16-Bondarko Alexander V 1991 Functional Grammar - A Field Approach

Chapter I
Functional grammar:
subject matter and goals
General view
Every grammar has, to a greater or lesser extent, a functional aspect.

What then are the grounds for speaking of functional grammar as a
special type of grammatical description? What are the specific features of
this type of grammar?
The distinctive character of functional grammar can be revealed
only on the basis of the principle of unity of system-structural (system-
categorial) and functional aspects of grammar as a whole. The first aspect
Copyright © 1991. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
is a system of grammatical units, classes and categories (and also lexico-

grammatical and word-formative features connected with them). What is
meant here is a potential of language means (together with their mean
ings) which are at the disposal of speakers of a given language, a certain
mechanism underlying the functioning of grammatical and other related
elements, this mechanism's principles and structure. The second aspect is
a system of laws and rules governing the functioning of grammatical
units in cooperation with the elements of different language levels which
take part in expressing the meaning of the utterance. This aspect links the
system of language with the system of speech, paradigmatics with syn-
tagmatics, statics with dynamics. It is directly connected with a definite
speech situation, i.e., the communication process. Both aspects, as already
mentioned, form an organic unity. Grammar as a certain mechanism, as a
system of elements with its own structure, and as a set of language
means with their own meanings, is aimed at functioning and is mani
fested in the use of language elements in speech. On the other hand, the
Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Created from ben on 2020-07-21 22:23:51.
2 FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: A FIELD APPROACH
system of functioning is determined by the system of language units

together with the classes and categories represented by them.
The principle of unity of the system-structural (system-categorial)
and functional aspects of grammar determines the place of functional
grammar in the overall system of grammar as a science. Functional
grammar is not opposed to traditional grammar as a system based on the
description of grammatical units, classes and categories. Neither is it an
absolutely new and separate scientific discipline. Functional grammar is
rather a specific development of the functional aspect of grammar as a
whole. The goal of grammar under consideration is to elaborate the
dynamic aspect of the functioning of grammatical units in their interaction
with elements of different language levels taking part in expressing the
meaning of the utterance. At the same time, functional grammar does not
break its ties with the system-structural (system-categorial) aspect of
language. On the contrary, its essential component is description of the
system of language means which are employed in speech. What makes
functional grammar special is that this description is built not according
to separate levels and aspects of the grammatical system (morphology,
word-formation, syntax of the simple and complex sentence), but accord
ing to functional-semantic units of the language which combine elements
of different levels interacting on a semantic basis. Within the variant of
functional grammar dealt with in this work, the system-structural (system-

categorial) aspect of grammatical description is realised in the form of an
analysis of the structure of functional-semantic fields (taking into account
such matters as the correlation between the centre and periphery of the
field, the main links between its components, and overlapping with other
fields). Thus, the system of language means is seen through the semantic
principle of their grouping. It is this objective foundation of the grouping
of language means employed in speech that provides the possibility of
description - typical of functional grammar - proceeding not only from
form to meaning (from means to functions), but also from meaning to
form (from functions to means).
For example, on the basis of the semantic category of time, there
emerges a certain system of means of expression of temporal relations
interacting at different levels, that is to say, a functional-semantic field of
temporality. In the Russian language, the centre of this field is a system
of tense-forms of the indicative mood in the active voice. The immediate

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: SUBJECT MATTERS AND GOALS 3
periphery includes such expressive means as analytical passive participial

forms, such as:
byl rassmotren - rassmotren - budet rassmotren ("was exam

ined - is examined - will be examined"),
full-form past participles, e.g.:
rassmatrivavšij - rassmotrevšij - rassmotrennyj ("who was

examining - who has examined - which has been exam
ined"),
and present participles, e.g.:
rassmatrivajuščcij - rassmatrivaemyj ("who is examining -

which is being examined");
forms denoting habitual action in the past, like
govarival ("would say"),
jedal ("would eat"),
zival ("would live"),
našival ("would wear"),

peval ("would sing"),
xazival ("would visit");
verbless syntactical constructions denoting situation in the present, e.g.:
Noc ("It is night"),
Tisina ("It is quiet"),
Otec doma ("Father is at home"),
Trudno poverit' ("It's hard to believe"),

correlative with constructions that include forms like byl ("was") and
budet ("will be"). The remote periphery of this field can include such
language means as syntactical constructions with modal meaning implying
the temporal reference of the situation or of one of its elements to the
future, e.g.:

Ujdite! ("Go away!"),

Postroit'sja! ("Fall in!"),
Vam dezurit' ("It's your shift"),
Pomoc tehe? ("Can I help you?"),
Ko mne mogut zajti druzja ("Some of my friends could drop
in"),
V etom godu my xotim poexat' v Krym ("This year we want
to go to the Crimea"),
adverbial modifiers, such as
sejcas ("now"),
zavira ("tomorrow"),
cerez dve nedeli ("in two weeks"),
vcera ("yesterday"),
god tomu nazad ("a year ago"),
davno ("long ago"), etc.,
and various contextual means of expressing temporal relations which do

not have any concrete and homogeneous structural characteristics, e.g.:
togdasnij ("in those days"),
v bolee pozdnix proizvedenijax ("in his later works"),
ja vspominaju ("I recall").
The system-structural aspect of description, as applied to this type
of grammar, is marked by a pronounced functional orientation: groups of
language means of different levels are described according to a principle
based on the objective laws of functioning of language means in speech,
the chief aim being to communicate the sense. To achieve this, language
means of different levels are used, grouped on a semantic basis.
Both structural and functional trends of linguistic research are
embraced by the system principle, which has specific forms of realisation
of each of these trends.

Since traditional grammar divides its object of study into the levels
of morphology and syntax, and into subsystems representing classes of
words, word-forms and syntactical constructions, it is based on the prin
ciple of system differentiation. As to functional grammar, it integrates
language means of different levels within functional units and from this
point of view is characterised by the opposite feature of system integra-
tion.
These types of system analysis in grammar may be correlated with
the concepts of monosystem and polysystem analysis used in general
systems theory. Monosystem analysis implies the division of complex
objects into homogeneous units, and deals with strata, or levels. Polysys
tem analysis is aimed at comprehensive investigation of interaction
between systems of different levels (Kuz'min 1978: 26-33).
The above-mentioned types of system analysis in grammar supple
ment each other. One of them is aimed at determining the specific fea
tures of formal and semantic structures belonging to each of these sub
systems. For example, temporal correlation of actions is considered
separately in describing: (a) categories of tense and aspect, (b) participles
and adverbial participles, (c) sentences with homogeneous predicates, (d)
complex sentences with subordinate clauses of time, etc. The aim of the
other type of system analysis is a comprehensive examination of a certain
range of semantic functions and all the language means used in their
realisation. For instance, a field of taxis is singled out which embraces all
the types of temporal correlation of actions and all the language means of
their expression in a given language (see below, and also Teorija funkcio-
nal'noj grammatiki ... 1987).
Different methods can be employed in studying and describing the
dynamic aspect of the functioning of language units taking part in ex
pressing the meaning of the utterance. Traditionally, linguists investigated
the use of grammatical units (forms and structures) operating with such
concepts as "a particular meaning of the grammatical form" and "a
function of the grammatical form". One must also consider the possibility
of using such concepts and terms that could be applied in analysing
semantic functions at the level of utterance, taking into account all formal
means in interaction. The concept of categorial situation, as formulated in
the present variety of functional grammar, serves this aim. In accordance
with this concept, a particular aspect corresponding to a given functional-

semantic field is singled out of the general situation expressed by the

utterance.
Thus, functional grammar can be defined as a grammar (1) which
is aimed at studying and describing the laws of functioning of grammati
cal units in interaction with elements of various language levels taking
part in conveying the meaning of the utterance, and (2) which makes it
possible to carry out an analysis proceeding not only from form to
meaning (from means to functions), but also from meaning to form (from
functions to means). This type of grammar should include, in one form or
another, (a) an analysis of the system of language means taking part in
realisation of the functions under study, and (b) an analysis of the seman
tic functions being realised in the utterance, i.e., in speech. In our variety
of functional grammar, there are two components that serve these aims:
(a) a description of the structure of functional-semantic fields within the
system of fields of a given language (field structuring), and (b) a descrip-
tion of categorial situations (aspectual, causal, conditional, etc.) based on
a certain functional-semantic field and representing elements of its content
and expression in the utterance.
Functional grammar is mostly concerned with examining the
functions of language means, the laws and rules governing their function
ing in an utterance, and the interaction of elements of different levels and
aspects of the language system in speech. As far as the orientation of

grammatical analysis is concerned, the most important thing in describing
the concept of functional grammar is above all to recognise the funda
mental possibility of analysis proceeding from meaning to form (from
functions to means). Such a possibility is characteristic of functional
grammar as contrasted with formal (structural) grammar. At the same
time, this is not a constant or obligatory attribute of functional grammar.
Grammatical description may only be based on analysis proceeding from
form to meaning (from means to functions) - but nevertheless it will be
functional if it is specially aimed at examining the laws of functioning of
grammatical units in speech.
The correlation between means and functions can be most exhaus
tively described by an organic combination of approaches from the point
of view of means and from the point of view of functions.
The expediency of a dual approach to describing the functions of
language means is dictated above all by the principle of "the asymmetri-

cal dualism of the language sign" (according to S.O. Karcevskij), which

implies the absence of isomorphism between the units of the expression
plane and the content plane, that is, the possibility of one unit of the
expression plane corresponding to several units of the content plane and,
conversely, one unit of the content plane corresponding to several units of
the expression plane. Hence the need to take into account, on the one
hand, the diversity of language meanings, which is only possible in
analysis proceeding from means, and on the other hand, the diversity of
language means, which is possible only in analysis proceeding from
functions. It should be borne in mind that analysis from functions to
means corresponds to the point of view of the speaker, whereas analysis
from means to functions corresponds to the point of view of the listener.
Hence the need to synthesise the aspects of passive grammar (for the
listener) and active grammar (for the speaker).
Functional grammar forms part of the overall functional model of
language (see: Jakobson 1965; Danes 1967; Zvegincev 1977). As part of
functional linguistics, in its theoretical foundations and analytical methods
it is associated with the functional approach in the modern theory of
scientific knowledge (and at present it is important to develop these ties).
This area of grammatical research is covered by the general problems of
behaviour (functioning) of the system, the types of its interaction with
outside objects (that is, with the environment), and the general trends of
interactions between the functional and system-structural approaches.
The sphere of functional grammar overlaps with such areas of
research as grammatical typology (cf. S.D. Kacnel'son, A.A. Xolodovic,
V.S. Xrakovskij, V.P. Nedjalkov et al.), contrastive grammar (see V.N.
Jarceva), various trends of research in grammatical semantics, grammar of
discourse, grammatical aspects of psycholinguistics, and applied linguis
tics.
It is important to stress the autonomy of functional-grammatical
descriptions of different languages (though this does not rule out the
possibility of comparing these descriptions inasmuch as they are based on
fundamental semantic categories). Functional grammar is not a description
of the universal-logical type. Central to functional-grammar research (in
our understanding) are the laws and types of functioning of grammatical
units in their interaction with the units of other levels and aspects of
language - and, as far as present-day research suggests, these laws can

differ greatly from one language type to the next. The principal object of
analysis is not universal concepts, but rather the actual semantic functions
of language, which contain both universal and non-universal elements.
The laws governing the functioning of grammatical units are included, as
already mentioned, in the notion of the grammatical system of language,
representing its dynamic aspect. Everything that has been traditionally
seen as the grammatical differences between languages of different types,
also belongs to the aspect of language structure under review. Even
structurally similar forms and categories of related languages can show
substantial differences from the point of view of their functioning (Bon-
darko 1983: 66-88).
Differences may concern the general attributes of the system of
functional-semantic fields in a given language, the correlation between
macro- and microfields, the structure of each field, the content and level
of its components, the types of interrelations between grammar and
vocabulary, the overlap of fields, the overall picture of semantic variation
within a field, and the relationship between explicit and implicit meaning.
Thus, functional grammar does not constitute a comprehensive universal
method of description applicable to all languages. Although the various
principles of functional grammatical description reveal certain general
trends, the concrete applications of these descriptions must proceed in
each case from the type and system of a particular language.
Types of functional-grammatical description
The differences between existing types of functional-grammatical descrip

tions cannot be reduced only to analysis of form and meaning (means
and functions), yet this general orientation of analysis must be taken into
account in considering the different types and varieties of functional
grammar.
From this point of view, the following types of functional-gram
matical description should be singled out: (a) descriptions proceeding
from form to meaning, from means to functions; (b) descriptions proceed
ing from meaning to form, from functions to means; and (c) descriptions
based on a combination of the two above principles at different stages of
analysis. Let us consider each of these types separately.

Functional-grammatical descriptions proceeding from form to meaning,

from means to functions
It is evident that reliance on form as the starting-point of functional-

grammatical description brings this type of functional grammar close to
formal (structural) grammar, since any structural grammar contains, to a
greater or lesser extent, a functional aspect (for instance, in defining the
meaning of grammatical forms, in characterising the functions of different
parts of the sentence, or in describing semantically characterised types of
complex sentences). There is no clearcut boundary line between this type
of functional grammar and formal-structural grammar with pronounced
functional aspects. However, the specific character of functional grammar
is clearly discerned if the special object of research and description is the
functioning of grammatical units, if it is the functions of grammatical
units and other language elements interacting with them that come under
scrutiny, if special attention is devoted to context and speech situation in
their interaction with the meaning of grammatical units, and if the analy
sis is not limited to studying grammatical categories in the language
system but is markedly geared to the utterance and speech as a whole
and its specific conditions in the communication process.
Linguistic tradition contains quite a number of instances of gram
matical research and description which include analysis of the functions

of grammatical units and rules of their functioning. For example, in
Russian linguistics, the aforementioned functional aspects were exhaustive
ly studied by F.I. Buslaev, K.S. Aksakov, N.P. Nekrasov, A.A. Potebnja,
F.F. Fortunatov, G.K. Ul'janov, A.A. Saxmatov, and A.M. Peskovskij. In
the Soviet period, by far the greatest contribution was made by V.V.
Vinogradov.
Vinogradov managed to integrate in his grammatical theory of the
word an analysis of how word-forms are employed in live speech. He
built on the achievements of pre-revolutionary Russian linguistics in the
study of the functioning of word-forms, carrying out an in-depth analysis
of the complex relationships between the categorial meanings of gram
matical forms, the lexical meaning of word-forms, and the surrounding
context.
In modern linguistic literature, functional-grammatical research and
description proceeding exclusively or basically from form to meaning are

extensively represented in studies of syntax (including research in com

municative syntax and syntactical semantics) and to a lesser extent in the
study of morphology (nevertheless, functional morphology, which comes
close to the so-called "syntax of parts of speech" is not such a rare genre
in linguistics).
A very pronounced functional orientation is characteristic of aspec-
tology. Aspectology has always been predominantly functional (cf. such
works on Slavic aspectology as Razmusen 1891; Mazon 1914;
Koschmieder 1934, 1979; Seidel 1936; Maslov 1959; Ivancev 1961;
Kopecny 1962; Barnetová 1968; Scheljakin & Schlegel 1970; Seljakin
1983; Forsyth 1970; Barentsen 1973, 1978; Panevová, Sgall 1973; Lomov
1977; Veyrenc 1980; Glovinskaja 1982).
One of the branches of functional grammar of the type under
review is opposition analysis of grammatical categories. The foundations
of opposition analysis were laid down by R.O. Jakobson (see, for
example, Jakobson 1932, 1936) and other representatives of the Prague
School of functional linguistics, and also by certain representatives of the
Copenhagen School. The functional analysis carried out by R.O. Jakobson
takes into account particular meanings of grammatical forms actualised in
speech and conditioned by the context; still in all basic aspects it is
geared to general grammatical meanings and their interrelations in the
language system. Such is the orientation of analysis of grammatical

meanings according to their distinctive semantic features (Jakobson 1958).
Of particular importance for the theory of functional grammar (both
synchronically and diachronically) is the concept of primary and second
ary functions advanced by Jerzy Kurylowicz (Kurylowicz 1962) (cf. the
interpretation of primary and secondary functions of grammatical forms
by Krízková 1966).
An original functional-grammatical concept was advanced by E.
Koschmieder, who drew a distinction between the D-plane (designatum,
Bezeichnetes, signifié), which includes the functions of grammatical forms
which vary in a given language, and the I-plane (intentum, Gemeintes,
the content of thought), which includes noemes representing interlinguistic
constants, i.e. invariants (Koschmieder 1965; 72-89, 101-106, 159-160,
211-213 ff.).
Quite in a class by itself in functional grammar is the French
School of functional linguistics (André Martinet and his followers), which

concentrates on analysing language means used by the speaker in a

concrete communication situation, and is oriented towards grammatical
aspects of speech which are analysed from the point of view of the
communicative function of language (see the description of the branch of
functional linguistics associated with André Martinet in the collection
Linguistique fonctionnelle 1979).
Of great importance for the theory of functional grammar are the
teachings of G. Guillaume on the interrelation between systemic meanings
and functional speech meanings, on the transfer of language units
(through actualisation means) into speech depending on the speech situ
ation and the purpose of the utterance (see Guillaume 1968, 1969; see
also the analysis of Guillaume's linguistic theory in the article Referov-
skaja 1977: 113-123).
In this connection, we must mention the distinction drawn by E.
Benveniste between the "plan de l'histoire" and the "plan du discours" (in
reference to the functioning of verbal categories of tense and person)
(see: Benveniste 1959: 259, 291, see also Pospelov 1966: 17-29).
We have already mentioned the lack of clearcut boundaries
between functional grammar of the type under review and structural
grammar. Yet for all the gradualness of transition, we can still define the
general limits of this particular type of grammatical description. Func
tional grammar, as a special branch of grammar, concentrates on ana

lysing the functions of grammatical units and the laws governing their
functioning.
Functional-grammatical descriptions proceeding primarily from meaning to

form, from functions to means
Functional-grammatical research of the type under consideration has been

developing and continues to develop in a number of different directions.
Grammatical tradition is well acquainted with analysis proceeding
from semantic content to the means of its formal expression. Notable is
J.A. Baudouin de Courtenay's work on quantitativity in language thinking
(Baudouin de Courtenay 1927: 3-18), in which he largely anticipates later
research in conceptual categories, fields, etc. Baudouin did not merely
bring together and describe various means of expressing quantitative

relations, but examined the substantial characteristics of different types of

quantitativity in linguistic thinking and their interrelations. Such are, for
example, his comparisons of spatial and temporal quantity, iterativity and
durativity, collectivity and simple plurality, intensity, and so on. In delin
eating and comparing quantity in linguistic thinking and "mathematical
quantity", Baudouin expresses in several of his works the idea of distin
guishing language thinking (language knowledge) and "extralinguistic
semasiological notions".
The principle "from meaning to form" underlies the detailed
description of the body of notions and means of their expression in the
well-known work by F. Brunot (see: Brunot 1953; 1st ed. 1922). This
extensive treatise describes the expression of such notions (thoughts,
ideas) as people, things, number, sex, actions (facts), person, subject,
object, will, quantity, quality, comparison, temporal relations, aspect,
logical relations (causal, consequential, purposive, adversative, conditional,
concessive, and hypothetical). F. Brunot sets the goal of reforming gram
mar by replacing description in which grammatical phenomena are
divided according to separate parts of speech by description which
proceeds from ideas (thoughts) to the means of their expression. Brunot
acknowledges that his description is not a grammar in the conventional
sense, emphasising that his principle of describing linguistic facts is
geared to the practical aims of language teaching (see Brunot 1953: VII-
XXIV).
Relying on the same principle of description "from meaning to
form", L.V. Scerba advanced the idea of "active grammar", that is to say,
a grammar "proceeding from semantics, regardless of the concrete lan
guage" and dealing with the question of "how a certain idea is expressed"
(Scerba 1974: 48, 56, 333). At the same time, Scerba doubted the pos
sibility of consistent implementation of the principle of description from
sense to form:
The leading element in active acquisition of language should be meaning.

However, attempts, as made, for example, by Brunot ..., to proceed exclusively
from meaning to form have not yielded any satisfactory or clear results even in
their native language. Perhaps it is impossible to give a comprehensive descrip
tion of grammar proceeding only from meaning to form (Ščerba 1974: 77).

In modern linguistics, the meaning-to-form approach as the fun

damental principle of describing language material is implemented in such
pieces of research and description as "the means of expressing spatial
(temporal, causal, quantitative, etc.) relations in a particular language or
in languages being compared" (see, for example, Pete 1973, 1976, 1981;
Vsevolodova, Vladimirskij 1982; Švačko 1981; Ozerova 1978).
Many descriptions of this type have a practical orientation. They
are, indeed, very useful as a basis for active acquisition of a foreign
language. However, purely practical works on teaching methods often
contain valuable theoretical material. For instance, of great theoretical, as
well as practical, interest is Ucebnik russkogo jazyka dlja inostrannyx
studentov-filologov [A Textbook of Russian for Foreign Students of
Philology] (ed. V.G. Gak), specifically in describing the expression of the
subject, expression of limitativity and intensity, necessity, redundancy,
possibility/impossibility, imperativity, optativity, uncertainty, comparison,
presence and absence, possession, negation, indefiniteness, and so on (see:
Lobanova, Slesareva 1980).
Grammatical research of this type is useful because it enables one
to integrate in a single system the diverse language means which tradi
tional grammar based on form analyses in different parts of grammatical
description - morphology, word-formation, and syntax. Moreover, analysis
proceeding from semantic content and aimed at finding various means of

its expression makes it possible to identify the particularly complex
means (combined, grammatical-lexical, grammatical-contextual, oblique,
indirect, non-categorial, "hidden" in complex laws of interplay of gram
mar and vocabulary, grammar and context, morphology and syntax, etc.).
Many such means of expression of semantic content remain hidden in
traditional description methods proceeding from known, simpler, obvious
grammatical forms. For instance, in examining the means of expressing
temporal relations in Russian (e.g., temporal relation to the future), not
only grammatical tense forms and lexical markers like zavtra "tomorrow"
and vot-vot "on the point" are taken into account, but also such means as
imperative and subjunctive constructions, various infinitive constructions,
verbless constructions of various types, incomplete sentences, etc.
Practically speaking, this orientation of analysis cannot be indepen
dent of form. In one way or another the formal side is taken into ac
count. This is manifested in the choice of meaning to be analysed in

grammar, and the relation to grammar is determined not only by the

character of the meanings themselves, but also by the means of their
expression. The semantic categories that serve as a starting point for
description must include not only lexical, descriptive, but also grammati
cal means and must be expressed in the grammatical system of the
language (apart from lexical, contextual and other expression) - otherwise
a description proceeding from meaning to form will not constitute a
grammar.
Description from meaning to form will be evident in its "pure
form" only if analysis is limited to systematisation of the formal means
related to a given semantic area. As soon as research and description
exceeds these bounds (in particular, as soon as the question comes up of
subcategorisation within a given semantic category and of semantic
varieties) analysis will inevitably turn to meanings and shades of meaning
of concrete language means, but these meanings and nuances can be
discerned only by examining the functioning of language units. This stage
of analysis already proceeds from form to meaning, from means to
functions.
It should also be borne in mind that semantic categories in their
language realisation always appear in complex combination and interplay.
Temporal relations, for instance, interact with aspectual and modal
relations. Examination of this interaction and of its results is impossible

without reliance on forms in which the interrelations of semantic cat
egories are embodied in a way peculiar to each particular language. For
instance, division of temporal relations into the spheres of present, past
and future does not by any means cover the entire gamut of temporal
relations, which is vastly compounded and enriched by their interplay
with aspectual and modal elements. Compare, for example, the meaning
of the actual and non-actual present, the modally and aspectually coloured
variants of the meaning of the future tense, and so on. All these
meanings can be comprehended only after analysing the functioning of
the corresponding temporal and aspectual-temporal forms.
It is obvious, therefore, that in order to reveal the system of
linguistic meanings within a given initial semantic area, one needs to go
beyond the initial semantic area and examine the forms (formal means) of
the given language and analyse their meaning and usage. This implies
going beyond analysis proceeding from meaning to form and using the

opposite direction, from form to meaning. Thus it is clear that we need to

combine the analytical approaches proceeding from meaning and from
form.
Functional-grammatical descriptions based on a combination of analysis

proceeding from forms and from meanings
The need to combine the two basic directions of grammatical analysis

- from form to meaning and from meaning to form - was explicitly
voiced back in 1922 when S.I. Bernstejn wrote:
... the starting point of syntactical research should be material obtained from
physically produced and received external speech. From this material manifesta
tion, the linguist proceeds to its mental source - from phonetic expression of a
thought to its meaning. For instance, the fact that a language has an imperative
mood prompts us to conclude that the psychical plane of this language contains
the category of imperativity. On the other hand, however, it may turn out that
this category can also be expressed in other forms, by other phonetic means,
for example, in the form of the infinitive pronounced with an imperative
intonation. Therefore, having ascertained the meaning and category of a certain
speech form, the linguist must then go in the opposite direction and, proceeding
from the new-found category, again review the entire material of external
expressions of thought in the language. As a result, he will get a dual system
of correspondence: (1) the verbal form in the imperative mood expresses the
grammatical categories of imperativity, conditionality, and so on; (2) the
category of imperativity can be expressed in the form of the imperative mood,
in the form of the infinitive pronounced with an imperative intonation, and so
on ... Only in this latter system does syntax become complete and reach its
final goal - to be able to describe a certain area of psychical phenomena and
the methods of their external expression (Bernštejn 1922: 213).
Similar ideas on the need to combine the two directions of analysis

in grammatical description were expressed by Otto Jespersen. This idea
was embodied in his Philosophy of Grammar (1st ed. 1924), where he
analyses an impressive amount of diverse language material. Jespersen's
book has been widely acclaimed as one of the best examples of

functional-grammatical description combining the form-to-meaning ap

proach with the meaning-to-form approach.
The ideas expressed by Bernstejn and Jespersen in the 1920s have
not lost their relevance today. Indeed, we should distinguish and include
in an integrated system two stages of analysis: (1) singling out a certain
semantic category which exists in a given language, on the basis of
grammatical form, with analysis proceeding from form to meaning; (2)
finding the diverse means which can express this semantic category in the
given language, with analysis proceeding from meaning to form (from
semantics to the means of expression). Yet this does not exhaust the
interrelationships and alterations of the two directions of analysis under
review. After the linguist discovers all the means that can express a
certain semantic category, he must go on to the next stage: (3) analysing
the functioning of the basic forms (basic for expressing that particular
semantic category) in order to determine the meanings expressed by them
(in delineating and comparing what is expressed by the form itself and
what is deduced from the context); on this basis (according to the form-
to-meaning approach) we can investigate the system of semantic sub-
categorisation and semantic variation within a given semantic category.
Both approaches can be pursued even further. Thus, in the area of
functional-grammatical research associated with functional-semantic fields
(more on this anon), the general semantic boundaries of a given field are
defined on a semantic basis, but the field's structure is determined by
analysing specific language means - grammatical categories (as a unity of
content and expression), grammatical forms and constructions, lexical
means, etc. At this stage, analysis is again based on form. Further, in
examining the actualisation of the elements of a functional-semantic field
in an utterance, the linguist can operate with such concepts as aspectual,
temporal, modal, causal, locative, etc., situation (see Chapter III). The
singling out of such model situations is based on semantics. Further on,
however, in analysing multistage systems in semantic variation of aspec
tual, temporal and other similar situations, we must again bear in mind
the specific content of various formal means and their diverse combina
tions. Thus, analysis again proceeds from form to meaning.
Such constant alternation of the two approaches at different stages
of analysis (alternation conditioned by the particular goals of each stage)
and utilisation of the results obtained from the form-to-meaning approach

in the meaning-to-form approach (and vice versa) constitute a synthesis of

these two approaches.
Such synthesis may assume a variety of forms. The more sig
nificant differences depend on which of the two opposite approaches of
analysis and description is adopted as the leading one. Of fundamental
importance, however, is above all the very fact that the two approaches
based on form and on meaning are united in one system.
Within functional-grammatical research using diverse combinations
of the form-to-meaning approach (semasiological) and the meaning-to-
form approach (onomasiological), there exist various theoretical trends.
For example, the functional-syntactical concept advanced by G.A.
Zolotova proceeds from the understanding of the syntactical system of
language as an objective system of syntactical means and rules of their
employment which is at the disposal of the language community and
determines the structure of speech (Zolotova 1973, 1982). Proceeding
from the general target model of language, G.A. Zolotova sees the
functional criterion of all syntactical means as the role of each of them in
constructing connected speech, i.e., in the process of communication
("what is for what?"). The function of syntactical units is interpreted as
their role in constructing a communicative unit, i.e., the sentence. Apart
from the function of expressing the relations of reality, the author devotes
special attention to the actual linguistic, constructive, combinatory syntac

tical functions. Much importance in this concept is attached to the
concept of form in syntax. The meaning-to-form approach is actualised in
analysis of "model meanings", which are interpreted as the common
meanings of many sentences representing a given model and, at the same
time, as the common meanings of several synonymous models combining
components expressed in different ways. Compare, for example, the
model meaning of an object and its quality as expressed by such sen
tences as
Sotrudnik userden ("The employee is hardworking")

and
Ego lico vyrazitel'no ("His face is expressive")
(one model) and also

Sotrudnik otlicaetsja userdiem ("The employee is remarkable

for his zeal"),
Sotrudnika otlicaet userdie ("The employee is distinguished

by his zeal"),
and
Dlja sotrudnika xarakterno userdie ("Zeal is characteristic of

this employee")
- several synonymous models (Zolotova 1973: 6-29 ff.)

N.A. Sljusareva, while agreeing with Zolotova's definition of
syntax as a branch of grammar dealing with the structure of speech, gives
prominence in functional syntax to the concept of utterance as a unit of
speech (Sljusareva 1981: 57-70). According to her, the study of an
utterance must above all concentrate on examining the relationship
between the functional element coming from speech and the grammatical
element coming from the language (ibid.: 69). Sljusareva emphasises the
difference between the semantic and functional aspects of grammatical
phenomena, interpreting the semantic qualities of linguistic units as basic
and absolute qualities without which the given bilateral unit would lose
its identity; at the same time, functional qualities are seen as arbitrary and
relative qualities, which are not only to be found in the system, but
actually dependent on it. The appearance and presence of functional
qualities of language units is determined by the functioning of language
units in speech (ibid.: 70-75).
The works of V.G. Gak on functional linguistics (see: Gak 1974,
1975, 1979, 1981) cover the functioning of grammatical forms and con
structions described in the semasiological trend (from form to content)
and also aspects of active grammar associated with the onomasiological
trend (from content to form). Gak's interpretation of the concept of
situation in grammar (Gak 1973: 349-372) is important for analysis of the
denotative aspects of a situation which are reflected in the content of
utterance.
The functional-grammatical concepts which build on the traditions
of the Prague School of functional linguistics concentrate above all on the
semantic structure of the sentence (Vědecká synchronní mluvnice spisovné
cestiny 1974; Danes, Hlavsa a kol. 1981; Russkaja grammatika 1979;

Zimek 1980; Adamec 1973, 1982; Bëlicová 1982). A distinctive trend,

"functional-generative description", is associated with the name of P. Sgall
and his group of algebraic linguistics (Sgall 1967; Sgall, Nebesky,
Goralciková, Hajicová 1969; Sgall, Panevová 1976; Panevová 1980).
These linguists draw a distinction between the cognitive content (ohsah)
and the language meaning (vyznam). Despite varying interpretations of
this difference (Dokulil, Danes 1958: 232-234; Danes, Hlavsa a kol. 1981:
44; Sgall, Panevová 1976: 14-15; Sgall, Hajicová, Panevová 1986: 8-18;
Bëlicová 1982: 7-8), the common tendency shared by all is such a strat
ification of semantics as dealt with in syntax (and in grammar as a
whole), which attaches fundamental importance to linguistic interpretation
of denotative content (see the concept of "language stylisation" suggested
by V. Mathesius [Mathesius 1961: 10-13 ff.], of grammatical presentation,
see: Adamec 1982: 12-14, and so on).
For considerations of space, we are unable to cite even the basic
works which have influenced the development of functional grammar.
These include not only pieces of research which explicitly emphasise the
functional orientation of grammatical description, but also works on
grammar which contain a detailed analysis of the semantic aspect of the
grammatical system of language. For instance, the description of gram
matical semantics in the academic treatise Russkaja grammatika 1980
contains some fine material which can be used in constructing a func

tional grammar of the Russian language - specifically, in N.Ju. Svedova's
description of sentence semantics (Russkaja grammatika 1980, vol. II: 10-
11, 83-136, 237-286; Svedova 1973: 458-483; 1978: 450-467).
Functional grammar is not a self-contained isolated area of research
- we have already spoken of its overlap with a number of other branches
of grammar and linguistic subjects. Of great importance for functional
grammar is the study of semantic categories in their relation to grammati
cal categories and other linguistic means. Works devoted entirely or
partially to the subject operate with diverse concepts and terms forming
part of various theoretical systems (for example, mental, semantic, con
ceptual categories, semantic units, features, units of the content plane, or
semantic types of predicates). Essentially, however, in all cases the
linguist examines in one form or another the semantic categorial founda
tions of grammatical structures and the linguistic means interacting with
them. Analysis of this subject matter is important for any grammar,

especially for functional grammar. See the following general theoretical

and typological works: Obscee jazykoznanie 1970; Panfilov 1971, 1982;
Kacnel'son 1972; Universalii i tipologiceskie issledovanija 1974; Tipolo-
gija passivnyx konstrukcij 1974; Problemy lingvisticeskoj tipologii 1977;
Problemy teorii grammaticeskogo zaloga 1978; Xolodovic 1979;
Zalogovye konstrukcii v raznostrukturnyx jazykax 1981; Tipologija rezuV -
tativnyx konstrukcij 1983; Kategorii bytija i obladanija 1977; Kategorija
opredelennosti-neopredelennosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax 1979;
Kategorija pritjazateV nosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax 1983;
Bulygina 1980; Stepanov Ju.S. 1981; Semanticeskie tipy predikatov 1982;
Seliverstova 1982). Examination of any semantic category, starting with
the singling out of its object, is inevitably based on analysis proceeding
from semantics to the means of expression; at certain stages, however,
analysis proceeds in the opposite direction as well (from form to mean
ing). In certain cases determined by the object of research, in a number
of works priority is given to a correlation of units of the content plane
and expression plane without explicitly formulating the direction of
analysis.
The theory of functional grammar overlaps with the theoretical
study of various types of semantics - specifically, syntactical, word-
formation, and lexical semantics (see, for example, Moskal'skaja 1974;
Apresjan 1974; Paduceva 1974; Arutjunova 1976, 1980; Zvegincev 1976;

Šmelev 1977; Karaulov 1976, 1981; Bogdanov 1977; Uluxanov 1977;
Muxin 1980; Kolsanskij 1980; Kubrjakova 1981; Telija 1981; Nikolaeva
1982). Despite the considerable number of works on the subject, to this
day not much is known about the interrelations of different types of
meaning (specifically, grammatical and lexical meaning).
In this brief essay we, quite naturally, had little chance to examine
all the trends and varieties of functional-grammatical research (see, for
example, Schmidt 1965, 1969, 1982; Helbig 1970: 162-189; Kommunika-
tiv-funktionale Sprachbetrachtung 1981a, 1981b; Dik 1978, 1980). Om-
object was to give a most general outline of the types of grammatical
description as affected by the direction of analysis in relation to meaning
and form, functions and means.

Functional grammar based on the concept of functional-semantic field
This variety of functional grammar constitutes one of the possible types

of grammatical description combining analysis proceeding from form and
from meaning.
The branch of functional grammar which we treat in this work can
be described as the grammar of functional-semantic fields and categorial
situations. Let us examine the first of these two concepts.
A functional-semantic field is a system of linguistic means on
various levels of a given language (morphological, syntactical, word-
formation, lexical, and also combined - lexico-syntactical, etc.) united due
to the community and interplay of their semantic functions. Compare, for
example, such fields as aspectuality, temporality, the field of person, the
field of voice, existentiality, possessivity, causality, conditionally, and
locativity.
The term "functional-semantic field" gives prominence to the idea
of a grouping (a systematised array) of language means interacting on a
semantico-functional basis and their system-structural organisation. At the
same time, there is a parallel term, "functional-semantic category", which
emphasises the semantico-categorial aspect of the same object of research
(see, for example, Bondarko 1967).
The concept of functional-semantic fields has to do with modelling

a system of multilevel, structurally heterogeneous language means. The
grammatical system of a language includes specific systems not only
within individual language levels but also interlevel and multilevel sys
tems based on semantico-functional association of grammatical and related
lexical elements. Such systems contain the kind of set of functions and
means that is actualised in speech, which represents an interplay of
elements of both the same and of different fields.
A functional-semantic field as a model is associated with the idea
of a certain space in which the linguist outlines a configuration of central
and peripheral components of the field and identifies zones of overlap
with other fields. (By overlap is meant reflection in a given model of the
interplay of semantic elements in different fields, for example, as part of
semantic complexes with aspectual-temporal, aspectual-modal elements,
with possible involvement of elements of quality, etc. E.g. Konja na
skaku ostanovit "She'll/she can stop a galloping horse".)

The idea of functional-semantic fields largely relies on the theory

of conceptual categories advanced by I.I. Mescaninov, who emphasised
the language nature of these categories: "... not every concept conveyed
by language is a conceptual category. Only a concept which occurs in the
language structure and is systematised in it becomes such a category"
(Mescaninov 1945: 14). Of particular significance is V.V. Vinogradov's
interpretation of modality as a semantic category which in languages of
different systems has "a mixed lexico-grammatical nature" (see Vino
gradov 1975). Vinogradov explained the system of forms and aspects
expressing the category of modality in the Russian language in the field
of syntax, morphology, and the lexical elements of language which
perform a structural role. Vinogradov's analysis of the category of modal
ity in many respects served as a model for describing such functional-
semantic categories (fields) as aspectuality, temporality, the fields of
person and of voice.
According to V.G. Admoni, the structure of a field is characterised
by the correlation of the centre, as forming the optimal concentration of
all attributes combined in a given phenomenon, and the periphery, as
consisting of entities with a deficient number of such attributes, with
possible alteration of their intensity (Admoni 1964: 49). M.M. Guxman
saw a grammatical category as the nucleus of a grammatical field: "The
field's periphery contains units of various types which are functionally of

the same order as the given grammatical category but are formalised to a
lesser degree ..." (Guxman 1968: 172). E.V. Gulyga and E.I. Sendel's
single out in the structure of a grammatico-lexical field a dominant
construed as a field constituent which is (a) most specialised to express
the given meaning: (b) expressed it most unequivocally; (c) is employed
systematically (Gulyga, Sendel's 1969: 10). Similar ideas about the centre
and periphery of the language system have been expressed by Fr. Danes
and several other linguists (Danes 1967: 9-21).
A functional-semantic field is a bilateral unity of form and content
which embraces the concrete means of a given language with all the
characteristics of their form and content. At the same time, underlying
each functional-semantic field is a particular semantic category consti
tuting the semantic invariant which unites heterogeneous language means
and conditions their interaction. The content plane of the functional-
semantic field constitutes a multilevel system of language semantic

subcategorisation (variation). For example, the semantic invariant of

aspectuality, which describes the way an action (and other elements of
the particular situation) takes place and spreads in time, is manifested in
a system of content variants, which include such attributes as limitativity,
temporal localisation and the action's quantitative characteristics (this area
manifests the interplay of aspectuality with temporality and quantitativity),
phase semantics (indication of the beginning, continuation and termination
of an action), the semantics of perfect (indication of the relevance of the
action's effect - an attribute also reflecting the overlap of the fields of
aspectuality and temporality). Each semantic variant within a given
functional-semantic field is associated with particular means of formal
expression.
What is special about functional-grammatical research based on the
notion of functional-semantic fields is that this notion reflects a language
functional-semantic unity. The components of a functional-semantic field
are language categories, classes and units with their language meanings
associated with concrete means of formal expression in a given language.
The relations between these components and their interaction also con
stitute concrete language phenomena. Compare, for example, such mani
festations of interaction between the components of the field of aspec
tuality in the Russian language as the dependence of a verb's aspectual
correlativeness/non-correlativeness on the mode of action (Aktionsart), and

also the combinability/noncombinability of one of the two aspects with
such adverbial aspectual elements as vse ("still") (as in On vse boleet "He
is still sick", which cannot be expressed in the perfective aspect). When
the linguist sets himself the aim of examining the structure of a func
tional-semantic field and determining its central and peripheral compo
nents, their interrelations and overlaps with other fields, he is dealing not
with an abstract system of semantic features, etc., but with a particular
set of bilateral means of the given language. He tries to determine
whether there is any system in the given area of heterogeneous language
means and, if there is, what it consists in. On the basis of the specific
language attributes of the units, classes and categories under investigation
and their interrelationships, he constructs a hypothetical model of the
given functional-semantic unity, which is then verified and adjusted in the
course of examining concrete utterances in the given language. The study
of the representations of elements of the given field in speech utterances

constitutes a kind of experiment, which either confirms or alters, corrects

and adjusts the newly-constructed model of the given functional-semantic
field.
The very process of singling out a certain functional-semantic field
in a given language has concrete-language grounds. A system of language
means with interrelated functions is taken as a basis. The key element
among these means is not necessarily a grammatical category - it can be
a certain syntactical construction, a grouping of lexico-grammatical
classes, etc. Then the linguist ascertains if the given language has any
other means which interact with the given means on the basis of com
munity (though not identity) of semantic functions. After that he es
tablishes the complete set of such means, draws the boundaries of the
given functional-semantic unity, and analyses the field's structure.
Examination of functional-semantic fields includes the type of
analysis which may be called "field structuring", that is to say, the
modelling of a field's structure. This concept implies determining:
(a) the set of components of a functional-semantic field in the
given language on the basis of an invariant semantic feature common to
all of them;
(b) the central and peripheral components of the field on the basis
of certain criteria (Bondarko 1976: 213-223);
(c) the relations between the components of the functional-semantic

field;
(d) the structural type of the given field (see description of basic
types of functional-semantic fields);
(e) the relations between the given field and other functional-
semantic fields, i.e., the role of the given field in the system of func
tional-semantic fields.
A most important element in the study of functional-semantic fields
which is related to field structuring but exceeds the bounds of this notion,
is analysis of the field's semantics. The latter includes determining:
(a) the semantic category underlying the given field;
(b) the set and correlation of semantic features in which this
category is actualised;
(c) the field's semantic dominant, that is to say, the most important
essential feature or complex of features which characterise the content of
the given field and influence its other features.

Analysis of the field's semantics is related to analysis of the form,

i.e., the system of means of formal expression of semantic features found
in the given field. Of special importance is the interplay of morphologi
cal, syntactical, word-formative and lexical means. The question "how is
it expressed?" becomes particularly relevant at the stage of analysis which
is related to examining the most complex combined means of expressing
the given semantics.
A special - and extremely important - stage of examination of
functional-semantic fields is analysis of categorial situations based on
them (see Chapter III).
The variety of grammatical description that we are dealing with
does not imply splitting functional grammar into functional morphology
and functional syntax.
Here the systematisation of language material is based on a very
different principle: the linguist singles out certain groups of functional-
semantic fields in the system of a given language and individual fields
within these groups; then, on the basis of that, he determines the structure
of description, i.e., the sequence of sections devoted to each of the groups
of fields being singled out, and also subsections devoted to separate
fields.
The above does not mean that the delineation of morphology and
syntax is underestimated or completely ignored - on the contrary, within

each field, its elements are clearly differentiated from the point of view
of their belonging to a particular language level or aspect and, specifi
cally, differentiation of morphological and syntactical elements. What is
meant, however, is that the "morphology/syntax" division does not con
stitute the basis of the structure of functional linguistics of this particular
type. Parenthetically speaking, in other varieties of functional grammar its
division into functional morphology and functional syntax may be very
well justified and feasible (in particular, in describing the functioning of
grammatical forms and syntactical constructions consecutively from form
to meaning).

The concept of function
Of the entire range of problems associated with the concept of function,

the present work deals with only one particular question - that of func
tions of language units in various aspects of language potentials and
speech realisations.
We interpret the function of a language unit as such a unit's ability
to accomplish a certain purpose and to be used in a certain way in
speech, on the one hand, and as a result of that unit's functioning in
interaction with its environment, i.e., as a purpose realised in speech, on
the other hand. In the former instance a function appears in its potential
aspect (Fp), in the latter in its resultative aspect (Fr).
These aspects of the concept of function have long been reflected
in linguistic descriptions and definitions: compare such conventional terms
of speech as "the form ... can express ..." and "in this sentence ... is
expressed".1
However, nowhere in the linguistic literature dealing with the
concept of function have these two aspects in their correlation been
specially examined.
The relations between the potential and resultative aspects of a
function are manifold. On the one hand, these are relations between
possibility and reality within a general teleological interpretation of

function; on the other, they are relations between causation and result: the
potential aspect constitutes a prerequisite and conditioning factor of a
certain unit's behaviour in its interaction with the environment.
Fr is not identical to the Fp first of all because Fp embodies the
unit's possibilities generalised in the language system, whereas Fr is in
each particular case a realisation of a certain potential in the given speech
act. Such realisation is concretised by the actual relation of the content of
the utterance to reality and by the variant of interaction between the
function of the language means under examination and the functions of
other means employed in the utterance - the variant appearing in that
particular speech act. It follows that in each instance of transformation of
potential into results (Fp → Fr) there is an element of development. The
idea of development in interpreting the concepts of possibility and reality
was expressed back in the 2nd century B.C. by Aristotle. It can be said,
therefore, that the elements of development associated with each act of

Fp → Fr transformation constitutes a particular manifestation of universal

laws of nature reflected by the philosophical categories of possibility and
reality (Filosofskij enciklopediceskij slovar' 1983: 17).
A special aspect of the difference between the potential and result-
ative sides of a function is associated with the relations between "to
cause functioning" (Fp) and "to be the result of functioning" (Fr). A
definition of "the function of a language unit" which would reflect this
aspect of functions conforms to the interpretation of function in epis-
temology. For example, Filosofskaja enciklopedija interprets a function as
follows (author of article on functions: E. Nikitin): "Function (from Lat.
functio, "performance, fulfilment"), a mode of behaviour which is proper
to an object and makes possible the existence of this object or the system
in which the object is a constituent element" (Filosofkaja ènciklopedija
1970, Vol. 5: 418). Further on, the same article states: "Such an inter
pretation of a function is causal, as contrasted to the teleological inter
pretation, which dominates throughout the entire history of philosophy
starting with Aristotle's causa finalis" (ibid.). While agreeing with the
need to distinguish between the teleological and causal interpretations of
functions, it is necessary to emphasise their interdependence.
Consequently, our interpretation of the functions of language means
is not only goal-oriented, differentiating between language potentials and
speech realisations, but also causal. So, by emphasising the interaction

between possibility and causation in their relation to the goals to be
achieved, it can be said that this interpretation of functions as applied to
language units is a causal-goal interpretation.
The potential of the given unit's functioning programmes, as it
were, a number of essential features of its behaviour in diverse speech
acts, concentrates the possibilities associated with this unit by virtue of
usage, and provides the basis for its new realisations. For instance, the
potential of forms like sdelaes ("you will do/make") determines their free
use in expressing the action's relation to the addressee and corresponding
combinability, and also determines the possibility (under certain condi
tions) of being used in a generalised-personal meaning:
Cego ne sdelaes radi druga ("You'd do anything for a friend").

Another example: the potential of forms like resil ("has decided") in the
Russian language determines their ability to function freely in describing
one-time concrete actions like
On resil etu zadacu ("He has solved this problem"),
with the inability under ordinary conditions to describe iterative, usual

and non-temporal actions: for instance, one cannot say
*On vsegda resil ("He has always decided").
Only in special cases, specifically in certain types of iterative-correlative

constructions, is it possible to say something like:
Esli uz on cto-nibud' resil, to ot svoego ne otstupitsja ("Once

he gets an idea into his head, there's no stopping him")
(Bondarko 1971b: 134-141). In such cases, like in many others, the

potential functioning of a grammatical form contains a certain characteris
tic of probability (differentiated in relation to various types of speech and
text - fiction, scientific, etc.). Possibility and probability in relation to the
potential aspect of function is a matter that will require special considera
tion.
One possible method of presenting the potential of functioning
(including the probability characteristics of individual potential aspects) is

the use of matrices which record the basic function-features and the
relation of the units under study to these features. Thus, in describing the
functioning of aspectual-temporal forms of the Russian verb (in the
above-mentioned work), a set of matrices is given with an indication of
certain semantic features (e.g., totality, continuity, iterativity, durativity;
anteriority, simultaneity, posteriority) and the relations of the form to a
certain feature: the given feature is always present [+], is absent [-], may
be either present or absent [+/-], or may be present only under specified
conditions [(+)/-]. See the algorithms presented by M.A. Seljakin for
using aspectual forms (Seljakin 1983: 197-208). These algorithms "reflect
the basic verb-aspectual situations determining the choice of aspectual
forms with their individual functions" (ibid.: 197).
In a concrete utterance, the causative role of the function's poten
tial aspect should be interpreted in a relative, rather than absolute, sense.
This role is activated only inasmuch as a particular form has already been

chosen by the speaker in shaping his utterance. However, the very choice
of that particular form is determined by the sense content which the
speaker wants to express in a concrete speech situation. The speaker aims
at the necessary (intended) sense which is being formed in the process of
correlation with its formal expression taking shape, yet anticipating the
formation of the concrete external language forms in which it will be
embodied. In so doing he seeks the most adequate language means, all
the time examining the possibilities of the lexemes, word-forms and
constructions within his language competence.
Within the cycle of correlations between possibility and realisation,
their interdependence constantly exists, develops and is reproduced. The
possibilities of language units condition their functioning and the achieve
ment of certain goals in concrete utterances, while these concrete realis
ations of functions in speech acts become, in turn, the basis for develop
ment of new possibilities of language units, which keep finding new
realisations. These realisations of interdependence condition not only the
reproduction of the functions of language units, but their historical
development. Its sources are rooted in the realisation of functions in
concrete speech activity as part of human activity in a broad sense (under
the influence of social factors). The appearance of new elements in
speech manifestations of functions may become a basis for the alteration
and development of the functions themselves as potentials of language

units (with their subsequent realisations).
Potentiality-functions are transformed into realisation-functions
through the process of functioning. Therefore, within a function being
actualised in speech one should distinguish between process and result,
i.e., a function in the process of realisation and a realised function. A
function in the process of realisation contains the potential element and
resultative element in dynamics of transition from potential to result (Fp —»
Fr). In speaking of functions in their aspect of realising a certain purpose,
we concentrate on realisations as an accomplished result (hence our term
"resultative aspect"). However, just as essential is examination (specifi
cally, in psycholinguistics) of the process of Fp → Fr transition, that is to
say, the actualisation of functions in "the transition from language to
speech".
The potential aspect of a function is of immediate significance for
the speech activity of both speaker and listener. For instance, if the

speaker wishes to express some variety of hortation (request, order, etc.),

he will choose the appropriate language means, taking into account their
potential, that is to say, their ability or inability to serve his purpose. He
will not use, for instance, an infinitive construction like
Zakryt' dver ! ("Close the door!")
if the intended semantico-pragmatic aim of the utterance necessitates a
polite request:
Zakrojte, požalujsta, dver' ("Could you please close the
door").
The listener must also be aware of the potentials of various lan
guage means in order to correctly interpret the semantic and pragmatic
aims of the utterance. If the speaker makes incorrect use of the potential
of a certain language means, the listener can record this violation of
usage only if he knows the true potential of the language means used.
Yet, while the potential aspect of the functions of language units
concerns both participants in the speech act, it is most significant for the
speaker. Conversely, the resultative aspect, which also concerns both
interlocutors, is above all relevant for the listener, since the realised
semantic and pragmatic aims of each language unit and of the utterance
as a whole are meant for him and it is he who perceives the results of
realisation of the potential of these language means (although the speaker
can also assess these results).
The semantic and semantico-pragmatic functions (both potential and
resultative aspects) of language means are closely associated with the
sense content of the utterance (this concept includes the pragmatic aspects
of content, too). As already mentioned, one of the factors determining the
choice of language means in the process of speech (depending on the
potential aspect of their function), is the speaker's intention, his desire
and need to convey certain sense content. The primary intention passes
through a number of stages of formation, relying on the language means
that the speaker chooses, before it acquires external expression in a
complex of language means (each of which has its own range of mean
ings out of which the listener extracts the sense content as influenced by
contextual and situational information and his own general background
knowledge).

In the process of speech, the forming and realised semantic func

tions of language units are included in a broader complex of elements of
language content which, in turn, serves the purpose of conveying a
thought, i.e., serves sense functions. The prime condition on realisation of
the function's potential aspect in the utterance is the complex of sense
aims constituting the speaker's intention.
The concept of function (both Fp and Fr) may come close to the
concept of meaning, but does not coincide with it. The non-identity of the
two concepts is above all conditioned by the fact that, apart from seman
tic and semantico-pragmatic functions correlated with meaning, there are
other types of functions (stylistic and structural) which are outside the
sphere where there can be any question of function approaching meaning.
The concepts "semantic function" and "meaning of form" are
closely related. The Fp correlates with a language unit's meaning as seen
in its potential aspect. Conversely, the Fr correlates with the meaning as
expressed in one way or another in the utterance and constituting an
element of its content. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that one and the
same content essence figures in linguistic descriptions sometimes as a
particular meaning and sometimes as a function. Such are, for example,
"particular aspectual meanings", which are also referred to as functions.
Nevertheless, the concept "semantic function" and "meaning" cannot
be recognised as identical. The meaning of a form is its inner quality. It

is determined by an attitude to extralinguistic phenomena which is in
fluenced by intrasystemic correlations within the oppositions and non-
oppositive differences between the members of the given subsystem.
Meanings form part of sign relations and sign systems. The categorial
meanings of forms and constructions are included in systems of gram
matical forms and syntactical constructions. As far as functions are con
cerned, they belong to a system of a different kind. Here the chief role is
played by the association between functions and functioning. (Compare
the various sides of these relations which characterise the potential and
resultative aspects of functions, as mentioned above.) The patterns of
functioning of language units exceed the bounds of the specific subsystem
to which each of them belongs (the subsystems of specific grammatical
categories, parts of speech, syntactical constructions, etc.). These patterns
belong to a special kind of system of functioning which embraces func-

tionally interrelated multilevel units (morphological, syntactical, lexical,

and lexico-grammatical).
As an element of this less rigid system of functioning (a system
which is, specifically, heterogeneous from the point of view of the levels
of the language means), functions are characterised by a more open type
of systemic ties. Their content can include the most diverse extralinguistic
aims of the use of a particular form regardless of that aim's relevance to
the given system of forms. Compare, for example, such functions of the
nominative case as nominative of title, author's nominative, nominative as
metatextual operator (Glava I, Razdel III, "Chapter I, Section HI", etc.),
nominative of pseudoaddressation (Klobukov 1986: 102-103). Although
such functions are related to a particular sphere, conditions of communi
cation, purposiveness of the speech act, etc., and are associated with the
categorial meanings of form, they nevertheless represent extralinguistic
aims of its employment.
It can be said that any meaning of the form is at the same time its
function (in the sense that the expression of this meaning constitutes the
purpose of the given form), but not every special function of a particular
form constitutes a special meaning, since by far not all varieties of the
aims of the use of forms can be interpreted as their inherent features
which are significant for the language system,
Between the concepts "function" and "meaning", there are differ

ences in their orientation and systemic links. Meaning is associated with
the relationship between form and content, i.e., between a language unit
and what it signifies. This concept is included in the theory of the lan
guage sign. By contrast, a function forms part of a system of concepts
associated with the teleological model of language which embraces
various types and spheres of purpose - the purpose of language units,
types of speech, texts, and ultimately language as a whole. In this system
of concepts, of special significance is the relation between function and
functioning (the process of functioning, its prerequisites, conditioning
factors, and results).
However, the difference mentioned does not diminish the import
ance of the interrelationships between these concepts. By functioning in
interaction with other elements of the environment and expressing a
certain meaning, which is modified and augmented by context and speech
situation, the form thereby performs a particular function. The concept of

semantic function is based on the concept of meaning, associating it with

the ultimate purpose, with the initial orientation of the form's functioning,
with its conditions and results in speech.
In our model of functional grammar, the functions of language
units are examined in the process of analysing functional-semantic fields
and the categorial situations representing them in the utterance, These
objects of analysis are in a certain way correlated with the aspects of
functions under investigation: a functional-semantic field is chiefly corre
lated with the potential aspect of a function, whereas a categorial situation
is chiefly correlated with the resultative aspect in its association with the
potential aspect (in examining categorial situations, analysis at the level of
the resultative aspect is constantly correlated with the suppositions and
conclusions related to the potential aspect level).
The function of any particular language means figures in its realis
ation not as a separate independent object, but as an element of a larger
whole interacting with its other elements. The resultative aspect is always
part of a complex of functions performed by a complex of means, among
which some play the part of initial systems, while others act as the
environment. (More on system-environment correlation later.)
The language system shapes the semantic (semantico-pragmatic)
potential of a language unit, which can interact with the most diverse
elements of the environment. Hence the "flexibility" of many Fp. For

example, the functions of grammatical forms of tense are characterised by
a degree of content generalisation which is essential and sufficient to
enable concretisation and modification coming from the temporal elements
of the environment. The form of tense provides a deictic basis for the
temporal function by relating the predicate's content to the present, past
or future - the rest is determined by interaction of other categories (chief
ly aspectual and modal), with lexical indicators such as vcera "yesterday",
tol'ko cto "just", sejcas "now", etc., and with the speech situation. For
instance, in the case of present tense forms, their categorial meaning of
the present in the broadest and most indefinite sense performs the func
tion of a basis which, after undergoing all the necessary concretisation
and modification, appears at the level of Fr as a concrete variant of the
present tense of the moment of speech, generic present, usual and gnomic
present, historic present, etc.

Generalised models of a given unit's correlation with specific types

of environment are already programmed at the potential level of a func
tion. For example, in relation to the forms of the genitive case, one type
of potential system/environment correlation figures as objective genitive,
another as subjective genitive, still another as possessive genitive, etc.
(actually, in such cases it is not so much a question of the genitive case
alone as of combinations with the genitive case). However, the results of
interaction between language means and their environment are represented
in utterances which feature concrete realisation functions.
It is clear then that, at the potential level of a function, when we
ask: "The function of what are we talking about?" we can answer: "The
function of such-and-such a form, of such-and-such a construction", and
in some cases: "The functions of such-and-such a form in certain typical
combinations with another form, or other forms, etc." However, at the
resultative level of a function, the answer will be different: we are talking
about the actualised function of a given unit in its interaction with a
number of intralinguistic and extralinguistic elements acting as environ
ment and figuring in speech. In many cases, the following answer will be
more precise: we are talking about the actualised function of a certain
complex of means within which the given unit figures (and the elements
of a particular speech environment are already added to this complex).
There are functions which can be actualised only with the par
ticipation of several language units at the level of word combination or
sentence (and in speech, at the level of utterance). In such cases, at the
level of a separate word-form we see only the elements of the necessary
complex of language means and only the elements of the necessary
complex of functions ("parts to be assembled", so to speak). For instance,
the function of non-temporality is realised with the participation of (a)
word-forms indicating non-concrete subjects (e.g. ljudi "people", pozilye
ljudi "old people", kazdyj celovek "every person", vremja "time", zizn'
"life"), (b) word-forms indicating or capable of indicating non-concrete
predicates (e.g. byvat' "to occur", ljubit' "to love", umet' "to know how",
protekat' "to occur"), and, in certain cases, (c) circumstantial indicators
(e.g. vsegda "always"). For example:
Kogda celovek naxoditsja v dvizenii, on vsegda pridumyvaet
sebe ceV etogo dvizenija (L. Tolstoy) ("When a man is on

his way somewhere, he always invents for himself a reason

for going there.")
What we have just said about functions associated with a complex

of means, concerns not only semantics, but also structural functions. S.D.
Kacnel'son wrote:
What is expressed by the masculine gender of the Russian word dom

("house")? Actually, nothing but a formal marker, semantically empty and
therefore "irrational" or "illusory", but necessarily having the inner potential of
agreement. On the paradigmatic level of separate words and word-forms, the
category of gender or class is only a potential prerequisite of agreement, just
like a telephone number is a prerequisite of a telephone conversation. The
realisation of this potential takes place in speech where the agreeing and agreed
words unite into a form of syntactic bond which expresses certain syntactical
relations. (Kacnel'son 1972: 26)
While maintaining their connection with the language system,

realisation-functions at the same time enter the system of functional
characteristics of the utterance and, in some cases, into broader speech
units. Specifically, this applies to modal, temporal, partly aspectual,
personal, and voice functions.
On the one hand, such functions constitute the functional features

of a text, and on the other, they can be conditioned by its dominant
functional characteristics. The forms of the past tense, for example,
constitute the basic functional plane of narration; at the same time, the
realisation of functions of each form of the past tense depends on the
general "temporal key" of the narrated text. Compare, for example:
V konce ijulja Botkin, Druzinin i ja prostilis' s Turgenevym i

vyexali iz Spasskogo. Botkin ostalsja v Moskve, ja i Druzinin
prodolzali vmeste put' do Peterburga (D. Grigorovic) ("In
late July, Botkin, Druzinin and I said goodbye to Turgeniev
and left Spasskoye. Botkin remained in Moscow, while
Druzinin and I went together to St Petersburg.")
Texts of this type establish, apart from the temporal plane of narration,
the basic modal plane of reality, a stable attitude to the third or first
person, etc. In all cases, we see the interdependence between the func-

tions of separate language units and the functions of the text as a whole.
The text acts as a special type of environment interacting with the func
tions of the elements of the language system.
Functional specialisation of the text may condition the choice of
language units on the basis of the necessary correspondence of their
functions to the general purpose of the text. For example, manuals,
instructions and other such literature make extensive use of passive,
indefinite-personal and imperative constructions, whose functions cor
respond to the general orientation of the text. All facts of this kind reveal
the interplay and unity of the functional aspects under investigation and
their actual integration in language and speech.
An essential element in elaborating the concept of function in
grammar is its connection with a broader range of issues concerning
language functions (see Jakobson 1965; Stepanov Ju.S. 1973; Halliday
1976; Zvegincev 1977; Sljusareva 1979; Gak 1985; Svedova 1985). Each
concrete function of a particular language unit, when included in a
broader system of language and speech functions, depends in its manifes
tations on this system. There are instances of selection, restrictions and
additional specific characteristics in the realisation of functions of lan
guage units in different forms of language, types of speech and types of
utterance (Obščee jazykoznanie 1970; Necaeva 1974; Smelev 1977;
Stepanov G.V. 1979; Akimova 1982; Searle 1976; Wunderlich 1976).

In analysing the use of language units, we constantly correlate our
observation of functions represented in utterances and judgements on the
semantic potential of the forms under observation. In the course of
examination of language material, transition from the resultative to the
potential aspect of functions alternates (at a new level of interpretation of
the object of research) with transition back to the resultative aspect, and
so on. Such a shuttle analysis aims at explaining language phenomena
and defining with more precision the general patterns underlying them.
The functioning of language units is the process of actualisation
and interaction in speech of units, classes and categories of the language
system used by each member of a given language community.
The actual process of functioning takes place in speech; however,
the rules and types of functioning of language units belong to the system
and norm of the language, i.e., to the language structure, representing its
dynamic component. It is these rules and types that are at the centre of

functional-grammatical description. Concrete speech phenomena appear as

representations and specific realisations of the types, tendencies, rules and
patterns under observation.
The concept of functioning of language units includes: (1) selection
by the speaker (writer) of language means essential for conveying the
meaning of the utterance, which implies the possibility of choosing the
means which best correspond to the speaker's (writer's) intention; (2)
interaction between the structures and functions of units belonging to
different aspects and levels of the language system; (3) transformation of
potential functions into functions acting as accomplishable aims.
It should be emphasised that an essential feature of the concept
under investigation is dynamics. Functioning is always transformation:
transformation of language into speech, transformation of functions as
possibilities and potential aims into functions as the aims of communica
tion (both accomplished and in the process of accomplishment), trans
formation of functions from the point of view of the speaker (functions
for the speaker) into functions perceived by the listener (functions for the
listener).
Three sides can be singled out in this phenomenon: (a) the system-
linguistic (intralinguistic) side, which covers the transition of elements of
the language system into elements of speech system; (b) the psycho-
linguistic side, associated with the programming and formation of utter

ances, the dynamics of speech and its perception; (c) the sociolinguistic
side, which covers all the social factors of realisation of language func
tions. We shall concentrate on the first of the three sides, i.e., the study
of generalised system-linguistic patterns as reflected in language material
(texts). At the same time, wherever possible, we shall take into account
its interaction with the other two sides.
The sphere of functioning of language units is an utterance and an
entire text. It is here that the functions of language units (as their pur
poses) are realised to the full. At the level of morpheme, lexeme, and
word combination, communication accomplishes only intermediate goals,
which constitute a kind of building material for the levels of speech
which express sense content.
The minimal entity within which language units function in speech
is the utterance, which is equal to the speech representation of a sen
tence, a supraphrasal unit or a complex of such units - depending on the

boundaries of a relatively completed realisation of functions (complex of

functions) of a given language unit. The utterance is the basic speech unit
which, in our view, should be the object of analysis in functional gram
mar. An utterance constitutes a microenvironment for the functioning of
language units (specifically, grammatical forms and syntactical construc
tions). The microenvironment is represented by an integrated text.
The utterance integrates the functions and means of the lower
levels on the basis of their interaction. The function (goal) of the entire
utterance is to convey its meaning. In relation to this goal, the functions
of separate units are specific elements (in a certain sense, language
means) subordinated to the content whole within which they function.
Here we shall not touch upon the more specific problems of the inter
relationship between function and form at various levels of the language
system (see, for example, Danes, Hausenblas 1969: 7-20; Panevová 1980:
13-20 ff.).
Functions in an utterance can be examined by different methods, in
various systems of concepts and terms. One possible way is to analyse
categorial situations, that is to say, content structures associated with a
certain functional-semantic field which represent in an utterance one of
the aspects of the general situation conveyed by it (a temporal, modal,
personal, locative, etc., aspects - hence the names of the situation: tem
poral, modal, etc.). The categorial situations under examination (this

concept is specially tackled in Chapter III) constitute functions at the
level of utterances (the functional side of the content objects under review
is combined with the structural side; what is meant is functions of a
whole range of elements of the utterance and, at the same time, the
content structure correlated with a certain structure of the expression
plane).
The highest possible level of realisation of the functions of lan
guage units is the level of an integrated text. For example, the entire text
of the first of Leo Tolstoy's "Sevastopol'skie rasskazy" (Tales from
Sebastopol), "Sevastopol' v dekabre mesjace" (Sebastopol in December),
is built in a "personal key" which is associated with the interplay of a
whole complex of more specific functions: the story tells about real and
concrete actions which, at the same time, represent actions which are
potentially possible, typical and characteristic of the events narrated -

actions whose participant or witness could be a generalised reader, i.e., an

indefinite number of readers. Consider the following excerpt:
Vy podxodite k pristani - osobennyj zapax kamennogo uglja, navoza, syrosti i

govjadiny porazaet vas; tysjači raznorodnyx predmetov - drova, mjaso, tury,
muka, zelezo i t.p. - kucej lezat okolo pristani ... - Na Grafskuju, vase
blagorodie? - predlagajut vam svoi uslugi dva ili tri otstavnyx matrosa, vstavaja
iz jalikov. Vy vybiraete tot, kotoryj k vam poblize ...
("You come up to the wharf - and are enveloped by the unique smell of coal,
manure, beef, and dampness. Piles of miscellaneous objects lie next to the pier
- firewood, meat, gabion baskets, sacks of flour, scrap iron, and so on and so
forth ... "Going to Grafskaya, Your Honour?" two or three retired sailors offer
their services, standing up in their skiffs. You choose the one that is closer to
you.)
This mode of narration, which plunges the reader into the situation
described as its figurative, generalised participant who represents the
experience of both the author and other possible participants of the events
described, created an actual personal key of the whole text, which deter
mines the relevant functions of the forms of person and number in each
particular utterance reflecting this general personal dominant of the text.
The dependence between a function at the utterance level and a

function at the text level may be mutual: functions at the utterance level
are repeated in various utterances, thus concretising a certain functional
plane of the text; on the other hand, after this plane has established itself
in part of the utterances, it determines the realisation of a similar function
(in similar conditions) in the other parts of the text. Concrete correlations
of part and whole vary depending on type of function and character of
text. The very possibility of a given function's realisation in a certain
type of text already exists in the language system, in the grammatical
patterns of a particular language.
In our variety of functional grammar, an utterance is the basic
speech unit within which we analyse the functions of grammatical units
and their environment. At the same time, in cases where a certain func
tion is found to depend on a function of a higher level (an integrated
text), this dependence should be investigated.

The interpretational component of language content
Language meanings and functions contain a denotative aspect reflecting

the relation of the units of the language system to the outside world. At
the same time, every form is associated with a special language inter
pretation of the sense (thought) content. This phenomenon drew the
attention of linguists back in the 19th century in connection with inter
preting language form as "a mode of representing extralinguistic content"
(A.A. Potebnja), Linguistic literature has no generally agreed term for this
aspect of semantics. It is, nevertheless, treated in one way or another
when one deals with language stylisation (Mathesius 1961: 10-13), with
stratification of semantics, correlation between meaning and sense, etc.
(Dokulil, Danes 1958: 232-234; Danes, Hlavsa a kol. 1981: 44; Sgall,
Panevová 1976: 14-25; Sgall, Hajicová, Panevová 1986: 8-18; Bondarko
1978; 1983: 57-75).
We see language content as basically sense (thought) content which
is (a) expressed by the means of a given language, (b) structured by
language units and their correlations, (c) included thereby in the system
of a given language and constituting its content aspect, i.e., acting as the
content of language units and their complexes and combinations as
actualised in speech, (d) reflecting the differences and interaction of
various language levels (which is seen in the differentiation of lexical,

word-formative, morphological and syntactical meanings), (e) socially
objectivised in a given language community, and (f) containing a lan
guage interpretation and a mode of representing the sense basis of the
content (see literature on the subject and its detailed examination in
[Bondarko 1978: 3-127]).
Thus, language content integrates within itself the sense (thought)
basis and its language interpretation (interpretational component). The
sense basis of language content and its interpretational component con
stitute a single unity, being in effect different aspects of one whole. The
content as conveyed by formal means always appears in a certain lan
guage interpretation.
In delineating and correlating these aspects of language content,
one should always take into account intra-language and inter-language
transformations which leave unchanged the invariant sense basis of
utterances while altering the modes of its presentation in language mean-

ings. This is seen in the process of speech - specifically, in the dynamics

of paraphrasing. The speaker can express one and the same sense content
(in any case, content having an invariant sense basis) through various
means, which differ from each other from the point of view of interpreta
tion of the sense invariant (cf.: We were examining the question of...; The
subject of our investigation was ..., etc.). Another side of the actualisation
of these aspects of language content in paraphrasing in speech is the fact
that the listener perceives different utterances with different language
meanings of their elements as conveying one and the same sense.
The differentiation and interplay of the sense and interpretational
aspects of language content are also actualised in translation. On the one
hand, we have the text of the original with all the diversity of language
meanings of its elements; on the other hand, a translation is created with
different language meanings and a different structure of their relations;
the only connection between these two systems is the sense basis of the
content to be conveyed.
It should be emphasised once again that the sense content practi
cally never appears by itself: since it is expressed through language
means, it bears traces of the language form. In speaking of sense
(thought) content, we mean one of the aspects of language content, its
sense basis, as merged with a certain mode of language presentation.
Language interpretation of the sense content embodied in words,

word-forms and syntactical constructions is historically conditioned.
Speaker of a given language have at their disposal a set of ready systems
of language meanings together with their inherent modes of representing
the sense content. The historically conditioned language interpretation of
the sense content represented in words, forms and constructions, has an
objective language-system form of existence characterised by relative
independence in relation to the thought and expressed in speech. Ac
tualisation of meanings and functions in speech is, on the one hand, a
process determined by existing language units and objective laws govern
ing their functioning, while on the other, it is a creative process in which
much is determined by the speaker's speech activity. An important role in
conveying speech sense is played by diverse combinations of language
units employed by the speaker, their selection in order to convey various
shades of sense, various possibilities of distributing the sense load among
the meanings of the language units, the contextual, situational and general

background information (bearing in mind the listener's point of view). In

every act of speech, the meanings of the units of a given language
(including their interpretational component) are adjusted to the needs of
expressing the speaker's thought at a certain moment, to a particular
addressee, and under certain conditions of speech communication.
The special emphasis placed on the interpretational component does
not contradict the general principle that language content is conditioned
by extralinguistic reality. This principle remains fully in force, but the
point we are trying to make is different. Language semantics cannot be
reduced to the relation of a language sign to the referent. The linguist
must take into consideration the entire complexity of the innercontent side
of the language units, classes and categories as seen in their inter
dependence and their relationships with the units and categories of think
ing and, through them, with extralinguistic reality. Ultimately stemming
from phenomena of external reality, the semantics of words, forms and
constructions bears the characteristic traits of language form.
The following aspects can be singled out in the concept of lan
guage interpretation of sense content: (1) selection vis-à-vis the elements
and features of the extralinguistic phenomena being described; (2) redun
dancy of language meanings (in a certain content zone, there can be
concentrated and partially overlapping a number of semantic features
expressed by lexical and grammatical means and also by elements of

context and speech situation; in inflexional-synthetic languages, redun
dancy is also determined by the obligatory nature of grammatical cat
egories); (3) various combinations of denotative and connotative elements;
(4) the difference between discrete and indiscrete presentation of sense
content; (5) the difference between explicit and implicit presentation; (6)
semantic variation in its relation to formal variation; this phenomenon
goes far beyond the bounds of language interpretation of sense content,
but at the same time overlaps with it, which fact is confirmed by inter-
linguistic differences in the hierarchisation of central and peripheral
semantic features and their varieties.
The above-mentioned difference between discrete and indiscrete
presentation of sense content requires a special explanation. What is
meant is the difference between the clearly seen independent meaning of
a certain language unit (lexeme, grammatical word-form, syntactical
construction) and a meaning or semantic element (shade of meaning)

associated with another meaning or another dependent element within a

certain semantic complex.
In comparing the discrete and indiscrete modes of presenting a
certain sense content, we imply the differences in language interpretation
of one and the same semantic category: modality, temporality, aspec-
tuality, etc.
Let us take the example of modality to consider the difference.
Modality can be discrete and indiscrete. In the first instance it constitutes
an independent meaning of a certain language unit, whereas in the latter
it is a dependent semantic element bound with temporal and aspectual
meanings. The first type can include, for example, meanings expressed by
modal verbs and other modal words: "I can say, I want to write, he must
do it, we should be going", etc. The second type is represented by modal
semantic elements bound with temporal and aspectual meanings of verbal
forms in certain types of their functioning.
Example: Uznal Volgin, čto "počtar' ne dolzen gnat' (here modal

ity is discrete. - A.B.) skoree lošad' protiv polozennogo vremeni,
a v slučae prinuzdenija k tomu pobojami, on ostavljaet (cf. dolzen
ostavit') eduščego na doroge Hi, po pribytii na stanciju, donosit
(cf. dolzen donesti) o torn počtovomu načal'stvu ..." (L. Nikulin).
("Volgin learned that "the coachman must not drive [here modality is
discrete. - A.B.] the horse faster than he is supposed to, and that he is
forced to do so by violence, he leaves [cf. must leave] his passenger on
the road or else, on arriving at the station, reports [cf. must report]
about it to the station master...")
In such cases, obligation acts as one of the semantic elements in the

complex of "the present tense of instruction".
The discreteness of a semantic element may be associated with its
explicitness, while indiscreteness with implicitness. Compare the discrete
and, at the same time, explicit meaning of the future tense expressed by
such forms as budu pisat' ("I will write") and indiscrete reference of the
action to the future (present-future perspective) arising from the modal
meaning of imperative: Pisite! ("Write!"). The above temporal element is
indiscrete since it is linked with the categorial meaning of imperative, and
at the same time it is implicit since the action's reference to the period
following the moment of speech is implied, arising from the explicit

meaning of imperative: if the speaker exhorts someone to action, this

action is expected to take place in the future.
Let us make a few additional remarks about explicit and implicit
presentation of sense content. Explicit content is evident, directly ex
pressed by certain language means. Implicit content is not directly ex
pressed, but only implied, arising from the explicit content or from
related contextual or situational information.
Only explicit content, as expressed by a certain form, can be
interpreted as its meaning. As regards implicit content, it can only be a
semantic element additionally characterising a certain realisation of mean
ing, but cannot be an independent meaning of the form. For example, the
meaning of such a form as Pišite! "Write!" is imperativity, whereas the
action's temporal reference to the future (its present-future perspective) is
an element arising from the meaning of imperativity, not the temporal
meaning of the form.
One aspect of language interpretation of sense content is semantic
variation, which is associated in each language with a special system of
formal means and shows in each language certain distinctive features.
Semantic variation is determined in each language by the inter
action of two tendencies: (1) distribution of varieties and variants of the
sense according to the historically established system of language means
with their meanings and shades of meaning, which objectively exists in

that language and are "imposed" by it on each speaker, and (2) actualisa
tion of variants determined by the need to convey a particular speech
sense (by a certain speaker, at a certain moment, in speaking to a certain
addressee, in the concrete conditions of a speech act). The latter tendency
is realised due to the possibility of (a) choice of language means, (b)
their various combinations in speech, and (c) various combinations of
verbally expressed meanings with contextual, situational and general
background information.
Semantic categories of grammar
By semantic categories in grammar we mean basic invariant categorial

features, i.e., semantic constants, which figure in certain variations in
language meanings expressed by diverse means of utterance (morpho-

logical, syntactical, lexical, and also combined). This description of

semantic categories (which, however, does not claim to be a definition,
since in such cases a clear-cut definition is hardly possible) stresses the
dominant position of these categories in the hierarchy of semantic
variation. The semantic categories of grammar in their correlations
constitute the foundation of systemic division of the given language
meanings into overlapping and interacting "areas of content".
Every grammatical meaning appearing in a certain concrete realis
ation presents in one way or another the connections of various semantic
categories. One of these is usually dominant and thereby determines the
categorial affiliation of a given meaning (as the meaning of mode, tense,
aspect, etc.); however, the interconnection of semantic categories does not
always make it possible to ascertain unequivocally whether a certain
meaning in an utterance under examination is predominantly aspectual or
modal, existential or locative, etc. Obviously, there are no "pure" mean
ings which would be absolutely free from categorial interaction.
One important aspect of studying semantic categories is examin
ation of their variability. As already mentioned, semantic categories
occupy the dominant position in relation to the multi-stage subsystems of
content variability which they head (correlated with the variability of
formal expression means). For instance, the semantic category of aspec-
tuality is dominant in relation to such aspectual categories as limitativity

(i.e., a semantic category embracing various types of relations of the
predicate and the situation as a whole to the concept of limit), durativity,
iterativity, phasicity, etc. Each of these semantic categories also appears
in more specific varieties and variants. For example, the semantic cat
egory of limit (limitativity) appears in such variations as real and poten
tial limit, explicit and implicit limit, absolute and relative limit (see
below). In the semantics of durativity, one can single out the following
varieties: (a) definite and indefinite durativity, (b) limited and unlimited,
(c) extended (kak dolgo "how long?"), closed, or resultative (za kakoe
vremja? "over what time?"), and result-maintaining (na kakoe vremja?
"for how long?"), (d) continuous and discrete, and (e) duration of action
(in a broad sense) and duration of interval.
The study of variativity within a certain semantic category implies
singling out the types of relations based on various semantic features. In
working out the criteria for division, the first thing to be done is to

determine the systemic hierarchy. For example, in subcategorising the

semantic category of temporality, it is advisable to proceed above all
from the features which reflect the essence of temporality as a deictic
category. The dominant position is occupied by features determined by
the character of temporal deixis: absolute/relative temporal orientation,
actuality/nonactuality of the orientation at the moment of speech, fixed/
unfixed character of temporal relation, its definiteness/indefiniteness, and
markedness/nonmarkedness of the degree of remoteness of the time of
action from the moment of speech. Next in the hierarchy of attributes is
the character (mode) of language interpretation of temporal relations
(explicitness/implicitness of their presentation, direct/transferred type of
presentation of the time of action) and features associated with categorial
interaction, above all with objective modality, and also with aspectuality,
temporal localisation/nonlocalisation, and taxis); these are, specifically,
features of modal markedness/unmarkedness and indicativity/non-
indicativity.
In analysing a number of semantic categories (not only temporal
ity), it is best to proceed above all from the semantic features which
reveal the qualitative specifics of that category, and then to analyse the
features related to the modes of representing the semantics under inves
tigation and to intercategorial connections.
In concrete research on semantic categories, it is important to

single out a complex of more specific semantic features and their sys
temic interrelations. These features and relations between them, as ana
lysed on the basis of one language or several languages in comparison,
form the structure of that particular concrete-language representation of a
given semantic category.
The problem of systemic correlations and types of semantic
categories in their language expression is not the sort of problem that can
be solved once and for all, but rather one in which the deeper one
delves, the more aspects one discovers.
In a number of cases the question arises whether we are dealing
with one of the specific categories within a more general category or
with one of the fundamental semantic categories (a category of the
highest rank). For example, among aspectual categories one can single out
the category of relation (relationality). Evidently, however, "aspectual
relationality" is only one manifestation of a more general semantic

category of relationality covering a variety of spheres of grammatical

semantics. What is meant, in particular, is syntactical relations, for
instance, copulative, adversative, alternative and other relations expressed
by relational means of a complex sentence (Ljapon 1985). The complexity
of this question consists, apart from all other considerations, in the fact
that one needs to single out a semantic area of "relation proper", which
would be more restricted than relation in the broader sense that embraces
most semantic categories dealt with in grammar (cf. temporal relations,
space relations, etc.). It is very difficult to isolate the specific sphere of
relationality which would be associated with, but would not coincide with,
"relations in general" dealt with in grammar. Nevertheless, this question
must be addressed.
The semantic categories of grammar are singled out on the basis of
their regular representation (in one variety or another) in the content of
utterances, in the meanings of language units and their diverse combina
tions. Although such semantic categories as time (temporality), space
(locativity), quality, quantity, possession, condition, cause, etc., have long
been singled out by science, the constant possibility of specifically
isolating these and other categories as a result of linguistic analysis of
utterances has not lost its heuristic significance.
The purpose of an utterance is, of course, not to express a seman
tic category, but to convey a thought in speech. Yet the expression of

concrete senses is regulated by certain constants, i.e., semantic categories
appearing in particular variants. For example, the sense of the utterance I
want to go home embraces such semantic categories as modality (in one
variant of the voluntative), temporality (in this particular instance, in the
variant of the actual present, to which the expression of desire refers, in
combination with the explicit temporal perspective of the future related to
the content of the desired goal: to be home), aspectuality (in the variant
of the state of "experiencing desire"), concrete temporal localisation, the
category of person (in the variant of the desire's relation to the speaker),
voice (in the variant of activity), and locativity (in the variant of direction
and destination of intended movement).
In the process of communication, the speaker seeks to express a
certain concrete meaning, but it is partly shaped by certain categorial
semantic features which constitute the concrete content to be conveyed:
something real, something desirable, something relevant to the moment of

speech, a certain orientation in space, etc. Therefore, semantic categories

in their variations assume a form of existence associated with actual
thinking and speech.
The foundations of semantic categories are rooted in extralinguistic
reality reflected in people's consciousness and thinking (this does not
exclude the "reverse action" of language, i.e., of its categories and forms,
on thinking). In all such cases, there is a close connection between the
factors of objective extralinguistic determination of semantic categories,
the generalising activity of thinking and the determining influence of
language categorisation based on the means of formal expression.
The basic semantic categories are universal. In describing the
difficulties that come up in assessing the role of language universals in
contrastive linguistics, V.N. Jarceva notes that one way out is to "enlarge"
the universals themselves, that is to say, to refer to them only very large
and general categories (Jarceva 1981: 23). This universality is also rooted
in the general laws governing the reflection of objective reality in human
consciousness, that is, in the unity of the world and in people's integrated
perception of the world.
The existence of semantic categories in speech processes implies
the inclusion of this object of cognition in human activity and association
of these categories with the essence of man, that is to say, it takes into
account the distinctive characteristics of research in the humanities.
Intercategorial relations of functions
The functions of grammatical units exist in the form of constant and

regular intercategorial correlation. Let us take the interrelations of the
grammatical categories of the verb to illustrate certain aspects of this
phenomenon.
Until now, grammatical categories were usually considered separ
ately, whereas their interrelations as a rule remained on the fringes of
grammatical description. Yet grammatical categories exist precisely in
their mutual relations. One important branch of functional-grammatical
research is special analysis of a complex of categories of a certain part of
speech, i.e., analysis of categorial interaction. Due to their diverse and
heteroaspectual ties (as in the case of the verb), such groupings become a

special kind of system, with its own structure, whose elements are
individual grammatical categories and the links between them.
Grammatical categories are interrelated for the simple reason that
they appear together in a word. Thus, every verbal word-form in the
Russian language represents a certain number of grammatical categories
characteristic of the verb. Their composition depends on which class of
forms a given word-form belongs to. For example, in Russian such word-
forms as postroju "I will build"; napišete "you will write"; rassmatrivajes
"You are considering"; delaete "you are doing"; rassmatrivaetsja "it is
being considered" present components (grammemes) of the categories of
aspect, voice, mood, tense, person, and number; word-forms like delajte
"do it!" present the same categories, except tense; word-forms like pisat'
"to write" present only the categories of aspect and voice.
A complex of grammatical categories combined in the word-forms
of a given part of speech (in our example, the verb) is correlated with
the complex of grammatical categories characterising that part of speech
as a whole. Thus, a grouping of grammatical categories as a unity
embracing entire classes of forms and characterising a part of speech is
represented (entirely or partly) in word-forms as concrete units of lan
guage, which also figure in speech.
Therefore, the primary factor is not separate categories, but rather
complexes of categories represented by certain components in a word-

form. Groups of grammatical categories of a given part of speech (a verb,
for example) constitute a special type of unity in grammar having the
characteristics of a system. The interplay of functions of a grammatical
category forming part of such system-complexes is fully manifested in the
speech functioning of grammatical forms as part of an utterance.
In the actualisation of functions of a grammatical category repre
sented in a given word-form, two types of correlation of functions are
possible: (1) the functions are in contact and interaction; (2) the functions
are actualised along parallel lines independently of each other (see
Bondarko 1971a: 109-113; 1976: 144-148). This delineation is similar to
the two types of relations between grammatical categories singled out by
V.N. Jarceva: (1) "conjugation" of grammatical categories and (2) "syn-
thesising". In the case of conjugation of grammatical categories (for
instance, aspect and tense, mood and tense), their interdependence is
revealed. In the case of their "synthesising", however, one and the same

formant is connected with a number of grammatical categories which are

independent of each other (Jarceva 1975: 15-16).
For functional grammar it is especially important to examine the
"conjugation" of functions actualised in an utterance.
Two types of connection between grammatical categories should be
distinguished: (a) functional and (b) formal-paradigmatic. Functional
connections concern the content of a grammatical category (both semantic
and structural) and the laws of their functioning. Formal-paradigmatic
connections concern the interdependencies of the paradigms of a gram
matical category.
For the sake of example let us take the relations of verbal aspect
in the Russian language with a number of other verbal categories.
The functional ties between the categories of aspect and tense are
manifested in the fact that the laws governing the use of aspects in the
indicative mood depend on the functional varieties of the category of
tense. For example, in the historic present in describing single
(nonrepetitive) actions, it is possible to use only the forms of the imper-
fective aspect: these forms can express consecutive actions:
Podxodit ko mne, zdorovaetsja i govorit

(lit. "He comes up, greets me, and says ...")
occurrence of an action against the background of another continuous

action:
Sižuya doma i citaju ... Vdrug kto-to zvonit ...

(lit. "I am sitting at home and reading ... Suddenly some
body rings the bell ...")
and in certain other situations which in other positions are characteristic

of the perfective aspect. In the actual present, only the imperfective
aspect is used in the progressive function:
Von bezit sobaka

("Look at that dog running!")
In the habitual present, the use of both aspects is possible: e.g.
No zato osobennoe, nezabvennoe cuvstvo ispytyvaet [imperf.]

oxotnik, kogda posle dolgix casov ezdy po pustynnym, zimnim

dorogam v lesnoj redkoj opuske mel'knut [perf.] znakomye

teni (I. Sokolov-Mikitov)
("But the hunter experiences a special, unforgettable feeling
when, after many dreary hours of riding along deserted
winter roads, at the edge of the forest he catches a glimpse
of familiar shadows")
In the past tense, in describing iterative actions, as a rule the imperfective

aspect is used:
On k nam casto zaxodil

("He would often drop in on us") (it would be impossible to
say zasel [perf.] - "dropped in")
(For more details see Bondarko 1971b: 176-237.)

Aspectual and temporal meanings can combine in semantic
temporal-aspectual complexes. Such is, for example, the meaning of
perfect (Ja ustal, "Fm tired") which expresses both the aspectual element
of the action's occurrence in time and the temporal element of actuality
of the action's consequences for a later temporal plane. Also compare the
actual present as a complex of elements expressing the present, temporal
localisation, and process.
The formal-paradigmatic links between the categories of aspect and
tense are manifested in the dependence of the paradigm of tense on the

aspect (the imperfective aspect has three tense forms, while the perfective
aspect has two). Participles of imperfective verbs have present and past
tense forms, whereas participles of perfective verbs have only past tense
forms.
The functional links between the categories of aspect and mood are
manifested in the fact that the indicative mood constitutes the basic
position in which forms of both aspects function. In the indicative mood,
the category of aspect interacts with the category of tense, whereas in the
subjunctive and imperative moods, aspect is not connected with tense.
The imperative and subjunctive moods have certain distinctive characteris
tics in the functioning of aspects (Smelev 1959; Seljakin 1969, 1970).
Aspectual semantics can interact with modal semantics as part of seman
tic complexes expressed in speech. Compare the conative function of the
imperfective aspect with the modal element of desire, striving, and at
tempt:

Vspominal, vspominal, da tak i ne vspomnil

("He tried and tried, but still couldn't remember").
Also compare the shades of potentiality in using the perfective aspect in
such cases as:
Ego i tak est' ne zastavis
("As it is, you can't make him eat") (Bondarko 1971b: 23,
104-112).
Formal-paradigmatic ties between aspect and mood are almost
entirely absent: every mood permits either aspect, and each aspect can be
expressed in any mood. The only paradigmatic restriction is that inclusive
forms of the imperative mood are primarily formed from verbs of the
perfective aspect - zajdemte ("let's drop in"), spoemte ("let's sing") -
although with some verbs the imperfective aspect is also possible: idemte
("let's go"), edemte ("let's ride"), bezimte ("let's run").
Functional links between the categories of aspect and voice: the
active voice constitutes the basic position of functioning of verbal forms
in both aspects; passive-participial forms have certain distinctions in the
actualisation of aspectual functions. Paradigmatic ties: passive participles
are chiefly formed from the perfective aspect, whereas the reflexive
passive is chiefly formed from the imperfective aspect. (For more on the
ties of the verbal aspect with other categories and the interaction of
verbal categories as a whole, see Russkaja grammatika 1980, Vol. 1: 641-
646; also see: Bondarko 1975: 736-739, 742-743).
The connections between the grammatical categories of the verb
are not consistent or comprehensive, but rather selective (for example,
there is no connection whatsoever between the verbal categories of aspect
and gender). Each grammatical category is connected with only certain
other categories represented in a given part of speech, and these connec
tions differ in character. Thus, in the group of verbal grammatical cat
egories we can distinguish the centre (nucleus) and the periphery.
In the Slavic languages, the most integrated and, at the same time,
the most complex group of grammatical categories belongs to the verb.
The group of grammatical categories of the adjective is simpler and its
bonds (between the structural agreement functions) are more homogene
ous. Nouns have bonds only between the structural functions of categories

of this part of speech; formal-paradigmatic ties are pronounced, whereas

semantic ties between the categories of gender, number and case are
absent. We should obviously single out various types of groups of gram
matical categories. Evidently, only verbal categories constitute a unity
which is an integrated system shaped by interrelations embracing the
meanings of forms, their functioning, and their structural-paradigmatic
relations.
It is also possible to analyse the interrelations between grammatical
categories (including categories of different parts of speech) in a broader
plane: from the point of view of interrelations of grammatical categories
according to such attributes as the semantic or structural dominant of the
content, a predominantly reflectional or interpretational character of
semantic functions, actualised value, syntactical and syntagmatic value
(see: Bondarko 1976: 119-128).
It is advisable to consider the interrelations of grammatical cat
egories against the background of broader relations between corresponding
functional-semantic fields. Today, such research is only in its infancy
(see, in particular, Pupynin 1980a, 1980b, where interaction of the cat
egories of aspect and voice is analysed in conjunction with the interaction
of the fields of aspectuality and voice).
Some aspects of the question of interrelations and overlapping of
functional-semantic fields will be examined in the following chapters of

this book.
The interplay of functions associated with the overlap of their
content is an intrinsic quality of the functions of language units. The very
concepts of function and functioning as applied to functional grammar
include the factor of functional interaction. No matter in what form they
are embodied, the categorial interplay of functions constitutes one of the
key objects of functional-grammatical research and description.
Interaction of system and environment
One of the important elements covered by the concept of functioning (as

applied to language units) is the interplay of grammatical units as systems
with their environment. We interpret the interaction of a system with its
environment from the point of view of the general theory of systems

research. According to this theory, an integral system as a set of inter

related and interconnected elements is opposed to the environment, in the
process of interacting with which the system manifests and creates all its
properties. In other words, a system functions in an environment by
interacting with it (see: Filosofskaja enciklopedija 1970, Vol. 5:19).
As an organised integral class of interconnected elements, each with its own

structure and organisation, a system demonstrates in its interaction with the
environment a certain behaviour, which can be either reactive (i.e., behaviour
determined in all its basic parameters by the environment) or active (i.e.,
behaviour determined not only by the state and influence of the environment,
but also by the system's own aims which imply changing the environment and
subordinating it to the system's needs) (ibid.).
In linguistic research operating with the concept of system, the

relationships between the system and the environment have never been an
object of special investigation. Linguists have never asked themselves the
question as to what is the environment in relation to systems and sub
systems in language. Today, however, this question has become a vital
one, since it is obvious that specific systems in the language (and also
language in general as the system of systems) are not isolated self-con
tained islands, but function in an environment consisting of elements and

phenomena constantly interacting with each system. Actually, linguistics
has been studying many aspects of this interaction for a long time al
ready, albeit using different terminology. Now, however, it is important to
link purely linguistic problems with the general problems of systems
research.
In speaking of language units as systems, we mean integral entities
(lexemes, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions) including organ
ised sets of elements of content (together with all their interrelations, i.e.,
with a certain structure of the content plane) as correlated with a set of
elements of formal expression (thus, it is a question of bilateral, i.e.,
content-form, units). The same applies to grammatical categories and also
to various language classes and groupings as more complex systems.
In relation to a certain language unit, category or grouping, the
environment is a set of language and extralinguistic elements, through

interaction with which that language unit, category or grouping performs

its functions.
The system and the environment (as applied to language phenom
ena) are not, however, self-sufficient entities. They are subordinated to
their functions. The interaction between system and environment is aimed
at realising a function as the purpose of language means. A separate
system (unit, category, grouping) cannot bring about the realisation of
functions to be performed in the process of language communication
(above all, the function of conveying the sense of the utterance). For this
to happen, the set of specific systems must be able to interact with their
environment.
In relation to language units and categories (as initial systems), we
can single out two types of environment: (1) paradigmatic (language),
i.e., the environment of a given unit (category) in the paradigmatic
system of language; and (2) syntagmatic (contextual, or speech), i.e., the
environment of a given language unit in speech, i.e., context and speech
situation. The concept of environment makes it possible to integrate from
a single standpoint these two types of environment, which are usually
studied separately.
The terms "paradigmatic" and "syntagmatic" are to a certain extent
only conventional. In its relation to a given unit, the context is not
reduced to syntagmatics alone, since syntagmatic relations interact with

paradigmatic relations. Moreover, the concept of syntagmatic environment
can be applied to context, but not to a speech situation. In this respect, it
is better to use the term "speech environment", which can be easily
applied to both context and situation. But in general, terminology will
require more precise definition.
Thus, the concept of environment as applied to language facts
should be considered bearing in mind the differences between the lan
guage system and the speech system, that is to say, between the paradig
matic plane in the language system and the interplay between paradig-
matics and syntagmatics in speech.
Here are some examples to demonstrate the paradigmatic aspects of
the environment. Within the field of aspectuality in the Russian and other
Slavic languages, where the nucleus (centre) is the category of aspect as
a system of grammemes of perfective and imperfective aspect, the en
vironment (in its paradigmatic aspect) in relation to the given system

comprises modes of action (Aktionsarten, aspectual classes), and also

broader types of terminative and aterminative verbs. The interaction
between system and environment in this case is manifested as the in
fluence of these lexieo-grammatical classes on the realisation of the
aspectual system, i.e., on the possibility of functioning of either both
aspects or only one of them. Similar manifestations of dependence of
grammatical categories on lexico-grammatical classes interacting with
them are known in other cases, too. Compare, for example, the possibility
of nouns functioning either in both the singular and plural or only in one
of these forms (in some cases, with a restricted possibility of functioning
of one of the forms with a substantial modification of the meaning of
number) depending on their belonging either to the class of concrete
nouns or to the classes of abstract, substantive, and collective nouns. Also
compare the influence of lexico-grammatical classes of qualitative and
relative adjectives on the category of degrees of comparison. (For more
on the correlation of lexieo-grammatical classes and morphological
categories, see Bondarko 1976: 155-203).
All such facts can be interpreted in the light of system-environment
correlation. From this point of view we can also interpret the influence of
vocabulary (the lexical meaning of word-forms) on grammatical categories
(for example, verbs whose lexical meaning does not agree with imperative
semantics are not used in the imperative mood). In such cases, the lexical
meaning of words is the environment which conditions the concrete
representation of a grammatical category as a system and the very pos
sibility/impossibility (or restricted possibility) of the functioning of a
certain element in that system (e.g., perfective/imperfective aspect, sin
gular/plural).
The introduction of the concept of environment in considering the
paradigmatic and syntagmatic (contextual) surroundings of language
systems gives rise to the following questions: (1) which qualities of a
given system are manifested and which are created in interaction with the
two above-mentioned types of surrounding? (2) How do these types (or
aspects of the concept of environment) interact with a given unit or
category in the process of its functioning? Which aspect of the interaction
of a unit with its surroundings (of both types) is the leading one in each
particular case (the aspect of the system or the aspect of the environ
ment)?

The processes of functioning of language units include their inter

action with the environment in both aspects. For instance, in the process
of functioning of aspectual forms, their meanings interact with the seman
tics of the corresponding mode of action (which is connected with the
environment on its paradigmatic level); at the same time, specific aspec
tual functions are conditioned by the interaction between the categorial
meaning of an aspectual form and the aspectual context, which is con
nected with the syntagmatic (speech) level of the concept of environment.
Here is another example of the complex interplay between the
paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of the environment. A certain
grammatical category in a particular type of functioning may constitute a
kind of position for the functioning of another category. For example, a
certain temporal plane may be interpreted as a position for the function
ing of aspects. In the actual present, for instance, only verbs in the
imperfective aspect can be used, whereas the non-actual present permits
the use (albeit restricted) of verbs in the perfective aspect (Bondarko
1971b: 176-234). Different moods and types of modal constructions
(Seljakin 1969, 1970; Bojko 1983), and also active and passive construc
tions (Pupynin 1980a, b) can be seen as special positions determining a
number of distinctive features of the functioning of perfective and
imperfective forms. In such cases, categorial interaction assumes a special
form: a given grammatical category constitutes a system functioning in

conditions created by other grammatical categories and related construc
tions which act as environment in relation to the given category.
The concrete content of the concepts of system and environment in
the area of grammatical categories and functional-semantic fields is
changeable and relative: it depends on the character and level of relevant
language units and their correlation. For example, in relation to a gram
matical category as a system uniting counterposed grammemes, the role
of environment is played by elements of the same functional-semantic
field interacting with the given category - elements characterised by a
lesser degree of grammaticality (lexico-grammatical classes, etc.: compare
the above-given example with the aspectuality field in the Russian and
other Slavic languages). At the higher level of system and environment in
a given area of language facts, the concrete content of these concepts
changes. The role of the system - a broader and more complex one,
including heterogeneous components from the point of view of their level

and structure - is played by, for example, the aspectuality field as a

whole. It is this system that has a structure in which we can single out
the field's centre and periphery. The environment in this case is the
complex of functional-semantic fields with which the aspectuality field
overlaps (interacts). These include, above all, the fields of temporality and
taxis, and also such fields as modality, person, qualitativity and quan
titativity.
The relative nature of the concepts of system and environment is
also manifested in the mobility and vagueness of boundaries between the
system and the environment. Compare, for example, the absence of clear-
cut boundaries between grammatical categories and the most grammatical-
ised lexico-grammatical classes, or between grammatical paradigms and
their lexico-grammatical surroundings (for instance, the paradigm of the
imperative mood has very mobile and relative boundaries).
One of the manifestations of the relativity of concrete representa
tions of the concepts of system and environment consists in the follow
ing. In relation to the functioning of grammatical units and categories, the
role of environment is often played by lexical phenomena. However, in
relation to lexical units, classes and groupings seen as systems, the role
of environment can be played by grammatical phenomena. For example,
the functioning of lexical units can be determined and restricted by
certain syntactical constructions. In such cases, the latter play the role of
environment.
The concept of environment implies the possibility and need of
multiaspectual differentiation. Specifically, one should distinguish between
micro- and macroenvironment. A microenvironment includes those el
ements of the surroundings (both paradigmatic and syntagmatic) of a
certain specific language system which directly interact with it; a macro-
environment covers broader and remoter areas of language and speech
phenomena relating to a given system or indirectly influencing it. For
instance, in relation to the category of tense in the Russian language, the
microenvironment includes the categories of aspect and mood (in broader
terms, elements of the fields of aspectuality and objective modality), and
also language means of expression of temporal correlation embraced by
the field of taxis. As far as the macrosystem is concerned, in this case it
embraces elements of such fields as voice, definiteness/indefiniteness, and
locativity. The fields of qualitativity and quantitativity can be in both

close and remote relation to the category of tense. Here, as in other

cases, we witness the vagueness and mobility of boundaries between
micro- and macroenvironment.
Analysis of the microenvironment is associated with defining the
boundaries between a given system and its environment (which is not
always easy to do). These boundaries can be very vague. For example, in
the Russian language it is difficult to determine unequivocally the bound
aries of the system of forms of the imperative mood. The language itself
presents gradual transitions from the system to its environment, as demon
strated by the various interpretations of such forms as sjadem ("let's sit
down"), budem rešat', davaj/davajte rešat', davaj/davajte rešim (all mean
ing "let's decide"), and also such combinations as pust'/puskaj otkryvaet
("let him open"), etc. Another example is the various interpretations of
the infinitive combination with the Russian particle by - like Otdoxnut' by
("I wish I could have a rest") - outside or within the system of the
subjunctive mood.
Analysis of the microenvironment involves defining the boundaries
of the environment (of a given system) as a whole. These boundaries are
also characterised by gradual transitions - specifically, from the periphery
of the environment of a given reference system to other systems and their
environment. For instance, the boundary is very vague between peripheral
modes of action (an element of the environment in relation to the cat

egory of aspect) and word-formative classes having no obvious connection
with aspect.
In speaking of micro- and macroenvironment, we have actually
already touched upon the question of the structure of environment. Since
the composition of an environment is determined by the reference system,
the environment may include elements of heterogeneous surroundings not
forming one single system with an integrated structure. For example,
grammatical forms (of tense, mood, person, etc.) function, on the one
hand, in an intralinguistic environment of contiguous grammatical and
lexical phenomena, and on the other, in an environment beyond the
boundaries of language and including social and psychological factors.
Elements of the "internal" and "external" environment may be connected,
but still they do not form an integrated homogeneous structure.
Whereas a system constitutes, by its very nature, an integral entity,
the environment need not necessarily be integral, although in certain cases

it is. This is because the environment embraces not all the elements of a
larger system which includes the given reference system, but only those
elements which interact with the latter. According to various attributes
and various aspects of interaction, the reference system can be connected
with various, including heterogeneous, planes of the environment
(compare the above-mentioned difference between the intralinguistic and
extralinguistic environment, and also the difference between the para
digmatic and syntagmatic environment; differences are also possible
within each of these varieties). All this does not mean, however, that the
environment is altogether devoid of an inner structure, i.e., that it is
amorphous. It is merely a question of a more complicated type of
systemic-structural organisation of the environment as a complex which
can include heterogeneous sets of elements (each set with its own struc
ture) as compared with the structure of integral homogeneous entities.
The generally recognised principle that the levels of a language
system are arranged according to a certain hierarchy is also reflected in
the systemic-structural organisation of the environment - as one of its
tendencies. Each specific language system of a certain level (for instance,
on the morpheme, word, or sentence level) is included in a larger system
of the same level, whose elements interact with that particular system,
performing the function of its environment. Thus, in part of its elements
the environment has a systemic-structural organisation connected with the

level organisation of specific systems in the language.
At the same time, apart from correlations between system and
environment within one and the same level, multilevel and multiaspectual
correlations are also widespread. For example, specific syntactical systems
at the sentence level (what is meant is models, structural patterns of the
sentence, etc.) interact with the lexical environment belonging to the word
level. Morphological categories as systems interact with syntactical con
structions in the role of environment. Multilevel paradigmatic correlations
between systems and environment are broadly represented within
functional-semantic fields. Similar relations are manifested in the utterance
in the syntagmatic plane (compare, for example, syntagmatic interplay
between tense forms and lexical elements of the temporality field).
Interaction between the system of grammatical units, classes and
categories with their lexical and lexico-grammatical surroundings extends
the boundaries of grammar. The sphere of functional grammar, which

aims at examining the functioning of grammatical units, involves every

thing that interacts with grammatical system proper in the area of vo
cabulary and context. Therefore, functional grammar includes the descrip
tion of all phenomena interacting with grammatical units - phenomena
related to functional lexicology. There are no rigid boundaries here.
Functional grammar - its object of study broadly interpreted - grows into
the functional study of the language system as a whole.
So it becomes obvious that grammatical units, classes and cat
egories as systems must be studied together with the environment which
surrounds them and with which they interact. In the theory of functional
grammar, the question logically arises as to what unit in the language
system and what corresponding unit of analysis would include both the
grammatical forms and categories under investigation and their environ
ment. In our estimation, such a unit in functional grammar is a func
tional-semantic field. The interaction between system and environment (in
both its paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects) constitutes the most im
portant integrating factor in the formation of functional-semantic fields.
The concept of functional-semantic field is the crossing-point of
two lines - one coming from the concept of function, the other from the
correlation of system and environment. The first line proceeds as follows:
the field is based on the community of functions; this community over
comes the tendency towards disunity of language means differing in

structure and level; from the functional interaction of structurally hetero
geneous means in speech there proceeds an abstraction leading to the
concept of functional-semantic field projected onto the paradigmatic
system of language.
The second line of association (from system-environment correla
tion to a functional-semantic field) is closely connected with the first: the
interaction between system and environment provides conditions for the
actualisation of functions embraced by the given field. Grammatical
systems (one or several) playing the part of the centre of interaction and
integrating the lexical and lexico-grammatical elements of the environ
ment, shape together with this environment the entities which we call
functional-semantic fields.
Underlying the interaction of grammatical or maximally gram-
maticalised specific system within a functional-semantic field with its
other elements (lexico-grammatical, word-formative, lexical) playing the

part of the environment, are fundamental semantic categories (which we

give the same names as corresponding functional-semantic fields - aspec-
tuality, temporality, voice, locativity, etc.). Representing semantic in
variants which appear in various variants expressed by language means
within a functional-semantic field, these semantic categories determine the
possibility of functional interaction of structurally heterogeneous means,
i.e., the possibility of the given type of interaction between specific
grammatical systems in the language and their environment.
It should be noted that the concept of environment in relation to
grammatical units and categories within a functional-semantic field over
lap, but do not coincide, with the concept of periphery, which has long
been used in the theory of the field. The latter concept implies a hier
archy of components of the field from the point of view of features of
the most specialised and regular character of expression of the semantic
category underlying a given functional-semantic field. When, however, we
speak of the environment in relation to a grammatical category as a
system, we mean singling out in the paradigmatic and syntagmatic sur
rounding of a grammatical category everything that interacts with it - and,
as already mentioned, the environment exceeds the bounds of the given
field.
The concept of environment is of fundamental importance in
explaining language systems. No specific system in the language can be

adequately explained if it is considered by itself, in isolation, and if
analysis is applied only to intrasystemic relations. Research can yield a
satisfactory explanation only when examination of intrasystemic relations
is supplemented with an examination of relations between the system and
its environment.
The role played by the environment in relation to the functioning
of language units and categories (systems) can be studied not only in its
synchronic aspect, but also from the point of view of the genesis and
historical development of language systems. This range of problems
includes the historical processes of grammaticalisation - specifically, the
origin and formation of grammatical categories in a lexical and lexico-
grammatical environment (see Bondarko 1983: 88-99).
The explanatory aspect of analysis relying on system-environment
correlation concerns a wide range of extralinguistic conditions of speech.
The functioning of elements of an utterance covers not only the inter-

action of specific language systems with their intralinguistic environment,

but also interaction with the external environment. This aspect of the
functioning of language units is related to such concepts as the socio-
communicative system, the status and role relations of participants in
communication, social orientations (Svejcer 1976), the social determination
of a model of speech generation (see: Teoreticeskie problemy recevogo
obščenija 1977), background and situational information (Bondarko 1978),
non-verbal components of communication (Kolsanskij 1974; Gorelov
1980), and language competence and its components (Saxnarovic 1973).
The language phenomena discussed in this section have long been
familiar to linguistics - for instance, the interaction of grammar and
vocabulary, interaction of language levels, interaction of grammatical units
and the context, etc. But the introduction of the concept of environment
is necessary, in our opinion, because it (a) makes it possible to consider
from a common point of view phenomena that used to be studied separ
ately, in different spheres of research and theoretical problems; (b) con
stitutes one of the concrete interfaces of purely linguistic problems and
problems of systems research; and (c) helps the theoretical comprehension
of the complexity of a language system and of the systemic aspect of
language.
The study of specific language subsystems in their interaction with
the environment provides additional opportunities to comprehend the

foundations of functional-semantic fields of different structural types.
Monocentric fields are based on one initial grammatical system in unity
with its environment (for example, the temporality field in the Russian
language). Polycentric fields (such as taxis, which can be divided into
areas of dependent and independent taxis) constitute associations of
several initial grammatical or lexico-grammatical systems. Each of these
is used in combination with its environment. The division of functions
within the functional-semantic field of a given type also determines the
above-mentioned structural division of the field into specific system-
environment complexes. At the same time, due to the community of
functions, these complexes associate into a more general system. In
Chapter II we consider functional-semantic fields of various structural
types, with special attention devoted to the most complex type of the
polycentric structure.

T H E CATEGORY OF ASPECT AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE
General survey
In this section we shall demonstrate one possible type of analysis of

language material proceeding from the concept of "functional-semantic
field", bearing in mind such factors as the interaction of system and
environment, correlation between the denotative-conceptual basis and the
interpretational component of language content. Our main attention will
be focused on the semantic category underlying the field under
consideration: the varieties of the semantics of limit.
In his earlier works (starting from 1966), the author investigated
the subject of aspect and aspectuality seen as an integrated field (one
functional-semantic category). At present, we still keep to this
interpretation of aspectuality. It is well substantiated and can be used in
concrete research projects, especially in cases where it is important to
emphasise the integral features of the category under consideration.
However, another possible approach consists in dividing the sphere
of aspectuality into a number of fields and uniting them within a group
of functional-semantic fields. Included in this grouping are the fields of

limitativity, durativity, iterativity, the fields of phase semantics and of
perfect, action, state and relation semantics (Teorija funktional'noj
grammatiki ... 1987: 40-209). This approach takes into account to a
greater extent the semantics and structure of separate subsystems within
the broad zone of aspectual relations, i.e. the characterisation of the
"internal temporal structure of action" (about this notion see Guillaume
1969: 47-48).
In Russian, as in other Slavic languages, the principal role among
the means of expressing aspectual relations is played by the grammatical
category of aspect. It is the most specialised and regular grammatical
means, integrating and consolidating other elements in the sphere of
aspectuality - modes of action, classes of terminative and aterminative
verbs, syntactical constructions that have aspectual functions, lexical
features of aspectuality, and all aspectual elements of the context. At the
same time, although in general the category of aspect is central to this

group of functional-semantic fields, the role of this grammatical category

in each particular aspectual field is different.
Now we shall consider the grammatical category of aspect as part
of the functional-semantic field which is most closely related to the
semantics of aspect. This field plays a central role in the grouping of
aspectual fields and can be termed "the field of limitativity".
The terms "limitative" and "limitation" are known in aspectology
(S0rensen 1962: 184), although so far they have not gained wide
currency. But in our view, the term "limitativity" is best suited to denote
the broad concept that integrates the various ways in which action is
related to limit. We include in the concept of limitativity both the
presence of limit and its absence. Given this interpretation, there is no
need for a terminological dichotomy such as "limitativity/unlimitativity".
Thus, we interpret limitativity as a functional-semantic field that
integrates a number of means of expressing various types of relation of
action (in the broad sense) to limit.
Let us examine the basic varieties of the concept of limit.
The types of limit

Most generally speaking, the limit of an action is its time boundary, its
delimitation in time2 (throughout this work, "action" is meant in the
broadest sense, embracing all possible types of verbal predicates,
including states and relations).
Internal and external limit
In cases where the temporal boundary does not depend on the character
of the action itself and is determined by external factors (circumstances
limiting duration, etc., or intervention of another action), we are dealing
with external limit. For example:
On naxodilsja tarn do trex casov ("He stayed there until
three o'clock");

Budu spat', poka menja ne razbudjat ("I'll sleep until they

wake me").
However, if the limitation of the action's duration is determined by the
character of the action itself, as reflected in the meaning of the verb
(specifically, in the meaning of aspect and mode of action, and also in
lexical semantics); we are dealing with internal limit. Such limit has to
do with "the internal temporal structure of action".
The meanings of internal and external limit may overlap and
interact. A typical example is delimitative and perdurative verbs, e.g.:
polezat' casa dva ("to lie for a couple of hours"), prolezat' ves den ("to
lie around in bed all day"). What is special about such verbs is that the
very mode of action (which in other cases constitutes the source of
meanings related to the sphere of internal limit) contains the link with
external limit. The meaning of such verbs must necessarily be related to
such adverbial modifiers as pjat' minut ("five minutes"), celyj mesjac ("a
whole month"). At the same time, delimitative and perdurative meanings
are included in the semantics of the Russian prefixai verb and interact
with the meaning of the perfective aspect. The semantics of the
delimitative or perdurative mode of action is combined with the aspectual
meaning of limit: the action, as limited by the measure of duration, is
represented in the full extent (exhaustiveness) of that measure. Thus, the
external-limitative (in its thought content) characteristic of verbal action

becomes in its concrete-language expression an element of its inner
content structure. Hereafter, we shall speak only of internal limit.
In characterising the concept of limit, it is important to explicate
the aforementioned "delimitation of the action in time". Limit is the
meaning of the fullness (exhaustiveness) of a particular action's
manifestation in time as set by a given verb. We do not mean
extralingual action as such with all its actual elements, but rather its
expression in verbal meanings. Fullness (exhaustiveness) represents the
manifestation of action which is determined, among other things, by the
specific mode of verbal action. Cf. such verbs as posidet' ("to sit for an
unspecified period of time") and prosidet' ("to sit for some specified
period of time").
In ingressive verbs, the meaning of limitedness refers not to the
action as a whole, but only to its initial phase. The action may continue,
e.g.:

My poplyli k drugomu beregu (i prodolzali plyt') ("We

started paddling/swimming towards the other shore (and
continued paddling/swimming)");
On gromko zagovoril (i prodolzal govorit') ("He started

speaking in a loud voice (and continued to speak)"),
but that element of assumed (or even explicitly denoted) continuation is

situated outside the phase of action that is specifically expressed in the
verb and which has exhausted itself and cannot continued.
Real and potential limit
Works on aspectology have long drawn a distinction between real

attainment of limit and orientation towards limit (Maslov 1978: 10, 16-
17). We shall mark this distinction with the terms real/potential limit.
Example:
On probralsja/probiralsja cerez tolpu ("He pushed his

way/was pushing his way through the crowd").
The distinction between real and potential limit in Russian and

other Slavic languages is emphasised by a clear-cut distribution of these

meanings between the two aspectual forms: real limit is a constant
semantic feature of the perfective aspect (the imperfective aspect can
indicate only a special implicit variety of real limit), whereas potential
limit can be expressed only by the imperfective aspect.
The meaning of potential limit (in its relation to real limit) in
different languages occupies different positions in the overall system of
limitative relations. For example, V.M. Pavlov points out that in German
... there exist lexemic representations of transformative actions [i.e., actions that
are limitative in objective reality - A.B.] which permit the expression of such
actions both as processes (with a weakened or even disactualised "background"
of perception of the transformative action as one objectively directed towards
attainment of limit) and the expression of total perception of actions in their
fullness and exhaustiveness.... (Pavlov 1984: 54)

The concept of potential limit is related to processity, i.e., the

concept of action in process, for example:
Sup uže zakipal ("The soup was already coming to a boil");
Mat' vyzdoravlivaet ("Mother is recovering").
The expression of potential limit necessarily implies processity; however,
not every instance of processity necessarily implies potential limit, since a
process can be aterminative, for example:
My guljali po parku ("We were taking a walk in the park").
In the Russian language, there are no clear-cut formal distinctions
between a process related to potential limit and an aterminative process.
Consequently, semantic distinctions can be just as vague.
The meanings of real and potential limit differ in the degree of
discreteness. Real limit is an independent, clearly distinguished meaning,
whereas potential limit is only an alternate element accompanying the
meaning of processity.
For all the differences between real and potential limit, both are
united in the concept of terminativity. Terminativity of a verb is the
capacity to express either real or potential limit. Conversely,
aterminativity is the incapacity to express any limit, either real or
potential, for example: bezdel'nicat' ("to idle").
Explicit and implicit limit
In introducing this distinction, we have in mind two varieties of real limit

determined above all by the explicit (evident, emphasised) or implicit (not
so evident, unemphasised) character of the content itself.
Limit is explicit when we see a clear expression of the fullness
(exhaustiveness) of a given action. In the Slavic languages, this variety of
limit is expressed by a special grammatical form, the perfective aspect.
Limit is implicit if the meaning of exhaustiveness is only implied in a
certain context, albeit with the participation of grammatical forms
permitting such implication. In the Russian language, this has to do with
the imperfective aspect in positions of neutralisation of aspectual
opposition and so-called aspectual competition. Forms of the imperfective

aspect do take part in expressing the meaning of limit, but in their own
special way: by conveying - by virtue of their semantic unmarkedness -
implicit information on real limit. Compare the following examples:
(1) explicit limits:

Ja prisel domoJ i prinjalsja za rabotu ("I came home and got
down to work");
(2) implicit limit:
(a) in neutralising aspectual opposition in the historic present:
Prixozu ja vcera domo] i prinimajus' za rabotu (lit.:

"Yesterday I come home and get down to work"),
and in the past tense in expressing an iterative action:
Ja prixodil domoj i prinimalsja za rabotu ("I would come

home and get down to work")
(in both cases the imperfective aspect is used instead of the perfective,
since the latter would be impossible in the given circumstances);
(b) in "aspectual competition":
Ja uze citai (cf. perfective aspect: procitaï) etu knigu ("I've

read that book already").
The basic semantic variety of real limit is explicit limit, whereas

the implicit limit is relatively peripheral. As already demonstrated above,
potential limit is characterised by non-discreteness of content. In this case
we are dealing with a special variety of implicit limit: the verb-form
implies the action's orientation towards its limit.
The grammatical system of the Russian language provides a clear-
cut distribution of the semantic varieties of limit between the two
aspectual forms: the basic line of explicitly expressed varieties of limit
(real explicit limit) is associated with the perfective aspect; the varieties
of limit which are contrasted to the above-mentioned ones (potential limit
as contrasted to real limit, and implicit real limit as contrasted to the
explicit) are associated with the imperfective aspect (which at the same
time also expresses aterminative action).

Absolute and relative limit
MJa. Glovinskaja has pointed out that by far not all perfective verbs in
the Russian language denote actions that cannot continue beyond a certain
limit, for example: leč' ("to lie down"), nadet' ("to put on"), sest' ("to sit
down"), umeret' ("to die"), upast' ("to fall"). There are groups of
perfective verbs denoting action which can continue. One such group
comprises verbs denoting alteration of quality or location in space, for
example: vozrasti ("to grow"), zamedlit' ("to slow down"), zaostrit' ("to
sharpen"), okrepnut' ("to get stronger"), oslabet' ("to get weaker"),
oxladit' ("to cool"), povysit' ("to raise"), pokrasnet' ("to flush, to become
red"), sokratit' ("to reduce, to abridge"), uvelicit1 ("to enlarge"), udlinit'
("to lengthen"), uskorit' ("to accelerate"), etc. (Glovinskaja 1982: 9).
The opposition of possibility/impossibility of continuing the action
is of fundamental importance. The above examples enable us to single
out two varieties of limit: absolute and relative. In this sense, we
disagree with MJa. Glovinskaja, who concludes that limit does not
constitute a universal property of the perfective aspect. In our opinion,
phrases like
Ceny povysilis' ("Prices have gone up")
and phrases like

On nadelpal'to ("He has put on his coat")
both express the meaning of limit, but, whereas in the former case limit
is relative, in the latter it is absolute.
Let us consider another example:
Ty zametil? Poezd zamedlil xod ("Have you noticed? The
train has slowed down").
In a real situation, the process of slowing down may continue even after
the utterance; however, this element which is determined by the verb's
lexical meaning and with situational information, does not contradict the
meaning of limitedness as expressed by the perfective aspect. In using the
perfective form, the speaker expresses as fully accomplished only that
part of the action which he has noticed so far. Any further slowing down
of the train is outside the limits of the perfective aspect, even though it

does form part of the overall information conveyed (as an element of the
situational background).
The difference between absolute and relative limit is revealed in
the lexical meaning of the verb, in the meaning of certain modes of
action, in situational information, and in the combinability of verbal
forms. However, the meaning of the perfective aspect, which carries only
general information on limit, is not affected by this difference. Just as
any other grammatical meaning, it is characterised by a certain degree of
selectivity in relation to objective reality and the denotative aspects of
semantics. Thus the categorial meaning of the perfective aspect based on
the concept of limit, actually does apply to all verbs. What must be borne
in mind is the aforementioned interpretational element of the semantics of
limit. It is clear, therefore, that the meaning of real limit forms part of
the grammatical system, whereas the opposition of absolute/relative limit
is expressed by environmental elements (for the aspectual system, this
difference is too specific).
The concept of relativity of limit applies not just to the above-
mentioned group of verbs, but to other verbs as well. It applies above all
to verbs of ingressive action, for example:
Volki zavyli i prodolzali vyt' do utra ("The wolves began to
howl and continued all night long").
As already mentioned, the very meaning of the ingressive mode of action

implies that limit applies only to the initial phase and that the subsequent
phase is of implicitly unspecified duration. The relativity of limit in this
case is included in the characteristic of the mode of action. Verbs of
delimitative and perdurative modes of action are not so closely associated
with relative limit, but clearly allow such combinations as:
Probolel celyj mesjac i prodolzaet bolet' ("He has been ill
for a whole month and still continues to be ill").
In the system of varieties of terminative semantics, this division is
found within the concept of real limit, since in relation to potential limit
the difference in orientation towards absolute or relative limit is only
marginal. These varieties have to do with the explicit limit expressed by
perfective forms, but can also be found in conveying the meaning of
implicit limit through imperfective forms. Compare:

(a) On snimajet pal' to i vxodit v komnatu (lit. "He takes off his
coat and enters the room") (absolute implicit limit);
(b) Vnezapno pojezd zamedljaet xod, vse nacinajut sobirat' vesci
(lit. "Suddenly the train slows down, and everyone starts
collecting their baggage") (relative implicit limit).
Limitativity as a functional-semantic field
This field encompasses all the aforementioned varieties of internal limit

and various relations of the action to limit, including its absence. External
limit applies to this field only inasmuch as it is related to internal limit.
As far as external limit proper is concerned, this meaning applies more to
the sphere of duration (in cases like: My sideli tam do vecera ["We sat
there until evening"]).
The field of limitativity exists in every language; however, in the
structure of this field there are language differences. In Russian, the field
of limitativity presents the following hierarchy of relations of the action
to limit: (1) the most abstract and most grammaticalised opposition of
limitedness/unlimitedness of the action underlying the grammatical
category of aspect and encompassing the entire body of verbs; (2) a
special variety of the above opposition: the action's orientation towards

limit (result)/its attainment, for example: dokazyvat'/dokazat' ("to be
trying to prove/to have proved"), svetlet'/posvetlet' ("to be getting
lighter/to have become lighter"); (3) the opposition of
terminativity/aterminativity as features of verbal lexemes and their lexico-
grammatical classes of terminative/aterminative verbs (Maslov 1978: 10-
17; Seljakin 1983: 10-12, 38-40, 157-196).
At the centre of this field's semantic structure in the Russian
language is categorial-grammatical limitativity, including its specification
described in (2), whereas on its periphery is the opposition of the
meanings of terminativity/aterminativity. From the point of view of the
field's components in the unity of content and expression, the structure of
the field of limitativity in the Russian language includes: (a) the category
of aspect as the grammatical nucleus (centre) of the field, and (b)
peripheral components, i.e., lexico-grammatical classes of terminative/
aterminative verbs and related modes of action; the field's periphery also

includes such lexical adverbial modifiers as postepenno ("gradually"),

sovsem ("altogether").
In languages where limitedness/unlimitedness of the action does not
have the status of a grammatical category, that is to say, is not based on
a special system of grammatical forms, the significance of the opposition
of terminativity/aterminativity in the overall system of relations of the
action to limit, increases. For example, E.A. Referovskaja points out that
in French, terminativity/aterminativity of the verb plays the dominant role
in the aspectual characteristic of action, regardless of what verbal form it
is expressed in (Referovskaja 1984: 91-109). In the German language, the
categorial semantic feature of terminativity/aterminativity is the most
important among the various manifestations of interaction of grammatical
forms with categorial elements of the semantics of verbal lexemes
(Pavlov 1984: 49). In the Uzbek language, which does not have an
obligatory universal category of aspect, and in which the formal indicators
of aspectual relations are based optionally, as pointed out by D.M.
Nasilov, a greater role is played by aspectual characteristics inherent in
the lexical meaning of verbs, i.e., meanings of action and state in their
relation to the meanings of terminativity/aterminativity (Nasilov 1984:
128-165).
The status of the field of limitativity is different in the aspectual
systems of different languages. In Russian and other Slavic languages,

limitativity occupies a central position among other aspectual fields. This
is determined by the presence of the grammatical category of aspect,
which is based on the action's relation to limit. However, in languages
where limitative relations are not grammaticalised and do not have the
regularity characteristic of the Slavic verb, the field of limitativity may
occupy a different position in the aspectual system. In such languages,
limitativity is only one of the centres in the grouping of aspectuality
fields, or else occupies a peripheral position as compared with other
aspectual relations, specifically, iterativity. For example, B.A.
Serebrennikov points out that verbal forms in the Komi-Zyrjan language
regularly express iterativity of action. At the same time, "one and the
same verbal form, depending on the context, can equally express either an
accomplished or an unaccomplished action" (Serebrennikov 1960: 86).
According to E.A. Krejnovic, in the Ket language, the meanings of
perfectiveness/imperfectiveness of the action are associated with temporal

distinctions: perfectiveness is associated with the past tense, whereas

imperfectiveness applies to the present and future (Krejnovic 1968a: 14-
17). On the other hand, he points out that Ket verbs regularly express
momentary/iterative semantics (Krejnovic 1968b: 79). Verbs in the
Hungarian language, apart from expressing terminativity/aterminativity,
also express "accomplishment of limit"; however, aspectual forms embrace
only a limited number of verbs and are manifested irregularly, which fact
does not enable us to treat aspect as a grammatical category (Dezsö
1984: 70). L. Dezsö points out that attainment of internal limit - a
dominant feature of the Russian verb - has no such similar status in
Hungarian. On the other hand, an important role in the Hungarian
aspectual system belongs to quantitative aspectuality, in particular,
expression of iterativity (ibid.: 70-80).
The above facts demonstrate that, from the point of view of the
status of limitativity, within the overall system of aspectual relations we
can single out various types of aspectual systems. In particular, we can
readily identify a type of aspectual system with a clearly expressed
dominant of limitativity based on the grammatical category of aspect.
This type is most fully represented in the Slavic languages. On the other
hand, we can identify aspectual systems with a not so clearly expressed
limitative dominant and even systems with peripheral limitativity.
The varieties of limitative relations
Limitedness/unlimitedness of the action. The meanings of aspect.
The interpretation of the meaning of the perfective aspect on the basis of

the feature of Limitedness accords with the definition based on the feature
of Totality (for more detail on the latter, see Maslov 1959: 307-311).
The connection between Limitedness and Totality of the action can
be found as far back as the last century in the works of E. Cernyj and
L.P. Razmusen (Cernyj 1876: 11, 15; Razmusen 1891: 379). It is
precisely because an action is represented in the fullness of its
manifestation by a given verb (with the given mode of action) that it is
characterised by indivisible totality (for more detail on the connection of

these two features, see Bondarko 1971b: 18-19; Seljakin 1975: 13-18). It
should be pointed out that, although these features are closely
interconnected and mutually complementary, they are by no means
identical. The difference between them lies in the following. The feature
of Totality is associated with "viewing the action from outside" (thereby
enabling us to perceive the action as a whole, as compared with seeing it
in process, when the speaker is within the action, as it were (Dostál
1954: 15; Isacenko 1960: 131-133; Pettersson 1972: 11-13).
The feature of Totality, which is characteristic of verbs of the
perfective aspect in all instances of their functioning, is the exact opposite
of the feature of "mediality" which is expressed in the use of the
imperfective aspect in the concrete-process meaning, which is comparable
with the concept of "progressive" and "continuous". For example:
K nam bezit sobaka ("There's a dog running towards us").
In the use of the imperfective aspect in the concrete-process
meaning (in denoting process situations), we can single out a "medial
period", as seen by the on-looker: the action has begun but has not ended
yet, and the verb-form expresses its dynamics in that particular period
concurrently with the flow of time from the past to the future, from an
earlier state of the process to a later one. Characteristic of the concrete-
process meaning of the imperfective aspect is an internal temporal

structure of the course of action, when the course of time is included, as
it were, in the course of action, that is to say, the course of action is
expressed in unity with the course of time (for more detail on the process
function of the Russian imperfective aspect and on process situations, see
Bondarko 1983: 118-159).
The meaning of the perfective aspect is the exact opposite. The
"total fact" expressed by the verb-form, as correlated with a certain
moment in time, is situated outside that moment, as it were. The course
of time is not an element of the internal structure of the action. The
"totality of actions" expressed by forms of the perfective aspect implies
the absence of an internal dynamic structure of the action's progress in
time. The verb-form expresses a fact "as a whole", without singling out a
medial phase of the action's course and without expressing the internal
dynamics of its progression from the past to the future.

This is very close to the interpretation of totality by E. Cernyj,

who wrote that the perfective aspect "... represents the action collectively,
as a whole, in sum, in compact form" (Cernyj 1876: 11) and by L.P.
Razmusen, who referred to it as "... an action seen as one whole - the
beginning, the middle, and the end, all in one" (Razmusen 1891: 379).
Essentially the same position in interpreting the meaning of the
perfective aspect is taken up by B. Comrie. Speaking of sentences like:
Ivan citai, kogda ja vosel ("Ivan was reading when I
entered"),
he points out: "The second verb presents the totality of the situation
referred to (here, my entry) without reference to its internal temporal
constituency: the whole of the situation is presented as a single
unanalysable whole, with beginning, middle, and end rolled into one ..."
(Comrie 1976: 3). Then he goes on: "The term 'perfective' contrasts with
'imperfective', and denotes a situation viewed in its entirety, without
regard to internal temporal constituency" (ibid.: 12).
Let us once again point out the connection between Limitedness
and Totality', a view of the action "from outside', as a whole, is possible
only if the action is represented in the entirety of its manifestation as set
forth by the given verb. But actually, "the fullness of manifestation in
time" (Fortunatov 1956: 161; Saxmatov 1941: 472) is "the limitedness of

actions" (regardless of whether or not the verbal action is associated with
attainment of the goal).
The basic (specific) meaning of the imperfective aspect (concrete-
process meaning), as already mentioned, is contrasted to the meaning of
the perfective aspect. The former is characterised by Unlimitedness (Non-
Totality), Example:
Kogda vystavljali ramu, razbili steklo ("When the second
window-frame was being removed, the glass got broken").
However, in many instances of functioning of imperfective forms, the
meanings expressed in the particular context are not characterised by
Unlimitedness (see below). Compare, for example, the generalised-factual
meaning:
Vam ob etom dokladyvali? ("Has it been reported to you?")

(for more detail on this function of the imperfective aspect, see Bondarko
1983: 160-189). Compare the competing perfective aspect in the concrete-
factual meaning:
Vam ob ètom dolozili? (same translation: "Has it been

reported to you?").
Therefore, in accordance with the general theory of unmarkedness, it

would be feasible to define the categorial meaning of the imperfective
aspect not as Unlimitedness (Non-Totality), but as the absence of the
feature of Limitedness (Totality).
This definition of aspectual meanings is quite compatible with a
definition based on the feature of "change of situations" (in the perfective
aspect) and presentation of the action (in the imperfective aspect) within
one situation.
These mutually complementary relations were noted by A.
Barentsen. In associating the concept of aspect in the Russian language
with the basic opposition of "indication of one situation" (imperfective
aspect)/"indication of the accomplished change of situations" (perfective
aspect), he writes:
On the face of it, this definition differs greatly from the definition proceeding
from the concept of 'indivisibility of an integral action', as found in the works

of such linguists of the Leningrad school of aspectology as Ju.S. Maslov and
A.V. Bondarko and the concept of 'integral, compact event' as suggested by
A.V. Isačenko. But in actual fact, these two definitions approach from different
angles one and the same phenomenon: by representing an action as a whole, in
its entirety, we logically conclude that the action must necessarily be followed
by something else (either a state or another action), and that is our 'change of
SIT'. Whereas the 'Leningrad definition' concentrates on that which 'effects'
such a change, our definition concentrates on the second SIT. (Barentsen 1978:
97).
Barentsen's approach to defining the semantic difference between

the aspects proceeding from the concept of "change of SIT" is close to
the point of view according to which the categorial meaning of the
perfective aspect is the new event in a chain of events or, in other words,
a sequence of events. The perfective aspect is characterised by the feature

of sequence, while the imperfective aspect does not have this feature
(Gurevic 1971: 73-79). In our opinion, these relations constitute
combinatory features of aspectual syntagmatics which depend on the
combinability of aspectual forms in the text. And yet, for all the
importance of these relations, they are still secondary, derivative from
aspectual meanings expressed by an isolated word-form.
The primary fact is the aspectual meaning realised in a given
verbal word-form and expressed by it in accordance with the patterns of
the paradigmatic system of a given language. As for the meanings of the
emergence of the fact, sequence of facts, concurrent processes not related
to the progressive sequence of events, and so on, these relations proceed
from aspectual meanings that are realised in a separate word-form. For
example, the expression of an integrated fact restricted by a limit sets a
limit to that particular manifestation of action; if after that another
integral action restricted by a limit is expressed, it will be subsequent in
relation to the first action. Example:
On vstal i podosel k oknu ("He rose and went up to the
window").
Such features as "change of SIT", "sequence", etc., draw the
attention to the relation of the given situation as expressed by the verb to
that which follows it. It is the "right-hand intention", so to speak, in the

characterisation of the action, a kind of "look-ahead". This element of
aspectual semantics can be revealed not only in context, but at the level
of a single word as well. For example, the meaning of the verb posinet'
("to become blue") can be interpreted as 'stat' sinim' ("to become blue').
At the same time, it should be pointed out that "the right-hand intention"
of the action's characterisation is closely connected with the "left-hand
intention". In other words, the relation of the situation expressed by the
verb to that which follows it (in our example it is the onset of a new
state) is closely linked with the prerequisites of that relation. In our
example, it is the process of sinet' ("becoming blue") being brought to its
limit: it is precisely because the acquisition of this feature is brought to
its limit that the new state sets in, 'stat' sinim' ("to have become blue").
Thus, the "look-ahead", the presence or absence of "change of SIT" (the
new situation) depends on whether the action expressed by the verb is
pursued to its limit. Thus, recourse to the concepts of "change of SIT",

"onset of a new situation", etc., is both necessary and useful, since it

enriches our understanding of aspectual semantics; yet it does not cancel
the other side of that semantics - that which is associated with the feature
of Limitedness (Totality).
The above also applies to the definition of aspectual meanings
proceeding from the feature of "change". Proceeding from that seme
('changement'), M. Guiraud-Weber defines the aspectual opposition as
follows: "... l'imperfectif signale l'occurrence d'une action, tandis que le
perfectif, son occurrence et le changement qui lui succède" ("... the
imperfective aspect denotes the occurrence of the action, whereas the
perfective aspect denotes both the occurrence of the action and the
change that follows it") (Guiraud-Weber 1988: 66). After that she points
out that "le changement" here should be seen as a language category, not
a category of reality (ibid.). In our view, the semantic element of
"change" also constitutes a consequence of the feature of Limitedness
(Totality).
In the development of that point of view on the semantics of the
perfective aspect which accentuates the "right-hand intention" in
characterising verbal action, an important role belonged to the analysis of
verb-forms in the Polish language undertaken by A. Wierzbicka
(Wierzbicka 1967). Her article actually stimulated the development of
certain directions of aspectological research. At the same time, we cannot

agree with certain elements of her analysis. For example:
Jan umarl - Jan przestal zyc = Jan zaczal nie zyc ("John
died = John ceased to be alive = John began not to be
alive") (ibid. 2232).
All the verbs analysed in the foregoing example - Jan umarl,

obudzil sie, zasnal, polozyl sie, usiadl ("John died, woke up, fell asleep,
lay down, sat down") - are resultative verbs with the meaning of
transition to a state. But Wierzbicka's interpretation concentrates on the
moment of the beginning of a new state. However, one should bear in
mind not only that moment, but also the semantic element of 'pursuing
the process to the limit which determines the beginning of a new state'.
It should be pointed out that in itself A. Wierzbicka's "method of
interpretation" of grammatical meanings is not without merit, since it
presents the possibility of explicating semantic analysis, particularly in the

sphere of aspectology (cf. Boguslawski 1972; Glovinskaja 1982; Paduceva

1986).
The feature of Limitedness (Totality) is a highly abstracted
grammatical meaning. That is not surprising, considering that the category
of aspect is obligatory for all verb-forms and for all verbs in the Russian
language (even bi-aspectual verbs in their own special way come under
the general aspectual opposition). Given such universality and obligatory
character of the aspectual opposition (partly with correlated and partly
with non-correlated verbs of the perfective and imperfective aspect), the
realisation of aspectual meanings goes far beyond the limits of purely
sense necessity. As a result, there emerge various secondary functions of
aspect, in particular, "indirect aspectual functions" (compare the complex
aspect-related pragmatic nuances arising from the use of the imperative).
The categorial meanings of the forms of perfective and
imperfective aspect are systemic meanings, i.e., meanings constituting the
sign content of the grammatical forms of aspect as elements of the
language system. As far as the realisation of these meanings in speech is
concerned, it can be seen only in the process and as a result of the
interaction of system and environment.
In relation to the categorial aspectual meanings, the environment
can be (a) aspectually relevant elements of the lexical meanings of verbs
(e.g. side? ("to sit"), leža? ("to lie"), stoja? ("to stand"), derza? ("to
hold"), etc.), verbs of relation (e.g. preoblada? ("to dominate"), zavise?
("to depend"), otlicat'sja ("to differ"), etc.); (b) lexico-grammatical classes
of terminative/aterminative verbs; (c) and the modes of action of verbs. In
all the above instances, we are dealing with an intralexemic (intraverbal)
environment - lexical, word-formative, and lexico-grammatical. Another
type of environment is represented in aspectually meaningful elements of
the context and situation. Compare, for example, such elements of the
context as dolgo ("for a long time"), postepenno ("gradually"), medlenno
("slowly"), vdrug ("suddenly"), vnezapno ("suddenly"), nakonec ("at last"),
obycno ("usually"), casto ("often"), vsegda ("always"), and so on. Also
compare such elements of the situation as the presence/absence of the
feature of "being watched" (and, in a broader sense, the feature of
perceptivity), for example:
Posmotrite, tarn idut kakie-to ljudi ("Look, there are some
people moving there").

In such cases we are dealing with an external environment (in relation to

the verbal action).
Let us point out once again: each of the particular aspectual
meanings is the result of interaction between the categorial meaning of
the aspect's grammatical form (perfective or imperfective) and various
types of intralexemic and extralexemic (internal and external)
environment.
The character of particular aspectual meanings and their correlation
markedly differ in the spheres of perfective and imperfective aspect. This
difference corroborates the well-known characteristic of the perfective
aspect as the semantically marked member (and of the imperfective aspect
as the semanticaily unmarked member) of the aspectual opposition.
The semantic markedness of the perfective aspect, i.e., its
characterisation by the feature of Limitedness (Totality), is specifically
manifested in the fact that this feature is realised in the most clearly
expressed and most frequent concrete-factual meaning, for example:
On zametil menja ("He noticed me").
This meaning obviously constitutes the basis of all the other (secondary)
particular meanings, representing some contextually determined
modification of the primary meaning.
The system of particular meanings of the perfective aspect can be
represented as in Figure 1. It is quite obvious that the secondary

particular meanings of the perfective aspect are derivative from the basic
meaning. In the exemplifying meaning, the actually repetitive action is
represented by an example of one single act of its realisation. The
potential meaning constitutes a combination of the "concrete fact" element
(usually in a metaphorical exemplifying modification) and the modal
element of potentiality. The summative meaning is based on the fact that
the verb-form denotes a concrete fact (in its totality and limitedness),
whereas the elements of the context (dva raza, "twice") denote a certain
number of repetitions, as a result of which the totality of concrete facts is
expressed.
Essentially, when we speak of the meaning of the actual form of
the perfective aspect, we are dealing only with the categorial meaning of
Limitedness (Totality) and with the basic meaning of the concrete fact.
The latter constitutes the above categorial meaning plus the feature of
temporal localisation: Limitedness (Totality) + Temporal Localisation.

Basic meaning (concrete-factual) Secondary particular meanings

(e.g.: Ja vcera jego vstretil → derivative from the basic meaning
("I met him yesterday"))
Exemplifying meaning, Potential meaning, Summative meaning,

e.g. Inogda vstretis e.g. Takix l'udej na e.g. Ja vcera jego
jego i ne znajes, o každom sagu ne vstretis dva raza vstretil
cem s nim govorit'
("Sometimes you meet ("Such people are not ("Yesterday I met him
him and have no idea to be easily found") twice")
what to talk to him
about")
Figure 1.
As far as the aforementioned secondary meanings are concerned,

only conventionally they can be called particular meanings of the perfec
tive aspect. Such a designation is justified only insofar as we are speak
ing of meanings expressed with the help of forms of the perfective
aspect. It represents that element in the system which unites all these
meanings expressed by the complex: "element of the system plus element
of the environment". Elements of the environment differentiate between
different particular meanings, whereas elements of the system unite them.

The marked character of the perfective aspect is manifested in the
strong impact of the categorial meaning of the perfective aspect as an
element of the system on the environment, that is to say, on each system-
environment complex.
But the complex of particular meanings of the imperfective aspect
as a semantically unmarked form is a different matter. The categorial
meaning of this form is reduced to the absence of the feature of Limited-
ness (Totality). The basic (specific) meaning of the imperfective aspect is
opposed to the meaning of the perfective aspect. It is the meaning of
Unlimitedness (Non-Totality). At the same time, as already mentioned,
under certain conditions the unmarked form can appear in situations
typical of the marked form. In such situations, the feature that is usually
explicitly expressed by the marked form of the perfective aspect can be
conveyed implicitly, for example, in the historic present:

FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: SUBJECT MATTER AND GOALS 83
Idu ja vcera po ulice, vdrug menja kto-to ostanavlivajet ... ("I

was walking down the street yesterday when suddenly some
one came up and stopped me ...": lit. "is stopping me").
In the past tense, it would have been natural to use the perfective aspect
ostanovil ("stopped"). It should be pointed out that these ideas are based
on the theory of semantic oppositions as set forth in the well-known
works by R.O. Jakobson (Jakobson 1932; 1936). Today this theory not
only has lost any of its importance but, on the contrary, has received a
new boost to further development, in particular from the point of view of
the general systems theory.
The system of particular meanings of the imperfective aspect is
represented in Figure 2.
Categorial meaning Particular meanings:
of absence of concrete-process meaning Ja čital knigu, kogda on vosel

Limitedness (Totality); ("I was reading a book when he came in")
basic (specific) meaning unlimited-iterative meaning Ja čitai po večeram
of Unlimitedness (Non- ("I used to read in the evening")
Totality) limited-iterative meaning Ja čitai ètu knigu dva raza
("I've read this book twice")

generalised-factual meaning Ty čitai ètu knigu?--Citai.
("Have you read this book?" "Yes, I have")
relational meaning Finljandija graničit s SSSR
("Finland borders on the USSR")
neutral ("unqualified") ProSu vas ("I beg you"); Kljanus' ("I swear");
meaning Ja xoču spat' ("I want to sleep")
Figure 2.
The particular meanings of the imperfective aspect also reveal the

role of the categorial meaning of the grammatical form and of its basic
meaning - meanings that are determined by the grammatical system and
its specific subsystem, in other words, by the opposition of aspectual
forms. However, the semantic unmarkedness of the form of the imperfec-

tive aspect leads to a situation in which the particular meanings deter

mined by the influence of environmental elements turn out to be more
heterogeneous and the unifying factor in them is not so distinctly ex
pressed as in the functioning of perfective forms.
The negative feature of Unlimitedness (Non-Totality) is seen most
clearly in the concrete-process meaning (already mentioned), but this
feature is also characteristic of the relational meaning. In all other par
ticular meanings of the imperfective aspect, the unmarkedness of this
form is manifested as the absence of an explicit positive feature, which,
however, does not rule out the possibility of its implicit presentation
through a combination of an aspectual form with the context. Compare
the unlimited-iterative meaning in such cases as:
On legko resal takle zadaci ("He would easily solve such

problems").
The implication here is that every time the action would be pursued to its
limit (in this case, to its logical result). The generalised-factual meaning
can also imply the attainment of a result, for example:
Zimnij dvorec stroil Rastrelli ("The Winter Palace was built

by Rastrelli").
In such cases, the presence of an accomplished object implies that the

action was really brought to its logical result, although that is not actually
expressed by the verb-form, unlike a similar utterance:
Zimnij drovec postroil Rastrelli (lit.: "Rastrelli has built ..."),
in which the form of the perfective aspect explicitly shows that the action
was pursued to its limit (result). (Cf. another interpretation of this and
similar examples in Glovinskaja 1982: 117-119 ff.). In expressing the
limited-iterative meaning, certain cases, for example:
Ja citai etu knigu dva raza ("I've read this book twice": lit.
"I was reading ..."),
imply that the action was pursued to its limit, although this is not ex
pressed explicitly, unlike the synonymous utterance with a perfective
form:
Ja procital etu knigu dva raza (lit.: "I have read ...").

In the neutral ("unqualified") meaning, the aspectual characteristic of the

action associated with the imperfective aspect is limited to the absence of
the explicit expression of the feature characteristic of the perfective
aspect. All the other elements of the action's representation depend on the
specific type of utterance (see, for example, our interpretation of perform
ative utterances in Bondarko 1987: 201-207; cf. Apresjan 1986: 208-223).
In the functioning of imperfective forms, the heterogeneity of
environmental elements can be clearly seen. Compare such elements of
the utterances as perceptivity and orientation towards depicting the situ
ation (in the concrete-process meaning); the general informative orienta
tion of the utterance (in the generalised-factual meaning); the presence of
adverbial modifiers like inogda ("sometimes"), casto ("often"), vsegda
("always") and other indicators that the situation is not localised in time
(in the unlimited-iterative meaning); the use of the verb with pertinent
semantics in the relational meaning.
Sometimes the heterogeneity of particular meanings of the imper
fective aspect is seen as a drawback of the particular classification sug
gested by linguists. But in actual fact, if one takes into account the
correlation of the system's elements under review (with the semantic
unmarkedness of grammatical form) and diverse elements of the environ
ment (lexical environment, environment of modes of action, contextual
environment, situational environment), it becomes clear that the classifica

tion cannot be any different (i.e. a classification that would meet the
logical criteria of consistency, homogeneity, etc.). What we have in mind
is a typical case of natural classification.
Whereas the system of particular meanings of the perfective aspect
has a compact structure, the system of particular meanings of the imper
fective aspect has a diffuse structure, with a weakly expressed centre, in
distinct divisions and marked overlaps of separate meanings (for more
detail on our interpretation of aspectual meanings see Bondarko 1971b;
1976: 196-203; 1983: 116-200; cf. Breu 1980; 1984; 1985a; 1985b;
Lehmann 1980; 1986; Mehlig 1982; 1984).
An important role among the factors influencing the realisation of
aspectual meanings belongs to the semantic classes of verbs (see Maslov
1948; Vendler 1967; Bulygina 1983; Guiraud-Weber 1988: 58-65). In the
present work, however, we have no possibility of going into this problem.
We shall only point out that an integrated examination of aspectually

significant semantic classes of verbs together with particular aspectual

meanings (those allowing interpretation in the terminology of "aspectual
situations") is a promising prospect in investigating the interaction of
elements of the grammatical system and the lexical environment in the
sphere of aspectual relations.
A most important feature of the Limitedness/Unlimitedness opposi
tion in the Russian language is its application to all verbs and verb-forms.
This opposition applies to perfective and imperfective verbs forming
aspectual pairs but at the same time not forming a relationship of "orien
tation towards limit/its attainment". Such are, for example, the following
perfective/imperfective aspectual pairs: dat'/davat' ("to give"), dopus-
tit'/dopuskat' ("permit"), zametit'/zamecat' ("notice"), zastat' Izastavat'
("find"), zajavit'/zajavljat' ("declare"), nagradit' Inagrazdat' ("award"),
obnaruzit' /obnaruzivat' ("discover"), ostat' sja/ostavat' sja ("to stay"),
povisnut'/povisat' ("to hang"), pomestit' Ipomescat' ("to place"), poslat'/
posylat' ("to send"), pojavit'sjalpojavljat'sja ("to appear"), predlozit'/
predlagat' ("to offer"), predusmotret'/predusmatrivat' ("to imply"),
razresit' Irazresat' ("to permit"), slucit'sja/slucat'sja ("to happen"),
udivit' sja/udivljat' sja ("to be surprised"), uspet' luspevat' ("to manage").
Also compare aspectual pairs formed by the process of perfectivisation:
darit'/podarit' ("give, present"), sovetovat' Iposovetovat' ("advise"),
starat' sja/postarat' sja ("try"), scadit'¡poscadit' ("show mercy"). As Ju.S.

Maslov pointed out, such verbal pairs as videt'/uvidet' ("to see"), blago-
darit'/poblagodarit' ("to thank"), javljat'sja/javit'sja ("to appear") cannot
be used to delineate attempt and success (Maslov 1948: 304).
In such cases, aspectual pairs are created not for expressing the
correlation of "orientation towards the limit/its attainment", but for other
reasons. For example, secondary imperfective forms are used primarily or
exclusively to express iterative action and also to use the imperfective
aspect in the generalised-factual function, in the historic present, etc.
The sphere of the Limitedness/Unlimitedness opposition is broader
than any type of aspectual pair. In particular, restrictedness by limit can
apply to any mode of action associated with the perfective aspect. In such
cases, correlation with an imperfective form is not obligatory.
Given the obligatory character of the grammatical category of
aspect and its virtually universal application, the feature of Limitedness
applies not only to cases where an action oriented towards a limit actual-

ly reaches that limit, for example: pisat'/napisat' ("to write"), stroit'l

postroif ("to build"), delat'/sdelat' ("to make"), etc., but to the multitude
of cases in which the action is presented as limited, although it is not
oriented towards a limit, for example: dopustit'/dopuskat' ("permit"),
zametit'/zamecat' ("notice"), ostat'sjalostavat'sja ("to stay"), etc. The
broad application of the feature of Limitedness (= Real Limit) far beyond
the framework of Intention-Result constitutes an essential characteristic of
the aspectual system of Russian and other Slavic languages, which mani
fests the non-universality of aspect (therein lies one of the difficulties of
mastering the Slavic aspectual system by non-Slavic speakers).
Orientation towards limit (result)/Attainment of limit
The semantic difference under consideration, based on the opposition of

potential and real limit, constitutes a special variety of the Limitedness/
Unlimitedness correlation. The feature of unlimitedness in its present
variety includes two semantic elements: (a) description of an action in
progress, and (b) orientation of the process towards the result. The feature
of limitedness manifests itself in such cases as the real attainment of the
Result. We use the term Result in relation to this particular variety of the
action's limitedness. The result is a limit which is reached by a process

oriented towards it.
The afore-mentioned correlation appears in two varieties, differing
only from the point of view of the features of intentionality (control-
lability)/non-intentionality (uncontrollability) of the process. Example: (a)
otstiryvat'/otstirat' ("to wash clean"), belit'/pobelit' ("to whitewash"), etc.;
(b) zamerzat'/ zamerznut' ("to freeze"), melet'/obmelet' ("to shallow"),
staret'/ postaret' ("to age") (see Maslov 1978: 13; Seljakin 1983: 162-
163). This difference is significant (a) from the point of view of the
interaction of resultativity and transitivity/intransitivity (verbs of inten
tional action are transitive, while those of unintentional action are intran
sitive); (b) in this connection, in intentional actions, the accomplished
result becomes a characteristic of the object to which the action is direct
ed, whereas if the action is unintentional, the result becomes a charac
teristic of the subject; (c) the action and its result reflect such properties
of the subject as animateness/inanimateness and relation to the features of

"person/non-person"; (d) the modality of volition characterises only

intentional actions; in this connection, only such actions can appear in
conative situations of the "attempt (desire, striving) - result" type, for
example:
Otkacivali, da tak i ne otkacali ("They tried to save him, but
failed").
Given the general opposition of Limitedness/Unlimitedness, it might
seem superfluous to single out one of its varieties as a special type of the
action's relation to limit. But in actual fact, this "specific case" is ex
tremely important. This is semantically the most typical variety of aspec
tual opposition. The speaker easily identifies this difference as significant
for the sense of the utterance. Example:
Segodnja syn sdaval ekzamen. - I sdal? ("Today my son took
his exam." "Did he pass it?").
In the minds of native speakers of Russian, this opposition is first and
foremost associated with the forms of perfective and imperfective aspect.
As already mentioned, the fact that aspectual differences apply to
the entire body of verbs in the Russian language leads to a far-reaching
abstraction of categorial aspectual meanings and to a certain extent their
formalisation. At the same time, one should give due attention to the
concrete and live basis of aspectual opposition, i.e., features that retain
immediate sense significance. Whereas as a whole, the Limitedness/Un
limitedness opposition, by virtue of its universal application (within the
verb system) and obligatoriness, plays a structural grammatical role and is
by far not always significant for the sense of the utterance, the "orien
tation towards limit/attainment of limit" opposition, while not possessing
the feature of universality and obligatoriness, is characterised by actual
sense significance. For that reason, this latter difference should be seen as
the sense nucleus of aspectual semantics.
In discussing the meanings of aspect, the following line of logic is
often pursued: a certain meaning is taken which some linguists interpret
as the grammatical meaning of the perfective aspect, and then after
scrutiny it turns out that it does not apply to all verbs; on these grounds
the first assumption is judged as false. In our opinion, in determining
categorial meanings, one should not reject those that do not have the

feature of universality. The categorial meaning can find in part of the

material investigated (in our case, in the widespread type of resultative
aspectual pairs) its fullest and most characteristic manifestation, which
must be reflected in linguistic description.
Terminativity/Aterminativity
We interpret the opposition of terminativity/aterminativity as the presence/

absence of any limit, either real (explicit and implicit) or potential. In the
Russian language, the terminativity/aterminativity difference is subordinate
to the grammatical category of aspect. This is expressed in the opposi
tion's distribution according to aspect: the non-correlative imperfective
aspect corresponds to aterminativity, whereas aspectual pairs and the non-
correlative perfective aspect corresponds to terminativity. On the other
hand, the terminativity/aterminativity opposition affects aspect formation
and aspectual functioning. For example, aterminative verbs of the imper
fective aspect, like gostit' ("to visit with, to be a guest"), derzat' ("to
hold"), niščenstvovat' ("to beg"), podpevat' ("to accompany"), unlike
terminative verbs, are incapable of expressing real implicit limit. Thus the
terminativity/aterminativity opposition and aspect are mutually dependent.
Just like in other languages, in Russian this opposition is rooted in

verb semantics, specifically in its relation to the idea of limit. But what is
special about Russian and other Slavic languages is that the verb's
terminative/aterminative capability is realised within a rigid and obligatory
aspectual system. The Russian verb's potential for terminative/aterminative
opposition which is inherent in verb semantics is realised in word-forms
with a certain grammatical aspectual meaning. The potential for terminati
vity/aterminativity opposition inherent in the verb's lexical meaning and
reflecting the properties of the extra-lingual action itself, in its realisation
in an "aspectual language" is included in the rigid framework of the
system of aspectual forms and aspectual meanings. Consequently, the
terminative/aterminative potential has no other methods of manifesting
itself that would be free from the aspectual system.
The question arises: how can one single out the terminativity/
aterminativity opposition as a special type and level of limitative rela
tions? The answer is to be found in the following. The terminativity/

aterminativity opposition is singled out as a limitative relationship of a

special level on the basis of a lexically concrete orientation of that
relationship towards one particular verb or class of verbs. The terminati-
vity/aterminativity opposition is a characteristic of any particular verb (to
be more precise, of any particular meaning of a verb) or a verb class. As
far as the limitedness/unlimitedness opposition is concerned, it is an
opposition of categorial features of perfective and imperfective forms
within the grammatical system.
Let us take up one of the "difficult cases". We have already
mentioned aspectual pairs in which the imperfective aspect does not
express orientation towards limit. Compare, for example, the imperfective
forms: davat' ("to give"), zamecat' ("to notice"), blagodarit' ("to thank"),
videt' ("to see"), darit' ("to present"), sovetovat' ("to advise"), starat'sja
("to try"), scadit' ("to spare"). Are such verbs terminative or aterminative?
Terminativity is usually defined as the action's orientation towards limit,
but here there is no such orientation.
Let us apply our interpretation of terminativity/aterminativity on the
basis of presence/absence of limit - both real (explicit and implicit) and
potential. The above verbs clearly show a potential for conveying implicit
limit. This applies above all to expression of iterative action, for example:
Kazdyj raz ix dopuskali k ekzamenam ("Each time they
would be admitted to the exams");

Im casto udavalos' ... ("They often managed ...").
Also compare the use of the imperfective aspect (a) in the historic pres
ent:
Vojdja v kupe, on zamecaet na stolike buket cvetov ("On
entering the compartment, he noticed a bouquet of flowers
on the table": lit. "he notices ...");
V bloknote zurnalista pojavljaetsja zapis' ... ("A new entry
appeared in the journalist's notebook": lit. "appears");
(b) in the generalised-factual function:
Ja zamecal eto ("I have noticed it");
Kto ego tuda posylal? ("Who sent him there?");

Etot variant jemu uže predlagali ("This option has already

been offered to him").
Verbs like videt'luvidet' ("to see"), prosit' /poprosit' ("to ask"),
sovetovat'Iposovetovat' ("to advise"), xvalit' Ipoxvalit' ("to praise"), blago-
darit' Ipoblagodarit' ("to thank"), kljast'sja/pokljast'sja ("to swear"),
lgat'/solgat' ("to lie") are, to use Ju.S. Maslov's definition, verbs of
"immediate and continuous effect". They denote such actions which under
no circumstances could be conceived as "ineffective" or "unsuccessful"
(Maslov 1948: 314). The meaning of "continuous effect" can be seen as a
special (lexically determined) variety of real implicit limit. In combination
with their potential for conveying implicit limit in the "ordinary" sense
(in certain functional-grammatical positions), it provides sufficient grounds
to conclude that these verbs are terminative. Moreover, their correlation
with the perfective aspect corroborates this.
Since the category of aspect is obligatory in the Slavic languages,
the meaning of the perfective aspect (limitedness and at the same time
totality of action) has a broader sphere of application than that of verbs
in which accomplishment of limit could be correlated with orientation
towards limit. Many perfective verbs denote actions as limited, but out
side the "orientation towards limit - its attainment" correlation. Likewise,
the sphere of terminativity is also broader. It includes such expressions of
real limit that are not correlated with orientation towards limit.
For any further examination of terminativity/aterminativity, it is
important to delineate and correlate the two aspects of the problem: (1)
the essence of terminativity/aterminativity as a conceptual category rooted
in extralingual reality (Maslov 1978: 12-17), and realisation (and at the
same time interpretation) of this opposition in a particular language (about
the correlation of terminative/aterminative actions and terminative/atermin-
ative verbs, see Seljakin 1983: 164-165).
Limitative situations
To analyse the semantics of limit at the utterance level, we can use the
concept of limitative situation. A limitative situation is an invariant
semantic structure expressed in an utterance, which is based on elements
of the field of limitativity and represents some particular relation of the

action (and of the situation as a whole) to limit. A limitative situation is

a variety of the broader concept of aspectual situation, which in turn
forms part of the generic concept of categorial situation. Like all cat-
egorial situations, we treat limitative situations as structures related to the
sphere of language semantics as such in its speech realisation. The struc
tures under consideration include not only the conceptual basis of the
content conveyed, but its language semantic interpretation as well.
We can single out terminative and aterminative limitative situations,
and within each of these types we can find subtypes and varieties. For
example, situations including an element of potential limit can have the
following varieties:
1. Correlation of "attempt-result (positive or negative)". Situations of this
type (Maslov 1948: 303) demonstrate a contrast of potential limit (with a
clearly expressed modal element of conativity) and real limit. Example:
Olesova ... Ty menja ubival, zlodej, no ty menja ne ubil, ne
ubil! ("Olesova ... You tried to kill me, you villain, but you
haven't succeeded": lit. "you were killing me ... but you did
not kill me") (V. Panova)
Compare the explication of the modal element in the resultative part of
the situation:
Kuzmic zakidyval, zakidyval nogu v kuzov i nikak ne mog

zakinut' ("Kuzmich tried and tried to get his foot into the
body of the truck, but couldn't") (E. Nosov).
2. Orientation of the process towards the result (without a conative
element) - achievement of the result:
Sneg issjakal i kak-to razom, neozidanno oborvalsja ("The
snow was getting thinner and thinner and then suddenly
came to an end") (Ju. Solovjev).
3. Orientation of the process towards the result without expressing its
actual attainment. Potential limit in this case is not syntagmatically
correlated with real limit:
Sguscalis' sumerki ("The dusk was deepening").

Let us examine in more detail one of the varieties of limitative

situations of real limit: resultative situations with an element of implied
processity. A perfective form expresses the accomplished result with an
additional shade of connection with the previous process which led to the
result (Maslov 1948: 313). The element of implied processity can be
actualised by indicators of gradualness in attaining the result, e.g.,
postepenno ("gradually"), ne srazu ("not overnight"); of tempo, e.g.,
medlenno ("slowly"), bystro ("quickly"); or the period of time that the
action takes, e.g., za dva mesjaca ("in two months"). Example:
Masina postepenno nabrala skorost' ("The car gradually
gathered speed");
Ne srazu ja privyk k etomu ("I didn't get used to this right
away");
Ja bystro dobralsja do verxnej ploscadki ("I quickly reached
the top landing");
Za tri casa my upakovali vesci ("In three hours we packed
all our things").
In utterances with verbal forms in the future tense, there can be a
kind of splitting of the temporal reference of the actual accomplished

result and the process that leads to it, for example:
Idi domoj, a to sovsem zamerznes ("Go home, or else you'll
freeze to death").
In such cases, the accomplished result refers to the future tense, whereas
the implied preceding process includes the sphere of the present.
The element of implied previous process in cases where a perfect
ive form expresses the achieved result is not equivalent to a process
expressed by imperfective forms, for example:
Masina postepenno nabirala skorost' ("The car was gradually
gathering speed").
Imperfective forms explicitly convey the process in dynamics from an
earlier moment to a later one. But in the cases under review, processity

functions "in a neutralised form", as it were, as an additional implicit

element adjoining the basic meaning of achieved result.
The phenomenon of implied processity goes beyond the bounds of
resultative situations. As already mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter, the special type of subsequent implied process is represented in
expressing ingressivity, for example:
My medlenno posli vniz ("Slowly we went down").
The word medlenno ("slowly") not only characterises the ingressive phase
of the action (concluded with delay), but actualises the subsequent im
plied duration of the process: they did not start out right away and they
continued to walk slowly. This type of implied processity represents a
kind of contrast with the examples examined above: whereas resultative-
ness in the use of perfective forms may include an implied indication as
to a previous process that leads to the result, ingressivity implies a
subsequent process proceeding from the initial phase of the action which
has reached its limit.
Our analysis of limitative relations demonstrates their complex
differentiation and subtle shades of language interpretation of the concep
tual basis of the semantics of limit. In general, the sphere of aspectuality
constitutes a highly developed system of intralingual semantics with a
clearly expressed interpretational element.

Further research into aspectual relations will undoubtedly devote
much attention to the problems of intercategorial ties: aspect (and aspec
tuality as a whole) in its interrelations not only with temporality, temporal
localisation, taxis (Thelin 1978; Teorija funktional'noj grammatiki 1987)
and modality (Rathmayr 1977; Dahl 1985), but also with fields of voice
(see Pupynin 1980a, b), of subject and object (Tommola 1986: 60-181),
of communicative utterance perspective (Salnikow 1980a, b), of definite-
ness/indefiniteness, of quantity {Teorija funktional'noj grammatiki 1987:
124-152), of quality, and of locativity. In relation to aspectuality as the
initial system, the above-cited functional-semantic fields constitute the
immediate and more remote environment.

Chapter II
Structural types of functional-semantic fields
The diversity of types of functional-semantic fields
In our earlier publications prior to 1981 (Bondarko 1968; 1981: 3-75;

1976: 204-244), we spoke of functional-semantic fields based on a
grammatical category as the centre (nucleus) around which all the other
(peripheral) language means revolve. That is how, taking into account
V.V. Vinogradov's model of analysis of the grammatical category of
mood as the centre of a broader semantic category of modality, we
examined (using the material of the Russian and other Slavic languages)
the relations in the series: tense and temporality, mood and modality,
aspect and aspectuality, person and the field of person, voice and the
field of voice, degrees of comparison (of adjectives and adverbs) and

comparativity.
We saw morphological categories as the starting point for singling
out functional-semantic categories in a given language; the next step is to
pinpoint the other language elements which interact with a given mor
phological category on the basis of partial semantic community. For
example, as a basis we take the morphological category of tense in the
Russian language; then we establish that such words as prezde "before",
zavtra "tomorrow", etc., interact with tense forms in the process of their
functioning and combine in various ways with these forms; then we
determine the semantic features of such words (specifically, anteriority
and posteriority in relation to the point of reference) and establish that
these attributes belong to the same semantic area as the meanings of
tense forms; in this way we establish whether the words of that particular
type belong to the functional-semantic category whose grammatical centre
is tense (Bondarko 1971a: 70-71). A morphological category plays the

role of nucleus (centre) of a functional-semantic category by virtue of

several factors: (1) a morphological category gives the most specialised
expression to the content characteristic of a given functional-semantic
category; (2) a morphological category is a highly organised self-con
tained system which concentrates a whole complex of distinctive semantic
features; (3) in inflexional-synthetic languages, the use of morphological
categories is obligatory; and (4) it follows that the forms representing a
given category are used regularly (ibid.: 20-23).
True, we did not rule out the possibility of the existence of
functional-semantic categories not based on morphological categories: "If
a functional-semantic category in a given language is not based on a
morphological category occupying the central position in relation to other
components of the field, the role of nucleus (centre) can be played by
other language means. For example, evidently aspectuality in the German
language is not a non-nuclear category, since the role of nucleus can
probably be played by the terminativity/aterminativity opposition as
singled out in the area of modes of action. In principle, there may be
"non-nuclear" categories, although it would be hard to find indisputable
examples" (ibid.: 24). Then in this connection we mention the functional-
semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness in the Russian language
(ibid.: 24). However, such types of functional-semantic categories (not
based on morphological category) play a negligible part in this theory of

functional-semantic categories (fields), which is essentially morphologico-
centric. Within the framework of this theory, a morphological category is
the starting point in the process of singling out functional-semantic
categories and determining their composition and size. This process
consists of five basic stages: (1) as the basis we take a system of con
trasting series of grammatical forms with homogeneous meanings, i.e., a
morphological category; its overall meaning and the meanings of its
components are the centrepiece around which all other means of express
ion of similar semantics revolve; (2) in examining the functioning of
morphological categories, we ascertain which elements of the context
interact with them and take part in the actualisation of their components'
functions; thereby we outline the functional-semantic field of a mor
phological category, and describe its components; (3) we determine the
character of interaction between the components of the functional-
semantic category; the distribution of the semantic load between centre

STRUCTURAL TYPES OF FUNCTIONAL-SEMANTIC FIELDS 97
and periphery; the influence of lexical and word-formative elements of a

given functional-semantic category on the paradigm of member forms of
the morphological category; then we explore the microfields within the
functional-semantic field concerned and study their interrelations and
overlaps; (4) we determine the links of a given functional-semantic
category with other categories and study their interaction; (5) finally, we
compare the functional-semantic category in the given language with
corresponding categories in a number of other languages (ibid.: 24-25).
This morphologico-centric interpretation of functional-semantic
categories (fields), which we set forth in a number of works in the late
1960s and most fully in the above-mentioned works of 1971 cannot be
seen today as out-of-date. The only thing is that now we interpret a
functional-semantic field based on a morphological (and, in a broader
sense, grammatical) category not as the foundation of the very concept of
functional-semantic fields, but as one of the possible structural types of a
functional-semantic field. Thus, today we proceed from the idea that
functional-semantic fields represent a great variety of types. Therefore, the
theory of functional-semantic fields that we set forth today by no means
cancels out the afore-stated morphologically oriented theory of functional-
semantic categories, but rather includes it (as a specific, though very
important, case) in the theory of functional-semantic fields oriented at a
wider range of functional-semantic fields of diverse types. This new

theory is geared to the concept of a system of functional-semantic fields.
In the Russian language, the system of functional-semantic fields
embraces the following groups of fields:
1. Functional-semantic fields with the predicative nucleus. This group
includes:
(a) the complex of fields of aspectual and aspectual-temporal relations:
aspectual fields (limitativity, durativity, iterativity, the fields of phase
semantics and of perfect, action, state and relation semantics), temporal
localisation, taxis, temporality and its connections with aspectuality and
other fields associated with this complex;
(b) a complex of fields of modality, temporality, and existentiality;
(c) a complex of fields connecting predicativity with the fields of subject
and object: the field of person, the field of voice (activity/passivity,
reflexivity, reciprocity, and transitivity/intransitivity).

2. Functional-semantic fields with the subject-object (predicate-subject and

predicate-object) nucleus: the fields of subject and object; the communi
cative utterance perspective (studied in connection with subject-predicate
relations); according to certain features, this grouping also includes the
category of definiteness/indefiniteness, which has a ramified system of
ties with fields associated wit other groupings (above all, with temporal
localisation/nonlocalisation and qualitativity).
3. Functional-semantic fields with the qualitative/quantitative nucleus: the
fields of quality (including comparativity), and quantity; this grouping
also includes the category of possession, connected with attributive rela
tions, on the one hand, (and, from this point of view, partly associated
with qualitative characterisation of substances), and with predicative
relations, on the other.
4. Functional-semantic fields with the circumstantial nucleus: locativity,
the field complex of conditionality (the fields of cause, aim, condition,
concession, consequence). The semantics of conditionality is connected
with locativity due to the adverbial characteristic of the predicate. How
ever, according to other features, conditionality, being closely connected
with interpredicative relations (in this case, associated with taxis) and the
spatial characteristic of the utterance (above all, of the predicate) belong
to different semantic spheres.
The above-given representation of the system of functional-semantic

fields - specifically, in the division of functional-semantic fields into the
above-mentioned groupings - reflects the well-known types of language
categorisation of a grammatical character (in a broad sense, including
lexico-grammatical interaction). Above all, we mean the connection with
the semantic (and, partially, formal-syntactical) structure of the sentence.
The same groupings of functional-semantic fields partially reveal a
connection with the semantics of parts of speech and their characteristic
grammatical categories. The second grouping is connected, though only
partly, with substantival semantics in its relation to verbal semantics. In
the third grouping, an essential role belongs to the ties between its
constituent fields and attributive semantics, but at the same time they
remain connected with verbal and substantival categories. Finally, the
fourth grouping is correlated with circumstantial semantics, although it
goes far beyond the bounds of the latter, since what we have here is
inter-predicative relations in the sphere of conditionality.

As already shown, the connections of systemic division of

functional-semantic fields with the semantic structure of the sentence and
with the semantics of parts of speech and their grammatical categories are
not completely and consistently parallel, although general trends and
considerable overlaps in these divisions are obvious. And this is hardly
surprising. The semantic categories underlying functional-semantic fields
are rooted both in the semantic structure of the sentence and in the
related semantics of parts of speech and their categories (aimed at
particular functions in the semantic structure of the sentence).
Practically all the mentioned areas of division - divisions of the
semantic structure of the sentence and divisions in the semantics of parts
of speech and their characteristic grammatical categories - constitute
different aspects of the system of thought-language categorisation reflect
ing the divisions and connections of extralinguistic phenomena in the
human mind and oriented at a systemic organisation of the senses con
veyed in speech.
Can we say that the above model takes in all the functional units
actually existing as systemic complexes of functions and complexes of
means of their actualisation in a given language, specifically in Russian?
Evidently, not all. The model does not embrace, for example, what might
be termed "the field of politeness". Compare, in the Russian language,
oppositions like ty dumaeš/vy dumaete ("you think": 2nd pers. sing./
honorific plural), together with a number of peripheral means in the areas

of modality and person related to the pragmatic functions of courtesy
(Xolodovic 1979: 58-72; Alpatov 1985: 53-54; Xrakovskij 1980; Xrakov-
skij, Volodin 1986). We have not singled out "the field of politeness"
because by its pragmatic content this area of functions and means is in a
class by itself and cannot be examined alongside the above-mentioned
functional-semantic fields.
We could single out a special functional-semantic field of animate-
ness/inanimateness. At the same time, the semantics of animateness/in-
animateness could be included in the area of predicate-subject and
predicate-object relations (the latter possibility is realised in characterising
the pertinent grouping of functional-semantic fields). But let us stress
once again that in the system of functional-semantic fields under inves
tigation we have tried to reflect only the basic functional units relating to
the area of grammar.

Can we determine the number of functional-semantic fields in a

given language? It would be hard to given an exact number - say, 35 or
39. It is essential, however, that in principle the whole complex of
functional-semantic fields should embrace the fundamental semantic
categories pertaining to grammar. With the approach suggested in this
work, we have a system of about three dozen functional-semantic fields.
Given possible variations in interpreting different functional units, this
number may slightly increase or decrease, but still the composition of
categorial units remains roughly the same. Therefore, the relative nature
of our systematisation of functional-semantic fields should not be exag
gerated. Although the picture of the system of functional-semantic fields
presented here does allow for certain additions, it nevertheless covers the
most important functional complexes.
Groupings of functional-semantic fields with components similar to
those examined above exist in many languages. At the same time,
languages differ in belonging to different structural types, in the import
ance attached to a certain field in the general system, in their configur
ations, and also in their interrelations.
The entire system of functional-semantic fields as a whole can be
examined only by analysing the units and categories of one particular
language. But if the aim is to compare the systems of basic functional-
semantic fields in different languages, it is best to break up the analytical

procedure into two stages: (1) describe the groupings of functional-
semantic fields in the particular language under investigation, for example,
in Russian; (2) draw on other languages which have contrasting categories
(a different structural type of functional-semantic field, etc.). Thus, the
second stage presents a kind of contrasting background to set off the
systemic dominant of description.
There are two basic structural types of functional-semantic fields:
(1) monocentric and (2) polycentric. The first type has two varieties: (a)
monocentric fields with an integral grammatical nucleus, i.e., one based
on a grammatical category; in Russian, this variety includes such fields as
limitativity (based on the grammatical category of aspect), temporality
(based on the grammatical category of tense), objective modality (based
on the category of mood), activity/passivity (based on the category of
voice), comparativity (based on the category of degrees of comparison of
adjectives and adverbs); (b) monocentric fields with a complex (hetero-

geneous) nucleus, i.e., one based on a complex of interacting language

means which can belong to different levels of the language system
(morphological, syntactical, lexico-grammatical, etc.); in the Russian
language, this variety includes the fields of durativity and temporal
localisation.
The distinctive character of the monocentric type can be seen most
clearly in the structure of a functional-semantic field with an integral
grammatical nucleus. As to functional-semantic fields with a complex
(heterogeneous) nucleus, in certain respects they come close to polycentric
fields in the sense that they have no single integral system of grammati
cal forms and that the field's centre contains a multitude of heterogeneous
language means. Therefore, when we include a certain variety of
functional-semantic field in the monocentric type, despite all the men
tioned transitional features, we are guided by the fact that the language
means under study, united in stable complexes, constitute interacting
elements of a single centre of the field rather than different centres. In
this case, there is no division of the functional-semantic field into dif
ferent functional spheres with an internal centre/periphery differentiation,
which is characteristic of functional-semantic fields with a pronounced
polycentric structure. Consequently, the features of the monocentric type
are still the decisive ones.
2. Polycentric fields are those based on a certain complex of

language means (morphological, syntactical, lexical, lexico-grammatical)
which do not form a single homogeneous system of forms. In the Russian
language, the following fields can be classified as the polycentric type (in
its different variations): taxis, existentiality, the field of state, subject/
object, definiteness/indefiniteness, qualitativity, quantitativity, possessivity,
causality, purpose, condition, concession, consequence, comparison, and
locativity.
Within the polycentric (weakly centred) type we can single out two
major subtypes: (a) a functional-semantic field with a diffuse structure
characterised by a multitude of weakly connected or isolated heterogen
eous components and vague boundaries between the central and peripheral
zones of the field; (b) a functional-semantic field with a compact poly
centric structure characterised by well-pronounced centres.
In the Russian language, the field of definiteness/indefiniteness is a
typical example of a functional-semantic field of the first subtype. In this

field, the key role belongs to such language means as word order (com
pare: indefinite
Sjezzalis'gosti "Some guests would come"
and definite
Gosti sjezzalis' "The guests were arriving",
some classes of pronouns (compare kakoj-to/ètot "some/this") and adjec
tives - dannyj, nastojascij, opredelennyj, otdel'nyj "given, this, definite,
certain"), the word odin ("one") as an index of indefiniteness in such
cases as
Odin celovek mne skazal ... ("One man told me ...")
(Gak 1975: 32-50; Gladrow 1979; Kategorija opredelennosti-neopredelen-
nosti v slavjanskix i balkanskix jazykax 1979). These and certain other
means - specifically, the opposition of the accusative and genitive case in
phrases like
vypit' vody/vodu ("to drink some water/to drink up the
water")
- form a field characterised by weak connections between heterogeneous
components (with partial isolation of some of the means), by a general

unconcentrated type of grouping of the language means which express the
given semantics, and by the absence of pronounced indicators of the
field's centre in relation to its periphery.
Here are some examples of a functional-semantic field belonging to
the second subtype:
The field of subject/object is chiefly based on the grammatical
category of case; however, this category is not the only centre of the
field: it also includes elements of the functional-semantic categories of
voice and person which are connected with subject-object relations; the
opposition of the lexico-grammatical classes of animateness/inanimateness
also belongs to the central components of this field.
The field of quantity is based, on the one hand, on the grammati
cal category of number and, on the other, on the grammatical class of
numerals, quantity-substantive combinations, etc.

Let us analyse in more detail one of the examples of the poly-

centric structure of functional-semantic fields - the relations between
central and peripheral elements of the field of existentiality in the Russian
language. It is necessary to single out two spheres in the given field -
therefore, we will be speaking of two centres of the functional-semantic
field under discussion. These spheres are as follows: (a) existentiality
connected with the predicate of existence, for example:
... Iskal Dvorec Sovetov, xotja i znal, cto ego net, no sliskom
ugnezdilos v soznanii syzmal'stva, cto est' ... (A. Rekemcuk)
("He was looking for the Palace of Soviets, although he
knew that it didn't exist, but it had been planted too deep in
him since childhood that it did exist ...");
[Georgij] ... Ja scital, my dlja nee i ne suscestvuem (V.
Panova) ("I thought we didn't even exist for her ...");
(b) existentiality expressed in nominative sentences, for example:
Doroga. Noc. Ogni poselka vdali. Svetitsja nadpis na stol-

bike ... (Ibid.) ("A country road. It is night. Some village
lights war away. A sign on a post is glowing in the dark
...").
These spheres (and, at the same time, types) of existentiality differ not
only in their formal expression, but in their semantic structure, too: in the
first case the concept of existence appears as an independent discrete
element of the semantic structure of the sentence, whereas in the second
case the indicator of existence is not singled out explicitly and discretely
- it functions as a single unit with its bearer. In other words, we have not
only two types expressing existentiality, but two types of existential
semantic structures, as well: discrete and indiscrete. Accordingly, in the
field of existentiality two centres can be singled out: (a) syntactical
constructions with predicates of existence, above all constructions with
est' ("there is") and net ("there is not"), and also constructions with
special verbs of existence, like suščestvovat' ("to exist"), nalicestvovat'
("to be present"), etc.; (b) nominative constructions.
In the sphere of discrete existentiality (with the predicate of exist
ence), the periphery is represented by utterances in whose communicative

structure the chief role belongs not to existential but to other semantic
elements, such as locative elements:
Zena pod Moskvoj na dace, ja v Jalte, pokaslivaju (A.

Chekhov) ("My wife is at her country home outside Mos
cow, and I am in Yalta, coughing a little ...");
possessive:
Igolka u vas est'? - Est' ("Do you have a needle? - Yes, I

do.").
In such cases we are dealing with the periphery of existentiality which

overlaps with the fields of locativity, possessivity, etc. Compare, for
example, what Arutjunova says about such phenomena, using her own
terminology (Arutjunova 1976: 205-283). In cases where the semantic
structure of the utterance is dominated not by the existential, but some
other element (locative, possessive, quantitative, qualitative, etc.), it should
be placed not in the field of existentiality, but in another field (locativity,
etc.) which only overlaps with the existentiality field (compare Arutjunova
1976: 214).
There is yet another peripheral type of utterance in the sphere of
discrete existentiality. We mean verbal constructions which combine the
existence seme with certain elements of lexical meaning connected with

concrete features of particular classes of objects and with various aspects
and modes of their existence (being, presence). Compare, for example,
utterances with the words vodit'sja ("to inhabit"), vstrecat'sja ("to occur"),
žit' ("to live"), naxodit'sja ("to be located"), popadat'sja ("to turn up"),
etc., in which the existence seme is included in the semantic structure of
the verbs themselves (Svedova 1983: 239-245).
In the central zone of discrete existentiality, existential relations are
characterised by the highest degree of specialisation and explicitness of
expression, which fact results from the existential specialisation of certain
types of syntactical constructions, the specialisation of verbal vocabulary,
and the existential orientation of the communicative structure of the
utterance. Accordingly, in this region's periphery one can observe, on the
one hand, a combination of existentiality features with features of other
functional-semantic fields, whose semantics can be dominating, and, on
the other hand, manifestations of a lesser degree of specialisation of

verbal vocabulary. As in other cases, there is a whole gamut of gradual

transitions between centre and periphery. For instance, constructions with
est' and net ("there is" and "there is not") can be characterised by a
combination of existential and possessive elements, with possible variation
of relations between the basic and subsidiary attribute.
The second type (sphere) of existential relations - indiscrete exis-
tentiality expressed by nominative sentences like
Ottepel', mokryj sneg, luzi (V. Kataev) ("Thaw, wet snow,
puddles") -
constitutes the "second grammatical centre" of the existentiality field,

which, in our view, is more peripheral in relation to the first centre,
which is characterised by explicit and discrete expression of existentiality
semantics in the predicate of existence. This relatively peripheral position
is conditioned by (a) indiscrete expression of existential semantics in
nominative constructions, and (b) a characteristic combination and inter
action of existentiality semantics with state semantics, which can be
dominating.
In all cases of nominative constructions, existentiality is not ex
plicitly expressed, only implied. A certain phenomenon is named and
treated as a substance - a season, a day of the week, some part of the
twenty-four hours, a state of nature or the environment (including objects

and dynamic manifestations of elements in a given situation) - and it is
implied that all this exists at the moment or period in question, but it is
not explicitly expressed: Zima ("Winter"); Voskresen'je ("Sunday"); Noc
("Night"); Proxlada ("Coolness"); Tisina ("Silence"); Toska ("Anxiety");
Xoxot ("Laughter"), etc.
Existentiality is explicitly expressed only in sentences like
Byla zima ("It was winter");
Bylo voskresen'je ("It was Sunday").
But we believe that this is discrete existentiality, which is characterised

by a special predicate of existence. We believe that in such cases we are
dealing with a special type of sentence, not with an element of the
syntactic paradigm to which constructions like Zima ("Winter") belong.
Characteristically, there is no regular correlation between constructions

without the verb byt' ("to be") and constructions with that verb in the
past tense. Utterances like
Byla step' ("There was a steppe")
obviously sound artificial.
We will not go into the problem of nominative sentences express
ing existentiality, which has already received extensive coverage in
linguistic literature. Our aim here is to give only a general outline of the
polycentric (bicentric) structure of the functional-semantic field of existen
tiality in the Russian language.
Let us take another example of a functional-semantic field with a
polycentric structure - the field of state in the Russian language. In this
case we also have two semantic types, two semantic spheres within the
given field, and two grammatical centres in each of these spheres.
Two semantic spheres can be singled out in the field of state: (a)
the resultative (perfect) state, which is a result of some preceding action
whose consequences are still relevant at the present moment:
Rabota vypolnena ("The work is done");
Ja ustal ("I am tired");
On sidel, složiv ruki na kolenjax ("He sat with his hands
clasped on his lap");

On mnogoe videl ("He has seen a lot");
(b) non-resultative (non-perfect) state, which is not connected with the
results of the action and whose consequences have no direct bearing on
the present:
Obsivka divana staraja, torcit pruzina ("The divan's uphol
stery is old and there is a spring sticking out");
Ja uze ne lezu, a sizu v svoej posteli ("I'm not lying any
more - I'm sitting up in bed");
Mne ne spitsja ("I can't get to sleep").
These two semantic spheres determine the structure of the field of state.
Each sphere has its own central and peripheral components. There is no

single and integral centre which could be a grammatical basis of the

whole field.
In the sphere of the resultative (perfect) state, passive-participial
forms (in Russian) with suffixes containing -n- and -t- -
Zadaca resena ("The problem is solved");
Puf otkryt ("The way is clear");
Èto sdelano ne nami ("That wasn't done by us") -
constitute the grammatical (morphological-syntactical) centre. For passive-
participial forms, the meaning of the resultative (perfect) state is categori-
al. The same meaning is characteristic of the whole construction on the
sentence level. The categoriality of this meaning determines the highest
degree of specialisation of the relevant language means for expressing
state. The periphery of this sphere of the field of state includes: (a) past-
tense forms of perfective verbs in the meaning of perfect:
On postarel ("He has aged");
Nad dorogoj navisli skaly ("The cliffs hung over the road");
(b) forms of perfective adverbial participles in the resultative meaning:
Naklonivsis', on zavjazyval snurok ("Having bent down, he

was tying his shoelace");
(c) past-tense forms of imperfective verbs of the perfect variety of the
generalised-factual meaning:
On pocti nicego ne citai ("He has read almost nothing");
Ja ne spal segodnja i ploxo sebja cuvstvuju ("I haven't slept
today and don't feel well").
In the semantic sphere of the non-resultative (non-perfect) state,
one can single out several central components. Each of them is charac
terised to some extent by the specialisation of the given language means
for expressing the semantics of state. These central components are as
follows:
1. Constructions with impersonal-predicative words like
Pod nogami vlazno ("It was wet underfoot");

Na dvore (bylo) bezljudno ("There is/was nobody in the

yard");
Zdes' (bylo) tixo ("It is/was quiet here");
Snezno, xolodno ... ("It is snowing and cold ...")
which describe the state of environment or the situation, and also con
structions like
Mne (bylo) bol'no (strasno, stydno, neudobno, nelovko,

sovestno, xoroso, dusno, zjabko, xolodno, prijatno, zutko,
dosadno, tosklivo, veselo, len' zal') ("I am/was hurt, scared,
ashamed, uncomfortable, awkward, ashamed, feel/felt good,
suffocating, feel/felt chilly, cold, feel/felt good, terrified,
annoyed, bored, enjoying myself, lazy, sorry"),
which describe the state of the subject (Vinogradov 1972: 324-330;

Tixonov 1960).
2. Constructions with short-form adjectives and short-form passive par-
ticiples with weakened or lost verbality, like
(a) On sposoben na vse ("He is capable of anything"),
Ja zol na nego ("I'm mad at him");

(b) On vzvolnovan ("He is excited"),
Ona rasstrojena ("She is upset") (Vinogradov 1972: 321-

323).
Compare the concept of stative as interpreted by L.L. Bulanin in such

cases as
Auditorija byla rasscitana na 20 celovek ("The classroom

was designed to accommodate 20 people");
Dver byla zaperta ("The door was locked") (Bulanin 1978:

197-202).
Constructions of this type (in both varieties) with the meaning of qualitat
ive state (as V.V. Vinogradov defines it) have a lesser degree of "stative
specialisation" than constructions with impersonal-predicative words: there

is no clear-cut boundary between the meanings of qualitative state and the

meaning of quality, e.g.,
Molod ty menja ucit' ("You are too young to teach me");
forms of the stative do not always express state (Bulanin 1978: 198) and
their categorial meaning may be defined as a non-process characteristic of
an object (ibid.). Therefore, such constructions, although they may be
attributed to the central zone of the non-resultative (non-perfect) state, are
relatively peripheral (in relation to constructions of the first type).
Thus, constructions with impersonal predicates top the hierarchy of
central components of the semantic sphere of the non-resultative (non-
perfect) state, since they are most specialised to express the semantics of
state. Impersonal-predicative words form a group of special predicates of
state: that is the essence of their categorial grammatical meaning.
3. Constructions with verbs of state, like lezat' ("to lie"), stojat' ("to
stand"), sidet' ("to sit"), viset' ("to hang"), torcat' ("to stick out"),
belet' sja ("to be white"), sinet' ("to be blue"), vidnet'sja ("to be visible");
bolet' ("to hurt"), ščemit' ("to ache"); grustit' ("to be sad"), toskovat' ("to
long for"), stradat' ("to suffer"), bojat'sja ("to be afraid") (Vasiljev 1981:
43-49, 75-96). Such constructions represent the lexical specialisation for
expressing state semantics. Since this semantics is explicitly expressed
(the predicate of state is present), such language means can be classified

among the central components of the field under study (in the sphere of
the non-resultative state). But in relation to the above-mentioned construc
tions (see points 1 and 2), this component of the field of state is relative
ly peripheral: the expression of state semantics by a finite verb is linked
with the meaning of process characteristic of the verb (meaning of action
in the broad sense). Thus, a state expressed by a finite verb is always to
a certain extent dynamic in contrast to a state which has a non-verbal
expression. Moreover, the meaning of state as expressed by lexical means
is characterised by vague boundaries between the lexical semantics of
state and action. For example, one of the typical verbs of state, stojat'
("to stand"), can be used in a context that implies an element of goal-
orientation of the predicative characteristic, which brings the meaning of
state close to the meaning of action. For example:
Oni stojali s uprjamym terpeniem, kak stojal kogda-to

gvardejskij ekipaz na moroznoj Senatskoj ploscadi ... ("They

stood with stubborn patience, like the Guards' carriage once

stood on Senate Square ...").
In general, constructions with verbs of state form a transitional zone

between the centre of the field (in the sphere of the non-resultative state)
and its periphery.
Among the peripheral components of this sphere of the field of
state are nominative sentences like
Noc ("It is night");
Tišina ("It is quiet");
Proxlada ("It is cool");
Zara ("It is hot").
As already mentioned, such cases present a combination and interaction

of semantic characteristics of existentiality and state (of the environment,
situation, and also inner state of the subject), e.g. Toska ("Dreariness");
Skuka ("Boredom"). Although the existential meaning is not explicitly
expressed by a special predicate of existence, it is formally characterised
by the special mononuclear structure of the nominative sentence. For that
reason, constructions of this type are among the central components of
the field of existentiality. As to the semantics of state, it has no special

formal grammatical characteristics in such constructions. The meaning of
state is derivative here from the lexical semantics of nominative word
forms of existentiality interacting with it.
Another peripheral component of the field of state (in the sphere of
non-resultative stative) is verbal constructions whose semantics includes
characteristics of both state and action: for example, verbs of emotional
experience like cuvstvovat' ("to feel"), terpet' ("to endure"), mucit'sja ("to
suffer"), tjagotit'sja ("to be oppressed"), naslazdat'sja ("to enjoy"),
tomit'sja ("to languish") (Vasiljev 1981: 96-108).
There is no clear-cut divide between the resultative (perfect) state
and the non-resultative (non-perfect) state. Borderline cases are not in
frequent in constructions with "stative" forms:
U nego slomana ruka ("His arm is broken");

Kubok sdelan iz serebra ("The cup is made of silver")

(Bulanin 1978: 198-200).
In other cases, the spheres of the resultative and non-resultative state are
clearly differentiated semantically. On the whole, the semantic divisibility
of this field, the heterogeneity of its components, and the absence of one
single grammatical centre are very pronounced.
There are other examples of polycentric functional-semantic fields.
In the Russian language, such is, for instance, the field of locativity,
formed by various types of locative forms and constructions, including
prepositional-case forms and constructions, locative-adverbial construc
tions, complex sentences with subordinate clauses of place (Vsevolodova
& Vladimirskij 1982).
It should be emphasised once again that grammatical (specifically,
morphological) categories are by no means the only possible types of
grammatical foundation of functional-semantic fields. This is only one of
the many possible types. In general, the categorial foundations of gram
mar are not restricted to grammatical categories. Apart from grammatical
categories, such foundations include grammatical units (forms and con
structions) and grammatical classes (word, form, and construction classes).
A certain type of syntactical construction - for example, a complex
sentence with subordinate clauses of cause, condition, purpose, etc., as

part of the field of causality, conditionality, etc. - represents a central
grammatical component (or one of the components) of the corresponding
functional-semantic field, the categorical status of which leaves no doubt,
since it is based on a syntactical form which is just as significant as a
morphological form.
Taxis in the Russian language
General survey
R.O. Jakobson introduced the term taxis as "the Greek prototype" of

Leonard Bloomfield's term order. Jakobson considered taxis to be one of
the categories which was not of the shifter type: "Taxis characterises the

112 FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: A HELD APPROACH
narrated event in relation to another narrated event and without reference

to the speech event" (Jakobson 1957: 4).
Speaking about dependent and independent taxis in the Gilyak
(Nivkh) language, Jakobson defined dependent taxis as expressing various
relationships with the independent verb - simultaneity, anteriority, inter
ruption, concessive connection, etc. (ibid.).
In the Russian language, dependent taxis expressed by an adverbial
participle is defined as signaling an En concomitant with another, principal
En (where En is a narrated event) (ibid.: 3).
Ju.S. Maslov stated that in many languages taxis is not a special
grammatical category, but is united within one combined category either
with tense or aspect. According to Maslov, the concepts of simultaneity,
anteriority and posteriority regularly appear as a result of interaction of
aspectual forms, so in some languages the expression of the taxis relation
could be viewed as one of the most important functions of the verb
aspect. "In all cases where there are two or more verbal forms with
aspectual semantics in the utterance, the corresponding aspectual meanings
inevitably interact and acquire taxis indicators of 'simultaneity' or
'sequence in time' - 'anteriority' and 'posteriority' (Maslov 1978: 8-9).
Language phenomena included in the field of taxis have been
largely studied and described in special research projects and general
works on grammar. However, separate elements have not been connected

into a single whole. Yet there is still no comprehensive work on taxis in
the Russian language. Analysis of taxis relations from the point of view
of field theory in grammar makes it possible to study taxis as an integral
system.
We interpret taxis as a functional-semantic field formed by dif
ferent language means (morphological, syntactical, and lexical), united by
the function of expression of temporal relations between actions within an
integral time period covering a complex of actions expressed in the
utterance (actions in a broad sense, including states and relations, i.e., any
representations of predicates). Taxis always includes an aspectual descrip
tion of actions correlated in time and can interact with causal-resultative,
concessive-adversative, conditional, modal, and some other elements.
Relations of simultaneity/non-simultaneity (anteriority and posterior
ity) in combination with a certain aspectual characteristic of the given
relation form the semantic dominants of taxis.

Restrictions specifying the sphere of taxis relations
1. Integrity of the period of time embracing the complex of actions be-

tween which taxis relations are established. Taxis is not just any time
relation of actions. What is meant is a time relation distinguished by the
integrity (whileness) of the period of time covering the given complex of
actions.
The integrity of the time period is a necessary attribute of taxis,
which is also characterised by the integrity of its other aspects, above all
from the point of view of semantic ties between actions. The integrity of
taxis relations is likewise reflected in the formal structures which express
them - in the structure of the complex of the main and secondary predi
cates (as expressed by the adverbial participle), in the structure of com
plex sentences, in constructions with homogeneous predicates, etc.
In utterances with conjugated verbal forms, the characteristic under
review is manifested in the fact that the actions party to the taxis relation
are most often expressed in the forms of one and the same tense. For
example,
Stuknuli vorota, i Njuska sama objavilas' na poroge (V.

Belov) ("The gate banged, and Niushka herself appeared on
the threshold").
At the same time, this feature can describe a complex of actions ex
pressed by different tense forms, but nevertheless embraced by a common
period of time. The tense forms are different in such cases, but they have
one and the same denotative temporal reference. Such is, for example, the
correlation of past and present tense forms in the function of the historic
present in cases like:
Podosel i vižu ... ("I came up and what do I see").
Compare also the correlation of different tense forms when the actions
described are referred to the abstract (habitual) present, e.g.,
Byvaet tak: uexal (cf. uedet) celovek, kotorogo bojalis', i tut-

to nacinaetsja ... (V. Belov) ("It happens sometimes that
when the man who used to terrify everybody has left, that is
when all the trouble begins ...").

The integrity (wholeness) of the time period is a concept reflecting

the unity of the complex of "communicated facts" connected with each
other through temporal relations.
The integrity of the time period implies the homogeneous relation
of all the components of the given complex of actions to the moment of
speech as the reference point. All the actions should be referred either to
the past, or to the present, or to the future, or to the abstract (habitual)
plane. It cannot be that one action refers to the past and the other to the
future. The homogeneity of reference of all components of a given
complex of action to one and the same time period from the point of
view of the moment of speech is a sine qua non for the integrity (unity)
of the period of time and, consequently, a condition on taxis relations.
In utterances with adverbial participles, the integrity of the time
period is revealed in the close connection of the principal and attendant
action. The very concept of attendant action implies the unity and in
tegrity of the time period embracing the given complex of actions. Even
when an attendant action is separated from the principal action by a
considerable interval, for example,
Vosprinjav v detstve eti navyki, on i k koncu zizni ne
rasterjal ix ("Having acquired these skills in his childhood,
he didn't lose them to the end of his days"),
the correlation of the principle and attendants action creates a unity of the
general period embracing both actions (in this example it is the period of
the man's almost entire life).
In general, it should be stressed that the existence of time gaps
between actions does not break the integrity of the time period if this
integrity is ensured by the temporal ties within the complex of actions
and homogeneity of their temporal reference. For example,
Vprocem, cto ze trebovat' s celoveka, kotoryj cerez dva dnja
posle togo, kak postavil tocku v konce zapisok, kinulsja s
Cepnogo mosta vniz golovoj (M. Bulgakov) ("However, what
can you expect from a man who, two days after he put a
full stop at the end of his notes, jumped from the Chain
Bridge head first?").

Here the time gap between the actions is included in the general integral
structure of the complex of actions as its essential element. All its com
ponents, including the time gap between the actions, are united by the
general period of time which binds all the temporal relations within the
given structure.
If there is no integrity of the time period, there can be no taxis
relation: temporal relations between actions can exist only within a
definite unity of time. Relations of simultaneity or sequence of actions
(anteriority/posteriority) are always relations within a definite time period
which binds together the actions correlated in time. Before speaking about
these relations, we must identify the whole whose elements these relations
constitute. That whole is a complex of actions embraced by a single
period of time.
Now let us turn to another restriction defining the concept of taxis.
2. The homogeneity of actions from the point of view of their concrete-

ness/generalisation (habituality, abstractness, typicalness). All the actions
referred to in a sentence should be either concrete or habitual, i.e. usual.
Here is an example of the latter type:
Odna žalost', a ne oxota. Nagonjat dici v parkax i streljajut
ee, kak v kurjatnike ... (D. Mamin-Sibirjak) ("It's a crying
shame, hunting today is. They just get a lot of game into
one place in a park, and then kill them off like hens in a
henhouse ...").
Examples like
On el i vremja ot vremeni ogljadyvalsja/... vremja ot vremeni
ogljadyvajas' ("He was eating and looking around every now
and then/He ate looking around every now and then")
also belong to the taxis relations under review. Although one of the verbs
denotes a one-time action and the other a repeated action, the repetition is
not habitual (generalised) but concrete, localised by the bounds of the
concrete situation, within the period of time to which the action el ("ate/
was eating") refers.

116 FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: A HELD APPROACH
3. Taxis relations are limited by the framework of the utterance. What is

meant is utterances which are equal to a sentence or a supra-phrasal unit.
The bounds of these utterances are determined by the completeness and
integrity of the structure of the taxis relations.
All the three above-mentioned features of taxis relations, which
limit and specify the concept of taxis, are closely linked with each other.
The integrity of the time period connected with the integrity of the
complex of actions united by taxis relations, also implies homogeneity
from the point of view of concreteness/abstractness (habituality) of the
elements of the situation being described, while the framework of the
utterance is the sphere of realisation of the given complex of actions.
Taxis and relative tense
There is a point of view according to which the concepts of taxis and

relative tense coincide. In our opinion, however, these concepts overlap,
but are not identical.
According to a widespread notion, relative tense is the tense
defined not from the point of view of the moment of speech, but from
the point of view of another moment taken as the basis of tense correla
tions. (In such languages as Russian, where there are no special forms of
relative tense, it is a question of the relative use of tenses, but for the
sake of brevity we will speak in all cases of relative tense.)
Let us first consider examples where relative tense obviously
differs from taxis, and then we shall take examples illustrating the over
lap of these concepts.
There is the future from the point of view of a definite moment in
the past. For example,
V odnom iz dvorov ... paren strig bol'simi noznicami

povalennuju i strenozennuju ovcu. Vposledstvii ja poznakom-
ljus' i daze podruzus' s etim parnem ... (G. Gorysin) ("In
one yard ... a young fellow was shearing a sheep lying on
its side, with its feet tied together, with a pair of large
shears. Later I would get acquainted [poznakomljus': will get
acquainted] and even make friends [podruzus'] with him ...").

Here the orientation of the time of the action is from the point of view
of a definite moment in the past, i.e., we have one of the varieties of
relative tense, but there is no taxis relation within an integrated time
period.
Compare another type of the future determined from the point of
view of a certain moment in the past - the future in a complex sentence
with an explanatory subordinate clause, for example:
Ja dumal, cto on vernetsja ("I thought he would come
back").
In such cases, too, there is no temporal correlation of actions within a
certain integrated time period, i.e., there is no taxis.
On the other hand, there is a broad range of phenomena which are
included in the concept of taxis, but which do not constitute relative
tense. What is meant here is temporal correlations of actions within an
integrated time period in various syntactical conditions - for example:
On migal glazom, v to ze vremja vypival (M. Bulgakov)
("He would wink and at the same time drink his glass
down").
Here we have taxis relations of simultaneity, but the tense of all the
actions is absolute (the past), not relative. Similarly, we define examples

like:
Kogda ja provozal ego, to on v perednej, kak mne
pokazalos', narocno dolgo nadeval subu (A. Chekhov)
("When I saw him to the door, he seemed to be deliberately
slow putting on his coat")
as taxis, but not relative tense. What we have here are taxis relations of
simultaneity, with absolute, not relative, temporal orientation. We could
cite many more examples of this kind (in various syntactical conditions).
Now let us consider cases in which relative tense and taxis over
lap.
In complex sentences with explanatory subordinate clauses expres
sing simultaneity of the action in the subordinate clause in relation to the
action in the principal clause in cases like:
On čuvstvoval, cto krasneet ("He felt he was blushing");

On ponimal, cto soversaet osibku ("He understood he was

making a mistake"),
etc., we are dealing with relative tense and at the same time with taxis.
Relative tense is represented here because the time of action (krasneet
"was blushing", etc.) is determined not in relation to the moment of
speech, but in relation to another moment in the past (when the subject
felt something, understood something, etc.). And we have taxis because
the sentence expresses simultaneity of actions within a single integral
time period.
Taxis expressed in constructions with perfective and imperfective
adverbial participles should be recognised as relative tense, since adverbial
participles do not have absolute tense and can express only relative
temporal orientation towards the tense of the main action.
Thus, we can single out three types of relations between the
concepts of relative tense and taxis: a given language fact constitutes (a)
relative tense but not taxis; (b) taxis but not relative tense; (c) taxis and
relative tense at the same time.
On the whole, taxis is a broader concept than relative tense. As
already mentioned, relative tense is determined not from the moment of
speech, but from another moment taken as a point of reference for
temporal relations. Taxis, on the other hand, if it is to be understood as
described above, is not connected with that restriction (orientation not

towards the moment of speech): taxis relations between actions are
possible both with only a relative temporal orientation of one of them
and with absolute orientation of all the members of taxis relation.
Relative tense and taxis differ from the point of view of their
orientation. Relative tense describes the temporal orientation of a given
tense form. Taxis, however, describes a combination of forms, not one
form, and has a pronounced syntagmatic and syntactical orientation.
Whereas relative tense is a categorial feature of a grammatical
form, taxis is always a relation, i.e., the temporal relation between actions
within an integral time period expressed in the utterance. Expression of
taxis is related to syntactical constructions, although they also include
morphological and lexical means. The function of taxis has not only
paradigmatic, but also pronounced syntagmatic features, but in its formal
expression it is essential syntactical.

The structure of the taxis field in the Russian language
Taxis in the Russian language is a type of field characterised by a com

plex polycentric structure. An analysis of this functional-semantic field
can give an insight into the range of problems of "field structuring" in
the given sphere of the semantic and functional units.
The structure of the functional-semantic field under review is
determined by the difference of functions of dependent and independent
taxis. This difference conditions the division of this field into two
spheres, each with its own central and peripheral components. Let us
consider each type separately, as they exist in the Russian language.
Dependent taxis
The central components are constructions with perfective and imperfective
adverbial participles.
The peripheral components are: (a) constructions with participles;
(b) prepositional-nominal constructions like pri rassmotrenii ... ("while
examining ..."), pri perexode ... ("while crossing ..."), in combination with
a verb.
Independent taxis
Central components:
1. The correlation of aspectual and temporal forms in complex sentences
with a subordinate clause of time, with conjunctions and, in some cases,
lexical elements like srazu ze ("at once"), v to samoe vremja ("at that
very time"), etc. This component includes the correlation of aspectual and
temporal forms in conjunctionless composite sentences like
Vyjdu k morju, serdce raduetsja ("When I get down to the

sea, my heart fills with joy").
2. The correlation of aspectual and temporal forms in sentences with

homogeneous predicates and in compound sentences (with possible use of
lexical elements like snacala - a zatem ("at first - but then"; word order
also takes part in expressing taxis relations in such constructions).

Relatively peripheral components:

1. The correlation of aspectual and tense forms in complex sentences with
subordinate clauses of condition, cause, consequence, concession, and in
other constructions where the expression of taxis relations is an additional
function connected with the main semantic function of the given construc
tion.
2. The correlation of aspectual and tense forms in complex sentences with
an explanatory subordinate part like:
Ona videla, kak on podnimaetsja [cf. podnimalsja] po lest-

nice ("She saw him go upstairs" [cf. "was going"]).
In singling out the central components in both spheres of the field of

taxis, we proceed primarily from the criterion of the greatest specialis
ation of the given means in relation to the function under review, which
fact, as a rule, is connected with the categorial status of the meaning and
the regularity of the functioning of a given grammatical unit (the concrete
representation of the above characteristics will be examined further on).
Here, like in other cases, the hierarchy of central and peripheral
components is not always easy to establish. Specifically, in the sphere of
independent taxis, the boundaries between centre and periphery are vague
ly defined and relative.
Thus, the whole field of taxis has a two-member (bicentric) struc

ture, defined by the division into dependent and independent taxis.
In the sphere of dependent taxis, one can clearly see a single
centre, characterised by the greatest specialisation and regularity of ex
pression of the given taxis relation - a construction with an adverbial
participle.
Independent taxis has no single centre. Several heterogeneous
components can be singled out in this sphere, each possessing certain
features of a centre. Thus, the polycentric structure of the taxis field is
manifested not only in its division into dependent and independent taxis,
but also in the fact that independent taxis has several central components.
From the point of view of the difference of the two subtypes of
the polycentric structure of the field - compact (with clearly distinguished
centres) and diffuse (with weakly connected elements) - taxis belongs to
the first of these subtypes. The compact character of the polycentric
structure is manifested in the field's clear-cut division into the two above-

mentioned spheres and also in the pronounced centre of dependent taxis.

Although several central components are evident in the sphere of indepen
dent taxis, with no clearly defined boundaries between centre and periph
ery, here too we can see a limited group of language means linked with
each other by the similarity of the taxis function and partial interaction.
The meanings of dependent and independent taxis
Dependent taxis is a temporal relation between actions, one of which is

the principal one and the other accessory. The chief means of expressing
dependent taxis in the Russian language are perfective and imperfective
adverbial participles in combination with the main verb (other language
means of expressing this variety of taxis will be described later).
Independent taxis presupposes temporal relations between actions
without any explicit gradation of the principal and accessory action (as
will be shown later, there can be shades of inequality between the el
ements of taxis relations, but they are not formally expressed and do not
constitute grammatical meanings of any particular forms or constructions).
Compare, for example, (1) dependent taxis:
Vernuvsis', otec obo vsem nam rasskazal ("Having returned,

Father told us everything"),
and (2) independent taxis: (a) in construction with homogeneous predi

cates:
Otec vernulsja i oho vsem nam rasskazal ("Father returned

and told us everything"),
and (b) in complex sentences with subordinate clauses of time:
Kogda otec vernulsja, on obo vsem nam rasskazal ("When

Father returned, he told us everything").
The above constructions are comparable, but certainly not equival

ent: the adverbial participle creates a pronounced asymmetry of primary
and secondary predication, i.e., in the distribution of the ranks of the
principal and accessory (collateral, dependent) predication; the construction
with homogeneous predicates places all the actions on one level; the

complex sentence with a subordinate clause of time clearly differentiates

the elements of the taxis relation (in this case it is anteriority and pos
teriority), with each component of the complex predication being relative
ly independent (there can be shades of incomplete equality, but they are
not clearly expressed either in content or in form).
The possibility of the above-described (unequal) substitution,
though not regular (particularly in relation to complex sentences with
subordinate clauses of time), testifies to the connection between dependent
taxis and certain constructions of independent taxis and the possibility of
their interaction. In this case, the interaction is manifested in the fact that
under certain conditions the speaker or writer can choose between lan
guage means depending on the specific shade of meaning of the utter
ance.
In the categorial meaning of correlation of the principal and acces
sory action expressed by adverbial participial constructions, there is an
element of language semantic interpretation (mode of representation) of
the sense of the utterance. In some cases the semantic content permits
various interpretations as to which of the actions is the principal one and
which is the accessory. However, the categorial meaning of the adverbial
participle (the meaning of the accessory action) interprets (with an obliga
toriness that is characteristic of categorial meanings) one of the actions as
accessory to the principal one, even in cases where logically the correla
tion of the principal and accessory action could be reverse. For example:
My stoim na kryse nasego doma, ja i Roma Kastan, vstrecaja
vernuvsijsja svet Moskvy (L. Kassil') ("We are standing on
the roof of our house, Roma Kastan and I, meeting the
returning free light of Moscow");
cf. a possible variation:
Stoja na kryse nasego doma, my vstrecaem ... ("Standing on
the roof of our house, we are meeting ...").
Another example:
Oni podnimalis' uže po stupenjam, stucali nogami, sbivaja
sneg u vxodnoj dveri (G. Glazov) ("They were already going
up the stairs and stamping their feet, shaking off the snow
at the entrance door").

Here the verb stucali ("were stamping") is connected with podnimalis'

("were going") by relations of homogeneity, but it is just as possible to
say:
Stuca nogami, oni sbivali sneg u vxodnoj dveri ("Stamping
their feet, they were shaking off the snow at the entrance
door").
Not infrequently, the meaning of the utterance in principle permits
a double interpretation of the correlation of actions: either as a combina
tion of the principal and accessory actions (dependent taxis) or as a
combination of two equal actions (independent taxis). For example:
Mixail ne uterpel i podergal mat' za pleco (V. Rasputin)
("Mikhail lost patience and shook his mother's shoulder");
it is also correct to say:
Ne uterpev, Mixail podergal maf za pleco ("Losing patience
[ne uterpev: having lost patience], Mikhail shook his
mother's shoulder").
Another example:
A solnce uze stojalo nad nami, pripekaja golovy (L. Kassil')
("The sun was already above us, beating down on our

heads");
cf.:
... stojalo nad nami i pripekalo golovy ("The sun was already
above us and beat down on our heads").
Nevertheless, sense relations which in principle could be interpreted
variously, are given in the functioning of constructions with adverbial
participles a very definite language interpretation: the action expressed by
the adverbial participle is seen as the accessory one, while the action
expressed by the verbal predicate as the principal one.
Dependent taxis in adverbial participial constructions is not always
oriented towards explicit expression of relations of simultaneity/non-
simultaneity. Sometimes adverbial participial constructions do not actualise

temporal proper (chronological) relations between actions at all. Take, for

example, the sentence:
Obrascajas' k probleme suscestvovanija, ucenyj voVno ili

nevol'no prixodit k kardinal'noj probleme filosofii: vzaimoot-
noseniju subjekta i objekta (B. Grjaznov) ("Turning to the
problem of existence, the scientist inevitably comes to the
cardinal problem of philosophy: the interrelation of subject
and object").
What is important here is only the correlation of the principal and acces
sory actions with the meaning of parallelism, but without actualisation of
the relations of simultaneity.
The difference of simultaneity/non-simultaneity may be inessential
and non-actualised in expressing explicative relations. For example:
... Nakazala svoim prezreniem, objaviv, cío ona ne podast

mne ruki (M. Beketova) ("... She punished me with her
contempt, declaring that she would not offer me her hand");
Po ego xodatajstvu ministr narodnogo prosvescenija ...
razresil organizovat' populjarnye naucnye kursy dlja zenscin,
predostaviv dlja etogo niznij etaz sobstvennoj kvartiry (ibid.)
("... Upon his intercession the Minister of Education ...

allowed him to organise a general science course for
women, granting them the use of the ground floor of his
own home for the purpose");
... Zamucil nas, zastavljaja zaucivat' naizust' cifry ... (ibid.)

("He exhausted us, forcing us to learn all the figures by
heart ...").
The non-actualisation of chronological relations between actions can

also be manifested in expressing the meaning of accessory action in
combination with causal-resultative and concessive-adversative relations.
For example:
Cuvstvuja za soboj nekotoruju vinu, ona pisala emu cto ni

den ... (I. Druce) ("Feeling somewhat guilty, she wrote to
him every day ...");

Znaja eto, ja vse ze prisel k nemu ("Knowing this, I still

came to him").
These examples express above all accessory cause and the accessory
concessive component of the situation where chronological relations are
inessential.
Thus, adverbial participial constructions combine features of spe
cialised expression of temporal relations with their possible non-actualisa
tion. All these cases, however, manifest the categorial meaning of these
constructions - correlation of the principal and accessory action. This
meaning presupposes a common temporal connection of the actions. Such
constructions always preserve and emphasise the integrity of the time
period embracing the principal and accessory action (such integrity, as
already mentioned, is a characteristic feature of taxis relations). Therefore,
adverbial-participial constructions, despite the possible non-actualisation of
chronological differences of simultaneity/non-simultaneity of actions,
constitute a characteristic and striking example of a syntactical form
expressing the meaning of dependent taxis.
The opposition of dependent and independent taxis

Relations between dependent and independent taxis can be interpreted as

a privative opposition where the positive feature of dependence of one
action (accessory, secondary action) on the other (the principal action)
belongs to dependent taxis. This accounts for the more definite semantics
of this kind of taxis and the more integral and compact mode of its
expression. Independent taxis as the unmarked category has broader
semantics. The semantic sphere of independent taxis, i.e., the meaning of
complete independence, autonomy and equality of actions, and also the
capacity to express implicitly the shades of incomplete balance of actions
within the taxis relation. Thus, in sentences with a time clause, within the
categorial meaning of independent taxis, there is still the possibility of
expressing a shade of relatively greater independence of the action in the
principal clause. For example:
I vot, kogda my vernulis' prosloj osen ju iz lagerja, my

sdëlali tak, kak zadumali (L. Kassil') ("And so, when we

returned last autumn from the camp, we did as we had

planned").
It should be emphasised, however, that all such shades of incomplete
symmetry of actions (shades, which are difficult to describe in any
explicit and objectified terms) still exist within the sphere of independent
taxis, i.e., the sphere where the dependence of one action on the other is
more explicitly expressed. Substitutions for an adverbial participial con
struction which are possible in a number of cases (cf.: ... vernuvsis', my
sdelali ... ("... having returned, we did ...") cannot testify to the semantic
identity of the constructions being compared, since in one case, with the
adverbial participle, the relation between the accessory and principal
action is explicitly expressed, while the other case, with the time clause,
does not explicitly express the difference in the "rank of actions" and
only implies a shade of incomplete equality of the actions.
The unmarked character of the independent taxis also accounts for
a greater (as compared with dependent taxis) variety of expressive means.
The sphere of independent taxis includes heterogeneous linguistic means
which are far from being always interrelated and are, indeed, partly
isolated.
One of the characteristic features of dependent taxis in adverbial
participial constructions is the dependent character of the temporal orien
tation of the accessory action: it does not have a temporal orientation of

its own in relation to the moment of speech. This can be regarded as a
demonstration of the dependent status of the accessory action.
Independent taxis is on the whole characterised by a combination
of a relative temporal orientation (a taxis interrelation of actions) with an
independent absolute orientation of each of the actions. Cf.:
Poka on ukladyval vesci, ona razgljadyvala nas s Igorem
("While he was packing his things, she was eying Igor and
me");
On ukladyval vesci, a ona tern vremenem razgljadyvala ...
("He was packing his things, and she was meanwhile eying
...").
At the same time, one type of independent taxis constructions is
distinguished by the absence of absolute orientation of one of the actions

from the point of view of the speaker (writer). We mean constructions

like:
Slusal, kak pereklikajutsja kosy ("I listened to the scythes
whispering to each other");
Smotrel, kak ukrasajut elku ("He watched the Christmas-tree
being decorated");
Ja ponimal, cto oni govorjat o cem-to važnom ("I realised
that they were discussing something important").
In such cases there is no principal-accessory relation between the actions,
no primary and secondary predication, that is to say, we have independent
taxis. However, the forms of present tense (pereklikajutsja "whispering",
ukrasajut "being decorated", etc.) do not express a temporal orientation
towards the moment of speech. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say
that there is absolutely no relation with absolute temporal orientation in
such cases. Here the forms of the present tense express the meaning of
the present from the point of view of the subject of perception (the one
who listened, looked, understood, etc.) rather than the speaker (writer)
i.e., the author of the utterance.
Relations with absolute orientation are manifested in another way,
too - in the correlation of forms of the present tense and the forms of the
past tense expressing an absolute temporal orientation of the action from
the point of view of the speaker (writer). Cf. the possible substitutions:
Slusal, kak pereklikalis' kosy ("... listened how the scythes
were whispering to each other");
Smotrel, kak ukrasali elku ("... watched how they were
decorating the Christmas-tree").
The absence of independent absolute temporal orientation is not an
inevitable feature of dependent taxis as a whole. This feature characterises
adverbial participial constructions as the nucleus of independent taxis. It
also preserves its importance in such peripheral components of the sphere
of dependent taxis as prepositional-nominal constructions with deverbative
nouns (e.g.:

Pri rassmotrenii etix slucaev my konsiaiiruem ... "In examin

ing these cases we can state ...").
However, this feature does not cover all the varieties of usage of par
ticipial constructions which display dependent taxis; cf.:
Zabralsja na ostyvajuscuju peč ("Climbed onto the stove
which was cooling off).
On the whole, manifestations of the non-absolute character of the relation:
"dependent taxis - only relative temporal orientation of one of the mem
bers of the taxis relation; independent taxis - a combination of relative
and absolute orientation in all actions" - does not reduce the importance
of this distinctive feature. It is an important objective indicator of the
differences between dependent and independent taxis.
There is also a structural difference between dependent and in
dependent taxis: dependent taxis constructions always have a two-member
structure comprising the correlation of the dependent and the main (prin
cipal) components (although each of them in turn may consist of several
components), while independent taxis constructions may have either a
two-member or a multi-member structure. Cf., on the one hand, a two-
member taxis structure in sentences with temporal and certain other
clauses, and, on the other hand, a multi-member structure of chain con
structions with homogeneous predicates:

Ja stuknul v dver', vosel i v sumerkax uvideî nakonec
Ksaverija Borisovica (M. Bulgakov) ("I knocked at the door,
entered, and in the dusk at last saw Ksavery Borisovich").
Is taxis a grammatical category?
Let us first examine from this point of view adverbial participial con
structions. Can taxis expressed by these constructions be regarded as a
grammatical category? The combination of the meaning of the adverbial-
participial form - the meaning of an accessory action - and its specialis
ation by means of the verb aspect within a syntactical adverbial-participial
construction is obviously a grammatical means. It is a language means of
particular complexity - a complex, combined means. Basically a syntactic

means, it also includes morphological components of various kinds: the

form of the adverbial participle and the morphological category of aspect
in its taxis function. The role of the syntactic construction should be
emphasised: by connecting the form of the adverbial participle with the
principal verb (the predicate), it forms the syntactical basis for the ex
pression of the taxis relation. What we have, therefore, is undoubtedly a
grammatical unit, a syntactical form. But by itself this form cannot yet be
regarded as a grammatical category. The concept of grammatical category
implies a unity of at least two contrasting grammemes (either in opposi
tion or in non-oppositional distinction). In this case, however, there is no
contrasting at all.
The question then is: is the opposition of dependent and indepen
dent taxis a grammatical category? In our opinion, the answer is negative.
The opposition of "dependent-independent taxis" (a privative semantic
opposition) does exist, but it is not an opposition of grammemes, i.e.,
components of a grammatical category. This semantic opposition embraces
a complex of heterogeneous means within the sphere of taxis as a func
tional-semantic field. There is a correlation (although far from regular) of
some adverbial-participial constructions of dependent taxis with some
constructions of independent taxis (constructions with homogeneous
predicates and temporal complex sentences). But this correlation cannot
be characterised as a stable and integral grammatical subsystem (which

exists, for example, in the opposition of active/passive, affirmative/
negative constructions, etc.). The semantic opposition of dependent and
independent taxis exists within a functional-semantic field, not in a
grammatical category'. Taxis is a functional-semantic combination of
heterogeneous means which does not have a rigid homogeneous structure.
This is a non-rigid group of means, integrated by a common taxis func
tion which can be subdivided into dependent and independent taxis
functions.
It follows that there can exist grammatical units, namely syntactical
constructions, that are outside any particular grammatical (in this case,
syntactical) category. This does not imply that such grammatical units
(forms and constructions) not included in any grammatical category
remain outside the system, i.e., are isolated. They are included in a
system, but of a kind different from an opposition of grammemes within
a grammatical category. As already mentioned, in this case a combination

of heterogeneous means with a common function can be regarded as part

of a broader system, a system of the non-rigid type, that is to say, a
functional-semantic field.
The correlation of primary and secondary predication in dependent taxis

constructions
Two types of relations can be singled out between the accessory action,
expressed by an adverbial participle, and the principal action: character-
ising and non-characterising. In the first type, we have the accessory
action, which constitutes secondary predication and is often combined
with the adverbial function, at the same time giving a qualitative descrip
tion of the principal action. This kind of function is characteristic of
imperfective adverbial participles and of perfective adverbial participles in
the perfect (resultative) meaning. For example,
Stroev ze ... v eto vremja, prygaja cerez stupen'ki, spesil k
zriteVnomu zalu (M. Bulgakov) ("But Stroyev ... was now
skipping every other step as he hurried to the hall");
so Stroyev was hurrying and at the same time skipping every other step,
but the words prygaja cerez stupen'ki ("skipping every other step") is a
characteristic that complements and concretises the principal action, spesil
("hurried"). Here are more examples:
Igorek sidel v storone na kortockax, oxvativ rukami koleni i
poloziv na nix podborodok (L. Kassil') ("Igor squatted a
little way off, embracing his knees in his arms and leaning
his chin on them");
Tarn rabotala nauka, otyskivaja atomnye osnovanija real'nosti
(B. Pasternak) ("Science was doing its work there, searching
for the atomic foundation of reality");
here the accessory action concretises the principal action, giving promi
nence to one of its aspects.

- Djadja Fedja! - oklikaem my ego, preduprezdaja o svoem

prisutstvii (B. Pasternak) ("'Uncle Fedia!' we called out to
him, warning him of our presence");
in this case the accessory action reveals the motivation of the principal
action (we called out and thus warned him; we called out so as to warn
him). In such utterances, the principal action and the accessory action
characterising the principal one are united in a single semantic complex.
The second (non-characterising) type of relations between the
accessory and the principal action constitutes secondary predication, which
does not give an additional description of the principal action. This type
is characterised by greater autonomy (relative, of course) of the principal
and accessory action. The non-characterising type is connected mainly
with perfective adverbial participles expressing a concrete fact (without an
explicit element of perfect semantics). For example:
Toroplivo sev na losad', ja pustilsja dogonjat' otrjad (L.
Tolstoy) ("Quickly mounting my horse, I galloped off to
catch up with the detachment");
here we have a sequence of actions (principal and accessory) without
characterisation (cf. the possible correlation with independent taxis:
Ja toroplivo sel na losad' i pustilsja dogonjat' otrjad ("I

quickly mounted my horse and galloped off to catch up with
the detachment").
Dependent taxis with a non-characterising relation of the accessory and
principal actions is closer to independent taxis than is dependent taxis of
the characterising type.
It follows that we regard secondary predication as the main syntac
tical function of adverbial participles which express accessory action.
(Thus, we share A.A. Potebnja's and A.A. Saxmatov's idea of a second
ary predicate; see also Hrabě 1964). This, however, does not exclude the
possibility of the secondary predication function being combined with the
adverbial function (in the characterising type). But it would be absolutely
wrong to reduce the syntactical function of the adverbial participle to the
function of an adverbial modifier alone (as it is often still done).
Thus, the basis of the relations of dependent taxis in adverbial-
participial constructions is the relation between secondary and primary

(main) predication. Dependent taxis is one of the categorial meanings in

which secondary predication can be expressed (along with the modal
meaning of reality and the personal meaning of correlation between the
subjects of secondary and primary predication).
As for independent taxis, it is connected with complex predication
(of various types; cf., on the one hand, complex predication in sentences
with homogeneous predicates and in compound sentences, and, on the
other hand, complex predication in complex sentences with a temporal
clause, and also with conditional, causal, etc., clauses).
Therefore, taxis on the whole is a manifestation of polypredicative
relations: dependent taxis expresses secondary predication, while indepen
dent taxis expresses complex predication.
Peripheral components of dependent taxis
A special commentary is needed on participial constructions, for example:
V smradnom polusvete blindaza vidny byli podnjatye golovy,

zadno slusajuscie (cf. slusavsie) cteca (L. Tolstoy) ("Raised
heads, listening [slusajuscije] anxiously to the reader [cf.
slusavsije: who were listening] could be seen in the stinking
dusk of the dugout").
We refer participial constructions to dependent taxis because when

they express temporal relations, like in adverbial-participial constructions,
they represent a gradation of the principal and accessory actions, i.e., a
distribution of the ranks of primary and secondary predication. Here,
however, we have secondary predication of a special kind - one that is
connected with attributive relations. Here we are dealing with a special
type of dependent taxis, whose attributive-predicative function makes it
different from dependent taxis in adverbial-participial constructions.
The correlation of secondary and primary predication in participial
constructions does not have such a close connection between the acces
sory and principal action as is typical of adverbial-participial construc
tions. In participial taxis constructions we essentially observe not the
principal and accessory action, but rather the principal action (the predi
cate) and an attribute related to it in the utterance, but not directly con-

nected to it by any syntactical bond - an attribute expressing the relation

of secondary predication. The attributive connection of the participle with
a noun weakens the bound of secondary participial predication with the
primary predication of the main verb.
Participial and adverbial-participial constructions of dependent taxis
differ essentially from the point of view of the degrees of their specialis
ation in relation to the taxis function. Adverbial-participial constructions
are a special syntactical form which serve to express the categorial
meaning of dependent taxis. As for participial constructions, expression of
taxis functions is not their chief purpose. Their goal is connected with
attributive relations. The taxis function can be included in relations of
secondary predication accompanying attributive relations, but it can also
be absent. The functioning of participles is by no means always associ
ated with taxis: the participle can also express an independent absolute
temporal orientation not related to the main action through taxis relations.
For example, in the utterance
Casy, visevsie na stene, teper valjajutsja v sarae (or: nikog-
da uze ne budut xodit') ("The clock which used to hang on
the wall is now gathering dust in the barn") (or: "... will
never work again"),
the participle expresses the past tense from the point of view of the
moment of speech; although there is a correlation with the tense of the
principal verb, it is a correlation of different tenses; there is no integral
time period here, which is an obligatory condition of taxis relations. In
such cases we have situations on different temporal planes rather than
taxis relations. We cannot help agreeing with V. Hrabe when he writes
about participles (using the terms of relative/absolute tense): "In this
sphere we encounter a widespread but erroneous belief that relative tense
is an independent temporal meaning of the predicate, just like adverbial
participles" (Hrabe 1964: 53).
The above prompts the conclusion that participial constructions,
which are not characterised by the same degree of taxis specialisation as
adverbial participial constructions, occupy a relatively peripheral position
in the sphere of dependent taxis.
The correlation of participial and adverbial participial constructions
(even though they may be interchangeable without altering the meaning

of the utterance, regardless of the differences in their grammatical mean

ings) is limited to only a few types of participial use. For example:
Znacit, ziv esce tvoj stank? - neostorozno udivilsja Vixrov,

vspomnivsij [cf. vspomniv] pricinu ceredilovskogo isceznove-
nija iz Peterburga (L. Leonov) ("'So he's still alive, your
old man?' Vikhrov evinced indiscreet surprise, remembering
the reason of Cheredilov's disappearance from St. Peters
burg" Cf.: ".. Vikhrov, who remembered ...").
A few words about constructions with Russian deverbative nouns

like pri rassmotrenii ("in examining"), pri sistematizacii ("while system-
atising"). For example:
Pri perexode (cf. perexodja) cerez rel'sy ubedites , cto puf

svoboden ("When crossing the railway tracks, see that the
way is clear");
Pri analize etogo materiala [cf. analiziruja 'etot material] my

vidim ... ("In analysing [pri analize] these data (cf. analizi-
ruja: while analysing) we have ...").
The possibility of substitution for adverbial-participial constructions

demonstrates that participles and adverbial participles are interrelated. The
difference in their meaning consists in the fact that adverbial participles

emphasise the dynamic aspect of secondary predication (cf. perexodja
cerez rel'sy ... "while crossing the tracks"), while constructions with
deverbative nouns (pri perexode) border on both secondary predication
and adverbial expressions.
Of the two peripheral components of dependent taxis, participial
constructions are a more habitually used language means, but at the same
time a more isolated means weakly connected with adverbial-participial
constructions, i.e., with the centre of dependent taxis. As for constructions
with prepositional nominal collocations, their functions are more like
those of adverbial participial constructions, but are of a more specific and
limited character, and in this respect they obviously belong to the periph
ery of this zone of the field in question.

The hierarchy of the expressive means of independent taxis
In the sphere of independent taxis, the highest degree of specialised and

actualised expression of temporal relations between actions is above all
characteristic of complex sentences with temporal clauses. For example:
Korsunovy priexali uze posle togo, kak zenixa s nevestoj
uvezli v cerkov' (M. Soloxov) ("The Korshunovs arrived
only after the bride and groom had already left for the
church").
That is why we put these constructions at the top of the hierarchy of the
expressive means of independent taxis. Close to complex sentences with
subordinate clauses of time are asyndetic sentences with a temporal
(essentially taxis) correlation of clauses. Still, in the degree of specialis
ation in the expression of taxis relations, they are second to temporal
(also essentially taxis) complex sentences, in which the most explicit
expression of different varieties of temporal correlation of actions is
achieved by means of conjunctions. Moreover, it should be taken into
account that asyndetic sentences often combine taxis and conditional
relations. Example:
Soskucissja, prixodi ("If you get lonesome, come over").
Constructions with homogeneous predicates and compound sen

tences belong to the central zone of independent taxis, but still they
cannot be seen as being on the highest hierarchical level of the com
ponents of this sphere in the taxis field. Whereas in temporal complex
sentences the syntactical structure itself has a pronounced categorial taxis
meaning, the above-mentioned constructions do not always serve only to
express taxis relations of simultaneity, anteriority, and posteriority. Of
course, these relations are included in the semantic structure of these
constructions. Due to the correlation of verbal aspectual forms and the
possible participation of lexical adverbial phrases like:
snacala - a zatem ("at first - and later"),
etc., they can be emphasised and given prominence, but this is not always
the case. Cf., for example, the utterance:

Staralsja idti v odnu storonu. Nogi uze ele slusalis', ruki

ctcego-to svodilo v lokîjax, vse sustavy nyli ot ustalosti (V.
Belov) ("He was trying to move in one direction. His feet
hardly obeyed him, his arms were for some reason stiff in
the elbows, and all his joints ached with exhaustion").
Here the compound sentence expresses above all a number of juxtaposed

predicates forming one complex composite predication. Therein lies the
categorial meaning of such constractions. As for the taxis meaning of
simultaneity (or rather of parallel development of actions and states), it is
only one of the elements of semantic structure of the sentence, and in
this case very little actualised at that.
We do not regard adverbial lexical indicators like v to ze vremja
("at the same time"), odnovremenno ("simultaneously"), zatem ("later"),
srazu ze ("at once"), sperva - potom ("at first - later"), etc., as a special
component of independent taxis, because they are included among the
already examined syntactical constructions with homogeneous predicates
and compound sentences. Nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasise the
role of these means in expressing taxis relations. These means serve to
specify, concretise and actualise temporal relations between actions.
As already mentioned, the borders between centre and periphery in
the field of independent taxis are very relative, conventional and mobile.
In particular, a number of components which will be discussed later on

belong to a transitional zone between centre and periphery. These include
complex sentences with conditional, causal, consecutive and concessive
clauses. Their relatively peripheral position in the sphere of independent
taxis is accounted for by the fact that here the taxis field overlaps with
other fields whose semantics is dominant. Still taxis relations in such
constructions can be expressed with sufficient definiteness if they repre
sent a previous cause, a previous condition, and in the case of taxis
characterisation of sentences with consecutive clauses.
The peripheral status of constructions like:
Slysala, kak kricat (kricali) cajki ("She heard the sea gulls
crying")
is determined by the limitations of a number of verbs expressing percep

tion which is specified in the subordinate clause. However, from the point
of view of the specialised and actualised character of the expression of

simultaneity, these constructions are close to the centre of the sphere of

independent taxis.
On the whole, we can say that, whereas in the sphere of dependent
taxis the centre (adverbial participial constructions) is clearly seen as
opposed to its peripheral components, in the sphere of independent taxis
we can only observe a gamut of gradations and only relative distinctions
between the different levels of the hierarchy and between the structural
components of the field.
So far in our discussion of taxis we have been analysing above all
the structure of this functional-semantic field and its paradigmatic aspect,
regarding it as one particular subsystem in the system of the language.
And it was from this point of view that we studied the individual com
ponents of dependent and independent taxis. But a comprehensive inves
tigation of a functional-semantic field implies, apart from the stage of
"field structuring" (modelling of the field structure), a special stage of
analysis - namely, a study of model taxis structures and their varieties in
speech. With this purpose in mind, the paradigmatic aspect should be
regarded in its interrelation with syntagmatics. The functional-semantic
field of taxis is studied in its model representations in speech, i.e., in
specific utterances. The concept of taxis situation, which is discussed in
the next chapter, can be instrumental in analysing the taxis function at the
level of utterance.
Taxis situations and their relations with aspectuality
In speaking of taxis situations, we mean model semantic structures which

form the aspect of the general semantic situation which is connected with
the function of expressing temporal relations between actions (within an
integral time period embracing a complex of actions described in the
utterance). For example, the utterance:
Kapitan s kakim-to strannym vyrazeniem smotrel na menja v
to vremja, kak ja govoril (L. Tolstoy) ("The Captain was
looking at me with a queer expression while I spoke")
represents a taxis situation of the "process-process simultaneous with it"
type (imperfective1 while imperfective2).

In speaking of taxis situations and their structure, we draw heavily

on research carried out by E. Koschmieder, who back in the 1930s
applied the concepts of 'situation' and 'situational type' to a relation
between two actions within a certain complex of actions (in cases like:
"something was happening, and meanwhile something else happened",
"something happened, then something else happened", etc.): "... A tem
poral relation between the given fact and another fact in a combination of
facts, which is called a situation, comprises elements of relativity (for
example, simultaneity or anteriority)" (Koschmieder 1987: 38). In his
theoretical study, Koschmieder treats situations as factors determining the
use of aspects. He obviously means facts of extralinguistic reality ("the
situation requires/does not require a certain aspect", etc.) (ibid.: 40-41). It
is important, however, to mention that this work presents a typification of
situations: it deals not only with concrete situations but also with "situ
ational types". Their analysis clearly reveals the aspectual and temporal
specialisation of this concept, specifically its orientation towards represent
ing the temporal correlation of facts.
In our previous works we used the term "tip aspektual' nogo (vido-
vogo) konteksta" "type of aspectual context". This concept has much in
common with Koschmieder's "situational types", only the former "implies
examining the linguistic reflection of extralinguistic situations, rather than
extralinguistic facts" (Bondarko, Bulanin 1967: 62); "... the temporal

correlations of facts and, in general, the way a complex of actions takes
place is only one aspect of the types under investigation. Another aspect
is the linguistic means of representing the relations in question (the
morphological, syntactical and lexical means, the entire gamut of the
elements of the context which affect the functioning of aspects". (Bon
darko 1971b: 179). Here in effect we see many of the reasons which
prompted the introduction of the concept of aspectual situation (see
Bondarko 1983: 116-193) and taxis situation.
Taxis situations always represent a unity (not merely a combina
tion, but actually a unity, a fusion) of taxis proper and of aspectual
elements. In effect they are always aspectual-taxis situations (the term
"taxis situation" can be used only conventionally, implying that the main
object of analysis is the temporal relations between the actions). The
inherent bond between taxis and aspectual elements is determined by the
fact that the temporal characteristic of the given complex of actions in

process, that is to say an aspectual characteristic of the given complex, is

included in the characteristics of temporal relations between the actions.
With reference to languages which (like Russian and other Slavic lan
guages) have the category of aspect, this can also be formulated as
follows: taxis situations always include syntagmatics of aspects, and vice-
versa: syntagmatics of aspects is always accompanied by taxis.
Let us consider an example which clearly reveals the dependence
of temporal relations between actions on the aspectual characteristic of
their combination:
Za zimu ja rasterjal svoi nemnogie znakomstva, obnosilsja

ocen', zabolel revmatizmom i nemnogo odical (M. Bulgakov)
("Over the winter I had lost track of the few people I knew,
worn out my clothes, developed rheumatism, and had grown
a little wild").
This utterance represents a situation of "a complex of combined result-

ative facts and states". The dominating aspectual-temporal meaning of the
perfect in the given series of actions (constituting a "perfect complex")
accounts for the fact that the order in which they follow is irrelevant. It
is just as correct to say:
Za zimu ja zabolel revmatizmom, obnosilsja ocen , rasterjal

svoi nemnogie znakomstva i nemnogo odical ("Over the

winter I had developed rheumatism, worn out my clothes,
lost track of the few people I knew, and had grown a little
wild").
A temporal relation is the reference of all resultative facts and combina

tions to a single period of time (over the winter) embracing them all. The
lexical indicator za zimu ("over the winter") is an important factor of
taxis relations (alongside the above-mentioned aspectual-temporal mean
ings).
A similar type of taxis situation (a complex of simultaneous result
ative facts related to a single period of time in which the order of verbal
forms can be altered without any significant change in the overall mean
ing of the utterance) is also possible in the future tense. For example:
Skvoz belye kosmy umersej travy vylezut na svet molodye
rostki, zakopositsja vse, zavorocaetsja, voda zacvetet ... (V.

Belov) ("Young shoots will emerge among the white tufts of

dead grass, everything will start heaving and crawling, the
water will become mouldy").
In such cases an important role belongs to the content of the utterance as
a whole and of its elements: this utterance describes a set of individual
manifestations of spring - such facts which do not correlate as a rigid
sequence.
Taxis relations of simultaneity/non-simultaneity (anteriority-pos
teriority) expressed by combinations of verbal forms, when special means
like posle togo kak ("after"), snacala, potom ("in the beginning, later"),
etc., are not available, are represented above all through the verbal aspect,
being as they are derivative from the aspectual characteristics of actions
and their combinations (see Bondarko 1971b: 176-234).
In adverbial participial constructions, the form of the adverbial
participle itself, as already mentioned, expresses only the meaning of the
accessory action. As for relations of simultaneity and anteriority, they are
determined by the adverbial participle's aspect. These relations in a given
position also result from aspectual meanings. If the action accompanying
the main action is represented by the imperfective aspect without any
limit, they express simultaneity. For example:
- Jazyk ni k certu! no zanjatno ... - krical poziloj, poedaja

studen' ... (M. Bulgakov) ("The tongue is atrocious! But
curious ...", the old man was shouting as he devoured the
meatjelly").
But if the accessory action is represented by the perfective aspect, as an
integral action limited in time, it can express anteriority. For example:
Projdja esce nemnogo vpered, Nastena uvidela bereg (V.
Rasputin) ("Going a little farther [projdja: having gone]
Nastena saw the shore").
Not infrequently, the accessory action expressed by a perfective adverbial
participle describes an accompanying (parallel to the main action) result
(an accessory resultative state), rather than a previous fact. For example:
Njan'ka s krasnymi slezjascimisja glazami, naklonivsis', pila
vodu iz-pod krana v kuxne (M. Bulgakov) ("Bending over

[naklonivsis' : having bent over] the sink, the nurse with red
tearing eyes was drinking water from the tap").
The general plans of simultaneity is determined by the aspectual meaning
of resultative state in combination with the meaning of process charac
terising the principal action.
Thus, in all the above cases, the chronological relations between
the actions are derivative from their aspectual characteristics. Only a
"strong" influence of adverbial lexical elements can change the temporal
correlations based on these aspectual characteristics. Cf. the relations of
simultaneity in the utterance:
My sideli, razgovarivali, pili caj ... ("We were sitting, talk
ing, and sipping our tea ...")
and the differentiation between the relations of simultaneity and posterior
ity in the utterance:
My sideli, razgovarivali, potom pili caj ("We sat and talked,
then had tea").
We can single out two structural types of taxis situations: simple
and complex. Simple taxis situations cannot be subdivided into more
simple taxis relations. Complex taxis situations include simple taxis
situations, that is to say, they constitute taxis situations whose members

(or at least one of them) in turn include simpler taxis relations. A com
plex taxis situation has a hierarchical structure: a taxis macrostructure
subordinates microstructures within it. For example:
- I vot tebe moj skaz, - krical poziloj, - ezeli ty menja sejcas
ne rascelues, vstanu, ujdu, pokinu druzeskuju kompaniju ...
(M. Bulgakov) ("Look, old chap", the old man shouted, "if
you don't kiss me now, I'm going to get up, leave, and
abandon your friendly company ...").
This utterance represents a situation of the anteriority-posteriority type
whose second element is in turn a taxis situation (of the sequence-of-facts
type): "If not Perfective1 -Perfective2, Perfective3, Perfective4...)".
In all cases, both simple and complex taxis structures reflect the
integrity of taxis situations, which is connected with the integrity of the
entire complex of temporally related actions, the unity of the time period

embracing these actions, the sense unity of complex predicative structures

and the integrity of the syntactical structure of the utterance. The various
structural types of complex taxis situations only emphasise this integrity
by the very fact that their structural organisation is so complex. This
confirms the feasibility of interpreting taxis relations as special categorial
structures representing the taxis field in the utterance.

Chapter III
Categorial situations
Introductory remarks
The theory of categorial situations is a continuation and development of

the theory of functional-semantic fields. When we refer to a functional-
semantic field, its components and their interrelations, we mean a
functional-semantic field in an abstract paradigmatic space of a language
system. To develop a field theory which would agree not only with
language ontology, but also with speech ontology, we need a concept
which would be oriented towards the realisation of the elements of a
given field in speech, i.e., in an utterance, and towards the regularities
and types of representation of functional-semantic fields studied in the

speech system. A categorial situation is precisely the concept that con
nects the field in the language system with that in speech, that is to say,
with the field in its relation to the situation conveyed by an utterance.
An important feature of language structure is a hierarchical system
of signs belonging to different levels (morphemes, words, sentences; in
speech these are utterances which can correspond to a sentence, a supra-
phrasal unit, or a complex of such units). Each level corresponds to a
certain type of language means which form a hierarchy of language
content (and, at the same time, speech content): meanings at the mor
pheme level, at the word level, and at the sentence level. If we take the
realisation of language units in speech, the highest level will be the
meaning (content) of an utterance. (What is meant is functional grammar
of our particular type, which does not, as a rule, extend beyond the limits
of an utterance; it is also possible to study the meaning of larger speech
units, but this is connected with the special purposes of research in
discourse linguistics.)

Although the language content of an utterance is formed on the

basis of the content of its elements at lower levels, it is not equal to a
simple sum total of the latter. Just like the meaning of a word is not
equal to the sum of the meanings of its constituent morphemes and their
blocks and the meaning of a word-combination is not equal to the sum of
meanings of its elements, similarly the meaning (content) of an utterance
is not equal to the sum of the meanings of its word-forms and construc
tions, The meaning of an utterance is determined, on the one hand, by
the interaction of the morphological, syntactical and lexical meanings of
its elements and, on the other hand, by the interaction of the language
content of an utterance with the contextual, situational and general
background information.
One possible approach to the problem of analysis of language
semantics at the utterance level is an analysis based on our concept of
categorial situation. In this approach, the object of analysis is a content
structure based on a certain functional-semantic field - a structure which
is not rigidly connected with one particular grammatical form, but is
related to various elements of the utterance and, indeed, with the
utterance as a whole. In this respect, the object of analysis is similar to
what is called the aspectual, temporal, modal characteristic of an
utterance, etc. Still we speak of categorial situations, since what is meant
is content structures that include certain semantic elements and the

relations between them. The object of analysis is content structures
correlated with certain structures in the expression plane which embrace
various formal means dispersed in the utterance.
For example, we interpret an imperative situation as a invariant
content structure, e.g.:
Otkrojte, pozalujsta, dver ! ("Open the door, would you?"),
whose basic elements are: (1) the subject of volition (S1), (2) performer
($2), (3) content of the volition conveyed by an imperative predicate and
its environment, which stimulates an action directed at transforming a
given situation (SIT1 into a new situation (SIT2). This transformation
implies: (a) a present-future perspective from the moment the volition is
expressed (t1) associated with SIT1 to a subsequent moment or period (t2
associated with SIT2, and (b) orientation towards changing an unreal
situation into a real one: that which in SIT1 is desirable is transformed

CATEGORIAL SITUATIONS 145
into that which in SIT2 will be actual. Thus the content of an imperative
situation is volition proceeding from S1 addressed to S2 and directed at
the following transformation: SIT1 UNREAL)t1 → SIT 2 REAL)t 2 .
The above description of an imperative situation applies to the
centre of a field. As far as peripheral types of imperative situations are
concerned, e.g.:
Ne otkladyvajte na zavtra to, cto možno sdelat' segodnja

("Don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today"),
Xranite den gi v sberkasse ("Keep your money in the bank"),
they are characterised by certain modifications of the above elements,

with part of the features possibly absent.
An important distinction of imperative situations of the central type
is their close connection with the speech situation. The elements of the
imperative situation are, on the one hand, determined by the speech
situation, while on the other, they are partly merged with it. The integral
unity of the imperative situation with the speech situation is determined
by the following factors: (a) S1 is the speaker, while S2 is above all the
addressee; (b) the correlation of social roles of the speaker and addressee
within the speech situation, while affecting the imperative situation, can
be included in its content in the form of attributes of the "S1-S2" correla
tion; (c) the reference point of the present-future perspective t1→t2 as an

element of the imperative situation coincides with the moment of speech
as an element of the speech situation; (d) both SIT1 (UNREAL) and SIT2
(REAL) are determined by the speech situation.
However, the close connection of the imperative situation and the
speech situation does not mean they are identical. Something in the actual
"state of affairs" might have nothing to do with the imperative act;
something constitutes a condition of the imperative situation and its
environment; finally, those elements of the speech situation that are
directly involved in the imperative situation function within its structure
in a special capacity - as elements of the content of the imperative
utterance, not as the external conditions of speech.
It should be pointed out that imperative situations, like all other
categorial situations, are semantic (semantico-pragmatic) situations. They
reflect certain features of extralingual situations, but are not identical with
them.

Thus, a categorial situation can be defined as a model content

structure based on a certain functional-semantic field - a structure con
stituting one of the aspects of the general semantic situation expressed by
the utterance. We similarly define each of the specific concepts united by
the generic concept of categorial situation. For instance, an existential
situation is a model content structure based on the functional-semantic
field of existentiality constituting an aspect of the general situation con
veyed by the utterance which expresses the existence of a certain sub
stance. For example:
No na svete est' tak nazyvaemoe vozvysennoe otnosenie k

zenscine (B. Pasternak) ("Yet there exists a so-called spiritual
attitude to a woman").
The term "categorial situation" is somewhat unusual. It goes against

our customary associations which refer situations to objective reality,
while referring categories to thinking and language. In our view, however,
the use of this term is justified because it reflects the origins of the
concept behind it from general semantic situations, on the one hand, and
from semantic categories underlying a functional-semantic field in a
particular language, on the other. It is also important that this term can
signify a generic concept in relation to the specific concepts of locative,
causal, conditional and other similar situations connected with certain

semantic categories.
Let us clarify what we mean by saying that a categorial situation
is based on a certain functional-semantic field. In the first place, the
elements of a certain content structure (a certain categorial situation)
represent in the utterance a particular variant of a semantic category
underlying the given field - the categories of aspectuality, temporality,
taxis, etc. In the second place, the means of expression of the content
structure represent in the utterance a certain part of the language means
covered by the given functional-semantic field. The field as a bilateral
content-form unity related to the system of a certain language is repre
sented in the language by certain elements of the content plane and
expression plane.
The content of a categorial situation is determined by a system of
semantic categories underlying the functional-semantic field of a given
language (see the system of functional-semantic fields of the Russian

language described in Chapter II). Naturally, within each functional-

semantic field and the corresponding type of categorial situation, there is
a certain multi-stage variativity (subcategorisation), but that is the usual
mode of existence of units and categories of language content, no matter
how they are interpreted, rather than a distinctive characteristic of the
particular aspects of utterance content which we see as categorial situ
ations.
An important property of the system of functional-semantic fields
is their overlapping, which covers both the fields within a certain group
ing (cf. the overlapping of the fields of aspectuality, temporality, and
taxis) and fields belonging to different groupings (cf. the interrelation
between aspectuality and quantitativity). Overlaps of functional-semantic
fields correspond to conjugate categorial situations - aspectual-temporal,
aspectual-taxis, aspectual-quantitative, existential-locative, existential-
possessive, etc.
Thus functional-semantic fields have two forms of existence, which
are connected (1) with the system of language means and (2) with the
patterns of their functioning in speech performances (utterances). The first
plane is related to "field structuring", i.e., the modelling of field struc
tures, whereas the second plane is related to the study of aspectuality,
temporality, etc., as categories being realised in the utterance. One poss
ible form of representing functional-semantic fields in an utterance is

analysis of concrete-speech variants of categorial situations.
The correlation of the two above-mentioned planes of a functional-
semantic field is reflected in the following procedure of description: (a) a
general outline of a functional-semantic field, which includes defining the
field's structure (centre and periphery, and the hierarchy of components),
the type of field; semantic features within the field, their hierarchy, and
the semantic dominant of the field; (b) description of the categorial
situation relating to the given field (the basic types of categorial situ
ations, their variants; conjugate situations reflecting the given field's
overlaps with other fields).
A concrete-speech variant of a categorial situation expressed in the
utterance reflects a certain denotative situation, but the situations under
investigation (both general and categorial) are semantic. Since we are
dealing with model categorial situations, what is meant is a generalised
semantic content abstracted from all concrete referents, but reflecting

certain classes of denotative situations. Since we are speaking of concrete-

speech variants of categorial situations, what we mean is such aspects of
the utterance's content which are correlated with some specific fragment
of reality perceived (reflected in one way or another) by the speaker.
Semantic situations (both general and categorial) include predica
tion, or are connected in one way or another with predication. Most
likely, this property of semantic situations is rooted in the denotative
situations being reflected. V.G. Gak writes on this score:
In objective reality, the human mind singles out above all certain stable el
ements, i.e., material objects, or substances. Taken in isolation, however, a
material object does not constitute a situation: one cannot say about it that it
exists. A situation is formed as a result of coordination of material objects and
their states (Gak 1973: 359).
In this connection B.A. Serebrennikov writes:
When one wishes to communicate something to someone else, one singles out
some particular part of a situation, since a single speech act cannot describe the
entire situation as a whole, and constructs an elementary language model of this
chosen natural micro-situation. First of all he must indicate its constituent
elements ... and express through language means the relations between these
elements (Obščee jazykoznanie 1970: 59),
and then adds: "An utterance reflects the objective relation between an
object and its properties" (ibid.: 60).
Several types of categorial situations can be distinguished, specifi
cally: (1) actualising, i.e., indicating the relation of the situation expressed
in the utterance to the situation of speech and to its participants - speaker
and listener, and (2) non-actualising, i.e., containing no such indication.
The first type includes modal (objective-modal and subjective-modal),
temporal, and personal situations. Such is, for example, the situation of
the actual present in the utterance:
Cto vy tarn delaete? ("What are you doing there?").

Here the denotative situation concurrent with the moment of speech is
united with the speech situation. Naturally, not all cases represent such a

coincidence of the denotative situation and the speech situation - however,

a certain relation of the situation being denoted to the speech situation
represented in one way or another in the content of the utterance, is
characteristic of all categorial situations of the given type.
The second type includes most other categorial situations: taxis,
voice, subject-object, qualitative, quantitative, comparative, possessive,
causal, conditional, etc.
Categorial situations of the actualising type (modal, temporal, and
personal) are obligatory for any utterance. At the same time, also obliga
tory (if not in the absolute, at least in the relative sense, i.e., for the
overwhelming majority of utterances) are certain other categorial situa
tions both related in some way to the actualising type (aspectual and
situations of definiteness/indefiniteness) and obviously non-actualising, for
example, those of voice. The question of obligatory categorial situations
is closely linked with a set of problems which have been under investiga
tion for a long time already, but under different terminology (specifically,
such terms as "grammatical categories of a sentence" and "actualising
features of an utterance"). This question requires a detailed analysis, but
at this point, for lack of space, we will limit ourselves to the above-
stated.
One can also single out categorial situations of the following type:
(1) syntagmatically strong, and (2) syntagmatically weak. Categorial

situations of the first type are characterised by well-pronounced syntag-
matic relations between the categorial situation's semantic elements
correlated with the discrete forms of expression. Such are, for example,
the already analysed taxis situations. The syntagmatically strong type
includes, apart from taxis categorial situations, the following: voice,
subject-object, comparative, possessive, situations of cause, purpose,
condition, concession, consequence, comparison, and locative. All other
categorial situations are syntagmatically weak. They are characterised by
weakly pronounced (i.e., indefinite, inconsistent, inconstant) syntagmatic
relations between the elements of the categorial situation, or even the
complete absence of such relations (when a categorial situation has a
definite structure only in the plane of paradigmatics). Such are, for
example, temporal situations like:
On vernetsja ("He will come back"),

which have no syntagmatic features of structure.

Thus, the situations under review:
(a) represent in an utterance a semantic category underlying a
certain functional-semantic field;
(b) operate in a certain concrete-speech variant in the utterance and
constitute one of the aspects of the general situation expressed by it;
(c) contain in their structure predication, or some sort of connec
tion with predication;
(d) are based in their expression on elements of different language
levels represented and interacting in the utterance.
In the system of concepts and terms of functional grammar of the
type under review, the concept of categorial situation is correlated with
the concept of functional-semantic field. These two basic concepts con
stitute the cornerstone of this type of functional grammar. The primary of
these two concepts is that of functional-semantic field. The concept of
categorial situation is derivative of it, constituting the relation of
functional-semantic fields not only to language, but also to speech, i.e., to
the utterance.
Dominant categorial situations

As already mentioned, the semantic situation which we call general (in

order to distinguish it from a categorial situation) contains a certain
complex of categorial situations (whose specific choice depends on the
content of the given utterance and the formal means of its expression).
Among the categorial situations contained within the general
situation expressed by the utterance, we can single out the dominant
categorial situation (or the dominant complex of interrelated categorial
situations), i.e., the most important and relevant element from the total
number of semantic elements forming the sense of the utterance. All the
other semantic elements constitute the background. These latter elements
can be a sine qua non of the actualisation of the dominant categorial
situation, but in the hierarchy of the actualised elements of the utterance's
content their role is of secondary importance.
The grounds for singling out the dominant categorial situation (or
complex of categorial situations) is an analysis of the content and formal

structures of the utterance. Thus, in the following utterance we see a

number of language means expressing and emphasising the dominant role
of the temporal situation (in this case expressing the correlation between
the remote and momentary past):
Kogda-to vse eti vesci prinadlezali Kirillu. Kogda-to on pisal

v etix tetradjax. Kogda-to ucebniki stojali na etazerke, sinij
certez byl akkuratno nakolot na stene, matrac zastelen belym
odejalom. Kogda-to ... Net, vot siju minutu Kirill sidel na
'etom stule, posredine komnaty, vot toVko cto on uronil etot
stul ... (K. Fedin) ("Once all these things had belonged to
Kirill. Once he had written in these notebooks. Once these
textbooks had stood on the bookstand, the blue-print had
been carefully pinned to the wall, and the bed had been
covered with a white blanket. Once ... No, it was just a
moment ago that Kirill was sitting in this chair, in the
middle of the room, and just a moment ago he upset that
chair ...").
All other aspects of the general situation (indicative modality, various

aspectual meanings, the personal and voice characteristics of the utterance,
etc.) are in themselves important semantic elements of the utterance, but
in relation to the dominant categorial situation they only constitute the

background.
In the following utterances, the existential situation dominates: (a)
in the variant of "existence/non-existence in principle of a certain cat
egory of substances":
[Sarafutdinov]. Katolikosy ne byvajut! [Koeli].

Neosvedomlennost' vasa ... Katolikosy toze byvajut (V. Pano-
va) ("Sharafutdinov: Catholicoses dont exist! Koeli: ...
You're not very well informed ... Catholicoses also exist.");
(b) in the variant of "counterposed existences":
Est' ljudi, kotorye bytujut v nasej zizni vserjez, i est'

bytujuščie narocno (L. Ginzburg) ("There are people who
live life in deadly earnest, while there are others who play it
like a chess game");

Tynjanov govoril, cto byvajut issledovanija, kotorye pri

pravil'nom nabljudenii faktov privodjat k nepraviV nym rezul'-
tatam, - i byvajut takie, kotorye pri nepraviV nom nabljudenii
faktov privodjat k pravil'nym rezul'tatam (ibid.) ("Tynianov
once said that there are studies which, despite correct inter
pretation of facts, lead to incorrect results, while other
studies, despite incorrect interpretation of facts, lead to
correct results").
In these utterances, the grounds for singling out the dominant categorial
situation are the concrete language means emphasising the central role of
a particular element in the content being conveyed:
Byvajut ... - ne byvajut ("There exist ... - There don't exist
..."),
Est' ... - i est' ... ("There is ... - and there is ..."),
Byvajut ... - i byvajut ... ("Sometimes there are ... - and
sometimes there are ...").
Cf. also variant (c): "the presence/absence of a given substance within the
subject's field of vision (at a given moment and within a certain space)":
V dome bylo tixo. - Est' kto? - kriknul ja (D. Granin) ("It

was quiet in the house. 'Anybody home?' I shouted.");
Aleksej zagljanul s podozreniem v jagodnye glaza Semena
Iljica, net li tarn nasmeski i podvoxa ... Vrode net (A.
Rekemcuk) ("Alexei looked suspiciously into Semion's beady
eyes to see if there was any mockery or trap in them ...
There didn't seem to be any.").
The above utterances express a range of categorial semantic el
ements - modal, temporal, personal, locative, definiteness/indefiniteness,
but each time only one element represents the nucleus - existentiality -
constituting the dominant existential situation. It operates as a content
microsystem including certain semantic elements and the interrelations
between them - in this particular case, the element of existence in its
predicative relation to the existing substance (to use a term suggested by
N.D. Arutjunova). Several other semantic features in the utterance's

content interact with this content system, determining the concrete fea
tures of existence and its relation to the existing substance. Such are the
features related to the sphere of temporality, temporal, localisation/non-
localisation (aspectual-temporal feature), locativity, definiteness/indefinite-
ness, affirmation/negation, question, intransitivity and aterminativity of the
predicate of existence. These semantic features can be interpreted as the
environment (the most immediate environment, i.e., the micro-environ
ment) in relation to the dominant existential situation as the initial content
system. All the other categorial elements in the content of this type of
utterances not taking a direct part in expressing existentiality but pro
viding the conditions for the actualisation of this meaning, constitute the
macro-environment. Such are, for example, the semantic features of
indicative modality, of the third person, and the non-passive voice.
In the following utterance, the qualitative situation dominates:
Krošecnyj eto byl celovecek, vertljavyj, kurnosyj, kudrjavyj, s

vecno smejuščimsja mladenceskim licom i myšinymi glazkami.
Bolšoj on byl balagur i potešnik; vsjakyju štuku urnel smas-
terit', fejerverki puskal, zrnej, vo vse igry igral, stoja na
lošadi skakal, vyše vsex vzletal na kaceljax, daze kitajskie teni
umel predstavljat'. Nikto lušče ego ne zabavljal detej, i sam
on s nimi xot' celyj den rad byl vozitsja (I. Turgenev) ("He
was a tiny man, a real livewire, snub-nosed, curly-haired,

with a perpetually laughing babyish face and mousy eyes.
He was quite an entertainer and joker; he could make all
kinds of things with his hands, set off fireworks, launch
kites, play all sorts of games, stand on the back of a gallop
ing horse, fly up in the swing higher than anyone else, even
put on shadow plays. No one could entertain children better
than he, and he himself was ready to spend the whole day
playing around with them.").
The other ("background") categorial-semantic elements of the general

situation conveyed by this utterance are subordinated to the dominant
qualitative situation, constituting its specific characteristics. These features
include: the temporal characteristic of the predicated quality, the modal
feature of its reality, the feature of the quality's existence, the personal

feature of its reference to the third person, the potential-habitual charac

teristic of actions-qualities:
vsjakuju štuku umel smasterit' ("he could make all kinds of

things with his hands").
In the following utterance:
Pridi on na pjat' minut poize, ja nicego ne uspel by sdelat'

("If he had come just five minutes later, I wouldn't have
managed to do anything"),
the dominant complex includes the following categorial situations: (a)

modal (in the variant of a conjectural situation), (b) a conditional situ
ation conjugate with the modal one (as part of the complex situation of
hypothetical condition), (c) a taxis situation (in the variant of contrasting
the time of the hypothetical action - na pjat' minut poize ("just five
minutes later") - and the implied real action, which precedes the hypo
thetical actions, one of which follows the other: pridi ...ne uspel by ("if
he had come ... I wouldn't have managed"), and (d) temporal (the inter
mediate categorial situation between the dominant one and its surrounding
in the variant of the general reference of the hypothetical actions to the
past in relation to the moment of speech; the implied real actions refer to
the same temporal plane: in reality he came earlier and I did manage to
do something). These interconnected categorial situations appear against
the background of other categorial features within the utterance, including:
(a) the personal feature of comparison of the hypothetical actions of the
person described and the speaker; (b) the feature of the active voice; (c)
the aspectual feature of concrete integral facts; and (d) the feature of
definiteness.
Evidently, it is feasible to represent as categorial situations only
those aspects of the general situation that refer to its dominant. Those
aspects that constitute the background (environment) can be interpreted as
categorial-semantic elements, etc. (see the analysis of the above
examples). Their situational interpretation is not ruled out altogether, but
there is no special need for it in this type of analysis.
In cases where within the general situation we can clearly discern
the dominant categorial situation, its underlying categorial semantic
feature can correspond to the name of that particular type of utterance.

Such are, for instance, existential, statal, possessive, qualitative, compara

tive, conditional, causal, and locative utterances. Some of these names are
traditional (cf., for example, existential sentences), while others break with
tradition (for instance, traditional grammar has no term to denote "sen
tences of state"), but in principle these are similar phenomena. It is
important to emphasise that a certain categorial-semantic feature in all the
cases cited constitutes the dominant of the content structure of the ut
terance (a sentence or a supraphrasal unit) and characterises its content
specifics.
From the point of view of distinguishability of the dominant
categorial situation within the general situation, two types of utterances
can be singled out: (1) utterances with a focused general situation, i.e.,
with a strongly centered situation subordinated to the dominant categorial
situation; and (2) utterances conveying a non-focused general situation,
without any obvious orientation towards some particular categorial situ
ation. The first type includes, for example, utterances with such dominant
categorial situations as imperative {Podozdite! ["wait"]), optative
{Otdoxnut' by! ["I wish I could have a rest"]), or the situation of in
evitability {Emu ne ujti ot rasplaty ["He can't escape retribution"]). What
we see here is marked variants of indirect modality characterised by a
tendency towards the dominant position within the general situation of the
focused type. (As far as the neutral modality of the indicative is con
cerned, it is referred to the background). Cf. also the expression of such
relations as possessive (U vas est' spicki? ["Have you got matches?"]),
conditional (Esli vy nam ne pomozete, my pogibli ["If you don't help us,
we're done for"]), causal {Ja zdes' potomu, cto vse tak resili ["I'm here
because everybody decided I should be"]), etc. In all such cases, the
utterance's content structure is unequivocally oriented towards expressing
the dominant categorial situation. The focused type is also represented in
cases where a dominant complex of categorial situations can be singled
out, but within that complex there is a pronounced "peak" dominant
situation, for example:
... Ljubvi bez rubcov i zertv ne byvaet (B. Pasternak) ("...
There can be no love without scars or sacrifices").
What we have here is a general situation of the focused type with
a dominant existential categorial situation, although the dominant complex

can include several other categorial situations. All of them characterise in

one way or another the existential categorial situation (such are the
categorial situations of qualitativity, conditionality, a situation non-
localised in time, and negation). A non-focused nature is characteristic of
utterances of a multiaspectual orientation which do not have narrowly
specialised strongly marked constructions that would subordinate the
whole semantic structure of the utterance. For example, the utterance:
Oni vdvoem nocju, p'janye, slomali zamok i vzjali ottuda
pervoe, cto popalos'. Ix pojmali, Oni vo vsem soznalis'. Ix
posadili v tjur'mu, gde slesar', dozidajas' suda, umer (L.
Tolstoy) ("In the night, the two drunk men forced the lock
and took the first thing that came to hand. They were
caught, then confessed to everything, and landed in jail,
where the mechanic died while awaiting trial")
presents a number of categorial semantic features which could be seen as
categorial situations (such are, for example, the aspectual situation of the
complex of concrete facts, the taxis situation of consecutiveness, the
temporal situation of reference of the facts to the past, the modal situ
ation of reality, etc.). However, not one of these categorial situations can
be unequivocally defined as the dominant, not one of them can be recog
nised as the sole focus of the general situation.

Speaking of the types of connections between categorial situations
coexisting within a general situation, one should first of all single out the
most essential and constant categorial relations determined by the inter
action of those functional-semantic fields that form the basis of conjugate
categorial situations (aspectual-temporal, aspectual-taxis, modal-temporal,
etc.). For example, in the utterance:
Ot togo, cto my vstali ocerí rano i potom nicego ne delali,
etot den' kazalsja ocen' dlinnym, samym dlinnym v moej zizni
(A. Chekhov) ("Because we had got up very early and then
had nothing to do, that day seemed to me very long, indeed
the longest day of my life"),
the causal situation is conjugate with the taxis situation (the cause pre
cedes the consequence), which fact reflects the close ties between the
fields of causality and taxis.

Here we must emphasise the importance of research into conjugate

categorial situations. This concept, comparable to the concept of conjugate
grammatical categories (Jarceva 1975: 15-16), which was discussed in
Chapter I of the present volume, aims at examining the interaction of
functional-semantic fields actualised in speech. In other words, the con
cept of conjugate categorial situations should serve the special study of
the interaction of semantic categories at the level of utterance.
The presence within a general situation conveyed by an utterance
of a complex of aspects, of which some are interconnected (more or less
closely), while others are to various extents isolated, is an objective fact,
that is to say, it is a phenomenon related to the area of speech and
language ontology. Not only the elements of semantic content expressed
in the given utterance, but also the formal language means of its express
ion constitute an objective basis for singling out within the general
situation a number of separate aspects connected with a certain semantic
category and with the elements of the functional-semantic field based on
it.
At the same time, in the singling out of separate aspects from this
integral complex forming part of the general situation, there are also
highly pronounced elements of the researcher's purposeful activity, that is
to say, elements of an epistemological nature. Specifically, they are
manifested in the fact that, in singling out within the general situation
several objectively existing aspects, the researcher can make a certain
choice and concentrate his analysis on one particular aspect (as dictated
by the purpose of research, its theoretical foundation, etc.), abstracting
himself from all the other aspects of that situation. The "unfolding" of the
chosen aspect within the general situation in turn, as a categorial situation
also has an epistemological orientation. There are certain objective
grounds for this theoretical stage of analysis (as already shown and will
be exemplified further on), but as such this stage reflects, of course, a
certain hypothesis and a specific theory as an element of the more gen
eral theory (in this particular case, the theory of functional-semantic fields
and categorial situations within the general theory of functional grammar).

On the universal and concrete-language aspects of the concept of

categorial situation
Two aspects can be singled out in the concept of categorial situation: the
universal and the concrete-language. In the first aspect, a categorial
situation is a concept related to the sphere of universal invariants. The
semantics of categorial situations is studied in abstraction from the dis
tinctive features of language-semantic interpretation associated with the
specific characteristics of concrete languages. In principle, it is possible to
construct hypothetical systems of aspectual, temporal, taxis, etc., model
situations that could potentially be applied to an unlimited number of
languages of various structural types. It should be noted that such theor
etical constructions, conceived as universal, are in practical terms the
result of the generalisation of facts presented by a certain limited range
of languages chosen by the researcher; therefore, when such constructs
are applied to other languages, they must necessarily be modified and
specified. However, the above does not reduce the importance of a
typology of categorial situations that claims to be universal. What we
have here is a working hypothesis that we can use in our typological and
comparative research.
Indeed, model situations contain a universal semantic invariant. Cf.,
for example, situations of the "duration (background)-occurrence" type,

specifically, "something happened when something else was going on" (as
already described by Koschmieder in reference to the Polish language):
Russian:
Ivan cital, kogda ja vosel;
English:
John was reading when I entered;
French:
Jean lisait quand j' entrai;
Spanish:
Juan leía cuando entré;

Italian:
Gianni leggeva quando entrai,

and so on (these examples were suggested by B. Comrie to illustrate the
concept of aspect (Comrie 1976: 3).
At the same time, in the reflection of one and the same denotative
situation in different languages (and even in one language) there can be
substantial differences in selection, singling out and interpretation of
features of the objective relations being reflected (Gak 1973: 366-372).
Differences in the language content of categorial situations (al
though there is a semantic invariant) can also be found in cognate lan
guages. Cf., for example, the possibility of conveying situations with
implicit ingressiveness (not obviously expressed, not emphasised, only
implied, presented as a subtle shade) or resultativity in utterances with an
imperfective verb in the Czech language:
Vstal, sel do tmavé předsíñky a jedním trhnutím otevrel dveře

na chodbu (J. Otcenásek);
Štěpan doma? Není, sel do mesta (K. Capek)
with the pronounced ingressivity or resultativity in corresponding Russian

utterances:
Vstal, posel (napravilsja) v temnuju prixozuju i odnim ryvkom

otkryl dver' v koridor; - Stepan doma? - Net, posel (usel) v
gorod ("He got up, went to the dark entrance hall, and
jerked the door open into the corridor; Ts Shtepan home?' -
'No, he's gone to town'.") (Bondarko 1969: 46-49; Ivancev
1961).
The concept of categorial situation can be employed in typological

and comparative studies. The grounds for comparison can be universal
aspects of categorial situations (with reference to the denotative situations
reflected by them). In the course of analysis, it is important to define not
only the differences between the language means of formal expression,
but also in the language semantic interpretations of the content structures
under review. In studying the systems of categorial situations within a
particular field, an important element of analysis is the comparison of
systems of semantic variativity.

Within the functional grammar of one particular language, we

examine categorial situations in the concrete-language aspect. In utterances
used as the basis of analysis, the categorial situations singled out within
general situations are embodied in a certain concrete-language form which
concerns not only the formal expression means, but certain aspects of
content as well. A categorial situation contains a certain semantic content
which had passed through the prism of the given language.
The suggested differentiation between the concrete-language and
universal aspects of the concept of categorial situation is associated with
our differentiation of such concepts as functional-semantic and conceptual
field, language-semantic function and conceptual category, the content
plane of the text and speech sense (Bondarko 1978). When we speak of
categorial situations, we mean model content structures and their variants
that include not only the sense (conceptual) basis of the content but also
its concrete-language semantic interpretation. As already mentioned, these
aspects are intimately connected. A given concrete-speech variant of a
certain categorial situation contains the concrete-language embodiment of
a particular model situation included in the system of categorial situations
of a given language, but at the same time this concrete-speech variant,
the corresponding model situation and their system embody certain gen
eral patterns of the system-structural organisation of the semantic content
of the utterance.
The study and description of categorial situations is based on the
synthesis of the two opposite directions of analysis: proceeding from
semantics to the formal means of its expression and proceeding from
formal language means to semantics. The initial procedure for singling
out and defining the object of analysis - model situations with a certain
categorial content (temporal, causal, locative, etc.) - is the first of the two
approaches (it should be borne in mind, however, that the singling out of
semantic categories underlying the functional-semantic fields under study
cannot be considered independent of language categories and forms). The
same approach is basically used in exploring the subcategorisation of
model situations and the system of their content variation. Yet the analy
sis proceeding from the formal means of expression is just as necessary
and important. When a certain categorial aspect is singled out within the
general semantic situation conveyed by the utterance, this procedure relies
on certain formal means of expression. Each variant of a certain cat-

egorial situation is characterised not only semantically, but formally as

well: a necessary element of analysis is the correlation of a categorial
situation as a certain content structure with the structure of the expression
plane. For example, the aspectual-taxis situation of the "continuous action
- occurrence of a fact" type is realised in the Russian language in such
variants as (a) continuous action - sudden occurrence of a fact, (b) con
tinuous action - occurrence of a fact superseding it (without the element
of suddenness), (c) desire and readiness to perform an action - inter
vention of a fact preventing its performance (this variant includes not
only aspectual and taxis elements, but modal elements as well), (d)
continuous action - occurrence of a fact at one of its moments, (e)
continuous action - occurrence of a fact at its completion, and (f) con
tinuous action - occurrence of a fact setting a limit to it. Each of these
variants is correlated with a certain complex of formal structures. For
example, variant (a) is expressed by a structure with an imperfective verb
- i vdrug ("and suddenly"), plus a perfective verb, or an imperfective verb
- kak vdrug ("when suddenly"), plus a perfective verb, etc.; variant (c) is
expressed by structures with xotel bylo ... - no/kak vdrug ("was just going
to ... - but/when suddenly"), plus a perfective verb; or uze gotovilsja ... -
no ("was preparing to ... - but"), plus a perfective verb; or uze sobiralsja
... - kak vdrug ("was already going to ... - when suddenly"), plus a
perfective verb, etc.; variant (f) is expressed by structures with imperfec

tive verbs - poka neldo lex por poka ne ("until") plus a perfective verb,
etc. (Bondarko 1971b: 190-192). Obviously reliance on a broad variety of
language means of the utterance (grammatical, lexical, and combined) is
of paramount importance in objectivising the analysis of categorial situ
ations.
Attitude to existing theories
The explication of the concept of categorial situations constitutes the

result of broad generalisation of facts and conclusions of functional-
grammatical research, which, naturally, presupposes a certain foundation
in linguistic tradition and present-day theories. We have already men
tioned the concept of "situational types" suggested by E. Koschmieder,
which is of great importance for the study of categorial situations in the

area of aspectology. A number of linguistic works place emphasis on

semantic significative situations. It can be even said that there is a special
semantic trend in the study of situations in grammar. Specifically, this
trend is well-pronounced in the theory of diathesis and voice (Xolodovic
1970: 4-15, 1979: 112-172; Xrakovskij 1970: 27-30, 1974: 6-9; Sil'nickij
1973: 373-391; Uspenskij 1977: 67-70). It goes without saying that the
semantic interpretation of situations goes far beyond the limits of the
theory of diathesis and voice (cf. the list of participants of situations at
the semantic level in [Apresjan 1969: 304] and the concept of "semantic
situation" in [Alisova 1971: 32]).
In our opinion, the existing level of differentiation of various
aspects of the concept of "situation" requires further differentiation. The
very idea of the situation requires further development in the direction of
consistent orientation towards language semantics proper and towards
semantic categories in their language embodiment. This orientation distin
guishes our theory, which singles out categorial aspects in the general
semantic situation conveyed by the utterance and connects them with
functional-semantic fields of a given language. (This particular develop
ment of the theory of semantic situations constitutes our point of view,
which most probably would not be shared by all linguists who include
the situations under consideration in the sphere of semantics.)
There is yet another aspect in the interpretation of situations that

should be specially emphasised. Our understanding of situations has no
special verbo-centric syntactical orientation in the spirit of L. Tesnière.
That is to say, our interpretation is not connected with the theory of
actants and participants. Our understanding of situations is oriented
towards the relation of all categorial elements of the utterance's content
to any formal language means, including the means of "covert" grammar.
In a number of works of linguistics, the term "situation" receives a
certain additional qualification reflecting the connection of the situations
under review with a certain semantic area. For example, they speak of
"causative situations" (Sil'nickij 1973: 381-390), and "situations of rela
tion" (Gajsina 1981: 20). Such use of the term "situation" reflects the fact
that certain specific varieties of situations examined in the aspect of a
certain semantic category have become a routine element in linguistic
research. The ontological phenomena of utterance semantics underlying
these uses, which are still isolated and lack special theoretical orientation,

still require theoretical generalisation and interpretation. Such usage

reflects the objective need for categorial differentiation and specialisation
of the concept of situation in grammar.
In exploring the problems related to the concept of categorial
situation, of great importance are linguistic works which employ the
concept of situation in grammar in the general sense, i.e., without a
special orientation towards the study of a particular category (see, for
example, Gak 1973; Obscee jazykoznanie 1970: 56-59; Jakusin, Jaroslav-
ceva 1980). Just as notable are works which do not use the term "situ
ation" at all, but whose entire complex of ideas prompts research in this
direction. Let us refer, specifically, to the interpretation of "various lines
or layers of the utterance that are simultaneously conveyed from speaker
to listener", "the general load" of grammatical meanings, and "the accord
of the speech chain" in the works of V.G. Admoni 1964: 40-47). This
range of problems is also directly associated with works on grammatical
categories of the sentence (utterance). Thus, the concept of categorial situ
ation does not run counter to previous experience of analysis of gram
matical units and categories in their functioning. On the contrary, our
theory to a certain extent integrates all the elements of this experience,
building on the tradition of functional-grammatical research.
Concluding remarks on categorial situations
Analysis proceeding from the concept of categorial situations supplements

analysis based on such traditional concepts as the meaning or function of
grammatical form. The importance of these concepts is beyond any doubt,
and there are no grounds whatsoever to reject them in studies or descrip
tions oriented towards the examination of grammatical forms and cat
egories. Yet in our opinion, "form-centric" analysis should be supple
mented with the study of semantic structures expressed by various
utterance means. The concept of categorial situation is expressly intended
to perform this function.
The use of the term "particular meaning of a grammatical form"
entails certain difficulties and restrictions. This terminology in effect
ascribes to grammatical form such phenomena that are expressed not

exclusively by it. For instance, the differences between the particular

meanings of the imperfective verb are determined by the context; cf.:
Sejcas on sidit v sosednej komnate i piset pis'mo ("At the
moment he is sitting in the next room and writing a letter")
- concrete-process meaning; and
On casto mne piset ("He often writes to me")
- unlimited-iterative meaning; and
Ty pisal jemu? ("Have you written to him?")
- generalised-factual meaning; yet this terminology may prompt the
conclusion that these meanings are actually expressed by the form of the
imperfective verb. In this connection, one is obliged to introduce addi
tional explanations, stipulating that a certain meaning is ascribed to
grammatical form only conventionally, that in actual fact it is expressed
not only by form, but by context as well, and that the form with its
grammatical meaning constitutes the nucleus around which all the specific
meanings unite (Bondarko 1971a: 105; 1971b: 9). Still all these explana
tions cannot completely eliminate the rigid connection between meaning
and form (the meaning of form; the meaning expressed by the form)
which is often associated with the term "the particular meaning of the
grammatical form".
In some cases, the particular meanings under study can be ex
pressed without the grammatical forms with which they are associated.
For example, the unlimited-iterative meaning, i.e., a meaning that is not
restricted by a limit of repetition, can be referred to the predicate having
a non-verbal meaning, rather than to the action expressed by the verb,
e.g.:
Po veceram v Jalte uze xolodno ("In the evening, it is
already quite cold in Yalta") (A. Chekhov);
On vsegda spokoen ("He is always calm").
Such cases clearly demonstrate the close connection of these meanings
not only with certain grammatical forms, but with the utterance as a
whole.

There is another difficulty: particular meanings are correlated with

the general meanings of grammatical forms. Thus the use of this ter
minology is associated in one way or another with the concept of general
meanings in grammar. Yet other interpretations of grammatical meanings
are just as possible. At present we use the concept of categorial meaning,
which implies a broad variety of structural types of grammatical meaning.
General meanings covering all types of use of grammatical form are seen
from this standpoint as merely one type of categorial meanings (that is to
say, as a specific instance rather than an all-embracing principle); other
types are also taken into account - the basic, central meaning (not cover
ing the peripheral semantic zones associated with the use of that par
ticular form), and complexes of meanings constituting polycentric struc
tures (Bondarko 1978: 128-170). With such an interpretation of categorial
meanings in grammar, the term "particular meaning of grammatical form",
which has lost its correlation with general meanings, also loses its sys
temic dependence associated with the concept of general and particular
meanings.
Bearing all this in mind, we preferred to reject the term "particular
aspectual meanings" in describing the use of aspects in Russkaja gram-
matika 1980, in favour of a correlation of the terms "categorial meaning"
and "the types of use" of grammatical form (see Russkaja grammatika
1980, Vol. I: 604-613). We use the same terminology in describing the

use of tense forms.
Admittedly, the term "types of use" has its drawbacks, too. The
types of use of aspect and tense forms examined in Russkaja grammatika
are as a rule (all the types of use of aspect and most types of use of
tense forms) characterised by certain semantic features, but the term itself
does not indicate the meaning. Obviously, more adequate terminology will
have to be found.
The shortcomings of the term "particular meanings of grammatical
forms" should not, however, be a pretext for rejecting the very approach
to examining the meanings expressed in an utterance proceeding from
grammatical form. The "formo-centric" approach is also absolutely legit
imate in those types of research and description which exceed the limits
of grammatical paradigmatics and take into account the complex interplay
of the content of forms and the content of context. The categorial founda
tions of grammar do not lose their importance when one considers the

rules of functioning of grammatical units within the contextual environ

ment, i.e., within the utterance.
The recognition of the greater complexity of both relations between
the meanings of the members of a grammatical category and relations
between the meanings of categorial forms and the context, and also the
vocabulary - their greater complexity in comparison with the already
traditional theory of general and particular meanings - should not, in our
opinion, lead to a rejection of categorial meanings of grammatical forms
and of grammatical categories themselves, but should rather prompt a
more differentiated approach to different types of content structure of
grammatical categories and to various types of interaction of grammatical
categories, vocabulary, and the context.
In examining different functional-semantic fields and different types
of utterances within one field, the significance of categorial situations will
be different. The "payload" of this concept is directly proportional to the
complexity of the structure of the content and expression under investiga
tion, the degree of expression not only of paradigmatic, but also of
syntagmatic elements of this structure, to the number of diverse means
involved in this structure, to the degree to which the utterance as a whole
takes part in conveying the semantic content. For example, in cases like
Ja nal'ju vam caju ("I'll pour you some tea"),

the concept of temporal situation can hardly yield any new results apart
from those achieved in relying on the concept of meaning or function of
the tense form. The situation is different, however, in cases involving a
multiplane temporal structure, as in the following example:
Ja poproboval predstavit', cto ostanetsja u detej i vnukov ot

moego mira. Mnogoe isceznet navsegda. Vot oni vstretjatsja s
vnukami Kalistratova i ponjatija ne budut imet', cto dedy i
druzili, vmeste oxotilis', rybacili. Oni budut stojat' na etom
beregu i znat' ne budut, cto kogda-to my sideli zdes' s
Andrianom i govorili o nix (D. Granin) ("I tried to imagine
what our children and grandchildren would have left of my
world. Much of it would vanish for good. Just think of it:
they would meet Kalistratov's grandchildren and not have
the slightest notion that their grandfathers had been friends
and had gone out hunting and fishing together. They would

stand on this bank and have no idea that once Adrian and I
had sat here and talked about them").
This temporal situation is based on the correlation of the following
temporal planes: T1, the moment of the author's speech; T2, the plane of
the past (description of the trip to Staraya Russa), which is the point of
reference in relation to the imagined future and recollected past; T3, the
future from the point of view of T2; and T4, the past from the standpoint
of T2 and T1. In such cases, the concept of temporal situation becomes
adequate to the object's nature, since the object of description is indeed
the temporal structure of the utterance as a whole.
Most probably, not all functional-semantic fields allow of a com
prehensive stage-by-stage interpretation as a system of categorial situ
ations. For example, we can most likely speak of quantitative situations
only in cases where the expression of quantitativity is in one way or
another connected with predication and is indeed a quantitative charac
teristic of the entire utterance, not just of its separate elements.
In this connection, two factors should be borne in mind which do
not always agree with each other. On the one hand, of great importance
is the systemic factor, which requires that one common approach be
applied in the study of functional-semantic fields in their expression in
the utterance, specifically a uniform mode of situational representation of
all functional-semantic fields and their language phenomena within a

given field (for example, application of the concept of temporal situation
to all types of utterances). On the other hand, there is the above-
mentioned factor of "unequal payload", i.e., unequal heuristic power of
the concept of categorial situation. A uniform systemic approach is the
fundamental factor. Consequently, further research should aim at develop
ing such a method of analysis which, while offering several possible
variants for different types of language material, would ensure the uni
formity and integrity of the entire system of analysis.
A special method of analysis of categorial situations has yet to be
developed. At present, we can only speak of the first steps in analysis
according to constituent semantic features (Bondarko 1983).
Two general lines of research are possible in the study of cate
gorial situations. The first is above all associated with examining those
general semantic situations within which one can single out concrete-
speech variants of coexisting and interacting categorial situations. If one

takes these general situations as the basis, their examination leads from
micro-situations to macro-situations, and from the latter to the text as a
whole. The study of the unfoldment of separate situations and their
interconnections and analysis of the entire lines of development of general
and specialised situations - modal, temporal, personal, locative, etc.,
lines - belongs to the grammar of discourse. It is possible to apply such
concepts as "the categorial dominant of the text" (for example, the im
perative, generalised-habitual, or concrete-narrative dominant).
The other line of research into categorial situations is based on a
system of functional-semantic fields and the fundamental semantic cat
egories underlying them. Groupings of fields and their overlaps constitute
the reference point for an analysis of corresponding categorial situations
and their interrelations in the system-categorial aspect. Categorial situ
ations are examined according to a procedure determined by the system
of functional-semantic fields: first the system of categorial situations
within one field is described, then within another field, and so on.
Accordingly, the interrelations of categorial situations are explored. It
goes without saying that the material for analysis is concrete utterances,
yet from the very start they are systematised according to type, that is to
say, examined from the point of view of the representation of certain
model situations. It is this system-categorial line of research that we
choose in constructing a functional grammar. This line determines all the

fundamental features of the analysis of functional-semantic fields, in
cluding the analysis of the actualisation of their elements in the utterance.
Realisation in the grammar of discourse is also possible, but it is second
ary. The analysis is oriented towards the study of types, varieties and
variants of categorial situations from the point of view of describing the
system of those functional-semantic fields on which they are based. As
already mentioned, the composition of model categorial situations is
determined by the system of fundamental categories underlying the
functional-semantic fields of a given language. This line of functional-
grammatical research constitutes a grammar of language and at the same
time a grammar of speech: the ontological status of the language system
also includes the basic patterns of the functioning of its units, classes and
categories as represented in speech.

In conclusion, let us review the general principles underlying the concept

of categorial situation, and the aims and possible prospects of its use
determining the need for it.
The concept of categorial situation lays the theoretical ground for
analysis of semantics on the utterance level - semantics of a higher level
than morpheme semantics and grammatical word-form semantics. The
integration and interplay of the semantics of morphemes, word-forms and
constructions on the utterance level requires the introduction of a cor
responding concept which would be specially geared to the semantics of
that particular level.
The concept of categorial situation prepares the categorial grounds
for analysing the semantics of the utterance. This concept connects the
"play" of semantic elements manifesting infinite variation in speech with
systemic constants, i.e., semantic categories underlying the functional-
semantic fields of a given language. Therefore, the concept of categorial
situation serves to examine the system of speech in its organic connection
with the system of language. Thanks to this concept, the concrete-speech
aspect of utterance semantics is related to the system-language, i.e.,
system-categorial, aspect.
The concept of categorial situation makes it possible to interpret
meanings at the utterance level as configurations of semantic elements.
Thus these meanings unfold into semantic structures in which it is poss

ible to distinguish explicitly the separate semantic elements and their
relations. Moreover, the content structure is examined in its correlation
with the formal structure, and the elements of the semantic structures
under study are connected with the elements of the utterance's formal
means. Thereby the analysis acquires additional possibilities of object-
ivisation, with all the language means involved in expressing the given
semantics being taken into consideration.
The concept of categorial situation makes it possible to differentiate
the aspects of the situation conveyed by the utterance. It becomes poss
ible to single out one aspect (on the basis of analysing the utterance's
language means with their meanings) in its interrelations with other
aspects connected with it and in isolation from those aspects of the
situation with which the given aspect is not connected. Thus the gram
matical analysis of situations becomes categorially differentiated and
specialised.

The concept of categorial situation makes it possible to construct a

functional grammar of a given language on a uniform categorial founda
tion: a description of the system of functional-semantic fields of a given
language includes: (a) modelling the structure of each field and (b) de
scribing categorial situations - their types and variants - based on each
field. Thereby functional grammar is included in the general line of
investigation of language reflection and content representation of extra-
linguistic reality and its interpretation by the speaker: the system of
functional-semantic fields and of the semantic categories underlying them
is seen not only as a categorial-language potential, but also as its realis
ation in speech for conveying the sense of the utterance. Constituting a
means (in the "means-function correlation"), the components of a
functional-semantic field are examined in unity with the purpose they
serve - expression of a certain semantic situation reflecting a denotative
situation, i.e., expression of sense in speech.
The two components comprising the structure of functional
grammar of the type suggested here (analysis of the structure of a
functional-semantic field in a given language and analysis of a categorial
situation based on that field) constitute an integral system. The modelling
of the field's structure reflects the potential of language means that relate
to a certain semantic zone and are at the disposal of the speaker. That is
the system-language categorial aspect of grammatical description. It

provides a general perspective of the system of functional-semantic fields
and determines the fundamental principle of construction of a functional
grammar of our type, i.e., a principle of systematisation of language
material and its description. But the analysis of the field's structure, i.e.,
its components in a given language and their relations, while mapping out
the "overall strategy" of functional-grammatical description, does not
reveal the fundamental patterns and rules of functioning of these language
means in speech. This purpose is also served by the second component of
functional grammar - description of categorial situations within each field
(and also conjugate categorial situations reflecting the overlaps of fields).
The description of the variativity of model categorial situations provides
the person for whom the practical application of our type of functional
grammar is intended (this person may be both a native speaker of the
given language and a foreigner striving to acquire an active knowledge of
it) with a system of meanings and their variants, conveyed in speech, i.e.,

in utterance, in correlation with the system of formal expression means.

This system of semantic elements is codified on the basis of a certain
semantic category underlying the given functional-semantic field (of
aspectuality, temporality, locativity, etc.) and - this should be empha
sised - goes through a number of consecutive stages of variation (from
general type to more concrete and specific variants), reaching the ut
terance stage. This lays the foundation for accomplishing the purpose
which functional grammar is called upon to serve - that of reflecting the
basic patterns and rules underlying the construction of utterances in a
given language. In the long run, this purpose is served by our type of
functional grammar, or, to be more precise, should be served, since such
a grammar has yet to be created.


Notes
Chapter I
1. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia defines a function in linguistics in

its potential aspect, i.e., as "the ability of a language form to
achieve a certain purpose" (Bol'saja sovetskaja ènciklopedija, vol
28, 1978: 140, author of article E.S. Kubrjakova). Further on, the
article also reflects the resultative aspect of the concept of function:
"each language unit exists solely because it serves a particular
purpose, i.e., performs a particular function, as distinct from
another language unit" (ibid.).
2. Cf. F.F. Fortunatov's opinion on the significance of perfective and

imperfective aspect forms in the Indo-European protolanguage: "...
the former denoted this characteristic in its fullest manifestation in
time, whereas the latter did not have this meaning, i.e., it denoted
the same characteristic irrespective of the extent of its manifesta
tion in time" (Fortunatov 1956: 161). Cf. also A.A. Saxmatov's
definition of the aspectual meanings of the Russian verb: "The
imperfective aspect denotes a usual, unqualified action or state; the
perfective aspect denotes the fullness of manifestation of an action
or state" (Saxmatov 1941: 472). V.V. Vinogradov wrote in this
connection: "... in the concept of perfective aspect, the basic
feature is that of limit of the action, accomplishment of the goal,
the feature of restriction or total absence of the idea of duration ...
The result is a specific instance of the action's limit" (Vinogradov
1972: 394).


16-Bondarko Alexander V 1991 Functional Grammar - A Field Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16-Bondarko Alexander V 1991 Functional Grammar - A Field Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16-Bondarko Alexander V 1991 Functional Grammar - A Field Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter I

Every grammar has, to a greater or lesser extent, a functional aspect.

is a system of grammatical units, classes and categories (and also lexico-

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

system of functioning is determined by the system of language units

functional grammar dealt with in this work, the system-structural (system-

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

periphery includes such expressive means as analytical passive participial

byl rassmotren - rassmotren - budet rassmotren ("was exam­

full-form past participles, e.g.:

rassmatrivavšij - rassmotrevšij - rassmotrennyj ("who was

and present participles, e.g.:

rassmatrivajuščcij - rassmatrivaemyj ("who is examining -

forms denoting habitual action in the past, like

govarival ("would say"),

jedal ("would eat"),

zival ("would live"),

našival ("would wear"),

peval ("would sing"),

xazival ("would visit");

verbless syntactical constructions denoting situation in the present, e.g.:

Noc ("It is night"),

Tisina ("It is quiet"),

Otec doma ("Father is at home"),

Trudno poverit' ("It's hard to believe"),

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Ujdite! ("Go away!"),

and various contextual means of expressing temporal relations which do

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

semantic field is singled out of the general situation expressed by the

aspects of the language system in speech. As far as the orientation of

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

cal dualism of the language sign" (according to S.O. Karcevskij), which

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

each case from the type and system of a particular language.

Types of functional-grammatical description

The differences between existing types of functional-grammatical descrip­

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Functional-grammatical descriptions proceeding from form to meaning,

It is evident that reliance on form as the starting-point of functional-

matical research and description which include analysis of the functions

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

extensively represented in studies of syntax (including research in com­

language system. Such is the orientation of analysis of grammatical

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

concentrates on analysing language means used by the speaker in a

tional grammar, as a special branch of grammar, concentrates on ana­

Functional-grammatical descriptions proceeding primarily from meaning to

Functional-grammatical research of the type under consideration has been

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

relations, but examined the substantial characteristics of different types of

The leading element in active acquisition of language should be meaning.

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

In modern linguistics, the meaning-to-form approach as the fun­

proceeding from semantic content and aimed at finding various means of

Bondarko, A. V. (1991). Functional grammar : A field approach. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

grammar, and the relation to grammar is determined not only by the

relations. Examination of this interaction and of its results is impossible

byl rassmotren - rassmotren - budet rassmotren ("was exam

The differences between existing types of functional-grammatical descrip

extensively represented in studies of syntax (including research in com

tional grammar, as a special branch of grammar, concentrates on ana

In modern linguistics, the meaning-to-form approach as the fun

functional-grammatical description combining the form-to-meaning ap

special attention to the actual linguistic, constructive, combinatory syntac

contains some fine material which can be used in constructing a func

In the process of speech, the forming and realised semantic func

Between the concepts "function" and "meaning", there are differ