Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Section G: Verbal Categories (aspect and sundry distinctions) 81
Aspect, modality, and closely-related categories:
the case of Russian
Shmelev, Alexei / Zalizniak, Anna
Moscow Pedagogical State University / Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
shme.lev@ru.net;anna-zalizniak@mtu-net.ru
It is sometimes claimed that deontic modality is linked to perfective aspect. The Russian
evidence does not seem to support this claim. On the contrary, the general rule of expressing
modal or near-modal meanings by Russian aspect is as follows: the standard modal
interpretation for a perfective verb is alethic while the standard modal interpretation for an
imperfective verb is deontic. Consider two sentences: Zdes’ mozhno perejti (perf.) ulicu vs.
Zdes’ mozhno perexodit’ (imperf.) ulicu. The first sentence expresses a general idea of
possibility (‘One can cross the street here’); the second one implies that crossing the street
here would not violate the traffic regulations.
The above tendencies are even more clear under negation. For example, K oknu ne podojti
(perf.) means that there is no access to the window (it is impossible or extremely difficult to
come close to it) while K oknu ne podxodit’ (imperf.) would express prohibition to come close
to the window. The sentence Zdes’ nel’zja oshibit’sja (perf.)means: ‘one would never make a
mistake here’ (the most natural reading, with the stress on nel’zja ‘not possible’); the sentence
Zdes’ nel’zja oshibat’sja (imperf.) would have stress on the verb and would mean: ‘one
should be attentive in order to avoid possible mistakes’.
The above regularities are no more than tendencies. Both perfective and imperfective aspect
may have alethic and deontic as well as epistemic readings in certain conditions.
The opposition between alethic and deontic modality is closely related to the feature of
controllability. Thus, the imperfective verb in modal constructions under negation is liable to
be employed in case of controlled actions (expressing prohibition, that is deontic modality),
while the perfective verb may be used in such constructions if reference is made to an event
that is beyond the subject’s control (meaning impossibility, that is, alethic modality).
Consider the following sentences: Nel’zja budit’ (imperf.) otca ‘You ought not to wake
father’ (deontic reading) vs.Nel’zja razbudit’ (perf.) otca ‘It is impossible to wake father’
(alethic reading).
The opposition between controllability and uncontrollability may overshadow modal
distinctions (cf. [Bulygina, Shmelev 1999]). Consider the following sentences: Ne budite
(imperf.) otca ‘Don’t wake father’ vs. Ne razbudite (perf.) otca ‘Be careful not to wake
father’. The former can be stated as a warning not to perform the controllable intentional
action (deontic reading) while the latter would be understood as a caution against
uncontrollable unintentional accidence. The above point may also be illustrated by the
contrast between the following utterances: Ja bojus’ budit’ (imperf.) otca ‘I am afraid to wake
my father up’ (controllable action) vs. Ja bojus’ razbudit’ (perf.) otca ‘I am afraid of waking
my father up’ (uncontrollable action).
References
Bulygina, Tatiana V., and Alexei D. Shmelev. 1999. On the semantics of some Russian
causative constructions: aspect, control, and types of causation. In: Tense-aspect,
transitivity and causativity: essays in honor of Vladimir Nedjalkov, ed. by Werner
Abraham, Leonid Kulikov. John Benjamins Publishing Co