Chapter published in:
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 124214
References

References

Abraham, Werner
1999Preterite decay as a European areal phenomenon. Folia Linguistica 33(1–2). 11–18.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & C. Jac Conradie
2001Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik: Präteritumschwund in gesamteuropäischen Bezügen; areale Ausbreitung, heterogene Entstehung, Parsing sowie diskurgrammatische Grundlagen und Zusammenhänge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Ronelle
2006Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a grammar: With sociolinguistic commentary. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas
1990Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskix jazykov [Comparative syntax of participles in Baltic languages]. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar
ed. 2006Lithuanian grammar. 2nd revised edn. Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
2006Future and future perfect in the Old Novgorod dialect. Russian Linguistics 30:1. 71–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter M.
2011On the aspectual uses of the prefix be- in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2. 37–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Aspektual’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
2015Negative 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
2016Vzaimodejstvie 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
2016The perfect in Lithuanian and Latvian: A contrastive investigation. Paper presented at Academia Grammaticorum Salensis Tertia Decima , Salos, Lithuania, 1–6 August 2016.
Arumaa, Peeter
1985Urslavische Grammatik (Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen), vol. 3: Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Barentsen, Adriaan
1986The 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
2010Russkoe deepričastie: Processy grammatikalizacii i leksikalizacii [The Russian gerund: Processes of grammaticalization and lexicalization]. Munich: Sagner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna, Patrycja Jabłońska, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski
2014The 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
1994Der 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
1998Romanisches Adstrat im Moliseslavischen. Die Welt der Slaven 43(2). 339–354.Google Scholar
Breza, Edward & Jerzy Treder
1981Gramatyka kaszubska. Zarys popularny [Kashubian grammar. A popular sketch]. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles & Theresa Alt
2004A handbook of Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian. (SEELRC Reference Grammars). http://​www​.seelrc​.org:8080​/grammar​/mainframe​.jsp​?nLanguageID​=1
Budennaya, Evgeniya
2018Èvoljucija 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bunina, Irina K.
1959Sistema vremёn staroslavjanskogo glagola [The tense system of Old Church Slavonic verb]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Bužarovska, Eleni & Liljana Mitkovska
2010The grammaticalization of habere-perfect in standard Macedonian. Balkanistika 23. 43–66.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
1985Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
ed. 2000Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–6). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Eva Hedin
2000Current relevance and event reference. In Dahl (ed.), 385–402.Google Scholar
Damborský, Jiří
1967Participium l-ové ve slovanštině [The l-participle in Slavic]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Danylenko, Andrii
2006Slavica et Islamica. Ukrainian in context. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Dejanova, Мarija
1970Istorija 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
Detges, Ulrich
2000Time and truth: The grammaticalization of resultatives and perfects within a theory of subjectification. Studies in Language 24(2). 345–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M.
2013See, now they vanish: Third-person perfect auxiliaries in Old and Middle Czech. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21(1). 77–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diels, Paul
1963Altkirchenslavische Grammatik: mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wörterbuch, Teil 1: Grammatik. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Dostál, Antonín
1954Studie o vidovém systému v staroslověnštině [A study of the Old Church Slavic aspectual system]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget
2017Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erker, Aksana
2014Sposoby 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
2015Strukturnye čerty smešannyx belorusskix govorov na balto-slavjanskom pogranič’e [Structural properties of the Belarusian mixed subdialects in the Baltic-Slavic contact zone]. Leipzig: BiblionMedia. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feoktistova, A. S.
1961K 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.
1969aThe Old Lithuanian Catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579). A phonological, morphological and syntactical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1969bOld Lithuanian texts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with a glossary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A.
1976Dialectal 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
1977The Grammatical categories of the Macedonian indicative. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
1986Evidentiality 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
2000Confirmative/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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Hunting 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
2002Macedonian. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
2004The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In Olga Mišeska Tomić (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 101–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geniušienė, Emma
2006Passives in Lithuanian (in comparison with Russian). In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology. Form and function, 29–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Passive 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
1988Resultative, passive, and perfect in Lithuanian. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 369–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Georgiev, Vladimir
1976Văznikvane 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
2000Syntaktické 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
2003Resultativkonstruktionen im modernen Tschechischen (unter Berücksichtigung der Sprachgeschichte und der übrigen slavischen Sprachen) (Slavica Helvetica 69). Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
2016Kongruenzbrüche in slovakischen possessiven Resultativa (Evidenz aus dem slovakischen Nationalkorpus). Jazykovedný časopis 67(3). 283–294.Google Scholar
Gołąb, Zbigniew
1984The Aromanian dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: MANU.Google Scholar
Grek-Pabisowa, Iryda & Irena Maryniakowa
1999Współczesne 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
1996Le médiatif en bulgare. In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation médiatisée, 47–70. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin
1982The ‘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
1994Passive 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2001Studies in the Latvian verb. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Roumyana Izvorski
2001Observations 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.
1923Sintaksičeskie 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
2004Prūsų kalbos tyrinėjimai [Studies in the Prussian language]. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos Universitetas.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A.
2013Peculiarities 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klenin, Emily
1993The 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
2012Kašubština v jazykovém kontaktu [Kashubian in language contact]. Prague: Filozofická Fak. Univ. Karlovy.Google Scholar
Koneski, Blaže
1965Istorija na makedonskiot jazik [The history of Macedonian]. Skopje: Kočo Racin.Google Scholar
Kukuškina, Ol’ga V. & Marija N. Ševeleva
1991O 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
2001Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuz’mina, Irina B.
1971Predikativnoe 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
1993Sintaksis russkix govorov v lingvogeografičeskom aspekte [The syntax of Russian dialects from the perspective of linguistic geography]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Łaziński, Marek
2001Was 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lépissier, Jacques
1960Le futur antérieur en viex slave. Revue des études slaves 37(1). 89–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko
2000The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Dahl (ed.), 365–384.Google Scholar
Lötzsch, Ronald
1967Das Tempussystem des Slovinzischen im Vergleich zu dem des Sorbischen und Deutschen. Lětopis, Rjad A, 14(1). 23–46.Google Scholar
Lunt, Horace G.
2001Old Church Slavonic grammar. 7th revised edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackevič, Juzefa F. & Elena Grinaveckienė
1993Dzeeprysloŭi 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
2013The competing use of perfect and aorist tenses in Old Church Slavonic. Slavia 82(4). 387–407.Google Scholar
Makarcev, Maksim M.
2014Ėvidencial’nost’ v prostranstve balkanskogo teksta [Evidentiality in the space of the Balkan text]. Moscow: Nestor-Istorija.Google Scholar
Makarova, Аnastasija L.
2016O 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
2017On the Macedonian Perfect(s) in the Balkan Context. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 62(3). 387–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maslov, Jurij S.
1981Grammatika bolgarskogo jazyka [A grammar of Bulgarian]. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje
1996Tense, mood and aspect in Lithuanian and Latvian. Meddelelser av Slavisk-baltisk avdeling, Universitetet i Oslo, No. 75.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeannette Sakel
2007Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meermann, Anastasia & Barbara Sonnenhauser
2016Das 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
2013Verhinderte Grammatikalisierung? Zur Diachronie von Resultativkonstruktionen mit mieć ‘habenʼ im Polnischen. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 72. 77–102.Google Scholar
2018Possessive 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mitkovska, Liljana & Eleni Bužarovska
2011aZa 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
2011bZa 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.
1996Pljuskvamperfekt 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
2005Perfekts un saliktā tagadne latviešu valodā [Perfect and compound present in Latvian]. Baltu filoloģija 14(2). 137–154.Google Scholar
2019Experiential 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
1988The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions, 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nitsch, Kazimierz
1913Nowy czas przeszły złożony [A new compound past tense]. Język Polski 1(4). 102–106.Google Scholar
Nomachi, Motoki
2006Ot 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
2012On 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.
2014K 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
2016Semantika 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.
2004Perfekt 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
2012Die Grammatikalisierung eines neuen Perfekts im Polnischen: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungslogik des Perfekts. Munich: Sagner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. & Anna Ju. Urmančieva
2015aThe 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.
2015bOld 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.
2016Semantika 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. https://​iling​.spb​.ru​/confs​/balkan2016​/abstracts​/17​_plungyan​_urmanchieva​.pdf
2017Perfekt v staroslavjanskom: byl li on rezul’tativnym? [The perfect in Old Church Slavonic: was it resultative?] Slověne 6(2). 13–56.Google Scholar
2018K 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
2006Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59(4). 317–349.Google Scholar
Požarickaja, Sof’ja K.
1991O 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014аO 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
2014bKonstrukcii 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
2016The 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
2008Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache im Sprachkontakt: mit Grammatiktafeln im Anhang. Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar
van Schooneveld, Cornelis H.
1959A semantic analysis of the Old Russian finite preterite system (Slavistische drukken en herdrukken 7). ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Servaitė, Laimutė
1988Subjektinis 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
1984Gramatika 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
2013Tipologija pljuskvamperfekta. Slavjanskij pljuskvamperfekt [The typology of the pluperfect. The Slavic pluperfect]. Moscow: AST-Press.Google Scholar
Silina, Vera B.
1995Vido-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
1995The tense system of Lithuanian. In Rolf Thieroff (ed.), The tense systems in European languages, vol. 2, 215–232. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sobolev, Andrej N.
1998O 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
2015Solving the puzzle of the Lithuanian passive. In Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds.), Voice and argument structure in Baltic, 323–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario & Bertinetto, Pier Marco
2000The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Dahl (ed.), 403–440.Google Scholar
Štícha, František
1986Systémový 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.
2002A grammar of contemporary Polish. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Taube, Moshe
1980On the penetration of the perfect into the Russian narrative system. Russian Linguistics 5(2). 121–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf
2000On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe. In Dahl (ed.), 265–305.Google Scholar
Thomas, Werner
1952Die 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
] 1983Za 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
] 1995Makedonskite 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
2003Gemeinslavisch und Slavisch im Vergleich: Einführung in die Entwicklung von Phonologie und Flexion. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Trautmann, Reinhold
1910Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Einleitung, Texte, Grammatik, Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Trost, Klaus
1968Die Perfektperiphrase im Altkirchenslavischen und Altarmenischen. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Syntax. Indogermanische Forschungen 73. 87–109.Google Scholar
1972Perfekt und Konditional im Altkirchenslavischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Trubinskij, Valentin I.
1984Očerki russkogo dialektnogo sintaksisa [Studies in the syntax of Russian dialects]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Vaillant, André
1966Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Večerka, Radoslav
1993Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax, II. Die innere Satzstruktur. Freiburg: Weiher.Google Scholar
1996Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax, III. Die Satztypen: der einfache Satz. Freiburg: Weiher.Google Scholar
Velkovska, Snežana
1998Izrazuvanje na rezultativnosta vo makedonskiot standarden jazik [The expression of resultativity in Standard Macedonian]. Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik “Krste Misirikov”.Google Scholar
Weiss, Daniel
1977Syntax und Semantik polnischer Partizipialkonstruktionen: im Rahmen einer generativ-transformationellen Sprachbeschreibung. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Whaley, Marika Lynn
2000The evolution of the Slavic ‘be(come)’-type compound future. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn
2004The 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
2006aGrammatical evidentiality in Lithuanian (a typological assessment). Baltistica 41(1). 33–49.Google Scholar
2006bRelations between Actor-demoting devices in Lithuanian. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function, 274–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Grammaticalization in Slavic languages. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 740–753. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012The Lithuanian have-resultative – a typological curiosum? Lingua Posnansiensis 54(2). 69–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Umbau 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
2017Slavic 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
2005Resultativa in den nordslavischen und baltischen Sprachen: Bestandsaufnahme unter arealen und grammatikalisierungstheoretischen Gesichtspunkten. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Björn Hansen
2012Assessing 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Ilja A. Seržant
2017Diachrony 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A.
2004Drevnenovgorodskij dialect [The Old Novgorod dialect]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar
2008Drevnerusskie ėnklitiki [Old Russian enclitics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kulʹtury.Google Scholar

Sources

LiLa – The Lithuanian-Latvian parallel corpus
LKT – The corpus of modern Lithuanian
LKŽe – The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language
electronic version, http://​www​.lkz​.lt
NKJP  Polish National Corpus
Narodowy korpus języka polskiego), http://​nkjp​.pl
PQ – The perfect questionnaire from Dahl
(ed. 2000: 800–809)Google Scholar
PROIEL – The Treebank of Ancient Indo-European Languages
, https://​proiel​.github​.io/ (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
TOROT: The Tromsø Old Russian and OCS Treebank
, https://​nestor​.uit​.no/ (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

Cited by 1 other publications

Arkadiev, Peter M.
2021.  In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217],  pp. 138 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 september 2021. 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.