Cover not available
Part of
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 123–214

Chapter 5
Perfects in Baltic and Slavic

| Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences | Russian State University for the Humanities | Vilnius University
| Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
This survey presents a comprehensive account of perfect constructions (based on an anteriority participle and an often optional auxiliary) in Baltic and Slavic over space and time, including dialects and high-contact minority varieties. Based on a classification by participle types and their combinations with be- and have-verbs, it provides a systematic check of renowned functions of perfect grams and evaluates accepted parameters of grammaticalisation. The most consistent common denominator of perfects in Baltic and Slavic lies in the irrelevance of most such parameters but an increase in admissible lexical input and a decrease in paradigmatic variability. The two most salient differences between Slavic and Baltic are (i) the high level of stability of voice orientation of participles in Baltic vs. the diathetic lability and repeated changes in voice orientation in Slavic, and (ii) stable systems of perfects of likely great antiquity in Baltic vs. the lack of consistently employed perfect systems in most Slavic languages.
Keywords: Baltic languages, Slavic languages, grammaticalisation, be-perfects, have-perfects
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perfects in Baltic
    • 2.1Formal issues
    • 2.2Functions of perfect constructions
      • 2.2.1Resultative proper
      • 2.2.2The perfect proper
      • 2.2.3Pluperfect
      • 2.2.4Future perfect
      • 2.2.5Counterfactual perfect
      • 2.2.6Possessive perfects
      • 2.2.7Interim summary
    • 2.3Issues of grammaticalisation
      • 2.3.1Lexical input
      • 2.3.2Morphosyntactic parameters of grammaticalisation
    • 2.4Issues of diachrony
  • 3.Slavic
    • 3.1Basic morphosyntactic classification
      • Type A
      • Type B
      • Type C
    • 3.2The provenance of the participles
    • 3.3Functional distinctions, range of lexical input and areal spread
    • 3.4Intersections with related domains
      • 3.4.1Evidential extension
      • 3.4.2Objective resultatives as distinct from the actional passive
      • 3.4.3Recipient passive
    • 3.5Diachronic development
      • 3.5.1The perfect in ancient Slavic
      • 3.5.2Auxiliation
      • 3.5.3Diathetic orientation of participles
      • 3.5.4Range and extension of lexical input
    • 3.6Pluperfect, future perfect and related constructions
      • 3.6.1Old Slavic
      • 3.6.2South Slavic
      • 3.6.3Modern West Slavic
      • 3.6.4Modern East Slavic
      • 3.6.5Future perfect
    • 3.7Summary on Slavic
  • 4.Bringing the threads together
    • 4.1Main lines of diachronic development and patterns of areal spread
    • 4.2On grammaticalisation parameters
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.05ark
References (163)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1999. Preterite decay as a European areal phenomenon. Folia Linguistica 33(1–2). 11–18.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Ronelle. 2006. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a grammar: With sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1990. Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskix jazykov [Comparative syntax of participles in Baltic languages]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
. ed. 2006. Lithuanian grammar. 2nd revised edn. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2006. Future and future perfect in the Old Novgorod dialect. Russian Linguistics 30:1. 71–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M. 2011. On the aspectual uses of the prefix be- in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2. 37–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Aspektual’naja sistema litovskogo jazyka (s privlečeniem areal’nyx dannyx) [The aspectual system of Lithuanian (with some areal data)]. In Vladimir A. Plungjan (ed.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki, vyp. 6: Tipologija aspektual’nyx sistem i kategorij [Studies in the theory of grammar. Vol. 6. Typology of aspectual systems and categories] (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 8(2)), 45–121.Google Scholar
2015. Negative events: Evidence from Lithuanian. In Peter M. Arkadiev, Ivan S. Kapitonov, Yury A. Lander, Ekaterina V. Rakhilina & Sergey G. Tatevosov (eds.), Donum semanticum: Opera linguistica et logica in honorem Barbarae Partee a discipulis amicisque Rossicis oblata, 7–20. Moscow: LRC.Google Scholar
2016. Vzaimodejstvie perfekta i otricanija v litovskom jazyke: arealʹnaja i tipologičeskaja perspektiva [Interaction of perfect and negation in Lithuanian: Areal and typological perspective]. In Timur A. Maisak, Vladimir A. Plungian & Ksenia P. Semenova (eds.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. 7. Tipologija perfekta [Studies in the theory of grammar. 7. The typology of the perfect] (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(2)), 115–163.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Perfect and negation: Evidence from Lithuanian and sundry languages. In Karin Mellum Eide & Marc Fryd (eds.), The perfect volume. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Arkadiev, Peter & Anna Daugavet. 2016. The perfect in Lithuanian and Latvian: A contrastive investigation. Paper presented at Academia Grammaticorum Salensis Tertia Decima , Salos, Lithuania, 1–6 August 2016.
Arumaa, Peeter. 1985. Urslavische Grammatik (Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen), vol. 3: Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Barentsen, Adriaan. 1986. The use of the particle БЫЛО in modern Russian. In Studies in Slavic and general lingusitics, vol. 8: Dutch studies in Russian linguistics, 1–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Birzer, Sandra. 2010. Russkoe deepričastie: Processy grammatikalizacii i leksikalizacii [The Russian gerund: Processes of grammaticalization and lexicalization]. Munich: Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna, Patrycja Jabłońska, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski. 2014. The riddle of ‘future tense’ in Polish. In Philippe De Brabanter, Mikhail Kissine & Saghie Sharifzadeh (eds.), Future times, future tenses, 165–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1994. Der Faktor Sprachkontakt in einer dynamischen Typologie des Slavischen. In Hans-Robert Mehlig (ed.), Slavistische Linguistik 1993. Referate des XIX. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Kiel, 21.-23. 9. 1993 (Slavistische Beiträge 319), 41–64. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
. 1998. Romanisches Adstrat im Moliseslavischen. Die Welt der Slaven 43(2). 339–354.Google Scholar
Breza, Edward & Jerzy Treder. 1981. Gramatyka kaszubska. Zarys popularny [Kashubian grammar. A popular sketch]. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles & Theresa Alt. 2004. A handbook of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian. (SEELRC Reference Grammars). [URL]
Budennaya, Evgeniya. 2018. Èvoljucija subʺektnoj referencii v jazykax baltijskogo areala [The evolution of subject reference in the languages of the Baltic area]. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences dissertation.Google Scholar
Bunčić, Daniel. 2015. “To mamy wpajane od dziecka” – a recipient passive in Polish? Zeitschrift für Slawistik 60(3). 411–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunina, Irina K. 1959. Sistema vremёn staroslavjanskogo glagola [The tense system of Old Church Slavonic verb]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Bužarovska, Eleni & Liljana Mitkovska. 2010. The grammaticalization of habere-perfect in standard Macedonian. Balkanistika 23. 43–66.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. ed. 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Eva Hedin. 2000. Current relevance and event reference. In Dahl (ed.), 385–402.Google Scholar
Damborský, Jiří. 1967. Participium l-ové ve slovanštině [The l-participle in Slavic]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Danylenko, Andrii. 2006. Slavica et Islamica. Ukrainian in context. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Dejanova, Мarija. 1970. Istorija na složnite minali vremena v bălgarski, sărbohărvatski i slovenski ezik [The history of compound past tenses in Bulgarian, Serbocroatian and Slovene]. Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija Nauk.Google Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M. 2013. See, now they vanish: Third-person perfect auxiliaries in Old and Middle Czech. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21(1). 77–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diels, Paul. 1963. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik: mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wörterbuch, Teil 1: Grammatik. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Dostál, Antonín. 1954. Studie o vidovém systému v staroslověnštině [A study of the Old Church Slavic aspectual system]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2017. Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erker, Aksana. 2014. Sposoby vyraženija prošedšego vremeni v belorusskom smešannom govore na balto-slavjanskom pogranič’e [Ways of expressing the past tense in Belarusian mixed subdialects in the Baltic-Slavic contact zone]. In Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to dialectology. The area of North, North-West Russian and Belarusian dialects, 130–149. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
. 2015. Strukturnye čerty smešannyx belorusskix govorov na balto-slavjanskom pogranič’e [Structural properties of the Belarusian mixed subdialects in the Baltic-Slavic contact zone]. Leipzig: BiblionMedia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feoktistova, A. S. 1961. K istorii sostavnogo skazuemogo s prisvjazočnoj čast’ju, vyražennoj pričastiem stradatel’nogo zaloga prošedšego vremeni (na materiale Novgorodskix pamjatnikov pis’mennosti XII-XVI vv.) [On the history of the predicate with a copular part expressed by a passive past participle (on the material of Novgorodian written monuments of the 12th-16th centuries)]. In Viktor I. Borkovskij & S. I. Katkov (eds.), Issledovanija po leksikologii i grammatike russkogo jazyka [Investigations on the lexicology and grammar of Russian], 194–208. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Ford, Gordon B., Jr. 1969a. The Old Lithuanian Catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579). A phonological, morphological and syntactical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1969b. Old Lithuanian texts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with a glossary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1976. Dialectal synchrony and diachronic syntax: The Macedonian perfect. In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, April 22, 1976, 96–104. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1977. The Grammatical categories of the Macedonian indicative. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 168–187. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
2000. Confirmative/nonconfirmative in Balkan Slavic, Balkan Romance, and Albanian with additional observations on Turkish, Romani, Georgian, and Lak. In Lars Johanson & Bo Utas (eds.), Evidentials in Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, 329–366. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Hunting the elusive evidential: The third-person auxiliary as a boojum in Bulgarian. In Victor A. Friedman & Donald L. Dyer (eds.), Of all the Slavs my favorites: In honor of Howard I. Aronson on the occasion of his 66th birthday (Indiana Slavic Studies 12), 203–230. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
2002. Macedonian. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
2004. The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 101–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma. 2006. Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology. Form and function, 29–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Passive constructions in Lithuanian. Selected works by Emma Geniušienė ed. by Anna Kibort & Nijolė Maskaliūnienė, trans. by Artūras Ratkus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov. 1988. Resultative, passive, and perfect in Lithuanian. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 369–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1976. Văznikvane na novi složni glagolni formi săs spomagatelen glagol ‘imam’ [The rise of new compound forms with the auxiliary verb ‘imam’ (‘have’)]. In Petăr Pašov & Ruselina Nicolova (eds.), Pomagalo po bălgarska morfologija: Glagol [Textbook of Bulgarian morphology: The verb]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 294–311. [Abridged and reprinted from Izvestija na Instituta po bălgarski ezik 5 (1957). 31–59.]Google Scholar
Giger, Markus. 2000. Syntaktické modelovanie slovenských posesívnych rezultatívnych konštrukcií v rámci dependenčnej gramatiky [Syntactic modelling of Slovak possessive resultative constructions in a dependency framework]. Jazykovedný časopis 51(1). 17–26.Google Scholar
. 2003. Resultativkonstruktionen im modernen Tschechischen (unter Berücksichtigung der Sprachgeschichte und der übrigen slavischen Sprachen) (Slavica Helvetica 69). Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
. 2016. Kongruenzbrüche in slovakischen possessiven Resultativa (Evidenz aus dem slovakischen Nationalkorpus). Jazykovedný časopis 67(3). 283–294.Google Scholar
Gołąb, Zbigniew. 1984. The Aromanian dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: MANU.Google Scholar
Grek-Pabisowa, Iryda & Irena Maryniakowa. 1999. Współczesne gwary polskie na dawnych Kresach północnowschodnich (eksploracja terenowa i rozpisanie tekstów przy udziale Małgorzaty Ostrówki i Anny Zielińskiej) [Contemporary Polish dialects in the former Polish northeastern peripheral dialects (fieldwork and transcription of records with cooperation by Małgorzata Ostrówka and Anna Zielińska)]. Warsaw: SOW.Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Zlatka. 1996. Le médiatif en bulgare. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée, 47–70. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1982. The ‘past simple’ and the ‘present perfect’ in Romance. In Nigel Vincent & Martin Harris (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb, 42–79. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1994. Passive participles across languages. In Barbara A. Fox & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and function (Typological Studies in Language 27), 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2001. Studies in the Latvian verb. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Roumyana Izvorski. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (Current Studies in Linguistics 36), 189–238. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Istrina, Evgenija S. 1923. Sintaksičeskie javlenija Sinodalʹnogo spiska I Novgorodskoj letopisi [Syntactic features of the Novgorod Primary Chronicle according to the Synodal manuscript]. Izvestija Otdelenija Russkogo Jazyka i Slovesnosti 24(2). 1–172; 26. 207–239.Google Scholar
Kaukienė, Audronė. 2004. Prūsų kalbos tyrinėjimai [Studies in the Prussian language]. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos Universitetas.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2013. Peculiarities and origins of the Russian referential system. In Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, 227–263. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klenin, Emily. 1993. The perfect tense in the Laurentian Manuscript of 1377. In Robert A. Maguire & Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the eleventh international congress of Slavists: Bratislava, August–September 1993; Literature, Linguistics, Poetics, 330–343. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Knoll, Vladislav. 2012. Kašubština v jazykovém kontaktu [Kashubian in language contact]. Prague: Filozofická Fak. Univ. Karlovy.Google Scholar
Koneski, Blaže. 1965. Istorija na makedonskiot jazik [The history of Macedonian]. Skopje: Kočo Racin.Google Scholar
Kukuškina, Ol’ga V. & Marija N. Ševeleva. 1991. O formirovanii sovremennoj kategorii glagolʹnogo vida [On the formation of modern category of verbal aspect]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 9. Filologija 6. 38–49.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuz’mina, Irina B. 1971. Predikativnoe upotreblenie pričastnyx form [Predicative use of participles]. In Irina B. Kuz’mina & Elena V. Nemčenko, Sintaksis pričastnyx form v russkix govorax [The syntax of participles in Russian dialects], 16–223. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1993. Sintaksis russkix govorov v lingvogeografičeskom aspekte [The syntax of Russian dialects from the perspective of linguistic geography]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Łaziński, Marek. 2001. Was für ein Perfekt gibt es im modernen Polnisch? Bemerkungen zum Artikel “Gibt es ein Perfekt im modernen Polnisch?” von H. Weydt und A. Kazimierczak (Linguistik online 4, 3/99). Linguistik online 8(1–01).Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lépissier, Jacques. 1960. Le futur antérieur en viex slave. Revue des études slaves 37(1). 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Dahl (ed.), 365–384.Google Scholar
Lötzsch, Ronald. 1967. Das Tempussystem des Slovinzischen im Vergleich zu dem des Sorbischen und Deutschen. Lětopis, Rjad A, 14(1). 23–46.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G. 2001. Old Church Slavonic grammar. 7th revised edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackevič, Juzefa F. & Elena Grinaveckienė. 1993. Dzeeprysloŭi na -(ŭ)šy ŭ belaruskix narodnyx gavorkax [Gerunds in -(ŭ)šy in Belarusian dialects]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 30. 105–108.Google Scholar
MacRobert, Catherine Mary. 2013. The competing use of perfect and aorist tenses in Old Church Slavonic. Slavia 82(4). 387–407.Google Scholar
Makarcev, Maksim M. 2014. Ėvidencial’nost’ v prostranstve balkanskogo teksta [Evidentiality in the space of the Balkan text]. Moscow: Nestor-Istorija.Google Scholar
Makarova, Аnastasija L. 2016. O formax i funkcijax perfekta v zapadnomakedonskix dialektax [On the forms and functions of the perfect in the western dialects of Macedonian]. In Timur A. Majsak, Vladimir A. Plungjan & Ksenija P. Semënova (eds.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. 7. Tipologija perfekta [Studies in the Theory of Grammar. Vol. 7. Typology of the Perfect] (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(2)), 217–234.Google Scholar
2017. On the Macedonian Perfect(s) in the Balkan Context. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 62(3). 387–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maslov, Jurij S. 1981. Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka [A grammar of Bulgarian]. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje. 1996. Tense, mood and aspect in Lithuanian and Latvian. Meddelelser av Slavisk-baltisk avdeling, Universitetet i Oslo, No. 75.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeannette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meermann, Anastasia & Barbara Sonnenhauser. 2016. Das Perfekt im Serbischen zwischen slavischer und balkanslavischer Entwicklung. In Alena Bazhutkina & Barbara Sonnenhauser (eds.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik. XXII. JungslavistInnen-Treffen in München. 12. bis 14. September 2013 (Specimina Philologiae Slavicae 187), 83–110. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Mendoza, Imke. 2013. Verhinderte Grammatikalisierung? Zur Diachronie von Resultativkonstruktionen mit mieć ‘habenʼ im Polnischen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 72. 77–102.Google Scholar
. 2018. Possessive resultative constructions in Old and Middle Polish. In Jasmina Grković-Major, Björn Hansen & Barbara Sonnenhauser (eds.), Diachronic Slavonic syntax: The interplay between internal development, language contact and metalinguistic factors, 161–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitkovska, Liljana & Eleni Bužarovska. 2011a. Za upotrebata na ima-perfektot vo makedonskiot standarden jazik vo relacija so konkurentnite glagolski formi [On the use of the have-perfect in the Macedonian standard languages in relation to competing verbal forms]. In Zuzana Topolinjska (ed.), Perifrastičnite konstrukcii so ‘ESSE’ i ‘HABERE’ vo slovenskite i balkanskite jazici [Periphrastic constructions with ESSE and HABERE verbs in Slavic and Balkan languages], 55–82. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Za ima perfektot vo makedonskiot standarden jazik [On the have-perfect in the Macedonian standard language]. Prilozi 35(1). 45–71.Google Scholar
Mološnaja, Tatiana N. 1996. Pljuskvamperfekt v sisteme grammatičeskix form glagola v sovremennyx slavjanskix jazykax [The pluperfect in the verbal system of the modern Slavic languages]. In Tatʹjana M. Nikolaeva (ed.), Rusistika. Slavistika. Indoevropeistika. Sbornik k 60-letiju Andreja Anatol’eviča Zaliznjaka [Russian, Slavic, and Indo-European Studies. A Festschrift for Andrej Zaliznjak on the occasion of his 60th birthday], 564–573. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole. 2005. Perfekts un saliktā tagadne latviešu valodā [Perfect and compound present in Latvian]. Baltu filoloģija 14(2). 137–154.Google Scholar
. 2019. Experiential and possessive passive perfect in Latvian. Paper presented at the international workshop “New Explorations into the Baltic Verb”, Vilnius University, September 23–24, 2019.
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Je. Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions, 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nitsch, Kazimierz. 1913. Nowy czas przeszły złożony [A new compound past tense]. Język Polski 1(4). 102–106.Google Scholar
Nomachi, Motoki. 2006. Ot posessivnosti k aspektual’nosti: distribucija glagolov imati i biti v slovenskom jazyke (v tipologičeskom osveščenii) [From possession to aspectuality: the distribution of imati ‘have’ and biti ‘be’ in Slovene (in a typological perspective)]. Slavia Meridionalis 6. 65–90.Google Scholar
. 2012. On the so-called possessive perfect in standard Serbian language (with a glance at other Slavic languages). Leptir Mašna: The literary journal of Balkan Studies 9(1). 89–97.Google Scholar
Pen’kova, Jana A. 2014. K voprosu o semantike tak nazyvaemogo buduščego složnogo v drevnerusskom jazyke (na materiale “Žitija Andreja Jurodivogo”) [On the semantics of the so-called compound past in Old Russian (on the data of The Life of Andrew of Constantinople)]. Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii 27(1). 150–184.Google Scholar
2016. Semantika slavjanskogo vtorogo buduščego i nekotorye tipologičeskie paralleli [The semantics of the Slavic second future and some typological parallels]. In Aleksandr M. Moldovan (ed.), Materialy meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii “Grammatičeskie processy i sistemy v sinxronii i diaxronii” [Proceedings of the International Conference “Grammatical processes in synchrony and diachrony”] (Trudy Instituta russkogo âzyka im. V.V. Vinogradova RAN 10), 475–488.Google Scholar
Petruxin, Pavel V. 2004. Perfekt i pljuskvamperfekt v novgorodskoj pervoj letopisi po sinodalʹnomu spisku [Perfect and pluperfect in the Novgorod primary chronicle according to the Synodal manuscript]. Russian Linguistics 28. 73–107.Google Scholar
Piskorz, Jadwiga. 2012. Die Grammatikalisierung eines neuen Perfekts im Polnischen: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungslogik des Perfekts. Munich: Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. & Anna Ju. Urmančieva. 2015a. The perfect in Old Church Slavonic: A corpus-based study in grammatical semantics. Presentation from Slavic corpus linguistics: The historical dimension , Tromsø, April 21–22, 2015.
. 2015b. Old Church Slavonic perfect: Semantic differences underlying formal variation? Handout of the talk at the international workshop Perfect: Variation. Synchrony, diachrony, acquisition , Trondheim, November 5–7, 2015.
. 2016. Semantika staroslavjanskix form perfekta i pljuskvamperfekta skvozʹ prizmu ix konstrukcionnyx osobennostej [The semantics of the Old Church Slavonic perfect and pluperfect seen through their constructional properties]. Abstract from the conference “Corpus approaches to the Balkan languages and dialects”, Institute of Linguistic Studies, Saint-Petersburg, December 2016. [URL]
. 2017. Perfekt v staroslavjanskom: byl li on rezul’tativnym? [The perfect in Old Church Slavonic: was it resultative?] Slověne 6(2). 13–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. K tipologii nerezul’tativnogo perfekta (na materiale staroslavjanskogo jazyka) [Towards a typology of non-resultative perfect (on the basis of Old Church Slavonic)]. Slavistična Revija 66(4). 421–440.Google Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir & Johan van der Auwera. 2006. Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(4). 317–349.Google Scholar
Požarickaja, Sof’ja K. 1991. O semantike nekotoryx form prošedšego vremeni glagola v severnorusskom narečii [On the semantics of some past tense verbal forms in the North Russian dialects]. Revue des études slaves 63(4). 787–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014а. O lingvogeografičeskix parametrax funkcionirovanija pričastnyx form v russkix govorax [On the linguogeographic aspects of the usage of participial forms in Russian dialects]. In Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to dialectology. The area of North, North-West Russian and Belarusian dialects, 109–129. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
2014b. Konstrukcii s glagolom byt’ (byl, byla, bylo, byli) v odnom severnorusskom govore: k voprosu o pljuskvamperfekte [Constructions with the verb ‘be’ in one North Russian variety: the question of the pluperfect]. In Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to dialectology. The area of North, North-West Russian and Belarusian dialects, 216–244. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Sakurai, Eiko. 2016. The perfect in Lithuanian: An empirical study. In Andra Kalnača, Ilze Lokmane & Daiki Horiguči (eds.), Valoda: Nozīme un forma. 7. Gramatika un saziņa [Language: Meaning and form. 7. Grammar and communication], 189–208. Riga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.Google Scholar
Scholze, Lenka. 2008. Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Sprachkontakt: mit Grammatiktafeln im Anhang. Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar
van Schooneveld, Cornelis H. 1959. A semantic analysis of the Old Russian finite preterite system (Slavistische drukken en herdrukken 7). ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Servaitė, Laimutė. 1988. Subjektinis rezultatyvas lietuvių kalboje (Perfekto formos su rezultatinės būsenos reikšme) [Subjective resultative in Lithuanian (Perfect forms denoting resulting state)]. Kalbotyra 39(1). 81–89.Google Scholar
Šewc-Schuster, Hinc. 1984. Gramatika hornjo-serbskeje rěče. 1. zwjazk. Fonologija, fonetika a morfologija [A grammar of Upper Sorbian. Vol. 1. Phonology, phonetics and morphology]. Budyšin: Domowina.Google Scholar
Sičinava, Dmitrij. 2013. Tipologija pljuskvamperfekta. Slavjanskij pljuskvamperfekt [The typology of the pluperfect. The Slavic pluperfect]. Moscow: AST-Press.Google Scholar
Silina, Vera B. 1995. Vido-vremennye otnošenija [Temporal-aspectual relations]. In Valerij V. Ivanov (ed.), Drevnerusskaja grammatika XII–XIII vekov [The grammar of Old Russian of the 12–13 centuries], 374–464. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sližienė, Nijole. 1995. The tense system of Lithuanian. In Rolf Thieroff (ed.), The tense systems in European languages, vol. 2, 215–232. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobolev, Andrej N. 1998. O predikativnom upotreblenii pričastij v russkix dialektax [On the predicative use of participles in Russian dialects]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5. 74–89.Google Scholar
Sonnenhauser, Barbara. 2011. ‘Renarrativʼ und indirekte Rede im Bulgarischen. Die Welt der Slaven 66. 131–154.Google Scholar
Spraunienė, Birutė, Auksė Razanovaitė & Erika Jasionytė. 2015. Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Voice and argument structure in Baltic, 323–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario & Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Dahl (ed.), 403–440.Google Scholar
Štícha, František. 1986. Systémový a funkční status konstrukcí s n/t-ovými participii v současné češtině [The systematic and functional status of constructions with n/t-participles in contemporary Czech]. Slovo a slovesnost 47(3). 177–185.Google Scholar
Swan, Oscar E. 2002. A grammar of contemporary Polish. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Taube, Moshe. 1980. On the penetration of the perfect into the Russian narrative system. Russian Linguistics 5(2). 121–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 2000. On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe. In Dahl (ed.), 265–305.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner. 1952. Die tocharischen Verbaladjektive auf -l. Eine syntaktische Untersuchung (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Institut für Orientforschung 9). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Topolinjska, Zuzana. [Topolińska, Zuzanna] 1983. Za dvojnoto poteklo na konstrukciite so ima vo makedonskiot literaturen jazik [About the double source of constructions with ima ‘have’ in Standard Macedonian]. II Naučna diskusija (Seminar za makedonski jazik) [2nd scientific discussion (Seminar on Macedonian)], 25–33. Skopje: Univerzitet Sv. Kiril i Metodi.Google Scholar
Topolińska, Zuzanna [Topolinjska, Zuzana]. 1995. Makedonskite dialekti vo egejska Makedonija, kn. 1: Sintaksa (del I) [Macedonian dialects in Aegean Macedonia. Vol. 1. Syntax]. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite.Google Scholar
Townsend, Charles E. & Laura A. Janda. 2003. Gemeinslavisch und Slavisch im Vergleich: Einführung in die Entwicklung von Phonologie und Flexion. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Trautmann, Reinhold. 1910. Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Einleitung, Texte, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Trost, Klaus. 1968. Die Perfektperiphrase im Altkirchenslavischen und Altarmenischen. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Syntax. Indogermanische Forschungen 73. 87–109.Google Scholar
. 1972. Perfekt und Konditional im Altkirchenslavischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Trubinskij, Valentin I. 1984. Očerki russkogo dialektnogo sintaksisa [Studies in the syntax of Russian dialects]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Vaillant, André. 1966. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Večerka, Radoslav. 1993. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax, II. Die innere Satzstruktur. Freiburg: Weiher.Google Scholar
. 1996. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax, III. Die Satztypen: der einfache Satz. Freiburg: Weiher.Google Scholar
Velkovska, Snežana. 1998. Izrazuvanje na rezultativnosta vo makedonskiot standarden jazik [The expression of resultativity in Standard Macedonian]. Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik “Krste Misirikov”.Google Scholar
Weiss, Daniel. 1977. Syntax und Semantik polnischer Partizipialkonstruktionen: im Rahmen einer generativ-transformationellen Sprachbeschreibung. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Whaley, Marika Lynn. 2000. The evolution of the Slavic ‘be(come)’-type compound future. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2004. The evolution of passives as grammatical constructions in Northern Slavic and Baltic languages. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 271–331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006a. Grammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian (a typological assessment). Baltistica 41(1). 33–49.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Relations between Actor-demoting devices in Lithuanian. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function, 274–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization in Slavic languages. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 740–753. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Lithuanian have-resultative – a typological curiosum? Lingua Posnansiensis 54(2). 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Umbau des Partizipialsystems. In: †Karl Gutschmidt, Sebastian Kempgen, Tilman Berger & Peter Kosta (eds.), Slavische Sprachen: Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 32:2), 1625–1652. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2017. Slavic resultatives and their extensions: Integration into the aspect system and the role of telicity. Slavia 86(2–3). 124–168.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. On the rise, establishment and continued development of subject impersonals in Polish, East Slavic and Baltic. In Seppo Kittilä & Leonid Kulikov (eds.), Diachronic typology of voice and valency-changing categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wiemer, Björn & Markus Giger. 2005. Resultativa in den nordslavischen und baltischen Sprachen: Bestandsaufnahme unter arealen und grammatikalisierungstheoretischen Gesichtspunkten. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Björn Hansen. 2012. Assessing the range of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic. In Björn Wiemer, Bernhard Wälchli & Björn Hansen (eds.), Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact, 67–155. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Ilja A. Seržant. 2017. Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us? In Walter Bisang & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 16), 239–307. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2004. Drevnenovgorodskij dialect [The Old Novgorod dialect]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar
2008. Drevnerusskie ėnklitiki [Old Russian enclitics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar
Sources
LiLa – The Lithuanian-Latvian parallel corpus, [URL]
LKT – The corpus of modern Lithuanian, [URL]
LKŽe – The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, electronic version, [URL]
NKJP  Polish National Corpus (Narodowy korpus języka polskiego), [URL]
PQ – The perfect questionnaire from Dahl (ed. 2000: 800–809)Google Scholar
PROIEL – The Treebank of Ancient Indo-European Languages, [URL] (Dag T. T. Haug and Marius L. Jøhndal. 2008. ‘Creating a Parallel Treebank of the Old Indo-European Bible Translations’. In Caroline Sporleder and Kiril Ribarov (eds.). Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage Data (LaTeCH 2008) (2008), pp. 27–34).
RNC – Russian National Corpus, [URL]
TOROT: The Tromsø Old Russian and OCS Treebank, [URL] (Hanne Martine Eckhoff and Aleksandrs Berdicevskis. 2015. ‘Linguistics vs. digital editions: The Tromsø Old Russian and OCS Treebank’. Scripta & e-Scripta 14–15, pp. 9–25).
WLČ 1845 – Wýbor z literatury české. Díl prwní. Od nejstarších časůw až do počátku XV století. Praha: W kommissí u Kronbergra i Řiwnáče, 1845.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Escher, Anastasia
2023. Македонский esse-перфект: лексическая дистрибуция и контекстные ограничения. In L’aspettualità nel contatto linguistico: lingue slave e oltre [Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 53], ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Wiemer, Björn
2023. Zu slavisch-baltischen Konvergenzen (und ihr Fehlen) im Aspekt-Tempus-Bereich. In L’aspettualità nel contatto linguistico: lingue slave e oltre [Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici, 53], ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Wiemer, Björn
2024. Ein Exot mit hegemonialen Ansprüchen. In Die Ukraine als Objekt russischer Großmachtansprüche [Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik, 109], ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Grkovic-Mejdzor, Jasmina
2022. On the origin of the optative use of the verbal adjective in -l. Juznoslovenski filolog 78:2 ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2021. Chapter 6. Perfect and negation. In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217], ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.