Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective

The 10th Anniversary FDSL Conference, Leipzig 2013

by Gerhild Zybatow (Volume editor) Petr Biskup (Volume editor) Marcel Guhl (Volume editor) Claudia Hurtig (Volume editor) Olav Mueller-Reichau (Volume editor) Maria Yastrebova (Volume editor)
Conference proceedings 609 Pages
Series: Linguistik International, Volume 35


The proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages in Leipzig 2013 offer current formal investigations into Slavic morphology, phonology, semantics, syntax and information structure. In addition to papers of the main conference, the volume presents those of two special workshops: «Formal Perspectives and Diachronic Change in Slavic Languages» and «Various Aspects of Heritage Language». The following languages are addressed: Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS), Bulgarian, Czech, Macedonian, Old Church Slavonic, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Resian, Slovak and Slovene.

Table Of Content

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the editors
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Preface
  • Event token and event type anaphora in Slavic imperatives
  • Information structure and clausal comparatives in Czech and Polish
  • Focused epistemic adverbs and scalar implicatures
  • The polysemy of nominals based on telic verbs in Polish
  • Subjects or objects? - The syntax of clausal subjects in Polish
  • On prosodic boundaries
  • Denominal group adjectives in Polish: their morphosyntactic status and semantic interpretation
  • Polish optional datives as adjuncts
  • Freedom to choose alternatives
  • Against the SLP-status of the Russian pere-superiority
  • Genitive alternation in Russian: a situation semantics approach
  • On (in)definite tense and aspect in Russian
  • Verbs and particles in minimal answers to yes-no questions in Czech
  • Pseudoclefts in Serbian
  • Predicate clefts in Bulgarian
  • On pied-piping and feature percolation
  • Russian approximative inversion as a measure construction
  • From privative to equipollent: incipient changes in the aspectual system of heritage Russian
  • Structure-dependent causatives in Polish
  • On Russian approximative inversion
  • Measure for Measure
  • Diachronic changes in tense marking and cliticization patterns in Slavic
  • Remarks on the non-use of perfective aspect in Russian
  • Event kind formation within the VP: Comparing Russian factual imperfectives and German adjectival passives
  • The correlative configuration in Polish
  • Epistemic Indefinites in Slovak: Alternatives and Exhaustification?
  • The Definite Article in an Articleless Language
  • Epistemic indefinites under epistemic modals in Czech
  • Bulgarian verb stems
  • Severing imperfectivity from the verb
  • Sums, groups, genders, and Polish numerals
  • Phonology of Turkish loanwords in BCS
  • The usage of verbal aspect in the language of Russian-speaking migrants in Germany
  • On reverse hybrid wh-coordination in Russian
  • Opacity, variation and the exponence of Polish virile declensions
  • The Russian subjunctive
  • The role of derivational history in aspect determination

← 8 | 9 →Preface

The 10th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages is history. FDSL 10 took place from December 5 to 7, 2013 at the University of Leipzig, the same location where the conference series began in 1995. At that time, nobody could foresee that those four letters would become the brand they are now in the scientific landscape. “FDSL” has come to be associated with in-depth investigations into the structural properties of Slavic languages, driving the refinement of modern linguistic theories. The 10th anniversary meeting was an impressive demonstration of this significance: 107 abstracts were submitted, 60 of which were accepted for presentation. Approximately 90 participants attended the conference, coming from Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, the UK and the US. No fewer than six renowned plenary speakers framed the “ordinary” talks: Hagit Borer (Queen Mary, University of London), Hana Filip (University of Düsseldorf), Atle Grønn (University of Oslo), Maria Polinsky (Harvard University), Andrew Spencer (University of Essex) and Sergei Tatevosov (Moscow State University).

Additionally, the conference program included two special workshops: ‘Formal Perspectives and Diachronic Change in Slavic Languages’ (chaired by Roland Meyer from Humboldt University Berlin) and ‘Various aspects of Heritage Language’ (chaired by Maria Polinsky from Harvard University).

This volume provides a collection of 37 of the talks given at FDSL 10. Each paper underwent an extensive two-way anonymous reviewing process. The list of reviewers includes: Klaus Abels, Daniel Altshuler, Tanja Anstatt, Boban Arsenijević, Maria Averintseva-Klisch, Tania Avgustinova, John Bailyn, Joanna Błaszczak, Anna Bondaruk, Olga Borik, Željko Bošković, Bernhard Brehmer, Pavel Caha, Barbara Citko, Mojmír Dočekal, Jakub Dotlačil, Hana Filip, Natalia Gagarina, Berit Gehrke, Ljudmila Geist, Atle Grønn, Stephanie Harves, Fabian Heck, Uwe Junghanns, Olga Kagan, Jiri Kaspar, Iliyana Krapova, Franc Marušič, Giorgio Magri, Stela Manova, Ora Matushansky, Grit Mehlhorn, Roland Meyer, Krzysztof Migdalski, Gereon Müller, Roumyana Pancheva, Marina Pantcheva, Asya Pereltsvaig, Hagen Pitsch, Maria Polinsky, Adam Przepiórkowski, Matthew Reeve, Veronika Richtarcikova, Nicole Richter, Susan Rothstein, Tobias Scheer, Radek Šimík, Barbara Sonnenhauser, Andrew Spencer, Anita Steube, Sandra Stjepanović, Luka Szucsich, Sergei Tatevosov, Neda Todorović, Nina Topintzi, ← 9 | 10 →Jochen Trommer, Ewa Willim, Erin Zaroukian, Rok Žaucer, Sławomir Zdziebko, Eva Zimmermann, Ilse Zimmermann.

We appreciate the effort everyone made in the interest of a successful conference and valuable proceedings. We would like to thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) and professor Grit Mehlhorn for substantial funding.

This volume would not have appeared without the help of many student assistants who offered practical support during the conference and without the time and the energy of our technical assistants Pierre Allegaert and Ramil Valiullin.

The Editors

← 10 | 11 →Silje Susanne Alvestad

University of Oslo

Event token and event type anaphora
in Slavic imperatives

1. Introduction

The starting point of this article is a comparative study of how aspect is used in Slavic imperatives. Given that we typically use imperatives when we want the addressee to change the world in some way, we expect the most widespread aspect in the imperative to be the perfective (PF). However, works such as Benacchio (2010), von Waldenfels (2012) and, more recently, Alvestad (2013) have shown that this expectation is borne out only for a minority of the Slavic languages—namely, the West Slavic ones. The question I will address in this paper is thus the following. In particularly the East Slavic languages, why is the imperfective (IPF) aspect so widespread? I will argue that what we see in many of the cases in question is in fact the same phenomenon that is referred to as the general-factual IPF when declaratives and interrogatives are involved. In other words, in many of these cases, IPF refers to a single, complete event.

Since imperatives are not associated with facts, I will follow Iatridou (2000) and subsequently Grønn (2013) in referring to IPF in such cases as fake. In his account of the general-factual IPF in Russian, Grønn (2004) identifies two types of this interpretation of IPF and assumes that the second, the presuppositional type, always involves event token anaphora. I will show that, at least for imperatives, this hypothesis is too strong and must be modified. I will argue that identification at the level of event type is sufficient to trigger the presuppositional type fake IPF in Slavic. In the final section I will show how we can analyze event type anaphora in imperatives within Discourse Representation Theory, DRT (cf., e.g., Kamp 1981).

2. Background and basic assumptions

Until quite recently, imperatives have been largely ignored in comparative Slavic aspectology. As a case in point, in the most comprehensive comparative account ← 11 | 12 →of Slavic aspect to date, Dickey (2000), imperatives are one of the very few verb forms that are not considered. Therefore, until the emergence of works such as Benacchio (2010), von Waldenfels (2012) and Alvestad (2013),1 the question of how aspect is used in Slavic imperatives was still a puzzle. Now we know, however, that the cross-Slavic divide in aspect use observed by Dickey (2000) can be observed in imperatives too. The West Slavic languages, including Slovak, Czech and Slovene, constitute a PF-oriented group, while the East Slavic languages, including Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, constitute an IPF-oriented group of languages also in the case of imperatives.

Following Kaufmann (2012), Alvestad (2013) takes an imperative to be a combination of a particular morphological form—specifically, a second person singular or plural imperative verb form—and one of a set of prototypical functions. These functions can be referred to with a cover term as directive. Taking the ParaSol2 corpus as her point of departure, Alvestad (2013) examines a material consisting of more than 230 Russian imperatives and their counterparts in 11 other Slavic languages referring to any one of Vendler’s (1957) situation types, i.e., states, activities, accomplishments or achievements. The shares of IPF forms for each language are given as follows (see Alvestad 2013, 14).

Russian (60%) > Belarusian (59%) > Ukrainian (58%) > Bulgarian (48%) > Polish (47%) > Serbian, Croatian (45%) > Macedonian (44%) > Upper Sorbian (43%) > Slovak (33%) > Czech (31%) > Slovene (29%)3

Two questions arise at this point. First, how do we explain the fact that so closely related languages use aspect so differently? Second, in particularly the East Slavic languages, why is IPF so widespread? I will only address the second question in this paper, and I already anticipated my claim. Before I move on, however, an overview of my basic assumptions is in order.

First, following Klein (1995) and subsequently Grønn (2004), I take the meaning of the Slavic PF to be the inclusion of the event time in its reference time: et. I take the Slavic IPF to be semantically underspecified, designating an overlap relation between the event time and its reference time: e ο t. Furthermore, I subscribe to the markedness theory of Slavic aspect. Following ← 12 | 13 →Jakobson (1932), Comrie (1976), and many others, I take it that the Slavic PF is marked, while IPF is unmarked for the feature completeness. Thus, PF always refers to a single complete event whereas IPF may, but need not, do so. It follows from this that the aspects in certain contexts compete with each other, a phenomenon that is referred to as aspectual competition in the literature. When IPF wins this competition in declaratives and interrogatives, IPF has a so-called general-factual interpretation (see, e.g., Padučeva 1996). Grønn (2004) identifies two types of the general-factual meaning of IPF: the existential type and the presuppositional type. The existential type asserts, and the presuppositional type presupposes the existence of a complete event, typically in the past. (1) and (2) below exemplify the existential and the presuppositional type, respectively.


Ja čital “Vojnu i mir”.


I read.IPF.PAST war.ACC and peace.ACC

‘I have read War and Peace.’

IPF in (1) simply asserts the existence of a complete event in the past of reading War and Peace. The exact time at which the speaker read War and Peace is not important, nor is the important information that the speaker finished reading War and Peace. The important message is simply that he has read War and Peace, as opposed to not read it, at some time in the past.

Example (2) shows the presuppositional IPF (ex. Forsyth 1970: 86; Grønn 2004: 192).4


V ètoj porternoj ja napisal pervoe ljubovnoe


in this.LOC tavern.LOC I write.PF.PAST first.ACC love.ACC

pis’mo k Vere. Pisal karandašom.

letter.ACC to Vera.DAT write.IPF.PAST pencil.INSTR

‘In this tavern, I wrote my first love letter to Vera. I wrote [it] in pencil.’

In (2), an event of writing a love letter to Vera is introduced in the context by means of PF napisal and presupposed, i.e., considered as known material and, hence, referred to anaphorically, by means of IPF pisal. Since the two VPs refer to one and the same event, (2) is an instance of event token identification, or event anaphora.

I already mentioned that imperatives are not associated with facts. Besides, imperatives do not assert anything at all, so it is not obvious that the phenomenon ← 13 | 14 →referred to as the general-factual IPF occurs in the imperative. As I will show in the next section, however, there is strong evidence that it does, so we need a different term. Thus, I follow Iatridou (2000) and Grønn (2013) in referring to IPF in such cases as fake: when IPF refers to a single, complete event, it is devoid of its usual meaning and has a perfective meaning instead.5

3. Evidence for fake IPF in the imperative

Recall the existential IPF in the declarative clause in (1) and consider the imperative clause in (3) below. In (3), the nurse is writing in her diary about the brave soldier Korčagin, who doesn’t complain even though he is severely injured. She asks him why, and he replies:


a. ČitajteIPF roman “Оvоd”, togda uznaete. read.IPF.IMPER.2PL novel.ACC gadfly.ACC then know.PF.PRES.2PL
Read the novel The Gadfly and you’ll know.’


b. ČytajceIPF raman “Аvadzen’”, tady budzece vedac’.


c. ČytajteIPF roman “Оvid”, todi znatymete.


d. ČeteteIPF romana “Stâršel”, togava šte razberete.


e. ČitajteIPF roman “Obad”, tada ćete saznati.


f. ČitajteIPF roman “Obad”, tada ćete saznati.


g. ČitajćeIPF roman “Spinadło” a budźeće wědźeć!


h. BeriteIPF roman “Obad”, pa boste vedeli.


The important information in Korčagin’s message for the nurse is not that she is to finish reading The Gadfly, or that she must do it right away. The message is simply that she must read it, at some time in the future. The difference between (1) and (3) is that, in the declarative clause in (1) the reference time is the extended now past, whereas in the imperative clause in (3) it is the extended now future. Hence, (3) is a case of the existential type fake IPF in the imperative in Ru, By, Uk, Bg, Sr, Hr, US, and Sn.6

Now, recall the two declarative clauses in (2) and consider the two imperative clauses in (4). The priest has just discovered some tobacco in his bread dough and asks his young suspects which one of them smokes. None of them admits to ← 14 | 15 →smoking, which leads him to order them to turn out their pockets (exs. ParaSol, Ostrovskij: KZS).


a. Vyvernite karmany! (…) VyvoračivajteIPF!
turn-out.PF.IMPER.2PL pockets.ACC turn-out.IPF.IMPER.2PL
Turn out your pockets! (…) Turn [them] out!’


b. VyvernicePF kišèni! … VyvaračvajceIPF!


c. Vyvernit’PF kyšeni! … VyvertajteIPF!


d. WywróćciePF kieszenie! … WywracajcieIPF!


e. ObârnetePF džobovete si! … ObrâštajteIPF!


f. IzvrnitePF džepove! … IzvrćiteIPF, kad vam govorim!


First, an order for the addressees to turn out their pockets is given by means of a PF imperative VP. Then, a second order for them to turn out their pockets is given by means of an IPF imperative VP. The parallel to the two declarative clauses in (2) is obvious. However, there are two problems connected to the second imperative clause in (4) as compared to the second declarative clause in (2). The first I will refer to as the focus problem, and the second I will call the inaccessibility problem. I will address them in turn and propose a solution to them in the next section.

4. The two problems – and their solution

First, in the declarative clause in (2), the verb is deaccentuated and there is a clear partition into presupposition (IPF pisal) and focus (karandašom). In the second imperative clause in (4), however, the verb is accentuated. There is no constituent other than the verb to which the focus can be shifted, so the phonological focus is on the verb. This is the focus problem.

Second, I follow Kaufmann (2012) and take imperatives to be modals. More specifically, I take imperatives to contain modal operators. Then, according to standard assumptions about the accessibility of antecedents, in Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), for example, the event referent of one imperative VP is inaccessible to the event referent of a subsequent imperative VP. This is the inaccessibility problem.

As regards the focus problem, I propose the following solution. A phonological focus on the verb is compatible with a presupposition because it gives us what Höhle (1992) labels Verum-focus in his account of the effect of certain stress patterns in German. Consider the example below (ex. Švedova, 1980).


Konja poil?” “Poil.”


horse.acc.sg water.ipf.past water.ipf.past

‘Have you watered the horse? – Yes, I have [watered [it]].’

← 15 | 16 →The answer in (5) is given by means of only one word—a presuppositional type fake IPF VP. The lexical content of IPF poil is introduced as new information in the interrogative clause and picked up in the reply. In other words, the lexical content is focused in the first clause and backgrounded in the second. It is backgrounded in the second clause even though the phonological focus is on the verb. What is new in the second sentence is that the proposition is true, that is, that the lexical content applies to the real world: it is true that the addressee has watered the horse. This phenomenon is called Verum-focus.

Höhle detected this phenomenon in imperatives and interrogatives too, which led him to suggest that Verum is not a truth predicate, but rather a variable over illocution type operators (Höhle 1992:117). The focus phenomenon we see in examples such as (4) and (5), then, is an Illocution Type Operator-focus. When the lexical content of the verb is backgrounded, the Illocution Type Operator becomes foregrounded. In Alvestad (2013) this is referred to as Speech Act-focus. Thus, what is focused in the IPF imperative VP in (4) is the speech act.

In the theoretical analysis below, I will represent the speech act focus as an event type condition. More specifically, I interpret it as a non-presupposed descriptive content-condition where the world index is bound by the modal quantifier.7

Summing up, I wanted to make the following two points by means of example (5). First, cases where the clause consists of only a verb and, hence, where there are no constituents other than the verb to which the focus can be shifted, are compatible with a presuppositional interpretation after all. This is because it gives us a speech act-focus. Second, Verum-focus is not restricted to the presuppositional type fake IPF in the imperative. The phenomenon occurs in the indicative too.

As regards the inaccessibility problem, I propose the following solution. After all, we do not have event token anaphora (event token identification) in cases such as (4), but event type anaphora. The two imperative VPs do not refer to one and the same event token, but to the same event type. What is presupposed on a fake IPF in such cases is not the event itself, but the predicate, the VP. Consider the example below, inspired by one from Asher (1993:238) and his account of reference to abstract objects in discourse.


Every girl who owns some jewelry is in danger of having it stolen. That happened to Mary last week.

← 16 | 17 →In (6), the event type of having one’s jewelry stolen is accessible to the anaphoric expression ‘that’ even though this event type is within the scope of a universal quantifier. My claim is that a similar phenomenon can be observed in cases such as (4). Specifically, following Asher (1993:225ff), I assume that event types, i.e., predicates of events (conventionally represented by P, Q, … as discourse referents), are constants on a par with propositions (conventionally represented by K1, K2 … as discourse referents). Constants can be spelt out in a condition of the form “P =…”, where P is a discourse referent for event predicates. Because their denotation is constant, these discourse referents are not subject to ordinary accessibility constraints. Thus, otherwise inaccessible discourse referents are accessible after all. As a matter of fact, whenever a discourse referent of a particular event type is needed to act as the antecedent for a presupposed discourse referent, it can be freely declared and defined, globally, as long as the event type in question has been introduced into the discourse.

As opposed to what is assumed by Grønn (2004), I take this type-level presupposition to be sufficient to trigger the presuppositional type fake IPF in Slavic. Thus, (4) is a case of the presuppositional type fake IPF in the imperative in Ru, By, Uk, Pl, Bg and Hr.

In past tense contexts, the existential type fake IPF is the most widespread type (cf. Grønn 2004). In the imperative, however, the presuppositional type is by far the most frequent type (cf. Alvestad 2013). Thus, in the next section I will show how we can analyze cases of the presuppositional type fake IPF in imperatives within the framework of Discourse Representation Theory, DRT.

5. A DRT analysis

I will now show, step by step, how we can analyze examples such as (4) in Discourse Representation Theory, DRT (cf. Kamp 1981; Kamp & Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle 2011). Within such a dynamic semantics framework, we are able to capture the phenomenon of cross-sentential anaphora. In dynamic semantics, the meaning of a sentence is taken to be the change it brings about in the addressee’s information state. In DRT, an interlocutor’s information state, which is being continuously updated, is represented in terms of Discourse Representation Structures, DRSs. A DRS consists of a universe and a nucleus. The universe is the top level. This is where new and old discourse referents are introduced. Old, i.e., presupposed discourse referents are underlined. In the nucleus of a DRS the conditions on the discourse referents are found.

← 17 | 18 →The abbreviation ‘Deon’ in the DRSs below serves to represent deontic ordering sources, (cf. Kratzer 1978, 1981, 1991). In Kratzer’s theory of modality, a given modal has a neutral core meaning, and the kind of modality involved is determined by two kinds of conversational backgrounds; the modal base and the ordering source. “[T]he modal base determines the set of accessible worlds (for a given world). The ordering source imposes an ordering on this set” (Kratzer 1991:646). When the ordering source is deontic, as in (4), the worlds compatible with the facts in the actual world are ranked with respect to what is commanded.

In order to deal with the binding problems in cases such as (4), I argued above that after all we do not have event token anaphora (event token identification) here, but event type anaphora. What is presupposed on a fake IPF in such cases is the predicate, not the event itself.

The important information in (4) is the two imperative clauses, so I will concentrate on representing them. As regards the semantics of imperatives, I follow Kaufmann (2012) and take it that they are necessity modals. In the DRSs below, the universal force of the imperative is represented by the universal quantifier over possible worlds. In (4), I assume that there is a contextually given presuppositional/anaphoric x for the pockets. I will leave this presupposition unresolved.

Step 1: The two sentences

DRS 1:A: – Vyvernite karmany!


← 18 | 19 →The universe of DRS 1 is empty. In the nucleus, we find two sub-DRSs and a rhombus. In the rhombus, the universal quantifier over possible worlds is represented. The left sub-DRS is the restrictor of the universal quantifier, and the right sub-DRS is its scope. Thus, DRS 1 is to be read as follows. For all worlds w’ at the utterance time n for ‘now’, such that w’ is an element of what speaker A commands in our world at the utterance time now, there is a reference time t, an event e, and a presupposed x, such that t is after now, e is included in t, e is an event of vyvernut’ ‘turning out’, the presupposed x is karmany ‘the pockets’, the theme of e is x, and the Agent of e is B.8

Informally, DRS 1 is to say that, in all the worlds that conform to what A commands now, B will turn out their pockets.

DRS 2:A: – Vyvoračivajte!


DRS 2 is to be read as follows. For all worlds w’’ at the utterance time n for ‘now’, such that w’’ is compatible with what speaker A commands in our world at the utterance time now, there is a reference time t’, an event e’ and a presupposed event type P, such that t’ is after now, e’ is included in t’, e’ is an event of vyvoračivat’ ‘turning out’, the agent of e’ is B, and the presupposed event type P is the event type of vyvoračivat’ karmany ‘turning out the pockets’.

As we can see, in the universe of the right sub-DRS, a new event and a new reference time are introduced. However, a presupposed event type P is also ← 19 | 20 →introduced and stems from my interpretation of IPF vyvoračivajte as a presuppositional type fake IPF.9

In the next step, DRS 1 is updated with DRS 2.

Step 2: Merge

DRS 3:A: – Vyvernite karmany! Vyvoračivajte!


The next step illustrates the intermediate stage at which a predicate Q with vyvoračivat’ karmany ‘turn out the pockets’ as its constant value is globally declared and defined, licensed by the following three conditions on e in the upper ← 20 | 21 →right sub-DRS: vyvernut’w’(e), karmany(x), and theme(e, x). Thus, the intuitive antecedent, which would otherwise be inaccessible, has become accessible after all.10

Step 3: Intermediate stage

DRS 4: A: – Vyvernite karmany! Vyvoračivajte!


← 21 | 22 →In a final step, the presupposition is resolved and redundant material is deleted. The underlined condition, P = vyvoračivat’-karmany, is transferred to the level where it is verified, and since it is indeed verified, it is redundant and is deleted. The result is shown below.

Step 4: Presupposition resolution and reduction

DRS 5: A: – Vyvernite karmany! Vyvoračivajte!


6. Conclusion and further outlook

In this paper, I addressed the question as to why IPF is so widespread in the imperative in particularly the East Slavic languages. I argued that what we see in many of the cases in question is the same phenomenon as that referred to as the general-factual IPF when the indicative is involved. Since imperatives are not associated with facts, I instead used the label fake IPF for cases where IPF refers ← 22 | 23 →to a single, complete event. In (3) and (4), respectively, I exemplified Grønn’s (2004) existential and presuppositional type fake IPF in the imperative. Since the presuppositional type is the most widespread type in the imperative (cf. Alvestad 2013), I showed in section 5 how such cases can be analyzed in DRT.11

I also demonstrated, however, that Grønn’s (2004) hypothesis that the presuppositional type fake IPF always involves event token anaphora is too strong and must be modified. Event token identification may be unproblematic for declaratives, such as (2), but not all sentences are declaratives. Based on examples of the imperative, I have argued that event type identification is sufficient to trigger the presuppositional type fake IPF in Slavic. Identification at the level of predicate type may not tie the IPF imperative as tightly together with the context as event token identification does. It does, however, account for the strong intuition that IPF is used because the course of action referred to by the imperative has already been put under consideration in the discourse (see, e.g., Rassudova 1982:132).


Alvestad, S. S. (2013) – Beware of fakes! Fake imperfectives in the Slavic imperative. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oslo.

Asher, N. (1993) Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

← 23 | 24 →Benacchio, R. (2010) Vid i kategorija vežlivosti v slavjanskom imperative. Sravnitel’nyj analiz (Slavistische Beiträge 472). Munich/Berlin: Verlag Otto Sagner.

Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Forsyth, J. (1970) A grammar of aspect. Usage and meaning in the Russian Verb. London: Cambridge University Press.

Fortuin, E. & H. Pluimgraaff (to appear) Aspect of the imperative in Slovene as compared to Russian. In: R. Benacchio (ed.), Glagol’nyj vid: grammatičeskoe značenie i kontekst.

Grønn, A. (2004) The semantics and pragmatics of the Russian factual imperfective. Doctoral thesis. Oslo: Unipub.

Grønn, A. (2013) Aspect and tense in counterfactual main clauses: fake or real? In: F. Josephson & I. Söhrman (eds.), Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs (SLCS 134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133-158.

Höhle, T. N. (1992) Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Jacobs, Joachim (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 112–141.

Iatridou, S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 231–270.

Jakobson, R. (1932) Zur Struktur des Russischen Verbums. In: V. Mathesius (ed.), Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio Qvinqvagenario. Prague: Svmptibvs “Pražský linguistický kroužek”.

Kamp, H. (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen & M. B. J. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (Mathematical Centre Tracts 135). Amsterdam: Matematisch Centrum, 277-322.

Kamp, H. & U. Reyle. (1993) From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 42). London, Boston, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kamp, H., J. van Genabith & U. Reyle. (2011) Discourse Representation Theory. In: D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic 15. The Netherlands: Springer, 125-394.

Kaufmann, M. (2012) Interpreting imperatives (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 88). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.

← 24 | 25 →Klein, W. (1995) A Time-Relational Analysis of Russian Aspect. Language 71(4): 669-695.

Kratzer, A. (1978) Semantik der Rede. Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionalsätze. Königstein: Scriptor.

Kratzer, A. (1981) The notional category of modality. In: H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and context. New approaches in word semantics. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 38–74.

Kratzer, A. (1991) Modality. In: A. von Stechow, & D. Wunderlich D. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 639-650.

Padučeva, E. (1996) Semantičeskie issledovanija. Semantika vremeni i vida v russkom jazyke. Semantika narrativa. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.

Prokofeva, R. (1959) How the steel was tempered. Translation of Nikolaj Ostrovskij’s Kak zakaljalas’ stal’ (1936). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo literatury na inostrannyx jazykax.

Rassudova, O. P. (1982) Upotreblenie vidov glagola v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo «Russkij jazyk».

Švedova, N. Ju. (ed.) (1980) Russkaja grammatika 2. Sintaksis. Moscow: Nauka.


ISBN (Hardcover)
Publication date
2015 (September)
Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2015. 609 pp., 34 tables, 11 graphs

Biographical notes

Gerhild Zybatow (Volume editor) Petr Biskup (Volume editor) Marcel Guhl (Volume editor) Claudia Hurtig (Volume editor) Olav Mueller-Reichau (Volume editor) Maria Yastrebova (Volume editor)

Gerhild Zybatow is professor of Slavic Linguistics at the University of Leipzig. Petr Biskup is assistant professor in the Slavic Department at the University of Leipzig. Olav Mueller-Reichau and Maria Yastrebova hold research positions, Marcel Guhl and Claudia Hurtig are lecturers in the Slavic Department at the University of Leipzig.


Title: Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective