Art. 2015 JHL (Embedding)

John Benjamins Publishing Company
This is a contribution from Journal of Historical Linguistics 5:1

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be
used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post
this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu.
Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/#authors/rightspolicy
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
The decline of non-finiteness as a syntactic
mechanism for embedding in East Slavic
Nerea Madariaga
University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU
This article focuses on how and why non-finite structures weakened as a produc-
tive device for embedding in East Slavic and became replaced by an alternative
system of finite CPs in many syntactic contexts. The relevant structures analyzed
here are infinitive clauses and participial (absolute) constructions. Both con-
structions were available in almost any embedded context in early Slavic (Old
Church Slavonic and Old Russian). However, in later stages (Middle Russian and
Modern Russian) embedded infinitive constructions became severely restricted,
while absolute constructions disappeared altogether. In order to account for this
change, I review a series of conditions that preceded the decline process analyzed
here and propose a final trigger for the emergence of a new system of non-
finiteness in modern Russian; namely, I explore the possibility that the change
in the pro-drop character of Russian turned embedded infinitive clauses into
Obligatory Control structures, and forced every other non-finite structure to be
replaced by an alternative (finite) embedding device.
Keywords: East Slavic, Russian, non-finiteness, embedded structures, absolute

constructions, infinitive clauses, dative subjects, syntactic change, pro-drop
1. Introduction
In this article, I analyze the decline of non-finite constructions as regular syntactic

devices that could result in virtually any subordinate structure in East Slavic; I
focus on the disappearance of dative absolute constructions on the one hand, and
the decline of infinitive embedded clauses on the other hand. Both constructions
were instances of a common early Indo-European (IE) pattern, which displayed a
non-finite verbal form, were encoded in an oblique case and could also include a
related oblique subject (the dative case, in Slavic).
The analysis offered in this article follows a cue-based account of acquisition
and language change, which was first proposed within the generative diachronic
Journal of Historical Linguistics 5:1 (2015), 139–174. doi 10.1075/jhl.5.1.05mad

issn 2210–2116 / e-issn 2210-2124 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
140 Nerea Madariaga
framework by Lightfoot (1999 and later), following Fodor (1998), among others.
For these scholars, language acquisition proceeds according to a simple mecha-
nism of scanning the relevant “triggers” or “cues” in the input a learner receives,
the Primary Linguistic Data, in order to establish the parameters and structures
corresponding to that grammar. In turn, if the Primary Linguistic Data change
because of previous independent syntactic changes, morphophonological erosion,
language contact, sociolinguistic factors, etc., the crucial cue to acquire a specific
structure may be affected, and consequently new learners can acquire a different
structure/grammar compared to that of previous generations.
I assume that a change in the syntax of a language takes place only when the
relevant Primary Linguistic Data change with respect to previous stages of the
language. Thus, the aim is to identify those earlier changes and investigate how
they in turn determined the different Primary Linguistic Data that resulted in the
acquisition of a new grammar — what is perceived in linguistic production as the
reanalysis of a specific structure.
The constructions under study here, dative absolute constructions and embed-
ded infinitive clauses in (East) Slavic, are direct descendants of the corresponding
Indo-European (IE) constructions (cf. Andersen 1970, Kuryłowicz 1964, Meillet
1934, Schmalstieg 1980, Disterheft 1980, 1997, Szemerényi 1996, among others).
An example of each of these two structures are given in (1), from the earliest at-
tested Slavic language, Old Church Slavonic (OCS): the example in (1a) is an in-
stance of an infinitive clause, complement of the declarative verb ‘to say’, which
includes an overt dative subject, while (1b) illustrates the so-called dative absolute
construction, i.e. an NP related to a participle, both of which are encoded in the
dative (in Section 2, these constructions will be described in detail):
(1) a. Pristǫpišę k nemu g(lago)lǫšte sadukei
came to him saying.ptcp.nom Sadducees.nom
[ne byti vĭskrěšeniju]
not be.inf resurrection.dat
‘The Sadducees, who said that there is no resurrection, came to him.’
(OCS, Matthew 22:23)1
b. [Mǔnogu sǫ štu narodu i ne imǫ štemǔ
many.dat be.ptcp.dat people.dat and not have.ptcp.dat
česo ěsti] (…) Isusǔ glagola
what eat Jesus.nom said
‘Being a lot of people there and having nothing to eat, Jesus said …’
(OCS, Mark 8:1)
1. The OCS examples from the Gospels are from the Codex Marianus, if another source is not
explicitly specified.

All rights reserved
The decline of non-finiteness as a mechanism of embedding 141
In early Slavic documents corresponding to Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and Old
Russian (OR), dative case-marked subjects were commonly used in non-finite con-
structions, related to either a participle or an infinitive verbal form. Subsequently,
these constructions underwent different changes, the most remarkable being the
loss of absolute constructions in Slavic. As for infinitive clauses, Bulgarian com-
pletely lost its infinitive forms, while other Slavic languages (West Slavic) lost the
possibility of having dative case marking within infinitive clauses, even if infini-
tive forms were preserved (cf. Lamprecht, Šlosar & Bauer 1986). East Slavic sim-
ply restricted infinitive constructions to certain specific syntactic environments
and developed finite embedded clauses in other environments, mainly for cases
of non-co-reference between the subjects of the main clause and the embedded
clause (as, for example, in Russian), but retained a number of cases, in which da-
tive case is still licensed in infinitive contexts.
The structure of this article is as follows. In Section 2, the origins of the relevant
structures in Indo-European and Slavic are discussed. In Section 3, I describe their
syntactic development, comparing the structures in early Slavic (i.e. Old Church
Slavonic and Old Russian), Middle Russian, Modern Russian and some other East
Slavic languages.2 After reviewing the previous factors and the final trigger that
conditioned the change in Section 4, a hypothesis about the change is formulated
in Section 5. Section 6 offers the conclusions.
2. The origin of non-finiteness as a syntactic mechanism for embedding in

Indo-European and Slavic
A well-established fact for the reconstructed syntax of Proto-Indo-European is

that it did not display infinitives as such (Kuryłowicz 1964, Schmalstieg 1980,
Disterheft 1980, 1997; Keydana 2013); it was later on that most IE language groups
developed one or more infinitival forms by specializing one or the other gram-
matical case-encoding on the verbal noun available in the language. Most IE lan-
guages chose the accusative case for infinitives of verbs of motion, so-called su-
pines (Sanskrit, Latin, Slavic, Hittite), and the dative case for regular infinitives
(most Sanskrit infinitives, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Hittite).
In Balto-Slavic, then, verbal nouns encoded with the dative case became in-
finitivals; in addition, these new forms developed the ability to license a related da-
tive subject within the infinitive clause. For example, according to Meillet (1934)
and Seliščev (2001 [11951]), the Common Slavic infinitive form *viděti ‘to see’
2. The languages of the East Slavic group are now Byelorussian, Russian and Ukrainian. Until
their split in the 16th century, they were considered a single language, Old East Slavic/Old Russian.

All rights reserved
142 Nerea Madariaga
(OCS viděti) was derived from the reconstructed IE verbal root *ṷei-d- ‘see’ to-
gether with the suffix -ti, an instance of the dative singular case of nouns in -ĭ-.
As is the case with any other verbal form, any infinitive in Slavic could license its
own subject. In contrast, a jussive matrix verb taking a dative verbal noun with
a “directional” value (e.g. ‘command to do something’) could take an additional
NP (a recipient or beneficiary) encoded with the dative case, yielding the effect
that a verbal noun (infinitive) agreed with a NP in the dative case, as discussed in
Section 3.2. Afterwards, there must have been a shift from this construction with
two dative complements into a construction where the dative NP was reanalyzed
as the subject of the infinitive form, perhaps similar to the reanalysis of Finnish
participle subjects (Timberlake 1977). The syntactic development of the original
verbal nominal towards a verbal clausal category (described in Disterheft 1997)
gave rise to the construction including the so-called dative infinitive subjects, il-
lustrated in (1a).
On the other hand, absolute constructions in IE displayed a similar pattern:
they included a case-encoded participle and an “agreeing” subject, and were used
to express the subordination of one event to another one (genitive absolute in
Greek, ablative absolute in Latin, locative absolute in Sanskrit, different cases in
Gothic; cf. Dewey & Syed 2009, Ruppel 2012). These absolute constructions con-
veyed some adverbial notion of cause, time (simultaneity or anteriority), condi-
tion, circumstance, manner, or concession with respect to the matrix clause they
modified. In Slavic, the grammatical case encoding absolute constructions, illus-
trated in (1b) for OCS, was dative.
Balto-Slavic, then, patterns with the most extended IE case encoding on in-
finitival forms, i.e. dative case marking, and makes the same choice for absolute
constructions.3 The reasons for these choices could be similar:
i. In the case of infinitive dative subjects, as well as the infinitive forms them-
selves, the dative is the case chosen because it was regularly used in early Slavic
to encode allatives/directional complements and recipients/benefactives.
3. In this article, I disregard the so-called accusativus cum infinitivo in OCS, i.e. Exceptional
Case Marking (accusative) of an infinitive subject (instead of the regular dative marking). These
are direct calques from Greek, unlike the vernacular Slavic infinitives and dative infinitive sub-
jects (cf. Vaillant 2002 [11948]: 395, Haderka 1964, etc.), which are just a natural development
from PIE. Pacnerová (1964) specifically states that one third of the OCS infinitive clauses do not
translate a Greek infinitive, and even in cases when they translate a Greek infinitive, they are not
calques (except for a few constructions, such as the accusativus cum infinitivo, the so-called “his-
torical infinitive” construction, with specific matrix verbs, etc.; cf. Pacnerová 1964: 550–551). As
for dative absolute constructions, it is also a natural development from PIE, common to all early
IE languages, as shown by Andersen (1970) and Borkovskij (1978: 429, and references therein).

All rights reserved
Infinitive clauses fulfilled the function of purpose clauses and complement

clauses of jussive and volitional verbs, i.e. they instantiated “recipient” clauses.
ii. As for the absolute dative constructions, all the semantic notions they could
convey (cause, simultaneity, anteriority, condition, circumstance, manner and
concession) are implicational relations, according to Andersen (1970). Hence,
the use of an oblique case (here, dative) to encode an implicational relation is
well motivated, as it represents an event subordinated to another event.
As observed by Heine & Kuteva (2002) in their catalogue on the patterns of gram-
maticalization across different languages, both allative (directional) and recipient/
benefactive elements often develop into devices of subordination. Balto-Slavic
confirms this typological observation: (i) the benefactive (dative) case gave rise
to infinitives (2a); (ii) the accusative case had an allative value, and gave rise to
the supine forms, e.g. in (2b), which functioned in OCS as verbal complements of
verbs of motion:
(2) a. Azǔ že gl(agol)jǫ vamǔ [ne protiviti sę zǔlu].
I.nom prt say you.dat not resist.inf.(dat) refl bad.dat
‘I tell you not to offer resistance to the evil one.’ (OCS, Matthew 5:39)
b. Pride mariě Magdalyn’i (…) [vidětǔ groba].
came Mary Magdalene see.sup.(acc) tomb.gen
‘Mary Magdalene (and the other Mary) came to see the tomb.’
(OCS, Matthew 28:1)
I do not focus on the supine form in this article, as it was restricted to those uses
depending on verbs of motion and, in Slavic, it had started to disappear as a pro-
ductive syntactic device very early. According to Seliščev (2001 [11951]: 199),
among others, infinitive forms started to replace supines as complements of verbs
of motion already in OCS. Consider the example in (3): here, the infinitive sǔvęzati
‘to arrest’ co-occurs with the supine mǫčitǔ ‘to torture’ in coordination, both de-
pending on the verb of motion posǔlati ‘to send’:
(3) Posǔlana že bysta (…) [mǫ čitǔ rekomyę raby
sent prt were [torture.sup called slaves
božię, sǔvęzati že vĭsę priobĭštavajǫ štęę sę k nimǔ].
God arrest.inf prt all join.ptcp refl to them]
‘They were sent to interrogate the so-called God’s servants and to arrest all
their followers.’ (OCS, Codex Suprasliensis, 105v)
In OR, supines were always archaic; the very last instances of it date from the 15th
century (Lomtev 1956).

All rights reserved
144 Nerea Madariaga
3. The decline of non-finite embedded constructions in East Slavic
After reviewing the IE origins of East Slavic non-finite constructions under study,
we detail how they were affected by syntactic change during their history. As in-
dicated in Section 1, the development of these constructions in East Slavic is in
accordance with a general decline of non-finiteness as a syntactic mechanism for
embedding, which came to be replaced largely by finite embedded clauses. Dative
absolute constructions completely disappeared in Slavic, while infinitive clauses
lost many of their original properties and were restricted to certain syntactic en-
vironments; in Modern Russian, as discussed in Section 3.2, they became control
structures.
3.1 Dative absolute constructions
In Slavic, absolute constructions consisted of a short (in OR, usually active) parti-
ciple and its corresponding subject, both encoded with the dative case, as shown
in the OCS and OR examples in (4). The dative absolute clause could display core-
ference between its subject and the subject of the matrix clause (4a–b), or exhibit
disjoint reference between them (4c).4
(4) a. ei Divno vidĕxъ slovensьkuju zemlju [iduči mii sĕmo].
fantastic saw Slavic land come.ptcp.dat me.dat here
‘I had a beautiful sight of the Slavic lands while I was coming here.’
(OR: Laurentian Chronicle, 3v)
b. [Kievii že prišedšu vъ svoj gradъ Kievъ],
Kiy.dat prt reach.ptcp.dat to his city Kiev
ei tu životъ svoj skonča.
there life his finished
‘After Kiy reached his town Kiev, he died right there.’
(OR: Laurentian Chronicle, 4)
c. [Izgǔnanu běsui] proglagola němyj.
expel.ptcp.dat devil.dat talked mutes.nom
‘Once the devil was expelled, the mute people started talking.’
(OCS: Matthew 9:33)
As indicated in Section 2, the dative absolute in Slavic conveyed an implicational

sense of subordination (an embedded event is subordinated to a matrix one) and,
4. Incidentally, example (4a) already shows signs of the decay of the dative absolute construc-
tion because, as argued in Section 4.2, the participial form displays feminine morphology in-
stead of the expected masculine ending.

All rights reserved
according to Andersen (1970) and Borkovskij (1978: 422–423), it had the corre-

sponding range of adverbial values: (i) temporal: when it denoted an event simultane-
ous, cf. (4a) or prior to the main event, cf. (4b); (ii) circumstantial: when it expressed
the circumstances surrounding the main event; (iii) causal/conditional: denoting a
cause or a condition, i.e. anteriority in the cause-effect chain, as illustrated in (4c),
where the event of expelling the devil is the cause or condition for the mutes to start
talking; and (iv) concessive: a notion derived from a cause or a condition.
The dative absolute construction was common in chronicles and literary texts
until the 14th century, when it started to disappear from East Slavic; its loss was
completed by the advent of Middle Russian (15–17th centuries). In the 16th centu-
ry, the dative absolute is still found, cf. example (5) below, but by then its frequency
in texts drops by more than 50% with respect to the previous century (Borkovskij
1978: 41ff.) and is limited to the chronicles, with a temporal value (Kedajtene
1968), a fact that led these scholars to think that it had disappeared from colloquial
language earlier.
(5) [Byvšu že emu u lodei] i vъsta burja s doždemъ.
be.ptcp.dat prt him.dat beside boats and raised storm with rain
‘When he was near the boats, a rain storm started.’
(OR: Moscow Letters 17th c.)
According to Borkovskij (1978), the dative absolute completely disappeared by the

17th century. However, highly literary texts could display residual instances of the
construction as late as the 18–19th centuries. Černyx (1952) calls them “fossils” and
gives several examples, such as (6a), from Radiščev’s A Journey from St. Petersburg
to Moscow (1790), and (6b), from Žukovsky’s ballad Tseiks and Galtsiona (1819).
(6) a. Edušču mne iz Edrova, Anjuta iz mysli moej ne
go.ptcp.dat me.dat from Yedrov Anyuta from thinking mine not
vyxodila.
came.out
‘Coming from Yedrov, I could not stop thinking about Anyuta.’
b. (…sudno…) vdrug s volnoj upadet i, krugom
boat suddenly with wave falls and around
vzgromožennomu morju, vidit kak budto iz adskija bezdny
accumulate.ptcp.dat sea.dat sees how as.if from infernal abyss
dalekoe nebo.
distant sky
‘(The boat…) suddenly falls with a wave and, having the sea piled
around it, it sees the distant sky like from the infernal abyss.’

All rights reserved
146 Nerea Madariaga
A residual use of the dative absolute is a construction quite frequent in Old

Ukrainian and Old Byelorussian, and sometimes used in Middle Russian too:
a gerund (a default case-marked verbal form) combined with a dative subject
(Kedajtene 1968).
(7) I buduči emu vъ Pustoozerskomъ ostrogĕ …
and be.ger him.dat in Pustoozersk jail
‘When he was in prison in Pustoozersk …’
(Russian letter 1597 year, Kedajtene 1968)
In Byelorussian and Ukrainian, as well as in dialects of North Russian, this con-

struction was more frequent, presumably because of the Lithuanian influence,
where the dative absolute exists even up to the present (Kedajtene 1968), although,
unlike early East Slavic, it always displays disjoint subject-reference. Borkovskij
(1978: 430) reports vestiges of this kind of structure in the Northern regions of
Arkhangelsk and Yaroslavsk, such as the example in (8).
(8) Ja vyexal [uže zakativšis’ solncu].
I left already set.ger sun.dat
‘I left when the sun had already set.’ (North Russian, Borkovskij 1978: 430)
In Present-Day Russian, dative absolute constructions do not exist at all (cf. the
ungrammaticality of example 9); the semantic notions that the absolute construc-
tions fulfilled (causality, simultaneity, anteriority, etc.) are expressed by means of:
(i) a finite clause, headed by an overt complementizer, as in (10a), or (ii) a gerun-
dial “non-agreeing” clause, illustrated in (10b), which requires coreferent subjects
and is now perceived as a stylistically marked (literary) variant.
(9) * Byvšemu emu u lodok, načalas’ burja.
be.ptcp.dat him.dat beside boats started storm
‘While he was beside the boats, he saw how the storm started.’ (PDR)
(10) a. Poka on byl u lodok, načalas’ burja. (PDR)
while he was.past.m.sg beside boats started storm
b. ei/*j Buduči u lodok, oni uvidel, kak načinaetsja burja.
(PDR: literary)
be.ger beside boats he saw how starts storm
‘While he was beside the boats, he saw how the storm started.’
3.2 Infinitive embedded clauses and dative subjects
The second construction analyzed in this article is the infinitive clause including
a dative subject. They are common in both OCS and OR, not only as embedded

All rights reserved
instances, but also as root (independent) clauses. For a complete account of the
Slavic root infinitive clauses, their semantic properties and historical develop-
ment, the reader is referred to Wiemer (2014). Here, I briefly list the range of pos-
sible uses of the embedded infinitive clauses in early Slavic, following Haderka’s
(1964: 508–509) hypothesis on the development of the functions covered by the
infinitival embedded clauses including a dative subject in this language:5
– Type 1: Complements of jussive verbs taking a dative NP (e.g. povelěti ‘to or-
der’). Haderka (1964), following an earlier idea by Potebnja (1958 [11874]),
posits the origin of the pattern “infinitive + dative NP” in those infinitive
clauses functioning as a complement to jussive verbs, which regularly take
a dative NP as their indirect object (recipient/beneficiary). This dative NP
would later be reanalyzed as the subject of the infinitival clause.
– Type 2: Complements of volitional verbs (e.g. xotěti ‘to want’, želěti ‘to desire’),
and jussive verbs that do not regularly license a dative NP (e.g. moliti ‘to beg’,
prositi ‘to ask’). This is the first extension of the already reanalyzed “infinitive +
dative subject” pattern; here, the newly created clause serves as a complement
to matrix verbs, which share their semantic field with the verbs of Type 1 but
do not usually take a dative NP as an indirect object.
– Type 3: Complements of declarative verbs (e.g. glagolati ‘to say’, mĭněti ‘to
think’) and verbs of perception (e.g. slyšati ‘to hear’, viděti ‘to see’). These rep-
resent the second extension of the reanalyzed pattern “infinitive + dative sub-
ject”, as it spreads to new semantic classes of verbs, but still in the function of
the complement of a matrix verb.
– Type 4: Impersonal sentences. At this point, a new syntactic function of the
pattern arises. An impersonal element is specified by an infinitive clause, in a
sort of juxtaposition or predicational relation, very often with the verb byti ‘to
be’, in the sense ‘it happened, it existed’.
– Type 5: Adjoined instances (adverbial uses), and complements to nouns. These
perform the last step in Haderka’s (1964) proposal; here, the construction
5. I do not include infinitive clauses in the subject function because their availability in the
early IE languages is a matter of controversy in the literature. Some authors address this is-
sue specifically, arguing that this function was not originally characteristic of infinitive clauses,
e.g. Keydana (2013) and Disterheft (1980, 1997) for IE in general, Pacnerová (1964) for OCS
and Borkovskij (1978: 21–23) for OR. The last two scholars highlight the presence of very few
examples that could be interpreted as infinitive clauses in subject function in early Slavic, and
even these can be explained in alternative ways (most of the examples can be interpreted as just
merely juxtaposed to the matrix clause). According to Borkovskij (1978), the infinitive in the
function of a subject became productive in Russian no sooner than the end of the 18th century.

All rights reserved
148 Nerea Madariaga
under study becomes “independent”, and fulfills a completely new syntactic

function, not affected directly by the matrix verbal action.6
The example in (11) illustrates Type 1: it is an instance of the jussive verb povelěti,
here, in the sense ‘to allow’, which usually takes a dative beneficiary object (mi
‘me’ in example 11). This example is especially relevant to understand the eventual
reanalysis of the dative NP as an infinitive subject; in some codices (e.g. the Codex
Assemanianus), alongside the presence of the regular dative object of the matrix
verb the dative pronoun mi ‘me’ is “repeated” within the infinitive clause, overtly
fulfilling the function of an embedded subject.
(11) Drevle že poveli mi [ot(ŭ)věštati mi sę iže sǫtŭ vŭ
before prt let me.dat reply.inf me.dat refl which.nom are in
domu moemŭ].
house my
‘Let me first say goodbye (that I say goodbye) to those, who are at home.’
(OCS, Codex Assemanianus, Luke 9:61)
The examples in (12) illustrate four instances of the “infinitive + dative subject”
pattern in the function of a complement of different matrix verbs, corresponding
to Types 2 and 3: (12a) includes the jussive verb moliti ‘to beg’, the object of which
is regularly accusative (rather than dative); (12b–12c) illustrate the verb of percep-
tion viděti ‘to see’. In (12b), it takes an infinitive clause headed by the overt comple-
mentizer jako ‘that’, and in (12c) it takes a bare infinitive clause as its complement
(with no overt complementizer). The example in (12d) is an infinitive complement
of a volitional verb.
(12) a. Moljaaxǫ ii [priti emui vŭ domy ixŭ].
begged him.acc go.inf him.dat in house their
‘They begged him to go (that he goes) into their house.’
(OCS, Codex Suprasliensis, 16, 103v)
b. Uvide knjazь … [jako uže vzjatu byti gradu].
saw prince comp already taken.dat be.inf town.dat
‘The prince saw that the town had been already taken.’
(OR: 1st Novgorod Chronicle, 123v)
c. Uvĕdĕšę [nĕkojemu otǔšǔlcu byti na mĕstĕ tomǐ].
saw some.dat hermit.dat be.inf in place that
‘They saw that there was a hermit in that place.’
(OCS: Codex Suprasliensis 126)
6. As Silvia Luraghi (p.c.) points out, this special function of the infinitive in Slavic could be
fulfilled in other IE languages (notably in Latin) by a gerundive in the dative form.

All rights reserved
d. [Člověkoljubivyi bogŭ]i (…) xotja [[samomu jemu]i

mankind-loving God wanted himself.dat he.dat
uvěriti prěpodobĭnuumou mǫžu i vĭsěmĭ
reassure.inf saint.dat man.dat and all.dat
aviti pokaanĭja silǫ].
show.inf repentance strength
‘Mankind-loving God (…) wanted for him himself (= God) to reassure
the saint man and to show everyone the strength of repentance.’
(OCS: Codex Suprasliensis, 131v)
In (13), I offer examples of Types 4 and 5, that is, an impersonal infinitive clause
with the verb byti ‘to be’ (13a), an adverbial (here, conditional) infinitive clause
(13b) and an infinitive complement to a noun (13c).
(13) a. Bystъ že (…) [vъniti emu vъ sъnьmište].
was prt enter.inf him.dat into synagogue
‘It happened that he went into the synagogue.’ (OCS: Luke 6.6)
b. [Kъ popovьstvu i dijakonьstvu aže komu
to priesthood and deaconry if someone.dat
stavitisъ], nadobě čistu byti.
become.inf must pure.dat be.inf
‘If someone is going to be made priest or deacon, he must be chaste.’
(OR: Metropolitan Cyprian’s sermon, 564)
c. A v tobĕ estь vlastь [ili žiti nam ili umrĕti].
and in you is power or live.inf us.dat or die.inf
‘And you have the power that we live or die.’
(OR: Sermon on law and grace; from Timofeev 1965: 108)
As for the linear position and thematic role of the dative subject itself, almost
the whole range of possibilities is illustrated in the previous examples: overt da-
tive subjects usually show up postverbally (12a–b, 13a, 13c) but also preverbally
(12c–d, 13b) and associated with all types of infinitive verbs: copular (12c), semi-
copular (13b), unaccusative (13c), unergative (11, 13a), transitive (12d), and pas-
sive verbs (12b).7
7. The dative case encoded not only the subject of these clauses, but also secondary predicates
related to it, as in (12b). Dative secondary predicates survive until the 18–19th centuries, but
they are stylistically marked, contrasting with the unmarked instrumental case-encoded sec-
ondary predicates. The instrumental case as a secondary predicate case-encoder originated
in certain NPs, denoting professions and comparison (Nichols 1981). Afterwards, it spread to
other nominal and adjectival secondary predicates in a complex process, analyzed in Madariaga

All rights reserved
150 Nerea Madariaga
As for the referent of the subject of the matrix clause, infinitive subjects could
be coreferent with it (12d), or not (12b–c). Depending on the matrix verb, the em-
bedded (null or overt) subject could also be coreferent with a different argument
in the matrix clause, such as the direct object (12a), or the indirect object (11), and
even with elements in the matrix clause in non-argumental (non-c-commanding)
position, e.g. within a PP (14).
(14) Molisja [za mjaj], otčei čestnyj [ej izbavlenu byti
pray [PP for me] father honorable saved.dat be.inf
ot seti neprijazniny].
from this devilment
‘Honorable Father, pray for me (in order for me) to be saved from
devilment.’ (OR: Laurentian Chronicle 71v)
On the other hand, infinitive clauses including a dative NP could be used as root
sentences, usually with intrinsic modality, namely expressing (i) necessity, (ii) pos-
sibility, (iii) unavoidable imminent action or (iv) desire (Borkovskij 1978: 278ff.).
For the ranges of modality associated with root infinitives in Modern Russian,
see Fortuin (2005) and Kotin (2012); for a comparative perspective, Etxepare
& Grohmann (2003). Notice, however, that non-modal usages of root infinitive
clauses are also available both in Modern Russian (cf. Wiemer 2014) and early
Slavic (example 13a above).
Example (15) illustrates a root infinitive modal clause. Notice that the infini-
tive itself conveys a very specific “intrinsic” modal value; in this case, it expresses
“necessity” (‘the offender must/is forced to pay’). There are parallels in other early
IE languages, as shown by Luraghi (forthcoming), who reviews the whole range of
dative NPs in constructions expressing obligation. In the case of root sentences, as
in Modern Russian where this type of sentence has survived with little change, the
subject always has a modal interpretation.
(15) To skotomъ emu zaplatiti.
prt cattle.ins him.dat pay.inf
‘He (the offender) must pay in livestock.’ (OR: Old Russian Right, 18)
The last instances of a more or less productive “dative + infinitive” embedded con-
struction date from Middle Russian (15–17th centuries). For instance, in the case
of Type 3, Borkovskij (1979: 115) observes that, in Middle Russian, a mixed pat-
tern of “direct speech (intrinsically modal root infinitive clause) + embedded (de-
clarative) clause” arises. Consider (16a), where the alleged infinitive complement
(2008) within a formal approach. In this article, I disregard secondary predication, as it is not
directly related to the facts under discussion.

All rights reserved
of the declarative verb molviti ‘to say’ can only be interpreted as a sort of direct
speech reporting an intrinsically modal root infinitive clause (here it expresses
“necessity”). What (16a) means is not ‘Nifont said that he is giving you an arc’, but
rather ‘Nifont said that he needed to give him an arc’. Compare it to the old bare
declarative value of the construction “dative + infinitive”, after the declarative verb
rešči ‘to say’ in (16b).
(16) a. Nifont molvit dati mne tobe duga i mne tobe i
Nifont said give.inf me.dat you.dat arc and me.dat you.dat and
inoe davati.
other give.inf
‘Nifont said: I must give you an arc and you must give another one to
me.’ (Middle Russian, Joseph of Volokolamsk’s instructions)
b. Starьcьi že reče [ne mošči emui trьpěti truda postьnaago].
old.nom prt said not be-able.inf him.dat suffer.inf task of.fasting
‘The old man said that he was not able to stand the difficulties of fasting.’
(OR: Sinodal Patericon 63)
In general terms, in Middle Russian, overt dative subjects became severely re-
stricted, and in Modern Russian and Present-Day Russian, the “dative + infinitive”
structure was lost as a productive mechanism for embedding in virtually every
syntactic configuration available.
The loss of overt dative subjects in embedded infinitive clauses in the func-
tion of a complement was completed in the transition between the 16th and 17th
centuries (cf. Borkovskij 1978: 278, Lomtev 1956). From this period onwards,
overt dative subjects in non-finite clauses survived only as (i) overt subjects of
root modal infinitival clauses, (ii) in subject function (a new formation, cf. fn. 7)
and (iii) in a restricted way, in infinitive constructions in an adjunct function (pur-
pose sentences, Type 5). Example (17) is an instance of a purpose infinitive clause,
where the use of an overt dative subject is available for most speakers today. Some
speakers do not find them “natural”; others consider these constructions as stylis-
tically marked.
(17) [Dlja togo, čtoby (%nam) vyigrat’ matč], (nam) nužno
for this comp us.dat win.inf game us.dat need
uporno trenivorat’sja.
persistently train.inf
‘In order (for us) to win the game, we must train intensively.’ (PDR)
Declarative verbs and verbs of perception (Types 3 and 4) and complements of

nouns (Type 5) lost the ability to take an infinitive clause as their complement and
are always associated with a finite CP (18a–b); cf. the old pattern in (12–13) above:

All rights reserved
152 Nerea Madariaga
(18) a. On uvidel, [čto gorod byl uže vzjat].

he saw comp city.nom was.m.sg already taken.nom
‘He saw that the city was already taken.’ (PDR)
b. I slučilos’ tak, [čto on popal na Zemlju].
and happened thus comp he.nom fell.m.sg to Earth
‘It happened that he ended up on Earth.’ (PDR)
Volitional and jussive verbs (Types 1 and 2) retained infinitive embedded clauses
with the following restrictions, which did not apply in early Slavic (compare with
the examples in 12): (i) overt dative subjects became unavailable, i.e. only null sub-
jects are licensed, and (ii) disjoint reference between the embedded subject and its
antecedent in the matrix clause became unavailable (19a–b). In the case of disjoint
reference, a finite CP is used instead (19c).
(19) a. Dašai poprosila Juliju [ei/*j /*Vane) pročitat’ celuju knigu].
Dasha asked Yulia.acc Vanja.dat read.inf whole book
‘Dasha asked Yulia (*for Vanya) to read the whole book.’ (PDR)
b. Dašai xočet [ei/*j /*Vane) pročitat’ celuju knigu].
Dasha wants Vanya.dat read.inf whole book
‘Dasha wants (*for Vanya) to read the whole book.’ (PDR)
c. Daša xočet [čtoby Vanja pročital celuju knigu].
Dasha wants comp Vanya.nom read.m.sg whole book
‘Dasha wants Vanya to read the whole book.’ (PDR)
As for secondary predication, in PDR the dative case encodes only so-called semi-
predicative items (floating quantifiers odin ‘one’, sam ‘-self ’, vse ‘all’ and oba ‘both’)
within infinitive clauses and only when, for independent reasons, some interven-
ing element prevents structural case “transmission” from its antecedent in the ma-
trix clause, such as the overt complementizer čtoby in (20a); otherwise, the nomi-
native case is licensed on the semi-predicative element (20b).
(20) a. Taras prišel poran’še [čtoby poplavat’ *odin /
Taras.nom came earlier comp swim.inf one.nom
*odnim / OKodnomu].
one.ins one.dat
‘Taras came earlier to swim alone.’ (PDR)
b. Taras rešil [prijti OKodin / *odnim / *odnomu].
Taras.nom decided come.inf one.nom one.ins one.dat
‘Taras decided to come alone.’ (PDR)
Instrumental case-valuing, typical of secondary predication in Russian, is com-

pletely unavailable for these semi-predicative elements; this shortcoming is prob-
ably the reason why only these elements preserved the old dative case-marking in

All rights reserved
infinitive clauses (a “last resort” mechanism), as argued in Madariaga (2006) and

Bailyn (2012).
With regard to dative subjects in root modal infinitive clauses, today they are
considered old-fashioned in some East Slavic languages (e.g. Ukrainian). They
are sometimes stylistically marked in Russian (21a), as compared to the structure
illustrated in (21b), which includes the overt modal element nado ‘must’. These
modal elements (nado ‘must’, možno ‘can’, nel’zja ‘must not’, etc.) overtly define one
of the “intrinsic” modal senses, characteristic of Russian root infinitive clauses and
discussed in Section 3.2.
(21) a. Nam prijti vovremja. (PDR: stylistically marked)
us.dat come.inf on.time
b. Nam nado prijti vovremja. (PDR: stylistically unmarked)
us.dat must come.inf on.time
‘We must come on time.’
The fact that “overt modal” counterparts are more extended than bare infinitive vari-
ants is reflected in traditional Russian descriptive works; Potebnja (1958 [11874])
and Ševcova (1964), for example, consider independent modal infinitive clauses as
“elliptic” variants of clauses containing an overt modal element + finite byt’.
In constructions such as (21b), the dative NP is the subject of the whole com-
plex formed by the modal element + the infinitive, not just the infinitive or just the
modal element, as in early Slavic. The following arguments are in favor of this view:
First, in Present-Day Russian, the infinitive clause is simply another possible
complement of a modal element, in complementary distribution with, e.g., a NP.
Thus, a root infinitive clause can be used after a modal element, as in (22a); how-
ever, the inclusion of an infinitive clause after the modal is not compulsory, and a
nominative NP can be used instead (22b).8
8. Also polyfunctional modals, such as možno ‘possible’/nel’zja ‘not possible’ can take NP com-
plements, without an overt infinitive form — in this case, accusative NPs.
(i) a. Tebe možno sladkoe?
you.dat can.deflt sweet.acc
‘Can you eat sweet products?’
b. Grudničkam nel’zja vodu.
babies.dat cannot.deflt water.acc
‘Breastfed babies cannot drink water.’
In parallel with other predicative modals, such as vidno ‘seen, visible’, slyšno ‘heard, audible’, etc.;
here the accusative complement alternates with a nominative “agreeing” NP:
(ii) Otsjuda mne vidno korabli / vidny korabli.
from.here me.dat seen.deflt ships.acc seen.pl ships.nom
‘I can see the ships from here.’

All rights reserved
154 Nerea Madariaga
(22) a. Mne neobxodimo [najti perevodčika s

me.dat needed.deflt find.inf translator.acc from
ispanskogo jazyka].
Spanish language
‘I need to find a translator of the Spanish language.’
b. Mne neobxodima juridičeskaja konsul’tacija.
me.dat needed.nom.f.sg [legal consultation].nom.f.sg
‘I need legal help.’
Second, the bare infinitive variant undergoes other syntactic restrictions com-
pared to the variant including an overt modal element. For example, the possibil-
ity of replacing an overt dative subject with a null subject with an arbitrary refer-
ence is not always straightforward in the bare infinitive variant. This replacement
is always available only if the modal predicate element is overt (23a); otherwise,
the result in some contexts is ungrammatical (23b).
(23) a. (Tebe / earb) neobxodimo / možno ukazyvat’ vsem, čto delat’.
you.dat needed.deflt can.deflt show.inf all.dat what do.inf
Overt dative pronoun: ‘You need to/can tell everyone what to do.’
Arbitrary null subject: ‘It is necessary/possible to tell everyone what to do.’
b. Tebe / *earb ukazyvat’ vsem, čto delat’.
you.dat show.inf all.dat what do.inf
Overt dative pronoun: ‘You must tell everyone what to do.’
*Arbitrary null subject: ‘*It is necessary to tell everyone what to do.’
In fact, infinitive root sentences with an arbitrary interpretation of a null subject

are available only in restricted contexts, detailed in Fortuin (2005: 42–43). The
most frequent environments are the following: sentences headed by an interroga-
tive pronoun (Čto delat’? ‘What to do?’), or a negative pronoun (Nekogda spat’
‘There is no time to sleep’), exhortatives or wishes (Ne kričat’! ‘Do not shout!’),
impersonal or generic sentences including an overt predicate (Zanimat’sja spor-
tom — xorošo ‘Practicing sports is a good thing’), or including an overt local or
temporal specification (Zdes’ ne projti ‘It is not posible to go through at this place’
vs. *Ne projti).
Third, in example (23a) above, the subject of the infinitive clause must be in-
terpreted as identical to that of the modal element, unlike early Slavic, where un-
til the 18th century both the modal element and the infinitive could have their
own independent subjects with disjoint reference with respect to each other
(Borkovskij 1978: 276ff.). An example of this is offered in (24a): the experiencer
subject ti ‘you’ is associated with the matrix modal element godě ‘is convenient’,
while the second dative subject nam ‘us’ corresponds to the embedded infinitival

All rights reserved
form. Such a construction is ungrammatical in Present-Day Russian, as shown in

(24b), where, in order to get disjoint reference of the subjects, a finite CP must be
introduced instead (24c).
(24) a. Ašče godě ti estъ [žiti namъ vъ
if convenient.deflt you.dat is [live.inf us.dat in
nemъ] budi namъ pomoščnikъ.
it] be us.dat assistant.nom
‘If it is convenient for you that we live there, help us.’
(OR: Life of St. Theodosius, 81)
b. Mnei neobxodimo [*vam / ei/*j najti perevodčika
me.dat needed.deflt you.dat find.inf translator
s ispanskogo jazyka].
from Spanish language
Null coreferent subject: ‘I need to find a translator of Spanish language.’
*Overt dative: ‘I need you to find a translator of the Spanish language.’
(PDR)
c. Mne neobxodimo [čtoby vy našli perevodčika …].
me.dat needed.deflt comp you.nom find.pl translator
To conclude this section, in Present-Day Russian infinitive embedded clauses have

disappeared in declarative and perceptional contexts (18). Except for some (mar-
ginal) adjoined constructions, infinitive embedded clauses are licensed only when
their subject is null and coreferent with its antecedent in the matrix clause (19),
while non-coreferent subjects are achieved in Present-Day Russian by means of
a finite CP complement (18, 19c), unlike early Slavic where embedded infinitive
clauses could display overt subjects (12–13), coreferent or not with respect to their
antecedent in the matrix clause.
Absolute dative constructions have disappeared altogether in Present-Day
Russian (9), and have been replaced in most cases by finite CPs, both in cases of
coreference or disjoint reference between subjects (10a). As a stylistically marked
variant, a non-finite embedding mechanism is preserved, namely, gerundial claus-
es, which, like embedded infinitive clauses, today require coreference of their sub-
ject with respect to the subject of the matrix clause (10b).
4. Previous conditions and the trigger for the change under study
In the previous section, I described the origin, uses and development of non-fi-
niteness as a mechanism for embedding in early Slavic, showing that it was lost
as a productive device to a greater or lesser degree, depending on each specific

All rights reserved
156 Nerea Madariaga
structure. In this section, I attempt to explain this development by reviewing two

previous conditions and a possible trigger for the change.
As mentioned in Section 1, I assume that syntactic change takes place when a
learner posits a “new analysis” for a given structure or parameter with respect to
previous generations. In order to acquire a language, learners partially analyze the
Primary Linguistic Data they receive, observing structural elements (cues or trig-
gers) that lead them to establish the relevant parameters (cf. Fodor 1998, Lightfoot
1999, 2006). Therefore, if a cue or trigger changes because of any previous (inde-
pendent) change, learners can analyze the Primary Linguistic Data in a new way,
giving rise to a new grammar. Among these previous conditions, we find the “ero-
sion” of morphophonological material, language contact, sociolinguistic factors,
the strengthening of an alternative (competing) pattern, frequency of use, etc.
In Sections 4.1–4.2, I review the previous conditions that converged in the
language prior to the final trigger (discussed in Section 4.3), which eventually led
to these structures changing in East Slavic.
4.1 Previous condition 1: Weakening of the non-finite morphology
4.1.1 Shift in the morphological information conveyed by infinitive forms

A previous condition that took place long before the reduction of the range of uses
of the infinitive construction, but was necessary for it to happen, was the loss of
the perception that infinitives are verbal nouns encoded with the dative case. This
already happened in prehistoric times, but it paved the way for the (much) later
phonological erosion of the non-stressed -i ending of infinitival forms in some
Slavic languages, e.g. Russian. In this language, the final -i was reduced to simply
palatalizing the final consonant (orthographically represented with a “softening”
sign, e.g. znat’ ‘to know’, xotet’ ‘to want’, etc).
As explained in Section 2, infinitive forms are not reconstructed as such for
PIE; the different IE groups developed infinitives by specializing the verbal noun
reconstructed for the proto-language in one (or more) grammatical cases. The only
early IE language which preserved the whole range of case-marked verbal nouns as
such was Celtic, although Vedic also displays various infinitive forms, correspond-
ing originally to different grammatical cases (Disterheft 1980, Keydana 2013).
In Slavic, the grammatical case that gave rise to infinitives was the dative, re-
flected in the infinitival suffix -ti (dative singular of the nouns in -ĭ‑), according to
Meillet (1934) and Seliščev (2001[11951]).
(25) a. OR: znati ‘to know’
b. OR: xotěti ‘to want’

All rights reserved
Some researchers have argued that overt morphology on a non-finite form can,
in turn, license overt case marking on a NP within the non-finite clause. To men-
tion some examples: (i) in Basque, case marking on nominalizations licenses
case-marked NPs within the non-finite clause (Hornstein & San Martin 2001); (ii)
something similar has been argued for English verbal gerunds (Reuland 1983),
e.g. Hei would much prefer [himj going to a movie], where the -ing marking licenses
the NP subject; and (iii) in European Portuguese (Raposo 1987), an infinitive can
assign case to its subject only if it receives case itself.
Now consider the reanalysis of the “dative NP + infinitive” structure as com-
plements for verbs of Type 1 in Section 3.1 (usually taking a dative “recipient” NP),
and its extension to other types of infinitive embedded structures, described in
Section 3.2. In the synchronic situation of early Slavic, the morphological ending
of infinitives can be considered the licenser of the overt case marking on infinitive
subjects, even in embedded contexts. In an intuitive way, this would represent the
stage between nominalization, as found in Basque or Old Irish, and control infini-
tive structures in later Russian.
In this sense, although it took place long before the change analyzed here, the
“erosion” of the morphological information conveyed by the infinitive was a neces-
sary previous condition for the weakening of the “dative + infinitive” construction.
4.1.2 The shift of participles into gerunds

Dative case marking on both the NP subject and the participle in absolute con-
structions, unlike the infinitive forms reviewed in the previous section, were
morphologically “transparent” in historic Slavic. Both nouns and participles un-
derwent regular grammatical case encoding according to the corresponding (pro-
ductive) declension type. Consider, for instance, the singular masculine dative
form of both the participle izgǔnanu ‘expelled’, and the NP subject běsu ‘devil’ in
example (4c), repeated here for convenience as (26):
(26) [Izgǔnanu běsu] proglagola němy.
expel.ptcp.dat devil.dat talked mutes.nom
‘Once the devil was expelled, the mute people started talking.’
(OCS: Matthew 9:33)
The overwhelming majority of the OCS/OR dative absolute constructions con-

tained a short participial form, the declension of which was lost in the Russian
language.9 According to Borkovskij & Kuznecov (1965: 303ff.), starting from the
9. Case marking on participial forms has been preserved for long forms. For instance, the mas-
culine singular dative form of the past passive participle napisannyj ‘written’ is napisannomu

All rights reserved
158 Nerea Madariaga
13th century short participles often failed to “agree” with their NP subjects. Here
is one of the earliest examples of this phenomenon.
(27) Pomolivъši sja episkopъ.
praying.ptcp.nom.f.sg refl bishop.nom.m.sg
‘While the bishop was praying …’
(OR: Life of St. Nifont, Borkovskij & Kuznecov 1965: 303)
Later on, this effect became more and more frequent, until agreement between the
short participle and the noun disappeared completely. In the case of active short
participles, they eventually adopted a default morphology, giving rise to the so-
called “gerunds”. In standard Present-Day Russian, gerunds have the endings (i) -v
or -(v)ši (perfective aspect, e.g. pročitav(ši) ‘having read’), and (ii) -(j)a (imperfec-
tive aspect, e.g. čitaja ‘reading’).
Short active participles had become invariable gerundial forms by the time of
Middle Russian and had completely lost their declension, including the original
dative case marking of absolute constructions. However, very significantly, the loss
of the dative absolute constructions did not follow automatically from the mor-
phological erosion of the relevant participles. In fact, we find the last more or less
productive absolute constructions in Middle Russian. During this period, absolute
constructions were still available; even if they displayed an already (gerundial) in-
variable form, they were related to a dative NP subject (this pattern is occasionally
found in OR; cf. example 4a in Section 3.1). An example with a dative pronoun
was offered in (8), repeated for convenience as (28).
(28) I buduči emu vъ Pustoozerskomъ ostrogĕ …
and being.ger him.dat in Pustoozersk jail
‘When he was in prison in Pustoozersk …’
(Russian letter 1597 year, Kedajtene 1968)
As in the case of the early infinitive forms discussed in the previous section, the
morphology of the participial form (once again, the -i ending) could be the licen-
sor of the overt case marking on the dative subject within the non-finite clause.
By the end of Middle Russian, however, overt dative NP/pronominal subjects
in absolute constructions like (28) stopped being licensed, and the pattern disap-
peared completely. As in the case of the “dative + infinitive” construction in em-
bedded contexts, licensing a gerundial dative subject became impossible long after
the morphology of the relevant non-finite forms wore out. In this sense, the mor-
phological weakening of the short participles was, as in the case of the infinitives,
(pronominal declension pattern). In PDR, short adjectives and participles still exist, but they
have a unique case form and are used only as predicates.

All rights reserved
a necessary previous condition for the loss of absolute constructions in Russian,

but not its final trigger.
4.2 Previous condition 2: The development of competing mechanisms for

embedding
In the previous section, I have argued that morphological information, which so

far had licensed overt dative case marking on non-finite subjects (in both infini-
tive and absolute constructions), became “worn out” in Middle Russian. This was
not a direct trigger of the change but rather a previous condition to it. Another
previous condition was the existence of finite constructions used as mechanisms
for embedding in early Slavic, i.e. a pattern competing for the same function with
non-finiteness (“competing”, in the sense of Kroch 1989). In this section, I review
these finite structures, and the way they competed with infinitive and absolute
constructions.
4.2.1 Finite constructions competing with embedded infinitive clauses

Borkovskij (1979: 114ff.) reviews the process by which finite CPs introduced by
overt complementizers replaced embedded infinitive clauses functioning as com-
plements to a matrix verb.10 According to him, one of the first steps in this process
was the combination of both mechanisms, which gave rise to “redundant” infini-
tive clauses where the embedding mechanisms of non-finiteness and overt com-
plementizer coexist; compare the finite CP in (29a) with the infinitive CP in (29b).
(29) a. Ne gl(agol)emъ [jako ukradenъ bys(tъ)] …
not say comp stolen was.3sg
‘We do no say that it was stolen …’ (OR: Hilarion’s sermon, 61)
b. Uvide knjazь … [jako uže vzjatu byti gradu].
saw prince comp already taken.dat be.inf town.dat
‘The prince saw (…) that the town had been already taken.’
(OR: 1st Novgorod Chronicle, 123v)
10. Borkovskij (1979: 113) includes in this group participial clauses other than the dative abso-
lute ones, namely, the non-Slavic (Greek) pattern of the accusativus cum infinitivo, in which a
participial clause functioned as an adjectival complement of an antecedent noun (i). This kind
of construction falls outside the scope of this article (cf. fn. 3):
(i) Pečenizĕ že mnĕša [knjazja prišedša].

Pechenegs prt thought prince.acc come.ptcp.acc
‘The Pechenegs thought that the prince had arrived.’ (OR: Laurentian Chronicle, 26v)

All rights reserved
160 Nerea Madariaga
CP complements of matrix verbs were introduced in OR by a wide variety of com-

plementizers, such as iže, jako, da, ašče ‘that’. These, in turn, had other independent
functions and meanings: iže was a relative pronoun, jako had other adverbial uses,
da was an emphatic particle, and ašče, a conditional one. From the 14–15th centu-
ries onwards, the system of finite CPs was greatly simplified, and the old multifunc-
tional complementizers were replaced by two unique forms (cf. examples 18–19
in Section 3.2): the complementizers čto ‘that’ (complements of declarative verbs,
verbs of perception and nouns) and čtoby ‘in order to’ (volitional and jussive verbs,
and purpose clauses with disjoint reference of subjects); cf. Borkovskij (1979: 118).
4.2.2 Finite constructions competing with absolute constructions

The embedded finite constructions competing with (and eventually replacing) da-
tive absolute constructions expressed different adverbial notions. Their develop-
ment in Russian involved the enrichment of the available complementizers, both
simple and complex, which, unlike the absolute construction, made the accurate
expression of different specialized adverbial meanings possible and gave rise to a
more coherent system of subordination (Borkovskij 1979: 173ff.).
OR displayed a set of complementizers that introduced adverbial embedded
clauses, in addition to non-finiteness as a mechanism for embedding. For many
of these complementizers, this function was secondary, as they were particles or
complementizers primarily used in non-adverbial clauses; see the examples in
(30). The element jako ‘that’ was primarily used to introduce clauses in the com-
plement function (cf. the previous section), but it could also be used in temporal
or causal clauses (30a), while the disjunctive enclitic particle li ‘or’ could also in-
troduce a conditional clause (30b).
(30) a. Jako vъzloži ruku na nь abьe prozrě.
comp put hand on him immediately saw
‘When he put his hand on him, he immediately started to see.’
b. Obrěte li takogo č(e)l(o)v(ě)ka to uže ne skъrbi.
find prt such person prt already not be.in.sorrow
‘If you find such a man, then do not be in sorrow.’
(Anthology of 1076, 4v)
Later on, instead of these multifunctional elements, specific complementizers with

specialized meanings prevailed: (i) simple complementizers such as kogda ‘when’,
poka ‘while’, esli ‘if ’, etc; or (ii) complex complementizers such as posle togo, kak
‘after, lit. after this as’, ottogo, čto ‘because, lit. from this that’, po mere togo, kak
‘while, lit. by the degree as’, etc. In the 17th century, we find elaborated complex
complementizers, as illustrated in example (31):

All rights reserved
(31) Da on že, Afonasej Paškov dvux čelovek,

prt he prt Afanasi Pashkov two people
Galaktiona i Mixajla, bil knutom za to,
Galaktion and Mixail hit whip.inst for this
čto odin u nego poprosil est’ …
that one to him asked eat
‘He, Afanasi Pashkov, whipped Galaktion and Mikhail because (lit. for the
reason that) one asked him for some food …’
(Middle Russian: Avvakum’s Life, 192)
To summarize, the reorganization of the finite CP system by Middle Russian was

twofold and represented a remarkable “improvement” with respect to the old non-
finite system. First, embedded clauses in complement function were significantly
simplified, and the distribution of the available patterns became homogeneous:
infinitive clauses with volitional and jussive matrix verbs in the case of corefer-
ent subjects, čtoby-finite clauses in cases of non-coreference, and čto-finite clauses
for the rest of complement clauses (i.e., with declarative verbs and verbs of per-
ception). Second, embedded adverbial clauses experienced the development and
spread of semantically specialized (both simple and complex) complementizers,
which allowed for the accurate expression of the whole range of meanings previ-
ously conveyed by a single non-finite construction.
Although these changes alone could not trigger the reanalysis of the Russian
embedded infinitive structures, they represented important conditions prior to
the last trigger, which forced learners to reanalyze in the relevant contexts and
replace all other non-finite constructions with finite CPs.
4.3 The trigger: Change in the pro-drop character of Russian
The previous two sections focus on the conditions that favored the decline of non-
finite constructions in embedded contexts in Middle Russian, but as I have shown,
these were not in themselves enough to trigger the change under study. In this
section, I argue that the final trigger that led learners to reanalyze the relevant
structures was the change in the “pro-drop” or “null-subject language” status of
Russian, a change which also took place in Middle Russian.
It has been well established that Early Slavic was what we now call a consistent
null subject language (Borkovskij 1978: 10ff., Lindseth 1998, Kibrik 2013, Meyer
2011), while Present-Day Russian is a partial null-subject language according to
Roberts & Holmberg’s (2010) classification. One can readily observe in the texts
that OCS and OR follow similar patterns to modern (consistent) null-subject lan-
guages such as Spanish. Following Madariaga (2014), let us assume that this kind

All rights reserved
162 Nerea Madariaga
of language forces a null referential pronominal subject (“pro”) in non-emphatic/

non-contrastive contexts, namely, when it is an instance of an Aboutness-topic,
according to Frascarelli (2007) (see also Meyer 2011). In other words, overt non-
emphatic subjects (i.e. those subjects corresponding to instances of an Aboutness
topic) are disallowed in these languages.
However, Present-Day Russian can be defined as a regular partial null-sub-
ject language: the baseline realization option of pronominal referential subjects
is overt, but they can be dropped under certain circumstances (Franks 1995,
Bar-Shalom & Snyder 1997, Lindseth 1998, McShane 2005, Roberts & Holmberg
2010). The conditions that allow null subjects in non-emphatic/non-contrastive
positions in Present-Day Russian are described in Landau (2004), McShane (2005)
and Tsedryk (2013), among others, and they match Holmberg, Nayudu & Seehan’s
(2009) distribution of null subjects in partial null-subject languages. In the specific
case of referential null subjects, these are licensed when their reference is “recover-
able”. Specifically, 1st/2nd person null pronouns are generally recoverable from the
context on a speaker-hearer basis, and according to Tsedryk (2013), 3rd person
pronouns in root finite clauses are recoverable when they are bound null pronom-
inal (pro) topics; however, in embedded finite clauses, null referential subjects are
not pronouns; they must be controlled by a nominative antecedent in the matrix
clause (for now, let us call them “controlled e”).11
Consider the examples in (32): (32b–c) are the Spanish and Present-Day
Russian translations of the OR example in (32a), which is part of the description
of the last days of Jesus Christ’s life and his later resurrection. The entire passage is
about Jesus, who can be qualified as the crucial Aboutness-topic; the subject of the
sentences prior to (32a) is always Jesus, and can be translated in the following way.
Pilatus condemned Jesus to crucifixion and they crucified him [Jesus]. (…)
Hebrew people put guards because they said that the disciples could steal
him [Jesus]. But he [Jesus] resurrected on the third day, and appeared to his
disciples. pro [Jesus] rose from the dead, and said to his disciples: go to every
village and teach all the people the baptism in the name of the Father, the
11. Variation between dropping and non-dropping the referential non-emphatic subject in PDR
in cases where both options are available (cf. the second conjunct in 32c) is probably related to
sociolinguistic, pragmatic and stylistic factors, all of which fall outside the scope of this article
(but see Bar-Shalom & Snyder 1997, McShane 2005, Kibrik 2013, Meyer 2011). In any case, I
assume that PDR differs with respect to OCS/OR in that the former loses obligatory or default
pro in non-emphatic/non-contrastive contexts. This loss does not automatically convey the op-
posite option, i.e. that an overt pronoun became obligatory in non-emphatic contexts, but leaves
the possibility of having a null or an overt pronoun in them depending on the stylistic and prag-
matic factors just mentioned (cf. Madariaga 2014 for details).

All rights reserved
Son and the Holy Spirit. pro [Jesus] stayed with them 40 days, appearing to
them after his resurrection. When 40 days had passed …
(32) a. pro Pověle imъ iti v goru Elevon’skuju i tu
commanded.3sg them go to mount Eleon and there
pro javisja imъ.
appeared them (OR: Laurentian Chronicle, 35v)
b. #
pro / Él les ordenó ir al Monte de los Olivos y pro /
he them commanded.3sg go to Mount of the Olives and
#él allí se les apareció.
he there refl them appeared.3sg (Spanish)
c. * pro / Oni prikazal im pojti v Masličnuju goru i tam
he commanded.m.sg them go to Olive Mount and there
oni/j / ei/*j javilsja im.
he appeared.m.sg them (PDR)
‘He commanded them to go to the Mount of Olives and there he appeared to
them.’
Examples (32a–b) illustrate two consistent null-subject languages: OR and

Spanish, respectively; here, the pronominal subject is obligatorily null in the sub-
ject position of both the first and the second conjunct because in this context they
are instances of the Aboutness topic “Jesus” (there is no shift in the Aboutness
topic before this sentence). Compare this distribution of pronominal subjects with
the Present-Day Russian example in (32c), where an overt subject is obligatorily
inserted into the first conjunct (it cannot be null, as it is not a bound topic), while
the pronominal subject in the second conjunct can be either (i) overt with corefer-
ence or not with respect to the matrix subject, or (ii) null only when it is controlled
by the nominative subject of the matrix clause.
Overt pronouns, on the other hand, are used in consistent null-subject lan-
guages when they function as foci or contrastive topics (Bianchi & Frascarelli
2010), as in the second conjunct of the Spanish and OR examples given in (33a–b).
In OR, it was usual for contrastive topics to be associated with particles, such as
to, že, uže, bo, i, as illustrated in (33b). In contrast, in Present-Day Russian overt
pronouns can be used emphatically/contrastively or not, as shown in (32c).
(33) a. Juan dijo que me ayudaría pero yo/#pro le dije que no.
Juan said that me help but I him said that no
‘Juan told me that he would help me, but I told him not to.’ (Spanish)

All rights reserved
164 Nerea Madariaga
b. Reče že Volodimer čto radi ot ženy

said.3sg prt Vladimir what because from woman
rodisja (…) On že reče. emu sego rad(i)
was-born he prt said.3sg him this because
poneže isperva rod č(e)l(o)v(e)č(e)skii ženoju sgreeši.
because firstly kind human woman committed.sin
‘Vladimir asked why he was born from a woman, (…) and he (the
philosopher) told him (Vladimir) that because of this: because mankind
committed sin for the first time through a woman …’
Thus, the differences between the two stages of the Russian language are the fol-
lowing:
i. Pro stopped being the pronominal subject obligatorily inserted in non-em-
phatic contexts;
ii. Overt pronouns started to be licensed in non-emphatic contexts;
iii. Pro in root contexts is licensed only when it is a bound topic; and crucially,
iv. Pro is disallowed in embedded contexts, i.e. null subjects in embedded con-
texts are only licensed in control structures.
The change from a “consistent” pro-drop status to a “partial” pro-drop status was
not sudden in Russian; it is often described as the progressive rise of the presence
of overt non-emphatic or weak personal pronouns in the texts. It was associated
with the loss of personal auxiliaries in past forms (originally l-participles + “to be”
auxiliaries), which started in the very first OR texts and was completed by the 15th
century (or even sooner, under certain morphological conditions).
Although the causality relation between the two phenomena was not straight-
forward, as shown by Meyer (2011), we can observe that, in parallel to the loss
of overt personal auxiliaries in past forms, overt non-emphatic (weak) pronouns
were developed in the subject position. Borkovskij (1968) points out that the first
instances of overt non-emphatic pronouns are already documented in birch bark
and parchment letters, as well as in the chronicles of the 13th century, but it is only
by the 16th century that overt pronominal subjects became standard. Following
Borkovskij (1978) and Kibrik (2013), we can establish that Russian definitely
changed its pro-drop character from consistent to partial between the 16–17th
centuries.12
12. As a well-behaved syntactic change à la Lightfoot (1999), the restructuring of the Russian
system of null subjects and embedding was originally produced by factors external to syntax; in
fact, dropping personal auxiliaries in past forms was a phenomenon of phonological erosion.
Alternatively, according to Kibrik (2013), the change in the pro-drop status of Russian could

All rights reserved
Careful studies of the history of Russian pro-drop report an asymmetry be-

tween the 1st/2nd person vs. 3rd person (Meyer 2009, 2011, Jung 2014), as well
as between past and non-past forms (Kibrik 2013) in this process of change.
However, the process itself is not relevant for the phenomenon under study in this
article, only its final result matters here, i.e. the eventual change in the status of
pro-drop in Russian. This is because, as I explain in Section 5, the trigger for the
reorganization of the system of null embedded subjects was the loss of the obliga-
tory insertion of pro in non-emphatic contexts (in other words, the change in the
pro-drop status of Russian had to be completed in order for new patterns to arise
in embedded contexts).
In the following section, I offer an account of how the loss of consistent pro-
drop in Middle Russian, together with the prior conditions reviewed in Sections
4.1–4.2, led to the reanalysis of non-finite constructions, with the consequences
described in Sections 2–3 of this article.
5. Reanalysis of the relevant structures
First, I summarize the distribution of the most significant features of non-finite

structures reviewed so far, comparing early Slavic and Modern Russian/Present-
Day Russian in Table 1.
The properties related to embedded subjects, as described in the right-hand
column of this table (corresponding to Modern Russian/Present-Day Russian),
fall under the phenomenon of Obligatory Control. Finite embedded null subjects,
according to Tsedryk (2012, 2013), and non-finite embedded null subjects, dis-
cussed in Madariaga (2011), are consistent with the regular Obligatory Control
properties; i.e. basically, they need a local c-commanding antecedent. According
to the so-called Movement Theory of Control (Boeckx & Hornstein 2007, Boeckx,
Hornstein & Nunes 2010), embedded subjects in Obligatory Control structures
raise into the matrix clause, yielding the properties already mentioned. Therefore,
null subjects in embedded clauses in Present-Day Russian are nothing but the
trace (t) of a movement (what we called “controlled e” in Section 4.3), distinct
from the fully pronominal null category pro:
(34) a. Dašai xočet [ti pročitat’ celuju knigu sama].
Dasha.nom wants read.inf whole book oneself.nom
‘Dasha wants to read the whole book by herself.’
(PDR: embedded infinitive)
have been affected by language contact, namely, the contact of East Slavic in the 15–16th centu-
ries with Germanic and/or Baltic languages with a partial null-subject pattern.

All rights reserved
166 Nerea Madariaga
Table 1. Comparison of features of embedded clauses in early Slavic and Modern

Russian/Present-Day Russian
Feature Early Slavic After Middle Russian
(OCS/OR) (MR/PDR)
Overt dative in- In root clauses YES YES
finitive subjects In embedded clauses YES NO
available
Obligatory pro In root clauses YES NO
in non-emphatic In embedded clauses YES NO
contexts
Obligatory In finite embedded clauses NO YES
embedded null In non-finite embedded NO YES
subjects = “con- clauses (infinitive/partici-
trolled e” ple-gerund)
Obligatory In finite embedded clauses NO YES
coreference of In non-finite embedded NO YES
the embedded clauses (infinitive/partici-
null subject with ple-gerund)
antecedent
Single subject of the complex NO YES
“modal element + infinitive”
“Homogeneity” Complement CPs NO (too many YES (two complemen-
of the CP system complementizers tizers in complemen-
with the same func- tary distribution)
tion)
Adjoined adverbial CPs NO (too many func- YES (specific comple-
tions of the same mentizers for each
device) adverbial value)
b. [ti Buduči u lodok], oni uvidel, kak načinaetsja burja.

be.ger beside boats he saw how starts storm
‘While he was beside the boats, he saw how the storm started.’
(PDR: gerunds)
In the case of early Slavic, however, none of the properties of Obligatory Control
are observed; Madariaga (2011) shows that embedded non-finite clauses in OCS/
OR do not display any control at all. The fact that overt dative subjects (NPs and
pronouns) and pro are licensed in non-finite contexts, even with no c-command-
ing antecedent in the matrix antecedent, follows straightforwardly, as we saw in
(14), repeated for convenience as (35).

All rights reserved
(35) Molisja [ za mjaj], otče čestnyji [proj izbavlenu byti

pray [PP for me] father honorable saved.dat be.inf
ot seti neprijazniny].
from this devilment
‘Honorable Father, pray for me (in order for me) to be saved from
devilment.’ (OR: Laurentian Chronicle, 71v)
Therefore, in OCS/OR the distribution of overt and null embedded pronominals

mirrored their distribution in root contexts; i.e. overt pronouns were always em-
phatic/contrastive vs. obligatory pro in non-emphatic contexts, as in (35). When
Russian became a partial null-subject language, pro stopped being obligatory in
non-emphatic contexts and became unavailable in embedded clauses (both finite
and non-finite). In embedded contexts, the only null subjects available became
traces. The change in the distribution of embedded non-finite subjects is thus rep-
resented in (36).
(36) a. Grammar 1: [NPi matrix-V [(pro / pronoun / NP)i/j V.INF/PTCP]]
(early Slavic)
b. Grammar 2: [NPi matrix-V [ti V.INF/GER]]
(after Middle Russian)
Taking into account these facts, one could formulate the following hypothesis:
non-finite forms or non-finite constructions in early Slavic had the ability to li-
cense case on their subjects, allowing for the existence of overt NP subjects and
null/overt pronominal subjects, but later on this ability was lost, together with the
availability of overt NPs and pro in embedded non-finite contexts.
However, why would non-finite embedded constructions modify their ability
to license case on a subject if infinitives never stopped licensing overt dative sub-
jects in general terms (e.g. in root clauses)? In fact, returning to Table 1, we see that
there is only one common feature in the two stages: the presence of overt dative
subjects in root infinitive clauses was never affected by the changes reviewed so far.
Hence the explanation of the change must be different. I will show now that a
straightforward account for the given facts arises within the assumptions on syn-
tactic change introduced in Section 1, i.e. that new grammars arise as a result of a
new interpretation of the (previously modified) Primary Linguistic Data available
to learners. On the one hand, we have the previous conditions (the morphological
weakening of the non-finite forms and the “improvement” of the competing sys-
tem of finite CPs) which simply favored the fact that alternative CP constructions
would eventually replace non-finiteness as a productive mechanism for embed-
ding in most contexts.

All rights reserved
168 Nerea Madariaga
On the other hand, I have proposed a trigger for the change: the shift from
consistent pro-drop into partial pro-drop. This shift implies that, initially, when
learners of OR acquired their language they parsed a pro element in every non-
emphatic context they encountered, including the gap in the subject position of
embedded contexts (finite and non-finite). Later on, however, when pro stopped
being the null lexical category obligatorily parsed in non-emphatic contexts,
learners did not need to posit pro in the subject gap of embedded contexts. The
situation, then, radically changed; according to Boeckx & Hornstein (2007) and
Boeckx, Hornstein & Nunes (2010), movement is preferred over pronominal-
ization, so that learners of later Russian (already a partial null-subject language)
started to parse the gap in the embedded clauses as a trace; i.e. both finite and non-
finite constructions became Obligatory Control structures, with all the properties
that follow: locally controlled null subjects, unavailable overt dative pronouns/
NP subjects, obligatory coreference of subjects, etc. Root infinitive clauses (and,
in principle, adjoined clauses) were not affected by this process, so they preserved
the ability to license overt dative subjects, as before.
6. Conclusion
In this article, I have provided an explanation for the loss of non-finiteness as a

productive device for embedding, usually replaced by the “competing” system of
finite CPs in many contexts.
First, I described the development of the infinitive and participial clauses in
early Slavic, going back to its prehistoric origins, reviewing the available construc-
tions and their syntactic properties, and specifying to which extent they were pre-
served, changed or lost in later stages. I have thus shown that the infinitive embed-
ded clauses declined in Modern Russian and that dative absolute constructions
disappeared altogether quite early.
I have also assumed that syntactic change takes place when learners receive
previously modified Primary Linguistic Data, which lead them to acquire a struc-
ture in a way distinct to that of previous generations. I have suggested two condi-
tions prior to the change under study and a final trigger:
i. The weakening of the morphological information conveyed by infinitives and
participles favored their dissociation from overt dative subjects.
ii. The refinement of alternative mechanisms for embedding (complement and
adverbial finite CPs) led to these eventually prevailing over non-finite con-
structions. and

All rights reserved
iii. The change in the pro-drop character of Russian led to a new way of inter-
preting the gap of null subjects in embedded contexts (finite and non-finite),
discarding old structures with no control and giving rise to structures with
Obligatory Control, and all the properties associated with it.
After all these changes, the productiveness of non-finite constructions as a mecha-
nism of embedding, characteristic of early Slavic, became severely restricted or
was replaced by competing mechanisms, such as finite embedded clauses.
Acknowledgements
I thank the audience of the workshop Infinitives at the Syntax-Semantics Interface: A Diachronic
Perspective at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europae and the audience of the
workshop Verbal Semantics and Syntax from a Diachronic Perspective at the 19th International
Meeting of the GeSUS, for their questions and remarks on data discussed in this article. I am
deeply indebted to Jóhanna Barðdal, Eystein Dahl, Łukasz Jędrzejowski, and Silvia Luraghi, as
well as three anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Historical Linguistics, whose comments and
corrections have contributed much to the improvement of this article. Finally, a special thanks to
David Peterson for revision of the English text. This work is part of the FFI2011‑29218, FF2014-
53675-P and FF2014-57260-P research projects, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation, and has been supported by the research group on linguistics UFI11/14 (funded
by the UPV/EHU), and the research group on historical linguistics IT 486‑10 (funded by the
Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Government of the Basque Country).
Abbreviations
acc = accusative ins = instrumental

aux = auxiliary m = masculine
dat = dative nom = nominative
deflt = default case form pl = plural
comp = complementizer prt = particle
f = feminine ptcp = participle
fut = future refl = reflexive
gen = genitive sg = singular
ger= gerund sup = supine
inf = infinitive

All rights reserved
170 Nerea Madariaga
Primary literature
Anthology of 1076: Golyšenko, V. S. & S. I. Kotkov eds. 1965. Izbornik 1076 goda. Moscow:
Nauka.
Avvakum’s Life: Gudzija, N. K. ed. 1960. Žitie protopopa Avvakuma im samim napisannoe i dru-
gie ego sočinenija. Moscow.
Codex Assemanianus: Kurz, J. ed. 1955. Evangeliář Assemanův. Kodex Vatikánský 3. slovanský,
Díl II. Prague: TITUS. Available at http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/slav/aksl/
asseman/assem.htm.
Codex Marianus: Jagić, V. ed. 1883. Quattuor evangeliorum versionis palaeoslovenicae codex
Marianus glagoliticus. Saint Petersburg: TITUS. Available at http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frank-
furt.de/texte/etcs/slav/aksl/marianus/maria.htm
Codex Suprasliensis: Sever’janov, S. ed. 1904. Suprasl’skaja rukopis’. Tom I [-II] (Pamjatniki
Staroslavjanskago Jazyka, Tom II, 1-2). Saint Petersburg: TITUS. Available at http://titus.
fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/slav/aksl/suprasl/supra.htm.
Hilarion’s sermon: Sreznevskij, V. I. ed. 1893. Slovo Ilariona o zakone i blagodati. Musin-Puškinskij
sbornik 1414. Saint Petersburg.
Joseph of Volokolamsk’s instructions: Kazakova, N. A. & J. S. Lur’e eds. 1955 Poslanija Iosifa
Volockogo Vasiliju III. Antifeodal’nye eretičeskie dviženija na Rusi XIV–načala XVI veka,
513–520. Moscow & Leningrad.
Laurentian Chronicle: Karskij, Je. F. red. 2001 [11926–28] Lavrent’evskaja letopis’ (Polnoe sobra-
nie russkix letopisej, I), 1–286. Moscow.
Life of St. Theodosius: Šaxmatov, A. A. & P. A. Lavrov eds. 1899. Žitie Feodosija Pečerskogo
po Uspenskomu sborniku XII veka. Sbornik XII veka Moskovskogo Uspenskogo sobora.
Moscow.
Metropolitan Cyprian’s sermon: Archeographic Committee ed. 1841. Poučenie mitropolita
Kipriana. Akty Istoričeskie, Tom I (1334–1598). Saint Petersburg.
Moscow Letters: Kotkov, S. I.A. S. Orešnikov & I. S. Filippova, eds. 1968. Moskovskaja delovaja i
bytovaja pis’mennost’ načala XVII veka. Moscow.
1st Novgorod Chronicle: Nasonov, A. N. red. 2000 [11950]. Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’
staršego izvoda. Sinodal’nyj spisok. Novgorodskaja Pervaja Letopis’ staršego i mladšego iz-
vodov (Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej, III), 13–100. Moscow.
Old Russian Right: Grekov, B. D. ed. 1940. Pravda Russkaja. Moscow: TITUS. Available at http://
titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/slav/aruss/pravda/pravd.htm.
Sinodal Patericon: Kotkov, S. I. et al. eds. 1967. Sinajskij Paterik. Moscow.
References
Andersen, Henning. 1970. The Dative of Subordination in Baltic and Slavic. Baltic Linguistics ed.
by Thomas F. Magner & William R. Schmalstieg, 1–9. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Bailyn, John F. 2012. The Syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

All rights reserved
Bar-Shalom, Eva & William Snyder. 1997. Optional Infinitives in Russian and Their Implications
for the Pro-Drop Debate. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 5: The Indiana Meeting ed.
by Martina Lindseth & Steven Franks, 38–47. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Bianchi, Valentina & Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is Topic a Root Phenomenon? Iberia: An
International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2:1.43–88.
Boeckx, Cedric & Norbert Hornstein. 2007. On (Non-)Obligatory Control. New Horizons in
the Analysis of Control and Raising ed. by William D. Davis & Stanley Dubinsky, 251–262.
Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6176-9_11
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein & Jairo Nunes. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511761997
Borkosvskij, V. I. 1968. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskij sintaksis vostočno-slavjanskix jazykov I-I. Tipy
prostogo predloženija [Compared Historical Syntax of the East Slavic Languages: Types of
Non-Embedded Clauses]. Moscow: Nauka.
Borkovskij, V. I. 1978. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: sintaksis—prostoe predloženie
[Historical Grammar of the Russian Language: Syntax—The Non-Embedded Clause].
Moscow: Nauka.
Borkovskij, V. I. 1979. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: sintaksis—složnoe predloženie
[Historical Grammar of the Russian Language: Syntax—The Embedded Clause]. Moscow:
Nauka.
Borkovskij, V. I. & P. S. Kuznecov. 1965. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka [Historical
Grammar of the Russian Language]. Moscow: AN SSSR.
Černyx, P. Ja. 1952. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka [Historical Grammar of the
Russian Language]. Moscow: Učpedgiz.
Dewey, Tonya Kim & Yasmin Syed. 2009. Case Variation in Gothic Absolute Constructions.
The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case ed. by
Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DOI: 10.1075/slcs.108.03dew
Disterheft, Dorothy. 1980. The Syntactic Development of the Infinitive in Indo-European.
Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.
Disterheft, Dorothy. 1997. The Evolution of Indo-European Infinitives. Ancient Languages and
Philology: Studies in Honor of Jaan Puhvel, Vol. 1 ed. by Dorothy Disterheft, Martin Hud &
John Greppin, 101–122. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Etxepare, Ricardo & Kleanthes Grohmann. 2003. Root Infinitives: A Comparative Overview.
Probus 15.201–36.
Fodor, Janet D. 1998. Unambiguous Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 29:1.1–6.
DOI: 10.1162/002438998553644
Fortuin, Egbert. 2005. From Possibility to Necessity: The Semantic Spectrum of the Dative-
Infinitive Construction in Russian. Modality in Slavonic Languages: New Perspectives ed. by
Björn Hansen & Petr Karlík, 39–60. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential Pro. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 25:4.691–734. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9025-x
Haderka, Karel. 1964. Sočetanija sub’’jekta, svjazannogo s infinitivom, v staroslavjanskix i
cerkovnoslavjanskix pamjatnikax [The construction “subject + infinitive” in the Old and
Church Slavonic texts]. Slavia 33.505–533.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. Word Lexicon and Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511613463

All rights reserved
172 Nerea Madariaga
Holmberg, Anders, Aarti Nayudu & Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Three Partial Null-Subject
Languages: A Comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia Linguistica
63:1.59–97. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01154.x
Hornstein, Norbert & Itziar San Martin. 2001. Obviation as Anti-Control. International Journal
of Basque Linguistics and Philology (ASJU) 35:1.367–384.
Jung, Hakyung. 2014. The Syntax of the Be-Auxiliary and D-Feature Lowering in Old North
Russian. A talk presented at Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. University of California,
Berkeley, CA, May 2014.
Kedajtene, Je. I. 1968. Datel’nyj samostojatel’nyj [Absolute dative constructions]. Sravnitel´no-
istoričeskij sintaksis vostočnoslavjanskich jazykov. Členy predloženija ed. by V. I. Borkosvskij.
Moscow: Nauka.
Keydana, Götz. 2013. Infinitive im R̥gveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. Leiden: Brill.
DOI: 10.1163/9789004246157
Kibrik, A. A. 2013. Peculiarities and Origins of the Russian Referential System. Languages across
Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska ed. by Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath,
227–262. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kotin, Michail L. 2012 Impersonal Dative Constructions as Covert Root-Modality Patterns.
Covert Patterns of Modality ed. by Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss, 153–174. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change. Language
Variation and Change 1:3.199–244. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394500000168
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Lamprecht, Arnošt, Dušan Šlosar & Jaroslav Bauer. 1986. Historická mluvnice češtiny [Historical
Grammar of the Czech Language]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.
Landau, Idan. 2004. The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 22:4.811–877. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Lightfoot, David. 2006. How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511616204
Lindseth, Martina. 1998. Null-Subject Properties of Slavic Languages: With Special Reference to
Russian, Czech and Sorbian. Munich: Otto Sagner.
Lomtev, T. P. 1956. Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka [Introduction to
the Historical Syntax of the Russian Language]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo
Universiteta.
Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming. The Dative of Agent in Indo-European Languages. STUF—
Language Typology and Universals, Special Issue on Non-Central Usages of Datives.
Madariaga, Nerea. 2006. Why Semi-Predicative Items Always Agree. Journal of Slavic Linguistics
14:1.45–78.
Madariaga, Nerea. 2008. Grammar Change and the Development of New Case Relations: The
Interaction between Core Syntax and the Linguistic Periphery in Old and Present-Day
Russian. University of the Basque Country PhD thesis.
Madariaga, Nerea. 2011. Infinitive Clauses and Dative Subjects in Russian. Russian Linguistics
35:3.301–329. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-011-9082-y
Madariaga, Nerea. 2014. Diachronic Change and the Nature of Pronominal Null Subjects: The
Case of Russian. Submitted manuscript. University of the Basque Country.
McShane, Marjorie J. 2005. A Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

All rights reserved
Meillet, Antoine. 1934. Le slave commun. Paris: Champion.

Meyer, Roland. 2009. Zur Geschichte des referentiallen Nullsubjekts im Russischen. Zeitschrift
für Slawistik 54.375–97. DOI: 10.1524/slaw.2009.0026
Meyer, Roland. 2011. The History of Null Subjects in East Slavonic: A Corpus Based Diachronic
Investigation. University of Regensburg Habilitation thesis.
Nichols, Johanna. 1981. Predicate Nominals: A Partial Surface Syntax of Russian. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Pacnerová, Ludmila. 1964. Sintaksis infinitiva v staroslavjanskix jevangel’skix kodeksax s tochki
zrenija texniki perevoda [The syntax of the infinitive in the Old Slavonic texts from the
viewpoint of their translation]. Slavia 33:4.534–557.
Potebnja, A. A. 1958 [1874]. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike [Outline of a Russian Grammar].
Moscow: Učpedgiz.
Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European
Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:1.85–109.
Reuland, Eric. 1983. Governing -ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14:1.101–136.
Roberts, Ian & Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in Minimalist Theory. Null
Subjects: The Structure of Parametric Variation ed. by Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg,
Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruppel, Antonia. 2012. Absolute Constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139019736
Schmalstieg, William R. 1980. Indo-European Linguistics: A New Synthesis. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Seliščev, A. M. 2001 [1951]. Staroslavjanskij jazyk [Old Church Slavonic]. Moscow: URSS.
Ševcova, A. A. 1964. Infinitivnyje predloženija v pamjatnikax vostočnoslavjanskoj pis’mennosti
(konec XIV–XVI vv.) [Infinitive clauses in the East Slavic texts (end of the 14–16th centu-
ries)]. Avtoreferat dissertacii kandidata filologičeskix nauk, Moskcow: MGU.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and Actualization in Syntactic Change. Mechanisms of
Syntactic Change, ed. by Charles Li, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Timofeev, K. A. 1965. K voprosu o proisxoždenii infinitivnyx predloženijax v russkom jazyke
[On the origin of infinitive clauses in Russian]. Filologičeskie nauki 2.105–113.
Tsedryk, Egor. 2012. Finite Control in Russian as Movement: Subject Extraction, Feature
Deficiency and Parametric Variation. Saint Mary’s University manuscript.
Tsedryk, Egor. 2013. Internal Merge of Nominative Subjects and Pro-Drop in Russian.
Proceedings of the 2013 CLA Conference, ed. by Shan Luo. Available at http://homes.chass.
utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2013/actes2013.html.
Vaillant, André. 2002 [1948]. Rukovodstvo po staroslovjanskomu jazyku [Manuel du vieux slave].
Moskva: URSS.
Wiemer, Björn. 2014. Main Clause Infinitival Predicates and Their Equivalents in Slavic.
Manuscript submitted to the volume Infinitives at the Syntax–Semantics Interface: A
Diachronic Perspective ed. by Lukasz Jedrzejowski & Ulrike Demske. Berlin: de Gruyter.

All rights reserved
174 Nerea Madariaga
Author’s address
Nerea Madariaga
Facultad de Letras UPV/EHU
Paseo de la Universidad 5
Vitoria-Gasteiz 01015
Spain
nerea.madariaga@ehu.es

All rights reserved

Art. 2015 JHL (Embedding)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art. 2015 JHL (Embedding)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Historical Linguistics 5:1

Keywords: East Slavic, Russian, non-finiteness, embedded structures, absolute

In this article, I analyze the decline of non-finite constructions as regular syntactic

Journal of Historical Linguistics 5:1 (2015), 139–174. doi 10.1075/jhl.5.1.05mad

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

2. The origin of non-finiteness as a syntactic mechanism for embedding in

A well-established fact for the reconstructed syntax of Proto-Indo-European is

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Infinitive clauses fulfilled the function of purpose clauses and complement

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

3. The decline of non-finite embedded constructions in East Slavic

3.1 Dative absolute constructions

As indicated in Section 2, the dative absolute in Slavic conveyed an implicational

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

according to Andersen (1970) and Borkovskij (1978: 422–423), it had the corre-

According to Borkovskij (1978), the dative absolute completely disappeared by the

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

A residual use of the dative absolute is a construction quite frequent in Old

In Byelorussian and Ukrainian, as well as in dialects of North Russian, this con-

3.2 Infinitive embedded clauses and dative subjects

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

under study becomes “independent”, and fulfills a completely new syntactic

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

d. [Člověkoljubivyi bogŭ]i (…) xotja [[samomu jemu]i

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

Declarative verbs and verbs of perception (Types 3 and 4) and complements of

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

(18) a. On uvidel, [čto gorod byl uže vzjat].

Instrumental case-valuing, typical of secondary predication in Russian, is com-

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

infinitive clauses (a “last resort” mechanism), as argued in Madariaga (2006) and

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

(22) a. Mne neobxodimo [najti perevodčika s

In fact, infinitive root sentences with an arbitrary interpretation of a null subject

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

form. Such a construction is ungrammatical in Present-Day Russian, as shown in

To conclude this section, in Present-Day Russian infinitive embedded clauses have

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

structure. In this section, I attempt to explain this development by reviewing two

4.1 Previous condition 1: Weakening of the non-finite morphology

4.1.1 Shift in the morphological information conveyed by infinitive forms

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

4.1.2 The shift of participles into gerunds

The overwhelming majority of the OCS/OR dative absolute constructions con-

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

a necessary previous condition for the loss of absolute constructions in Russian,

4.2 Previous condition 2: The development of competing mechanisms for

In the previous section, I have argued that morphological information, which so

4.2.1 Finite constructions competing with embedded infinitive clauses

(i) Pečenizĕ že mnĕša [knjazja prišedša].

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

CP complements of matrix verbs were introduced in OR by a wide variety of com-

4.2.2 Finite constructions competing with absolute constructions

Later on, instead of these multifunctional elements, specific complementizers with

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company

(31) Da on že, Afonasej Paškov dvux čelovek,

To summarize, the reorganization of the finite CP system by Middle Russian was

4.3 The trigger: Change in the pro-drop character of Russian

As indicated in Section 2, the dative absolute in Slavic conveyed an implicational

Table 1. Comparison of features of embedded clauses in early Slavic and Modern