Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Archive
University of Zurich
Main Library
Winterthurerstrasse 190
CH-8057 Zurich
www.zora.uzh.ch
Year: 2012
Daniel Weiss
Daniel Weiss
The topic of the present paper needs a special justification since the
existence of the Serial Verb Construction (SVC) in Finno-Ugric has simply
escaped the attention of SVC typologists up to now, while the SVC status
of the Russian double verb construction of the type sidit-pla3et ‘s/he sits-is
crying’, sjadem-podumaem ‘We’ll sit down-think’ or pridi-poznakom’sja
‘come-introduce yourself’ was even explicitly rejected by Aikhenvald 2006
(see section 1.1 below). This unfortunate omission of the North East
European area is clearly due the conviction that there “appear to be none
(SVCs) in Europe or north or central Asia” (Dixon 2006: 338). Therefore,
the whole first section of my paper will be devoted to the illustration of the
claim that the constructions to be examined in Russian and its Finno-Ugric
neighboursi illustrate rather nicely all the major properties that have been
described as typical of SVCs. If the “scalar, or continuum approach to
SVC” proposed by Aikhenvald (2006: 3) is to be taken seriously, the said
languages are sure to occupy a position closer to prototypical SVCs on this
scale, even if their frequency is very low (in this connection it may be
mentioned that according to Dixon (2006: 338) in Khwe SVCs constitute
less than 1 per cent of all clauses).
Second, it will be argued that Russian SVCs originated from contact
with Finno-Ugric languages. This is plausible since, as will be shown in
section 2, they share a large number of common properties with today’s
Komi counterparts, the latter representing on the whole a more advanced
stage of serialization. This convergence offers, however, only indirect
evidence for my claim, since the most important Finno-Ugric languages
located in Central Russia that may have provided the source of the Russian
innovation have been extinct since the late middle ages; all our parallels are
based on data from still existing Permian and Volga Finnic languages
located in the North and East of European Russia, where the influx of
Russian immigrants started later and did not reach the same levels as in the
Podmoskov’e. All this implies that the very assumption that the Russian-
Finno-Ugric parallels are contact-induced requires a separate justification,
all the more so since in recent time, the direction was reversed, i.e. Russian
exerted a strong influence on the structure and the lexical stock of the
surviving Finno-Ugric languages.
To make things even more complicated, we are unable to determine the
exact age of Russian SVC: since in earlier times written sources represent
almost exclusively formal registers, a colloquial construction such as SVC
may well have existed for centuries without being attested in written
documents. The problem is aggravated by the unreliable punctuation of
that time which does not allow us to unequivocally distinguish SVC from
asyndetic verb coordination (see, section 1.4 below): thus, the lack of a
comma between two grammatically identical verb forms in a manuscript is
not conclusive; moreover, sometimes the comma was added later by the
editor. All we can state for the time being is that the first examples are to
be found in the epistolary genre and in the so-called merchant stories of the
17th century, with further evidence being provided by foreigners’ notes and
grammatical descriptions. On the other hand, to my knowledge the famous
Novgorod birch-bark letters (11-15th centuries) do not contain one single
instance of SVC; this does not, however, come as a surprise since, in the
Fennic (Balto-Finnic) languages spoken in the Novgorod-Pskov, this type
of construction is no longer productive, either.
1. Russian double verbs
1.3. Negation
The position of negation may vary: it can be placed before either the
second or (due to inversion) the first verb, cf. e9’ ne bespokojsja! ‘Eat,
don’t worry!’ and ne polenis’ pro"itaj ‘don’t be lazy, read it through’ or
even before both of them, cf. ne peli ne pljasali ‘they neither sang nor
danced’, ne projti ne proexat’ ‘one can neither pass by walking nor by
driving’ (note that the normal double negation ‘neither…nor’ would be ni
projti, ni proexat’, which is also possible). In the latter case the second
occurrence can be omitted as well, cf. ne peli pljasali.v Thus, location
before the first component has two sources: either it may be interpreted as
the result of permutation, or it has wide scope and comprises both verbs.
On the other hand, initial position never marks negation of the first verb
alone.
In view of the definition of the semantic prototype (only one situation is
referred to), one would not expect there to be any partial negation (with
narrow scope). The same prediction is made by Aikhenvald (2006: 1):
according to her, SVC should have the same polarity value. This
assumption, however, turns out to be incorrect: my corpus contains
numerous examples where only the second verb is negated.vi Obviously,
this is due to the above-mentioned semantic constant: what is negated is the
presence of an obstacle that could somehow affect (slow down, inhibit,
impair or even prevent) the process denoted by the first verb. Besides the
imperatives ne polenis’ ‘don’t be lazy’ and ne bespokojsja ‘don’t worry’
quoted above, this pattern is represented by such collocations as idet ne
spe9it ‘is walking without hurry’, slu9aet ne perebivaet ‘is listening without
interrupting’, le#it ne 9evelitsja / ne podnimetsja, ‘lies without moving /
will not stand up’, #ivut ne ssorjatsja ‘they live without quarelling’, #ivet ne
tu#it ‘lives without mourning’, vypil ne pomor9"ilsja ‘he drank [it] out
without frowning’, bili ne #aleli ‘they hit mercilessly’, l’et ne perestaet
‘it’s raining incessantly’, radujus’ ne naradujus’ ‘I am glad without end’,
etc. This peculiarity helps to explain why partial negation of the first
component is not attested in non-inverted double verbs: the lack of the
obstacle is always expressed by the second component.
Russian offers several finite and non-finite constructions that can compete
with verb serialization. Above all, the following three types of paraphrases
should be distinguished: instead of choosing a DV, the second component
can be linked with the first by a) syndetic coordination, b) adjoined as a
converb (adverbial participle), or c) transformed into an infinitive. These
are the different options:
po9lo-poexalo lit. ‘went off-drove off = And this was it!’, podaj-prinesi lit.
‘hand over-bring = a servant for the most inferior services’, (ego) ne
razberi-pojme9’ ‘you won’t understand (him)’, #il-byl lit. ‘lived-was’ =
there once was’, Po#ivem-uvidim lit. ‘We’ll live-see = We’ll wait and
see’,viii Uvidim-posmotrim lit. ‘We’ll see-watch = We’ll wait and see’, Kak
#ivete-mo#ete? lit. ‘How do you live-be able = How is life?’
Besides their fixed morphological arrangement, these set phrases share the
above-mentioned restrictions with the examples discussed earlier, viz. they
lend themselves neither to inversion nor to syndetic linking, cf. *byl-#il
‘was-lived’, *po9lo da poexalo‘went off and drove off’, etc. On the other
hand, their frozen character often provokes playful modifications. For
example, Internet bloggers and forum discussants may merge two double
verbs into triples, cf. Po#ivem-uvidim, posmotrim ‘we’ll live-see, watch’, or
enlarge a given DV by adding “free” pairs, cf. uvidim posmotrim, glazkami
pogljadim ‘we‘ll see-watch, we’ll watch with our little eyes’ or Po#ivu
uvi#u, do#ivu uznaju, vy#ivu u"tu.
1.6. Grammaticalization phenomena
But more often than not, the lexical filling of the pairs is far beyond the
scope of traditional folklore or dialect speech. To begin with, let me
illustrate this by pairs whose first and second components are more or less
synonymous. They constitute a hybrid case in that prosodically they belong
to the non-prototypical subtype (both verbs have equal stress), whereas
semantically they behave like prototypical DVs (they denote one single
event). Besides traditional examples such as
we find the following pairs (all cited in the infinitive; the aspect of these
pairs varies):
This type is especially productive with perfective verb pairs, cf. Weiss
(2008). Often the second verb serves as an intensifier of the first one. This
seems to be a widespread feature: it is also attested in French-based
Creoles and may even be characteristic of serialization in general (cf.
Bisang 1995: 148 on “narrow serialization” in Khmer).
In other cases, the verbal pair is built up with a kind of cohyponym that
attests rather the author’s search for the appropriate formulation; such is
the case in probe#al-prokatilsja po trave poryv vetra ‘a gust of wind ran-
drove over the grass’ or poxlopal-pogladil moju ruku ‘he tapped on my
hand-gave it a stroke’. In the latter example, the movement in question
might be something in between these two activities. Consequently, the DV
construction functions as a kind of semantic merger or a morphing device,
and it still represents the semantic prototype by referring to one single
event. It should be noted that Russian has two specialized conjunctions at
its disposal that convey the same meaning: instead of the bare logical
connector ‘or’, the speaker may choose ne to (p), ne to (q) ‘may be (p),
may be (q)’ or to li (p), to li (q) ‘the same’, if he is unable or unwilling to
commit himself to either of two mutually exclusive descriptions. Thus, the
DV poxlopal-pogladil ‘tapped-gave a stroke’ is roughly equivalent to ne to
poxlopal, ne to pogladil ‘maybe, he tapped, maybe, he gave a stroke’, the
closest English equivalent being a combination of ‘or’ and an explicit
marker of uncertainty such as ‘may be p, or may be q’ (this paraphrase
does not, however, always work).
An especially productive subtype of this approximative device is
constituted by descriptions of sounds that cannot be defined unequivocally;
in the press we find for instance such formations as voju-siplju ‘I howl-
croak’, gudit-pyxtit ‘throbs-puffs’, 9umit-zvenit ‘makes noise-rings’, noet-
zavyvaet ‘weeps-starts howling’, and the writer Ale9kovskij creates
raskudaxtalas’-raskukarekalas’ ‘she went cackling-cook-a-doodle-dooing’
and #akae9’-kvakae9’ ‘you quack’ (the first verb is meaningless). The ludic
effect caused by such onomatopoetic pairs is evident.
My corpus of spontaneous DV creations contains still more candidates
for another type of cohyponymous pair: instead of being fused into one
single meaning, the two meanings remain separate but are added up into a
new, complex whole. Folkloristic language mainly offers examples related
to the most fundamental human needs:
Since we are dealing with two distinct activities, these examples no longer
represent the semantic prototype of DV: they are twins with respect both
to their prosody and meaning. The same holds for similar examples to be
found in the modern press, which, however, look somewhat more up-to-
date:
Note again the selective character of such pairs: there may be “missing
links”, i.e. activities belonging to the same script, but not indicated in the
given case, cf. su9it’ ‘dry’. On the other hand, an Internet search provides
sufficient evidence for the existence of the variant stirat’- su9it’ ‘wash –
dry’ (for instance when referring to diapers, which need not be ironed).
The first three of the cited pairs denote culturally specific concepts:
vodka consumption is obligatorily accompanied by eating gherkins, fish
and the like to get rid of the bitter taste; young men leaving to join the
army (or the dead at a funeral) were escorted by the whole village with
public laments (the so called provody); and finally, in Orthodox rite
Confession obligatorily precedes Communion. Such examples confirm
Aikhenvald’s statement that “a function of verb serialization is then to
represent complex events, which are – at least partly – a cultural construct”
(2006: 11). Not surprisingly, verb order does not allow for inversion in
such cases. In the remaining cases, inversion is possible even if it leads to
anti-iconic order, cf. gladit’-stirat’ ‘iron-wash’. Moreover, such pairs may
be enlarged, yielding triples of the type gladit’-stirat’-"istit’ ‘iron-wash-
clean’ or stirat’-su9it’-gladit’ ‘wash-dry-iron’. On the whole, however, one
has to admit that the same content is much more often expressed by means
of asyndetic coordination, cf. stirat’, gladit’, ubirat’ etc.
Other cases rather call for an analysis in terms of hypernymy vs.
hyponymy, e.g. spasite-pomogite ‘save-help!’ (Gri9kovec), stali pit’-kutit’
(folklore) ‘they began to drink-tipple’, dvi#etsja-krutitsja ‘is moving-
rotating’, or pe"’-gotovit’ ‘bake-cook’. According to this analysis, such
examples belong to the semantic prototype of DVs since they refer to one
single event. The meaning of the whole may be the same as that of the
hypernym alone; for example, the hyponym ‘bake’ in the last-mentioned
pair could just as well be omitted. But in general, clear instances of
hypernyms as first or second components are rare and at least in colloquial
language mainly restricted to specifications of somebody’s way of walking
(cf. idet-prixramyvaet ‘walks limping’, xodit-podprygivaet ‘walks
hopping’) or talking (cf. govorit-zaikaetsja ‘speaks stuttering’). Note that
in these pairs it is the hypernym that is omissible.
Antonymous pairs may also be found in modern Russian DVs, cf.:
gruzit’-razgru#at’ ‘load-unload’, uexat’-priexat’‘depart-arrive’, otvezti-
privezti ‘drive away-drive back’,xii vklju"at’sja-vyklju"at’sja ‘be switched
on-switched off’, zapirat’sja-otpirat’sja ‘be locked-unlocked’, promerzat’-
ottaivat’‘freeze-thaw’, sognut’-razognut’ ‘bend-unbend’, razdevat’-odevat’
‘undress-dress’, pripodnjat’-opustit’ ‘lift-lower’, #it’-umirat ‘live-die’
These are not typical for folkloristic use: all examples cited represent
contemporary poetic or journalistic language.
As for converse verb pairs (a relation that should strictly be kept apart
from antonymy!), they occur rarely, the only two clear instances being
pokupat’-prodavat’ ‘buy-sell’ and podat’-prinjat ‘serve-receive’. Note that
he first one is backed by the corresponding binominal construction kuplja-
proda#a.
The following examples shed some light on the creative potential
provided by the DV construction; the first two denote particular subscripts
of the mating season from a dog’s perspective and the Western approach to
the adoption procedure, respectively:
The last example from this series playfully alludes to a set phrase, viz. the
DV imperative podaj-prinesi:
Notes
1. For the sake of convenience, I will focus the discussion on Komi, a language
spoken in the northeast of European Russia to the west of the Urals. This
language has the advantage, unlike its southern neighbours such as Udmurt or
Mari, of not having been subject to significant Turkic influence.
2. In her otherwise inspiring paper, Aikhenvald (2006: 45-46) claims that
Russian DVs behave the same way as similar phenomena in other “familiar
European languages” (Swedish, Bulgarian, Hungarian, American English,
Brazilian Portuguese) and “cannot be considered on a par with SVC”. This
assumption is clearly based on insufficient Russian data. Counterevidence to
Aikhenvald’s particular claims will be presented throughout this paper.
3. In view of these figures, the claim that Russian DVs “are limited to just a few
verbs” (Aikhenvald 2006: 46) sounds somewhat bizarre. The results of a
search of the Russian National Corpus (ruscorpora.ru), which already provided
several thousand instances of DV imperatives, will be published in a separate
paper.
4. A search for such examples with the Google search machine provided several
instances of vstal vyprjamilsja (vo ves’ rost) ‘he stood up and stretched his
body to full length’.
5. However, with ne pojme9’ ne razbere9’ ‘you don’t understand’, which consists
of two synonymous verbs, neither the substitution of ni nor the omission of the
second negation is possible.
6. Similarly, Aikhenvald (2006: 8 f.) quotes examples where only part of the
whole SVC is in the scope of negation.
7. This does not mean that double converb forms are not attested in my corpus; in
particular, one may find such examples in hybrid texts of the kind described in
footnote 15.
8. To illustrate the grammatical frozenness of this example, using a large data
collection, I quote the following figures provided by the Google search
machine (04/12/2011): 1st pers.pl. 899,000 instances, 1st pers.sg. 284,000, 2nd
pers.sg. 9820, 3rd pers.sg. 544 instances. The corresponding figure for uvidim-
posmotrim amounts to only 6140 instances.
9. Diachronically, this could well be a frozen instance of the former perfect with
the auxiliary ‘be’.
10. Unfortunately, Coseriu does not sufficiently distinguish between the surprise
meaning discussed here and the simple ingressive meaning, which seems to
prevail, for instance, in Swedish, cf. Ekberg (1993).
11. It may be added that Russian podi (#e) functions also as a true particle
expressing surprise.
12. On the other hand, Sol#enicyn has Lenin ina"e pisal-govoril! ‘Lenin wrote and
spoke otherwise’, where a specific object (‘about this’) is at least presupposed.
13. In view of these examples, the claim that “unpredictable derivational
restrictions may arise within each particular semantic group: for instance, in
Russian, motion verbs containing the preverbs u- and ot(o)- cannot occur in
double verb constructions, while verbs with other preverbs can” (Aikhenvald
2006: 46 ) turns out to be erroneous.
14. In modern fiction, the last two motivations may well overlap if the author
seeks to imitate his character’s speech or way of thinking.
15. In a text entitled 'udotvornaja ikona i Anikitina Repnin’ (“The miraculous
icon and A. Repnin”) comprising 1181 words, I found not less than 45
different DVs. Some of them sound rather artificial and add a kind of pseudo-
folkloristic flavour.[Fascninating evidence that this represents a folkloristic
sound]
16. The term ‘double verb’ is not used in the Finno-Ugristic literature; the usual
term there is ‘paired verb’, which, in view of the existence of triplet verbs (see
below), is not more convenient than ‘double verb’. Curiously enough, the
languages to be discussed here are not even mentioned in the chapter on
double verbs in Aikhenvald (2006).
17. The term ‘Volga Finnic’ is used here as a mere geographic label because Mari
and Mordvinian are no longer conceived as a separate genetic branch of Finno-
Ugric, cf. Abondolo (1998: 3). Due to the lack of space, the two main varieties
of both Mari and Mordvinian will not be taken into account here, since they
are irrelevant for our purpose; the same holds for the difference between the
two standard languages of Komi (Zyryan vs. Permyak). For all pertinent
details see Abondolo (1998).
18. For obvious reasons (lack of informants and corpora), information on Finno-
Ugric data is often too scarce for a direct comparison with Russian.
19. Contrary to this, their Russian counterparts usually have only compositional
meaning.
20. For similarly mixed nominal constructions in Finno-Ugric and Turkic
languages see Pacsai (1995: 90-91).
21. I owe this reference to Jussi Ylikoski (p.c.). The same holds for the reference
to Tragel (2003) about Estonian (see below), an English paraphrase of which
was kindly sent to me by the author.
22. For a full description of nominal pairs in modern Russian see Bergmann
(2006). As for structural parallels and divergences between double nouns and
double verbs, cf. Weiss (2000: 361-363). The Eurasian dimension of such
binominal constructions is best described in Wälchli (2003); the author’s term
‘co-compounds’ also includes double verbs.
23. Verb pairs with this meaning are attested even in Vietnamese and Thai (Bisang
1992: 295, 334). Note that the main trade centre at the Chinese border located
in front of the Russian town Kjaxta was named Maimachen ‘buy-sell-city’.
24. For the Turkic origins of this formation and its traces in modern Russian see
Plähn (1987).
25. Komi seems to have the same type of formation, cf. 9arny-marny ‘slave away’
(Fedina 2005: 206).
26. That north Russian dialects were indeed affected by influence of neighbouring
Komi dialects in recent times is shown by Leinonen (1998).
27. Note that the set expression Kak #ivete-mo#ete? ‘How is life?’, lit. ‘How do
you live-be able?’ quoted in section i.5 also has an exact counterpart in many
Finnic languages. As for Circumbaltic convergences in general, see Dahl and
Koptjevskaja (2001).
28. The following observations are based on Pacsai (1995) and an MA thesis
(Valko 2006) devoted to a systematic comparison of Hungarian and Russian
double verbs that was defended at the Slavic Department of the University of
Zurich.
29. For Hungarian, Aikhenvald’s (2006: 46) remark that “double verbs are often
restricted to certain registers” is justified. However, to list Hungarian in the
same row as Russian is highly misleading.
30. This case is illustrated by the example 9 from Komi. It should be emphasized
that, unlike double verbs, the spatial model of possessive meaning is not
restricted to Permian and Volga Finnic, but is also characteristic of Baltic
Finnic including Finnish.
References
Abondolo, D.
1998 The Uralic Languages. London-New York: Routledge.
Aikhenvald, A.Y.
2006 Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In:
A.Y.Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.): Serial Verb
Constructions. A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: University
Press (Explorations in Linguistic Typology), 1-68.
Bátori, I.
1980 Russen und Finnougrier. Kontakt der Völker und Kontakt der
Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Bergmann, A.
2006 Binomina im Russischen als Kategorie der komplexen Be-
nennung. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Bisang, W.
1992 Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und
Khmer (Vergleichnde Grammatik im Rahmen der
Verbserialisierung, der Grammatikalisierung un der
Attraktorpositionen). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Coseriu, E.
1966 «Tomo I me voy». Ein Problem vergleichender europäischer
Syntax. Vox Romanica 25: 13-55.
Csató, E.
2001 Turkic double verbs in a typological perspective. In: K. H. Ebert
and F. Zuniga (eds.), Aktionsart and aspectotemporality in non-
European languages, 176-187. Zürich: Arbeiten des Seminars für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Dahl, Ö. and M. Koptjevskaja (eds.)
2001 Circum-Baltic Languages. Vol. 1-2. Studies in Language
Companion Series 54-55. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Dixon, R.M.W.
2006 Serial Verb Construction: Conspectus and Coda. In: A.Y.Aikhen-
vald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.): Serial Verb Constructions. A Cross-
linguistic Typology. Oxford: University Press (Explorations in
Linguistic Typology), 338-350.
Ebert, K.
2000 Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In: Ö. Dahl (ed.),
Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, 605-654. Berlin:
Mouton.
Ekberg L.
1993 The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-
linguistic take and V. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8.
Perspectives on Language and Conceptualization, 21-41.
Fedina, M. S.
2005 Obrazovanie parnyx glagolov v Komi jazyke. In Istorija,
sovremennoe sostojanie, perspektivy razvitija jazykov i kul’tur
finno-ugorskix narodov. Materialy III Vserossijskoj nau" noj
konferencii finno-ugrovedov (1-4 ijulja 2004 g.), 206-208.
Syktyvkar.
Fortuin, E. L.
2000 Polysemy or monosemy: Interpretation of the imperative and the
dative-infinitive construction in Russian. Amsterdam: Institute
for Logic, Language and Computation.
Honti, L.
2005 Uráli „páros igék”. Folia Uralica Debrecenensia 12: 33-46.
Jarva V. and S. Kytölä
2007 The Finnish Colorative Construction and Expressivity. SKY
Journal of Linguistics 20: 235-272.
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/SKY2007/JARVA%20A
ND%20KYTOLA.pdf
Kokkonen, P.
2000 A comparison of Komi serial verbs with those in Udmurt and
Volgaic. In: Congressus Nonus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum
7.-13.8.2000, 113-120. Tartu, Pars V, Red. Tonu Seilenthal, Tartu.
Kor Chahine, I.
2007 O vozmo#nom puti gramatikalizacii russkogo vzjat’. Russian
Linguistics 31: 231-248.
Kuteva, T.
1999 On‘sit’ / ‘stand’ / ‘lie’ auxiliation. Linguistics 37-2, 191-213.
Leinonen, M.
1998 The postpositive particle -to of Northern Russian dialects,
compared with Permic languages (Komi Zyryan). In: Studia
Slavica Finnlandensia, 74-90.
Ludykova, V. M.
1995 Sintaksis komi rasskaza 20–x godov. In Grammatika i leksikolo-
gija komi jazyka, 48-53. Syktyvkar.
Majsak, T. A.
2005 Tipologija grammatikalizacii konstrukcij s glagolami dvi# enija i
glagolami pozicii. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur.
Matthews, S.
2006 On Serial verb constructions in Cantonese. In: A.Y.Aikhenvald &
R.M.W. Dixon (eds.): Serial Verb Constructions. A Cross-
linguistic Typology. Oxford: University Press (Explorations in
Linguistic Typology), 69-86.
Ojutkangas, K.
1998 Asyndeettisistä verbi-ilmauksista suomalais-ugrilaisissa kielissä.
In: A. Pajunen (ed.). Kieliopillistumisesta, analogiasta ja
typologiasta, Suomi 185. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden
seura.
Pacsai
1995 Areal’nye aspekty parnyx slov v russkom jazyke. Nyíregyháza.
Petruxin, P. V.
2007 $ili-byli: vopros zakryt? Russkij jazyk v nau"nom osve9"enii, No 2
(14).
Plähn, J.
1987 Xujnja-mujnja i tomu podobnoe. Russian Linguistics 11: 37-41.
Pullum, G. K.
1990 Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in
modern colloquial English. In: B.Joseph / A.M.Zwicky (eds.),
When verbs collide. Papers from the 1990 Ohio State mini-
conference on serial verbs. Ohio State University , 218-239.
Pütsch, H.
2001 Monosituationale und bisituationale Sachverhaltspräsentation am
Beispiel des russischen Doppelverbs. In: V.Lehmann, J.Scharn-
berg (eds.), Slavistische Linguistik 2000. Referate des XXVI.
Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens. München, 147-178.
Raxilina, E. V.
2003 Rusistika i tipologija. Leksi" eskaja semantika glagolov so zna" e-
niem ‘sidet’ v russkom i niderlandskom. Russian Linguistics 27:
313-327.
Sidorov, A.S.
1992 Izbrannye stat’i po komi jazyku. Syktyvkar.
Tka"enko, O. B.
1979 Sopostavitel’no-istori"eskaja frazeologija slavjanskix i finno-ugor-
skix jazykov. Kiev.
Tragel, I.
2003 On the syntactic function(s) of Estonian Serial Construction. In:
Keel ja Kirjandus.
www.eki.ee/keeljakirjandus/summarytragel.html
Valko, P.
2006 Russische und ungarische Doppelverben im Vergleich. MA thesis,
Zurich.
Wälchli, B.
2003 Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Stockholm: Universi-
tetsforlaget.
Weiss, D.
1993 Dvojnye glagoly v sovremennom russkom jazyke. V: Kategorija
skazuemogo v slavjanskix jazykax: modal’nost’ i aktualizacija.
Akty me#dunarodnoj konferencii, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena),
26.-29.3.1992 (A cura di F. Fici Giusti e. S.Signorini), München:
Otto Sagner, 67-97.
Weiss, D.
2000 Russkie dvojnye glagoly: kto xozjain, a kto sluga? V: Slovo v
tekste i v slovare. Sbornik statej k semidesjatiletiju akademika Ju.
D. Apresjana, L.L.Iomdin, L.P.Krysin (red.), Moskva: Jazyki
slavjanskix kul’tur, 356-378..
Weiss, D.
2003 Russkie dvojnye glagoly i ix sootvetstvija v finnougorskix jazy-
kax. V: Russkij jazyk v nau"nom osve9"enii, vyp.2 (6), 37-59.
Weiss, D.
2007 The grammar of surprise: the Russian construction of the type
Ko9ka vzjala da umerla ‘Suddenly, the cat died’. In: T. Reuther,
L. Wanner, K. Gerdes (ed.), (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Inter-
national Conference on Meaning – Text – Theory, Klagenfurt,
May 21 – 24. (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Linguistische Rei-
he, Sonderband 69), München – Wien: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2007,
427-436.
Weiss, D.
2008 Vremennaja sootnesennost’ dvojnych glagolov sover9ennogo
vida. In: Dinami"eskie modeli: Slovo. Predlo#enie. Tekst. Sbornik
statej v "est‘ E.V. Padu"evoj, Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur,
155–177.