Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Workshop 1 – Abr 143
(1a) Nel’zja otkryvat’ okno. Na ulice xolodno ved’!
neg.modaux open:ipf.inf window.acc
,It is not allowed to open the window. ’ For it is cold outside. → deontic
(1b) Nel’zja otkryt’ okno. Ručka slomana.
neg.modaux open:pf.inf window.acc
,It is impossible to open the window, because the handle is broken.’ → alethic
The meaning of nel’zja ,cannot, must not’ is underdetermined, the proper modal meaning is
an outcome of this modal together with the aspect of the verb (infinitive).
Second, deonticity is associated with control by an agent. This can be seen from the fact that
negated imperatives, as a rule, require an ipf. verb (2). In this context, pf. verbs occur only as
a kind of “preventives” to warn the addressee about some undesirable consequences out of his
control (3), i.e. of events that might occur given such and such circumstances (® alethic or
epistemic):
(2) Ne govori emu ob ėtom!
neg speak:ipf.imp.sg him.dat about that.prep
,Don’t tell him about that!’ → deontic
(3) Smotri, ne progovoris’ (slučajno)!
look:ipf.imp.sg neg blurt_out:pf.imp.sg accidentally
,Be careful, don’t blurt it out (by accident)!’ → alethic, epistemic
Without negation, the choice of aspect in an imperative is governed not by modal distinctions,
but rather by the speaker’s assumption whether the addressee shares with him the
presupposition that the denoted event (action) is about to occur, or not. The same holds for
aspect choice in the scope of non-negated modals.
Third, as concerns the role of (non-)finiteness, it is true that the infinitive in East Slavic (not
in other Slavic languages) can often be used as an equivalent of the imperative, i.e. with a
deontic function. Aspect as such however is rather irrelevant, and pf. verbs are usually used in
non-negated independent infinitive clauses with a directive illocution; for instance: Emu
javit’sjapf v kommendanturu! ,He is to appear at the commandant’s office!’, Zakončit‘pfėto
bezobrazie! ,Stop with these foolish things!’.
Fourth, Russian independent negated infinitive clauses in general have an epistemic or
participant-internal meaning (for this term cf. van der Auwera/Plungian 1998); for instance:
(4a) Emu ne spravit’sja s takim zadaniem.
him.dat neg cope_with with such.ins task.ins
,He is not be able to cope with such a task.’
Such clauses are synonymous with finite clauses of the same respective pf. verbs:
(4b) On ne spravitsja s takim zadaniem.
he.nom neg cope_with with such.ins task.ins
,He will not get ready with such a task.’ (@ ,He is not able to cope with …’)
Non-negated clauses with the present-stem of pf. verbs also have a participant-internal and
“omnipresent” meaning, for instance:
(5) Ona razrešit ljuboj konflikt.
she.nom solve:pf.prs.3.sg any.accn.m.sg conflict.acc.m.sg
,She solves (will solve) any conflict.’(@ ,…is able to solve …’)