Aktionsart and Aspect in English and Russian: a

Comparative Study

TFG Estudis d’Anglès i Català

Supervisor: Dr. Mercè Coll

Nikolay Sklyarov

June 2015

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

ABSTRACT 1

1. INTRODUCITON 1

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2

3. METHODOLOGY 6

4. DISCUSSION 7

5. CONCLUSIONS 14

BIBILIOGRAPHY 15

ANNEX 16

1

ABSTRACT: Research on the topic of aktionsart has been exponentially

growing in the last half century. The intricacies of how aktionsart is linked

to other traits and how lexical aspect operates across different languages are

topics that are subjected to ongoing research. Competing theories and

approaches are still under hot discussion today. This work is set to offer a

basic insight into the knowledge that has been gathered to this point about

the notion of aktionsart. It is a comparative study that examines how verbs

are classified in terms of aktionsart in Russian and English. An attempt will

be carried out to outline whether Russian and English languages treat lexical

aspect differently. The results suggest that they do not, and that in fact,

despite the morphological differences, lexical aspect lies not in the

morphemes, but rather in the lexical meaning they carry.

1. INTRODUCTION

This work will attempt to investigate the correlation between verb types in the

Russian and English languages. To set the framework there will be a brief introduction

to the topics at hand. discussing some of the approaches present today. To prove or

disprove the similarities between the two languages, we will take a look at a text from a

piece of classic literature and its translation into Russian, to inspect the verbal predicates

and how they present the traits relevant to our research. The entries will be classified

and examined in regards to the topic at hand. The criteria will be based upon the known

theoretical explanations.

One of the most evident sources of difference between English and Russian is the

heavy use of verbal prefixes of the latter. Grammarians cite up to 23 different prefixes

that can be attached to verbs in the Russian language. The main axis of comparison will

go through this question to later discuss whether aktionsart is treated all that differently

2

in the two languages. After diving into some theoretical background it is possible to

speculate that, even though at first it might appear that they would, they would actually

not. This will be the starting point and the main hypothesis of this study.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

There are several means of classifying verbs for our goal. One possible

classification takes its base on the ideas proposed by Vendler (1957, re-published in

1967 in his book Linguistics in Philosophy). In this work a simplified and re-purposed

classification will be used to focus on the comparison between the two languages. In his

article ‘Verbs and Times’ Vendler establishes a core set of categories based on what he

refers to as time schemata. After establishing whether a verbal predicates allows for

continuous and progressive aspect or not, these verbs are open to be classified into four

categories: ‘activities’, ‘accomplishments’, ‘states’, and ‘achievements’. Thus, verbs

that allow for the aforementioned type of grammatical aspect will fall into the group of

‘state’ verbs or ‘achievement’ verbs, while those that do not will fall into ‘activities’

verbs and ‘accomplishments’. ‘State’ verbs are durative whereas ‘achievements’ are

instantaneous, as can be showcased by the difference between the verbs ‘know’ and

‘realize’. ‘Activities’ and ‘accomplishments’ differ from each other as the latter have a

natural tendency to occupy a restricted stretch of time, while the former naturally do

not. This establishes the difference between verbs such as ‘running’ and ‘drawing’.

‘Achievements’ and ‘accomplishments’ are always telic.

In a similar yet contrary way, the classification proposed by Moens and

Steedman (1988) took its root in the idea that linear temporal classifications of tense

and aspect are not the most appropriate for linguistic classification. Their classification

establishes a connection between the notion of event nucleus and the verbal predicates.

3

This connection is what helps us find the type of a given verb. Although they present

compelling proof, and their tests for group classification are efficient, their ideas do not

override the usability of Vendler’s method and classification.

Another approach to the issue is that of Krifka (1989), who has proposed

treating telicity as a grammatical and even morphological feature, basing his study on

how Finnish telicity works. These are conclusions that cannot be backed up by data

collected from either Russian or English. In fact, Krifka’s definition of telicity has been

criticized by Borik (2002) among others as the approaches for treating telicity are still a

hot topic today. It is very hard to define endpoints and start points of verbs as the

criteria for distinction is a thin line that can be easily blurred. Despite all that Krifka’s

interpretation and ideas regarding, what we cloud call, potential telicity are also

compelling and usable. However, once again, they are not as crucial for the comparison

we aim to make.

Having said that it is now possible to proceed to state that, for the purposes

of this research, we are allowed to simplify and re-purpose Vendler’s classification into

three possible types of verbal predicates in regards to aktionsart. Our start point lies in

separating those verbs that function as a state and those that do not, in other words to

single out the predicates that allow for telicity to happen. This is very similar to how

Vendler’s classification operates. If a verb allows for continuous tense it is bound to be

a state. In this study we will not go into the deeper aforementioned distinction. All the

verbs that do not grammatically form constructions of the kind of ‘*I am knowing

OBJECT’ and ‘*I am loving OBJECT’ are all regarded as states. Those verbs that are

not states are processes. These are the same verbs that do not allow adjuncts that have

the preposition ‘for’ or ‘in’ as their head.

4

Process verbs, on the other hand, can be telic or not. Some processes remain

grammatical when complemented by such adjuncts, and some do not. This will be the

basis for our test of telicity. Thus, a simple verbal predicate such as ‘the train arrived at

the station’ can prove to be telic if it allows itself to be modified by an adjunct headed

by the preposition ‘in’. A telic predicate can never be modified by an adjunct the

nucleus of which is the preposition ‘for’.

(1) *The train arrived at the station for two days

(2) The train arrived at the station in two days

The verbal predicate in examples 1 and 2 is therefore telic. On the other

hand the examples:

(3) He wrote books for two days

(4) *He wrote books in two days

illustrate that the predicate ‘to write books’ is atelic. It will be labeled as

‘process’ in the data gathering process.

This test can also be used to further identify state. States verbs reject both

structures and create ungrammatical sentences following this test:

(5) *She loved him in two days

(6) *She loved him for two years

5

It is important to note that each of these verbs by themselves, and within the

predicates they represent can be interpreted to belong to any given verb type. The two

examples above, for instance, can be interpreted as grammatically correct, but in that

case the verb ‘to love’ would no longer have the same meaning the one predicated by

the ungrammatical sentences.

Although this test is not without its flaws, its success rate is more than

enough for the purposes of this research, as all the predicates in the data gathering

procedure can be tested with it since this very same examples translate almost perfectly

into Russian. There exist, however, some inconsistencies. The ‘for’ and ‘in’ adjuncts

tests are trickier to employ in Russian, as the meaning of these adjuncts is not narrow

enough. In Russian it is possible to employ a much higher variety of prepositions to

express similar meanings to that of ‘for’ and ‘in’. The distinction between stative and

non-stative verbs, however, remains the same.

(7) *Ona lyubila ego za dva dnya

She loved him for/in two days

Slabakova (2001), in her chapter about English and Slavic telicity argued

that to stating that bound morphemes add exclusively grammatical content to the verbs

would not fit with the Universal Grammar panorama, in a similar way as stating that

auxiliaries add just lexical content is wrong just as well. Her comparison of Russian and

English focused on the notion of structural positioning of modifiers. She states that a

variety of features might influence lexical aspect, including bound morphemes and

prefixes, but there is no basis to state that all languages work the same way in regards to

this topic. Russian, for instance, differs heavily in this regard from English. However,

6

the way meaning is conveyed remains similar. This creates a further case to assume that

Russian will not treat aktionsart morphologically, and that it will work in a similar way

to that of English. The verbs that we will find in our data gathering process, in both

languages, will thus share their classification in regards to aktionsart.

To sum up, there are several ways to classify verbs and this study will use

the most convenient straight forward classification to attempt to see whether Russian

and English languages treat lexical aspect differently. The preliminary hypothesis would

stand that they do not, and that, in fact, despite the morphological differences, lexical

aspect lies not in the morphemes, but rather in the lexical meaning they carry.

3. METHODOLOGY

To carry out this contrastive task, one hundred entries have been gathered

sourced from the renowned novel Oliver Twist, by Charles Dickens. The focus has been

laid upon predicates in preterit form, as those are the most efficient source of

classifiable verbs. The entries are displayed in the annex. They are composed by the raw

transliterated Russian utterance, followed by the verbal element of the predicate in

isolation, its type, the original verbal element as written by Dickens and the predicate

within its context: the full original utterance from the novel. The information will be

displayed in a similar manner to the following:

(8) 17 – sprosil bedniy Oliver – Process – Poor Oliver inquired

The items in bold will have their own column in the table to ease the task of

finding verbs and comparing them face to face with their counterparts. The center

7

column will display the type of verb that is assigned to that entry according to the

telicity test mentioned in the last section.

4. DISCUSSION

First of all, it is important to mention that Russian does not feature a core

distinction between simple and progressive past. Russian, as other languages such as

Spanish, operates in terms of perfectivity. To avoid diving too deep into grammatical

details, we can go straight to the bottom line and state that checking whether a verb

allows a progressive form is not possible in Russian in the same way it is possible in

English. An easy way to identify a verb as a state is to see whether it allows the

attachment of the prefix ‘za-’. This prefix adds, among others, the lexical meaning of ‘to

begin doing’ an action when attached to a verb. After adding this prefix, we find a way

to cheat this lack of continuous tense, and check whether a construction such as ‘*Ya

zalyubil yeio’ (*I began and I still am loving her) is possible or impossible in Russian.

In this case it is impossible, confirming that just as in English, the verb ‘to love’ is a

state type of verb.

Following that we can dive right into the gathered data. A quick look at the

entries might at first suggest that Russian verbal predicates belong to one type of verb or

another depending heavily on their prefixes. For instance, the Russian prefixes ‘do-’ and

‘vy-’ might appear to add telicity to verbs whenever it appears. They actually do modify

verbs in a significant way as explained by Jakobson, R. (1984) in his analysis of

Russian and Slavic grammar. However it is uncertain whether they can be said to affect

aktionsart exclusively. The examples found in entry 14 and entry 15 showcase this

conflict and allow for a deeper analysis of the issue.

8

(9) On vypil pol stakana

He swallowed half of it (half a cup)

(10) On dopil zhin s vodoi

He finished (drinking) the gin and water

These two examples are virtually the same in terms of aktionsart. For

further analysis we can focus on only one the latter and its test for telicity in English.

(11) He finished the gin and water in two weeks

(12) *He finished the gin and water for two weeks

In the original English utterance ‘to finish’ has the implied semantic

meaning of to finish drinking. This can be proven by simply adding that implied

meaning into the sentence and later observing that it remains telic:

(13) He finished drinking the gin and water in two weeks.

(14) *He finished drinking the gin and water for two weeks.

The Russian translation presents the verb ‘to drink’ with the prefix ‘do-’. To

paraphrase an explanation provided by experts in Slavic grammar such as Wade (2002),

it is possible to state that this prefix is known to adhere to verbs in order to add the

semantic meaning of ‘to reach completion’ of a given task, or in other words, ‘to finish’

something. The predicate ‘to finish drinking’ is therefore completely independent from

the predicate ‘to drink’. If the utterance were to look like:

9

(15) *He drank the gin and water in two weeks

(16) He drank gin and water for two weeks.

One might be tempted to argue that the prefix ‘do-’ adds perfectivity to the

verb, as to finish an action is to make it perfect. This is however not the case as there are

many ways to add perfectivity to a verb. The default Russian prefix for this job is ‘po-’.

And although the sentences

(17) On do-pil dzhin s vodoi

(18) On po-pil dzhin s vodoi

May allow for only one grammatical translation into English:

(19) He drank gin and water

The semantic translation would require adding words that carry heavy lexical

meaning to make the translation transmit what it really signifies to the reader. The

selected translation for each of the examples would look similar to this:

(20) He finished drinking gin and water (for example 17)

(21) He drank a bit of gin and water (for example 18)

If the thesaurus of English verbs had single verbs that transmitted those same

meaning, these verbs would probably be used here.

10

These arguments seem to allow us to safely induce that the predicate ‘to

drink’ works as a process and is not necessarily telic, as it does not pass the full simple

telicity test. This is further illustrated in entry 59.

(22) ‘He kept on his course through many winding and narrow ways’

To simplify the predicate, we can agree that ‘to keep on’ implies the

meaning of ‘to keep on going/walking’ and the sentence ‘He went on his course through

many winding and narrow ways’ completely mirrors the semantic meaning of the

original sentence. Thus:

(23) *He went on his course through many winding and narrow ways

in two weeks

(24) He went on his course through many winding and narrow ways

for two weeks

Mirrors the Russian result of failing to test for telicity:

(25) *On shel izvilistymi i uzkimi ulitsami za dve nedeli

(He go-PAST winding and narrow streets in two weeks)

If we were to add the same prefix added earlier (that is, the prefix ‘do-’) to

the verb ‘to drink’ to this verb we would end up with an utterance with a verbal

predicate that tests positive for telicity:

11

(26) On doshel izvilistymi i uzkimi ulitsami za dve nedeli

(He go-PAST winding and narrow streets in two weeks)

However, to translate this predicate back into English we would have to use

another verb altogether. A telic verb such as ‘to arrive’ or ‘to reach’ that will test

positive for telicity and will be proven not to be a process:

(27) He arrived through many winding and narrow ways in two weeks

(28) *He arrived through many winding and narrow ways for two

weeks

There are no grounds upon which to argue that the Russian prefix ‘do-’ is

only responsible in for the shift in telicity. As is pointed out in Slabakova’s study

(2005), Slavic prefixes may work in a predictable pattern that eases the classification of

verbs into the types proposed by Vendler (1967), but they do no constitute a one

hundred percent efficient rule. For instance, entries 30, 46 and 47 all feature the prefix

‘po-’, which is usually argued to be interpreted as a marker of perfectivity, although it

can also mean ‘a little’. In all three cases the meaning that is actually conveyed by the

prefix is that of adding a trait of ‘carrying out the action for a while’. (as literally

illustrated by the original utterance in entry 46 ‘Oliver considered a little while’). The

marker of perfectivity meaning appears to be independent of its semantic meaning. This

might lead to argue that the lexical content almost prevails over aktionsart, and that

these morphemes create new lexical entries altogether.

On other words, the aforementioned allows us to speculate that verb

predicates convey independent meaning within their context. Although it is common

12

knowledge that predicates, and not just verbs on their own, are the carriers of the

semantic meaning of the actions, observing how a predicate might be translated into one

independent verb might be an additional source of evidence for this very statement. For

instance, in entry number 38 the Russian predicate ‘perebezhat’, is constructed upon the

verb ‘bezhat’ plus the prefix ‘pere-’, that adds a meaning of crossing to all verbs (or

rather the meaning of ‘going over’ or ‘getting over to the other side’, which is also very

similar to the concept of crossing). This way the verbs with a new meaning stand on

their own and would call for an independent dictionary entry if they were to be

translated into English. In this case, ‘begat’ would be best translated as ‘to run’, while

‘perebegat’ would be most efficiently translated as ‘to cross’ or ‘to run across’. The

point is that this verb easily stands on its own and it conveys the predicative meaning of

‘to walk/run across’. Furthermore, this verb that we can refer to as the verb ‘to cross’,

alongside the verb ‘to walk’, can be classified as telic when found in structures like the

following: ‘he walked to the store/he crossed to the store’. So they both agree in verb

type, the only function of the prefix is to add lexical information without altering

grammatical proprieties.

Verb type is therefore an important feature that stands on the same level of

relevance as the pure lexical meaning of a verb in regards to translation. The translated

text shows that preserving the verb type is a goal that is met more often than the goal of

nitpicking a lexical verb that mirrors the exact semantic meaning of the original English

verb. Observing how the Russian translation picks verbs to suit this condition is once

again evidence for this statement. For example, entries 11, 12, 13, 17 (verbs of the type

of: inquired, replied, coughed, asked) are all more or less synonymous and can work

similarly to the predicate ‘said’. These verbs are usually used by the narrator of a tale to

mark dialogue structure. The correspondence of exact meaning between the Russian

13

translation and the English original almost never agrees to what a dictionary would

suggest. This is due mainly to the fact that context plays an important role in

establishing meaning. The translation picks verbs that suit the need for a predicate that

belongs to the process type of verbs, rather than any other verb that would not fit this

condition. In entry 56, for instance, the Russian translation opts to use a predicate that

unites the meaning of ‘to fall sluggishly’. Although the verb ‘morosit’ cannot be used as

synonymous to fall in any other context, it is nevertheless a process. Therefore, it seems

to be the case that to preserve the traits of telicity of the predicate is crucial for

translation purposes.

It is important to mention that this study is limited to what evidence can be

provided from Russian and English. It is impossible to state that the conclusions derived

from this discussion would apply universally. One of the unexpected statements that this

research seems to suggest is true that semantics is what dictates verb type classification,

so it is not fair to state that prefixes themselves add the quality of telicity to the

predicates. What is clear that the prefixes add semantic variation that later allows for

classification into types.

This, therefore, leads to the conclusion that actually the Russian language

and the English language treat aspect similarly. Because Russian as most Slavic

languages is a language that heavily relies on inflection (Slabakova 2001) we might

perceive that aktionsart as a trait is present morphologically in the form of the verbs, as

we have seen with the prefixes ‘do-’ and ‘po-’. This is, however, not the case. The

addition or removal of a prefix appears to change the type of the verb namely because

the meaning of the verbal predicate changes. It is true that in the default context for the

prefix ‘po-’ is to mark perfectivity, there is, however, more to it. Verb type shifts due to

the fact that some prefixes carry the meaning of begging of an action, end of an action

14

or of carrying out an action in a specific way (i.e. slowly, sideways, etc). This leads to a

situation where morphologically similar verbs are no longer synonymous, yet they carry

the same value of lexical aspect.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusively, this builds enough evidence to state that in reality the

treatment of aktionsart in both languages is more similar than different. Both languages

rely heavily on lexical context, and do not use any morphological sings to indicate

aktionsart features. After examining some examples where prefixes seemed to offer

clues towards the classification of verbs, it is fair to state that these clues work in a

similar way as that of adding an adjunct to a predicate in a sentence. It is a procedure

that adds meaning, rather than grammatical content.

The final conclusion is however, that as it was expected, and in agreement

with previous research, English and Russian languages treat aktionsart similarly and

operate in more similar ways than can be expected without a deeper analysis.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borik, O. (2006) The Telicity Approach. Aspect and Reference Time. (pp. 20-60)

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Jakobson, R. (1984) Structure of the Russian Verb. In L.R. Waugh and M. Halle (eds.)

Russian and Slavic Grammar. Studies 1931-1981, (pp. 1-14) Berlin: Mouton

Krifka, M. (1989) Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event

semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics

and Contextual Expression. (pp. 75-115) Dordrecht: Foris.

Moens, M. and Steedman M. (1988). "Temporal ontology and temporal reference".

Computational Linguistics, 14 (2): 15-28

Slabakova, R. (2005) “What is so difficult about telicity marking in L2 Russian?”

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8 (1): 63-77

Slabakova, R. (2001) “English and Slavic telicity: a syntactic account” Telicity in the

Second Language. (pp. 63-102) Amsterdam/Philadeplphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company

Vendler, Z. (1967) Verbs and Times. Linguistics in Philosophy. (pp. 97-121). New

York: Cornell University Press.

16

ANNEX

Data gathered from Charles Dickens ‘Oliver Twist’, first published 1838, ed

Penguin Classics, London 2003; Translation to Russian by A. V. Krivtsova, Ed.

Vishaya Shkola, Moscow 1984.

17

Entr

y n

um

be

rTr

ansl

ite

rate

d R

uss

ian

Utt

era

nce

Ve

rb E

lem

en

t (R

US)

Typ

eV

erb

Ele

me

nt

(EN

G)

Tran

slat

ed

Utt

era

nce

1ro

dils

ya s

mer

tniy

rod

ilsya

Teli

cw

as b

orn

he

was

bo

rn

2ko

kgd

a p

rijo

dsk

iy v

rach

vve

l evo

v s

ei m

irvv

iol

Teli

cw

as u

she

red

he

was

ush

ere

rd (

into

th

is w

orl

d o

f so

rro

w a

nd

tro

ub

le)

by

the

su

rge

on

3et

i mem

ua

ry n

iko

gd

a n

e vy

shli

by

na

sve

tvy

shli

(by)

Teli

c(w

ou

ld n

eve

r) h

ave

app

ear

d

the

se m

em

oir

s w

ou

ld n

eve

r h

ave

ap

pe

ard

4n

e sk

lon

en u

tver

zhd

at'

sh

to (

…)

sklo

nen

utv

erzh

da

t'P

roce

ssd

isp

ose

d t

o m

anta

inn

ot

dis

po

sed

to

man

tain

th

at (

…)

5tr

ud

no

byl

o d

ob

itsy

a c

hto

by

(on

vzy

al n

a s

ebya

za

bo

tu)

byl

o d

ob

itsy

aP

roce

ssth

ere

was

dif

ficu

tly

(…)

that

th

ere

was

co

nsi

de

rab

le d

iffi

cult

y (i

n in

du

cin

g O

live

r to

tak

e u

po

n h

imse

lf

the

off

ice

of

resp

irat

ion

)

6vm

esh

ala

s' s

idel

kavm

esh

ala

s'Te

lic

inte

rvin

ed

inte

rvin

ed

th

e n

urs

e

7p

red

al e

vo v

ee

ob

iati

ap

red

al

Pro

cess

dip

osi

ted

dip

osi

ted

it (

him

) in

he

r ar

ms

8za

kuta

nn

yi v

od

eya

loza

kuta

niy

Teli

cw

rap

pe

dw

rap

pe

d in

th

e b

lan

ket

9ko

kgd

a p

roiz

vod

ilos'

oso

bo

str

og

oe

sled

svie

pro

izvo

dilo

s'Te

lic

was

… a

n in

qu

est

wh

en

th

ere

was

so

me

mo

re t

han

usu

ally

inte

rest

ing

inq

ue

st (

up

on

a p

aris

h…

)

10vs

rich

ala

Mrs

Ma

nn

vskr

ich

ala

Pro

cess

said

said

(sh

ou

ted

) M

rs M

ann

11o

sved

eom

ilsya

mis

ter

Ba

mb

lo

sved

om

ilsya

Pro

cess

inq

uir

ed

inq

uir

ed

Mr

Bu

mb

le

12o

tvet

il o

no

tvet

ilP

orc

ess

rep

lie

dh

e r

ep

lie

d

13m

iste

r B

am

bl k

ash

lan

ul

kash

lan

ul

Pro

cess

cou

ght

Mr

Bu

mb

le c

ou

ght

14(i

on

za

lpo

m)

vyp

il p

ols

taka

na

vyp

ilTe

lic

swal

low

ed

and

he

sw

allo

we

d h

alf

of

it

15(o

n)

do

pil

djin

s v

od

oi

do

pil

Teli

cfi

nis

he

dh

e f

inis

he

d t

he

gin

an

d w

ate

r

16i p

rib

avi

lp

rib

avi

lTe

lic

add

ed

and

ad

de

d

17sp

rosi

l bed

nyi

Oliv

ersp

rosi

lP

roce

ssin

qu

ire

din

qu

ire

d p

oo

r o

live

r (s

ame

wo

rd a

s e

ntr

y 16

, dif

fere

nt

verb

in r

uss

ian

, sti

ll p

roce

ss)

18O

liver

pro

byl

v s

ten

ah

ro

bo

cheg

o d

om

a n

e b

ole

e (…

)p

rob

ylP

roce

ssh

ad (

no

t) b

ee

nO

live

r h

ad n

ot

be

en

wit

hin

th

e w

alls

of

the

wo

rkh

ou

se (

…)

19O

liver

(…

) n

izko

po

klo

nils

yap

okl

on

ilsya

Pro

cess

bo

we

dO

live

r b

ow

ed

low

20M

alc

hik

ov

korm

ili v

bo

l'sh

om

za

le s

kir

pic

hn

ymi s

ten

am

iko

rmili

Pro

cess

fed

The

ro

om

in w

hic

h t

he

to

ys w

ere

fe

d w

as a

larg

e s

ton

e h

all (

No

t a

pas

sive

in

russ

ian

, sam

e v

erb

PR

OC

ESS)

18

21O

liver

sid

el v

zap

erti

v t

iom

no

i ko

mn

ote

sid

elP

roce

sssi

t /

rem

ain

Oli

ver

rem

ain

ed

(si

ttin

g in

ru

ssia

n)

a cl

ose

pri

son

er

in t

he

dar

k so

lita

ry r

oo

m

22O

liver

byl

lish

on

up

razh

nen

eib

yl li

sho

nP

roce

ssw

as d

en

ied

Oli

ver

was

de

nie

d t

he

be

ne

fit

of

exr

eci

se

23eg

o v

od

ili v

za

lvo

dili

Pro

cess

was

car

rie

dh

e w

as c

arri

ed

into

th

e h

all

24sh

iol p

o h

ais

trit

shio

lP

orc

ess

was

we

nd

ing

was

we

ind

ing

his

way

ad

ow

n t

he

Hig

h-s

tre

et

25n

e m

og

na

shit

at'

pia

t' f

un

tov

ne

mo

g n

ash

ita

t'Te

lic

cou

ld n

ot

rais

eco

uld

no

t ra

ise

th

em

wit

hin

fu

ll f

ive

po

un

ds

26M

iste

r G

emfr

ild r

azr

azi

lsya

nei

sto

vym

pro

klya

tiem

rara

zils

yaP

roce

ssgr

ow

led

Mr

Gam

fie

ld g

row

led

a f

ierc

e im

pe

rcat

ion

27y

voro

t st

oya

l zh

ente

lmen

sto

yal

Pro

cess

was

sta

nd

ing

The

ge

ntl

em

an (

…)

was

sta

nd

ing

at t

he

gat

e

28za

tem

po

sled

ova

l za

zh

ente

lmen

om

po

sled

ova

lP

roce

ssfo

llo

we

dfo

llo

we

d t

he

ge

ntl

em

an

29g

de

Oliv

er v

per

vye

uvi

del

eto

go

dzh

ente

lmen

au

vid

elP

roce

ssh

ad s

ee

nw

he

re O

live

r h

ad f

irst

se

en

him

30o

chen

' po

zab

avi

lo d

zhen

telm

ena

po

zab

avi

loP

roce

ssap

pe

are

d a

mu

sed

(th

e g

en

tle

man

in t

he

wh

ite

co

at)

app

ear

ed

ve

ry m

uch

am

use

d w

ith

th

is e

xpla

nat

ion

31O

liver

po

luch

il ra

zres

hen

iep

olu

chil

Teli

ch

ad o

bta

ine

dO

live

r h

ad o

bta

ine

d t

he

pe

rmis

sio

n

32ko

toro

go

on

ta

k re

vno

stn

o d

ob

iva

lsya

do

biv

als

yaP

roce

ssso

ugh

th

e h

ad s

o e

age

rly

sou

ght

33b

reli

on

i len

ivo

, ne

spes

ha

bre

liTe

lic

we

nt

the

pac

e a

t w

hic

h t

he

y w

en

t w

as s

uch

a v

ery

lazy

, ill

-lo

oki

ng

sau

nte

r (t

he

y w

alke

d

slo

wly

- m

ean

ing

tran

slat

ion

(w

alk

= w

en

t ve

rb t

ype

)

34O

liver

vsk

ore

na

cha

l po

du

myv

at'

ch

to(…

)n

ach

al p

od

um

yva

t'P

roce

ssb

ega

n t

o t

hin

kO

live

r so

on

be

gan

to

th

ink

that

(…

)

35O

ni t

olk

o c

hto

vys

hly

iz u

zko

vo d

vora

vysh

liP

roce

ssw

ere

em

erg

ing

The

y w

ere

just

em

erg

ing

fro

m a

nar

row

co

urt

36O

liver

s v

elic

ha

ish

im iz

um

len

iem

per

evo

dil

vzg

lya

d s

od

on

ovo

na

dru

go

vo

per

evo

dil

vgly

ad

Pro

cess

loo

ked

Oli

ver

loo

ked

fro

m o

ne

to

th

e o

the

r w

ith

th

e g

reat

est

su

rpri

se

37za

met

il yu

niy

Ch

arl

i Bei

tsza

met

ilP

roce

sso

bse

rve

do

bse

rve

d C

har

lie

Bat

es

38o

ba

ma

ltch

ika

nez

am

ento

per

ebez

ha

li ch

erez

do

rog

up

ereb

ezh

ali

Teli

cw

alke

d a

cro

ssth

e t

wo

bo

ys w

alke

d s

teal

thly

acr

oss

th

e r

oad

39O

liver

zd

ela

l nes

kol'k

o s

ha

go

vzd

ela

l nes

kol'k

o

sha

go

v

Teli

cw

alke

d a

fe

w p

ace

s

(sam

e a

s ab

ove

)

Oli

ver

wal

ked

a f

ew

pac

es

afte

r th

em

40o

sto

no

vils

ya i

vzer

al n

a n

ih s

bez

mo

vnym

ud

evle

nie

mo

sto

no

visl

yaP

roce

ssst

oo

d (

sto

pp

ed

an

d

sto

od

)

sto

od

loo

kin

g o

n in

sil

en

t am

aze

me

nt

19

41O

liver

bys

tro

pri

sho

l v s

ebya

pri

sho

l v s

ebya

po

sle

ob

mo

roka

Teli

cre

cove

red

Oli

ver

soo

n r

eco

vere

d f

rom

th

e f

ain

tin

g

42O

n m

enya

ne

bes

po

koil

ne

bes

po

koil

Pro

cess

din

d't

wo

rry

ind

ee

d it

did

n't

wo

rry

me

43V

tu

po

ru o

n s

tara

lsya

ob

eto

m n

e d

um

at'

sta

rals

ya n

e d

um

at'

Pro

cess

en

de

avo

ure

d t

o t

hin

k

no

mo

re

he

en

de

avo

ure

d t

o t

hin

k n

o m

ore

of

the

su

bje

ct

44i o

n v

nem

ate

l'no

vys

lush

iva

l bes

kon

ech

nye

isto

rii

vysl

ush

iva

lP

roce

ssli

ste

ne

dso

list

en

ed

att

en

tive

ly t

o a

gre

at m

any

sto

rie

s sh

e t

old

him

45st

ara

ya le

idi d

olg

o r

asp

ost

ran

yala

s' o

pre

vosh

od

nyh

kach

estv

ov

svo

ih d

etei

rasp

ost

ran

yala

s'P

roce

sse

xpat

iate

dth

e o

ld la

dy

exp

atia

ted

a lo

ng

tim

e o

n t

he

exc

ele

nce

s o

f h

er

chil

dre

n

46O

liver

nem

no

zhko

po

du

ma

lp

od

um

al

Pro

cess

con

sid

ere

d (

tho

ugh

t

for

a w

hil

e)

Oli

ver

con

sid

ere

d a

litt

le w

hil

e

47O

liver

po

stu

cha

l v d

ver'

ka

bin

eta

po

stu

cha

lTe

lic

tap

pe

dO

live

r ta

pp

ed

at

the

stu

dy

do

or

48V

etu

min

utu

v k

om

na

tu v

osh

ol,

op

ira

ias'

na

to

lstu

yu

tro

st',

do

rod

nyi

sta

ry d

zhen

telm

en

vosh

ol

Pro

cess

the

re w

alke

dA

t th

is m

om

en

t th

ere

wal

ked

into

th

e r

oo

m, s

up

po

rtin

g h

imse

lf b

y a

thik

sti

ck, a

sto

ut

gen

tle

man

49So

ba

ka n

eso

mn

enn

o s

lysh

ala

shly

sha

laP

roce

ssh

ear

dTh

e d

og

no

do

ub

t h

ear

d

50Ta

koe

sop

roti

vlen

ie t

olk

o u

silil

a b

esh

enst

vo m

iste

ra

Saik

a

usi

lila

bes

hen

stvo

Teli

cin

furi

ate

d t

he

mo

reTh

is r

esi

stan

ce o

nly

infu

riat

ed

Mr

Sike

s th

e m

ore

51d

om

ku

da

pre

veli

Oliv

era

pri

veli

Teli

ch

ad b

ee

n c

on

veye

dTh

e h

ou

se t

o w

hic

h O

live

r h

ad b

ee

n c

on

veye

d

52Ev

rei n

a m

inu

tku

pri

ost

on

ovi

lsya

pri

ost

on

ovi

lsya

Teli

cst

op

pe

dth

e J

ew

sto

pp

ed

fo

r an

inst

ant

at t

he

co

rne

r o

f th

e s

tre

et

53p

eres

hio

l ch

ere

ulit

sup

eres

hio

lTe

lic

cro

sse

d[t

he

Je

w]

cro

sse

d t

he

ro

ad

54G

rya

z' t

ols

tym

slo

iem

lezh

ala

na

mo

sto

voy

lesz

ha

laP

roce

ssla

idTh

e m

ud

laid

th

ink

up

on

th

e s

ton

es

55ch

iorn

aya

mg

la v

esel

a n

ad

ulit

sam

ive

sela

Po

rce

ssh

un

ga

bla

ck m

ist

hu

ng

ove

r th

e s

tre

ets

56m

oro

sil d

ozh

d'

mo

rosi

lP

orc

ess

fell

(sl

ugi

shly

)th

e r

ain

fe

ll s

lugi

shly

do

wn

57vs

e b

ylo

ho

lod

nim

i lip

kim

na

osh

up

byl

o (

na

osh

up

)Te

lic

felt

(w

as t

o t

he

to

uch

)e

very

thin

g fe

lt c

old

an

d c

lam

my

to t

he

to

uch

58p

rob

ira

yas'

kra

du

chis

' vp

ered

pro

bir

aya

s'Te

lic

glid

ed

as h

e g

lid

ed

sli

ghtl

y al

on

g

59O

n s

hel

izvi

listy

mi i

uzk

imi u

litsa

mi

shel

Pro

cess

kep

t o

n (

sam

e

me

anin

g as

wal

ked

)

He

ke

pt

on

his

co

urs

e t

hro

ugh

man

y w

ind

ing

and

nar

row

way

s

60p

oka

ne

do

stig

Ben

tel-

Gri

na

do

stig

Teli

cre

ach

ed

un

til h

e r

eac

he

d B

eth

nal

Gre

en

20

61p

rosn

uvs

his

utr

om

(O

liver

)p

rosu

nvs

his

'Te

lic

awo

kew

he

n O

live

r aw

oke

in t

he

mo

rnin

g

62s

bo

l'sh

ym u

div

len

iem

uvi

del

uvi

del

Pro

cess

was

su

rpri

sed

to

fin

dh

e w

as a

go

od

de

al s

urp

rise

d t

o f

ind

63p

o g

olu

mu

po

lu b

ystr

o z

ash

liop

ali

sto

pa

nn

ye t

ufl

iza

shlio

pa

liP

roce

sssh

uff

led

A p

air

of

slip

sho

d f

ee

t sh

uff

led

has

tly

acro

ss t

he

are

flo

or

of

the

ro

om

64Sa

iks

tolk

nu

l Oliv

era

tolk

nu

lTe

lic

pu

she

dSi

kes

pu

she

d O

live

r

65i o

ni o

chu

tilis

v n

iko

j tio

mn

oi k

om

na

teo

chu

tilis

'Te

lic

en

tere

dan

d t

he

y e

nte

red

a lo

w d

ark

roo

m

66vo

ves

' ro

st le

zha

l mu

zch

ina

lezh

al

Pro

cess

was

re

po

sin

ga

man

was

re

po

sin

g at

fu

ll le

ngh

t

67O

n b

yl o

det

v s

yuir

tuik

byl

od

etP

roce

ssw

as d

ress

ed

He

was

dre

sse

d in

a c

oat

68o

ni b

ystr

o z

ash

ag

ali

po

gla

vniy

ulit

se g

oro

da

zash

ag

ali

Teli

ch

urr

ied

and

th

ey

hu

rrie

d t

hro

ugh

th

e m

ain

str

ee

t o

f th

e li

ttle

to

wn

69p

red

vori

tel'n

o z

ag

lya

nu

v v

okn

oza

gly

an

uv

Teli

cp

ee

pin

gaf

ter

pe

ep

ing

in

70U

sto

la z

a e

go

sp

ino

i sid

eli L

ovk

iy P

lut

sid

eli

Teli

csa

tA

t a

tab

le b

eh

ind

him

sat

th

e A

rtfu

l Do

dge

r, e

tc

71ru

ga

ya y

ego

za

med

len

no

st'

rug

aya

Teli

cm

utt

eri

ng

a cu

rse

(cu

rsin

g)

mu

tte

rin

g a

curs

e u

po

n h

is t

ard

ine

ss

72sl

ysh

ish

ty

ili n

etsl

ysh

ish

Teli

ch

ear

do

yo

u h

ear

?

73M

no

giy

e sm

ika

yut

gla

zasm

yka

yut

Teli

ccl

ose

Man

y h

un

ger-

wo

rn o

utc

asts

clo

se t

he

ir e

yes

in o

ur

bar

e s

tre

ets

at

such

tim

es

74vr

yatl

y o

nie

otk

royu

t ij

otr

kro

yut

Pro

cess

op

en

can

har

dly

op

en

th

en

in a

mo

re b

itte

r w

orl

d

75n

ad

zira

tiln

itsa

up

ala

v k

resl

ou

pa

laTe

lic

dro

pp

ed

into

the

mat

ron

dro

pp

ed

into

he

r ch

air

76za

du

ma

las'

ob

od

ino

koi s

voie

i su

db

eza

du

ma

las'

Teli

cth

ou

ght

tho

ugh

t o

f h

er

soli

tary

fat

e

77ch

ain

ik i

cha

ska

pro

bu

dili

pec

ha

l'nye

vo

spo

nin

an

ie o

mis

teri

Ko

rni

pro

bu

dili

Teli

caw

ake

ne

dth

e s

ingl

e c

up

had

aw

ake

ne

d in

he

r m

ind

sad

re

coll

ect

ion

s o

f m

iste

r C

orn

ey

78et

o p

od

eisv

avo

lo n

a n

eio

ug

net

aju

shi

po

dei

stva

volo

Pro

cess

was

ove

rpo

we

red

she

was

ove

rpo

we

red

79k

kom

u o

tno

silis

' eti

za

mec

ha

nie

byl

o n

e iz

vest

no

otn

osi

las'

Stat

eb

ore

re

fere

nce

we

the

r th

is r

em

ear

ks b

ore

re

fere

nce

to

th

e h

usb

and

or

the

te

apo

t w

as u

nkn

ow

n

80o

na

to

l'ko

otv

eda

la p

ervu

yu c

ha

shku

otv

edo

laP

roce

ssta

ste

dsh

e ju

st t

aste

d h

er

firs

t cu

p

21

81ra

spu

tvo

i ra

zgu

l vo

zvro

sha

yuts

ya d

om

oi

vozv

rosh

ayu

tsa

Pro

cess

stag

gere

dp

rofl

igac

y an

d r

iot

hav

e s

tagg

ere

d h

om

e t

o d

ream

82Fa

dg

in b

od

rstv

ova

l v s

taro

m s

voio

m lo

go

veb

od

rstv

ova

l P

roce

sssa

t w

atch

ing

the

Je

w s

at w

atch

ing

in h

is o

ld la

ir

83o

n s

idel

u h

olo

dn

og

o o

cha

ga

sid

elP

roce

sssa

th

e s

at o

ver

a co

ld h

ear

th

84p

ravu

yu r

uku

on

der

zha

l u r

tad

erzh

al

Pro

cess

was

rai

sed

his

rig

ht

han

d w

as r

aise

d t

o h

is li

ps

85ra

zka

z o

su

db

e te

j kto

vys

tup

al v

eto

j po

vest

ivy

stu

pa

lTe

lic

hav

e f

igu

red

the

fo

rtu

ne

s o

f th

ose

wh

o h

ave

fig

ure

d in

th

is t

ale

86R

oz

i Ga

ri s

och

eta

lis' b

rako

m v

der

een

sko

i cer

kvi

soch

ita

lis b

rako

mTe

lic

we

re m

arri

ed

Ro

se a

nd

Har

ry w

ere

mar

rie

d in

th

e v

illa

ge c

hu

rch

87v

totz

he

den

' on

i vst

up

ili v

o v

lod

eniy

a s

voim

no

vym

do

mo

m

vstu

pili

vo

vlo

die

niy

aP

roce

sse

nte

red

into

po

sess

ion

on

th

e s

ame

day

th

ey

en

ete

red

into

po

sse

sio

n o

f th

eir

hap

py

ho

me

88M

on

ks u

jeh

al s

o s

voie

j do

lej v

sa

mu

ju u

da

lion

oyu

ch

ast

'

no

vog

o m

ira

u-j

eha

lP

roce

ssre

tire

dM

on

ks r

eti

red

wit

h h

is p

ort

ion

to

a d

ista

nt

par

t o

f th

e N

ew

Wo

rld

89M

r B

rau

nlo

u u

syn

ovi

l Oliv

era

u-s

yno

vil

Pro

cess

ado

pte

dM

r B

row

nlo

w a

do

pte

d O

live

r as

his

ow

n s

on

90d

ost

oin

y d

oct

or

vern

usl

ya v

Ch

erts

ive

rnu

lsya

Teli

cre

turn

ed

the

wo

rth

y d

oct

or

retu

rne

d t

o C

he

rtse

y

91zd

es' o

n u

vlio

ksya

sa

do

vod

stvo

mu

vlio

ksya

Pro

cess

too

k to

he

re h

e t

oo

k to

gar

de

nin

g

92o

n v

osp

yla

l dru

zhes

imi c

hu

vstv

am

ivo

spyl

al

Teli

ch

ad m

anag

ed

he

had

man

age

d t

o c

on

trac

t a

stro

ng

frie

nsh

ip

93O

n p

od

mec

ha

l v n

jiom

no

vyie

ka

ches

tva

po

dm

ech

al

Pro

cess

trac

ed

he

tra

ced

in h

im n

ew

tra

its

of

his

ear

ly f

rie

nd

94o

n v

zya

l no

seb

ya o

bya

zon

no

sti o

sved

om

itily

avz

yal o

bya

zon

no

sti

Teli

cw

en

t in

to b

usi

ne

ssh

e w

en

t in

to b

usi

ne

ss a

s an

info

rme

r

95o

ni p

o p

rezn

emu

za

nim

ayu

t sv

oi p

ost

yza

nim

ayu

tP

roce

ssre

mai

nth

ey

stil

l re

mai

n in

th

eir

old

po

sts

96Sn

ach

ala

em

u p

resh

losh

tya

zhel

op

rish

los'

tya

zhel

oP

roce

sssu

ffe

red

He

su

ffe

red

mu

ch f

or

som

e t

ime

.

97Sn

izu

do

verj

u a

l ud

a b

y b

itko

m n

ab

it li

ud

mi.

na

bit

Teli

cp

ave

dTh

e c

ou

rt w

as p

ave

d f

rom

flo

or

to r

oo

f w

ith

hu

man

fac

es

98Le

gka

ia s

uye

ta v

za

le z

ata

vlia

eg

o o

po

mn

it'c

yaza

sta

vila

op

on

itsa

Pro

cess

reca

lle

dA

sli

ght

bu

stle

in t

he

co

urt

re

call

ed

him

to

him

self

99O

n u

vid

el s

ud

eiu

vid

elP

roce

sssa

wh

e s

aw t

he

jury

me

n

100

On

i vo

znik

ali

per

ed n

im v

str

imit

el'n

oi p

osl

edo

no

vest

ivo

znik

ali

Teli

cro

se u

pTh

ey

rose

up

in q

uic

k su

cce

ssio

n