LINGUIST List 31.313

Wed Jan 22 2020

Calls: Slavic Subgroup; Syntax/Germany

Editor for this issue: Lauren Perkins <>

Date: 20-Jan-2020
From: Olav Mueller-Reichau <>
Subject: Workshop on Seconday Imperfectives in Slavic
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Workshop on Seconday Imperfectives in Slavic

Date: 02-Dec-2020 - 04-Dec-2020
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact Person: Olav Mueller-Reichau
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Web Site:

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Language Family(ies): Slavic Subgroup

Call Deadline: 31-May-2020

Meeting Description:

Workshop on Secondary imperfectives in Slavic, as part of FDSL-14

Workshop description:
The term ''secondary imperfectivization'' describes the process of deriving an imperfective stem/verb from a perfective one by means of suffixal markers such as Russian -yva, -iva, -va. (''YVA'' for short). Paradigmatic examples are:

pisat' ('to write.IPFV') -> podpisat' ('to sign.PFV') -> podpisyvat' ('to sign.IPFV') (Russian)
pisati ('to write.IPFV') -> prepisati ('to copy.PFV') -> prepisivati ('to copy.IPFV') (Croatian)
pisać ('to write.IPFV') -> zapisać ('to record.PFV') -> zapisywać ('to record.IPFV') (Polish)
piša ('I write.IPFV') -> napiša ('I write up.PFV') -> napisvam ('I write up.IPFV') (Bulgarian)

Due to its central place in Slavic verb formation, this operation, which structurally dates back to Proto-Indo-European times (Wiemer & Seržant 2017), has attracted a lot of attention. Nevertheless, there are still many open issues related to this phenomenon, including the form and function of its products. The aim of this workshop is to broaden the empirical database and to deepen our understanding of secondary imperfectives. We welcome investigations into any Slavic language. Since little is known about inner-Slavic variation among secondary imperfectives, we would like to especially encourage contributions on Slavic languages other than most studied Russian. Issues include:

•Do secondary imperfectives fulfill the same functions across Slavic languages?
•Can secondary imperfectives be used in the same set of contexts as simple imperfectives, or only in a subset thereof?
•Is YVA an aspectual head (e.g. Ramchand 2008)? Or does it apply below aspect (Tatevosov 2017, Ramchand & Minor 2019)?
•What is the morphological status of YVA? Can the heterogeneity of forms be traced back to one underlying morpheme (Matushansky 2007), or is it a manifestation of a function that transposes verb stems to a specific conjugation class (Isačenko 1960; Gladney 2013)?
•Intuitively, the attachment of YVA can be described as the undoing of perfectivization induced by prefixation. How can we model this interpretative effect in a compositional semantic framework?
•How do secondary imperfectives relate to simple iteratives like Russian pisyvat' ('to write from time to time'), where suffixation does not lead from a perfective to an imperfective form?
•How can we account for observed differences, such as the existence of generic -va besides imperfective -va (Filip & Carlson 1997) in Czech, but not in Russian?
•Why is secondary imperfectivization more productive in Bulgarian than in other Slavic languages (e.g. Rivero & Slavkov 2014)?
•Is attachment of YVA (always) lexically empty, as suggested by analyses that consider forms such as podpisat' and podpisyvat' as genuine aspectual pairs (Isačenko 1960)?
•How can we make sense of so-called orphan secondary imperfectives, i.e. secondary imperfectives that lack a prefixed counterpart (Polančec 2018)?
•Is there just one instance of YVA, or do we need to distinguish (at least) between early -a and late -yva , as suggested by Tatevosov (2013:65ff.) for Russian?
•Why does Russian exclude past passive participles with YVA, while allowing for PPPs based on simple imperfective stems (Knjazev 2007; Borik & Gehrke 2018)?

Organizing team: Berit Gehrke (HU Berlin), Olav Mueller-Reichau (Leipzig University), Jurica Polančec (Zagreb University), Sergei Tatevosov (MSU Moscow)

Call for Papers:

Abstracts must not exceed 2 pages (including examples, graphs, references). They should have 2.5 cm or 1 inch margins, should be single-spaced, in a font size not smaller than 12 pt. Examples, graphs etc. should be intertwined in the text (rather than placed at the end).
Abstracts must be anonymous (nothing in the abstract or the document should identify the authors), and must be submitted in PDF format via Easychair (

Deadline for the receipt of abstracts: May 31, 2020
Notification of acceptance: August 15, 2020
Conference homepage:
Conference e-mail:


BORIK, O. & B. GEHRKE 2018. Imperfective past passive participles in Russian. In D. Lenertová, R. Meyer, R. Šimík and L. Szucsich (eds), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2016, Language Science Press, Berlin, 53–76.
FILIP, H. & G. CARLSON 1997. Sui generis genericity. A. Dimitriadis et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-first Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 91-110.
GLADNEY, F.Y. 2013. On the syntax, morphology, and semantics of Russian verbal aspect. The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 57, No. 4, 628-648.
ISAČENKO, A.V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii so slovackim. Morfologija, čast’ 2. Bratislava: Slovackaja akademija nauk.
KNJAZEV, J. 2007. Grammatičeskaja Semantika: Russkij jazyk v tipologičeskoj perspektive, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.
MATUSHANSKY, O. (2007). Deriving the Russian secondary imperfective. Paper presented at the Workshop on Problems with Surface-based Generalizations. Paris, October 8-9, 2007.
POLANČEC, J. 2018. Osamostaljeni izvedeni nesvršeni glagoli u hrvatskom jeziku [Orphan Secondary Imperfectives in Croatian]. Suvremena lingvistika 85, 113-138.
RAMCHAND, G. (2008): Perfectivity as aspectual definiteness: Time and the event in Russian, Lingua 118, 1690-1715.
RAMCHAND, G. & S. MINOR (2019): Stativity vs. Homogeneity: Similarities and Differences between the English Progressive and the Russian Imperfective. Paper presented at FARL-3. Moscow, April 5-6, 2019.
RIVERO, M. & N. SLAVKOV (2014): Imperfect(ive) variation: The case of Bulgarian. Lingua 150, 232-277.
TATEVOSOV, S. (2013): Množestvennaja prefiksacija i ee sledstvija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3, 42-89
TATEVOSOV, S. (2017): On the aspectual architecture of Russian. Ms. Moscow State University.
WIEMER, B. & I. SERŽANT (2017): Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us? In W. Bisang & A. Malchukov (eds.),Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios. Berlin: Language Science Press, 239-307.

Page Updated: 22-Jan-2020