Cover not available

Article published In: Latin influence on the syntax of the languages of Europe:
Edited by Bert Cornillie and Bridget Drinka
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 33] 2019
► pp. 150–182

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Do the parallels meet?

On the origin of the accusative with infinitive construction in Slavic

 | Pace University
Published online: 30 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00026.dan
Abstract
The paper is concerned with the origin and the development of the Accusative with Infinitive (AcI) construction in Slavic. Looking into the areal-typological, diachronic, and socio-typological parameters of the AcI construction, the author introduces new Slavic dialectal and comparative material and reconstructs the developmental cline of this construction along two parallel pathways of grammaticalization of the second accusative complement in Proto-Indo-European. The grammaticalization of infinitival complementation, typical primarily of those Slavic varieties which acquired secondary analytical features, is distinguished from the grammaticalization of participial complementation which is commonly attested in the history of low-contact Slavic languages and dialects like Southwest Ukrainian and some Polish dialects. Special emphasis is placed on the interaction between infinitival and participial grammaticalization in the history of Slavic standard and non-standard varieties, which allows the author to substantiate an initial switching between the two pathways as attested in Old Church Slavonic and early standard varieties of (West) Slavic.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidence from the ‘high-contact’ standard Slavic languages
    • 2.1Old Church Slavonic
    • 2.2Czech
    • 2.3Polish
      • 2.3.1Polish in contact with East Slavic
      • 2.3.2Polish dialects
  • 3.Evidence from ‘low-contact’ languages
    • 3.1(Southwest) Ukrainian
    • 3.2Lithuanian
  • 4.Interpretation
    • 4.1Reconstructing grammaticalization of the second accusative complement
    • 4.2Contact-induced or language-internal change?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (96)
References
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1979. Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė [A Historical Syntax of the Lithuanian Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskix jazykov [A Comparative Syntax of the Baltic Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 1997. Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė. Historische Syntax der litauischen Sprache. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter. 2012. “Participial complementation in Lithuanian.” In Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, ed. by Volker Gast, and Holger Diessel, 285–334. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
AUM – Matvijas, Ivan Hryhorovyč et al. (eds.). 1988. Atlas ukrajins’koji movy [Atlas of the Ukrainian Language] 21: Volyn’, Naddnistrjanščyna i sumižni zemli; 2001, 3: Slobožanščyna, Doneččyna, Nyžnja Naddniprjanščyna, Pryčornomor’’ja i sumižni zemli. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auty, Robert. 1980. “Czech.” In The Slavic Literary Languages, ed. by Alexander M. Schenker, and Edward Stankiewicz, 163–182. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Jaroslav. 1972. Syntactica slavica [Slavic Syntax]. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarczuk, Leszek. 2018. Początki i pogranicza polszczyzny [The Beginnings and Borderlands of Polish]. Cracow: Lexis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1924. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung 2: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. B. Adverbium. C. Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bezpal’ko, O. P. 1960. Narysy z istoryčnoho syntaksysu ukrajins’koji movy [Studies in the Historical Syntax of Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Radjans’ka škola.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Henryk. 1971. “Zum infiniten Ausdruck der Prädikation bei Johannes dem Exarchen.” In Studia palaeoslovenica, ed. by Marta Bauerová, and Markéta Štěrbová, 37–47. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breza, Edward and Jerzy Treder. 1981. Gramatyka kaszubska: zarys popularny [The Grammer of Cassubian: A Popular Outline]. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, Robert G. G. 1985. “The Indo-European origins and Latin development of the accusative with infinitive construction.” In Syntaxe et Latin. Actes du II-me Congrès International de Linguistique Latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983, ed. by Christian Touratier, 307–342. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. “The theoretical significance of the Latin accusative and infinitive: a reply to Pillinger.” Journal of Linguistics 171: 345–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danylenko, Andrii. 2012. “…[I]s farsijskōhō i s tureckōhō jażika na ruśk’ij jezik perelōžil”: Script and Language Choice in Medieval Ruthenia.” In Translation and Tradition in “Slavia Orthodoxa”, ed. by Valentina Izmirlieva, and Boris Gasparov, 86–105. Zürich/ Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Ukrainian in the language map of Central Europe: questions of areal-typological profiling.” Journal of Language Contact 6 (1): 134–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “On the relativization strategies in East Slavic.” In Grammaticalization and Lexicalization in the Slavic Languages, ed. by Motoki Nomachi, Andrii Danylenko, and Predrag Piper, 183–204. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Oleksandr Popov (1855–80) and the reconstruction of Indo-European noun inflection.” Language and History 59 (2): 112–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018a. “On the development of the nominative with infinitive in Baltic and Slavic. From Oleksander Popov (1855–1889) to Vytautas Ambrazas unbekannterweise.” In Incontri Baltistici in Pisa. Studi e Sagi, vol. 21, ed. by Pietro U. Dini, 11–38. Pisa: Joker.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. “A tale of two pathways: on the development of relative clause chaining in East Slavonic.” In: Diachronic Slavonic Syntax. The Interplay between Internal Development, Language Contact and Metalinguistic Factors, ed. by Jasmina Grković, Björn Hansen, and Barbara Sonnenhauser. 361–386. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danylenko, Andrii and Serjii Vakulenko. 1995. Ukirainian (Languages of the World, Materials 05). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1897. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen 21. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Del Gaudio. 2017. An Introduction to Ukrainian Dialectology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DGR – Dialekty i gwary polskie. Kompendium internetowe [Polish Dialects. An Online Compendium], ed. by Halina Karaś (can be accessed at [URL]).
Dindelegan, Gabriela Panǎ (ed.). 2013. The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2011. “The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constructions in New Testament translations of Latin, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic.” In Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches (Oslo Studies in Language 3 (3)), ed. by Eirik Welo, 41–73. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Grammaticalization and contact. The Balkan perfects.” In Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, ed. by Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 511–558. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Language Contact in Europe. The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eiche, Alexandra. 1983. Latvian Declinable and Indeclinable Participles. Their Syntactic Function. Frequency and Modality (Stockholm Studies in Baltic Linguistics 1). Stockholm: Almquist and Wikseel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred and François Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe latine. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faßke, Helmut and Siegfried Michalk. 1980. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie. Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gebauer, Jan. 1929. Historická mluvnice jazyka českého 4: Skladba [A Historical Grammar of Czech 4: Syntax]. Prague: Nákladem České Akademie věd a umění.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grünenthal, Otto. 1911. Die Übersetzungstechnik der altkirchenslavischen Evangelienübersetzung. Archiv für slavische Philologie 321: 1–48. (see also 1910, 311: 321–366, 507–528)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haderka, Karel. 1964. “Sočetanija sub"jekta, svjazannogo s infinitivom, v staroslavjanskix i cerkovnoslavjanskix pamjatnikax [Constructions of the Subject, Сonnected with Infinitive, in Old Slavic and Church Slavonic Records].” Slavia 33 (3): 505–533.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haudry, Jean. 1977. L’emploi des cas en védique. Lyon: L’Hermès.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havránek, Bohuslav. 1936. “Vývoj spisovného jazyka českého [A History of the Literary Czech Language].” In Československá vlastivěda 3 (2): Spisovný jazyk český a slovenský, 1–144. Prague.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrity, Peter. 2000. Slovene. A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1997. “Syntaktische Rekonstruktion bei Delbrück und heute: Nochmals zum lateinischen und griechischen AcI.” In Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, ed. by Emilio Crespo, García Ramón, and José Luis, 219–238. Madrid/Wiesbaden: UAM/L. Reichert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1934. Indogermanische Grammatik, vol. 6 (1): Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hricenko, Pavel Efimovič. 2008. “Carpato-balcanica v svete “Obščekarpatskogo dialektologičeskogo atlasa” [Carpato-Balcanica in the Light of The General Carpathian Dialect Atlas].” In Karpato-balkanskij dialektnyj landšaft: jazyk i kul’tura. Pamjati Galiny Petrovny Klepikovoj, ed. by Anna Arkad’evna Plotnikova, 26–57. Moscow: Institut Slavjanovedenija RAN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karlsbeek, Janneke. 1998. The Čakavian Dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 25). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karskij, Evfimij Fёdorovič. 2006. Belorusy 2 (2): Jazyk belorusskogo naroda [The Belarusians 2 (2): The Language of the Belarusian People]. Minsk: Belaruskaja Èncyklapedyja.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 1974. Historia jȩzyka polskiego [A History of the Polish Language]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komárek, Miroslav. 2012. Dějiny českého jazyka [A History of the Czech Language]. Brno: Host.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kropaczek, Stefan. 1928. “Zwrot “accusativus cum infinitivo” w jȩzyku polskim [The Construction of “Accusativus cum Infinitivo” in the Polish Language].” Prace filologiczne 131: 424–496.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurzová, Helena. 1986. “Accusativus cum infinitivo in the structural-typological approach.” Listy Filologické 1091: 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurzowa, Zofia. 2006. Jȩzyk polski Wileńszczyzny i kresów północno-wschodnich XVI–XX w. [The Polish Language of the Vilnius Region and the Northeastern Borderlands in the 16th–20th Century]. Cracow: Universitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Bernd Heine. 2012. “An integrative model of grammaticalization.” In Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, ed. by Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 159–190. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lamprecht, Arnošt, Dušan Šlosar, and Jaroslav Bauer. 1986. Historická mluvnice češtiny [A Historical Grammar of Czech]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacRobert, C. M. 1986. “Foreign, naturalized and native syntax in Old Church Slavonic.” Transactions of the Philological Society 84 (1): 142–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Małecki, Antoni. 1879. Gramatyka historyczno-porównawcza jȩzyka polskiego, tom 2 [A Comparative-Historical Grammar of the Polish Language, vol. 2]. Lwów: E. Winiarz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mel’nyčuk, Oleksandr Savyč. 1966. Rozvytok struktury slov"jans’koho rečennja [Development of the Slavic Sentence Structure]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miklosich, Franz Ritter von. 1868. “Über den Accusativus cum Infinitivo.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil. Hist. Cl, vol. 601, 483–506. Vienna.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1883. Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, vol. 4: Syntax. Vienna: W. Braumüller.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D. 1974. “On the History of Infinitive Complementation in Latin and Greek.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 21: 223–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert and Nevill Forbes. 1914. The Chronicle of Novgorod. 1016–1471. London: Royal Historical Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Modzalevskij, Vadim L’vovič. 1912. Aktovye knigi gorodovogo urjada XVII veka 2: Spravy potočnye 1664–1671 godov [Records of the Town Government from the 17th Century 2: Current Affairs from the Years 1664–1671]. Černigov: Černigovskaja Gubernskaja učenaja arxivnaja komissija.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser, Michael. 1998. Die polnische, ukrainische und weißrussische Interferenzschicht im russischen Satzbau des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts (Schriften über Sprachen und Texte 3). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1907. Dyalekty polskie Prus zachodnich [The Polish Dialects of West Prussia] (Prace, Polska Akademija Umiejȩtności 3). Cracow: Komisja jȩzykowa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomachi, Motoki and Bernd Heine. 2011. “On predicting contact-induced grammatical change. Evidence from Slavic languages.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 1 (1): 48–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Novg. – Novgorodskaja Pervaja letopis’ staršego i mladšego izvodov [The Novgorod First Chronicle of the Older and Newer Manuscript Witnesses], ed. by A. N. Nasonov. Moskva/Leningrad: Alademija nauk SSSR, 1950.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oravec, Ján and Eugénia Bajzíková. 1986. Súčasný slovenský spisovný jazyk. Syntax [Modern Literary Slovak. Syntax]. Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladatel’stvo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ostr. – Ostromirovo Evangelie 1056–57 goda [The Ostromir Gospel of 1056–57], ed. Aleksandr Vostokov, St. Petersburg: Imp. Akademija nauk, 1843.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan’kevyč, Ivan. 1938. Ukrajins’ki hovory Pidkarpats’koji Rusy i sumežnyx oblastej 1: Zvučnja i morfolohija [The Ukrainian Dialects of Subcarpathian Rus’ and the Adjacent Lands 1: Phonetics and Morphology]. Prague: Orbis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palinodija – Palinodija. Sočinenie Kievskago ieromonaxa Zaxarii Kopystenskago, 1621–1622 goda [Palinodia. A Work of Kyiv Archimandrite Zaxarija Kopystens’kyj, 1621–1622]. In Russkaja istoričeskaja biblioteka 4: Pamjatniki polemičeskoj literatury v Zapadnoj Rusi, 313–1200. St. Petersburg: Arxeografičeskaja kommissija, 1878.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panevová, Jarmila. 2008. “České konstrukce tzv. slovanského akuzativu s infinitivem [Czech Constructions of the So-Called Slavic Accusative with Infinitive].” Slovo a slovesnost 691: 163–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pepicello, Joseph W. 1980. “The development of accusative-infinitive constructions.” In Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Stanford, March 26–30, 1979 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science IV, 14), ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott, Rebecca Labrum, and Susan C. Shepherd, 175–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
PG 1556–1561 – Peresopnyc’ke Jevanhelije 1556–1561 [The Peresopnycja Gospel of 1556–1561], ed. by Inna Petrivna Čepiha. Kyiv: National Academy of the Sciences of Ukraine, 2001.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pisarkowa, Krystyna. 1984. Historia składni jȩzyka polskiego [History of the Syntax of the Polish Language] (Prace Instytutu jȩzyka polskiego 52). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popov, Aleksandr Vasil’evič. 1881. Sintaksičeskie isslědovanija 1 [Syntactic Studies 1]. Voronež: V. I. Isaev.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potebnja, Aleksandr Afanas’evič. 1888. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike 1–2 [From the Notes on Russian [East Slavic] Grammar]. Xar’kov: D. N. Poluextov.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salvi, Giampolo. 2011. “Morphosyntactic persistence.” In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages: Structures 11, ed. by Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 318–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schenker, Alexander M. 1980. “Polish.” In The Slavic Literary Languages, ed. by Alexander M. Schenker and Edward Stankiewicz, 195–210. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William R. 1988. A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Munich: Oscar Beck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shevelov, George Y. 1979. A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stepanov, Jurij Sergeevič. 1989. Indoevropejskoe predloženie [The Indo-European Sentence]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slyn’ko, Ilarion Ilarionovyč. 1973. Istoryčnyj syntaksys ukrajins’koji movy [A Historical Syntax of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Vyšča škola.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Słoński, Stanislaus. 1908. Die Übertragung der griechischen Nebensatzkonstruktionen in den altbulgarischen Sprachdenkmälern. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde. Kirchhain: Max Schmersow.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supr. – Sever’janov, Sergej. 1904. Suprasl’skaja rukopis’ 1 [The Suprasl Manuscript 1] (Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka 2/1). St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Švedova, Natal’ja Jul’evna. 1964. “Izmenenija v sisteme prostogo predloženija [Changes in the System of Simple Sentence].” In Očerki po istoričeskoj grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XIX veka 3: Izmenenija v sisteme prostogo i osložnёnnogo predloženija, ed. by Viktor Vladimirovič Vinogradov and Natal’ja Jul’evna Švedova, 73–132. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1999. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tambor, Jolanta. 2006. Mowa Górnoślązaków oraz ich świadomość jȩzykowa i etniczna [Language of the Dwellers of Upper Silesia as Well as their Linguistic and Ethnic Mentality]. Katowice: Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Śląskego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tangl, Eberhard. 1928. Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology. Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Večerka, Radoslav. 1961. Syntax aktivních participií v staroslověnštině [Syntax of the Active Participles in Old Slavic]. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelstvi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax, vol. 3: Die Satztypen: Der einfache Satz (Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes, 36 (27, 3)). Freiburg im Breisgau: U. W. Weiher.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vondrák, Wenzel. 1908. Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik, vol. 2: Formenlehre und Syntax. Göttingen: Vandenboeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1912. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn and Björn Hansen. 2012. “Assessing the range of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic”. In Grammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, ed. by Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 67–155. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeilin, Jacob. 1908. The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English. Baltimore: J. H. Furst. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Žaža, Stanislav. 1999. “Konfrontační pohled na češtinu a ruštinu se zřením k vlivu latiny [A Contrastive Approach to Czech and Russian from the Point of View of Latin Influence].” Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity A 471: 175–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Některé případy česko-německého syntaktického izomorfizmu ve světle ruštiny [Some Cases of the Czech-German Syntactic Isomorphism in the Light of Russian].” Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity A 541: 101–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue