Email this article 
Post a Comment The semantic profile of the verbal prefix do- in Bulgarian and Croatian
Abstract
This is a comparative study of the verbal prefix do- in two South Slavic languages, Bulgarian (Blg.) and Croatian (Cro.). Although these two languages show many similarities in the meaning of the verb stems and prefixation patterns, there are some unusual differences that may confuse foreign learners of Slavic, who expect identical or similar base verbs to combine with the same prefixes. The cognitive linguistics framework allows us to approach these differences systematically. We apply it to two databases of Blg. and Cro. prefixed verbs developed for the purposes of this research and extracted from reference books, dictionaries, and online corpora.
We systematise do- verbs in a semantic network and account for both the overlapping meaning categories and the differences between the two languages studied, taking into consideration prefixes semantically similar to do- that combine with the same base verbs to form near-synonyms of do- verbs. We point to prefix variation as ensuing from different perspectives on the same event.
DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2021.10.2.10
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Biskup P., Prepositions, Case and Verbal Prefixes: The Case of Slavic, Amsterdam, 2019.
Bogusławski A., Prefiksalne pary aspektowe a semantyka prefiksalna czasownika rosyjskiego, Slavia Orientalis, 9, 1960, 139−175.
Comrie B., Aspect, 1976.
Dickey S., Expressing ingressivity in Slavic: The contextually-conditioned imperfective past vs. the phase verb stat′ and procedural za-, Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 7 (1), 1999, 11−44.
Dickey S., Common Slavic ‘indeterminate’ motion verbs were really manner-of-motion verbs. Driagina-Hasko V., Perelmutter R., eds., New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, Philadelphia, Amsterdam, 2010, 67−109.
Dickey S., Orphan prefixes and the grammaticalization of aspect in South Slavic, Jezikoslovlje, 13 (1), 2012, 71−105.
Dickey S., S- / Z- and the grammaticalization of aspect in Slavic, Slovene Linguistic Studies, 5, 2005, 3−55.
Dickey S., The varying role of PO- in the grammaticalization of Slavic aspectual systems: Sequences of events, delimitatives, and German language contact, Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 19 (2), 2011, 175−230.
Endresen A., Janda L., Kuznetsova J., Lyashevskaya O., Russian ‘purely aspectual’ prefixes: Not so ‘empty’ after all?, Scando-Slavica, 58 (2), 2012, 231−291.
Filip H., Aspect, Eventuality Types and Noun Phrase Semantics, New York, London, 1999.
Filip H., The quantization puzzle, Tenny C., Pustejovsky J., eds., Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax, Stanford, 2000, 39−96.
Halliday M. A. K., Categories of the theory of grammar, Word, 17 (3), 1961, 241−292.
Isačenko A. V., Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart, Formenlehre, Halle (Saale), 1962.
Janda L. A., Enderesen A., Kuznetsova J., Lyashevskaya O., Makarova A., Nesset T., Sokolova S., Why Russian Aspectual Prefixes Aren′t Empty. Prefixes as Verb Classifiers, Bloomington, 2013.
Janda L. A., A metaphor for aspect in Slavic, Henrik Birnbaum in Memoriam. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 44–45, 2006, 249−260.
Janda L. A., A Semantic Analysis of the Russian Verbal Prefixes za , pere , do , and ot-. Munich, 1986.
Janda L. A., Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs, Studies in Language, 31/3, 2007, 607–648.
Janda L. A., What makes Russian bi-aspectual verbs special?, Divjak D., Kochanska A., eds., Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain. Cognitive Linguistics Research, Berlin, New York, 2007, 83−109.
Janda L. A., Lyashevskaya O., Semantic profiles of five Russian prefixes: po, s-, za-, na-, pro-, Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 21, 2012, 211−258.
Kagan O., Degree semantics for Russian verbal prefixes: the case of pod- and do-, Grønn A., Pazelskaya A., eds., The Russian Verb, Oslo Studies in Language, 4 (1), Oslo, 2012, 207−243.
Lakoff G., Johnson M., Metaphors We Live By, 2nd ed., Chicago, London, 2003.
Langacker R. W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I. Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford California, 1987.
Markova A., On the nature of Bulgarian prefixes: Ordering and modification in multiple prefixation, Word Structure, 4, 2011, 244−271.
Maslov Ju. S., Rol′ tak nazyvaemoi perfektivatsii i imperfektivatsii v protsesse vozniknoveniia slavianskogo glagol′ nogo vida, Doklady IV Mezhdunar. s″ezd slavistov, Moscow, 1958.
Mitkovska L., Bužarovska E., The preposition and prefix nad in South Slavic languages with emphasis on Macedonian, Jezikoslovlje, 13 (1), 2012, 107−150.
Nedelcheva S., The LCCM theory applied to the Bulgarian preposition DO (a comparison with English TO), Contrastive Linguistics, 2, 2010, 40–53.
Nedelcheva S., Space, Time and Human Experience: A Cognitive View on English and Bulgarian Prepositions, Shumen, 2013.
Pashov P., Bulgarskiiat glagol, Sofia, 1966.
Šarić L., Nedelcheva S., The verbal prefix o(b)- in Croatian and Bulgarian: The semantic network and challenges of a corpus-based study, Suvremena lingvistika, 40, 2015, 149−179.
Šarić L., Nedelcheva S., The verbal prefix u- in Bulgarian and Croatian, Languages in Contrast, 18 (2), 2018, 252–282.
Šarić L., Tchizmarova I., Space and metaphor in verbs prefixed with od-/ot- ‘from’ in Bosnian / Croatian / Serbian and Bulgarian, Oslo Studies in Language, 5 (1), 2013, 7−33.
Tatevosov S., Intermediate prefixes in Russian, Antonenko A., Bailyn J. F., Bethin Ch. Y., eds., Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 16, 2008, 423−445.
Tyler A., Evans V., The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition, Cambridge, 2003.
Van Schooneveld C. H., A Semantic Analysis of the Old Russian Finite Preterite System, Mouton, 1959.
Vinogradov V. V., Russkii iazyk. Grammaticheskoe uchenie o slove, Moscow, Leningrad, 1947.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Svetlana Nedelcheva, Ljiljana Šarić
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.