This chapter gives an overview of phenomena connected to polarity, especially negation, in Slavic languages. The formation of negation in Slavic is rather uniform across languages and historically relatively stable. Further, the chapter discusses the distribution of linguistic expressions connected to different environments involving polarity. The latter includes negative concord and polarity items with a major focus on different series of indefinites. These environments for indefinites are discussed: (i) specific (known to the speaker), (ii) specific (unknown to the speaker), (iii) non-specific (irrealis), (iv) polar question, (v) conditional protasis, (vi) indirect negations, (vii) direct negation, (viii) standard of comparison, and (ix) free choice. Additional negative polarity items are presented, such as scalar particles. Lastly, the chapter treats case alternations in the scope of sentential negation (genitive of negation), which is a feature inherited from Common Slavic, but not present in all modern Slavic languages. The genitive of negation exhibits differing properties in those languages which preserved it.

This chapter addresses verbal aspect in Slavic languages. It first defines main concepts, such as perfective and imperfective verbs. Next, it outlines the distribution of perfective and imperfective verbs in the following situations: states, activities, accomplishments, achievements, and semelfactiveness. The chapter then presents usage types of verbal aspect in Slavic languages, differentiating the western and the eastern types. The next section discusses verbal aspect in a diachronic perspective. The final section of this chapter outlines current lines of research in the field of Slavic verb aspect.

In diachronic development and contemporary structure of Slavic lexicons, we see influences of universal semantic mechanisms and specific historical processes, of language development, and of language contact. Old Church Slavonic played a role in forming Slavic vocabulary, especially in Russian, where specific or colloquial synonyms contrast with abstract or formal (golova ‘head as body part’ vs. glava ‘head as top in a hierarchy’). Semantic divergence of Proto-Slavic roots creates inter-lingual enantiosemy (e.g., Rus. čerstvyj ‘stale’ vs. Cze. čerstvý ‘fresh’). To compare languages we use regular abstract semantic relations, e.g. synonymy, antonymy, or lexical functions Magn, Oper. Linguistic expressions may differ, but we find similar semantic oppositions and derivation mechanisms. The languages share the same types of antonymy, albeit using different prefixes. Semantic bleaching patterns also agree: adjectives meaning ‘scary’ develop to mean ‘high degree’. Motion verbs such as ‘go’ come to mean process or result. We give case studies of lexical relations: Polish synonyms honor vs. cześć, Russian pravda vs. istina.

Throughout history, Slavic spread from a fairly restricted area somewhere around Ukraine, Belorussia, and Eastern Poland out to large parts of Europe, and Russian as the most widespread Slavic language today spans almost half of the Northern hemisphere. Historic and present migrations of Slavic speakers and the concomitant geographical expansion of their cultural and political dominions could not fail to afford rich opportunities for language contacts of all kinds, running the gamut from mild to intense forms of language contact, from lexical borrowing, language shift, and group bilingualism to the creation of new, contact-induced languages. Language contacts have been part of the history of Slavic from its very outset, and there is virtually no historical period for which no significant contacts can be identified. One of the tasks of this chapter is to give an idea of the deep historical layering of Slavic language contacts from Proto Slavic up to the present age.

The chapter presents a broad overview of current research on the formal properties of Slavic languages developing in heritage language settings. Representative studies on heritage Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Serbian, and Croatian are synthesized along the following grammatical dimensions. In the nominal and verbal domains, I review properties of the heritage Slavic case and gender systems and the encoding of temporal distinctions through aspect and tense morphology. At the levels of sentence organization and discourse structure, I survey word order change pertaining to the syntax of clitics and the placement of clausal constituents to convey information-structural distinctions. The concluding discussion identifies the key overarching principles underlying the changes attested across the surveyed linguistic varieties and outlines directions for future studies in heritage Slavic linguistics.

This chapter addresses word stress patterns in Slavic languages. The discussion focuses on the placement of stress and the nature of the accent. Fixed stress systems are discussed (initial, antepenultimate, penultimate) as well as systems with free stress. The chapter also discusses the movement of the stress within inflectional patterns. The discussion furthermore includes the nature of the stress in various Slavic languages. There is also an outline of the laws regulating the patterns of stress in Slavic languages.

This chapter presents an overview of some of the properties of Slavic clitics. In principle, clitics seem easy to identify: they are phonologically dependent functional elements that appear in a fixed, syntactically defined position in the clitic cluster but otherwise behave like other independent syntactic elements. But these characteristics are fraught with exceptions. We focus on these exceptions in the chapter to show that clitics, although lexically stressless, in certain contexts can be stressed; although they seem to have a fixed position in a sentence, they can appear in unexpected positions both within the clause and within the clitic cluster; although they are functional elements whose position is governed by universal principles, their positioning differs across Slavic languages, and, despite being syntactically independent elements, they occasionally disobey constraints that other syntactically independent elements typically obey.

The chapter opens with a basic structural description of declensional patterns in Slavic languages, concentrating on several pervasive, salient, and typologically important features. The Late Common Slavic (LCS) system is outlined, with samples of key substantival and pronominal paradigms. Next, the survey traces crucial changes from LCS into the modern languages in the organization of nominal inflection into classes, including emergence of patterns specific for adjectives and numerals. Also discussed is the prehistory of the LCS system and its contextualization within the Indo-European family. Finally, the chapter reviews a number of mostly post-LCS innovations involving interesting synchronic or diachronic problems, such as: encoding virility and animacy; encoding innovative case/number categories (‘second locative’, partitive, paucal, etc.); patterns of syncretism and developments towards analyticity; defectivity and indeclinability; recycling of former dual endings; rise of definiteness markers; transfers to and from declensional morphology; role of segmental alternations and prosodic distinctions in declensional systems.

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

The article describes grammatical voice in Slavic: (1) informal characterization of voice; (2) definition of voice and a general inventory of specific voices; (3) voice types in Slavic; (4) Slavic derived voices; (5) discourse functions of voices; (6) historical development of voice in Slavic; (7) some voice-like phenomena in Slavic; and (8) summary of the main issues in the study of Slavic voice. Voice phenomena are considered in a dependency approach to language.