Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:04:01.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Tense and Mood Forms

from Part 2 - Inflectional and Derivational Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

By
Hagen Pitsch
Edited by
Danko Šipka  and
Wayles Browne
Danko Šipka
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Wayles Browne
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the inventory, formation, and use of synthetic and periphrastic tense and mood forms in modern Belarusian, Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian, Bulgarian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Slovak, Slovene, Lower and Upper Sorbian, and Ukrainian. It addresses both characteristics common to all modern languages and features of individual languages.

Keywords

verbtensemoodmorphologysyntaxperiphrasesinflectionconjugation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 179 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, H. (2006). Periphrastic futures in Slavic: Divergence and convergence. In Eksell, K. & Vinther, T., eds., Change in Verbal Systems: Issues in Explanation, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 9–45.Google Scholar
Anstatt, T., Clasmeier, C., & Wölke, S. (2020). Obersorbisch: Aus der Perspektive der slavischen Interkomprehension, Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Aronson, H. (1968). Bulgarian Inflectional Morphophonology, The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A. & Rozwadowska, B. (2019). Polish object experiencer verbs in the stative and eventive passive. In Bondaruk, A. & Jaskuła, K., eds., All Around the Word. Papers in Honour of Bogdan Szymanek on his 65th Birthday, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, pp. 47–78.Google Scholar
Browne, W. (1993). Serbo-Croat. In Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 306–387.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. & Corbett, G. G., eds. (1993). The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cvrček, V. et al. (2010). Mluvnice současné češtiny 1: Jak se píše a mluví, Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Dalewska-Greń, H. (1997). Języki słowiańskie, Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Desclés, J.-P. & Guenchéva, Z. (1990). Discourse analysis of aorist and imperfect in Bulgarian and French. In Thelin, N. B, ed., Verbal Aspect in Discourse, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrušina, N. R. (2016). Soslagatel‘noe naklonenie v russkom jazyke. Opyt issledovanija grammatičeskoj semantiki, Prague: Animedia.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (1995). Mobile inflections in Polish. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 25(2), 127–142.Google Scholar
Fasske, H. (1981). Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart: Morphologie, Bautzen: VEB Domowina-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fiedler, W. (1999). Tempus, Modus und Aspekt in den Sprachen Südosteuropas. In Hinrichs, U. & Büttner, U., eds., Handbuch der Südosteuropalinguistik, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 487–517.Google Scholar
Franks, S. & Bański, P. (1999). Approaches to ‘schizophrenic’ Polish person agreement. In Dziwirek, K., Coats, H., & Vakareliyska, C., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7. The Seattle Meeting, 1998, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. (1986). Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Chafe, W. L. & Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, NY: Ablex, 168–187.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 249–305.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. (2004). The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics. In Tomić, O. M., ed., Balkan Syntax and Semantics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabka, K. et al. (1988). Russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Bd. 2: Morphologie, Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Giger, M. (2009). Der Resultativ in den slavischen Sprachen. In Kempgen, S. et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 269–274.Google Scholar
Gołąb, Z. (1964). The problem of verbal moods in Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 8(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1951). The Old Church Slavonic conjugation. Word, 7, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauge, K. R. (1999). A Short Grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian, Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Hill, P. (2009). Das Bulgarische. In Rehder, P., ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG, pp. 310–325.Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. (1962). Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart I: Formenlehre, Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1948). Russian conjugation. Word, 4, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempgen, S., Kosta, P., Gutschmidt, K., & Berger, T., eds. (2009). The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, V. (2013). Linguistik des Russischen: Grundlagen der formal-funktionalen Beschreibung, Munich: Otto Sagner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin-Steinmann, A. (2004). Die Legende vom bulgarischen Renarrativ: Bedeutung und Funktion der kopulalosen l-Periphrase, Munich: Otto Sagner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstedt, J. (1994). On the development of the South Slavonic perfect. Three papers on the perfect. EUROTYP Working Papers, 6(5), 32–53.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, J. (2010). Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian. In Rothstein, B. & Thieroff, R., eds., Mood in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunt, H. G. (1952). A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje: Državno Knigoizdatelstvo na NR Makedonija.Google Scholar
Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 887–946.Google Scholar
Mehlig, H. R. (1999). Die grammatischen Kategorien des Verbs unter funktionalen Gesichtspunkten. In Jachnow, H., ed., Handbuch der sprachwissenschaftlichen Russistik und ihrer Grenzdisziplinen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 182–272.Google Scholar
Migdalski, K. (2006). The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic, Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds. (2005). Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Academia.Google Scholar
Nicolova, R. (2017). Bulgarian Grammar, Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar
Panzer, B. (1967) Der slavische Konditional: Form – Gebrauch – Funktion, Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Panzer, B. (1999). Die slavischen Sprachen in Gegenwart und Geschichte: Sprachstrukturen und Verwandtschaft, 3rd. ed., Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Petruxin, P. V. & Sičinava, D. V. (2006). Russkij pljuskvamperfekt v tipologičeskoj perspective. In Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds., Verenica liter: K 60-letiju V. M. Živova, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul‘tury, pp. 193–214.Google Scholar
Priestly, T. M. S. (1993). Slovene. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 388–451.Google Scholar
Rehder, P. (2009). Das Makedonische. In Rehder, P., ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG, pp. 331–346.Google Scholar
Rehder, P., ed. (2009). Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie), 6th ed., Darmstadt: WBG.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. & Simeonova, V. (2015). The inferential future in Bulgarian: An evidential modal proposal. In Szajbel-Keck, M., Burns, R., & Kavitskaya, D., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23: The First Berkeley Meeting, 2014, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 282–301.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L., Arregui, A., & Slavkov, N. (2017). The grammaticalization of ‘big’ situations: The IMPF operator and perfective imperfects in Bulgarian. In Fernández-Soriano, O., Castroviejo Miró, E, & Pérez-Jiménez, I, eds., Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case Studies in Honor of Violeta Demonte, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, R. A. (1993). Polish. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 686–758.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. & Thieroff, R., eds. (2010). Mood in the Languages of Europe, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scatton, E. A. (1984). A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian, Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Šewc, H. (1968). Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěče, 1: Fonematika a morfologija, Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar
Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 947–998.Google Scholar
Short, D. (1993a). Czech. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 455–532.Google Scholar
Short, D. (1993b). Slovak. In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 533–592.Google Scholar
Sičinava, D. V. (2013). Tipologija pljuskvamperfekta. Slavjanskij pljuskvamperfekt, Moscow: AST Press.Google Scholar
Sonnenhauser, B. (2006). Aspekt und Aorist/Imperfekt im Bulgarischen – eine intervall-basierte Analyse. Die Welt der Slaven, 51, 116–140.Google Scholar
Sonnenhauser, B. (2013). ‘Evidentiality’ and point of view in Bulgarian. Săpostavitelno ezikoznanie, 38(2–3), 110–130.Google Scholar
Stieber, Z. (1973). Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. II: Fleksja werbalna, Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Stone, G. (1993). Sorbian (upper and lower). In Comrie, B & Corbett, G. G, The Slavonic Languages, London & New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 593–685.Google Scholar
Sussex, R. & Cubberley, P. (2006). The Slavic Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R. H. (1984). Combinations of tense and modality. In Gabbay, D. M. & Guenthner, F., eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 135–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomić, O. M. (1999). Negation and imperatives. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 191–206.Google Scholar
Tomić, O. M. (2008). Mood and negation in Balkan Slavic. In Zybatow, G. et al., eds., Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference, Leipzig 2003, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 461–477.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. E. (1975). Russian Word Formation, Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Townsend, C. E. & Janda, L. A. (1996). Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology and Inflection, Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Xrakovskij, V. S. (2009). The conditional. In Kempgen, S. et al., eds., The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 484–505.Google Scholar
Xrakovskij, V. S. & Volodin, A. P. (1986). Semantika i tipologija imperativa: Russkij imperative, Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Žovtobrjux, M. A. & Moldovan, A. M. (2005). Ukrainskij jazyk. In Moldovan, A. M. et al., eds., Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, Moscow: Academia, pp. 513–548.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×