalainen 1992: 308, 306]
(14) Outi lukee kirjaa.
Outi read.PRES.3SG book.PART
'Outi reads/is reading a book'.
(15) Outi lukee kirjan.
Outi read.PRES.3SG book.ACC
'Outi will read a book'.
Thus, resolution of the perfective present combination in Finnish proceeds similarly to Russian, even though aspect is expressed by a syntactic construction in Finnish rather than an inflectional category as in Russian: in both cases tense is a recessive category, and aspect is dominant.
The same effects can also be observed in languages which have a category of aspect but lack a category of tense altogether. In these languages, a category with the perfective meaning cannot be interpreted as referring to present even in strong contexts. Maltese Arabic is instructive in this respect. Maltese lacks tense, but uses aspectual (perfective/imperfective) forms to render tense distinctions. Notably, the perfective normally refers to the past, in strong contexts it can refer to the future, but it never refers to the present [Borg, Azzopardi-Alex-ander 1997: 234]. In Lango, too, which distinguishes between perfective, habitual and progressive aspects, the perfective aspect may refer to either past or future, but not to the present [Noonan 1992: 138].
Similar restrictions may be observed even if one or both gram-memes in the perfective present combination are unmarked. Consider an example from Limbu (Tibeto-Burman), which makes a distinction between unmarked non-past and marked past (preterite) in the temporal system and between unmarked perfective and marked imperfective in the aspectual system; all combinations of tenses and aspects are possible. Notably, the present (non-preterite) perfective, a combination of the two unmarked categories, is ambiguous between the future and general present [van Driem 1987: 115]:
LIMBU [van Driem 1987: 115]
(16) Hen ks-dzok-0-0?
what you-do(-NPRET-PFV)
'What do you (generally) do?'
or 'What are you going to do?'
(17) Hen ke-dzok-0-pa?
what you-do(-NPRET-IPFV)
'What are you doing (now)?'
The examples above show that when a grammeme is (structurally) unmarked it is open to more interpretations, and is more likely to be a recessive category. We shall return to the role of markedness for the outcome of grammeme conflicts in the next section.
4. Resolution of infelicitous combinations
It is interesting to consider what factors determine which gram-meme "wins" in an unfelicitous combination, that is which grammeme is dominant, and which is recessive, in terms of Xrakovskij. In [Mal-chukov 2009, 2011] I proposed two general factors: markedness and scope. The first factor predicts that the unmarked category will be recessive and the marked category will be dominant (all other things being equal). While markedness is a notoriously complex and heterogeneous notion (see [Haspelmath 2006] on markedness mismatches), for the present purposes I concentrate on cases where markedness is manifested through formal markedness (alternation of an overt with a zero marker), or is otherwise uncontroversial. Thus, it is arguably the case that the unmarked grammeme (the form which is zero marked and more general in meaning) is more likely to be recessive, while the marked member (with a more specific meaning) is more likely to be dominant. Similar suggestions, which relate results of interaction to markedness of the respective categories, have been made by Bache [1995] with respect to tense/aspect interaction and by Apresjan [2004] with respect to interaction between aspect and voice.
The role of this factor can be best demonstrated for the case of present perfectives discussed above. This combination provides a good testing ground, as languages show variation with regard to which member of the aspectual paradigm (perfective or imperfective) is unmarked. Thus, it can be shown that perfective aspect is more likely to cause reinterpretation of tense in the present perfective when it is the marked member in the aspectual opposition. This can account for the fact that in Russian perfective presents are reinterpreted as future, as perfective is traditionally considered to be the marked aspect and imper-fective unmarked [Jakobson 1957; Bondarko 1971; Mel'cuk 1998: 28].
On the other hand, unmarked perfectives (in particular, those lacking overt marking)7 are more likely to be recessive when combined with the present. Itelmen (Paleosiberian) is instructive in this respect. Itelmen has perfective as an unmarked member in the aspectual paradigm (im-perfective is marked by the suffix -kz-), while in the tense paradigm the past is unmarked and the present is a marked category (with the -s-marker) [Volodin 1976]. Notably, a combination of the unmarked perfective and the marked present performs the function of a present:
ITELMEN [Volodin 1976: 248] (18) T-entxla-0-s-kicen.
1SG-lead-ASP-PRS-3SG.O
'I lead him'.
In accordance with the markedness pattern, the marked category is dominant here, while the unmarked one is recessive. Of course, the same point can be made with respect to English, if we follow Smith [1991, 1997] in her assumption that the aspectual paradigm in English includes a (marked) imperfective (progressive) as opposed to an unmarked perfective (indefinite) forms. As expected, present perfective (present indefinite) forms have a generic present interpretation when derived from telic verbs. A similar proposal relating the outcome of grammeme conflict to markedness in the tense and aspect system was made by Bache [1995: 190] in his discussion of perfective presents in English and Russian8. Finally it can be observed that, when both present and perfective are unmarked, as in case of Limbu in (16), either grammeme may be dominant or recessive (hence the ambiguous interpretation of (16)).
Yet, markedness is not sufficient to account for all cases of category interaction. Thus, if the interpretation of the perfective present
7 Although there may be mismatches between formal and functional markedness, we use here formal (un)markedness as a diagnostic for functional (un)markedness, on iconicity assumption that the two usually go together. See [van der Auwera et al. 2009] for a similar approach.
8 Cf.: "In Russian, the use of the present perfective form for future rather than present temporality supports the status of the perfective as the marked member of the Russian aspect opposition. In English, the occasional use of the simple (perfective) present for the expression of present temporality (e.g. present stative or habitual meaning) indicates that the simple form is the unmarked member of the English aspect opposition" [Bache 1995: 190].
combination is due solely to markedness, it is not clear how this explanation applies to Bulgarian, where the outcome of the grammeme conflict is quite different. Note that there is no way to argue that in Bulgarian the perfective is less marked; in fact, if anything, the perfective aspect in Bulgarian is semantically richer (more specific), being more lexical and less grammaticalized than aspect in East Slavic (Russian). This, however, provides a clue as to why the aspectual grammeme is recessive in Bulgarian. As mentioned in 3 above and elaborated below, in case of a conflict between the meaning of an inflectional and a lexical (or derivational) category, the conflict is usually resolved in favor of the inflectional category. Below this observation will be related to the general principle of scope.
Another relevant factor that has a bearing on the resolution of infelicitous combinations, which emerges the study of interaction of gram-memes within the aspecto-temporal domain, even though this principle is rarely formulated in general terms in the typological literature, is semantic scope (cf. [Rice 2000])9. It appears that, other things being equal, a grammeme with a wider scope is more likely to be dominant. Thus, according to Breu [1994], in Bulgarian inflectional aspecto-temporal forms override the values of the derivationally expressed aspect in "non-harmonic" combinations. Thus, imperfective verbs in the aorist receive delimitative interpretation (e.g., vslusva [listen.IMFV.AOR.3SG] 'listen (for some time)'), while perfective verbs in the imperfect receive an iterative reading (krivnese [turn.PFV.IMP.3SG] '(repeatedly) turn').
The effects of scope are particularly clear when a grammatical category overrides the lexical one, as for the cases where statives acquire an inchoative interpretation when used in perfective aspect. Breu [1994] proposed the following rules of actional reinterpretation on the basis of data from European languages (here illustrated with Russian and Italian):
a) Atelic verbs (states and activities), if occurring in perfective aspect, receive an inchoative (cf. Rus. znat'/uznat', It. sapeva/ seppe 'know/learn') or a delimitative interpretation (cf. Rus. rabotat'/porabotat', It. lavorava/lavoro 'work/work for a while');
9 A general definition of scope provided by Rice [2000: 24] appeals to semantic compositionality: given three items X, Y and Z, Z is said to have a scope over X and Y, if the semantics of Z is added to that of X and Y as a unit.
b) Achievements ('find', etc.), if occurring in imperfective aspect, receive an iterative interpretation (Rus. naxodit' / najti, It. trovava/travo 'find repeatedly/find'). Malchukov [2011] shows the same rules are at work in the domain of non-finite (converbial) forms, which carry an intrinsic aspectual value. This is illustrated below for Even, which has about a dozen converbial forms, some of which are aspectually neutral, while others have an inherent imperfective or perfective value [Malchukov 1995]. Thus, the "successive" converb in in -mnin has an intrinsic perfective value, and expectedly, usually combines with telic verbs to represent a (quick) succession of events:
EVEN
(19) Eme-mnin, goon-ni come-CONV say-AOR.3SG 'As soon as he came, he said'.
In those (infrequent) cases the successive converb is found with statives, it imposes an inchoative interpretation on the stative verb:
EVEN
(20) Haa-mnin, goon-ni. know-CONV say-AOR.3SG 'As soon as he learned, he said'.
In other languages, however, such non-harmonic combinations are disallowed. Thus, as is well-known, in Modern Russian simultaneous converbs can normally be built only from imperfective verbs, while anterior converbs can be derived only from perfective verbs (cf. Delaj-a (*s-delaj-a) uroki 'doing homework'; s-dela-v (*dela-v) uroki 'having done homework')10. Interestingly, in Old Russian (as used in the 15-17th century) all combinations of converbs and ac-tionality classes were possible, but later the infelicitous combinations simultaneous/perfective and anterior/imperfective fell into disuse [Kuz'mina, Nemcenko 1982: 342-346].
In the abovementioned cases, the aspectual marker may change actionality of the verbs stem. Such cases, have been analysed in
10 For some exceptions to this rule, representing residues of earlier stages of the language's development, see [Svedova (ed.) 1970: 422-423; Knjazev 1998].
the semantic literature in terms of coercion, an argument is reinterpreted to meet the selectional restrictions of its functor [De Swart 1998]. A similar reinterpretation may arise from an infelicitous combination with an adverbial, as noted by Smith [1991], among others. Smith [1991] introduces a special rule (dubbed "external override") which states that in case of a conflict between aspectual features of a verb and an adverb, the latter wins out. For example, the verb know is basically a stative, but when combined with punctual time adverbials like suddenly, it is reinterpreted as an achievement (Suddenly I knew the answer). A more general version of the Override Principle to the effect that the meaning of the lexical item adjusts to the meaning of the structure in which it is embedded has been proposed by Michaelis [2004: 268].
To conclude: the resolution of infelicitous combinations is determined by consideration of markedness and scope. The unmarked category is more likely to be recessive than the marked one, and the wide scope category is more likely to dominant than the narrow scope one. When the two factors strengthen each other the outcome of the competition is cross-linguistically predictable (a wide scope marked category will be always dominant, and a narrow scope unmarked category always recessive). When the two principles are in conflict (a wide scope category is unmarked, and an inner scope category is marked) the result is more variable. Thus the data on present perfective presents reviewed above suggests that either markedness or scope may determine the competition (cf. the situation in Russian and Bulgarian). Note that I deliberately leave open a possibility that an "internal" (narrow-scope) category can affect an "external" (wide scope) category. This seems to go against the received conception to the effect that coercion works in one direction: a predicate may reinterpret its argument, but not the other way around. Yet, it seems that type-shifting can work in both directions. Thus, in parallel to cases of "external override" by an adverb discussed by Smith [1997], there are well-known cases when interpretation of the predicate depends on the properties of the argument (as in familiar cases from English, where actionality class of the predicate is determined by definiteness/specificity of its object; He ate apples/the apple). Furthermore, the assumption that a verb meaning can be reinterpreted by the (properties of the) argument structure, is one of the tenets of Construction Grammar (see [Goldberg 1995] and related work).
5. Factors underlying grammeme (in)compatibility
Above we have considered some factors underlying grammeme (in)compatibility, focusing on cases in which compatibility is semanti-cally motivated. However, semantics is clearly not the only factor constraining syntagmatic combinability between categories. Such factors can be divided into function-related, form-related, and more complex cases which involve both function and form.
The functional factors are generally of more interest is typological studies, as these factors can be generalizable cross-linguistically. Among the functional factors discussed in [Malchukov 2011] the two are of most importance: semantic compatibility, and relevance. The effects of semantic compatibility, have been illustrated above for perfective presents. As shown above, grammemes expressing conflicting values would either not combine at all, or if the relevant combination is found then either of them or both will be reinterpreted. The other examples of infelicitous combinations and their resolution from the domain of verbal categories discussed in [Malchukov 2011] are past tense imperatives, passive imperatives, 1st person imperatives, 1st person indirect evidentials and the like. Some of these combinations might not be strictly speaking semantically incompatible as in case of perfective presents, but highly unlikely for pragmatic reasons (as 1st person imperative directing a command to oneself). This links us to a second factor that of relevance, which is formulated as follows [Malchukov 2011]:
Regularity of co-occurrence between the members of grammatical categories reflects the degree of their mutual relevance.
The role of this factor can be illustrated from the domain of tense-aspect interaction. A well-known cross-linguistic generalization due to Comrie [1976] states that aspectual distinctions are more often observed in the domain of past tenses. In particular, Comrie [1976: 71-72] cites examples from Romance languages where the aspectual distinction between perfective and imperfective is restricted to the past (aorist vs. imperfect). Other examples are not difficult to come by. For example, in Hixkaryana the tense/aspect system includes, apart from the nonpast in -yaha, three different forms referring to the past: immediate past in -no, recent past completive in -yako and recent past continuative in -yakonano. In Mangarayi, the aspectual distinction (punctual/continuous) is also restricted to the past. Comrie's explanation for this asymmetry
invokes the notion of relevance: aspectual qualification is less relevant for actions that have not (yet) occurred [Comrie 1976].
Other examples showing the impact of relevance on category interaction, involves cases when temporal/aspectual distinctions are lost in the negative forms (cf. [Aikhenvald, Dixon 1998], and irrealis moods [Malchukov 2011]. One straightforward case, which can be attributed to relevance is the partial neutralization of aspectual distinctions in imperatives in Russian, discussed by Xrakovskij [1990]. As noted by Xrakovskij, although both perfective and imperfective forms are available for the imperative in Russian, the imperfective imperative forms need not have a progressive meaning ("Continue V-ing!"), which is a primary function of imperfective indicative forms. Thus, Delaj uroki "Do (imperfective) homework" does not necessarily imply that the addressee is already in the process of doing homework ("continue doing"), unlike imperfective indicative forms; cf. Delaet uroki "(S/he) is doing (imperfective) homework"11. This may be taken as an indication that universally the imperative aligns with the perfective rather than the im-perfective, as it focuses on the accomplishment of a command rather than on the process itself. This neutralization is fairly common across languages, and can be attributed to the 'perfective bias' of imperatives (see [van der Auwera et al. 2009] for more discussion and exemplification of the 'perfective bias' of imperatives).
The factors of semantic compatibility and relevance are the most important functional factors which determine combinability of gram-memes across languages. Since the two factors are related to each other they would be later integrated into a markedness hierarchy (see section 5). Apart from these factors there are factors of a systemic nature, which appeal not only to the function but also the mode of expression of individual categories. Among the two systemic factors discussed in greater detail in [Malchukov 2011] are (again!) markedness, as well as redundancy/economy. As for the first factor, it is well-known that
11 The neutralization is only partial, though, as residual aspectual distinctions are preserved in the imperative. Thus, in cases where the action is continued, only the imperfective imperative form can be used. Similarly, the imperfective form is preferred if the action is imminent or the preparatory phases are completed; thus Zaxodi "Come in (imperfective)!" is used in preference to Zajdi "Come in (perfective)!" when the addressee is already standing in the doorway [Bujulin, Xrakovskij 1992: 33; Paduceva 1996: 66ff].
(overtly) marked categories are subject to much more restrictions than unmarked categories [Greenberg 1966; Croft 1990; Aikhenvald, Dixon 1998; Mel'cuk 1998; Croft 2003]. For example, Mel'cuk [1998: 26] notes that a combination of two marked categories is avoided citing a spectacular case of Koryak (Paleosiberian), where case forms are distinguished only in the unmarked (singular) number, while numbers are distinguished in the unmarked (absolutive) case. Some other authors even build this generalization into the definition of markedness (in this case one speaks of "distributional markedness"). Thus, both Greenberg [1966] and Croft [1990: 157, 2003: 95-97] have observed that the number of cross-cutting inflectional distinctions of the unmarked gram is larger as compared to the marked one. Croft [2003: 97] refers to 'inflectional potential' and 'distributional potential' as manifestations of 'behavioral potential', which he considers one of the diagnostics for (typological) markedness. Aikhenvald and Dixon [1998] come to the same conclusion in their study of dependencies between grammatical categories. For Russian, markedness has been invoked as an explanation of neutralization of aspectual distinctions in (marked) diathesis. Thus, there are restrictions on the combination of both synthetic (reflexive) and periphrastic passive with aspects and further restrictions on what specific meanings of aspect are available in passive forms [Poupynin 1999; Apresjan 2004].
The second factor, regulating grammeme combinability, but only in cases of "marked" combinations where both morphemes are overtly expressed, is redundancy/economy. The role of this factor can be illustrated with the case of interaction of imperative with the tense markers. As discussed in [Gusev 2005] and [Aikhenvald 2011] (cf. [Malchukov 2011]), there are restrictions on combinations of imperatives with the tense markers. For reasons of semantic compatibility, it is normally not found in infelicitous imperative past combinations. This does not explain, however, why imperative forms do not combine with the future, as their meanings are perfectly compatible: in fact, the meaning of the imperative implies future time reference. But this provides a clue to an explanation of their incompatibility: expression of future tense is redundant in combination with the imperative, hence its overt encoding is dispensable. A similar observation holds for mood/person interaction in imperatives: cumulative expression of 2nd person imperative forms is definitely favored as compared to independent expression
of these categories, especially in languages with a restricted imperative paradigm [Xrakovskij 1992; van der Auwera et al. 2004].
Thus, the economy constraint on grammeme combinability can be formulated as follows:
Overt expression of a semantically redundant grammeme is
avoided.
Note that since economy constraints, unlike constraints due to semantic incompatibility, refer both to form and function, they are only operative in cases where both categories have an overt expression.
These factors are the main factors which are of typological importance in the sense that they can be generalized across languages. Of course, such generalizations should be seen as statistical rather than absolute universals, predicting which combinations are more likely and which are less likely to be found cross-linguistically. There might be always counterexamples, reflecting individual histories of individual languages, which can hardly be generalized. More specifically, such structural factors can be generalized to the extent they represent cross-linguistically recurrent grammaticalization paths.
One example of such a diachronic explanation (from [Malchu-kov 2011]), is the interdependence between the verbal category of tense and the nominal categories of person and gender. As noted by Aikhen-vald and Dixon [1998] in Russian and some other languages past-tense forms distinguish gender/number, while present-tense forms distinguish person. I suggested ([Malchukov 2011]) that the predisposition of past tense for gender agreement, can be explained in terms of three diachronic processes (well-known from the grammaticalization literature), which are stated here in retrospect.
• Past tense forms frequently develop from perfects and "re-sultatives" [Bybee et al. 1994]
• Resultatives and perfects frequently develop from non-finite participial forms (cf. [Nedjalkov (ed.) 1988])
• Attributive non-finite forms have a predisposition for developing gender agreement, while predicative (finite) forms have a predisposition for developing person agreement (note that person agreement is irrelevant for attributive forms, since the head of an attributive NP is usually 3rd person; [Lehmann 1982]).
Thus three different diachronic processes "conspire" here to produce an asymmetry in combinability of different tense grammemes with
gender and person markers. In many cases, however, such structural constraints being an outcome of language specific diachronic developments do not allow any generalization (see [Malchukov 2011] for more discussion of this point).
6. Infelicitous combinations and markedness: a reconciliation
In the above discussion we have regarded semantic incompatibility and (functional) markedness as distinct phenomena. However, it was also noted that these functional factors can be reconciled with each other as well as with relevance, as all three are related to the notion of local markedness. The phenomenon of local markedness is particularly relevant for the study of the interaction between verbal categories, as it pertains to markedness of certain grammeme combinations, rather than to markedness of grammemes per se in absolute terms. In the literature, local markedness is also known under the name of "markedness reversal" [Croft 1990]. However, given that some categories involve more than one member, patterns of local markedness are better viewed as markedness hierarchies, reflecting the relative naturalness of certain grammeme combinations. This is consistent with Croft's [1990: 150] observation that many markedness reversal patterns turn out on closer inspection to be multivalued hierarchies. These hierarchies extend from most natural (unmarked) combinations, where grammemes are both compatible and highly relevant to each other's content, at the one end, to combinations which are functionally incompatible and hence irrelevant, at the other end. In between we find combinations of categories which, although functionally compatible, are less relevant to one another. On this account the infelicitous combinations discussed in this paper represent the most marked combination of grammemes on the marked-ness hierarchies.
By way of illustration, I present below the hierarchy pertaining to interaction of tense and aspect (Figure 1) (see [Malchukov 2011] on some other markedness hierarchies pertaining to the domain of imperative-person interaction and (indirect) evidentiality with person).
Figure 1. Tense Hierarchy for perfective aspect
Past > Future > Present <-
Perfective Aspect
As observed by Comrie [1976: 73] and Dahl [1985: 80], the perfective grammeme (and, more generally, aspectual distinctions involving perfective as a marked member) is not equally compatible with different tenses: it is more often found in the past, less often in the future, and is usually lacking in the present, or else is reinterpreted. As noted above, in Romance languages the aspectual opposition obtains only in the past, while in Greek it is found in both past and future, but not in the present. In the Slavic languages it is extended to the present as well but the present perfective combination is reinterpreted (recall the discussion in 3). Evidence for all parts of the hierarchy can also be found together in one single language. Thus, in ChiBemba (Bantu), the aspectual distinctions (between perfective, imperfective and perfect) found in the past are somewhat reduced in the future (future perfect is lacking), and are completely neutralized in the present, which exists only in the imperfective [Chung, Timberlake 1985: 227-228] citing [Givon 1972]. This pattern is expected, given that aspectual distinctions are most relevant for the past, less relevant for the future, and irrelevant for the present, as the present perfective combination is seman-tically infelicitous. For imperfective aspect this hierarchy is partially reversed, as imperfective naturally correlates with the present12, but is partially retained. As noted by Dahl [1985: 110] past imperfective forms are more frequent cross-linguistically than future imperfective forms; this is clearly due to relevance.
Thus, in all cases functional principles underlying relations of local markedness, such as relevance and semantic compatibility, jointly shape the markedness hierarchies. A final qualification concerning the role of economy is in order here. As was noted in 5, certain gram-meme combinations which are least marked and most natural may be avoided due to redundancy. However, this restriction pertains only to cases in which the respective categories are overt and independently expressed. In any case the combination of the respective values (not forms!) will always be available, but preferably encoded by a cumulative form in order to comply with economy. It is possible, as suggested in the functional-typological literature [Greenberg 1966; Croft 1990; Haspelmath 2006], that frequency is ultimately the driving force behind
12 Mel'cuk [1998: 106] notes, for example, that in Uzbek the imper-fective/progressive is restricted to the present tense. More examples of progressives restricted to present tense can be found in [Dahl 1985: 94].
markedness relations and more generally behind markedness as a multidimensional correlation. Frequency can also explain the correlation between (local) markedness and economy: the most frequent forms are known to opt for the shortest form, hence the attested economy effects (see [Haspelmath 2006] for further discussion).
7. Conclusion
In this paper I proposed, building on the work by V. S. Xra-kovskij, a general approach to the study of infelicitous morpheme combinations and demonstrated its applicability to the domain of verbal categories. I also discussed the factors that determine the outcome of grammeme conflict. "Resolution" of infelicitous combinations has been shown to depend both on the particular structural properties of the given language and on the general principles of markedness and scope. All other things being equal, the category that is (functionally) unmarked is more likely to be recessive, and the category that has a wider scope is more likely to be dominant. Broadening the discussion, I briefly addressed other factors which influence combinability between grammemes - both functional factors, such as relevance and economy, and structural and diachronic factors. Finally, I showed how different factors can be integrated into one model, which crucially relies on the concept of local markedness and markedness hierarchies. On this account, infelicitous combinations represent the most marked combination of values on the markedness hierarchies.
It is clear that the program initiated by Xrakovskij, and followed up in my recent work, can be developed in different directions. Thus, results of category interaction should be studied more systematically on different levels of grammar - at the level of grammatical categories (as in [Aikhenvald, Dixon 1998]), at the level of individual grammemes (as in the present paper), but also at the "sublevels" of forms and functions of individual grammemes (as in [Xrakovskij 2003]). The discussion, mostly confined here to verbal categories, should be extended to include nominal categories (see, e.g., [Plank, Schellinger 1997] on gender/number interaction)13, as well as to cases of interaction between
13 Plank and Schellinger [1997] provide a comprehensive cross-linguistic study of interaction between gender and number, with a focus on patterns of syncretism rather than on reinterpretation. Some interesting examples of
grammatical and lexical categories (see, e.g., [Xrakovskij et. al. 2008] on interaction of lexical and grammatical aspect from a perspective similar to the one adopted here). Also, the theory of grammeme interaction outlined here should be embedded into the general theory of (resolution) of grammatical conflicts, as suggested by Moravcsik [2010]. Last but not least, an articulated semantic theory should be proposed to account for reinterpretation of interacting categories (see [Malchukov 2009] for a proposal how to model meaning shifts in Optimality Theory). Yet, I believe that the present article has outlined a general research program for the study of interaction of grammatical categories, which will be hopefully followed up by in-depth typological studies of individual cases of category interaction.
One of the theoretical questions which needs to be resolved in the future work is the relation of the interactional tradition to the study of grammeme interaction to the "selectional" approach relying on general meaning or polysemies (see also [Xrakovskij et. al. 2008] for some discussion). On the latter approach, the interaction does not involve a meaning shift, but rather a selection of an appropriate meaning on the part of a polysemous category. The most articulated approach of this kind for the domain of aspect-actionality interaction is that of Tate-vosov [2002, 2005]. On the latter approach, a perfective aspect rather than coercing a state into an (inchoative) achievement is assumed to select the appropriate actional meaning of the "inchoative-stative" verb. This approach is descriptively adequate, but needs to be further developed in order to make typological predictions in a principled rather than stipulative way (i.e. without reliance on the dictionary information about which verbs qualify as "inchoative-stative" in a particular language). On the other hand, the interactional approach, as advocated here, makes clear typological generalizations, predicting meaning shifts or blocking for infelicitous combinations, but it does not predict (in the present form) what would be a result of a shift (apart from the fact that it is a departure from the basic meaning). To achieve the latter goal it should be complemented by constraints capturing effects of a competition between the forms (which can be achieved, for example, through the use
reinterpretation of infelicitous combinations in the nominal domain have been discussed by Daniel [2003], who notes in particular that plural forms of a noun with a unique referent (e.g. kin terms or proper nouns), if available at all, are often reinterpreted as associative plurals (e.g., in Turkic languages).
of bidirectional Optimality Theory). Yet, it seems that ultimately the two approaches need to be integrated at a later stage, and that the notion of semantic compatibility and preferred interpretation will play an important role in this integrated approach to semantic interaction14.
Abbreviations
acc — accusative; ah — addressee honorific; aor — aorist; asp — aspect; conv — converb; dc — declarative (mood); def — deferential; excl — exclusive; imfv — imperfective; imp — imperative; ind — indicative; int — interrogative; ipfv — imperfective; npret — non-preterite; o — object; part — partitive; past — past; pfv — perfective; pl — plural; pln — plain (style); pr(e)s — present; prop — propositive (mood); pst — past; ptcl — particle; ref — reflexive; refl — reflexive; req — requestive; retr — retrospective (mood); sg — singular; sh — subject honorific.
References
Aikhenvald 1998 — A. Y. Aikhenvald., R. M. W. Dixon. Dependencies between
grammatical systems // Language 74, 1998. P. 56-80. Aikhenvald 2010 — A. Y. Aikhenvald. Imperatives and commands. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010. Apresjan 2004 — Ju. Apresjan. Principy organizacii centra i periferii v leksike i grammatike (Principles of organization of center and periphery in grammar and lexicon) // A. P. Volodin (ed.). Tipologiceskoe obosnovanie v grammatike (Typological Explanation in Grammar). Moscow: Znak, 2004. P. 20-36.
Bache 1995 — C. Bache. The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action: Towards a Theory of the Semantics of Grammatical Categories. Frankfurt: Lang, 1995.
Bir'ulin, Xrakovskij 1992 — L. A. Bir'ulin, V. S. Xrakovskij. Povelitel'nye pred-lozenija: problemy teorii (Imperative constructions: theoretical frame-
14 Still another possibility, still to be explored for the domain of aspectual interaction, is an underspecification approach coupled with rules of pragmatic enrichment [Blutner 2002: 52-56]. In his recent book, Croft [2012: 18-26] also contrasts the polysemy approach to aspectual construal to the "derivational" approach (the coercion analysis), and the vagueness approach (underspe-cification). He argues for a usage-based approach, which seems to be a compromise between the derivational and vagueness approaches insofar as it makes a distinction between default and non-default (coerced) aspectual construals of a verbal predicate, when supported by the skewing in frequency distributions.
work) // V. S. Xrakovskij (ed.). Tipologija imperativnyx konstrukcij (Typology of Imperative Constructions). St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1992. P. 5-50.
Blutner 2002 — R. Blutner. Lexical semantics and pragmatics // Linguistische Berichte 10, 2002. P. 27-59.
Bondarko 1971 — A. V. Bondarko. Vid i vremja russkogo glagola (Tense and Aspect of the Russian Verb). Leningrad: Nauka, 1971.
Bondarko 1996 — A. V. Bondarko. Problemy grammaticeskoj semantiki i rus-skoj aspektologii (Issues in Grammatical Semantics and Russian As-pectology). St. Petersburg: St-Petersburg University publishing House, 1996.
Borg, Azzopardi-Alexander 1997 — A. Borg, A. J. Azzopardi-Alexander. Maltese. London: Routledge, 1997.
Breu 1994 — W. Breu. Interactions between lexical, temporal and aspectual meanings // Studies in Language 18, 1, 1994. P. 23-44.
Breu 2000 — W. Breu (ed.). Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik und Aspekt. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000.
Bybee et al. 1994 — J. Bybee, R. Perkins, W. Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago — London: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Chung, Timberlake 1985 — S. Chung, A. Timberlake. Tense, aspect and mood // T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. P. 202-207.
Comrie 1976 — B. Comrie. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Croft 1990 — W. Croft. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Croft 2003 — W. Croft. Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Croft 2012 — W. Croft. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Dahl 1985 — Ö. Dahl. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Daniel 2003 — M. A. Daniel. Dva primera vzaimodejstvija grammaticeskix znacenij vnutri slovoform (Two cases of categorory interaction within a wordform) // V. S. Xrakovskij. (ed.). Grammaticeskie kategorii, ierar-xii, svjazi, vzaimodejstvie. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003. P. 52-56.
de Swart 1998 — H. de Swart. Aspect shift and coercion // Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 1998. P. 347-385.
Eckardt 2002 — R. Eckardt. Event semantics // Linguistische Berichte 10, 2002. P. 91-129.
Givon 1972 — T. Givon. Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar // Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 3, 1972. P. 1-247.
Goldberg 1995 — A. E. Goldberg. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Greenberg 1966 — J. Greenberg. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.
Gusev 2005 — V. Ju. Gusev. Tipologija specializirovannyx glagol'nyx form imperativa (Typology of Specialized Verbal Imperative Forms). PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Moscow University, 2005.
de Haan 1997 — F. de Haan. The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological Study. New York: Garland, 1997.
Haspelmath 2006 — M. Haspelmath. Against markedness (and what to replace it with) // Journal of Linguistics 42, 1, 2006. P. 25-70.
Hinrichs 1986 — E. Hinrichs. Temporal anaphora in discourses of English // Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 1986. P. 62-82.
Jakobson 1957 — R. Jakobson. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb // R. Jakobson. Selected Writings. Vol. 2. Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 1957. P. 130-147.
Johanson 2000 — L. Johanson. Viewpoint operators in European languages // Ö. Dahl (ed.). Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton, 2000. P. 27-187.
Klein 1994 — W. Klein. Time in Language. London: Routledge, 1994.
Knjazev 1998 — Ju. P. Knjazev. Parametry dlja tipologii vida i russkij vid (Parameters for the typology of aspectual systems and Russian aspect) // Certkova, M. Ju. (ed.). Tipologija vida (Typology of Aspect). Moscow: Studia Philologica, 1998. P. 193-207.
Kuz'mina, Nemcenko 1982 — I. B. Kuz'mina, E. V. Nemcenko. Istorija pricas-tij (History of participial forms) // R. I. Avanesov, V. V. Ivanov (eds.). Istoriceskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Morfologija. Glagol (Historical Grammar of Russian. Verbal Morphology). Moscow: Nauka, 1982. P. 280-411.
Lehmann 1982 — Ch. Lehmann. Universal and typological aspects of agreement // H. Seiler, F. J. Stochowiak (eds.). Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Teil II. Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen. Tübingen: Narr, 1982. P. 201-267.
Malchukov 1995 — A. L. Malchukov. Even. München: Lincom, 1995.
Malchukov 2001 — A. Malchukov. Imperative constructions in Even // V. S. Xra-kovskij (ed.). Typology of Imperative Constructions [Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 9]. München: Lincom Europa, 2001. P. 159-180.
Malchukov 2009 — A. Malchukov. Incompatible categories: Resolving the "present perfective paradox" // L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, A. Malchukov
(eds.). Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. P. 13-33.
Malchukov 2011 — A. Malchukov. Interaction of verbal categories: Resolution of infelicitous grammeme combinations // Linguistics 49, 1, 2011. P. 229-282.
Maslov 1984 — Ju. S. Maslov. Ocerki po aspektologii (Studies in Aspectolo-gy). Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo LGU, 1984.
Mel'cuk 1998 — I. A. Mel'cuk. Kurs obscej morfologii (A Course in General Morphology). Vol. 2. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury, 1998.
Michaelis 2004 — L. A. Michaelis. Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 2004. 1-67.
Moravcsik 2010 — E. Moravcsik. Conflict resolution in syntactic theory // Studies in Language 34, 3, 2010. P. 636-669.
Nedjalkov 1988 — V. P. Nedjalkov. (ed.). Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988.
Noonan 1992 — M. Noonan. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
Paduceva 1996 — E. V. Paduceva. Semanticeskie issledovanija (Semantic Research). Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury, 1996.
Plank 1997 — F. Plank, W. Schellinger. The uneven distribution of genders over numbers: Greenberg Nos. 37 and 45 // Linguistic Typology 1, 1997. P. 53-101.
Poupynin 1999 — Ju. A. Poupynin. Interaction Between Aspect and Voice in Russian. Munich: Lincom, 1999.
Rice 2000 — K. Rice. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Smith 1991 — C. Smith. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.
Smith 1997 — C. Smith. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1997.
Sohn 1994 — H. Sohn. Korean. London: Routledge, 1994.
Sulkala, Karjalainen 1992 — H. Sulkala, M. Karjalainen. Finnish. London: Routledge, 1992.
Svedova 1970 — N. Ju. Svedova. (ed.). Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (Grammar of Modern Russian). Moscow: Nauka, 1970.
Tatevosov 2002 — S. Tatevosov. The parameter of actionality // Linguistic Typology 6, 2002. P. 317-401.
Tatevosov 2005 — S. G. Tatevosov. Akcional'nostj: tipologija i teorija (Ac-tionality: theory and typology) // Voprosy jazykoznanija 10, 2005. P. 108-141.
van der Auwera et al. 2004 — J. van der Auwera, N. Dobrushina, V. Goussev. A semantic map for Imperatives-Hortatives // D. Willems et al. (eds.).
Contrastive Analysis in Language: Identifying Linguistic Units in Comparison. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. P. 44-69.
van der Auwera et al. 2009 — J. van der Auwera, A. Malchukov, E. Schalley. Thoughts on (im)perfective imperatives // J. Helmbrecht et al. (eds.). Form and Function in Language Research. Festschrift for Christian Lehmann. Berlin: Mouton, 2009. P. 93-107.
van Driem 1987 — G. van Driem. Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1987.
Volodin 1976 — A. P. Volodin. Itel'menskij jazyk (Grammar of Itelmen). Leningrad: Nauka, 1976.
Xrakovskij 1990 — V. S. Xrakovskij. Vzaimodejstvie grammaticeskix katego-rij glagola: opyt analiza (An analysis of interaction of verbal categories) // Voprosy jazykoznanija 5, 1990. P. 18-36.
Xrakovskij 1996 — V. S. Xrakovskij. Grammaticeskie kategorii glagola: opyt teorii vzaimodejstvija (Grammatical categories of the verb: towards a theory of category interaction) // A. V. Bondarko. (ed.). Mezkategori-al'nye svjazi v grammatike. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1996. P. 22-43.
Xrakovskij 2003 — V. S. Xrakovskij. Grammaticeskie kategorii glagola: svjazi i vzaimodejstvie (Verbal categories: Hierarchies and interaction) // V. S. Xrakovskij (ed.). Grammaticeskie kategorii, ierarxii, svjazi, vzaimodejstvie. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003. P. 156-165.
Xrakovskij (ed.) 1992 — V. S. Xrakovskij (ed.). Tipologija imperativnyx kon-strukcij (Typology of imperative constructions). St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1992.
Xrakovskij (ed.) 2003 — V. S. Xrakovskij (ed.). Grammaticeskie kategorii, ierarxii, svjazi, vzaimodejstvie. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2003.
Xrakovskij et al. 2008 — V. S. Xrakovskij, A. L. Malchukov, S. Ju. Dmitrenko. Grammatika akcional'nyx klassov (The grammar of actional classes) // A. V. Bondarko (ed.). Problemy funkcional'noj grammatiki. Kategori-zacija semantiki. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2008.
