The Slavic perfective (pfv): imperfective (ipfv) opposition is based on stem derivation. It creates a complex network of functions for finite and non-finite forms, which largely applies regardless of aspectual pairedness (and actionality groups), since this opposition has classificatory properties. However, can derivationally related stems claimed to represent identical lexical concepts be treated as representatives of one or of two paradigms? The issue becomes especially intricate with aspect triplets in which two ipfv stems correspond to one pfv stem, as though combining two productive patterns of aspect derivation. On this background, we test some core assumptions of the morphology-lexicon interface on one typical aspect triplet from Polish and Czech, the cognate ipfv Pol. dzielić – rozdzielać , Cz. dělit – rozdělovat ‘divide, separate’. We provide their token-based analysis for the period 1750–2017. The two ipfv stems show preferences for different basic functions associated with the ipfv aspect, the coding of marginal arguments and adjuncts also yields clear biases of choice. These preferences prove stable over time, distinctions in form typically associated with inflection turn out to be altogether irrelevant. Our findings, as well as a revision of theoretical positions, support a notion of paradigm in which typical inflectional distinctions are brought into an equilibrium with functional inventories and collocational constraints.

中文翻译：

---

形态相关的同义词如何构成范式

斯拉夫完美（pfv）：不完美（ipfv）反对基于词干推导。它为有限形式和非有限形式创建了一个复杂的功能网络，该功能网络在很大程度上不受方面配对（和行动性群体）的影响，因为这种对立具有分类特性。但是，可以将声称代表相同词汇概念的与派生相关的词干视为一种或两种范式的代表吗？对于三胞胎三元组，其中两个ipfv茎与一个pfv茎相对应，就好像合并了两个方面的生产模式一样，这个问题变得尤为复杂。在此背景下，我们在来自波兰语和捷克语的同一个ipfv Pol的一个典型方面三元组上测试了morphology-lexicon接口的一些核心假设。 dzielić–rozdzielać， 捷克 dělit–rozdělovat '分开，分开'。我们提供了他们在1750-2017年期间基于令牌的分析。这两个ipfv词干显示了对与ipfv方面相关的不同基本功能的偏爱，边际自变量和辅助语的编码也产生明显的选择偏差。这些偏好随着时间的推移被证明是稳定的，通常与拐点相关的形式上的差异完全无关紧要。我们的发现以及对理论立场的修正，都支持一种范式概念，在该范式中，典型的折衷差异与功能性清单和搭配约束相结合。