Simple Denotation [Простота денотации]

I discuss the so-called general-factual imperfectives in Russian and argue against the tags 'simple denotation' and 'general facts' referring to them in the aspectological tradition. There are no such things as simple denotations and general facts, in Slavic languages or elsewhere. The claim raised by Paducheva (1996) that Russian GF imperfectives can encode unique situations is misleading. There is no uniqueness requirement in the Russian TAM system.

Clarification. The cover term 'general-factual meaning' comes from Maslov (1959, 1965, 2004). As a desriptive label, it is as good as it gets, but there are no such things as 'general facts' (Maslov), 'simple denotations' (Forsyth 1970), etc.  That is not a big issue for those who stick to whatever bizarr labels referring to some language phenomena. However if one attempts a semantic analysis, the terms like 'denotation', 'event', 'fact', 'uniqueness', etc. must be used with caution and reflected upon.

本文讨论俄语中所谓的通事实未完成体（general-factual imperfectives），并驳斥体貌学传统中用以指代这类体貌的标签“简单所指（simple denotation）”与“通事实（general facts）”。无论是斯拉夫语族还是其他语言，均不存在所谓的简单所指与通事实。帕杜切娃（Paducheva, 1996）提出的“俄语GF未完成体可编码唯一情境”的论断具有误导性，俄语时态-体貌-语气（TAM）系统并无唯一性要求。

### 说明
统括性术语“通事实意义（general-factual meaning）”源自马斯洛夫（Maslov, 1959、1965、2004）的研究。作为描述性标签，该术语已然足够完善，但诸如马斯洛夫提出的“通事实（general facts）”、福赛斯（Forsyth, 1970）提出的“简单所指（simple denotations）”等概念实则并不存在。对于那些坚持使用任意怪异标签指代语言现象的研究者而言，这或许并非严重问题，但倘若试图开展语义分析，则必须审慎使用并仔细审视“所指（denotation）”“事件（event）”“事实（fact）”“唯一性（uniqueness）”等术语。