If Bulgarian offers two alternatives for most stative verbs denoting mental states of characters, then this should complicate the position adopted by Short et al. that such sentences are entirely in the narrator’s control. I will begin my comparison of the use of aspect as a cue of narrative view-point across two passages from Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers (1913) and their Bulgarian translations:
(A) One day in March he lay on the bank of Nethermere, with Miriam sitting beside him. It was a glistening, white-and-blue day. Big clouds, so brilliant, went by over- head, while shadows stole along on the water. The clear spaces in the sky were of clean, cold blue. Paul lay on his back in the old grass, looking up. He could not bear to look at Miriam. She seemed to want him, and he resisted. He resisted all the time. He wanted now to give her passion and tenderness, and he could not. He felt that she
wanted the soul out of his body, and not him. All his strength and energy she drew
into herself through some channel which united them. She did not want to meet him, so that there were two of them, man and woman together. She wanted to draw all of him into her. It urged him to intensity like madness, which fascinated him as drug- taking might. (239; italics added)
Most of the sentences in this passage would probably be classed not as free indirect discourse, but as internal narration or even narration on Short et al.’s model. They contain verbs of cognition and emotion which on their analysis presuppose an external reporter of the state of the character, i.e. the narrator. Because Bulgarian offers at least two alternatives for most of these verbs, it would be interesting to follow through their Bulgarian translations.
One of the complications arising at this point would be that apart from the aspectual distinction on the stem of the verb, in the past tense Bul- garian also offers two alternative endings. These are regarded as tenses by Bulgarian linguists: the Past Complete Tense, or the Aorist, and the Past Incomplete Tense, or the Imperfect2. Most commonly, verbs with perfective or finished stems would take Aorist endings and verbs with im- perfective or unfinished stems would take Past Incomplete endings. But crossovers are also possible and new shades of meaning are created. Thus, imperfective stems can take Aorist endings in which case most typically
they usually mean that the action is completed in the past but it has had a certain duration while being carried out. For example, in a sentence like: “For nine years he wandered about, homeless, sleepless, restless”3, the imperfective verb would be combined with the Aorist to express this meaning of duration and completion at the same time. Or, it is also pos- sible to combine imperfective verbs with the Aorist in order to express iterative events within a limited period of time: e.g. “Several times during the night I was awoken by the loud barking of the dog”.
The Past Incomplete Tense, or the Imperfect, denotes events in prog- ress, concurrent with another past orientational moment, which may not have finished before the moment of speaking. Most typically, the Past In- complete Tense combines with imperfective or unfinished verb stems. But perfective stems can also take the Past Incomplete Tense in some special circumstances. Usually, this combination of perfective verb stem with Past Unfinished Tense, or Imperfect, results in modal meanings— conditional, optative etc.: e.g. “If this happened, then the trip would be most delightful; If only the damned telegram would arrive”. And finally, perfective stems in the Past Incomplete could express habitual events: “He would get up in the morning, lay the table and begin to wait for the others”. Thus, a four-way distinction of past meanings is possible in Bul- garian, a feature unique to Bulgarian and Macedonian, which does not occur in other Slavonic languages. Most typically, however, perfective verbs would take the Aorist and imperfective verbs the Imperfect past tense endings. This is the case in the first Lawrence passage that I quote above. All of the verbs I have underlined are rendered by the Bulgarian translator as imperfective verbs in the Past Incomplete Tense. In the table below I have given both the imperfective form in the Past Incomplete and the perfective counterpart in the Aorist in order to highlight the possibility of an alternative choice.
he lay: легна (perfective Aorist) – лежеше (imperfective Imperfect) was: беше (imperfective Imperfect)
they went by: се понесоха (perfective Aorist) – се носеха (imperfective
Imperfect)
they stole along: се прокраднаха (perfective Aorist) – се прокрадваха (im-
perfective Imperfect)
they were: се синяха (perfective Aorist) – се синееха (imperfective Im-
perfect) [verb derived from “blue”]
he could not bear: нямаше сили (imperfective Imperfect) [had no strength] she seemed to want: пожела (perfective Aorist) – желаеше (imperfective Imperfect)
[desired]
he resisted: съпротиви (perfective Aorist) – съпротивяваше (imperfective
Imperfect)
he wanted: поиска (perfective Aorist) – искаше (imperfective Imperfect) he could not: не можа (perfective Aorist) – не можеше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
he felt: почувства (perfective Aorist) – чувстваше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
she drew: изсмука (perfective Aorist) – изсмукваше (imperfective Im-
perfect) [suck out]
she did not want: не поиска (perfective Aorist) – не искаше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
it urged: изпълни (perfective Aorist) – изпълваше (imperfective Im-
perfect) [filled throughout]
it fascinated: омая (perfective Aorist) – омайваше (imperfective Imperfect)
[fascinated, intoxicated]
In all of the sentences that focus on Paul’s internal states the translator has chosen the imperfective verb with Past Incomplete endings. This renders the experience as being in the process of unfolding. Bulgarian linguists point out that the Past Incomplete corresponds in all of its meanings to the present tense and as such, when used in quasi-direct discourse, it denotes experience which is current and immediate for the character. These semantic properties of the Past Incomplete and of imperfective verbs give a different shade of meaning as opposed to perfective verbs in the Past Complete. Each and every sentence of this passage could have been translated using perfective verbs in the Past Complete. However, their typical value of denoting punctual events, completed in the past, and arranged chronologically might not have been entirely adequate stylist- ically. I think that given the semantic properties of all the verbs in the passage, and given the meaning of the whole episode, the translator’s de- cision to choose imperfective verbs in the Past Incomplete has been sensi- tive and justified.
But apart from rendering the episode successfully in a foreign lan- guage, the translator’s choices also signal the strong semantic connota- tions of these sentences: they are closely associated with the character’s experiences and as such stem from his point of view. Translating all of these events and states in a tense and aspect that foreground the progress of the experience makes this experience more immediate.
An immediate conclusion that can be reached at this point is that men- tal verbs which denote states of the character are always translated as im- perfective verbs in the Past Incomplete. But it is not the case, as the fol- lowing passage from the same novel demonstrates:
(B) Morel watched her shyly. He saw again the passion she had had for him. It blazed upon her for a moment. He was shy, rather scared, and humble. Yet again he felt his old glow. And then immediately he felt the ruin he had made during these years. He
wanted to bustle about, to run away from it. (243; italics added)
Interestingly, the verbs in this passage are mostly rendered as perfective Aorists. The list of pairs of verbs, where available, is included below:
he watched: погледна (perfective Aorist)—гледаше (imperfective Imperfect) he saw: усети (perfective Aorist)—усещаше (imperfective Imperfect)
[=felt]
it blazed: припламна (perfective Aorist)—припламваше/пламтеше (im-
perfective Imperfect)
he was shy: се притесни (perfective Aorist)—се притесняваше (imperfective
Imperfect) [=got anxious]
he felt: усети (perfective Aorist)—усещаше (imperfective Imperfect) he felt: почувства (perfective Aorist)—чувстваше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
he had made: се е превърнал (Past indefinite) [=had transformed himself into] he wanted: прииска му се (perfective Aorist)—искаше му се (imperfective
Imperfect)
There is only one imperfective form in the Imperfect in the whole passage and that is the form of the first verb “watched”. In all other instances where the English verb is in the Past Simple the Bulgarian translator has chosen to render it with a perfective verb in the Aorist. Although some verbs in the passage could have been rendered in the Imperfect with im- perfective verb stems, the choice has in this case fallen on the perfective
Aorist. I use this passage to demonstrate that both alternatives are avail- able in the language. If we are only guided by the type of verb, stative verbs can be translated as imperfective Imperfects as we saw in passage (A) and they can also be translated as perfective Aorists as we see here in passage (B). The question now would be: is this a random decision on the part of the translator?
This passage, as opposed to the one quoted in (A), displays certain signals of temporal ordering that might perhaps account for the trans- lator’s choice of perfective Aorists. In sentence two where the translator switches to perfective Aorists, we have the adverb “again” which suggests a new occurrence of an event and as such punctuates the series of events. The adverb features in the Bulgarian translation and might be taken as a signal of a particular moment in the chronological development of the narrative. Sentence three also displays an adverbial phrase which denotes instantaneousness: “for a moment”. The verb that the translator uses here begins with a prefix “при-” that is a common perfective prefix on verb stems. There is a possibility to derive an imperfective verb from this perfective stem, but its meaning in this case would be of an intermit-tent event, e.g. it can be used with the verb “to light” as in “присвятква” (=there are lightnings). Without the prefix the imperfective form of the verb could readily take the Imperfect and mean simply “it was blazing”. Since here English also offers a choice between simple and progressive, the translator has adhered closely to the writer’s choice of verb, but also has observed the semantic restrictions imposed by the adverbial phrase. The verb in the next sentence “he felt” is a stative verb, so its form in English is limited to the Past Simple, but the Bulgarian form chosen is again of a perfective Aorist. It seems to me that the presence of the ad- verbs “yet again” is once more taken as a contextual clue for the punctu- ality and chronological ordering of the events described.
A similar reasoning might have resulted in the choice of a perfective Aorist for the verb “he felt” in the next sentence. Here, the explicit chron- ological adverb “then” and the punctuality denoted by the other adverb “immediately” have probably triggered the choice of verb form made by the translator. Bulgarian would not permit the combination of either of these adverbs with an imperfective verb in the Imperfect. Although here the translator omits “then”, “immediately” on its own imposes the same restriction. The final sentence would permit the use of an imperfective Imperfect verb, but what seems to have happened here is that the con- straints on some of the verbs in the passage influence the rest of the verb
choices. Perhaps switches from one aspectual class to another within the boundaries of a short paragraph like this would have resulted in incoher- ence, or as Jacob Mey describes this phenomenon, here we have the prin- ciple of “interpretative obstination” or “syntactic inertia” (Mey 1999: 33). In other words, unless strongly prompted to reshape an interpretation, a reader will keep an established interpretation within sentence boundaries, and even across sentences and within paragraphs. Once the pattern of using perfective Aorists is established in sentence two, the translator ad- heres to it throughout the paragraph, thus suggesting an interpretation of these sentences as stemming from the narrator’s point of view. A shift to the other aspectual class would have resulted in a shift to the character’s point of view which if chosen in the final sentence alone would have required too big an interpretative leap.
The translator’s choices of verb forms in (A) would strongly suggest that character states are not entirely in the narrator’s control. Even though they cannot, and probably are not, consciously articulated by the char- acter, it is semantically implausible to position them under the narrator’s control on Short et al.’s cline of modes of thought presentation if a nar- rative internal viewpoint is suggested through the use of imperfective verbs in the Imperfect past tense. On the other hand, the verb forms used in the translation of (B) would seem to support the position adopted by Short et al. since perfective Aorists would imply that these states are viewed holistically as punctual, discrete and completed events in the past. Perhaps this would support the hypothesis that these states, precisely be- cause they cannot be verbalized by the character are more likely to stem from the narrator’s viewpoint. Another passage from Sons and Lovers, quoted in (C), would address this issue further:
(C) Miriam was astonished and hurt for him. It had cost him an effort. She left him, wanting to spare him any further humiliation. A fine rain blew in her face as she
walked along the road. She was hurt deep down; and she despised him for being
blown about by any wind of authority. And in her heart of hearts, unconsciously, she
felt that he was trying to get away from her. This she would never have acknowledged.
She pitied him. (241; italics added)
Only in the first sentence the translator has chosen to render the English past tense with two perfective verbs in the Aorist. All of the other English verbs in the past simple appear in the Bulgarian translation as imper- fective Imperfects:
she was astonished: се учуди (perfective Aorist)—се чудеше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
she was hurt: й домъчня (perfective Aorist)—беше й мъчно (imperfective
Imperfect)
had cost him: му бе струвало
she left him: си тръгна (perfective Aorist)—си тръгваше (imperfective
Imperfect)
she walked: (из)вървя (perfective Aorist)—вървеше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
it blew: запръска (perfective Aorist)—пръскаше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
she was hurt: прониза (perfective Aorist)—пронизваше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
she despised him: презря го (perfective Aorist)—презираше го (imperfective
Imperfect)
she felt: почувства (perfective Aorist)—чувстваше (imperfective Im-
perfect)
she would never have acknowledged:
никога не би признала
What is of particular interest in this passage is the sentence: “And in her heart of hearts, unconsciously, she felt that he was trying to get away from her.” The explicit lexical signals that the feelings of the character are buried deep beneath the level of consciousness and that they are indeed unconscious would perhaps prompt some analysts to attribute this sentence to the narrator. After all, Miriam is not consciously aware of these feelings and what is more she would never have acknowledged them. But interestingly, this transcription of what is supposedly hidden from the character herself is rendered once again in Bulgarian with verbs that very much implicate her own experience of these states in the text. Do we, therefore, need to posit an external observer for the presentation of these states; is the voice of the narrator necessary in sentences of char- acter internal states for the reasons that Short et al. list?
On the evidence of the examples so far I would argue that the element of unconscious half-sensing of certain states on the part of the character is not a valid reason to attribute sentences of this kind to the narrator. A language like Bulgarian that allows aspectual distinctions for these kinds of verbs can be used as a nice test-case of the two possibilities of at-
tributing such sentences to the narrator or to the character. My passage (A) offers evidence that the internal states of the character are more strongly linked with that character’s viewpoint than with the narrator’s voice. Passage (B), on the other hand, shows that imperfective Imperfects are not the only available option for rendering past tense stative verbs into Bulgarian and that contextual signals impose semantic restrictions on the interpretation of viewpoint in the paragraph as a whole. The most instructive example, perhaps, is the passage quoted in (C). It shows that Bulgarian allows the use of imperfective verbs in the Imperfect, even where we are explicitly told that a character is unconscious of a certain state. In this case it seems that the semantic properties of the verbs which denote mental states are so strongly linked with character subjectivity that their imperfective forms coupled with the Imperfect are considered to be the stylistically appropriate option. The interpretation of the passage, thus, is once again as arising from Miriam’s point of view, rather than as a report delivered by a controlling narrator.
Further confirmation of the strong semantic links between stative and mental verbs and character point of view is also witnessed in the com- parison of a passage from Woolf’s To the Lighthouse (1927) with its Bul- garian counterpart:
(D) But his son hated him. He hated him for coming up to them, for stopping and looking down on them; he hated him for interrupting them; he hated him for the exal- tation and sublimity of his gestures; for the magnificence of his head; for his ex- actingness and egotism (for there he stood, commanding them to attend to him); but most of all, he hated the twang and twitter of his father’s emotion which, vibrating round them, disturbed the perfect simplicity and good sense of his relations with his mother. By looking fixedly at the page, he hoped to make him move on; by pointing his finger at a word, he hoped to recall his mother’s attention, which, he knew angrily,
wavered instantly his father stopped. But no. Nothing would make Mr Ramsey move
on. There he stood, demanding sympathy. (44; italics added)
he hated: намрази (perfective Aorist)—мразеше (imperfective Imperfect) he stood: застана (perfective Aorist)—стои (present)
vibrating: не спряха (perfective Aorist)—не спираха [did not stop (to flutter)] he hoped: се надяваше (imperfective Imperfect)
he knew: узна (perfective Aorist)—знаеше (imperfective Imperfect)
разсърди (perfective Aorist)—сърдеше (imperfective Imperfect)
wavered: се разсея (perfective Aorist)—се разсейваше (imperfective Im-
would make: не беше в състояние (imperfective Imperfect) [nothing was in the
ability to]
he stood: застана (perfective Aorist)—стоеше (imperfective Imperfect)
The pattern of choosing imperfective Imperfect verbs is repeated here as well. In some cases, as with the verb “hope”, the translator has had no al- ternative; in others, as with the non-stative verb “stood”, the alternative perfective Aorist could have been chosen. But all of the mental verbs that denote states of the character are once again rendered with imperfective verbs in the Imperfect. What is perhaps most revealing about this extract is that in one place the translator spontaneously chooses the present tense verb: appropriately, this occurs in the clause inserted in parentheses that interrupts the coherence of the series of parallel clauses beginning with “he hated him.” There are no strict rules about the sequence of tenses in Bulgarian which allows the use of the present in subordinate clauses for example, so these transitions from past to present are perceived as far less ungrammatical than in English. In this case, the digression in the char- acter’s mind which is inserted in parentheses, is felt by the translator to be an experience so immediate that she renders the verb in an aspect and tense that foreground the duration of the event and its presentness, thus placing us amidst its unfolding.
On the evidence of the Bulgarian translations of (A), (C) and (D), then, I would like to suggest that the narrative internal observation point from