No abstract

Avtor zagovarja stalibte, da je v zahodnih skupini slovanskih jezikov (tebtina, slovabtina, luiibtina, slovenbtina) sovpad odrazov * s~-in *j1,z-v eno predpono povzrotil (delno) gramatikalizacijo nastale predpone s-Iz kot osnovni preverbe vide v sistemu glagolskega vida. V drugih slovanskih jezikih do te gramatikalizacije ni priglo (hrvabtina, srbbtina) ali pa je bila predpona po-gramatikalizirana kot edini prkverbe vide (rubtina, bolgarbtina, makedonbtina, ukrajinbtina, belorubtina). V enem slovanskem jeziku (poljgtina) izkazujeta predponi s-Iz-in po-skoraj enako produktivnost.It is argued that the phonetic coalescence of *s-6 and * j b z into a single prefix resulted in the (partial) grammaticalization of innovative s-Iz-as the primary prkverbe vide of the aspectual systems in a group of western languages (Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Slovene). The other Slavic languages either did not grammaticalize a single prefix (CroatianISerbian) or have grammaticalized p o as their sole or primary prkverbe vide (Russian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Ukrainian, Belarusian); one Slavic language has near equal productivity of s-Iz-and po-(Polish).

This article presents a comparative analysis of three interrelated phenomena: the use of imperfective verbs in sequences of events in Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Slovene, and BCS; the use of po- delimitatives in sequences of events in East Slavic, Polish, and Bulgarian; the semantic nature of the prefix po- in the individual Slavic languages. The use of imperfective verbs in sequences of events in the western languages and the use of po- delimitatives in the eastern languages are two alternative ways of aspectually coding atelic predicates in narratives. The article makes two main arguments in this connection. The first is that the use of imperfective verbs in sequences of events in the western languages has been retained (and perhaps strengthened) due to German language contact, whereas the use of po- delimitatives for such atelic predicates represents an innovation in those languages that did not undergo significant amounts of such German language contact. The second is that the lack of the development of po- into an important perfectivizing prefix in the western languages is likewise due in part to German language contact, as po- was at various times used to calque German be- in its surface-contact and transitive meanings as well as ver- in its meaning of change of state; such calques contributed to the stabilization of po- as a lexical prefix in the western languages. The retarding effect of German language contact on the western languages whereby imperfective verbs remained acceptable in sequences of events, and po- did not become a major perfectivizing prefix, is analyzed as the result of a process of "replica preservation," as opposed to the more commonly discussed process of "replica change" described by Heine and Kuteva (2005).

This article presents the cluster model and the allomorphy hypothesis which it entails in section 1, followed by a summary of relevant previous scholarship on -nu--Nu-and s-semelfactives in Russian 3 and s-semelfactives in section 2. Section 3 tests the allomorphy hypothesis against

What do Slavic aspectual prefixes have in common with numeral classifiers? Our 6 answer is that the parallels are compelling, both in terms of breadth and depth. The 7 grammatical function of numeral classifiers is to form and classify units for the 8 referents of nouns, and we argue that Slavic aspectual prefixes have the function of 9 forming and classifying units for the referents of verbs. Numeral classifiers contribute 10 a meaning of discreteness to objects, whereas Slavic aspectual prefixes do the same 11 for events. Just as there are various types of numeral classifiers, there are also various 12 types of Slavic aspectual prefixes. We find that the patterns identified for numeral 13 classifiers are consistently matched by the grammatical behavior of the various types 14 of aspectual prefixes throughout the Slavic linguistic territory. We furthermore anchor 15 this comparison in a variety of ways, taking into account distributional and semantic 16 evidence, and the effects of construal, foregrounding, definiteness, and 17 transnumerality. In the places where this comparison breaks down, the causes are 18 inherent differences between the domain of nouns and the domain of verbs. We 19 suggest that Slavic aspectual prefixes and numeral classifiers should be considered to 20 be verbal and nominal instantiations of a general category of lexico-grammatical 21 unitizers. 22 23