Horn strategies and optimization in Russian aspect∗

I propose to explain the diachronic development of the aspectual system in Russian in terms of Horn strategies (partial blocking). The analysis is based on Blutner’s bidirectional OT, which has a strong diachronic dimension. I also suggest that a context-sensitive version of bidirectional OT can play a role in explaining the synchronic situation for Russian aspect. 1 Horn strategies in the lexicon Standard examples of Horn’s iconicity principle – (un)marked forms are mapped with (un)marked meanings – come from lexical pragmatics (Horn, 1984), (Blutner, 1998). In the spirit of Blutner (2000) and his implementation of partial blocking in bidirectional OT, Dekker and van Rooy (2000) came up with graphical representations like the following: m1 m2 f1 • ← ◦ ↑ ↑ f2 ◦ ← • Table 1: (Weakly) optimal pairs in a 2x2 game The speaker – i.e. the vertical arrows – has a preference for short, unmarked forms (e.g. ‘kill’ (f1) > ‘cause to die’ (f2)) and the hearer – i.e. the horizontal arrows – prefers stereotypical, unmarked meanings (e.g. direct killing (m1) > indirect killing (m2)). Horn’s division of pragmatic labor predicts that from two forms with underspecified meanings, the simple form ‘kill’ is mapped with the meaning of direct/canonical killing, while the more complex form ‘cause to die’ will be used to denote an indirect killing. The latter is demonstrated in (1), which suggests that the sheriff’s death came about after some unusual event, perhaps an accident. (1) Black Bart caused the sheriff to die. The algorithm of weakly bidirectional OT (Jäger, 2002) starts with the optimal pair (•). Both pairs which are beaten by this pair in one direction (◦) are then removed from the tableau, and this leaves us with the weakly optimal pair (•). The weakly optimal ∗I would like to thank Hanne Eckhoff and Dag Haug for their comments on the diachronic data.