Russian Aspects -- be my guest!
Benjamin Sher
sher07 at bellsouth.net
Sun May 11 16:12:15 UTC 1997
--=====================_863287726==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Emily:
Thank you so much for your interest.
Benjamin
At 12:07 PM 5/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Are you sending your report out by snail mail? I am interested: Emily
>Tall, Dept. of Modern Languages and Literatures, 910 Clemens, SuNY,
>Buffalo, N.Y. 14260. Thanks!
>
--=====================_863287726==_
Content-Type: application/rtf; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ASPECT.RTF"
{\rtf1\ansi \deff6\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f5\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2
Arial;}{\f6\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 MS
Serif;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue2
55;\red0\green255\blue0;
\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green
255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\r
ed128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green1
28\blue128;
\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\shad\f6\fs20\lang1024 \snext0
Normal;}{\s4\li360 \shad\f6\ul\lang1024 \sbasedon0\snext76 heading
4;}{\s5\li720 \b\shad\f6\fs20\lang1024 \sbasedon0\snext76 heading 5;}{\s6\li720
\shad\f6\fs20\ul\lang1024
\sbasedon0\snext76 heading 6;}{\s7\li720 \i\shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
\sbasedon0\snext76 heading 7;}{\s8\li720 \i\shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
\sbasedon0\snext76 heading 8;}{\s9\li720 \i\shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
\sbasedon0\snext76 heading 9;}{\*\cs10 \additive
Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640 \shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
\sbasedon0\snext15 footer;}{\s16\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640 \shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
\sbasedon0\snext16 header;}{\*\cs17 \additive\fs16\up6 \sbasedon10 footnote
reference;}{\s18
\shad\f6\fs20\lang1024 \sbasedon0\snext18 footnote text;}{\*\cs19
\additive\sbasedon10 page number;}}{\info{\operator Benjamin
Sher}{\revtim\yr1997\mo5\dy7\hr7\min30}{\printim\yr1997\mo5\dy7\hr7\min28}{\ver
sion20}{\edmins104}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords2671}
{\nofchars15225}{\vern49213}}\margl1872\margr1872
\deftab360\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz0\makebackup\noextrasprl\prcolbl\cvm
me\sprsspbf\brkfrm\swpbdr\hyphcaps0 \fet0\sectd \sbknone\linex0\endnhere
{\footer \pard\plain
\s15\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0 \shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs19 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs19 8}}}{\cs19
\par }\pard \s15\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640
\par }{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta
.}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta
.}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta
.}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5
\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta
)}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta
)}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta
)}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang
{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb
(}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc\sl360\slmult0 \shad\f6\fs20\lang1024
{\b\f5\fs22\ul AN ESSAY ON RUSSIAN ASPECTUAL DECISION-MAKING}{\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 [05-08-1997]}{\b\f5\fs22
\par by Benjamin Sher
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab In this brief theoretical and
practical essay, I would like to suggest a philosophical solution to the
elusive problem of the Russian aspects by considering the Russian language
from the standpoint of an artistic rather than a scientific model.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab A merely conversational approach, I'm
convinced, is woefully inadequate to our understanding of the aspects.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab No less inadequate, I believe, is a
scientific, especially, statistical methodology.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
To isolate the basic philosophical problem in question, I've chosen to ignore
other elements of Russian grammar such as morphology, semantics, syntax,
sub-aspects and quasi-aspects, verbs of motion, special negative constructions,
moods, tenses,
infinitives, prefixes, suffixes, roots, etc.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab I've also ignored analogous phenomena
in English, especially relative to the perfect tenses, where an "aspectual"
character can be discerned in certain situations, e.g. "I }{\f5\fs22\ul
have}{\f5\fs22
done" (P) vs. "I }{\f5\fs22\ul have been}{\f5\fs22 doing" (IMP).
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab While these factors obviously
influence aspectual usage, they cannot in themselves help us understand a
feature unique to the aspects alone.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab In her discussion of the aspects
(ASPECTUAL USAGE IN MODERN RUSSIAN, Moscow: Russkii Yazyk, 1984) Prof.
O. P. Rassudova considers the lexical/ semantic context in terms of the
speaker's aspectual choice. She demonstrates the subtle nature of that choice
by isolating, for instance, the following pairs of distinctions, where P stands
for the perfective and IM
P for the imperfective:
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab The concrete/factual P vs. the
concrete/processual IMP.
\par \tab The specific factual P vs. the general factual IMP.
\par \tab The sporadic repetitive P vs. the regularly repetitive IMP.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Prof. Rassudova points out
brilliantly, for example, the wond
erful (and maddeningly subtle) distinction in negative constructions, where the
concrete factual "Ya ne spel" (P -- "I didn't sing") is ever so close in its
meaning to the general fact "Ya ne pel" (IMP -- "I didn't sing"). It is
customary to consider thes
e negative sentences, like their affirmative counterparts, as occupying two
points on an aspectual continuum.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab I firmly disagree.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab No matter how seemingly
inconsequential the distinction between "Ya ne spel" and "Ya ne pel", no matter
how seemingly arbitrar
y its usage, never shall the twain meet. These two sentences, I submit, are no
closer to each other than two planets that appear to overlap during an eclipse.
That is so because these two sentences travel along fundamentally different
aspectual (as well a
s, of course, morphological) orbits.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Admittedly, this is a hypothesis or,
more precisely, a postulate and it is only as such that I present it.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Discounting for the moment the various
sub-aspects (such as "}{\f5\fs22\ul za}{\f5\fs22 khodit'" or "}{\f5\fs22\ul
po}{\f5\fs22 khodit'") as well as the separat
e aspectual business of verbs of motion) I'd postulate further that the two
major aspects are themselves based on two mythic and }{\f5\fs22\ul mutually
exclusive}{\f5\fs22 faculties of the mind.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Adopting a terminology well known from
the philosophy of Kant, I would call these faculties the }{\f5\fs22\ul
Empirical}{\f5\fs22 (Perfective) and the }{\f5\fs22\ul
Transcendental}{\f5\fs22 (Imperfective).
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab By positing such irreducible and
mutually exclusive faculties or operational fictions in our aspectual
decision-making, we can, I believe, bring out the relationship between the bew
ildering complexity of aspectual situations and the simple, intuitive act
operating in and through them.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab But how can simple intuition make what
is often an excruciatingly subtle choice under very complex conditions?
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab It is, I think, only natural to see
the aspects in terms of a P/IMP continuum, where the perfective }{\f5\fs22\ul
concrete/factual}{\f5\fs22 "demarcates" and "exhausts" (in Prof. Rassudova's
words) the imperfective }{
\f5\fs22\ul concrete processual}{\f5\fs22 . The latter is considered an
"unmarked," "weaker" version of the perfective.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab This, I submit, is a monumental and
fatal illusion.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab In my opinion, the concept of an
aspectual continuum is the single greatest }{\f5\fs22\ul obstacle}{\f5\fs22 to
a student's understanding of Russian aspectual usage.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
Another common misconception is that the aspects have something to do with
number, that is, with single or frequentative-iterative occurrence. This is
simply not the case, as the most cursory examination in any extended body of
Russian prose or poetry or
conversation will clearly and unequivocally show. Both aspects have a
frequentative. Both aspects are used as both single and multiple occurences.
The real distinction of the aspects lies decidedly elsewhere.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab What exactly is this distinction of
empirical and transcendental, this dialectical "incompatibility."
\par \tab By "}{\f5\fs22\ul empirical}{\f5\fs22 " (perfective) I mean a fictive,
cognitive faculty which allows us to perceive a world of delimited phenomena.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab In actual practice this faculty allows
us to organize our }{\f5\fs22\ul external and}{\f5\fs22 }{\f5\fs22\ul
inner}{\f5\fs22 world of percepts. This includes time as external perception.
That is, I believe, why the perfective covers both concrete (external and
internal) as well as abstract actions ("sdelat'","pochuvstvovat'", "podumat'").
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab By "}{\f5\fs22\ul
transcendental}{\f5\fs22 " I mean a fictive, logical-intuitive faculty which
allows us to perceive or construct }{\f5\fs22\ul absolutely nothing at
all}{\f5\fs22
. That is, this faculty can never be perceived (inwardly or outwardly) or known
as such. lt can only be }{\f5\fs22\ul assumed a priori}{\f5\fs22 .
\par \tab This "nothingness" applies to both concrete (inner and external) as
well as abstract actions ("delat'", "chuvstvovat'", and "dumat'"). This
includes time as a logical-intuitive assumption.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab The imperfective does not exist in the
"knowable" world at all. Rather, to use Prof. Rassudova's own word, it
"dissociates" from the past, etc. I would add, further, that this
transcendental faculty dissociates not }{
\f5\fs22\ul within}{\f5\fs22 the sphere of the concrete (whether past, present
or future) but }{\f5\fs22\ul from it}{\f5\fs22 . The IMP just }{\f5\fs22\ul
is}{\f5\fs22
. Or rather it subsists as a logical-intuitive faculty serving as a noumenal
ground for }{\f5\fs22\ul un}{\f5\fs22 -delimited, }{\f5\fs22\ul
un-bounded}{\f5\fs22
empirical perception (such as of inner or external movement or process or of
unperceivable states of being or of pure time or of pure, abstract habitual
action or, perhaps toughest of all, of pure, }{\f5\fs22\ul single}{\f5\fs22
action -- e.g. the infamous general fact "On delal," ("He did" -- once and only
once and not as process but as pure state). As for pure time, I have in mind a
seamless, temporal continuity ("Ya [ne] pel" -"I was [not] singing"). We can
never "know" conti
nuity or action in itself or the Imperfective verbs in which such continuity is
grounded. We can only assume it.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab What we can and do know are the
delimited, segmented, unitary empirical perceptions (known as "ideas" by Locke,
Hume and the 18th century Empiricists) which the transcendental IMP has been
"dissociated from." Only by
}{\f5\fs22\ul assuming}{\f5\fs22 continuity do we have a world of action at
all. The general fact, progressive and regular frequentative action of IMP
verbs are }{\f5\fs22\ul not}{\f5\fs22
, at bottom, perceptual. They are noumenal. And they must be apprehended by the
speaker's aspectual mind, }{\f5\fs22\ul not}{\f5\fs22 by his senses.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Thus, while the fictive empirical
gives us the illusion of inner and outer space (including perceived time), the
fictive transcendental gives us the illusion of continuous, unbounded space
(including pure time).
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
That is, both aspects involve time: the PF gives us empirical time (both inner
and external, concrete and abstract), that is, time perceived, time familiar to
us as temporal change, while the IMP gives us noumenal, pure time, time
presupposed, time as pu
re, unchanged state.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab It is binary exclusivity, I believe,
that makes possible the instantaneous intuitive calculations by the Russian
native.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
The same intuitive faculty is at work in the definite/indefinite article
decision-making in English, where the actual choice always consists not of two
but three options: the definite "the," the indefinite "a(an)" and nothing at
all, as in "}{\f5\fs22\ul
American}{\f5\fs22 literature has made great strides, etc. where the speaker
has chosen the zero option, i.e. instead of "An American literature... " or
"The American literature...."
\par \tab The many uses of the IMP are thus not so much "concrete" experiences
(of whatever kind) as }{\f5\fs22\ul pure}{\f5\fs22
a priori, intuitive feelings. This is so regardless whether we consider
affirmative or negative, "concrete" or "abstract" sentences, all of which
presuppose this fundamental distinction. They are pure feelings dissociated in
principle from all concretene
ss as such.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab The rich variety of aspectual
situations is held together theoretically by the backbone of "incompatible"
binary aspects. Without this }{\f5\fs22\ul in}{\f5\fs22
compatibility no real distinctions would be possible. In short, aspectual
decision-making would flounder in hopeless subjectivity.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab A construction such as "Ya [ne] pel"
("I was [not] singing") represents absolutely }{\f5\fs22\ul nothing}{\f5\fs22
. And that's the whole point: It is the negation of all that is empirical (the
"I", the implicit "song" and the world of phenomena in general) that makes it
possible for the mind to "construct" or rather "assume" temporality and action
by grounding the pe
rcepts of the perfective in the transcendental category of the IMP.
\par \tab Calling the aspects }{\f5\fs22\ul perf}{\f5\fs22 ective and
}{\f5\fs22\ul im}{\f5\fs22 perfective tends to blur the fundamental
philosophical }{\f5\fs22\ul incompatiblity}{\f5\fs22
of the aspects, their exclusivity. It fosters the illusion that the aspects are
part of a continuum and, therefore, that aspectual choice is a subjective
affair. It isn't subjective -- whether considered from the standpoint of
student or native, though t
o the despairing student it may often appear so.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Of course, there is a sense in which
as
pectual usage is subjective, and this is the exception that proves the rule.
Every writer (or speaker) will shape the language in accordance with his
peculiar world-view and linguistic tendencies. In this respect, a writer may
"tilt" the language towards
either the IMP or the P or he/she might have a preference for certain of the
sub-aspects or certain of the verbs of motion quasi-aspects, etc. In this
respect, he does not/cannot violate the objective structure and edifice of
subtleties that is the Russia
n language any more than he can alter the basic structure of verbal conjugations
or noun declentions. In this respect, the writer expresses himself subjectively
but }{\f5\fs22\ul through}{\f5\fs22 , }{\f5\fs22\ul not in spite of}{\f5\fs22
, the linguistic structures. He operates }{\f5\fs22\ul through}{\f5\fs22 the
great labyrinth of the Russian language, not in defiance or ignorance of it.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab One of the most outrageous but
effective illustrations of this can be found in a little known prose poem by
the Russian emigree writer Pyotr Balakshin, who came to San Francisco from
Russia by w
ay of China after the Russian Revolution of 1917. In his "Spring Over Filmore
Street" (published by Sirius of San Francisco in 1951 under the same title)
there is the utterly astonishing, nearly ubiquitous use of the IMP, that is,
the Transcendental where
, I emphasize, the P, the Empirical, would be expected. The P does not even
appear once until the middle of page 2, and the P. in general is used very
sparingly. Naturally, I was taken aback, in fact, I was utterly dumbfounded by
this. I knew my aspects v
ery well, I thought, and now this.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
Yet, the more I looked at the text, the more I began to admire the writer's
stylistic "chutzpah." The point is that the soaring, light-weight,
dematerialized texture created by the Transcendental, the description of the
city as if seen from above by a fi
gure from a painting by Chagal floating through the sky is extremely effective.
After checking with a number of emigree friends, I was happy to discover that
my conjecture was right. They found it equally "outrageous." It was supposed to
be.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
I mention this episode because it represents an artistic extreme that
nevertheless remains within the objective system of the aspects. Balakshin
deviates from and artistically "distorts" the rules he inherited as a Russian
(as every original writer shoul
d) but he never breaks them, for to do so would amount to breaking his neck. He
stretches accepted usage but }{\f5\fs22\ul never}{\f5\fs22
acts arbitrarily. Every deviation from the expected P aspect is part of a whole
pattern of Romantic flight (quite literally) that is firmly rooted in the basic
noumenal, non-perceptual nature of the IMP.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
This revolutionary use of the Imperfective was already evident in Chekhov, where
the traditional narrative founded mainly (as a point of departure) on a
succession of perfective events (single or multiple P) gives way to the
spatio-temporal unbounded sta
tes of feeling and being (single or multiple IMP) so prevalent in Chekhov, as
for example, in Lady with a Dog. This is the subject of an extraordinary essay
by Professor Peter Alberg Jensen of the University of Stockholm entitled
\ldblquote
Narrative Description or Descriptive Narration: Problems of Aspectuality in
Chekhov\rdblquote in VERBAL ASPECT IN DISCOURSE, a magisterial collection of
essays on aspectual usage edited by Professor Nils. B.
Thelin (J. Benjamin Publishers, Amsterdam,1990).
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par
\par
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\b\f5\fs22\ul
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\b\f5\fs22\ul
\par Adjectival Aspects}{\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab As a matter of fact, this Trans/Emp
binary system also holds true, I submit, for the adjective, whose short and
long forms (as they are crudely and opaquelly called in most textbook
s) are simply variations on verbal aspects. Of course, one could consider both
verbal and adjectival aspects to be manifestations of the same source. (Due
allowance must be made here for modifications appropriate to a different part
of speech).
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab If this is so, then \ldblquote
glubokaya,\rdblquote the long form of the adjective, as in the predicative
\ldblquote reka glubokaya\rdblquote (\ldblquote the river is a deep
one\rdblquote
), or the attributive modifier \rdblquote glubokaya reka\rdblquote (\ldblquote
the deep river\rdblquote ) may be considered the adjectival analogue for the
perfective verb aspect (Empirical), while \ldblquote gluboka,\rdblquote as in
\ldblquote
reka gluboka\rdblquote (\ldblquote the river is deep\rdblquote ) may be
considered the adjectival analogue for the imperfective (Transcendental) verb
aspect.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab The predicate short form (\ldblquote
reka gluboka\rdblquote -- \ldblquote the river is deep\rdblquote
), is a concept of the pure imagination. It does not so much exist as subsist in
a logical, non-empirical reality all its own. Similarly, the predicate long
form (\ldblquote reka glubokaya\rdblquote -- the rive
r is a deep one) exists in an empirical domain unique to itself (that is, the
"real," perceivable world of the senses, both external and internal). The
attributive adjectival modifer \ldblquote glubokaya reka\rdblquote
(the deep river) is, of course, similarly empirical.[See discussion of verb
aspects above].
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab "Reka gluboka" [or, for that matter,
the negative \ldblquote reka ne gluboka\rdblquote
] is not, I believe, a description of the real world so much as a
logical/intuitive concept applied to what is, in principle, an indefinable
experience. Like the verbal "Ya pel" (or "Ya ne pel"), the predicative is a way
of symbolizing w
hat by nature can never be symbolized, that is, a pure, a priori act of
cognition. We "know" or assume we know what is essentially an unknowable
experience. To sum up, "reka glubokaya\rdblquote (or the modifier \ldblquote
glubokaya reka\rdblquote
) describes the river empirically, while "reka gluboka" posits an intuitive
experience of the river }{\f5\fs22\ul dissociated from all
concreteness}{\f5\fs22 .
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Here, too, there is no continuum! We
make our choice between two incompatible aspects, and this choice is only
possible precisely because they are mutually e
xclusive: phenomena vs. noumena, perception vs. nothing. Otherwise, as I've
already said, we'd flounder in a sea of hopeless indecision.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab The above holds true also for
participles, past and present, active and passive, IMP and P.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Gerunds and verbal nouns provide
another extension of the verbal/
\par adjectival system.
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\b\f5\fs22\ul Possession and Aspects}{\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab The Russian binary aspectual system
may even be discerned in the peculiar way the Russian language expresses
possession:\tab
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab "U menya na stole ptitsa lezhit" ("A
bird is
lying on my table" --Transcendental) vs. "Na stole mayom ptitsa lezhit" ("A bird
is lying on my table" -- Empirical) is an extension by analogy of the binary
system of the verbs and adjectives to the pronouns. As further examples, let me
point to "U menya
iz karmana . . . " (Transcendental) vs. "iz moego karmana . . . (Empirical) or
"U menya serdtse bolit" vs. "Moyo sertse bolit."
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab }{\b\f5\fs22\ul Why Aspects?
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\b\f5\fs22\ul
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Heidegger asked the famous question:
Why is there something instead of nothing? The student of the aspects often
feels like asking similarly: Why are there aspects rather than nothing?
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Naturally, any answer at this point
would be mere speculation. However, let me hazard a brief, hopefully
tantalizing theory.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab
Of the two verbal aspects, the P (the Emp) basically transforms pure actions and
states into nouns and substantive clusters (noun phrases and clauses, etc.).
The whole notion of a verbal action being delimited, defined and perceived
(i.e. with a beginnin
g and an end) is profoundly paradoxical (a kind of "verb-
noun", not to be confused with a verbal noun, i.e. a gerund). It is as if the
Russian language were driven in that direction by some elemental force, though,
statistically, the ratio is about 50-50. The IMP (Transc.) would seem to be the
undertow of this
process of substantive-formation, as if it were a relic of an earlier
pre-aspectual linguistic structure or else a philosophical residue that could
not be assimilated by the substantive process of the Empirical (for how could
the non-perceptual ever be as
si
milated into the perceptual?). Thus, one could say that of the two great
aspects, the Empirical is the "real" aspect insofar as it permits us to
perceive reality by delimiting it, but the Transcendental is the "true" aspect
because it alone gives us the
verb as a pure verbal state or action.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab I hope the reader is indulgent enough
to forgive the wild surmises in this last section. They are meant only as a
philosophical tease, and that is all they could ever be.
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \qc\sl360\slmult0 {\b\f5\fs22\ul
\par
\par Conclusion
\par }{\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab It is my firm conviction that
the Empirical Aspect (Perfective) represents "reality" (single or
frequentative/iterative sporadic mode) while the Transcendental Aspect
(Imperfective) stands for the intuitive imagination (the merely factual, the
progressive or abstract habitual frequen
tative mode).
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab If this is so, how explain this
phenomenon?
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22 \tab Perhaps, the Empirical and the
Transcendental both issue from some ultimate universal archetype that is the
source for both percepts and logical-intuitive concepts. If this is so, then
we, the bear
ers and users of language, may be instruments in the hands of a higher god who
calls His shots, aspectually speaking, through us.
\par }\pard \sl360\slmult0 {\f5\fs22
\par \tab \tab \tab
\par }\pard {\f5\fs22 Benjamin Sher
\par }\pard {\f5\fs22 Russian Literary Translator
\par sher07 at bellsouth.net
\par }\pard {\f5\fs22 (}{\i\f5\fs22 Soviet Politics and Repression in the
1930\rquote s
\par }\pard {\f5\fs22 Yale University Press, forthcoming 1997)
\par
\par }}
--=====================_863287726==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ASPECT.TXT"
AN ESSAY ON RUSSIAN ASPECTUAL DECISION-MAKING
[05-08-1997]
by Benjamin Sher
In this brief theoretical and practical essay, I would like to suggest a=
philosophical=20
solution to the elusive problem of the Russian aspects by considering the=
Russian=20
language from the standpoint of an artistic rather than a scientific model. =
=20
A merely conversational approach, I'm convinced, is woefully inadequate to=
our=20
understanding of the aspects.
No less inadequate, I believe, is a scientific, especially, statistical=
methodology.
To isolate the basic philosophical problem in question, I've chosen to=
ignore other=20
elements of Russian grammar such as morphology, semantics, syntax,=
sub-aspects=20
and quasi-aspects, verbs of motion, special negative constructions, moods,=
tenses,=20
infinitives, prefixes, suffixes, roots, etc.
I've also ignored analogous phenomena in English, especially relative to=
the perfect=20
tenses, where an "aspectual" character can be discerned in certain=
situations, e.g. "I=20
have done" (P) vs. "I have been doing" (IMP).
While these factors obviously influence aspectual usage, they cannot in=20
themselves help us understand a feature unique to the aspects alone.
In her discussion of the aspects (ASPECTUAL USAGE IN MODERN RUSSIAN,=20
Moscow: Russkii Yazyk, 1984) Prof. O. P. Rassudova considers the lexical/=
semantic=20
context in terms of the speaker's aspectual choice. She demonstrates the=
subtle=20
nature of that choice by isolating, for instance, the following pairs of=
distinctions, where=20
P stands for the perfective and IMP for the imperfective:
The concrete/factual P vs. the concrete/processual IMP.
The specific factual P vs. the general factual IMP.
The sporadic repetitive P vs. the regularly repetitive IMP.
Prof. Rassudova points out brilliantly, for example, the wonderful (and=
maddeningly=20
subtle) distinction in negative constructions, where the concrete factual=
"Ya ne spel" (P=20
-- "I didn't sing") is ever so close in its meaning to the general fact "Ya=
ne pel" (IMP -- "I=20
didn't sing"). It is customary to consider these negative sentences, like=
their affirmative=20
counterparts, as occupying two points on an aspectual continuum.
I firmly disagree.
No matter how seemingly inconsequential the distinction between "Ya ne=
spel" and=20
"Ya ne pel", no matter how seemingly arbitrary its usage, never shall the=
twain meet.=20
These two sentences, I submit, are no closer to each other than two planets=
that=20
appear to overlap during an eclipse. That is so because these two sentences=
travel=20
along fundamentally different aspectual (as well as, of course,=
morphological) orbits.=20
Admittedly, this is a hypothesis or, more precisely, a postulate and it is=
only as such=20
that I present it.
Discounting for the moment the various sub-aspects (such as "zakhodit'" or=
=20
"pokhodit'") as well as the separate aspectual business of verbs of motion)=
I'd=20
postulate further that the two major aspects are themselves based on two=
mythic and=20
mutually exclusive faculties of the mind.
Adopting a terminology well known from the philosophy of Kant, I would call=
these=20
faculties the Empirical (Perfective) and the Transcendental (Imperfective).
By positing such irreducible and mutually exclusive faculties or=
operational fictions=20
in our aspectual decision-making, we can, I believe, bring out the=
relationship between=20
the bewildering complexity of aspectual situations and the simple, intuitive=
act=20
operating in and through them.
But how can simple intuition make what is often an excruciatingly subtle=
choice=20
under very complex conditions?
It is, I think, only natural to see the aspects in terms of a P/IMP=
continuum, where=20
the perfective concrete/factual "demarcates" and "exhausts" (in Prof.=
Rassudova's=20
words) the imperfective concrete processual. The latter is considered an=
"unmarked,"=20
"weaker" version of the perfective.
This, I submit, is a monumental and fatal illusion.
In my opinion, the concept of an aspectual continuum is the single greatest=
=20
obstacle to a student's understanding of Russian aspectual usage.=20
Another common misconception is that the aspects have something to do with=
=20
number, that is, with single or frequentative-iterative occurrence. This is=
simply not the=20
case, as the most cursory examination in any extended body of Russian prose=
or=20
poetry or conversation will clearly and unequivocally show. Both aspects=
have a=20
frequentative. Both aspects are used as both single and multiple occurences.=
The real=20
distinction of the aspects lies decidedly elsewhere.
What exactly is this distinction of empirical and transcendental, this=
dialectical=20
"incompatibility."
By "empirical" (perfective) I mean a fictive, cognitive faculty which=
allows us to=20
perceive a world of delimited phenomena.
In actual practice this faculty allows us to organize our external and=
inner world of=20
percepts. This includes time as external perception. That is, I believe, why=
the=20
perfective covers both concrete (external and internal) as well as abstract=
actions=20
("sdelat'","pochuvstvovat'", "podumat'").
By "transcendental" I mean a fictive, logical-intuitive faculty which=
allows us to=20
perceive or construct absolutely nothing at all. That is, this faculty can=
never be=20
perceived (inwardly or outwardly) or known as such. lt can only be assumed a=
priori.
This "nothingness" applies to both concrete (inner and external) as well as=
abstract=20
actions ("delat'", "chuvstvovat'", and "dumat'"). This includes time as a=
logical-intuitive=20
assumption.
The imperfective does not exist in the "knowable" world at all. Rather, to=
use Prof.=20
Rassudova's own word, it "dissociates" from the past, etc. I would add,=
further, that this=20
transcendental faculty dissociates not within the sphere of the concrete=
(whether past,=20
present or future) but from it. The IMP just is. Or rather it subsists as a=
logical-intuitive=20
faculty serving as a noumenal ground for un-delimited, un-bounded empirical=
=20
perception (such as of inner or external movement or process or of=
unperceivable=20
states of being or of pure time or of pure, abstract habitual action or,=
perhaps toughest=20
of all, of pure, single action -- e.g. the infamous general fact "On delal,"=
("He did" --=20
once and only once and not as process but as pure state). As for pure time,=
I have in=20
mind a seamless, temporal continuity ("Ya [ne] pel" -"I was [not] singing").=
We can=20
never "know" continuity or action in itself or the Imperfective verbs in=
which such=20
continuity is grounded. We can only assume it.=20
What we can and do know are the delimited, segmented, unitary empirical=20
perceptions (known as "ideas" by Locke, Hume and the 18th century=
Empiricists)=20
which the transcendental IMP has been "dissociated from." Only by assuming=
=20
continuity do we have a world of action at all. The general fact,=
progressive and regular=20
frequentative action of IMP verbs are not, at bottom, perceptual. They are=
noumenal.=20
And they must be apprehended by the speaker's aspectual mind, not by his=
senses.=20
Thus, while the fictive empirical gives us the illusion of inner and outer=
space=20
(including perceived time), the fictive transcendental gives us the illusion=
of continuous,=20
unbounded space (including pure time).=20
That is, both aspects involve time: the PF gives us empirical time (both=
inner and=20
external, concrete and abstract), that is, time perceived, time familiar to=
us as temporal=20
change, while the IMP gives us noumenal, pure time, time presupposed, time=
as pure,=20
unchanged state.
It is binary exclusivity, I believe, that makes possible the instantaneous=
intuitive=20
calculations by the Russian native.
The same intuitive faculty is at work in the definite/indefinite article=
decision-making=20
in English, where the actual choice always consists not of two but three=
options: the=20
definite "the," the indefinite "a(an)" and nothing at all, as in "American=
literature has=20
made great strides, etc. where the speaker has chosen the zero option, i.e.=
instead of=20
"An American literature... " or "The American literature...."
The many uses of the IMP are thus not so much "concrete" experiences (of=20
whatever kind) as pure a priori, intuitive feelings. This is so regardless=
whether we=20
consider affirmative or negative, "concrete" or "abstract" sentences, all of=
which=20
presuppose this fundamental distinction. They are pure feelings dissociated=
in principle=20
from all concreteness as such.
The rich variety of aspectual situations is held together theoretically by=
the=20
backbone of "incompatible" binary aspects. Without this incompatibility no=
real=20
distinctions would be possible. In short, aspectual decision-making would=
flounder in=20
hopeless subjectivity.
A construction such as "Ya [ne] pel" ("I was [not] singing") represents=
absolutely=20
nothing. And that's the whole point: It is the negation of all that is=
empirical (the "I", the=20
implicit "song" and the world of phenomena in general) that makes it=
possible for the=20
mind to "construct" or rather "assume" temporality and action by grounding=
the=20
percepts of the perfective in the transcendental category of the IMP.
Calling the aspects perfective and imperfective tends to blur the=
fundamental=20
philosophical incompatiblity of the aspects, their exclusivity. It fosters=
the illusion that=20
the aspects are part of a continuum and, therefore, that aspectual choice is=
a=20
subjective affair. It isn't subjective -- whether considered from the=
standpoint of student=20
or native, though to the despairing student it may often appear so.
Of course, there is a sense in which aspectual usage is subjective, and=
this is the=20
exception that proves the rule. Every writer (or speaker) will shape the=
language in=20
accordance with his peculiar world-view and linguistic tendencies. In this=
respect, a=20
writer may "tilt" the language towards either the IMP or the P or he/she=
might have a=20
preference for certain of the sub-aspects or certain of the verbs of motion=
quasi-
aspects, etc. In this respect, he does not/cannot violate the objective=
structure and=20
edifice of subtleties that is the Russian language any more than he can=
alter the basic=20
structure of verbal conjugations or noun declentions. In this respect, the=
writer=20
expresses himself subjectively but through, not in spite of, the linguistic=
structures. He=20
operates through the great labyrinth of the Russian language, not in=
defiance or=20
ignorance of it.
One of the most outrageous but effective illustrations of this can be found=
in a little=20
known prose poem by the Russian emigree writer Pyotr Balakshin, who came to=
San=20
Francisco from Russia by way of China after the Russian Revolution of 1917.=
In his=20
"Spring Over Filmore Street" (published by Sirius of San Francisco in 1951=
under the=20
same title) there is the utterly astonishing, nearly ubiquitous use of the=
IMP, that is, the=20
Transcendental where, I emphasize, the P, the Empirical, would be expected.=
The P=20
does not even appear once until the middle of page 2, and the P. in general=
is used=20
very sparingly. Naturally, I was taken aback, in fact, I was utterly=
dumbfounded by this.=20
I knew my aspects very well, I thought, and now this.=20
Yet, the more I looked at the text, the more I began to admire the writer's=
stylistic=20
"chutzpah." The point is that the soaring, light-weight, dematerialized=
texture created by=20
the Transcendental, the description of the city as if seen from above by a=
figure from a=20
painting by Chagal floating through the sky is extremely effective. After=
checking with a=20
number of emigree friends, I was happy to discover that my conjecture was=
right. They=20
found it equally "outrageous." It was supposed to be.
I mention this episode because it represents an artistic extreme that=
nevertheless=20
remains within the objective system of the aspects. Balakshin deviates from=
and=20
artistically "distorts" the rules he inherited as a Russian (as every=
original writer should)=20
but he never breaks them, for to do so would amount to breaking his neck. He=
=20
stretches accepted usage but never acts arbitrarily. Every deviation from=
the expected=20
P aspect is part of a whole pattern of Romantic flight (quite literally)=
that is firmly rooted=20
in the basic noumenal, non-perceptual nature of the IMP.=20
This revolutionary use of the Imperfective was already evident in Chekhov,=
where=20
the traditional narrative founded mainly (as a point of departure) on a=
succession of=20
perfective events (single or multiple P) gives way to the spatio-temporal=
unbounded=20
states of feeling and being (single or multiple IMP) so prevalent in=
Chekhov, as for=20
example, in Lady with a Dog. This is the subject of an extraordinary essay=
by Professor=20
Peter Alberg Jensen of the University of Stockholm entitled =93Narrative=
Description or=20
Descriptive Narration: Problems of Aspectuality in Chekhov=94 in VERBAL=
ASPECT IN=20
DISCOURSE, a magisterial collection of essays on aspectual usage edited by=
=20
Professor Nils. B. Thelin (J. Benjamin Publishers, Amsterdam,1990).
=20
Adjectival Aspects
As a matter of fact, this Trans/Emp binary system also holds true, I=
submit, for the=20
adjective, whose short and long forms (as they are crudely and opaquelly=
called in=20
most textbooks) are simply variations on verbal aspects. Of course, one=
could consider=20
both verbal and adjectival aspects to be manifestations of the same source.=
(Due=20
allowance must be made here for modifications appropriate to a different=
part of=20
speech).
If this is so, then =93glubokaya,=94 the long form of the adjective, as in=
the predicative=20
=93reka glubokaya=94 (=93the river is a deep one=94), or the attributive=
modifier =94glubokaya reka=94=20
(=93the deep river=94) may be considered the adjectival analogue for the=
perfective verb=20
aspect (Empirical), while =93gluboka,=94 as in =93reka gluboka=94 (=93the=
river is deep=94) may be=20
considered the adjectival analogue for the imperfective (Transcendental)=
verb aspect.
The predicate short form (=93reka gluboka=94 -- =93the river is deep=94),=
is a concept of the=20
pure imagination. It does not so much exist as subsist in a logical,=
non-empirical reality=20
all its own. Similarly, the predicate long form (=93reka glubokaya=94 -- the=
river is a deep=20
one) exists in an empirical domain unique to itself (that is, the "real,"=
perceivable world=20
of the senses, both external and internal). The attributive adjectival=
modifer =93glubokaya=20
reka=94 (the deep river) is, of course, similarly empirical.[See discussion=
of verb aspects=20
above].
"Reka gluboka" [or, for that matter, the negative =93reka ne gluboka=94] is=
not, I believe,=20
a description of the real world so much as a logical/intuitive concept=
applied to what is,=20
in principle, an indefinable experience. Like the verbal "Ya pel" (or "Ya ne=
pel"), the=20
predicative is a way of symbolizing what by nature can never be symbolized,=
that is, a=20
pure, a priori act of cognition. We "know" or assume we know what is=
essentially an=20
unknowable experience. To sum up, "reka glubokaya=94 (or the modifier=
=93glubokaya=20
reka=94) describes the river empirically, while "reka gluboka" posits an=
intuitive=20
experience of the river dissociated from all concreteness.
Here, too, there is no continuum! We make our choice between two=
incompatible=20
aspects, and this choice is only possible precisely because they are=
mutually exclusive:=20
phenomena vs. noumena, perception vs. nothing. Otherwise, as I've already=
said,=20
we'd flounder in a sea of hopeless indecision.
The above holds true also for participles, past and present, active and=
passive, IMP=20
and P.=20
Gerunds and verbal nouns provide another extension of the verbal/
adjectival system.=20
Possession and Aspects
The Russian binary aspectual system may even be discerned in the peculiar=
way=20
the Russian language expresses possession:=09
"U menya na stole ptitsa lezhit" ("A bird is lying on my table"=
--Transcendental) vs.=20
"Na stole mayom ptitsa lezhit" ("A bird is lying on my table" -- Empirical)=
is an extension=20
by analogy of the binary system of the verbs and adjectives to the pronouns.=
As further=20
examples, let me point to "U menya iz karmana . . . " (Transcendental) vs.=
"iz moego=20
karmana . . . (Empirical) or "U menya serdtse bolit" vs. "Moyo sertse=
bolit."
Why Aspects?
Heidegger asked the famous question: Why is there something instead of=
nothing?=20
The student of the aspects often feels like asking similarly: Why are there=
aspects=20
rather than nothing?
Naturally, any answer at this point would be mere speculation. However, let=
me=20
hazard a brief, hopefully tantalizing theory.
Of the two verbal aspects, the P (the Emp) basically transforms pure=
actions and=20
states into nouns and substantive clusters (noun phrases and clauses, etc.).=
The=20
whole notion of a verbal action being delimited, defined and perceived (i.e.=
with a=20
beginning and an end) is profoundly paradoxical (a kind of "verb-noun", not=
to be=20
confused with a verbal noun, i.e. a gerund). It is as if the Russian=
language were driven=20
in that direction by some elemental force, though, statistically, the ratio=
is about 50-50.=20
The IMP (Transc.) would seem to be the undertow of this process of=
substantive-
formation, as if it were a relic of an earlier pre-aspectual linguistic=
structure or else a=20
philosophical residue that could not be assimilated by the substantive=
process of the=20
Empirical (for how could the non-perceptual ever be assimilated into the=
perceptual?).=20
Thus, one could say that of the two great aspects, the Empirical is the=
"real" aspect=20
insofar as it permits us to perceive reality by delimiting it, but the=
Transcendental is the=20
"true" aspect because it alone gives us the verb as a pure verbal state or=
action.
I hope the reader is indulgent enough to forgive the wild surmises in this=
last=20
section. They are meant only as a philosophical tease, and that is all they=
could ever=20
be.
Conclusion
It is my firm conviction that the Empirical Aspect (Perfective) represents=
"reality"=20
(single or frequentative/iterative sporadic mode) while the Transcendental=
Aspect=20
(Imperfective) stands for the intuitive imagination (the merely factual, the=
progressive or=20
abstract habitual frequentative mode).
If this is so, how explain this phenomenon?
Perhaps, the Empirical and the Transcendental both issue from some ultimate=
=20
universal archetype that is the source for both percepts and=
logical-intuitive concepts. If=20
this is so, then we, the bearers and users of language, may be instruments=
in the=20
hands of a higher god who calls His shots, aspectually speaking, through us.
=09
Benjamin Sher
Russian Literary Translator
sher07 at bellsouth.net
(Soviet Politics and Repression in the 1930=92s
Yale University Press, forthcoming 1997) =20
8
--=====================_863287726==_--
More information about the SEELANG
mailing list