5.2 Приходил Серёжка, Поиграли мы немножко

In module 5.1 we learned that questions (and statements) about past experiences with когда-нибудь strongly prefer the imperfective aspect. In this module we will learn about another pattern of usage of imperfective verbs, involving motion verbs and a few others, that falls under statements of fact. Unlike the usage in 5.1, the usage covered here is not necessarily about one’s experiences in the past. In fact, it can easily involve actions that occurred relatively recently.

Let us proceed without further ado to the first exercise.

Exercise A

Read the sentences/dialogues and answer the questions that follow.

Exercise B

Examine each dialogue and answer the questions.

Now let us consider some more complicated cases.

Еxercise C

Examine the following dialogues and consider the question at the end.

1. Алиса приходит домой, её мать сообщает ей:
– Алис, курьер приходил, заказы твои принёс. Я их на твою кровать положила.
– Ага, мам, спасибо.

2. Альбина возвращается с работы домой, её встречает муж:
– Дядя Миша с тётей Клавой приезжали, картошки, свёклы, моркови нам привезли.
– А, дачники наши. Ну всё, на полгода мы овощами обеспечены. (Улыбается.)

3. Классная руководительница обращается на перемене к своему ученику:
– Так, Кирилл, ко мне учитель по математике приходил и сказал, что ты сегодня на уроке очень плохо себя вёл: громко разговаривал, смеялся, ещё и домашнее задание не выполнил…
– Так это не я всё начал… А тетрадь с домашним заданием я дома забыл. Но я его сделал, честное слово!

4. Мама приходит в дом,
Мама глядит кругом.
– Был на квартиру налёт?
– Нет.
– К нам заходил бегемот?
– Нет.
– Может быть, дом не наш?
– Наш.
– Может, не наш этаж?
– Наш.
Просто приходил Серёжка,
Поиграли мы немножко. (Эдуард Успенский, «Разгром»)

5. Мать приходит домой и говорит своему сыну:
– Максим, я сегодня днём в поликлинику заходила, к лору тебя записала. На пятницу, на восемь часов. Пусть посмотрит твоё ухо, скажет, чем лечить.
– Ну ма-а-ам, ну заче-е-ем… Оно не очень болит, и так бы прошло…
– Это пока не очень! А потом будет очень – если не лечить!

6. Рита возвращается в комнату общежития и говорит соседке:
– Так, мясо для шашлыков я купила, овощи утром нарежем… Осталось одноразовые вилки и ножи купить, и к пикнику мы готовы! (Улыбается.) Сколько человек едет в итоге? Десять?
– А, забыла тебе сказать. Таня сегодня заходила, сказала, что они с Сашкой не смогут… Дела у них какие-то…
– Значит, восемь… Ну, нам больше шашлыка достанется. (Смеётся.)

Question:

In these dialogues, why is the motion verb imperfective, whereas the following verb is perfective?

Now let’s look at a few examples where both verbs are perfective.

Exercise D

Examine the following dialogues and consider the question at the end.

1. Коллеги разговаривают утром:
– Смотрела вчерашний салют?
– Ой, нет, я вчера пришла и легла спать сразу. Устала ужасно за день.

2. Анжела спрашивает подругу:
– Ты поговорила с Катей вчера?
– Нет: она пришла, схватила вещи и ушла. Я даже сказать ей ничего не успела.

Question:

Why is the motion verb perfective as well in these dialogues?

Now it is your turn to try to see whether you can choose the right verb.

Exercise E

Choose the aspect of the past-tense verb that seems most appropriate in the context.

Final Thoughts

In this module we have covered the use of imperfective verbs to communicate that the result of a past action, its immediate outcome, has been subsequently reversed prior to the moment of speech. The number of verbs that occur in such usage, which we call two-way verbs, is limited, but not a completely closed class. As pointed out in the comment after exercise A, two-way verbs include motion verbs and other verbs that produce results which can be easily and meaningfully canceled (such as verbs of opening and closing, turning on and turning off). For example, after arriving at a destination a mover can leave it again prior to speech time.

In exercise E, we see variations on the possibilities of such statements of fact. In (5), the question а ты куда уходила ночью? is about some unspecified time the previous night, and this time period serves as a background for the perfective statement of fact Я проснулся – тебя нет, in which the perfective is used because the boy was still awake at the focus time of seeing that his mother was not there. Note also that he continues this perfective statement with a mini-narration about going to his grandmother’s room, where she read him a story, whereupon he fell back asleep.

It is important to realize that the cancellation of the result of an action is another way of lifting the action out of a direct cause-and-effect sequence. In Russian, there is a strong tendency to construe the result of a past-tense perfective verb as being “in effect” at the next salient point in time, which is more often than not the moment of speech. The imperfective serves to cancel the sequential cause-and-effect link with speech time, thus presenting the action as “isolated” in the past. In this regard, imperfective statements of fact in the case of annulled results resemble the use of past-tense statements of fact in experiential statements and questions covered in 5.1. Recall from that module that the imperfective aspect removes the action from any direct link with the present/time of speech.

We should point out here that the dialogues in exercise E anticipate the next module, as we see contrasting aspectual usage with verbs of communication. In (1), the attorney’s act of asking is also imperfective: адвокат… спрашивал, подготовили ли Вы документы в суд… The reason is because his question led to no result, i.e., he did not receive an answer to his question.

Consider also the following example, in we have the opposite possibility:

Варвара входит в больничную палату и видит, как её соседка по палате собирает свои вещи:
– Ой, Насть, а ты куда? Я думала, тебе неделю ещё лежать…
– Не, всё, я домой. Ходила сегодня к главврачу, попросила меня выписать. Не могу я тут лежать больше, надоело ужасно.

Varvara goes into her hospital ward and sees her neighbor in her ward gathering her things:
“Oh, Nastya, where are you going? I thought you had to stay here another week?”
“No, that’s it, I’m going home. Today I went to the head doctor and asked him to release me. I can’t stay here any longer, I’m sick of it.”’

In this example, we have imperfective ходила because Nastya has returned in the meantime from the head doctor’s office to her room, but the request was successful and thus its result is in effect, motivating the perfective попросила. We can see this by the fact that her request did have its intended effect, as the head doctor agreed to release her. We will learn more out more about verbs of communication in statements of fact in module 5.3.

A final point about verbs of motion is that in the case of two-way motion (round trips), perfective verbs prefixed with с- such as сходить ‘go and come back’ are often possible as alternatives to imperfective indeterminate motion verb such as ходить, as shown here:

Варвара входит в больничную палату и видит, как её соседка по палате собирает свои вещи:
– Ой, Насть, а ты куда? Я думала, тебе неделю ещё лежать…
– Не, всё, я домой. Сходила сегодня к главврачу, попросила меня выписать. Не могу я тут лежать больше, надоело ужасно.

Varvara goes into her hospital ward and sees her neighbor in her ward gathering her things:
“Oh, Nastya, where are you going? I thought you had to stay here another week?”
“No, that’s it, I’m going home. Today I went to the head doctor [and back] and asked him to release me. I can’t stay here any longer, I’m sick of it.”’

The difference between ходила and сходила is not one of the cancellation of the result versus the continued validity of the result, because the result of сходить is the return to one’s place of departure.  Here, the difference between the imperfective and the perfective is that between two “atomistic” statements of fact (я ходила сегодня к главврачу and я его попросила меня выписать) and a single coherent episode of “purposeful” actions (Я сходила сегодня к главврачу и попросила его меня выписать). This difference has little to do with the objective facts of what happened, and is more about how Nastya views her own actions and wants to portray them to Varvara—basically, as a sequence of causally related actions carried out by someone who “meant business” and got what she wanted: she marched down to the head doctor to ask him to release her and came right back, no dilly-dallying. Whether she actually was in control of the situation is almost beside the point, that’s the way she presents it to her fellow patient. 

Lastly, if Nastya had just returned from going to the head doctor, some Russians might be tempted to use a perfective ‘detour’ verb prefixed with за-:

Не, всё, я домой. Зашла сейчас к главврачу, попросила меня выписать. Не могу я тут лежать больше, надоело ужасно.
‘No, that’s it, I’m going home. Today I dropped in on the head doctor and asked him to release me. I can’t stay here any longer, I’m sick of it.”

The logic here would be that her successful request, which is the important piece of news at speech time, was enabled by her “stopping by” the head doctor’s, i.e., its result.