Traditionally, two types of markingPVAare distinguished: prefixisationand suf-fixisation. Prefixes appear before the root of the verb, suffixes appear after the root. Concluding from the template (Section 3.2),PVAdoes not need to have sur-face marking.2 The problem of markedness cannot be solved easily, because the morpheme and categories ofPVAdo not correspond directly. As I explain below, both prefixes and suffixes are polyfunctional and they do not form any clearly unified system.
3.5.2 Verbal stem
The paradigm of Polish verbal lexemes must always account for two variants of the stem.3 The infinitive, Past tense, passive participle, and past participle usu-ally share one stem variant, while (part of) the Non-past tense, imperative, active participle and present participle paradigm usually share another stem variant, as shown below:
(39) a. koch-a-´c love-SUFF-INF
b. koch-aj- ˛a love-SUFF-3PL
(40) a. sol-i-´c salt-SUFF-INF
b. sol-ø- ˛a salt-ø-3PL
2Nevertheless, some scholars argue that in verbs likerzuc-i-´c‘to throw (a discrete situation)’
the morpheme-i-is the marker of the Perfective, while the morpheme-a-in the Imperfective rzuc-a-´c‘to throw, a continuous act or a series of discrete or continuous acts’ is an aspectual marker (Wróbel 1998: 566).
3It is probably not possible to describe modern Polish verbal stems both simply and consistently due to suppletion and alternation. Consequently, no single, well-acknowledged solution is given.
The account given here is very simplified, because verbal morphology is not in the focus.
(41) a. trze-ø-´c rub-ø-INF
b. tr-ø- ˛a rub-ø-3PL
The stem consists of the root and the stem suffix. The stem suffix may be realised only in one variant of the stem, or not realised in the paradigm. I now discuss particular types of suffix in relation to the aspectual properties of verbal lexemes. In the description, I use the infinitive form, and whenever relevant, I provide both suffixes.
3.5.3 Non-prefixed perfectives
Simplex perfectives
The group of perfective, non-prefixed verbs in Polish forms a very short list (Ła-zorczyk 2010: 16) :chwyci´c‘to grab’,chybi´c‘to miss a goal’,czepi´c‘to cling to, to stick to’,da´c‘to give’,kupi´c‘to buy, to purchase’,lec‘to lie down’,pa´s´c‘to fall down’,pu´sci´c‘to let loose’,rzec‘to say, announce’,ruszy´c‘to start’,rzuci´c
‘to throw’,skoczy´c‘to jump’,stawi´c‘to place’,strzeli´c‘to shoot, to fire a gun’, trafi´c‘to reach, to hit, to find one’s way’. I call these verbs SIMPLEX PERFEC
-TIVES. Most verbs in this group have at least one variant of stem ending with the suffix-i-or-y-or do not realise the stem suffix.
Semelfactives
The separate semelfactive suffix-n ˛a-/-n-(which should not be confused with the homographic translative suffix described in Section 3.5.4) is an explicit Perfective marker and it has an additional meaning, “the smallest unit of action, a quantum of action” Holvoet (1989: 51), as presented in (37) (e.g.waln ˛a´c‘to thud’, miaukn ˛a´c
‘to meow’,mrugn ˛a´c‘to wink’).
3.5.4 Non-prefixed imperfectives
Simplex imperfectives
Non-deverbal verbs described below I callSIMPLEX IMPERFECTIVES. The infini-tive stem variant of imperfecinfini-tive non-prefixed verbs consists of a vowel:lub-i-´c‘to
like’,˙z-y-´c‘to live’,pis-a-´c‘to write’,wiedzi-e-´c‘to know’, or in the case of verbs describing directed motion with suffix-n ˛a-/-n- pły-n ˛a-´c‘to swim somewhere’.
A small group of simplex verbs are suppletive verbs likeje´s´c‘to eat’,i´s´c‘to go’,kra´s´c‘to steal’ which do not have a stem suffix.
Imperfective stem suffixes also include-owa-/-uj- (głos-ow-a-´c ‘to vote’), -izowa-/-izuj- (kolonizowa´c) ‘to colonise’, and -yzowa-/-yzuj- (terroryzowa´c ‘to terrorise’).
Translatives
Deadjectival imperfective verbs can be formed with the suffix-n ˛a-/-n-(bledn ˛a´c
‘to become more pale’), or with-ie-/iej-(widnie´c‘to be visible somewhere or to become brighter’,ładnie´c‘to become beautiful or more beautiful’). These verbs share a meaning ‘to be or become as described by the adjective from which the verb is derived’. I call themTRANSLATIVES.4
Deverbal non-prefixed imperfectives
Within deverbal, nonprefixed imperfectives three groups can be distinguished.
HABITUALS are derived from other imperfectives and express habits: pi-j-a-´c
‘to have a habit of drinking’ in comparison topi-´c,ch-a-dz-a-´c‘to have a habit of going somewhere’ in comparison toch-o-dz-i-´c‘to walk’;siad-ywa-´c‘to have a habit of sitting down somewhere’ in comparison tosiada´c,pis-ywa-´c‘to have a habit of writing’.
Morphologically similar changes apply to verbs of undirected movement. also derived when contrasted with the imperfective verbs of directed movement: pły-wa-´cin comparison topły-n ˛a-´c,l-a-t-a-´cin comparison toleci-e-´c. In the third group, all simplex perfectives, butrzechave a non-prefixed imperfective correlate:
chwyta´c, chybia´c, czepia´c, dawa´c, kupowa´c, pada´c, puszcza´c, rusza´c, rzuca´c, skaka´c, stawia´c, strzela´c, trafia´c. I will call verbs belonging to the latter two groupsBAREimperfectives.
4I apply this term after Uralic tradition, see Section 4.2.1
3.5.5 Prefixed verbs
Inventory of prefixes in Polish
In Polish the prefixes:de(z)-,kontr-,niedo-,re- współ, andprzeciw-are not con-sidered aspectual markers (Wróbel 1998: 564; Łazorczyk 2010: 24; Biskupska 2018: 55).
Depending on the treatment of some prefixes, scholars distinguish between 26 (Bartnicka et al. 2004), 17 (Biskupska 2018; ´Smiech 1986) and 18 (Łazorczyk 2010)5aspectual prefixes which carry a meaning of some spatial relation. Most of them correspond synchronically with the form and meaning of some preposition (rows 1–14 in Table 3.1). The exhaustive list is given in Table 3.1 (based on Łazor-czyk 2010: 22–23 and Łazi´nski 2011: 234). Prefixed verbs are perfective (as long as they do not receive an additional imperfective suffix) and they are derived from simplex perfectives and simplex imperfectives. Since the population of simplex imperfectives is bigger than the population of simplex perfectives, prefixed verbs are more frequently derived from simplex imperfective stems. In some cases, the non-prefixed base does not exist and the prefixed verb is derived directly from an adjective or noun as inprzy-bli˙z-y-´c‘to bring closer, to magnify’ synchronically related to the adjectivebliski‘near, close’.
prefix meaning non-prefixed prefixed derivate
do- ‘to, into, towards, till, until´
da´c‘give’ doda´c‘to add’
na- ‘on, onto’ chlapa´c ‘to
splash’
nachlapa´c‘to splash on something’
nad(e)- ‘above, over’ pisa´c‘to write’ nadpisa´c ‘to over-write’
o- ‘around, about’ snu´c‘to plot’ osnu´c ‘to wrap with a thread’
od(e)- ‘away, from’ spa´c‘to sleep’ odespa´c ‘to sleep off’
po- ‘over, after’ bieli´c‘to whiten’ pobieli´c ‘to white-wash’
pod- ‘under, below, be-neath’
pisa´c‘to write’ podpisa´c‘to sign’
5Łazorczyk (2010) treats the prefixesob-andoseparately, whereas most scholars treat them as variants of the same prefix (cf. Biskupska 2018: 55). In the present work they are considered separately, making it possible to trace the differences in quantitative patterns.
przed(e)- ‘in front of, be-fore, prior to’
stawi´c‘to place’ przedstawi´c ‘to in-troduce’
przy- ‘next to, at’ ku´c‘to forge’ przyku´c‘to chain, to nail’
u- ‘at, by’ dramatyzowa´c
‘to panic’
udramatyzowa´c ‘to adjust for a stage’
w(e)- ‘in, inside, into’ czyta´c‘to read’ wczyta´c‘to read in’
z(e)-/ s- / ´s- ‘from, off, with’ skoczy´c‘to jump’ zeskoczy´c ‘to jump down’
ob(e)- ‘around, about’ smarowa´c ‘to slush’
czyta´c‘to read’ przeczyta´c ‘to finnish reading’
roz(e)- ‘from the centre in many
wy- ‘out, outwards’ rzuci´c‘to throw’ wyrzuci´c ‘to throw away’
wz(e)- / wez-/ ws- wez-/
wes-‘upward’ tchn ˛a´c ‘to breath into’
westchn ˛a´c‘to sigh’
Table 3.1: Polish perfective prefixes
Prefixes and productivity
Most prefixes are productive and they combine with new stems. Łazorczyk (2010:
27 – 28) attests the examples for all prefixes butnad-,przed-andwz-in combina-tion with stems related to informacombina-tion technologyklika´c‘to klick’ andblogowa´c
‘to blog’. On the other hand, usually only certain combinations of prefixes are possible with the given root, and it is challenging to form any general rules about them.
In many cases the morphological structure of prefixed verbs is visible, al-though the etymon is not used any more. Usually several prefixed cognates can be compared, for example, to those derived from Proto-slavic *gl˛edati‘to watch’:
o-gl ˛ada´c‘to watch, to inspect, to behold’,wy-gl ˛ada´c‘to look, to appear’,
prze-gl ˛ada´c‘to glance through’.
Secondary imperfectives
Deriving new imperfective verbs from prefixed perfectives is possible too. In the literature, such verbs are calledSECONDARY IMPERFECTIVES(cf. Dickey 2000;
Łazorczyk 2010). The morphological change in the stem is similar to deverbal imperfectives. The stem suffix of the derivative base is replaced with the new, more complex one (Wróbel 1998: 565), for example,przepis-ywa-´cin comparison toprze-pis-a-´cor przepi-ja-´cin comparison toprze-p-i-´c. The suffix -owywa-/-owuj-6is also used when the suffix stem of the prefixed perfective verb is -owa-/-uj-(przebud-ow-ywa-´cin comparisonprze-bud-owa-´c‘to rebuild’).
Prefix stacking
Prefixes can be stacked in Polish, attaching in front of other prefixes. This largely occurs in secondary imperfectives, as in the verbpo-od-po-wiada´c‘toDISTRIBU
-TIVE.answer’, although, as noted in Łazi´nski (2011: 234), in most cases the orig-inal stem becomes blurred. In the example above only the first two prefixes (po-anddo-) are synchronically lexically motivated. Nowadays, only prefixespo-and na-have an unrestricted distribution in the context of prefix stacking (see Section 3.6.2).
3.5.6 Formal status of
PVAThe irregular character ofPVAmarkers causes disagreement among scholars about the formal status of aspectual markers in Polish, or more broadly speaking in Slavic languages. Grzegorczykowa et al. (1984) suggested that aspectual suffixes belong to verbal inflection, while prefixes belong to verbal derivation. This ap-proach implies that some verbs are grammatical variants of one lexeme, but other verbs which share the root represent different lexemes. A similar approach is followed in Bartnicka Bartnicka et al. (2004: 328–9).
Laskowski (1998b) offers a more unitary solution is offered – each verb is treated as a unique lexeme andPVAis a classificatory category analogical to noun
6The derivation process could be considered in terms of deriving a new stem from the base stem, but this would require introducing an additional notion of stem vowel (e.g. in Łazorczyk 2010). The main disadvantage of such an approach is the increased complexity of the description.
gender. The approach has recently been defended by Wiemer & Seržant (2017), and I follow it here.