Na postojanje prijepora u svezi s terminom „aspektni par“ upućuju čak i sami aspektolozi u svojim radovima (v. npr. Janda 2007a; 2007b; 2008; Zaliznjak i dr. 2010; Gorbova 2011). U kroatističkoj se tradiciji njegova kontroverznost možda ponajbolje uočava na dvama mjestima upravo u samim opisima aspektnih parova. S jedne strane, ističe se nužnost identičnosti leksičkoga sadržaja glagolā u opreci da bi ih se moglo smatrati aspektnim parom. S druge pak strane, utvrđivanje te identičnosti provodi se na temelju izraza, odnosno tvorbe riječi pa se sadržaj glagola tvorenih sufiksacijom (uz poneke iznimke) smatra identičnim, dok se za prefiksaciju tvrdi da uvijek unosi nove nijanse značenja (usp. Silić 1978: 46–49). U ovome se radu kritičkom raščlambom navoda iz literature pokušavaju potvrditi prethodno spomenuta problematična mjesta. Pritom se posebna pozornost posvećuje usporednome prikazu značenja onih glagolskih parova koje se u literaturi obično smatra prototipnima i onih kojima se u pojedinim radovima odriče takav status. Nasljedujući postavke nekih aspektologa koji se bave ruskim jezikom, u ovome se radu nastoji pokazati kako morfologija nije dovoljno uporište semantičkome istraživanju identičnosti sadržaja (usp. Maslov 1948: 305) te se razmatra uzimanje u obzir i drugih kriterija, kao što su primjerice akcionalna obilježja glagola (leksički aspekt), komplementarne rečenične i tekstne aspektne funkcije (v. npr. Lehmann 2009a). Osim toga, nastoji se osvijestiti činjenica da glagoli prema svojim akcionalnim obilježjima pripadaju različitim tipovima (leksički aspekt) te da ne mogu svi ostvarivati istu vrstu opreke (v. npr. Breu 1980; 1985; 1994; Janda 2007a; 2007b; 2008; Lehmann 1981; 1984; 1988; 2009a). Dakle, ovim se radom s pomoću usporedbe određenih komplementarnih aspektnih rečeničnih i tekstnih funkcija pokušava pokazati kakve posljedice na aspekt kao gramatičku kategoriju ima morfološki pristup aspektnim parovima koji još uvijek prevladava u kroatistici.

Abstract:In the paper, we discuss the phenomenon of clitic climbing out of finite da 2 -complements in contemporary Serbian. Scholars' opinions on the acceptability and occurrence of this construction, based on a handful of self-made examples, vary considerably. Expanding on the assumption that the correctness of the phenomenon has often been denied due to its rareness we employ large corpora to examine the problem. We focus on possible constraints arising from the syntactic properties of clause-embedding predicates.

In the paper, we discuss the phenomenon of clitic climbing (CC) out of infinitive complements in contemporary Croatian. Based on the first theoretical work and some empirical findings on CC in Czech and Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (BCS) and the observation that differences in CC linked to register have been reported for some languages, we elaborate on the claim that CC varies in respect of both register and the Raising-Control Dichotomy. The following research questions are addressed: Does clitic climbing out of the single infinitive in Croatian depend on the type of complement-taking predicate (CTP) with respect to the Raising-Control Distinction? Does CC appear with equal frequency in standard and colloquial Croatian if the type of CTP verb (Raising vs Control) as a variable remains constant? Our study is based on data for two types of complement-taking predicates: a) Raising (8 different verbs) and b) Subject Control (8 non-reflexive + 8 reflexive verbs). The data was extracted from the Forum subcorpus of hrWaC v2.2 and from the Croatian Language Repository and Croatian National Corpus. Our data suggest that not only the Raising-Control Dichotomy, but also diaphasic variation have an impact on CC from infinitive complements.

One of the distinctive features of Slavic verbs is their aspectual morphology: typically each finite and non-finite form of a verb has a constant aspectual value: either perfective (PFV) or imperfective (IPFV). Nevertheless, in all Slavic languages, besides these prototypical verbs with only one assigned aspectual value, there are also verbs with underspecified aspectual value, usually called biaspectual verbs (BVs).As argued in the literature, on the sentence level such verbs have the potential to express both aspectual values, PFV and IPFV, without any further aspectual affixation. However, some scholars assert that the intended aspectual value of such verbs can rarely be unambiguously signaled. To resolve the ambiguous aspectual value, native speakers often provide additional context signals or derive a new aspectually defined verb to indicate the intended aspectual value. The latter possibility has been addressed in numerous papers, but mainly with the goal of detecting the (most common) prefixes used in this process.This study aimed to examine the patterns behind BV prefixation in Croatian. In order to detect factors with a statistically significant impact on prefixation of BVs in Croatian, a random stratified sample of 237 Croatian BVs (BVs of Slavic origin and biaspectual borrowings) was compiled. The data regarding the existence of perfective derivatives were extracted from three different corpora of contemporary Croatian and one subcorpus: the Croatian National Corpus, the Croatian Language Repository, and the Croatian Web Corpus and its subcorpus Forum, and afterwards analyzed using R software with the help of the lme4 package.The results obtained with the generalized linear mixed model revealed five factors statistically significant for prefixation of BVs in Croatian, which can be attributed to the lexical (semantical), morphological and sociolinguistic domains.