Acht linguistischen Beiträge betreffen klassische und innovative Bereiche der Sprachwissenschaft von Syntax und Lexikografie über Gender und Codeswitching bis Fachsprache und Internet, ein Beitrag behandelt Texte der Slavia Orthodoxa. Die behandelten Sprachen sind Polnisch, Serbisch, Russisch, und Ukrainisch.
Vier literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge beschäftigen sich mit postjugoslawischen Literaturen (bosnischer, kroatischer und serbischer) und deren Thematisierung von medial vermitteltem Gedächtnis und Erinnerung; ein weiterer Beitrag behandelt die russisch-orthodoxen Hymnographie des 16. Jahrhunderts.
Mehrere Beiträge haben kulturwissenschaftliche Anteile.
- Zitierfähigkeit des eBooks
- On the diachronic complementation of widzieć ‘see’ (Sandra Birzer (Innsbruck))
- Tematičeskij klassifikator lingvokul’turnych modelej i vozmožnosti ego primenenija v prepodavanii russkogo jazyka i kul’tury (Natalja Bragina (Moskau) / Olga Caspers (Berlin))
- Codeswitching bei Herkunftssprecher*inne*n des Bosnischen oder Kroatischen. Eine Untersuchung an Material aus Kärnten (Ursula Doleschal / Gizela Mikić (Klagenfurt))
- Rekonstrukcija kartiny mira (na baze tekstovogo korpusa konečnoj fazy Pravoslavnoj Slavii) (Anna Kretschmer (Wien))
- Norm and syntactic variation in Contemporary Polish (Imke Mendoza (Salzburg))
- Feminativa im Spannungsfeld von Usus, Norm und Ideologie: ein polnisch-russischer Vergleich (Dennis Scheller-Boltz (Wien))
- Teksty, poroždaemye setevymi generatorami (Branko Tošović (Graz))
- Between identification and alienation: Coping with the Holocaust in Post-Yugoslav literatures (Cristina Beretta (Klagenfurt))
- Der Fremde in der Heimat: Die Darstellung der Deutschen in der Neueren kroatischen Literatur (Renate Hansen-Kokoruš (Graz))
- Fotografie, Erinnerung und Fantasie in Miljenko Jergovićs Familientrilogie (Mama Leone, Otac, Rod) (Ingeborg Jandl (Graz))
- Formirovanie knjažeskoj služby. Kompleksnyj analiz nasledija gimnografa XVI veka Mixaila (Victoria Legkikh (Berlin))
- Über Väter und Söhne, Mütter und Töchter. Gedächtnis, Generationenverhältnisse und Gender in der postjugoslawischen Prosa (Karakaš, Vojnović, Stupar Trifunović) (Dijana Simić (Graz))
- Poster Sprachwissenschaft
- „Eine Sprache kann einen Status haben?“ Eine Analyse von laienlinguistischen Aussagen zur Sprachensituation in Zentralasien (Angelika Hechtl (Wien))
- Dva slovarja leksičeskich parallelej: russko-nemeckij i ukrainsko-nemeckij (Volodymyr Dubichynskiy (Charkiv/Warszawa) / Tilmann Reuther (Klagenfurt))
- In Memoriam
- Ingeborg Ohnheiser in memoriam (Rainer Eckert (Berlin))
The Polish lexeme widzieć ‘see, perceive’ denotes unconscious perception (compare Apresjan 1995 on the distinction between unconscious and conscious perception verbs in Russian). It is a bivalent verb, whose meaning may be explicated as follows:
X widzi Y
‘With his / her eyes X perceives the physical object or situation Y.’
The second argument Y may be encoded syntactically either as NP or as a clausal complement. The aim of this paper is to explore the diachronic changes in the syntactic structure of the clausal complement.
The structure of this paper is somewhat unusual, as it will begin with a survey of the diachronic corpus resources and the complement types found therein (section 1). Section 2 describes the state of the art of research on the identified complement structures, to be followed by an analysis of the diachronic changes observed in the corpus data (section 3). Finally, we will present our conclusions in section 4.
1. Diachronic Polish corpora and complement clauses of widzieć
Currently, the diachronic corpus resources for Polish are rather meager.
In December 2017, when the data for this paper were retrieved, two morphologically annotated historical corpora of Polish were available online: the first one is PolDi (URL http://rhssl1.uni-regensburg.de/SlavKo/korpus/poldi), which contains 23 text (collections)1 covering the 14th to the 19th century, with a focus on the 14th and 15th centuries. The second online resource available is the “Elektroniczny korpus tekstów polskich z XVII i XVIII w. (do 1772 r.)” (URL ← 7 | 8 → http://korba.edu.pl/; cf. also Gruszczyński et al. 2013). Unfortunately, the corpus homepage is still under construction, which means that there is not yet any information available on the included texts, and the query matches do not provide any information on the source text. While this does limit the informational value of the retrieved data, they can be used conditionally, as the corpus represents the language usage of just two centuries, which allows for at least a basic orientation in time.
Given the situation described, we decided to complement the existing resources by 25 text (collections) of prose and drama from the electronic version of the Biblioteka zabytków Polskiego piśmiennictwa średniowiecznego (2006; www.staropolska.pl)2 The additional texts are mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries; and all instances from the 17th and 18th centuries found in our private collection have been cross-checked with the query results from the “Elektroniczny korpus tekstów polskich z XVII i XVIII w.”
In the analyzed data we have found four different clausal structures that function as arguments of widzieć. In the following, we will merely introduce them; a comprehensive discussion will follow in section 2.
The first construction is the accusativus cum infinitive (AcI) (1), whose morphosyntactic characteristics are a finite matrix verb – in our case widzieć – featuring as argument an infinitive whose first argument is encoded in the accusative.
(1) Widzieli sq lice Mojżeszowo
see.PTCP.PL AUX.3PL face.ACC.N Moses.POSS.ACC.N
‘They saw that Moses’ face was flooded with light.’ (Queen Sophia’s Bible. 15th c.)
The second construction is the participium coniunctum (PC), i.e. a participle agreeing in case, number and gender with the first argument of the verb from which the participle derives. The argument is in turn the object governed by the matrix verb of the sentence, i.e. widzieć (2). If other arguments of the participle are syntactically realized, they are governed by the participle, not the matrix ← 8 | 9 → verb. The binding of the reflexive pronoun siebie ‘his/herself, themselves’ (2) deserves special attention: as the PP do siebie is an argument of przychodzić ‘come, approach’ and thus of the PC, the reflexive pronoun should be bound by the first argument of the PC, i.e. Jesus. From the context, however, it becomes clear that it refers to Jan, the first argument of the matrix verb widzieć. The latter binding behavior is typical for the (Latin) AcI (cf. Lüder 2007, 59), so we can state that in the analyzed context the PC partially resembles the syntactic behavior of the AcI. This raises the question of whether we are dealing with a conflation of two syntactic structures.
(2) widzial Janj Jesusa przychodzącego
see.pst.3SG John.NOM Jesus.ACC come.PTCP.PRS.ACC
‘John saw Jesus approaching him.’ (Ewangeliarz Zamoyskich (Jo 1, 29). 15th/16th c.)
In the 15th century, the third construction, the so-called adverbial participle (AP; imiesłów przysłówkowy) was just developing (cf. Pisarkowa 1984, 138). The AP is a non-finite verb form that functions as a secondary predication and does not agree with any NP. In Modern Polish, its first argument is covert, but co-referent with one of the NPs from the matrix sentence, as is widzącj ‘seeing’ in example (3). Quite interestingly, widzącj is the matrix verb for the following APs mowiąc ‘speaking’, chodząc ‘walking’ and widząc ‘seeing’ with an overt first argument. Pisarkowa (1984, 137) notes of the AP with overt first argument: „Rzeczownik grupy imiennej zawierającej ukryte zdanie złożone pełni funkcję […] dopełnenia w [zdaniu] przechodnim, ale jest zawsze potencjalnym podmiotem zdania podrzędnego: […] widzi drab stojąc ‘widzi, że drabina stoi’.“ (The noun of the NP containing the covert complex sentence fulfills the function of object in the transitive sentence, but it is always the potential subject of a subordinated sentence: widzi drab stojąc ‘he / she sees that the ladder stands there.’ [translation –S.B.]). Thus, the AP with overt first argument has the same syntactic function as the AcI.
(3) tłuszczej dziwowały sie widzącj niemep
mass.NOM.PL be_amazed-PST.3PL REFL see.AP dump.ACC.PL
mowiącp, chromeq chodzącq, ślepet widząct
speak.AP lame-ACC.PL walk.AP blind.ACC.PL see.AP
‘The masses were amazed when they saw the dumb talking, the lame walking and the blind seeing.’(Queen Sophia’s Bible. 15th c.) ← 9 | 10 →
Finally, the last attested construction is a finite complement clause introduced by a dedicated complementizer (4). The range of possible complementizers will be discussed in section 2.
(4) Widzi mi sie, iże moja dusza przez twego
see.PRS.3SG me REFL COMPL my.NOM soul.NOM by your.GEN
oblicza żywa nie może być.
face.GEN alive.NOM NEG can.PRS.3SG be-INF
‘It seems to me that my soul cannot be alive in your face.’(Rozmyślanie
przemyskie. 15th c.)
To sum up, by the turn of the 16th century, widzieć is attested with four various clausal structures as complement. Three of them, namely the AcI, the PC and the AP, are based on a non-finite verb form. Only the complement clause introduced by a dedicated complementizer and features a finite verb.
In Modern Polish, however, widzieć is attested almost exclusively with the finite complement clause; of the non-finite clausal structures only the PC occurs occasionally,3 and it can be considered a peripheral construction specific for the elevated style.
Therefore, the first research question is how this change can be accounted for.
In order to discuss this question on a firm basis, we will first have a look at the state of research on the clausal structures under investigation, as well as on the semantic differences between different types of complement clauses.
2. Clausal complements of widzieć: state of the art
As a verb of perception, widzieć distinguishes complements denoting ‘object of perception’ and ‘acquired knowledge’ (cf. Boye 2010, 391-394 on the complement semantics of verbs of perception in general). In Modern Polish, ‘acquired knowledge’ (and, in rare cases, ‘object of perception’) is marked by the cognate complementizers że ‘that’ (5) and iż(e) ‘that’ (6) (cf. Hansen, Letuchiy, Błaszczyk 2016, 2005-2006), which differ only with regard to stylistics but not function and semantics (cf. Hansen, Letuchiy, Błaszczyk 2016, 2006-2007). ← 10 | 11 →
Complement clauses introduced by jak ‘how’ denote the object of perception (7; cf. Hansen, Letuchiy, Błaszczyk 2016, 2009-2010).4
(5) O, przyjacielu, widzę, że myślisz …
Oh friend.VOC See-PRS.1SG COMPL think.PRS.2SG
‘Oh friend, I see that you are thinking.’ (NKJP. M. Olszewski. 2005. Chwalcie łąki umajone)
(6) … widzi, iż jest bardzo zmęczony …
see.PRS.3SG COMPL be.PRS.3SG very tired.NOM.SG
‘She sees that he is very tired.’ (NKJP. W. P. Szymański. 2001. Niedźwiedź w katedrze)
(7) Widzi, jak z daleka zbliża
see.PRS.3SG COMPL from distance.GEN come_near.PRS.3SG
‘He sees how a cyclist is coming nearer from far away.’(NKJP. St. Mrożek. 2004. Jak zostałem filmowcem)
Furthermore, Boye (2010, 403) notes that “crosslinguistically the contrast between “object of perception” and “knowledge acquired” seems frequently – though by far not always – to be expressed by a contrast between tense- and moodless nonfinite clauses on the one hand, and deictic, tensed or mood-marked finite clauses on the other”. This raises the question of whether the described distribution also holds true for the historical Polish complementizing structures.
Let us now turn to the historical types of complements.
The Acl in Polish is usually considered to be a syntactic structure replicated from Latin (cf. first and foremost the five pieces of evidence offered by Kropaczek 1928, 477; but also Pisarkowa 1984: 152-153; Długosz-Kurczabowa, Dubisz 2006, 474; 481; 483). Quite interestingly, in the literature on Polish diachronic syntax the AcI is marginalized both in terms of coverage and description of its functions. Thus, Kropaczek (1928) is the only publication dedicated exclusively to the AcI, but he limits himself to providing a rather cursory description of the AcI morphosyntax and to enumerating examples of usage for the various ← 11 | 12 → matrix verbs attested in the historical sources (which constitute the major part of his publication). Obviously, the linguistic neglect of the AcI can be traced back to the puristic heritage of Polish linguistics,5 which is also reflected in the way the AcI is treated. Pisarkowa (1984, 152) characterizes the AcI in Polish as follows: „Pojawia się ta konstrukcja z bezokolicznikem dopiero w późniejszych, XV-wiecznych zabytkach. Jest zrazu wielką rzadkością; a występuje w polskich tekstach tyłko do połowy XIX w. jako kaprys lub ślepe naśladownictwo. [For the first time this construction with the infinitive occurs in the latest 15th century text monuments. From the very beginning it is a great rarity; and it occurs in Polish texts only until the middle of the 19th century like a caprice or a blind imitation. Translation – S.B.]” In contrast to Pisarkowa, Bajerowa (1964, 191) considers the AcI to be a rather frequent construction. In the 18th century the rise in its usage frequency is fostered by “wpływom francuszczyzny, która też tym zwrotem się posługuje [influence from French, which also uses this construction. Translation – S. B.]” (Bajerowa 1964, 191). Given Pisarkowa’s estimation, it is not too surprising that she – like all other authors – does not raise the question as to whether the AcI has any (distinct) function in Polish. According to Pisarkowa (1984, 152; cf. also Bajerowa 1964, 191), the copula być ‘be’ almost exclusively occurs as infinitive in the AcI. From the 17th century onwards the usage frequency of the AcI diminishes, and it eventually passes out of use in the 20th century. Kropaczek (1928, 475-476) and Długosz-Kurczabowa, Dubisz (2006, 474), however, date the termination of usage to the 19th century. With respect to morphosyntax, it is noteworthy that Kropaczek identifies the PC as one possibility to render the Latin AcI in the Polish Bible of Queen Sophia (1928, 471-472). This complies with our findings from example (2) on the AcI-like binding of reflexives by the first, not the second argument of the matrix verb.
Quite interestingly, Kropaczek is not the only scholar to identify functional parallels between the four complement structures under investigation. Grybosiowa (1975) compares all four complement types regarding their usage with, among others, widzieć. On a more general level, she finds that the frequency distribution of the four constructions varies across different text sources (cf. ← 12 | 13 → Grybosiowa 1975, 54), and that the variation between AP and complement clause in the translations of Latin CPs proves the functional identity of the two Polish constructions (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 55-56). Therefore, the question of whether we are indeed dealing with an instance of variation, probably based on the idiosyncratic preferences of the authors, or with an instance of function based complementary distribution merits discussion.
Grybosiowa traces both the PC and the AP as complements of widzieć and other verba cognosciendi back to a “double accusative construction”, whose semantics can be explained roughly as ‘regard X-ACC as Y-ACC’ (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 31-34). Note that cognition is one component in the semantics of the double accusative construction; this is indicative for the denotation of ‘acquired knowledge’.
At the turn of the 13th century the participle starts to develop an indeclinable form – the AP – that is then used as complement structure. However, the structure is characterized by (potential) syntactic ambiguity. Its ambiguity is due to a stylistic preference for the AP in the postposition:6 as a result, the AP is positioned closer to the second than the first argument, which fosters the coreference choice for the second argument (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 35-36; the decisive role of syntactic placement of the AP for the co-reference choice has been proven for Modern Russian in an experiment, cf. Birzer submitted). At some point in the history of Polish – which Grybosiowa unfortunately neither specifies nor relates to the establishment of the normative rule that the first argument of the matrix clause be the covert first argument of the AP – the postpositioning of the AP goes out of fashion. Thus, the AP eventually no longer occurs in the syntactically ambiguous position following the second argument of the matrix verb (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 36), and the AcI-like usage of the AP falls out of use in the 18th century (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 47). Concerning the PC, Grybosiowa (1975, 57) claims that it becomes obsolete once the AP is established, but since it can still be found in Modern Polish (8), we are instead dealing with a reduction in usage frequency and the restriction to the elevated style.
(8) … widziała panią Helenę
see-PST.3SG.F Mistress.ACC Helena-ACC
pochylającą się nad ciałem syna…
bend_over.PTCP.PRS.ACT.ACC.F REFL over body.INST son.GEN
‘She saw Mistress Helena bending over the body of her son.’ (NKJP; E. Hajnicz. 1996. Poza nurtem czasu) ← 13 | 14 →
When it comes to the co-existence of AP and Acl as clausal complements of widzieć, Grybosiowa emphasizes the advantage offered by the AP: with a present and a past form (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 42-44), the AP offers (nearly) the same potential for expressing taxis as the various forms of the Latin infinitive do (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 52). One might expect that the anteriority of the activity denoted by the past AP makes the reading ‘acquired knowledge’ most likely, whereas the simultaneity of the present AP triggers the reading ‘object of perception’ . A closer look at the examples Grybosiowa gives for the past AP (9-10)7 reveals the following: all APs are resultatives, i.e. they are “verb forms that express a state implying a previous event”, and “the resultative expresses both a state and the preceding action it has resulted from” (Nedjalkov, Jaxontov 1988, 6). Indeed, the angel’s presence on earth in example (9) is a result of his flying from heaven down to earth, and in (10) the animal is lying because it has dropped down. Quite interestingly, in (10) the observers need not necessarily have been present when the animal was dropping down, but may infer the preceding action from the resulting state. This is another indication that the past AP triggers the reading ‘acquired knowledge’.
(9) Widziech, prawi, anjeła bożego mocnego
see.AOR.1SG truly angel.ACC divine.ACC mighty.ACC
s nieba <śle>ciew
from heaven.GEN fly_down.AP.PST
‘Truly, I have seen an angel, divine and mighty, (lit. having flown down) from heaven.’ (Kśw ar 17; cited after Grybosiowa 1975, 42)
(10) Uźrzyszl wołu albo osła brata twego
see.PST.3PL ox.ACC or donkey.ACC brother.GEN your.GEN padwszy
‘They saw the ox or donkey of your brother lying there (lit. having dropped down).’ (BZ Deut 20,4; cited after Grybosiowa 1975, 43)
Another question still to be answered is the proportion between the occurrences of present and past AP, which will allow us to identify the prototypical reading of the AP construction.
Despite the advantages the AP offers for marking taxis, Grybosiowa notes that “[n]asilenie frekwencji bezokolicznika przy dopełneniu przypada na wiek XVI i XVII, a więc na okres, kiedy współistniejące konstrukcje z imiesłowami zdecydowanie wychodzą z użycia. W wieku XVIII, kiedy już tych ostatnich nie ma, notuje się jeszcze bezokolicznik [the rise in usage frequency of the infinitive ← 14 | 15 → accompanying the object [of the matrix verb – i.e. the AcI – S.B.] falls into the 16th and 17th centuries, that is to say, into a period when the co-existing constructions with participles are definitely passing out of use. In the 18th century, when these constructions no longer exist, the infinitive is still observed. Translation–S.B.]” (Grybosiowa 1975, 52).
Finally, the complement clause is the last of the four constructions under investigation. Concerning the interchangeability of AP and complement clause, Grybosiowa notes: “Można używać wymiennie z imieslowami (nieodmiennym i odmiennymi) tylko zdań dopełniowych mających orzeczenie czasownikowe, a nie imienne. [One may use interchangeably with the participle (the indeclinable and the declinable one) only complement clauses that have a verbal predicate, but not a nominal one. Translation – S. B.]” (Grybosiowa 1975, 55). Considering Pisarkowa’s (1984, 152) and Bajerowa’s (1964, 191) statement that the copula być ‘be’ occurs almost exclusively as infinitive in the AcI, this implies that the AcI stands apart from the other three interchangeable constructions. Therefore, we can deduce the following research question: Does a functional difference exist between the AcI as complement of widzieć and the other three constructions?
Since in Modern Polish the complementizers że / iż(e) ‘that’ and jak ‘how’ distinguish the two readings ‘acquired knowledge’ and ‘object of perception’, we will also have a look at the usage of these complementizers in the history of Polish. Grybosiowa notes that the complement clauses of verba cognosciendi are introduced by the complementizers iż (ci), iże, iżeby and czso ‘what’ (cf. Grybosiowa 1975, 53) but does not address semantic differences. Pisarkowa also does not give a comprehensive survey of all syntactic and semantic contexts in which the complementizers occur but rather highlights some contexts of usage. From the usage of że / iż(e)8 ‘that’ as complementizer for introducing different types of subject and object clauses (cf., e.g. Pisarkowa 1984, 207-208 on the rendering of indirect (and, in very early times, even direct) speech, or Pisarkowa 1984, 203-204 on object clauses in the indicative and Pisarkowa 1984, 180-185 in the subjunctive), we may infer that że / iż(e) historically served as “complementational allrounders”. They were often also interchangeable with other complementizers such as żeby, iżby, aby ‘in order to’ or co ‘what’ (cf. ibidem). Since the latter complementizers have functions different from that of że / iż in Modern Polish, their historical dispersion is indicative of an underspecification of functions. Jak(o) ‘how’ originally had predicative function: “Reliktem tej funkcji orzekającej … są ukryte w zdaniu prostym niezdaniotwórcze konstrukcje predykatywne typu wracam jako król i pamiętam go jako króla. [a relic of this predicative function are in the simple sentence the covert non-clausal predicative constructions of the type I am returning as a king or I re ← 15 | 16 → member him as a king.” (Pisarkowa 1984, 237). Note that both structurally and functionally the jako predication comes very close to the double accusative construction from which the PC emerged, so we may assume that this kind of predication fosters the reading ‘object of perception’. Later on jako can be found mainly in so-called zdania konsytuacyjnymi (‘co-situational sentences’, Pisarkowa 1984, 208-209; 220), which are used to render observations or even for official testimonials (cf. Pisarkowa 1984, 209). Pisarkowa describes the structure of these sentences as follows:
z zamierzonych wypowiedzeń trójzdaniowych
(1) świadczę, (2) jakom przy tym był, (3) kiedy (że, jako) Piotr placił Pawłowi
powstaje albo wariant (1)+(3) albo (2)+(3). (Pisarkowa 1984, 220)
[of the intended triclausal statement
(1) I bear testimony (2) as I have been present (3) when (that, how) Piotr paid Peter
either variant (1)+(3) or (2)+(3) is formed. [Translation – S.B.]
Note that the formula jakom przy tym był, which introduces the testimony of the eyewitness, is formed with jako – the marker for the reading ‘object of perception’. What is witnessed may be introduced with both że ‘that’ and jako ‘how’, i.e. the two complementizers also used today. Unfortunately, Pisarkowa does not give any information on how the two complementizers are used, so we cannot deduce whether they already distinguish the object of perception from acquired knowledge.
To sum up, we are dealing with four complement types that seem to be interchangeable. Since their semantic function has been insufficiently addressed in the literature, the first research question to be answered is whether the complement types are specialized for rendering either the object of perception or received knowledge and are thus distributed complementarily on a functional basis, or whether their usage is subject to mere variation.
The other research questions concern single complement types.
According to Grybosiowa, the AP is the most versatile complement type, as the choice between present and past AP offers the possibility to render simultaneity and anteriority of the AP action in relation to the matrix verb. From the examples cited in the literature, the past APs all seem to be resultative and thus prone to render acquired knowledge, whereas the present AP seems to be predestined for denoting the object of perception. The research question to be answered is whether both AP forms occur with equal frequency, or whether one of them is more frequent and may thus be considered the prototypical one which also bears the prototypical semantic function. ← 16 | 17 →
Since the AP developed out of the PC, the latter offers the same possibilities for expressing taxis relationships as discussed above for the AP. However, this issue has not been raised in the literature and thus poses another research question.
Since Polish – in contrast to Latin – features only one form of the infinitive, the Polish AcI is claimed to be less versatile in the expression of taxis relationships than the AP and to occur almost exclusively with the copula być as infinitival constituent. We may deduce the next research question, whether these two observations are mutually dependent. Furthermore, Grybosiowa notes that the AcI as complement type lasts longer than the more versatile AP. Thus, the question arises as to whether this is mere coincidence or can be explained with linguistic factors.
Concerning the complement clauses, the question to be answered is when and how the two readings ‘object of perception’ and ‘acquired knowledge’, nowadays triggered by the two complementizers jak ‘how’ and że ‘that’, developed.
- ISBN (PDF)
- ISBN (ePUB)
- ISBN (MOBI)
- ISBN (Paperback)
- 2019 (Februar)
- Form-Funktion-Zusammenhang Kulturwissenschaft Linguistik Literaturwissenschaft Poetik und Semantik Slavistik Sowjetliteratur Sprachgeschichte Sprachliche Identitätskonstruktion Tempus und Aspekt Utopische Romane
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2018. 294 S., 5 s/w Abb., 10 Tab., 1 Graf.