Lessons from verbs of motion Petr Biskup Leipzig University FDSL 17 Masaryk University Brno November 20-22, 2024 Overview Two types of motion verbs: paired motion verbs, motion verbs with momentaneous roots. Many specific (revealing) properties. The relation between: Plural interpretation, argument structure, themes. Their morphosyntax and spanning analysis of themes. Derivational model with superset. Allomorphy, locality and the * ABA pattern. 2 Paired motion verbs 3 Paired motion verbs East and West Slavic languages: between 9 (Polish, Slovak) and 20 (Ukrainian) pairs. Typically: 'run, walk, fly, carry, swim, climb, crawl, drag, drive, chase, roll'. a. letef [dir] b. letaf [non-dir] 'to fly' (R) a. isc [dir] b. chodzic [non-dir] 'to go/walk' (P) South Slavic: only Slovenian some traces, e.g. a. nesti [dir] b. nositi [non-dir] 'to carry' (SI) (Sussex & Cubberley 2006). Idiosyncratic properties: Lexical (directed vs. non-directed, determinate vs. indeterminate) Aspect: both ipf. Arg. structure: different verb classes. Morphophonological: root allomorphy, distinct themes... Paired motion verbs Russian: directed motion verbs unaccusative & non-directed motion verbs unergative; test with CUM na- (e.g. Schoorlemmer 1995, Harves 2002, Romanova 2004) (cf. also Levin & Rappaport Hovav 1995, Ramchand 1997). Czech: (4) analogous to Romanova (2004, 273), dir verb (4a) behaves unaccusatively, non-dir verb (4b) - with -a - unergatively, The non-directed verb OK with an object (4c). (4) a. Tolik lidí tam na-běh-l-o! b.* Tolik lidí tam na-běh-a-l-o! so.many people there on-run-l-SG.N so.many people there on-run-TH-l-SG.N 'So many people gathered there!' c. Tolik lidí tam na-běh-a-l-o 5km! so.many people there on-run-TH-l-SG.N 5km 'So many people ran 5km there!' 5 Paired motion verbs The same behavior with jet vs.jezdit 'to go': dir (5a) behaves unaccusatively, non-dir (5b) - with -i unergatively, The non-directed verb OK with an object (5c). (5) a. Tolik lidí tam na-je-l-o! b.* Tolik lidí tam na-jezd-i-l-o! (Cz) so.many people there on-go-l-SG.N so.many people there on-go-TH-l-SG.N 'So many people gathered there!' c. Tolik lidí tam na-jezd-i-l-o 5km! so.many people there on-go-TH-l-SG.N 5km 'So many people went 5km there!' 6 Paired motion verbs directed běž-e-t (6a), nés-t (7a): non-directed běh-a-t (6b), nos-i-t (7b): Nichols (2010 and references therein): Medová (2012): (6) a. Jirka běž-í do školy. Jirka run-TH to school 'Jirka is running to school.' (7) a. Jirka nes-e aktovku. Jirka carry-TH schoolbag 'Jirka is carrying a schoolbag.' progressive reading, theme -e. -0, iterative or generic meaning, theme -a or -i. -i (+ -o- grade in root) = Indo-Europ. causative morphology. -i = transitivity (agentivity) & -e unaccusativity. b. Jirka běh-á do školy. (Cz) Jirka run-TH to school 'Jirka runs to school.' b. Jirka nos-í aktovku. (Cz) Jirka carry-TH schoolbag 'Jirka carries a schoolbag.' Often also root allomorphy (7a) vs. (7b), R: nesti - nosiť, SI: nesti - nositi 1 Paired motion verbs Participial adjectives support: dir Vs (= unacc.) vs. non-dir Vs (= unerg.). 2 types in Czech (Slavic) that predicate over the underlying object: (e.g. Schoorlemmer 1995, Cetnarowska 2000, Kosta & Frašek 2004, Veselovská & Karlík 2004) 1. Resultative: suffix -/ + ending (-ý), from unaccusative stems. 2. Past passive: suffix -nit + -ý, from transitives. Prefixes transitivize unergatives but not unaccusatives (Biskup 2019). (ode-)jít 'go away' vs. (od-)chodit 'complete going' (8) a. odešlý / * odejitý dopis -/ —> jít unacc. went, away letter b.* odchodily / odchozený kilometr -n/t —> transitive —> chod-i-t unerg. went, away km 8 Paired motion verbs The same contrast with: (na-)běhnout 'swell' vs. (na-)běhat 'run a lot' (9) a. naběhlý / * naběžený ret -/ —> běž-e-t unacc. swollen lip b.* naběhalé / naběhané kilometry -n/t —> transitive —> běh-a-t = unerg. run.a.lot kms (od-)letět 'fall off vs. (od-)létat 'complete by flying' (10) a. odlétly / * odletěný kamínek -/ —> let-ě-t unacc. fallen, off stone b.* odlétalé / odlétané kilometry -n/t —> transitive —> lét-a-t = unerg. fly. away kilometers Transitive motion Vs not interesting here: both (dir and non-dir) form -n/t participial adjectives. 9 Paired motion verbs Interim summary -a and -i bring about agentivity (unergative and transitive Vs), and iterate the event. -e brings about unaccusativity, and episodic reading. 10 "Unpaired" motion verbs 11 "Unpaired" motion verbs Based on momentaneous roots: (11) a. mach-a-c 'to wave' (P) b. kiv-a-f 'to nod' (R) c. kop-a-f 'to kick, dig' (Sk) d. mig-a-ti 'to blink' (BCMS) Similar to paired motion Vs: also have -a (11), and counterparts with a different theme: semelfactive -N(U) (12), contrast between iteration (plurality) (11) & singularity (diminutivity, Starkl et al. To appear) (12), iterative interpretation induced by -a (11), also argument structure effects (14). (12) a. mach-n-^-c 'to wave' (P) b. kiv-n-u-f 'to nod' (R) c. kop-n-u-f 'to kick, dig' (Sk) d. mig-n-u-ti 'to blink' (BCMS) 12 "Unpaired" motion verbs With -a: iterated events (13a), With -nq\ sg. interpretation (13b): (13) a. Piesmach-a-1 ogonem. (P) dog wave-TH-PTCP tail.INST 'The dog wagged its tail several times (for some time).' b. Pies mach-n^-1 ogonem. dog wave-SEML-PTCP tail.INST 'The dog wagged its tail once.' 13 "Unpaired" motion verbs Argument structure effects with vypad-a-t vs. vypad-nou-t 'fall out': -a licenses the transitive -n/t with unaccusatives (14a), brings about the pluractional (iterative) interpretation: pi. noun OK (14a) sg. bad (14b). With sg., -/ participle is OK (14c). -a blocks -/ = determines the part, allomorph (14a,b,d). (14) a. vy-pad-a-n-e vlas-y out-fall-TH-n/t-PL hair-pl 'hairs that fell out' b. # vy-pad-a-n-y out-fall-TH-n/t-SG vlas hair.SG (Cz) vy-pad-1-ý vlas out-fall-l-SG hair.SG 'one hair that fell out' d. * vy-pad-a-l-ý/-é out-fall-TH-l-SG/PL vlas.0/-y hair.SGAPL 14 "Unpaired" motion verbs Interim summary -a iterates the event vs. -n(u) singularizes (in North Slavic), -a can also pluralize arguments, -a can license transitive -n/t. 15 Pluractionality 16 Analysis: Pluractionality What is the iterative -a, -i? Pluralizing markers. 2 types of pluractionality: event-internal and event-external (Newman (1980), Cusic (1981), Lasersohn (1995), Chrakovskij (1997), Landman (2006), Wood (2007), Bertinetto & Lenci (2012), W^giel (2023)), i.e., repetition within events (more phases) vs. repetition of events, or repetitive events vs. repeated events. —> -a, -i = event-internal pluractionality. Supported by: Isacenko (1960): R. Vs as bod-a-f 'to stab' = activities with multiple phases. Wood (2007): semelfactives commonly occur with event-internal pluractionality. 17 Analysis: Pluractionality What is the event-external pluractionality? The iterative meaning of the secondary ipf. - YVA (SI split in ITERext & Prog (Biskup 2024, to appear)). (15) On o-pis-yva-1 svoju dorogu dvaraza. (R) he about-write-ITERext-PST his journey.ACC twice 'He described his journey twice.' The difference wrt. cardinals: Iterext: only one reading (15). Iterint: iterated events (phases) form a unit —> ambiguity (moment. & paired): (16) a. Včera Pavel kop-a-1 do dveří dvakrát. (Cz) yesterday Pavel.NOM kick-ITERint-PTCP in door twice 1. 'Yesterday, on some occasions, Pavel kicked the door twice.' 2. 'Yesterday, on two occasions, Pavel kicked the door several times.' b. Včera Pavel nos-i-1 vodu dvakrát. yesterday Pavel.NOM kick-ITERint-PTCP water twice 1. 'Yesterday, on some occasions, Pavel carried water twice.' 2. 'Yesterday, on two occasions, Pavel carried water several times.' 18 Analysis: Pluractionality Also supported by del. po- In scope of ITERext (of SI), aspectually and interpretationally: a. po-spa-va-tIPF (Cz) b. po-plak-iwa-cIPF DEL-sleep-ITERext-INF DEL-cry-ITERext-INF 'to sleep from time to time' 'to cry from time to time' Del po- scopes over ITER inf a. po-mach-a-cPF ogonem b. po-let-a-t'PF DEL-wave-ITERint-INF tail.INST DEL-fly-ITERint-INF 'to wag tail for a while' (P) 'to fly for a while' Analysis: Pluractionality -a and -/ (i.c.t. -e and -n(u)) spell out an ITER operator; forms the iteration set E with the plural cardinality: (19) [[ITER]] = }iPQUA^E3e.P(e) AeGEA|E|>lA Ve'.e'G E P(e') Based on Lasersohn (1995) and Wood (2007) and other conditions can be present, e.g. temporal non-adjacency in (20) (Lasersohn 1995, Wood 2007, Henderson 2017, Kuhn 2019, Biskup 2024): (20) [[ITER]] = APQUAAEBe.P(e) A e G E A |E| > 1 A Ve'.e'G E P(e') A - T(e') =>c T(e) The meaning can be parametrized (Lasersohn 1995); moment, motion Vs as (21a) distribute over time (20) vs. (21b) has (19): (21) a. Jirka kop-a-1 do dveří. b. Jirka běh-a-1 po hřišti. Jirka kick-ITERint-PTCP to door Jirka run- ITERint-PTCP on playground 'Jirka kicked the door.' 4Jirka run here and there in the playground.' Analys is: P luractionality Iterint: iterated events (phases) form a unit —> ambiguity. Iterext: only one reading: (22) a. Včera Pavel kop-a-1 do dveří dvakrát. (Cz) yesterday Pavel.NOM kick-ITERint-PTCP in door twice 1. 'Yesterday, on some occasions, Pavel kicked the door twice.' 2. 'Yesterday, on two occasions, Pavel kicked the door several times.' b. On o-pis-yva-1 svoju dorogu dvaraza. (R) he about-write-ITERext-PST his journey.ACC twice 'He described his journey twice.' Iterint: meaning like Iterext with ATOM (allows counting pluralities): (23) [[ITERint]] = ^PQUA^E3e.P(e) A e G E A |E| > 1 A ATOM(E) A Ve'.e'G E P(e') A - x(e') dc x(e) (22a): l.|E|=2 2. 2x(E) = two atomic Es (22b): l.|E|=2 2 ITERs: similar semantics, distinct s. positions and partially distinct phonology. 21 Morpho syntax 22 Morphosyntactic analysis All themes - -a, -i, -e and -n(u) - verbalize: (24) a. chod b. chodiť (R) 'walk, movement' 'to walk, move' (25) a. mig b. migati (BCMS) 'wink' 'to wink' (26) a. let b. letět (Cz) 'flight' 'to fly' (27) a. kop b. kopnúť (Sk) 'kick' 'to kick' —> spell out v (+ -a9 -i also ITERint). In Cz, Sk, -{y)a (and unproductive -e) as the secondary imperfective suffix (28c); ád.po- scopes over (& pf.) ITERint and below ITERext: (28) a. plác-a-F17 b. po-plác-a-tPF c. po-plác-á-va-tIPF (Cz) slap-ITERint-INF on-slap-ITERint-INF on-slap-ITERint-ITERext-INF 'slap repeatedly' 'slap repeatedly for a while' 'slap repeatedly for a while several times' 23 Morphosyntactic analysis -a licenses the transitive -n/t with unaccusatives (29a) (29) a. vy-pad-a-n-e vlas-y b. vy-pad-l-y vlas out-fall-ITERint-n/t-PL hair-pl out-fall-l-SG hair.SG 'hairs that fell out' 'one hair that fell out' (Cz) —> -a spells out Voice: agentive in motion Vs, letať: [[VoiceagenJ] = XPXxXg.T*(g) a Agent(e, x) expletive (e.g. Alexiadou et al. 2015) in (29a), (ident. function): [[Voiceexpl]] = }iP^e.P(e) So, -n/t sensitive to morphos. transitivity, not to semantic transitivity vs. -/ = elsewhere (29b). —> -a = multifunctional, undespecified or overspecified marker and spells out/spans more heads (Ramchand 2008, Julien 2015, Merchant 2015, Caha & Ziková 2016, Haugen & Siddiqi 2016, Wiland 2019). Non-dir (i.e. unergative) létat: (30) a. lQt-árš———~^^you fly repeatedly' (Cz); 2 elements analysis of the vowel in T. b. [Viet [v [ Iterint [ Voiceagent [Aspipf [Tpres float, mora [Agr2s| Morphosyntactic analysis in R, spellout of -a smaller; the vocalic T element surfaces as -e (+ glide j because of hiatus): (31) a. let-a-e-š' 'you fly repeatedly'(R) b. [Viet [v [Iterint [Voiceagent [Aspipf [Tpres [Agr2sg In dir (unacc.) letět, -e smaller >-a = without Iterint & Voice: (32) a. let-í-š 'you fly' (Cz) b. [Viet [v [Aspipf [Tpres float, mora [Agr2sg Advantages of spanning: Fewer nulls. Fewer exponents (Vis like -as). Explains why e.g. -a almost everywhere. General idea: Inf. themes -a, -/, -e, -n spell out v up to T (& interact with the present theme/mora in T). From some XPs blocked and shrink or reappear higher, e.g. in SI: po-plác-á-v-a-t 'to slap repeatedly' or 25 in habituals: kop-a-v-a-t 'to tend to kick, dig'. Morphosyntactic analysis Habitual markers: Meaning: habitual (generic), event recurrence or characterizing property; GEN semantics. In R, P: identical to SI suffixes: (33) and (34); HAB+SI cannot co-occur. R. HABs: only the preterite and non-standard/archaic varieties, disappearing (Isačenko 1960,1962, Svedova 1980, Zaliznjak & Smelěv 1997, Padučeva 2015 but see Berger 2009, Tatevosov 2013.) P. HABs: a small group of verbs (Grzegorczykowa et al. 1984, Lazinski 2020). South Slavic: not present (Běličova 1998); 1 exception in Bg: bi-va-m. (33) a. pe-ťIPF sing-INF 'to (be) sing(ing)' (34) a. pis-a-cIPF write-TH-INF 'to (be) write(ing) down' b. pe-va-ťIPF sing-HAB-INF 'to tend to sing' (R) ;ipf b. pis-ywa-c1 write-HAB-INF 'to tend to write down' (p) 26 Morphosyntactic analysis HAB markers in Cz, Sk: a subset of SI suffixes, HAB+SI can co-occur (35b), have different phonol. effects (36)-(37). (35) a. po-plac-a-va-tIPF b. po-plac-a-va-va-tIPF (Cz) on-slap-ITER^-ITER^-INF on-slap-ITER^-ITER^-HAB-INF 'to slap repeatedly for a while several times' 'to tend to slap repeatedly for a while' Root ablaut + transitive palatalization in SI: vy-jsf to go out' vs. lengthening with HAB: (36) a. vy-chod-i-t'PF b. vy-chadz-a-t'IPF c. chod-i-t'IPF d. chod-ie-va-t'IPF (Sk) out-walk-TH-lNF out-walk-sl-lNF walk-TH-lNF walk-TH-HAB-INF 'to go out' 'to go out' 'to walk' 'to tend to walk' Shortening with SI + transitive palatalization vs. lengthening with HAB: (37) a. o-bloud-i-tPF b. o-bluz-ova-tIPF c. bloud-i-tIPF^d. bloud-i-va-tIPF (Cz) about-be.lost-TH-lNF about-be.lost-Sl-lNF be.lost-TH-lNF be.lost-TH-HAB-lNF 'to fool' 'to fool' 'to be lost' 'to tend to go in circles' 27 Morphosyntactic analysis -yval-ova should be decomposed: -a = Theme head (isacenko 1962, Matushansky 2009, 2024, Lazorczyk 2010, Gribanova 2015, Klimek-Jankowska & Blaszczak 2022, 2023, Kwapiszewski 2022 and Quaglia et al. 2022); -a "pushed" to the right by other suffixes: (38) a. pis-a-f b. pis-yv-a-f write-TH-INF write-HAB-TH-INF 'to (be) write(ing)' 'to tend to write' Also with -OVA- verbs: (39) a. ris-ov-a-f b. raz-ris-ov-a-f paint-TH-TH-INF apart-paint-TH-TH-INF 'to (be) paint(ing)' 'to paint over sth.' In P, too: (40) a. mal-ow-a-c b. do-mal-ow-a-c paint-TH-TH-INF to-paint-TH-TH-INF 'to (be) paint(ing)' 'to add by painting' c. pere-pis-yv-a-f (R) over-write- SI-TH-INF 'to (be) copy(ing)' raz-ris-ov-yv-a-f (R) apart-paint-TH-SI-TH-INF 'to (be) paint(ing) over sth.' do-mal-ow-yw-a-c (P) to-paint-TH-SI-TH-INF 'to (be) paint(ing) over sth.' 28 Morphosyntactic analysis In Cz, Sk -OVA- not separated: (41) a. mal'-ova-f b. o-mal'-ova-f paint-TH-INF around-paint-TH-INF 'to (be) paint(ing)' 'to cover with a color' d. mal'-ova-va-f paint-TH-HAB-INF 'to tend to paint' BCMS like R, P vs. Cz, Sk: (42) a. is-pit-a-ti out-ask-TH-INF is-pyt-a-f out-ask-TH-INF b. is-pit-iv-a-ti out-ask-SI-TH-INF is-pyt-yv-a-f out-ask-SI-TH-INF c. o-mal'-ova-va-f around-paint-TH- SI-INF 'to (be) cover(ing) with a color' (Sk) vy-pt-a-t se vy-pt-a-va-t se out-ask-TH-INF self out-ask-TH-SI-INF self 'to examine' 'to (be) examine(ing)' (BCMS) (R) (Cz) 29 Themes and suffixes in Slavic (simplified) [T [Inf [Th [Hab [Asp [Voice [!terext [Del po-/ Int vy- [Prog [!terint [v [V Russian -e -a -yv/-v -yv/-v -yv/-v -a/-i -a/-e/-i/ -ov/-n Polish -e -a -yw/-w -yw/-w -yw/-w -a/-i -a/-e/-i/ -ow/-n Czech/ Slovak -e -(v)a -ova/-(v)a -ova/-(v)a -a/-i -a/-e/-i/ -ova/-n BCMS -e -a -iv/-av/-v -iv/-av/-v -a/-i -a/-e/-i/ -ov/-n 30 Derivation 31 Superset over Subset -a, -/, -e, -n span v till Theme. If subset and e.g. (fully) underspecified -a: -i should be more specific, i.e. [v] or [v] + [scale] (Milosavljevič & Arsenijevič 2022: SC -/ has [scale]). But: If insertion happens lx and only to 1 terminal, problem with portmanteaux: [v] or [scale] not present in higher heads. Superset better: VI has Fs of all projections. Undespec. solution: Spellout of bigger portions (phases), e.g. Mien's (2015) spans. Disadvantage: Spellout and voc. insertion not strictly derivational. With superset ideally, they can. Hence, Vis: (43) a. -a <-> {v, Iterint, Voice, Asp, Theme} non-dir létat: Iterint, Voice block the insertion of -e b. -i <-> {v, Scale, Iterint, Voice, Asp, Theme} non-dir nosit: [Scale] on v blocks the insertion of -a c. -e <-> {v, Asp, Theme} dir letět: -e inserted <— less complex than -a and -i d. -n <-> {v, Semi, Voice, Asp, Theme} kopnout: [Semi] on v blocks other markers 32 Derivation Spanning blocked by an intervening head: SI (Prog, Iterext) and Hab since spans = head-complement sequences (e.g. Merchant 2015, Svenonius 2016). Recall: [Prog], [Iterext], [Hab] not in Vis -a, -/, -e, -n. SI (Iterext): (44) a. po-plác-á-v-á-š 'you slap repeatedly for a while several times' (Cz) b. [Vplác [v [Iterint [Del [Iterext [Voiceagent [Aspipf [Theme [Tpres float, mora [Agr2s It is not the prefix that blocks; the same with LP: (45) a. u-plác-á-v-á-š 'you are forming sth. by slapping several times' (Cz) b. [P [Vplác [v [Iterint [Iterext [Voiceagent [Aspipf [Theme [Tpres float, mora [Agr2sg (46) -v <-> {Prog, Iterext, Hab} (in fact-jív, as the R, P, BCMS-YV) SPs also do not block spanning in pf. Vs: (47) a. po-plác-á-š 'you slap repeatedly for a while' (Cz) b. [Vplác [v [Iterint [Del [Voiceagent [Aspipf [Theme [Tpres float, mora [Agr2sg Derivation Generally: Prefixes do not block spanning. —> Spanning after Linearization (Merchant 2015). Hab = higher intervener: (48) a. kop-a-v-a-s 'you tend to kick repeatedly' (Cz) b. [Vkop [v [Iterint [Voiceagent [Aspipf [Hab [Theme [Tpres float, mora [Agr2sg In Cz, Sk, SI+Hab possible: (49) a. u-plac-a-v-a-v-a-s 'you tend to form sth. by slapping several times' (Cz) b. [P[Vplac [v [Iterint [Iterext [Voiceagent [Aspipf [Hab [Theme [Tpres float, mora [Agr2sg Recall: in R, P, SI & Hab cannot co-occur and are identical. —> The markers license Hab from SI positions. Support: in P, Hab in stem nominalizations vs. Cz. R, P Hab not so grammaticalized as in Cz, Sk. Support: in Cz, Sk Habs = subset of Sis and more regular phonological behavior. 34 Model Model (strictly derivational): 1. Merge 2. Spellout: 2a. Linearization 2b. Vocabulary insertion 2c. Phonological processes Next cycle... kop-n-ou-t 'to kick once' 1. Merge (Vkop,vseml) 2a. Linearization: 2b. Insert -n: [kop-n] 1. Merge ((Vkop,v), Voice) 2a. Linearization: «kop,v>,Voice> 2b. Insertion vacuous: [kop-n] v specified as suffix recall: -n <-> {v, Semi, Voice, Asp, Theme} Voice specified as suffix -n already present ~ spanning ,4. The same with Asp and Theme: ««kop,v>,Voice>,Asp>,Theme> = [kop-n] 1. Merge ((Vkop,v),Voice),Asp),Theme),Inf) 2a. Linearization: ««kop,v>,Voice>,Asp>,Theme>,Inf> 2b. Insert -t: [kop-n]-t] -t <-> {Inf} 2c. Phonological processes: 1. U-insertion (Rubach 1993): [kop-n]-u-t] 2. Infinitival lengthening: [kop-n]-ou-t] (cf. Caha& Scheer 2008, Zikova 2018), floating ji on Inf. 35 Allomorphy, locality and adjacency 36 Allomorphy, locality and adjacency I ^ľSSlL Root allomorphy in paired motion Vs: (53) (50) a. vez-ti b. voz-i-ť 'to transport' (R) (51) a. nes-t b. nos-i-t 'to carry' (Cz) (52) a. ves-ti b. vod-i-ť 'to lead' (R) 8*5*3......"Ä**™"™? — •^ •*—■ -»- 3 CBS iTÄVw^-'" »i'is; .... .^.vb.. I« Srt* t" Olli«. fc»«k». /rum íofŕpí). Are Vs of non-dirs bigger > dirs (i.e., Vdir + Iter)? No: Vnon-dirs in non-iterative root nominalizations (53a) & prog. SIs (53b (53) a. výnos císaře Františka Josefa 'decree by emperor Franz Joseph (from March 17, 1849)' b. vy-chádz-a-ťIPF 'to be going out' František .lflsrf. 1\» M VM dir Vs select v with [Athematic] —> 0 theme. It is a local relation. 37 Allomorphy, locality and adjacency Structural adjacency not relevant (against e.g. Embick 2010): Dissimilation: R. dir vesti (ved-ti) 'to lead', many projections between: [Vved [v [Voiceagent [Asp [Theme [Inf ti The same with inf. lengthening in Czpi-t 'to drink'. Linear adjacency relevant: No dissimilation: R. non-dir vod-i-f 'to lead', cf. also ved-e-t 's/he leads'. Allomorphy in: Habs (55c,d): linearly & structurally adjacent: [Asp [Hab again 2 elements analysis. Sis (55a,b) more problematic: structurally not adjacent: [Vbluz [v [Iterext linearly yes but 1 step back necessary: 1. -ov + -i: iotation 2. -j + bloud: palatalization 3. -ov + blouz : shortening (template 3|i (Scheer 2004) even later) (55) a. o-bloud-i-t —> b. o-bluz-ov-a-t c. bloud-i-t —> d. bloud-f-v-a-t (Cz) P-be.l0St-TH-INF P-be.l0St-ITERext-TH-INF be.lost-TH-INF be.lost-TH-HAB-TH-INF 'to fool' 'to fool' 'to be lost' 'to tend to go in circles' 38 ABA pattern Motion Vs display the *ABA pattern (only adjacent functions may have the same marker): semantically: sg. - pi. - hab. seml./dir. Vs - iterative/non-dir Vs - habitual Vs syntactically: -e/-nu/-0 - -a/-i - -a/-i in roots: -e -o -o a. nést - nosit - nosívat b. běžet - běhat - běhávat c. kopnout - kopat - kopávat Based on monotonicity of growing verbal structure and on markedness of singularity (root -e, semi. -nu). Conclusions Paired and moment, motion Vs have event-internal plurality, contrasted with event-external plurality of Sis. Themes have various functions: verbalizing, singularizing pluralizing, argument structural... Span from v up to T & modelled in terms of the superset. Post-linearization spanning. Derivational model. Linear adjacency more relevant > structural. Thank you! 41 References Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Florian Schäfer. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Alessandro Lenci. 2012. Habituality, pluractionality, and imperfectivity. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press, 852-880. Biskup, Petr. 2019. Prepositions, case and verbal prefixes: The case of Slavic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biskup, Petr. 2024. On imperfective suffixes in Russian. Russian Linguistics 48, 14. Biskup, Petr. To appear. Delimitatives, diminutive-iteratives and the secondary imperfective in North Slavic. In: Berit Gehrke, Denisa Lenertová, Roland Meyer, Daria Seres, Luka Szucsich & Joanna Zaleska (eds.), Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2022. Berlin: Language Science Press. Caha, Pavel & Markéta Ziková. 2016. Vowel length as evidence for a distinction between free and bound prefixes in Czech. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(3), 331-377. Cetnarowska, Božena. 2000. Resultative adjectives in Polish. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 47-79. Chrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 1997. Typology of iterative constructions. München: LINCOM Europa. Cusic, David D. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Fehrmann, Dorothee, Uwe Junghanns & Denisa Lenertová. 2010. Two reflexive markers in Slavic. Russian Linguistics 34, 203-238. Harves, Stephanie A. 2002. Unaccusative Syntax in Russian. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 21. Isačenko, Alexander V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim: Morfologija II. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. Kosta, Peter & Jens Frašek. 2004. Neakuzativita (ergativita) vs. neergativita v češtině, polštině a jiných slovanských jazycích na rozhraní morfologie a syntaxe. In: Zdeňka Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds.), Čeština - univerzália a specifika 5. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 189-212. Landman, Fred. 2006. Indefinite time-phrases, in situ-scope, and dual-perspective intensionality. In Svetlana Vogeleer & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), Non-Defmiteness and Plurality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237-266. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Medová, Lucie. 2012. Anticausatives are Derived Unergatives. In: Markéta Ziková & Mojmír Dočekal (eds.), Slavic Languages in Formal Grammar. Proceedings of FDSL 8.5, Brno 2010. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 291-306. Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditionned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2), 273-303. 42 References Newman, Paul. 1980. The classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Leiden: Universitaire Press Nichols, Johanna. 2010. Indeterminate motion verbs are denominals. In: Victoria Hasko & Renee Perelmutter (eds.), New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47-65. Ramchand, Gillian C. 1997. Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Romanova, Eugenia. 2004. Superlexical vs. lexical prefixes. Nordlyd 32(2), 255-278. Schäfer, Florian 2022. Transitive Anticausatives. In: Özge Bakay, Breanna Pratley, Eva Neu & Peyton Deal (eds.), NELS 52: Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Scheer, Tobias. 2004. O samohláskové délce při derivaci v češtině. In Zdeňka Hladká & Petr Karlík (eds.), Čeština - univerzália a specifika 5. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 224-239. Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 1995. Participial Passive and Aspect in Russian. Utrecht: Ots dissertation series. Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sussex, Roland & Paul Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Starkl, Ema, Marko Simonovič, Stefan Milosavljevič & Boban Arsenijevič. Submitted. nVlne is a diminutive affix plus a theme vowel. Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2022. Berlin: Language Science Press. Veselovská, Ludmila & Karlík, Petr. 2004. Analytic Passives in Czech. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 49, 163-235. Wajjiel, Marcin. 2023. Acts, occasions and multiplicatives: A mereotopological account. In Kim, Juhyae, Burak Oney, Yao Zhang & Fengyue (Lisa) Zhao (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 33. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 276-297'. Wood, Esther J. 2007. The semantic typology of pluractionality. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 43