The
Function of Polish Partitive Genitive in Aspectual Composition
|
|
Bożena Rozwadowska (Wrocław) and Ewa Willim (Cracow) |
The question of what determines the aspectual value of
a sentence has received considerable attention in current research in
aspectology. It is generally recognized (Verkuyl 1999, Filip 1999, Kiparsky
1998, Krifka 1989, among others) that while the bounded/unbounded
(terminative/durative, quantized/cumulative) distinction is determined
compositionally, languages differ with respect to the means of encoding it. For
example, in English the primary expression of aspect is verb-centered and
syntactic, whereas in Finnish it is noun-centered and morphological. Slavic
languages are taken to mark aspect morphologically on the verb (Filip 1999).
Case distinctions, in particular Acc vs. Part/Gen, are also relevant
cross-linguistically in this respect. In this paper we will explore the role of
the Polish so-called Partitive Genitive (PG) in aspectual composition. With respect
to its semantics and syntactic distribution the Polish PG resembles the
well-studied Finnish Partitive Case (PC). We will demonstrate that there are
some interesting differences between the Polish PG and Finnish PC relevant to
aspect. In contrast to Finnish, where PC licenses unboundedness at the VP-level
and accusative induces completed (bounded) VP-predicate, in Polish PG is
compatible only with a restricted class of perfective verbs, while accusative
can appear both with perfective and imperfective verbs:
(1)
a. Marysia
napiekła ciastekgen . (‘Mary baked a lot of cookies.’)
b.
Zosia ugotowała barszczugen. (‘Sophie cooked
some borsch.’)
c.
*Zosia napisała listugen. (‘Sophie wrote lettergen.’)
(2)
a. Marysia
upiekła ciastkaacc. (‘Mary baked cookies.’)
b.
Marysia piekła ciastkaacc/*ciastekgen (‘Mary was baking
cookies.’)
If perfectivity implies boundedness, as is commonly
assumed, the restriction on the distribution of PG in Polish would mean that
Polish PG is inherently bounded. We will try to link this property to the
inherently indeterminately quantified character of PG-marked NPs and suggest
that the Polish PG is intrinsically associated with quantification (see also
Franks 1995). This would explain why certain predicates with weak
quantificational force (such as verbs with the accumulative prefix na-
or its converse, the prefix u-) not only allow but require their
complements to be in PG. Compare (1a) with (3) below:
(3) *Marysia napiekła ciastkaacc.
We will also demonstrate that perfective PG structures
(as in 1a) differ from perfective accusative structures (as in 2a) with respect
to standard telicity tests, which poses new questions bearing on the
relationships between (in)definiteness,
quantization (telicity) and quantification.
Selected References:
Filip, H. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and
Nominal Reference. New York: Garland Publishing.
Franks, S. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kiparsky, P. 1998. ‘Partitive Case and Aspect.’ in: M.
Butt & W. Geuder (eds.) The Projection of Arguments, 265-307.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Krifka, M. 1989. ‘Nominal Reference, Temporal
Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics.’ in: R. Bartsch, J. van
Benthem, and P.van Emde Boas (eds.) Semantics and Contextual Expression,
Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, Vol. 11, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris
Publications
Paducheva, E. 1998. ‘On Non-Compatibility of Partitive
and Imperfective in Russian.’ Theoretical Linguistics 24: 73-82.
Verkuyl, H. 1999. Aspectual Issues. Studies on Time
and Quantity. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.