Aspect and Tense usage in Upper Sorbian and Czech Narrative Texts

0421538 - SLÚ 2014 RIV SE eng C - Konferenční příspěvek (zahraniční konf.)
Brankatschk, Katja
Aspect and Tense usage in Upper Sorbian and Czech Narrative Texts.
Semantičeskij spektr slavjanskogo vida. 4 Konferencija Komissii po aspektologii Meždunarodnogo Komiteta Slavistov. Geteborgskij universitet, 10 ijunija - 14 ijunija 2013 g. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 2013 - (Nilsson, M.; Zorikhina Nilsson, N.), s. 42-43. Gothenburg Slavic Studies, 3. ISBN 978-91-86094-62-1. ISSN 2000-1134.
[Semantičeskij spektr slavjanskogo vida. 4 Konferencija Komissii po aspektologii Meždunarodnogo Komiteta Slavistov. Göteborg Universitet (SE), 10.06.2013-14.06.2013]
Grant CEP: GA ČR(CZ) GPP406/11/P424
Institucionální podpora: RVO:68378017
Klíčová slova: Aspect * Past Tenses * Upper Sorbian * Czech * Event chains
Kód oboru RIV: AI - Jazykověda

While in Russian narrative texts, the historical present must be used with ipf. verbs (Panzer 1963, 99) and in chains of events pf. verbs are obligatory, both claims do not hold for Czech and Upper Sorbian (Breu 2000a, 49; ). According to Dickey (2000 and 2008), Czech and Sorbian share the same features with respect to their aspect system with other Western Slavic languages. For modern Upper Sorbian, recent changes of the aspect distinction were described (Breu 2000b and Toops 2001), but for older texts, the same features of aspect should be relevant as for Czech (Dickey 2008, 97). As is widely known, there is a number of differences between the two Western Slavic languages as well: in Czech, only the historical present and perfect tense can be used. For literal Upper Sorbian, in addition, the usage of synthetic preterite forms is typical for narrative texts, which were lost in Czech already by the 16th century. This presentation focuses on the aspect choice and its functions in present and preterite forms of narrative passages in both languages. Recent research on modern Czech (Esvan 2006, 2010) suggests several functions for both aspects in event chains in the past as well as in historical present. In comparison to these results on Czech, we would like to present an analysis of Sorbian texts (Jordan 1842). The usage of pf. and ipf. in historical present and perfect tense as well as in the usage of aorist and imperfect shows clear differences to the patterns of Czech pf. and ipf. usage. Therefore we would like to pose the question of the nature of aspect in Older Sorbian and counter Dickey’s as well as Toop’s and Breu’s claim of a change of aspect in Sorbian only recently.
Trvalý link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0227876