Verb choice in aspectual competition
The paper discusses the rules of verb choice in potential aspectual competition. Having analyzed the most popular interpretations of invariant meanings of the Perfective and the Imperfective Aspects, the author suggested that the Imperfective Aspect defines the action itself, while the Perfective Aspect defines the action limit. If this hypothesis is correct, this opposition is supposed to stay relevant in any contexts, even in case of aspectual competition. Using data from the Russian National Corpus, the author selected some contexts illustrating different types of aspectual competition, and then offered Russian native speakers to choose a verb of either the Perfective or the Imperfective Aspect in sentences. The article considers the results of the experiment. The experiment indicates that the Imperfective Aspect in its general factual meaning has been chosen in contexts with the indistinctness of such parameters as re-petitiveness or reaching of the limit. It is the Imperfective Aspect that can express an action without additional characteristics, as the Perfective Aspect defines not the action but the action limit. The Perfective Aspect in its common concrete typical meaning has been chosen in contexts presenting a single completed event (the action limit) not depending on the action result. The limit indication is especially important in contexts describing a new condition that appeared. If the speaker wants to actualize the action, he or she prefers the verb of the Imperfective Aspect. In some cases the Imperfective Aspect denotes the tensions of the moment, while the Perfective Aspect denotes the dynamics of the condition changing. The distinction between the action and the action limit is consequently conducted in selected contexts with the exception of cases with indistinct cause-effect relations and aspectual parameters of the action. When describing repeated actions, native speakers prefer the Imperfective Aspect. The Perfective Aspect, defining the action limit, does not imply repetitiveness, though the meaning of repetition can be created by the context. The participants of the experiment easily chose the Perfective Aspect in its summative function, while the visual-exemplary meaning of the Perfective Aspect needed an expressive context. Both aspects are actively used in contexts with the potential meaning. The results of the experiment prove that the opposition of the action and the action limit is relevant for Russian native speakers even in case of aspectual competition.