Content uploaded by Andrii Danylenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrii Danylenko on Feb 25, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110531435-013
Andrii Danylenko
A tale of two pathways:
On the development of relative clause
chaining in East Slavonic
Abstract: This paper elaborates on the developmental scenario of relative
clauses in East Slavonic. Premised on a system of areal, diachronic, and socio-
typological criteria, the author offers a cross-dialectal typology of relative clause
types and their overt linkage markers both inflected U jakyj, B jaki, R kakoj;
U kotryj, B katory, R kotoryj ‘which’ and uninflected U ščo, B što, R čto ‘what’; U de,
B dze, R gde ‘where’. I argue that, instead of a unilateral developmental trend
from the free juxtaposition of clauses to hypotaxis to subordination, one should
distinguish between two developmental clines (micro-pathways), one leading
from parataxis to paratactic subordination and the second conducive to hypo-
tactic subordination in East Slavonic. In the view of parallel relativization strate-
gies in other Indo-European languages, in particular German dialects, I maintain
that the formation of paratactic and hypotactic subordination is dependent on
a historically prevalent type of discourse within a language community. Such a
type is preconditioned by a particular number of societal factors, including the
amount of language contact (based on adult second-language learning). The
latter is likely to bring about reduction in syntagmatic redundancy leading to a
‘simpler’ syntactic organization, in particular the development of paratactic
subordination.
1Introduction
The present study attempts to reconstruct a developmental scenario of rela-
tive clauses in East Slavonic. In order to further elaborate on a seemingly well-
researched phenomenon, we intend to establish a cross-dialectal typology of
relative clause formation in various East Slavonic dialects that have customar-
ily remained beyond the research focus of language historians and typologists
(cf. Danylenko 2014). Such a cross-dialectal typology will enable us to challenge
some of the premises of the theory of grammaticalization across clauses, includ-
ing the genesis of relative clause subordination and the use of resumption.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
362 Andrii Danylenko
For this topic, one can profit from Givón’s (2009a, 2009b) theory about the
rise of syntactic complexity, in particular of clause subordination and recursive
language structures as part of large-scale grammaticalization (Heine 2009). B ased
on strong cumulative evidence, Givón (2009a: 10) argued that the developmental
cline in the genesis of syntactic complexity, in diachrony, ontogeny, and no doubt
in evolution, is primarily compositional (synthesis), following the general trend:
a. single words > simple clause
b. simple clause > clause chains (parataxis)
c. clause chains > complex/embedded clause (syntax)
The last stage (c) is well documented in diachrony, and especially in Indo-
European languages characterized by rich inflecting morphology, as is its
direction – from parataxis to syntax (Heine and Kuteva 2007: 210–261). That is,
composition (synthesis) rather than expansion (analysis) is the prevalent trend.
In their monograph on the genesis of grammar, Heine and Kuteva (2007:
210–261), following Givón’s explanation of grammatical evolution, argued that
clause subordination is the product of grammaticalization of non-subordinate
sentence structures. They also suggested a binary typology for the paths through
which subordinate clauses arise: either via expansion, that is, the reinterpreta-
tion of a nominal as a clausal (propositional) participant, or via the integration
of two independent sentences within one sentence. One can mention in this
respect Hopper and Traugott’s (2003: 176–178) cline of clause chaining leading
from parataxis via hypotaxis as a combination of the features [+dependent] and
[-embedded] to subordination as a combination of the features [+dependent] and
[+embedded]:
parataxis > hypotaxis > subordination
−dependent +dependent +dependent
−embedded −embedded +embedded
Arguably, the aforementioned three-way distinction is premised on the idea of a
unidirectional cline from relatively free juxtaposition to syntactic and morpho-
logical bondness within the framework of grammaticalization broadly construed
(Heine and Kuteva 2007: 214).
In this paper, we turn to the development of relative clause structures,
with particular attention to some of the clause linkage markers used either
with or without resumption, that may contribute to increased dependency
in the second part of the cline of hypotaxis > subordination. We are ready to
challenge the framework of unidirectionality and linearity, accepted with rare
exceptions, in literature on the rise of syntactic complexity. As a rare dissenting
voice, Deutscher (2009; cf. Dahl 2009) argued that the two channels, expansion
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 363
and integration, as outlined by Heine and Kuteva, run the risk of explaining
the ‘rise’ of subordination by presupposing what they aspire to explain. The
accounts of expansion take as their starting point nominalized structures that
to all intents and purposes are already subordinate, and many examples of
‘integration’ also merely describe the rearrangement of already subordinate
structures (Deutscher 2009: 200). Having compared the evidence adduced
for the integration process in the demonstrative-derived relative clause from
Akkadian and Germanic, Deutscher (2009: 212) hypothesized that the demon-
strative pronouns seemed to have started as heads of already existing relative
clauses. In this case, the ultimate origin of relative clauses in Germanic may
also be expansion, and therefore nominalization.
Another dissenting opinion was expressed by Dahl (2009) who, instead of
having three distinct stages of grammatical evolution with a linear increase of
tightness, postulated different kinds of integrative processes which tend to be
interconnected with each other in complex ways. Thus, instead of three stages –
Parataxis (two separate intonation contours) > Syntax (one single intonation
contour) > Lexis (co-lexicalization into a single word) – that characterize the dia-
chronic rise of complex syntactic structures such as complex verb phrases and
relative clauses, and presumably of various other grammatical phenomena, Dahl
(2009: 240) postulated the following processes that tend to take place simultane-
ously and partly presuppose themselves:
a. paratactic constructions > syntactic constructions
b. syntactic constructions > inflectionally marked words
c. syntactic constructions > morphologically complex words
With respect to the relative clause interlacing in East Slavonic and, by extension,
in other Indo-European (inflecting) languages constituting Standard Average
European (cf. Fiorentino 2007; Cristofaro and Ramat 2007), we venture to claim
that the evolution from parataxis to syntax (encompassing hypotaxis and sub-
ordination, in terms of Hopper and Traugott) should be viewed as a non-linear
trend, thus allowing for parallel pathways of linking relative clauses into tighter
amalgamations. We will show that the growth of inflectional morphology and
syntax and the development of tighter, relative clause linkage demonstrate a
rather strong negative correlation in East Slavonic. In other words, the rise of
relative clause formations in East Slavonic does not necessarily follow the cline
of clause chaining leading from parataxis via hypotaxis to, ultimately, subordina-
tion as posited in Hopper and Traugott (2003: 175–211).
There is, in fact, dialect evidence for speaking, at least, of two separate (par-
allel) pathways of relative clause chaining in East Slavonic, rather than two (or
more) successive stages in one linear development. Thus, instead of a unilateral
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
364 Andrii Danylenko
developmental trend from fairly simple (free) juxtaposition of clauses to hypo-
taxis to subordination, we posit two developmental clines, one leading from par-
ataxis to ‘paratactic subordination’ (P-Subordination) (Danylenko 2014: 198–199;
cf. Potebnja 1899: 322), and a second leading from parataxis to hypotaxis and
ultimately to ‘hypotactic subordination’ (H-Subordination) (see Scheme 1). The
latter type of subordination is characterized by complete dependency, in which
a margin (subordinate clause) is wholly included, with the help of an inflected
relative marker, within a constituent of the nucleus (matrix clause) (Hopper
and Traugott 2003: 177). ‘Paratactic subordination’ is premised, however, on
the partial integration of a subordinate clause due to the use, in particular, of
an uninflected relative marker (or their combinations) either without or with
resumption (see Sections 2.2 and 3).
In order to substantiate the aforementioned development of relative clauses
in East Slavonic, a system of the areal, diachronic, and socio-typological criteria
is applied in this study. In Sections 2–2.3 and 4, we make use of the areal criterion
with an eye to outlining a distribution of the existing relative clause types and
their overt linkage markers within the context of wider areal-typological implica-
tions. A simultaneous discussion of changing patterns in the distribution of such
types and markers since the time of their emergence in the ‘pre-national’ varieties
of East Slavonic capitalizes on the diachronic component of our methodology.
In Section 3, we offer a socio-typological interpretation of relativization patterns
in East Slavonic. All this allows us to explicate the existence, in diachrony and
evolution, of the aforementioned two pathways of relative clause chaining in East
Slavonic and other Indo-European languages (Kurzová 1981).
P-Subordination
Parataxis
Hypotaxis H-Subordination
Scheme 1: Two pathways of relative clause combining in East Slavonic.
2 Distribution of the relative clause formations
in East Slavonic
Among the relative elements observed in East Slavonic, we identify four basic
markers of both P- and H-subordination. Tentatively, we make a primary twofold
distinction between inflected and uninflected relative markers, constituting a
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 365
minimum of four basic types as presented in Tab. 1. Best known from English and
some North (Low) Saxon dialects of Schleswig in German, zero relatives are not
observed in standard varieties of East Slavonic (cf. Fleischer 2004: 226), though
they are still attested in its non-standard varieties (Danylenko 2014: 198–199).
Tab. : Inventory of basic relative markers in modern East Slavonic
Inflected markers () U jakyj, B jaki, R kakoj
() U kotryj, B katory, R kotoryj ‘which’
Uninflected markers () U ščo, B što, R čto ‘what’
() U de, B dze, R gde ‘where’
The aforementioned typology can be expanded through adding some uninflected
relative markers of the type že, žy, and žo attested in the archaic southwestern
Ukrainian dialects (see Section 2.1; Danylenko 2014: 191). What is more impor-
tant, however, is that the four basic types tend to be further divided into several
subtypes found in both standard and non-standard varieties of East Slavonic.
For instance, some of the inflected relative markers can occur in conjunction with
uninflected relative markers and vice versa. In addition, the uninflected rela-
tive markers can be used together with resumptive elements depending on the
1The following abbreviations are used here: ACC, accusative; AH, Accessibility Hierarchy;B,
Belarusian; Bl, Bulgarian; coll, colloquial; CES, Common East Slavonic; CS, Common Slavonic;
DAT, dative; dial., dialectal; DEM, demonstrative; F, feminine; Fr, French; folk., folkloric;
FUT, future; GEN, genitive; I, Italian; IMP, imperative; INF, Infinitive; INS, instrumental; IREL,
inflected relative marker; Kursk, Kursk dialects; Lemk., Lemkian dialects; LOC, locative; M,
masculine; MB, Middle Belarusian; MU, Middle Ukrainian; N, neuter; NEB, Northeast Belar-
usian; , nominative; NP, noun phrase; P, Polish; P, particle; PPP, past passive participle;
Podil., Podillja dialects; PRS, present tense; PST, preterit tense; R, Russian; RES, resumptive
element; Rm, Rumanian; S, Spanish; SEU, Southeast Ukrainian; SG, singular; Slv, Slovene; SR,
South Russian; Steppe, steppe dialects; SU, standard Ukrainian; SWB, Southwest Belarusian; SWU,
Southwest Ukrainian; PL, plural; R, Russian; Rm, Rumanian; U, Ukrainian; Transc., Transcarpa-
thian dialects; UCM, uninflected clause marker; UREL, uninflected relative marker.
2The notion of ‘non-standard’ includes diatopically, diastratically or diaphasically marked varie-
ties. This allows pigeonholing as ‘non-standard’ all constructions that in reference works are iden-
tified as ‘colloquial’, ‘regional’, ‘dialectal’, ‘informal’, that is sociolinguistically marked (Murelli
2011: 33). Due to space constraint, results of hybridization of Ukrainian (suržyk) and Belarusian
(trasjanka) as the matrix and Russian as the embedded language (or vice versa) are not taken into
consideration (cf. Hentschel et al. 2014). Both suržyk and trasjanka as sub-standard varieties with
predictable (structural) regularities and pejorative connotations are relatively late formations to
have a structural impact on relativization strategies in Ukrainian and Belarusian (Danylenko 2016).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
366 Andrii Danylenko
position of a relativized noun in the Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) (Keenan and
Comrie 1977, 1979) or even in combination with each other as attested not only in
East Slavonic but also in other Indo-European non-standard varieties (cf. Murelli
2011: 87–112).
In Sections 2.1–2.3, the cross-dialectal emergence and spread of the relative
clause patterns is discussed in tandem with an overview of the changes in dialect
distribution of competing variants in the Ukrainian-, Belarusian-, and Russian-
speaking territories correspondingly.
2.1Ukrainian
The relative pronouns jakyj and kotryj ‘which’ are the basic type for relative clause
formation in Standard Ukrainian (Bilodid 1972: 336). The uninflected marker ščo,
accompanied by a resumptive pronoun for most of the nominal case roles, save
for the subject in the AH, is commonly viewed as a ‘secondary’ relative clause
type (Vyxovanec’ 1993: 335–336).
(1) SU
On toj čolovik, ščo z nym ja
he that-.. man-. with whom- I
rozmovljav u centri mista
talk-.. in center-.. town-..
‘That is the man with whom I was talking in the town centre’
(Pugh and Press 1999: 179)
It should be borne in mind, however, that the relative marker kotryj tends to be
employed where the emphasis is on identifying a particular entity; as a regular
linkage marker, the relativizer kotryj is also attested in a Ukrainian heavily
influenced by Russian (Pugh and Press 1999: 296) or, in the case of the western
Ukrainian standard, by Polish (Danylenko 2003: 186).
Not surprisingly, in the entire literary output of the major Ukrainian poet
Taras Ševčenko (1814–1861), whose language reflects the aforementioned distri-
bution, one comes across only three cases of the relative marker kotryj. At the
same time, the uninflected marker ščo was numerically predominant in all his
writings and jakyj was still observed in its qualitative meaning ‘what sort of’ or in
the distributive meaning; in the latter case, the relative clause was found in the
prenominal position (Danylenko 2003: 190). This nineteenth-century distribution
was discussed by Potebnja (1899: 337, 342) who argued that ‘pure relativization’
in Ukrainian was achieved through the use of the relative ‘particle’ ščo or the
relative pronoun jakyj but not by the marker kotryj influenced allegedly either by
standard Russian or Polish.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 367
In fact, the relative markers kotryj and jakyj demonstrate a rather limited
scope of usage. For instance, the inflected marker kotryj is largely employed in
Southwest Ukrainian, in particular in Transcarpathian dialects, and sporadi-
cally in some other Ukrainian dialects (Bevzenko 1980: 172–173). Attested cross-
dialectally (cf. AUM 3, part 4: 186), the marker kotryj retains a distributive meaning
typical of the pre-posed relative clause (Mel’nyčuk 1962: 116).
(2) SWU (Lemk.)
Kotryj vyhrat, to tot
-.. win-.. then that-..
toho z’jist
that-.. eat-..
‘That one who wins, he will eat the other one’
(Verxratskij 1902: 170)
In general, from the early 19th c. onward the relative marker kotryj has been grad-
ually disappearing in Ukrainian dialects at the expense of jakyj which replaced
parallel k-forms like kakъ (kakyj, kakovъ) ‘what kind of; which’ retained in most
Russian dialects (Korš 1877: 28). Although rarely attested in the Poltava region,
the relative marker kotryj is still attested in postposed relative clauses in some
other Steppe dialects (Bevzenko 1980: 173).
(3) SEU (Steppe)
Ljublju dytynu, kotra sluxajit’sja
love-.1 child-.. -.. obey-.3
‘I like a child who behaves himself ’
(Žylko 1966: 125)
Showing residually weaker relative clause linkage, one comes across sporadic
occurrences of the double encoding of the relativized head noun, that is, once
by means of the relative marker kotryj and once by the resumption (repetition) of
the head noun outside the matrix clause, in particular, for the subject position in
the AH.
(4) SEU (Steppe)
Byry toj kavun,
take-.2 that-.. watermelon-..
kotryj kavun vit
-.. watermelon-.. from
koryn’cja soxne
root-.. dry-.3
‘Take a watermelon which dries from its root cap’
(Žylko 1966:125)
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
368 Andrii Danylenko
The status of the Ukrainian inflected marker jakyj is reminiscent of kotryj. Cross-
dialectally, jakyj may occur in a relative clause preceding the matrix one. However,
in the postposed position of the relative clause the marker jakyj is observed only
in a limited number of dialects. In southern Podillja, this marker is not attested at
all. If used in a postposed relative clause, the pronoun jakyj parallels the meaning
of kotryj, thus revealing its distributive semantics. From the 19th c. onward the rel-
ative pronoun jakyj has been gradually spreading across the Ukrainian-speaking
territories, most likely under the influence of its counterpart employed in nascent
standard Ukrainian (Mel’nyčuk 1962: 115; Danylenko 2015).
If viewed in diachrony, the use of the uninflected marker ščo has been most
consistent in dialects and spoken varieties of the language. Fulfilling various
clause functions, it gradually became most representative as a relative marker
already in the Middle period, both in the vernacular standard called Ruthenian
(prostaja mova) and the local (Meletian, after Meletij Smotryc’kyj) recension of
Church Slavonic (Korš 1877: 28–29; Mel’nyčuk 1962: 112; Danylenko 2006: 109–110).
As an example of što accompanied by a resumptive pronoun consider (5),
excerpted from the Peresopnycja Gospel (1556–1561):
(5) MU
i poperevrъtae(t) vsě rěči, što je(st)
and turn-.3 all things-.. be-.3
v ni(x)
in they-
‘And she will turn all the things which are in them’
(PG 1556–1561: 286)
With parallels in almost all Slavonic languages (Gallis 1958; Gołąb and Fried-
man 1972: 37, 41–43; Danylenko 2003: 194–197; Křížkova 1970), and even beyond
(cf. Murelli 2011: 324–331), the relative clause type involving the uninflected
marker ščo is fully integrated in modern Ukrainian dialects (AUM 3, part 4:
186). Yet this type is particularly abundant in Southeast and North Ukrainian
(Bevzenko 1980: 172). Due to a rather weak interlacing of the matrix clause
with the relative one with the uninflected marker ščo, Potebnja (1899: 322–323)
defined this relationship as ‘paratactic subordination’. Indeed, the uninflected
marker neither encodes the syntactic role of the relativized item nor provides co-
reference with the head noun in the matrix clause. Historically, both functions
tend to be fulfilled by a resumptive personal pronoun for almost all the positions
in the AH, sporadically even for that of subject. It is noteworthy that the latter is
relativized today less frequently as in the 19th c. Moreover, the use of ščo without
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 369
any resumption was most common in all the Ukrainian dialects in the 19th c. or
even earlier (Smerečyns’kyj 1931: 201–207).
Rarely and mostly in the transitional dialects, the weak relative clause linkage
may be compensated by combining the uninflected marker ščo with an inflected
relative pronoun of the type R kakoj and kotoryj ‘which.’
(6) SWU
tomu vpade bil’še, ščo kotryj ukrav
that-.. get-.3 more -.. steal-..
‘That one who stole will get more’
(Smerečyns’kyj 1932: 202)
As late as the Middle period, the aforementioned combination was attested in
postnominal relative clauses, where ščo was used as an identifier and kotryj in its
distributive meaning.
(7) MU
a što kotory(i) ko(p)cy[…] byli
and -. hump-.. be-.
po(p)sovany, tye napravi(ti)
spoil-.. those- fix-
‘As far as those humps which were deranged are concerned, one should fix
them’ (16th c., Zadorožnyj and Matvijenko 1995: 84)
Since the 19th c. all the Ukrainian dialects have been demonstrating a tendency
toward the postnominal position of the dependent and non-embedded relative
clauses (Hendery 2012: 21). A few examples illustrate this vividly:
(8) SWU (Lemk.)
O vdovi, ščo mala paserbycju
about widow-.. have-.. stepdaughter-..
‘About a widow who had a stepdaughter’
(Verxratskij 1902: 170)
(9) SWU (Podil.)
Bo to buv takyj pip,
because that- be-.. such-.. priest-..
ščo vin duže napyvavsja
he- very to.get.drunk-..
‘For that was such a priest who used to get drunk’
(Levčenko 1928: 130)
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
370 Andrii Danylenko
(10) SWU (Transc.)
To tot dido, ščo ho
that- that-.. codger-.. he-.
nahorodyly
award-.
‘This is that codger whom they awarded’
(Žylko 1966: 125)
The use of postposed dependent but not embedded relative clauses is especially
representative in Southwest Ukrainian which employs a widearray of uninflected
markers (AUM2, map 256). In addition to ščo, one finds there, for instance, ož (oš)
as a continuation of CES o-že (Mel’nyčuk 1962: 82, 113) but not the bookish (pri-
marily, Church Slavonic) i-že, ja-že from *yo- (cf. Rabus 2010); deserving of atten-
tion are že, žy, žo, žu derived from CS že (> Slv ki, cf. Gołąb and Friedman 1972: 41)
rather than from P že (Meillet 1924: 427; cf. Murelli 2011: 125).
(11) SWU (Transc.)
Tot legin’, ož vydiv nas
that-.. guy-.. see-.. us
‘That fellow who saw us’
(Bevzenko 1980: 173)
The uninflected forms že, žy, žo, žu and ož seem to be the earliest to become gram-
maticalized as relative markers in these dialects. As a rule, they do not take any
resumption, thereby encoding largely either the nominative or accusative posi-
tion in the AH. Thus, co-reference with the head noun in the matrix clause is not
marked in this type of postposed relative clauses.
Of interest is the locative-specialized relative element de ‘where’ (< hde < gde
< kъde) which is used cross-dialectally and is reminiscent of similar relativiza-
tion formations in other Indo-European languages, belonging in particular to the
Balkan Sprachbund cf. Bl deto (< kădeto) and Rm de ‘where’ (< unde) (Murelli
2011: 189–193). The wh-adverbial marker can be compared to the uninflected rela-
tive marker ščo in that it does not encode the syntactic role of the head noun in
the matrix clause. The marker de can also be rarely accompanied by a resumptive
pronoun as illustrated in example (13). With no resumption, the co-reference with
the relativized item in gender and number agreement is conspicuously absent. The
two clauses are still paratactically interlaced, although under a single intonation
contour provided by a mere presence of the marker de, as shown in example (12).
The difference between (12) and (13) lies in a degree of the residual paratactic sub-
ordination which is minimally stronger in the case of resumption. Analogically,
one finds paratactic subordination in example (8); this syntactic relationship
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 371
appears tighter, however, in Sentences (9) and (10) where resumption is employed
with the uninflected marker ščo.
(12) SWU
Ce ta konjaka, de Matvij
this- that-.. mare-.. Matvij
jizdyt’
ride-.3
‘This is a mare which Matvij rides’
(Bevzenko 1980: 173)
(13) SEU
Ta baba pomerla, de vony
that-.. old.lady-.. die-.. they-.
z neji nasmixalys’
at her- sneer-.
‘That old lady, at whom they had sneered, died’
(Žylko 1966: 126)
Tentatively, the introduction of the wh-adverbial de in relative clause chain-
ing might have been provoked by language contacts as observed in the Balkan
Sprachbund or some transitional Ukrainian-Russian dialects (Akimova 1964: 142)
(see Section 2.3). Consequently, one finds it difficult to concur with Gołąb and
Friedman (1972: 45) viewing the function of Bl deto as a general ‘hypotactic con-
junction’ meaning ‘where’ as a calque from the Greek (see Section 2.2).
2.2Belarusian
Standard Belarusian employs mostly the inflected relative pronouns jaki and
katory ‘which,’ although the latter one appears to be stylistically marked (Biryla
and Šuba 1986: 292). Unlike Ukrainian, the uninflected relative marker što is
viewed as colloquial and folklore-restricted (Atraxovič 1966: 608).
The current distribution is a result of changes that have been taking place
over the last five centuries. Thus, in the 16th–17thcc. the relative clauses with katory
were prevalent in Ruthenian (prostaja mova), as a precursor of both Belarusian
and Ukrainian. In neighbouring (Middle) Polish the exclusive use of który at the
expense of ‘colloquial’ co ‘what’ could be explained by Latin – and, to some
extent, Czech – influence (Urbańczyk 1939: 52). Historically, jaki tended to oust
katory as found today in Belarusian dialects and standard Belarusian. Somewhat
surprisingly, katory is attested, although sporadically, in all major Belarusian
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
372 Andrii Danylenko
dialects (Akimova 1964: 141), although što became their principle relative marker
as in Ukrainian (Astrèjka 2009: 196, 392, 396). So, the overall changes in the dis-
tribution of the aforementioned competing markers in Ruthenian (I) and, subse-
quently, in Belarusian (IIa) and Ukrainian (IIb) are documented in Scheme 2; the
major difference between Belarusian and Ukrainian lies in an optional status of
the contact-induced kotryj in the latter language.
što jaki
(IIa) Belarusian
katory
katoryj
(I)
što jakij ščo (jakyj)
(IIb) Ukrainian
(kotryj)
Scheme 2: Changes in the relativization patterns from Ruthenian (I) to Belarusian (IIa) and
Ukrainian (IIb).
In Belarusian dialects, the use of katory and jaki has a clear-cut territorial distri-
bution. The pronoun jaki is mostly attested in northeastern, central, and Pales-
sian (U Polissian) dialects, spreading even as far as the adjacent Russian (Pskov)
dialects (Akimova 1964: 141). At the same time, the pronoun katory is widespread
in Southwest Belarusian, thus cutting the Belarusian territories in half (Blinava
and Mjacel’skaja 1969: 121). The use of jaki in Southwest Belarusian does not
exceed 10 percent of the relative clauses recorded in this dialectal area (Baxan’ko
1960: 120). What is remarkable is that the two relative pronouns tend to compete
primarily in the transitional Belarusian-Russian dialects:
(14) B dial.
To byў Lёn’ka, katory / jakej sa Smalensku
that- be-.. Lёn’ka from Smalensk-
‘That was Ln’ka who was from Smalensk’
(Proxorova 1991: 82)
As evidenced from Scheme 2, the uninflected relative marker što has followed
the same developmental cline as the Ukrainian counterpart ščo, including its
common use in relativization without resumption (Karskij 2006 [1911]: 464–465).
However, the Belarusian marker što appears to be more exemplary from the point
of view of its relative clause linkage leading, ultimately, to the strengthening of
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 373
paratactic subordination. In fact, the marker što is found in three types of post-
posed relative clauses:
I. Uninflected što + no resumption. This relative clause pattern is widespread in
both Southwest and Northeast Belarusian (Baxan’ko 1960: 122).
II. Uninflected što + resumption. This relative clause pattern is also used cross-
dialectally (Akimova 1964: 141–142) with resumption possible in all the posi-
tions of the AH; this means that this distribution is determined by specific
socio-typological variables rather than by the geographical factor. As an
example of the oblique case-role, consider:
(15) B dial.
Toj stary dom, što
that-.. old-.. house-..
ja u jaho zašla
I in it-... enter-..
‘That old house, into which I stepped’
(Baxan’ko 1960: 125)
III. Inflected što + no resumption. This relative clause pattern is found, in
particular, in Southwest Belarusian. The pronoun što takes mostly the
form of the instrumental case as found in example (16a), although some
other oblique case-roles are also possible, for instance with the preposi-
tion na ‘on’ as exemplified in (16b). This relative clause type is traced back
to the common East Slavonic period (Borkovskij 1958: 124–125); examples
of the inflected što without resumption are attested in Ruthenian (Middle
Belarusian and Middle Ukrainian) as well as in Middle Russian (Baxan’ko
1960: 125).
(16) a. SWB
daj pilu, čym rezac’
give-.2 saw-.. - cut-
‘Give me a saw with [the help of] which one can cut’
(Baxan’ko 1960: 124)
b. SWB
zapražy kanja, na čom
harness-.2 horse-.. on -
jexac’
ride-
‘Harness the horse which we will ride’
(Baxan’ko 1960: 124)
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
374 Andrii Danylenko
c. MB
A koni namъ u vas u Rize
and horses- we- at you- in Riga
kupiti, na čemъ u verxъ jexati
buy- on - upward ride-
‘And we need to buy horses from you, in Riga, by which we will go upward’
(1407; Borkovskij 1958: 125)
Examples (15), (16a) and (16b) with the complimentary distribution of the inflec-
tion of što and resumption demonstrate tighter amalgamation of the relative
clause which remains, nevertheless, relatively independent within the frame-
work of paratactic subordination. Even occurring as an inflected form, the marker
što is not capable of modifying an NP in the matrix clause. In Indo-European and
its historical dialects, this interrogative-based marker can refer to/focus on the
whole nucleus only (Danylenko 2001: 255).
Finally, one should mention the wh-adverbial dze used as an uninflected rela-
tive marker in some Belarusian dialects or spoken Belarusian as exemplified in (17).
(17) B coll.
Ja – taja Ljuba, što byla ў
I [am] that-.. Ljuba be-.. at
mlynara, dze vy mlyn pravili
miller-.. you- mill-.. renovate-.
‘I am that Ljuba who was at the miller’s whose mill you were renovating’
(Atraxovič 1966: 610)
We do not have reliable statistics. However, like in some Ukrainian and insular
Russian dialects, Balkan Slavonic, and some Polish dialects (cf. Murelli 2011:
220–225), the Belarusian relative marker dze appears to be used more often than
not in the situation of language contact as, for instance, in the transitional Bela-
rusian-Russian dialects spoken in the Smolensk region. Remarkably, one finds
in these transitional dialects the whole set of major relative markers (katory, jaki
and što) used intermittently. Interestingly, što tends to be used without resump-
tion in these dialects, even for the direct object position.
(18) NEB
Xaču s’’jest’ supu, što ty
want-.1 eat- soup-.. you
variš
cook-.2
‘I want to eat some soup that you are cooking’
(Proxorova 1991: 82)
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 375
The latter fact speaks for further strengthening of paratactic subordination as
a result of language contact in the transitional Russian-Belarusian zone which,
according to Proxorova (1991: 3–31, 82), is characterized by a number of ‘Balto-
Slavonic innovations’, especially in relativization.
2.3Russian
In the 16th–17 thcc., the Russian lay texts demonstrated various relative clause
types based on the inflected markers kotoryj, kto and the uninflected element čto
occurring in both pre- and postnominal constructions. As early as the 18th–1 9 th
cc., a substantial reduction of such types occurred in all genres and registers
(Troickij 1968: 251; Borkovskij and Kuznecov 1965: 523). All this eventually led
to the present-day opposition between a small number of constructions with
kotoryj in standard Russian and a full variety of constructions encountered in
its non-standard varieties. Standard Russian reached the most advanced level of
grammaticalization of the relative pronoun kotoryj at the expense of kakoj / jakoj
and the marker čto (Mel’nyčuk 1962: 212–218). Used without any resumption, the
latter encodes the head noun in the subject or direct object position only and is
treated as colloquial and vernacular-oriented (Švedova et al. 1980: 524; Minlos
2012: 80).
In northern and western central Russian dialects, one encounters the relative
pronoun kotoryj, used also in the prenominal relative clause (Meščerskij 1972:
255). In South Russian, one finds the relative pronoun kakoj (or jakoj) as a main
relative marker which commonly reveals the distributive meaning (Kuznecov
1973: 199). The uninflected relative marker čto is attested cross-dialectally, espe-
cially in South Russian, although its frequency is smaller than in Belarusian and
especially Ukrainian (Akimova 1964: 142).
Two other types of relative markers are of special interest. The first one is
illustrated by the wh-adverbial gde ‘where’ in example (19) and the second is
represented by the uninflected relative marker čto ‘what’ in combination with
other relative markers as shown in Sentences (20) and (21). Thus, the unin-
flected relative marker gde is found in some insular Russian dialects spoken in
modern Latvia. Ruke-Dravinja (1964) viewed the introduction of this relative
markeras internally motivated. We believe, however, that the formation of this
relative clause should be linked with language contact as is the case in some
Ukrainian dialects, see examples (12) and (13). Suffice it here to mention a similar
wh-adverbial use of kur ‘where’ in Latgalian, a regional language spoken in East
Latvia, which has long been in contact with some Russian Old Believer frontier
dialects (cf. Nau 2011: 97).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
376 Andrii Danylenko
(19) R dial.
vot u menja lampъčka, gde garit
here at I- lamp-.. light-.3
letъm
in.the.summer
‘Here is a lamp that lights in the summer’
(Ruke-Dravinja 1964: 115)
Another relative clause type is the uninflected dial. štu ‘what’ (< čto) used in
combination with either the adverbial jde ‘where’ (<gde) or the inflected relative
marker kakoj ‘which’. Cited by Akimova (1964: 142) from a work on the syntax of
the Kursk dialects, and most recently by Murelli (2011: 101–102), these examples
were filed as southern Russian:
(20) SR (Kursk)
Da pašli my pa tej ta darogi,
go-. we along that-.. road-..
štu jde tada mjašok patirjali
then sack-.. loose-.
‘And we went along the same road where we had lost the sack’
(21) SR (Kursk)
Dyk edit’ ža on von na toj-ta
ride-.. he on that-..
lošadi, štu u kakoj dva ž’rjabёnka
horse-.. at -.. two foal-..
ž’rjabilis’
to.be.born-.
‘There he goes on that horse that gave birth to two foals’
Remarkably, Akimova (1964: 142) noticed correctly that examples (20) and (21)
have much in common with a similar, in particular adverbial-based relativization
in some Belarusian and Ukrainian dialects. This connection becomes even more
obvious if one takes into consideration the area where these examples come from.
As we suggested elsewhere (Danylenko 2014: 196), examples (20) and (21) might
have been recorded in a transitional Ukrainian-Russian dialectal zone, with a
Ukrainian Sloboda or eastern Polissian dialect in interaction with a southern
Russian (Kursk or Belgorod) dialect. For our discussion, the data from the Kursk
dialect is of utmost importance. The point is that in this transitional dialectal
zone the speakers use almost exclusively the uninflected relative marker što / štu;
the relative pronoun kotoryj is not found in this contact zone, while kakoj / jakoj,
which is typical of South Russian, is attested in the Kursk dialect only sporadi-
cally (Baxan’ko 1960: 127).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 377
As we have shown for Belarusian, the use of the adverbial relative marker
jde in combination with the uninflected marker štu in the Kursk dialect is not a
unique case in (the history of) East Slavonic and its dialects (Korš 1877: 29). In
fact, as a principle relative marker, the uninflected U ščo / B što / R štu tends to
combine with any other relative clause linker in Belarusian and Ukrainian. Yet
such a combination of relative markers does not change the degree of relative
clause amalgamation which allowed Potebnja (1899: 322) to label them as ‘para-
tactic subordination’.
3Discussion
The foregoing survey of relativization in East Slavonic has been conducted on a
comparatively minor historical scale; we left aside Common Slavonic and early
medieval East Slavonic relative clause types. We also disregarded some relative
markers like iže found in the Old Church Slavonic and early Middle East Slavonic
written languages (Mel’nyčuk 1962). We largely remained in the domain of post-
nominal relative clause subordination and its two basic inflected and two basic
uninflected markers. Some other, primarily uninflected markers typical of South-
west Ukrainian are not discussed either in the remainder since they do not shed
any additional light on the development of relative clauses in East Slavonic.
Yet the major diachronic changes outlined above are sufficient for making
several observations of the diachronic and typological nature, especially in
regards to our hypothesis about the two pathways of relative clause chaining in
East Slavonic. As evidenced in scholarly literature (e.g., Mel’nyčuk 1962; Akimova
1964) the number of non-standard relative clause types in Russian dialects seems
to equal those in Belarusian and Ukrainian. The difference between Russian, on
the one hand, and Belarusian and Ukrainian, on the other, lies in the systemic
adaptation of the aforementioned relative clause types. Of the four overt rela-
tive markers noted, the Russian dialects tend to use today mostly the inflected
relative markers kotoryj and kakoj ‘which’ rather than uninflected elements for
the interlacing of relative clauses (Danylenko 2014: 200–201); the uninflected
markers čto ‘what’ and, especially, gde ‘where’ occur rarely and more often than
not in the dialects which have been in contact with other languages or dialects,
irrespective of their genealogical closeness. One can mention here the insular and
some Russian Old Believer frontier dialects in the northeast of Latgalia in Latvia
and the Russian transitional Kursk-Orel dialects in contact with the Ukrainian
Sloboda dialect.
The Belarusian dialects too differ from the Ukrainian ones. The inflected rela-
tive markers seem to be more widespread in Belarusian than in Ukrainian where
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
378 Andrii Danylenko
the markers kotryj and, historically, jakyj ‘which’ have been largely influenced
by the adjacent Polish and Russian dialects and the corresponding literary tradi-
tions. As early as the 16th–17th cc. these markers represented non-native, artifi-
cial trends as cultivated in the written language (cf. Rabus 2010: 158–166). It is
not surprising that, for instance, U kotryj and respectively B katorў ‘which’ have
largely retained their distributive meaning cross-dialectally in both Ukrainian
and Belarusian-speaking territories.
Diachronically and typologically, the uninflected marker ščo ‘what’ appears
to be most representative for the Ukrainian-and Belarusian-speaking territories.
As one of the oldest vernacular-oriented relativization strategies in East Slavonic
(Mel’nyčuk 1962: 102), ščo still functions as a general overt linker for two clauses in
juxtaposition. In such cases, the semantic relationship between the two clauses is
by inference only; cf. the causative adverbial function as inferred in example (22):
(22) U folk.
Ne puskaje maty, ščo ja moloda
not let-.3 mother I young-..
‘My mother doesn’t let me go out because I am young’
(Korš 1877: 27)
As follows from the above, the level of incorporation of the margin clause in (22)
is low; although overtly linked to the matrix clause, the margin one remains in
the realm of parataxis and can be called, following Potebnja, a paratactic subor-
dinate (relative) clause.
Conceivably, the nature of paratactic subordination does not change when
the overt uninflected clause marker relates to an NP in the matrix clause, thus
initiating relative clause linkage, as exemplified in (23):
(23) U folk.
A de ž taja krynyčen’ka, ščo
And where that-.. well-..
holub kupavsja?
pigeon-.. bathe-..
‘And where is the well in which the pigeon bathed?’
(Korš 1877: 28)
The developmental cline of paratactic subordination as reconstructed for the
relative clause chaining in East Slavonic involves two possible resolutions, or
‘micro-pathways,’ both attested in diachrony and contemporary dialects (see
Section 2.2; Korš 1877: 15).
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 379
The first micro-pathway is premised on the use of the uninflected marker
U ščo / B što / R čto ‘what’ in combination with a resumptive pronoun, as shown
in Sentences (15), (24), and (25); the locative-specialized relative marker U de /
B dze / R gde is also part of this micro-pathway as exemplified in Sentences (12),
(13), (17), and (19).
(24) MU
Počerpalo: každaja rečь, ščo
Scooper [is] every thing-..
čerpajutъ neju
scoop-. it-..
‘Scooper can be anything with the help of which one scoops’
(1627; Berynda: 91)
(25) SR (Rjazan’)
a žena nesёt emu mladenca,
and wife-.. carry-.3 he- baby-..
čto nego rodila
he- give.birth-..
‘And his wife is carrying a baby whom she gave a birth’
(Borkovskij 1981: 206)
The evolution of paratactic subordination along the second micro-pathway
omits any resumption and presupposes, instead, the use of inflecting forms of
the relative marker U ščo / B što / R čto, in particular in the instrumental and
prepositional locative cases. Less advanced and rarely attested in the contempo-
rary dialects, this micro-pathway was, nevertheless, rather productive in the Old
and Middle periods of the history of East Slavonic (Borkovskij 1958: 124–125). It
was ultimately replaced by the uninflected relative marker in combination with
resumptive pronouns.
What we have shown here is thus that the aforementioned micro-pathways
represent a distinctive developmental cline (pathway) of so-called paratactic
subordination. Demonstrating a linear increase of syntactic amalgamation, this
cline nevertheless is not conducive to the formation of ‘complete’ (hypotactic)
3We glossed nego as the direct object. However, this form is hard to interpret – the form nego
may also stand for the agentive genitive ot nego ‘(impregnated) by him’ or, as Minlos (2012: 78)
suggested, the PP dlja nego ‘for him’; it might also be a prothetic genitive form nego ~ jego.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
380 Andrii Danylenko
subordination characterized by a complete dependency of the embedded rela-
tive clause. Linked with the help of such inflected relative markers as U jakyj /
B jaki / R kakoj and U kotryj / B katorў / R kotoryj ‘which’, the developmental
cline of hypotactic subordination also shows an increase of syntactic tightness.
However, the latter tightness should be treated as a result of a separate diachronic
and evolutional trend leading to a new stage in the genesis of syntactic complex-
ity. In other words, the aforementioned pathways of relative clause chaining in
East Slavonic represent separate (parallel) trends on integrative processes which
tend to interlace with each other, though never losing their distinctive develop-
mental tracks. All this clearly entitles us to argue that, instead of a unilateral
developmental trend from free juxtaposition of clauses to hypotaxis to subordi-
nation, one should distinguish between two developmental clines, one leading
from parataxis to paratactic subordination and the second leading to hypotactic
subordination. In the view of the two historical resolutions (micro-pathways) to
the development of paratactic subordination (P-Subordination) as opposed to
hypotactic subordination (H-Subordination), we propose a modified representa-
tion of relative clause chaining for P-Subordination in East Slavonic in Scheme 3.
UREL + resumption
P-Subordination UREL + no resumption
inflectable UREL (B što)
parataxis
hypotaxis H-Subordination
Scheme 3: A modified representation of clause combining for P-Subordination in East Slavonic.
What is left to determine here is what preconditions the developmental clines
leading to the formation of paratactic and hypotactic subordination. As we
hypothesized elsewhere (Danylenko 2014) in terms of social typology, the forma-
tion of paratactic and hypotactic subordination is dependent on a historically
prevalent type of communication (discourse) within a language community. The
prevalent type of communication is determined ultimately by a particular con-
stellation of societal (extralinguistic) factors like the amount of adult language
contact, type of social stability, size of a speech community, type of social net-
works, and amounts of communally shared information (Trudgill 2011: 13–14, 62,
146; 2013). Such a constellation preconditions the formation of a particular ‘inter-
nal determinant’ defined as a principal feature optimizing the whole system of a
particular language (Danylenko 2006: 215–217). As a result, whether a language
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 381
accrues complexity, in particular in the formation of hypotactic subordination in
relativization, or simplifies, while strengthening the paratactic type of subordina-
tion, depends on a particular internal determinant of the language system. Since
language contact (based on adult second-language learning) leads to an increase
in simplification, the inflecting system tends to acquire more analytic features,
which is likely to bring about regularization of irregularizations, an increase of
morphological transparency, a reduction in syntagmatic redundancy conducive
to a ‘simpler’ syntactic organization, including the development of paratactic
subordination (cf. Trudgill 2011: 62).
As evidenced in its history (Danylenko 2001, 2006: 195–217), East Slavonic
has been influenced by varying extralinguistic factors. This is why its dialects
tend to demonstrate two developmental clines in relativization. The major,
synthetic tendency has been leading to the strengthening of hypotactic sub-
ordination, while the second, analytic one to the strengthening of paratactic
subordination in East Slavonic. As we have shown, the Belarusian and largely
Ukrainian dialects have gone along the pathway conducive to the formation of
paratactic subordination, while the bulk of Russian dialects have been develop-
ing hypotactic subordination with the complete dependency of embedded rela-
tive clause.
4Areal-typological outlook
The existence of the two pathways of relativization is not limited to East
Slavonic. They can be postulated for any inflecting Indo-European language
which demonstrates either the analytic or synthetic tendency as outlined above.
Since most Slavonic languages have retained the primary synthetic features
and acquired some secondary analytic features (Danylenko 2013: 153–156),
one can find some Slavonic dialects whose relative clause chaining is based
either on the inflected relative clause linkage (e.g., Russian), or the uninflected
relative clause linkage as found in Balkan Slavonic and most of the Ukrainian
and Belarusian dialects (cf. Gołąb and Friedman 1972). In fact, this correla-
tion can be applied to the rest of the Indo-European languages, conceived of
in terms of Standard Average European. For instance, from the point of view of
relativization patterns, Fiorentino (2007) divided Europe into two parts. On the
one hand, Continental West Germanic languages (Dutch, German) still use an
inflected Indo-European relative pronoun, while Romance languages, Greek,
and English, on the other, adopted a mixed system with an invariant marker,
cf.Fr and S que, I che.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
382 Andrii Danylenko
The aforementioned generalization seems to be realistic. One can mention
here those German dialects, e.g., Oberrotweil, Balse, East Pomeranian and
others, which use the uninflected wo ‘where’ without resumption (Fleischer 2004:
224–227); the latter relativization strategy, as we have mentioned, is observed in
the transitional Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian dialects found in contact
with other languages. Of interest also is another German parallel, i.e., the use
of uninflected was ‘what’ in combination with a resumptive pronoun, one of the
most wide-spread innovations in the northwest (in the North Saxon dialect of
Husby in Schleswig) and, predominantly, in the east, namely, in East Pomera-
nian, the Upper Saxon dialect of northwestern Bohemia, North Bavaria, and the
Lubica linguistic island within the Slovak language area. Fleischer (2004: 235)
hypothesized that, under the Slavonic influence, the eastern occurrences of this
relative clause type might have been contact-induced.
Fleischer’s contact hypothesis would be a partial explanation only. The point
is that it has been very tempting in historical linguistics, for reasons that are far
from obvious, to cast around for contact explanations of grammatical change.
However, as Givón (1991: 301) noted, its scope is rigidly circumscribed. In the
spirit of Givón’s doubts, our inclination has always been to defer to the follow-
ing methodological principle: explain by contact only changes that are coun-
ter-normative, i.e., go against the more common diachronic drift. The material
discussed in this study allows us to claim that paratactic subordination tends
to develop ‘naturally’, i.e., not as a replication, within an inflecting language
system with analytic properties evolved due to contacts with speakers of other
languages or conditions of spoken discourse (Kurzová 1981: 80; Givón 1991: 303).
All this seems to corroborate our hypothesis about two separate pathways of rela-
tive clause chaining in East Slavonic and, by extension, other Indo-European
languages that meet the requirements of either analytic or synthetic changes
in their morphosyntax. But how these changes are correlated with the societal
variables of linguistic patterning is a topic for future research on the diachronic
syntax of Slavonic.
References
Akimova, Galina N. 1964. Tendencii v razvitii ornositel’nogo podčinenija v sovremennyx
vostočnoslavjanskix jazykax [Tendencies in the development of relative clause
subordination in the contemporary East Slavonic languages]. Izvestija Akademii nauk
SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka 23 (2). 138–144.
Atraxovič, Kandrat K. (ed.). 1966. Hramatyka belaruskaj movy, . 2: Sintaksis [Belarusian
grammar. Vol. 2: Syntax]. Minsk: Akadèmija navuk BSSR.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 383
Astrèjka, V. D. 2009. Xrèstamatyja pa belaruskaj dyjalektalohii. Cèntral’naja zona [A reader for
the Belarusian dialectology. The central zone]. Minsk: Belaruskaja navuka.
AUM: Matvijas, Ivan H. et al. (eds.). 1988. Atlas ukrajins’koji movy. T. 2: Volyn’,
Naddnistrjanščyna i sumižni zemli; 2001, T. 3: Slobožanščyna, Doneččyna, Nyžnja
Naddniprjanščyna, Pryčornomor’’ja i sumižni zemli [Atlas of the Ukrainian language.
Vol. 2, Vol. 3]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Baxan’ko, Arcm Ja. 1960. Skladanazaležnyja skazy z dadanymi aznačal’nymi padnva-
zaxodnix belaruskix havorkax [Compound sentences with relative clauses in the
southwestern Belarusian dialects]. Vesci Akadèmii navuk Belaruskaj SSR. Seryja
hramadskix navuk 4. 116–128.
Berynda: Nimčuk, Vasyl’ V. (ed.). 1961. Leksykon slovenoros’kyj Pamvy Beryndy [A Slavonic-
Ruthenian Lexicon by Pamva Berynda]. Kyiv: Akademija nauk URSR.
Bevzenko, Stepan P. 1980. Ukrajins’ka dialektolohija [Ukrainian dialectology]. Kyiv: Vyšča
škola.
Bilodid, Ivan K. (ed.). 1972. Sučasna ukrajins’ka literaturna mova. Syntaksys [Contemporary
Ukrainian literary language. Syntax]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Biryla, Mikalaj V. & Pavjal P. Šuba. 1986. Belaruskaja hramatyka 2: Sintaksis [Belarusian
grammar 2: Syntax]. Minsk: Navuka i tèxnika.
Blinava, Èvelina D. & Evdokija S. Mjacel’skaja. 1969. Belaruskaja dyjalektalohija [Belarusian
dialectology]. Minsk: Vyšejšaja škola.
Borkovskij, Viktor I. 1958. Sintaksis drevnerusskix gramot: složnoe predloženie [Syntax of the
Old Russian charters: The compound sentence]. Moskva: Akademija nauk SSSR.
Borkovskij, Viktor I. 1981. Sintaksis skazok. Russko-belarusskie paralleli [Syntax of tales:
Russian-Belorusian parallels]. Moskva:Nauka.
Borkovskij, Viktor I. & Ptr S. Kuznecov. 1965. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka
[A historical grammar of the Russian language]. Moskva: Nauka.
Cristofaro, Sonia & Anna Giacalone Ramat. 2007. Relativization strategies in the languages
of Europe. In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and Mediterranean as linguistic
areas: Convergence from a historical and typological perspective, 63–93. Amsterdam&
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dahl, Östen. 2009. Two pathways of grammatical evolution. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi
Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution,
239–248. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2001. Russian čto za, Ukrainian ščo za, Polishco za ‘was für ein’. A case of
contact-induced or parallel change? Diachronica 28 (2). 241–265.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2003. Predykaty, vidminky i diatezy v ukrajins’kij movi: istoryčnyj i
typolohičnyj aspekty [Predicates, cases and diatheses in Ukrainian: Historical and
typological aspects]. Kharkiv: Oko.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2006. Slavica et Islamica: Ukrainian in context. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2013. Ukrainian in the language map of Central Europe: questions of areal-
typological profiling. Journal of Language Contact 6 (1). 134–159.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2014. On the relativization strategies in East Slavic. In Motoki Nomachi,
Andrii Danylenko & Predrag Piper (eds.), Grammaticalization and lexicalization in the
Slavic languages, 183–204. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2015. How many varieties of standard Ukrainian does one need? Die Welt der
Slaven 60 (2). 223–247.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
384 Andrii Danylenko
Danylenko, Andrii. 2016. Iazychie and Surzhyk: Mixing languages and identities in the
Ukrainian borderlands. In Tomasz Kamusella, Motoki Nomachi & Catherine Gibson (eds.).
The Palgrave handbook of Slavic languages, identities and borders, 81–100. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Deutscher, Guy. 2009. Nominalization and the origin of subordination. In Talmy Givón &
Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition,
evolution, 199–214. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fiorentino, Giuseppe. 2007. European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative
pronoun type. Rivista di Linguistica 19 (2). 263–291.
Fleischer, Jürg. 2004. A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. In Bernd Kortmann
(ed.), Dialectology meets typology, 211–243. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gallis, Arne. 1958. Flektiertes Relativum und Relativum generale, insbesondere im Serbokroa-
tischen. Scando-Slavica 4. 137–148.
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew.
In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization,
257–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 2009a. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 2009b. Multiple routes to clause union. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani
(eds.), Syntactic complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 81–118.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gołąb, Zbigniew & Victor A. Friedman. 1972. The relative clause in Slavic. In Paul M. Peranteau,
Judith N. Levi & Gloria C. Phares (eds.), The Chicago which hunt. Papers from the Relative
Clause Festival, April 13, 1972, 30–46. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Heine, Bernd. 2009. From nominal to clausal morphosyntax. Complexity via expansion. In Talmy
Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity. Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-
cognition, evolution, 23–51. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hendery, Rachel. 2012. Relative clauses in time and space. A case study in the methods of
diachronic typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Karskij, Evimij F. 2006 [1911]. Belorusy 2: Jazyk belorusskogo naroda 2 [Belarusians 2:
Language of the Belarusian people]. Minsk: Belaruskaja Èncyklapedyja.
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar.
Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1). 63–99.
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1979. Data on the noun phrase Accessibility Hierarchy.
Language 55 (2). 333–351.
Korš, Fdor. 1877. Sposoby otnositel’nogo podčinenija. Glava iz sravnitel’nogo sintaksisa [Means
of relative clause subordination. A chapter from comparative syntax]. Moskva: Katkov.
Křížkova, Helena. 1970. Relativní vĕty v současných slovanských jazycích [Relative clauses in
contemporary Slavonic languages]. Slavia 39. 10–40.
Kurzová, Helena. 1981. Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske.
Kuznecov, Ptr S. (ed.). 1973. Russkaja dialektologija [Russian dialectology]. Moskva:
Prosveščenie.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
Relative clause chaining in East Slavonic 385
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen. Theorie seiner
Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Levčenko, Mykola Z. (ed.). 1928. Kazky j opovidannja z Podillja v zapysax 1850–1860 rr.,
fasc.1–2 [Tales and stories from Podillja in the records from the 1850s–1860s]. Kyiv:
Vseukrajins’ka akademija nauk.
Meillet, Antoine.1924. Le slave commun. Paris: Édouard Champion.
Mel’nyčuk, Oleksandr S.1962. Istoryčnyj rozvytok systemy vidnosnyx sliv v ukrajins’kij
movi [Historical development of the system of relative words in Ukrainian]. Slov’janske
movoznavstvo 4. 80–121.
Meščerskij, Nikita A. (ed.). 1972. Russkaja dialektologija [Russian dialectology]. Moskva:
Vysšaja škola.
Minlos, Filipp R. 2012. Slavic relative čto/co: Between pronouns and conjunctions. Slovĕne 1.
74–91.
Murelli, Adriano. 2011. Relative constructions in European non-standard varieties. Berlin &
Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Nau, Nicole. 2011. A Short Grammar of Latgalian. Languages of the World (Materials 482).
Munich: Lincom Europa.
PG 1556–1561: Čepiha, Inna P. (eds.). 2001. Peresopnyc’ke Jevanhelije 1556–1561
[ThePeresopnycja Gospel of 1556–1561]. Kyiv: Nacional’na akademija nauk Ukraini.
Potebnja, Aleksandr A. 1899. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike 3 [From the notes on Russian
grammar 3]. Kharkiv: Zil’berberg.
Proxorova, Svetlana M. 1991. Sintaksis perexodnoj russko-belorusskoj zony: areal’no-
tipologičeskoe issledovanie [Syntax of the transitional Russian-Belorusian area:
An areal-typological study]. Minsk: Universitetskoe izdatel’stvo.
Pugh, Stefan & Ian Press. 1999. Ukrainian. A comprehensive grammar. London & New York:
Routledge.
Rabus, Achim. 2010. Die Relativisatoren im Ruthenischen. In Björn Hansen & Jasmina
Grković-Major (eds.), Diachronic Slavonic syntax. Gradual changes in focus (Wiener Slawis-
tischer Almanach – Sonderband 74), 155–168. München, Berlin & Wien: Otto Sagner.
Ruke-Dravinja [Ruke-Dravina], Velta.1964. Dial. gde [=kotorj]. In Igor Vahros & Martti Kahla
(eds.), Lingua Viget. Commentationes slavicae in honorem V. Kiparsky, 115–119. Helsinki:
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Kirjapaino Oy.
Smerečyns’kyj, Serhij. 1932. Narysy z ukrajins’koji syntaksy [Studies on Ukrainian syntax].
Xarkiv: Radjans’ka škola.
Švedova, Natalija J. (ed.). 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom 2: Sintaksis [Russian grammar.
Vol 2: Syntax]. Moskva: Nauka.
Troickij, Veniamin I. 1968. Otnositel’noe podčinenie v jazyke russkoj pis’mennosti XVI–XVII
vekov [The relative clause subordination in the Russian literary language of the 16th‒17th
centuries]. Kazan: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo universiteta.
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology. Social determinants of linguistic complexity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 2013. Contact and sociolinguistic typology. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The
handbook of language contact, 299–319. Chichester, West Sussex, Malden, Mass.:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Urbańczyk, Stanisław. 1939. Zdania rozpoczynane wyrazem co w jȩzyku polskim [Sentences
introduced with the word co in Polish]. Kraków: Nakład Polskiej akademii umiejtności.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
386 Andrii Danylenko
Verxratskij, Ivan. 1902. Pro hovor halyckyx lemkiv [On the dialect of the Galician Lemkos]. Lviv:
Naukove Tovarystvo imeny Ševčenka.
Vyxovanec’, Ivan R. 1993. Hramatyka ukrajins’koji movy [Ukrainian Grammar]. Kyiv: Lybid’.
Zadorožnyj, Vasyl’ B. & Antonina M. Matvijenko (eds.). 1995. Volyns’ki hramoty XVI st. [Charters
from the Volhyn’ of the 16th century]. Kyiv: Instytut ukrajins’koji movy NAN Ukrajiny.
Žylko, Fedot T. 1966. Narysy z dialektolohii ukrajins’koji movy [Studies on the dialectology of
the Ukrainian language]. Kyiv: Radjans’ka škola.
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS
Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 23.04.18 13:12
