The Quantization Puzzle

T T T Th h h he e e e Q Q Q Qu u u ua a a an n n nt t t ti i i iz z z za a a at t t ti i i io o o on n n n P P P Pu u u uz z z zz z z zl l l le e e e 1 1 1 1 I I I In n n nt t t tr r r ro o o od d d du u u uc c c ct t t ti i i io o o on n n n Recent discussions of Slavic perfective aspect commonly make two assumptions: First, perfective verb forms are semantically quantized, or, to use other terms, telic or event-denoting (see Krifka, 1986, 1992; Piñón, 1995, for example). Second, verbal prefixes are aspectual markers of perfective aspect, because they often serve to derive perfective verb forms from imperfective ones 1995, for example). I will argue that the first claim is essentially correct, provided that we properly constrain the property of 'quantization'. However, the second claim must be rejected. The first claim concerns the semantics of the category 'aspect', understood as a grammatical category. In this sense, 'aspect' is used as a cover term for formal categories on the level of inflectional morphology or syntax that fall under the main perfective-imperfective distinction. It is standardly illustrated (see Comrie, 1976:3, for instance) by examples of the English progressive construction, an imperfective subcategory, as in John was recovering, or the French passé simple-imparfait inflectional suffixes, as in Jean travers-a la rue 'John crossed the street' vs. Jean travers-ait la rue 'John was crossing the street', 'John (repeatedly) crossed the street', for example. The mereological notion of 'quantization', introduced by Krifka (1986), is here used interchangeably with 'telic', and also with 'event-denoting' 1. Saying that Slavic 1 This means that 'telic' is here not understood in its original narrower sense coined by (Garey, 1957) and who derived it from the Greek word télos meaning 'goal' or 'purpose'. Gary characterizes telic verbs as " ... a category of