1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00026.dan
2020-03-30
2020-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambrazas, Vytautas
    1979Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė [A Historical Syntax of the Lithuanian Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1990Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskix jazykov [A Comparative Syntax of the Baltic Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (ed.) 1997Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė. Historische Syntax der litauischen Sprache. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arkadiev, Peter
    2012 “Participial complementation in Lithuanian.” InClause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax, ed. byVolker Gast, and Holger Diessel, 285–334. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110280692.285
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110280692.285 [Google Scholar]
  6. AUM – Matvijas, Ivan Hryhorovyč
    (eds.) 1988Atlas ukrajins’koji movy [Atlas of the Ukrainian Language] 2: Volyn’, Naddnistrjanščyna i sumižni zemli; 2001, 3: Slobožanščyna, Doneččyna, Nyžnja Naddniprjanščyna, Pryčornomor’’ja i sumižni zemli. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Auty, Robert
    1980 “Czech.” InThe Slavic Literary Languages, ed. byAlexander M. Schenker, and Edward Stankiewicz, 163–182. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bauer, Jaroslav
    1972Syntactica slavica [Slavic Syntax]. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bednarczuk, Leszek
    2018Początki i pogranicza polszczyzny [The Beginnings and Borderlands of Polish]. Cracow: Lexis.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Behaghel, Otto
    1924Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung 2: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. B. Adverbium. C. Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bezpal’ko, O. P.
    1960Narysy z istoryčnoho syntaksysu ukrajins’koji movy [Studies in the Historical Syntax of Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Radjans’ka škola.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Birnbaum, Henryk
    1971 “Zum infiniten Ausdruck der Prädikation bei Johannes dem Exarchen.” InStudia palaeoslovenica, ed. byMarta Bauerová, and Markéta Štěrbová, 37–47. Prague: Charles University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Breza, Edward and Jerzy Treder
    1981Gramatyka kaszubska: zarys popularny [The Grammer of Cassubian: A Popular Outline]. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Coleman, Robert G. G.
    1985 “The Indo-European origins and Latin development of the accusative with infinitive construction.” InSyntaxe et Latin. Actes du II-me Congrès International de Linguistique Latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983, ed. byChristian Touratier, 307–342. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Comrie, Bernard
    1981 “The theoretical significance of the Latin accusative and infinitive: a reply to Pillinger.” Journal of Linguistics17: 345–349. 10.1017/S0022226700007064
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007064 [Google Scholar]
  16. Danylenko, Andrii
    2012 “…[I]s farsijskōhō i s tureckōhō jażika na ruśk’ij jezik perelōžil”: Script and Language Choice in Medieval Ruthenia.” InTranslation and Tradition in “Slavia Orthodoxa”, ed. byValentina Izmirlieva, and Boris Gasparov, 86–105. Zürich/ Berlin: LIT Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013 “Ukrainian in the language map of Central Europe: questions of areal-typological profiling.” Journal of Language Contact6 (1): 134–159. 10.1163/19552629‑006001008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-006001008 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 “On the relativization strategies in East Slavic.” InGrammaticalization and Lexicalization in the Slavic Languages, ed. byMotoki Nomachi, Andrii Danylenko, and Predrag Piper, 183–204. Munich: Otto Sagner.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015 “On the mechanisms of the formation of the polysemy of comitative and instrumental categories in Slavic.” Journal of Historical Linguistics5 (2): 267–296. 10.1075/jhl.5.2.03dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.5.2.03dan [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016 “Oleksandr Popov (1855–80) and the reconstruction of Indo-European noun inflection.” Language and History59 (2): 112–130. 10.1080/17597536.2016.1212579
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17597536.2016.1212579 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2018a “On the development of the nominative with infinitive in Baltic and Slavic. From Oleksander Popov (1855–1889) to Vytautas Ambrazas unbekannterweise.” InIncontri Baltistici in Pisa. Studi e Sagi, vol.2, ed. byPietro U. Dini, 11–38. Pisa: Joker.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. byJasmina Grković, Björn Hansen, and Barbara Sonnenhauser. 361–386. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110531435‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110531435-013 [Google Scholar]
  23. Danylenko, Andrii and Serjii Vakulenko
    1995Ukirainian (Languages of the World, Materials 05). Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Delbrück, Berthold
    1897Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen2. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner. 10.1515/9783111626796
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111626796 [Google Scholar]
  25. Del Gaudio
    2017An Introduction to Ukrainian Dialectology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b12421
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b12421 [Google Scholar]
  26. DGR
    DGR – Dialekty i gwary polskie. Kompendium internetowe [Polish Dialects. An Online Compendium] ed. by Halina Karaś (can be accessed atwww.dialektologia.uw.edu.pl/index.php?l1=opis-dialektow).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dindelegan, Gabriela Panǎ
    (ed.) 2013The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Drinka, Bridget
    2011 “The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constructions in New Testament translations of Latin, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic.” InIndo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches (Oslo Studies in Language 3 (3)), ed. byEirik Welo, 41–73. Oslo: University of Oslo.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2012 “Grammaticalization and contact. The Balkan perfects.” InGrammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, ed. byBjörn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 511–558. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271973.511
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271973.511 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2017Language Contact in Europe. The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139027694
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139027694 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eiche, Alexandra
    1983Latvian Declinable and Indeclinable Participles. Their Syntactic Function. Frequency and Modality (Stockholm Studies in Baltic Linguistics 1). Stockholm: Almquist and Wikseel.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ernout, Alfred and François Thomas
    1953Syntaxe latine. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Faßke, Helmut and Siegfried Michalk
    1980Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie. Bautzen: Domowina.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gebauer, Jan
    1929Historická mluvnice jazyka českého 4: Skladba [A Historical Grammar of Czech 4: Syntax]. Prague: Nákladem České Akademie věd a umění.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Givón, Talmy
    2009The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.146
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  36. Grünenthal, Otto
    1911 Die Übersetzungstechnik der altkirchenslavischen Evangelienübersetzung. Archiv für slavische Philologie32: 1–48. (see also 1910, 31: 321–366, 507–528)
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 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].” Slavia33 (3): 505–533.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Haudry, Jean
    1977L’emploi des cas en védique. Lyon: L’Hermès.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Havránek, Bohuslav
    1936 “Vývoj spisovného jazyka českého [A History of the Literary Czech Language].” InČeskoslovenská vlastivěda 3 (2): Spisovný jazyk český a slovenský, 1–144. Prague.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Herrity, Peter
    2000Slovene. A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hettrich, Heinrich
    1997 “Syntaktische Rekonstruktion bei Delbrück und heute: Nochmals zum lateinischen und griechischen AcI.” InBerthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, ed. byEmilio Crespo, García Ramón, and José Luis, 219–238. Madrid/Wiesbaden: UAM/L. Reichert.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hirt, Hermann
    1934Indogermanische Grammatik, vol. 6 (1): Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hricenko, Pavel Efimovič
    2008 “Carpato-balcanica v svete “Obščekarpatskogo dialektologičeskogo atlasa” [Carpato-Balcanica in the Light of The General Carpathian Dialect Atlas].” InKarpato-balkanskij dialektnyj landšaft: jazyk i kul’tura. Pamjati Galiny Petrovny Klepikovoj, ed. byAnna Arkad’evna Plotnikova, 26–57. Moscow: Institut Slavjanovedenija RAN.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Karlsbeek, Janneke
    1998The Čakavian Dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 25). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Karskij, Evfimij Fёdorovič
    2006Belorusy 2 (2): Jazyk belorusskogo naroda [The Belarusians 2 (2): The Language of the Belarusian People]. Minsk: Belaruskaja Èncyklapedyja.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Klemensiewicz, Zenon
    1974Historia jȩzyka polskiego [A History of the Polish Language]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Komárek, Miroslav
    2012Dějiny českého jazyka [A History of the Czech Language]. Brno: Host.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kropaczek, Stefan
    1928 “Zwrot “accusativus cum infinitivo” w jȩzyku polskim [The Construction of “Accusativus cum Infinitivo” in the Polish Language].” Prace filologiczne13: 424–496.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kurzová, Helena
    1986 “Accusativus cum infinitivo in the structural-typological approach.” Listy Filologické109: 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kurzowa, Zofia
    2006Jȩzyk 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]
  51. Kuteva, Tania and Bernd Heine
    2012 “An integrative model of grammaticalization.” InGrammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, ed. byBjörn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 159–190. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271973.159
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271973.159 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lamprecht, Arnošt, Dušan Šlosar, and Jaroslav Bauer
    1986Historická mluvnice češtiny [A Historical Grammar of Czech]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. MacRobert, C. M.
    1986 “Foreign, naturalized and native syntax in Old Church Slavonic.” Transactions of the Philological Society84 (1): 142–166. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1986.tb01051.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1986.tb01051.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Małecki, Antoni
    1879Gramatyka historyczno-porównawcza jȩzyka polskiego, tom 2 [A Comparative-Historical Grammar of the Polish Language, vol. 2]. Lwów: E. Winiarz.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Mel’nyčuk, Oleksandr Savyč
    1966Rozvytok struktury slov"jans’koho rečennja [Development of the Slavic Sentence Structure]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Miklosich, Franz Ritter von
    1868 “Über den Accusativus cum Infinitivo.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil. Hist. Cl, vol.60, 483–506. Vienna.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 1883Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, vol. 4: Syntax. Vienna: W. Braumüller.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Miller, Gary D.
    1974 “On the History of Infinitive Complementation in Latin and Greek.” Journal of Indo-European Studies2: 223–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Mitchell, Robert and Nevill Forbes
    1914The Chronicle of Novgorod. 1016–1471. London: Royal Historical Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Modzalevskij, Vadim L’vovič
    1912Aktovye 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]
  61. Moser, Michael
    1998Die 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]
  62. Nitsch, Kazimierz
    1907Dyalekty polskie Prus zachodnich [The Polish Dialects of West Prussia] (Prace, Polska Akademija Umiejȩtności 3). Cracow: Komisja jȩzykowa.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Nomachi, Motoki and Bernd Heine
    2011 “On predicting contact-induced grammatical change. Evidence from Slavic languages.” Journal of Historical Linguistics1 (1): 48–76. 10.1075/jhl.1.1.03nom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.1.1.03nom [Google Scholar]
  64. Novg
    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]
  65. Oravec, Ján and Eugénia Bajzíková
    1986Súčasný slovenský spisovný jazyk. Syntax [Modern Literary Slovak. Syntax]. Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladatel’stvo.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Ostr
    Ostr. – Ostromirovo Evangelie 1056–57 goda [The Ostromir Gospel of 1056–57] ed. Aleksandr Vostokov, St. Petersburg: Imp. Akademija nauk 1843.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pan’kevyč, Ivan
    1938Ukrajins’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]
  68. Palinodija
    Palinodija – Palinodija. Sočinenie Kievskago ieromonaxa Zaxarii Kopystenskago, 1621–1622 goda [Palinodia. A Work of Kyiv Archimandrite Zaxarija Kopystens’kyj, 1621–1622]. InRusskaja istoričeskaja biblioteka 4: Pamjatniki polemičeskoj literatury v Zapadnoj Rusi, 313–1200. St. Petersburg: Arxeografičeskaja kommissija 1878.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Panevová, Jarmila
    2008 “České konstrukce tzv. slovanského akuzativu s infinitivem [Czech Constructions of the So-Called Slavic Accusative with Infinitive].” Slovo a slovesnost69: 163–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Pepicello, Joseph W.
    1980 “The development of accusative-infinitive constructions.” InPapers 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. byElizabeth C. Traugott, Rebecca Labrum, and Susan C. Shepherd, 175–182. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.14.19pep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.14.19pep [Google Scholar]
  71. PG 1556–1561
    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]
  72. Pisarkowa, Krystyna
    1984Historia składni jȩzyka polskiego [History of the Syntax of the Polish Language] (Prace Instytutu jȩzyka polskiego 52). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Popov, Aleksandr Vasil’evič
    1881Sintaksičeskie isslědovanija 1 [Syntactic Studies 1]. Voronež: V. I. Isaev.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Potebnja, Aleksandr Afanas’evič
    1888Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike 1–2 [From the Notes on Russian [East Slavic] Grammar]. Xar’kov: D. N. Poluextov.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Salvi, Giampolo
    2011 “Morphosyntactic persistence.” InThe Cambridge History of the Romance Languages: Structures1, ed. byMartin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway, 318–381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Schenker, Alexander M.
    1980 “Polish.” InThe Slavic Literary Languages, ed. byAlexander M. Schenker and Edward Stankiewicz, 195–210. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmalstieg, William R.
    1988A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Schwyzer, Eduard
    1950Griechische Grammatik 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Munich: Oscar Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Shevelov, George Y.
    1979A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stepanov, Jurij Sergeevič
    1989Indoevropejskoe predloženie [The Indo-European Sentence]. Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Slyn’ko, Ilarion Ilarionovyč
    1973Istoryčnyj syntaksys ukrajins’koji movy [A Historical Syntax of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Vyšča škola.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Słoński, Stanislaus
    1908 Die Übertragung der griechischen Nebensatzkonstruktionen in den altbulgarischen Sprachdenkmälern. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde. Kirchhain: Max Schmersow.
  83. Supr. – Sever’janov, Sergej
    1904Suprasl’skaja rukopis’ 1 [The Suprasl Manuscript 1] (Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka 2/1). St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Švedova, Natal’ja Jul’evna
    1964 “Izmenenija v sisteme prostogo predloženija [Changes in the System of Simple Sentence].” InOčerki po istoričeskoj grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XIX veka 3: Izmenenija v sisteme prostogo i osložnёnnogo predloženija, ed. byViktor Vladimirovič Vinogradov and Natal’ja Jul’evna Švedova, 73–132. Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
    1999Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Tambor, Jolanta
    2006Mowa 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]
  87. Tangl, Eberhard
    1928 Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus.
  88. Trudgill, Peter
    2011Sociolinguistic Typology. Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Večerka, Radoslav
    1961Syntax aktivních participií v staroslověnštině [Syntax of the Active Participles in Old Slavic]. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelstvi.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 1996Altkirchenslavische (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]
  91. Vondrák, Wenzel
    1908Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik, vol. 2: Formenlehre und Syntax. Göttingen: Vandenboeck und Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 1912Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wiemer, Björn and Björn Hansen
    2012 “Assessing the range of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic”. InGrammatical Replication and Borrowability in Language Contact, ed. byBjörn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli, and Björn Hansen, 67–155. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271973.67
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271973.67 [Google Scholar]
  94. Zeilin, Jacob
    1908The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English. Baltimore: J. H. Furst. 10.7312/zeit93048
    https://doi.org/10.7312/zeit93048 [Google Scholar]
  95. 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 A47: 175–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 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 A54: 101–107.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00026.dan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00026.dan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error