Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- 7 Inflectional Endings: Declensions
- 8 Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
- 9 Tense and Mood Forms
- 10 Aspect in Verbs
- 11 Lexical Derivation
- 12 Lexical Composition
- Part 3 Syntax
- Part 4 Lexicon
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
7 - Inflectional Endings: Declensions
from Part 2 - Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part 1 Prosody and Phonology
- Part 2 Inflectional and Derivational Morphology
- 7 Inflectional Endings: Declensions
- 8 Inflectional Endings: Conjugation
- 9 Tense and Mood Forms
- 10 Aspect in Verbs
- 11 Lexical Derivation
- 12 Lexical Composition
- Part 3 Syntax
- Part 4 Lexicon
- Part 5 Sociolinguistic and Geographical Approaches
- Part 6 Experimental and Quantitative Approaches
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
The chapter opens with a basic structural description of declensional patterns in Slavic languages, concentrating on several pervasive, salient, and typologically important features. The Late Common Slavic (LCS) system is outlined, with samples of key substantival and pronominal paradigms. Next, the survey traces crucial changes from LCS into the modern languages in the organization of nominal inflection into classes, including emergence of patterns specific for adjectives and numerals. Also discussed is the prehistory of the LCS system and its contextualization within the Indo-European family. Finally, the chapter reviews a number of mostly post-LCS innovations involving interesting synchronic or diachronic problems, such as: encoding virility and animacy; encoding innovative case/number categories (‘second locative’, partitive, paucal, etc.); patterns of syncretism and developments towards analyticity; defectivity and indeclinability; recycling of former dual endings; rise of definiteness markers; transfers to and from declensional morphology; role of segmental alternations and prosodic distinctions in declensional systems.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 129 - 160Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Andersen, H. (2012). The new Russian vocative: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica, 58(1), 122–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anstatt, T. (2008). Der slavische Vokativ im europäischen Kontext. In Geist, L. & Mehlhorn, G., eds. Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik XV, Munich: Sagner, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. (2014). Historical development of Slavic inflectional accent. In Gutschmidt, et al., pp. 1590–1596.Google Scholar
Berdicevskis, A. (forthcoming). Gender and declension. In Fellerer, J. & Bermel, N., eds., Oxford Guide to the Slavonic Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breu, W. (2020). Paucal. In Greenberg, M., ed. Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online. Brill Reference Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-6229_ESLO_COM_031985.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1965). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, 2nd ed., Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (1988). Gender in Slavonic from the standpoint of a general typology of gender systems. The Slavonic and East European Review, 66(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Daniel, M. & Spencer, A. (2009). The vocative – an outlier case. In Malchukov, & Spencer, , pp. 626–634.Google Scholar
Fortson, B. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture, 2nd ed., Chichester & Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Furlan, M. (2013). K identifikaciji zgodnjepraslovanske akrostatične deklinacije ijevskih samostalnikov. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 19(1), 51–70.Google Scholar
Gorbachov, Y. (2017). The Proto-Slavic genitive-locative dual: A reappraisal of (South-)West Slavic and Indo-European evidence. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25(1), 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. (2017). Slavic. In Kapović, M., ed. The Indo-European Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 519–551.Google Scholar
Gutschmidt, K., Kempgen, S., Berger, T., & Kosta, P., eds. (2014). Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Vol. II, Berlin & New York, NY: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, J. (2001). Vergleichen und Einordnen: Graduierung im Slavischen. In Jachnow, H., Norman, B., & Suprun, A., eds., Quantität und Graduierung als kognitiv-semantische Kategorien, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 560–573.Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, J. (2009). Synthetismus und Analytismus im Slavischen. In Kempgen, et al., pp. 129–142.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1993). The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics, 31, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2021). Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics, 73(3), 605–633. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, G. & Th, Menzel. (2009). Nominale Kategorien: Kasus. In Kempgen, et al., pp. 161–176.Google Scholar
Hill, E. (2015). Suppletion replication in grammaticalization and its triggering factors. Language Dynamics and Change, 5(1), 52–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, W. (2006). Das Altkirchenslavische. In Rehder, P., ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen, 5th ed., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
Iordanidi, S. I. & Krysʹko, V. B. (2000). Istoričeskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka. Vol. I. Množestvennoe čislo imennogo sklonenija, Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971a). Morfologičeskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem. In Selected Writings. Vol. II, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 154–183.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971b). Quest for the essence of language. In Selected Writings. Vol. II, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 345–359.Google Scholar
Janda, L. (1996). Back from the Brink. A Study of How Relic Forms in Languages Serve as Source Material for Analogical Extension, Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Janda, L. (1999). Whence virility? The rise of a new gender distinction in the history of Slavic. In Mills, M., ed. Slavic Gender Linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, pp. 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. (2014). Introduction to Slavic historical morphology: Slavic noun classes. In Gutschmidt, et al., pp. 1565–1582.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, J. (1989). Language and gender in the Tarim Basin: The Tocharian 1 sg. pronoun. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, 3, 125–148.Google Scholar
Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Berger, T., & Gutschmidt, K., eds. (2009). Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Vol. I, Berlin & New York, NY: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Ch. (1992). Zur Vorgeschichte des relativen Attributivkonnexes im Baltischen und Slavischen. In Barschel, B., Kozianka, M., & Weber, K., eds., Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch, Munich: Peter Lang, pp. 45–88.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. & Štekauer, P. (2018). Postfixation or inflection inside derivation. Folia Linguistica, 52(2), 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krysʹko, V. B. (2014). Entstehung der Kategorie der Belebtheit/Personalität. In Gutschmidt, et al., pp. 1596–1605.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1949). Le problème du classement des cas. Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, 9, 20–43.Google Scholar
Langston, K. (2018). The morphology of Slavic. In Klein, J., Joseph, B., & Fritz, M., eds., Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. III, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1397–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstedt, J. (2014). Balkan Slavic and Balkan Romance: from congruence to convergence. In Besters-Dilger, J. et al., eds., Congruence in Contact-Induced Language Change, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 168–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majer, M. (2015). Russian kotóryj, Czech který, Slovene katę́ri: vowel variation in the reflexes of Proto-Slavic *koterъ(jь) ‘which (of the two)’. Scando-Slavica, 61(2), 154–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majer, M. (2021). Slavic ‘i-stem adjectives’ and their alleged inflection loss: the derivational prehistory and synchronic status of a category. In Blanc, A. & Boehm, I., eds., Dérivation nominale et innovations dans les langues indo-européennes anciennes, Lyon: MOM Éditions, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. & Spencer, A., eds. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Case, Oxford & New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mannewitz, C. (2009). Nominale Kategorien: Steigerung. In Kempgen, et al., pp. 188–199.Google Scholar
Manova, S. (2011). Understanding Morphological Rules: With Special Emphasis on Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian, Dordrecht & New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manova, S. & Dressler, W. (2001). Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 67, 45–81.Google Scholar
Marušič, F. & Žaucer, R. (2012). On Slovenian demonstrative reinforcers and the internal structure of demonstratives. In Marković, M., Halupka-Rešetar, S., Milićević, N., & Milić, T., eds., Selected Papers from SinFonIJA 3, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 76–104.Google Scholar
Parker, J. (forthcoming). Case with special reference to syncretism and indeclinables. In Fellerer, J. & Bermel, N., eds., Oxford Guide to the Slavonic Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, J. (2002). Morphologische Innovationen des Altkirchenslavischen. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 48, 133–148.Google Scholar
Schenker, A. (1993). Proto-Slavonic. In Comrie, B. & Corbett, G., eds., The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 60–121.Google Scholar
Sims, A. (2015). Inflectional Defectiveness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobolev, A. N. (2009). From synthetic to analytic case: variation in South Slavic dialects. In Malchukov, & Spencer, , pp. 716–729.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, E. (1968). Grammatical genders of the Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 11, 27–41.Google Scholar
Suprun, A. E. (1969). Slavjanskie čislitelʹnye. Stanovlenie čislitelʹnyx kak osoboj časti reči, Minsk: Izdatelʹstvo BGU im. V.I. Lenina.Google Scholar
Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, O. (2015). Polish gender, subgender, and quasi-gender. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 23(1), 83–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimundić, M. (1971). Govor Imotske krajine i Bekije, Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. (1983). A comparison of the morphological adaptation of loanwords ending in a vowel in contemporary Czech, Russian, and Serbo-Croatian. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 25(1), 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topolinjska, Z. (2014). Definiteness (Diachrony). In Gutschmidt, et al., pp. 1606–1615.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A. (1958). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. II: Morphologie. 1. Flexion nominale, Lyon: Editions IAC.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A. (1964). Manuel du vieux slave. I. Grammaire, Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.Google Scholar
Vermeer, W. (1984). Opozicija tipa “živo/neživo” u množini u jednom čakavskom sistemu (Omišalj). Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane, 13, 275–287.Google Scholar
Vidoeski, B. (1999). Dijalektite na makedonskiot jazik. III, Skopje: Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite.Google Scholar
Villanueva Svensson, M. (2019). The infinitive in Baltic and Balto-Slavic. Indo-European Linguistics, 7(1), 194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wandl, F. (2022a). Superlative morphology from syntax: Slavic nai‑/naj‑ and internal definiteness marking in Old Lithuanian. Transactions of the Philological Society, 120(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wandl, F. (2022b). Trapped morphology and the rise of the Slavic definite adjective inflection: A reexamination. Folia Linguistica Historica, 43. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2022-2012.Google Scholar
Worth, D. (1966). On the stem/ending boundary in Slavic indeclinables. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, 9, 11–16.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, A. A. (1973). O ponimanii termina “padež” v lingvističeskix opisanijax. In Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, Moscow: Nauka, pp. 53–87.Google Scholar
Žolobov, O. F. & Krysʹko, V. B. (2001). Istoričeskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka. II. Dvojstvennoe čislo, Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar