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

Do the parallels meet?

On the origin of the accusative with infinitive construction in Slavic

| Pace University

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.

Keywords: accusative with infinitive construction, nominative with infinitive construction, grammaticalization, second accusative complement, infinitival complement, participial complement, Slavic, non-standard variety, non-finite participle (gerund) construction
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
Published online: 30 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00026.dan
References
Ambrazas, Vytautas
1979 Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė [A Historical Syntax of the Lithuanian Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
1990 Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskix jazykov [A Comparative Syntax of the Baltic Participles]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1997 Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
2006 Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorinė sintaksė. Historische Syntax der litauischen Sprache. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Bauer, Jaroslav
1972 Syntactica slavica [Slavic Syntax]. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně.Google Scholar
Bednarczuk, Leszek
2018 Początki i pogranicza polszczyzny [The Beginnings and Borderlands of Polish]. Cracow: Lexis.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1924 Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung 2: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. B. Adverbium. C. Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.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
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
Breza, Edward and Jerzy Treder
1981 Gramatyka kaszubska: zarys popularny [The Grammer of Cassubian: A Popular Outline]. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie.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
Comrie, Bernard
1981 “The theoretical significance of the Latin accusative and infinitive: a reply to Pillinger.” Journal of Linguistics 171: 345–349. DOI logoGoogle 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
2013 “Ukrainian in the language map of Central Europe: questions of areal-typological profiling.” Journal of Language Contact 6 (1): 134–159. DOI logoGoogle 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
2015 “On the mechanisms of the formation of the polysemy of comitative and instrumental categories in Slavic.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 5 (2): 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Oleksandr Popov (1855–80) and the reconstruction of Indo-European noun inflection.” Language and History 59 (2): 112–130. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danylenko, Andrii and Serjii Vakulenko
1995 Ukirainian (Languages of the World, Materials 05). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1897 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen 21. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Gaudio
2017 An Introduction to Ukrainian Dialectology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Language Contact in Europe. The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Ernout, Alfred and François Thomas
1953 Syntaxe latine. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Faßke, Helmut and Siegfried Michalk
1980 Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart. Morphologie. Bautzen: Domowina.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
Givón, Talmy
2009 The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Haudry, Jean
1977 L’emploi des cas en védique. Lyon: L’Hermès.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
Herrity, Peter
2000 Slovene. A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.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
Hirt, Hermann
1934 Indogermanische Grammatik, vol. 6 (1): Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der Verbalformen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.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
Karlsbeek, Janneke
1998 The Čakavian Dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 25). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.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
Klemensiewicz, Zenon
1974 Historia jȩzyka polskiego [A History of the Polish Language]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Komárek, Miroslav
2012 Dějiny českého jazyka [A History of the Czech Language]. Brno: Host.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
Kurzová, Helena
1986 “Accusativus cum infinitivo in the structural-typological approach.” Listy Filologické 1091: 1–10.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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamprecht, Arnošt, Dušan Šlosar, and Jaroslav Bauer
1986 Historická mluvnice češtiny [A Historical Grammar of Czech]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
MacRobert, C. M.
1986 “Foreign, naturalized and native syntax in Old Church Slavonic.” Transactions of the Philological Society 84 (1): 142–166. DOI logoGoogle 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
Mel’nyčuk, Oleksandr Savyč
1966 Rozvytok struktury slov"jans’koho rečennja [Development of the Slavic Sentence Structure]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.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
1883 Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, vol. 4: Syntax. Vienna: W. Braumüller.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
Mitchell, Robert and Nevill Forbes
1914 The Chronicle of Novgorod. 1016–1471. London: Royal Historical Society.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
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
Nitsch, Kazimierz
1907 Dyalekty polskie Prus zachodnich [The Polish Dialects of West Prussia] (Prace, Polska Akademija Umiejȩtności 3). Cracow: Komisja jȩzykowa.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Oravec, Ján and Eugénia Bajzíková
1986 Súčasný slovenský spisovný jazyk. Syntax [Modern Literary Slovak. Syntax]. Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladatel’stvo.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
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
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Popov, Aleksandr Vasil’evič
1881 Sintaksičeskie isslědovanija 1 [Syntactic Studies 1]. Voronež: V. I. Isaev.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
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
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
Schmalstieg, William R.
1988 A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard
1950 Griechische Grammatik 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Munich: Oscar Beck.Google Scholar
Shevelov, George Y.
1979 A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Jurij Sergeevič
1989 Indoevropejskoe predloženie [The Indo-European Sentence]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Slyn’ko, Ilarion Ilarionovyč
1973 Istoryčnyj syntaksys ukrajins’koji movy [A Historical Syntax of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Vyšča škola.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
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
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
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L.
1999 Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Tangl, Eberhard
1928 Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2011 Sociolinguistic Typology. Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Večerka, Radoslav
1961 Syntax aktivních participií v staroslověnštině [Syntax of the Active Participles in Old Slavic]. Prague: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelstvi.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
Vondrák, Wenzel
1908 Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik, vol. 2: Formenlehre und Syntax. Göttingen: Vandenboeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
1912 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeilin, Jacob
1908 The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English. Baltimore: J. H. Furst. DOI logoGoogle 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
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