Z B OR NI KMATICE SRPSKEZA FILOLOGIJU I LINGVISTIKULIV/2MAT ICA SRPSK AODEQEWE ZA KWIEVNOST I JEZIKZBORNIKMATICE SRPSKE ZA FILOLOGIJU I LINGVISTIKUMAT I C A S E R BI C ACLASSIS LITTERARUMARCHIVUM PHILOLOGICUM ET LINGUISTICUMPokrenut 1957. godineDo HH kwige (1983) izlazio pod nazivom Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistikuGlavni urednici:Dr Milivoj Pavlovi (19571960), dr Rudolf Kolari (19611962),akademik Pavle Ivi (19632000), akademik Aleksandar Mladenovi (20012009),dr Jasmina Grkovi-Mejxor (2010)LIV/2Urednitvo:Dr JASMINA GRKOVI-MEJXOR, dr DRAGA ZEC, dr JOVAN JERKOVI,dr GERHARD NEVEKLOVSKI, dr SLOBODAN PAVLOVI, dr DRAGOQUB PETROVI,dr MATO PIURICA, dr MILORAD RADOVANOVI, dr SVETLANA M. TOLSTA,dr ZUZANA TOPOLIWSKACollegium redactorum:Dr JASMINA GRKOVI-MAJOR, Dr JOVAN JERKOVI, Dr GERHARD NEWEKLOWSKY,Dr SLOBODAN PAVLOVI, Dr DRAGOLJUB PETROVI, Dr MATO PIURICA,Dr MILORAD RADOVANOVI, Dr SVETLANA M. TOLSTAJA,Dr ZUZANNA TOPOLISKA, Dr DRAGA ZECGlavni i odgovorni urednik:Dr JASMINA GRKOVI-MEJXORISSN-0352-5724 | UDK 80/81(082)Z B O R N I KMATICE SRPSKEZA FILOLOGIJU I LINGVISTIKULIV/2NOVI SA D2 011 B o h u mi l Vy k y p l: Briefly on the use of the historiography of linguistics or Leave structuralism alone! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : *gb / *gyb / *gub . . : XII XIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P h i l i p Mi n l o s: Some controversies concerning possessive pronoun placement in Old Russian . .Ya n n i s K a k r i d i s: Dvoglasna re ili dijalog? Traktati Grigorija Palame O ishoenju Svetoga duha u srpskoslovenskom prevodu 14. veka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : XV . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ma j a Ma r k o v i : Prozodijski transfer u uenju stranog jezika: temporalne karakteristike . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S o n j a F i l i p o v i Ko v a e v i : Anglicizmi kao meujeziki pojmovni amalgami . . . . . . . . . Wa y l e s B r o w n e: In memoriam Ilse Lehiste (19222010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bi l j a n a Mi i I l i , Mentalistika teorija znaenja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D u a n k a Zv e k i D u a n o v i : Bjrn Hansen, Ferdinand de Haan (eds.), Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Sandra Birzer, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : eckostaroslovnsk index. Index verborum graecopalaeoslovenicus . . . . . . . : , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7153153597191109135147161179191199207219237247265271282290296302306311 UDC 81(091)165.75 Bohumil VykyplBRIEFLY On THE USE OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF LInGUISTICS OR LEAVE STRUCTURALISM ALOnE!*This paper points to problems with ignoring past work in linguistics. This is demonstrated on the example of the recently formulated notions of comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. In addition, a remark is made on the excessive desire to be original, a widespread concern in presentday linguistics.Key words: historiography of linguistics, structuralism, language comparison. . . , . : , , .An adolescent discipline, to be sure, needs no history; such an activity would seriously impair its initial vigor and unduly bridle its curiosity. (Koerner 2004: 11)E. F. K. Koerner, the Altmeister of the historiography of linguistics, has repeatedly offered several possibilities of how writing the history of linguistics can be useful to linguists in general (cf. most recently Koerner 2004: 512). The first use is the introduction to the field of linguistics through its history. This can also be understood as a certain protection against a too frequent reinvention of wheel in order to save ones intellectual forces. Another sense might, of course, be to avoid irritating anyone with ones claims. Both seem, unfortunately, to have happened to Martin Haspelmath in his programmatic papers on distinguishing comparative concepts and descriptive categories.1. Comparative ConCepts and desCriptive Categories. In actual fact, the distinction between comparative concepts and descriptive categories as well as its * This paper was written with the support of a grant from the Czech Science Foundation (nr. P406/10/1346). I thank Mark Richard Lauersdorf (University of Kentucky, USA) for improving my English. t p g gt LIV/2 (2011): 713.8 BOHUMIL VYKYPLexplicit formulation is quite old (if we, of course, do not believe that to be explicit means to write a separate paper using the same terminology). To stay in the twentieth century, we can, e.g., refer to I. I. Meaninov, reputedly a Marrist, in fact a predecessor of the Greenbergian concept of typology, who distinguished conceptual categories and linguistic concepts (cf. meaninov 1945: 195198).Even earlier, in the general introduction to his habilitation thesis, finished in 1925, Bohuslav Havrnek, a Prague School structuralist unknown to the big wide linguistic world, also treated the question of linguistic categories. Referring to Jespersen, he introduced the distinction between general notional categories and languageparticular grammatical categories (cf. Havrnek 1983 [1928]: 70). At the same time, it is important that the notional (or functional) categories share some features with Haspelmaths comparative concepts.So the criterion for evaluating comparative concepts is in fact their explicative power:Le seul critre dadquation pour les concepts comparatifs est leur aptitude permettre une comparaison interlinguistique intressante (...). (HaspelmatH 2009: 25)(...) comparative concepts are defined by typologists in such a way that they allow them to capture interesting generalizations, or simply salient different language types. Thus, comparative concepts cannot be right or wrong, at least not in the same sense that innate crosslinguistic categories can be right or wrong. They can only be more or less productive, in that they allow the formulation of more or less interesting subdivisions and generalizations. (HaspelmatH 2010: 678)Likewise, Havrnek stressed the explicative function of notional categories:They live on credit and are accepted only as long as they prove correct, to use an expression of pragmatic philosophy. (Havrnek 1983 [1928]: 69)The question of locus of existence is not relevant to comparative concepts:La question de savoir sils sont psychologiquement rels ne se pose en aucun cas pour les concepts comparatifs, contrairement aux catgories descriptives. (HaspelmatH 2009 : 26)They [comparative concepts] are not psychologically real, and they cannot be right or wrong. They can only be more or less well suited to the task of permitting crosslinguistic comparison. (HaspelmatH 2010: 665)The same can be said of the Praguean general linguistic categories (cf. vykypl 2009: 24). Comparative concepts are even a part of linguistic theory, an instrument making the very comparison possible:Il ny a pas de justification empirique pour ces schmes, car une comparaison empirique ne devient possible que ds lors quon dispose dun tel concept comparatif. Les concepts comparatifs reposent donc dans une large mesure sur lintuition du linguiste. (HaspelmatH 2009: 26)Havrnek formulated this reciprocal relationship between the linguists intuition (Hjelmslevian experience data) and theory qua descriptive instrument as follows:Jespersen is justified in asserting that these functional categories, general linguistic concepts (his notional categories) are gained empirically by means of formal and 9 BRIEFLY On THE USE OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF LInGUISTICS...functional analysis (Philosophy of Grammar, 50 ff.). I only emphasize that these concepts are always relative and provisional, both from the viewpoint of research and cognition and from the viewpoint of the functions themselves (cf. also Bally, GRM 6, 1914, p. 463 and Sechehaye ib. pp. 288 ff.), and that they are not obtained only empirically. They are an intellectual shortcut of experience, a simplification and partly also an explanation that is tried out and verified in practice. (Havrnek 1983 [1928]: 69)This passage from Havrnek was later quoted approvingly by dane (1994: 205) since it fits in well with his own concept of linguistic categories as empiricallybased descriptive devices helping the linguist orient himself in linguistic data (cf. vykypl 2009: 67). More generally, we may refer to Hjelmslev, who repeatedly declared that linguistic theory should not be assessed empirically as it, in itself, makes linguistic description possible, and that it should at the same time be based on experience (cf. vykypl 2005: 13, 50). Hjelmslev also warned emphatically against confusing general linguistic notions (comparative concepts) with categories of individual languages (descriptive categories) and expressed the need for the general categories not to be formulated inductively (cf. Hjelmslev 1961: 12).However, both Havrnek and Hjelmslev merely sketched his notion in general and did not elaborate it in more concrete terms; the same can, in principle, be said of Meaninov. A suggestion of comparative concepts was, in contrast, made by Skalika in two texts from the 1940s. He proposed five parameters according to which languages should be typologically compared: the construction of the syllable, the relationship of form and function in linguistic signs, the problem of classification, the problem of binding of linguistic entities, and the problem of amplification, that is, of how strongly linguistic notions or categories are varied in individual languages (cf. skalika 1979: 187, 201). This was elaborated by popela (2006 [1950]); and vasiljev (2009) applied Skalikas parameters to typological description of Vietnamese.2. How tHe wHole enterprise will end. The question that remains is how to get from comparative concepts to linguistic universals, the formulation of which comparative concepts should actually allow (HaspelmatH 2009: 2526; 2010: 678), if comparative concepts do not have une validit psychologique and ils ne sont introduits que pour comparer les langues (HaspelmatH 2009: 3233). Similarly, it is not clear which status the linguistic universals to be formulated by means of comparative concepts have if these concepts are neither generalizations over languageparticular entities, nor are they instantiated in these entities.It seems that we are dealing with another formalization of the original functionalist Haspelmath (cf. vykypl 2009: 53). Indeed, his notion of comparative concepts, or, more precisely, of how comparative concepts should be constructed, represents, in fact, a return to Hjelmslev: Comparative concepts are universally applicable, and they are defined on the basis of other universally applicable concepts: universal conceptualsemantic concepts, general formal concepts, and other comparative concepts. (...) As in our first example in 2, the definitions appeal only to conceptualsemantic concepts, to general (not linguisticsspecific) formal concepts (such as precede, identical, overt, which I assume to be unproblematic), and to other comparative concepts. (...) They [comparative concepts] are potentially applicable to any human language. Their definitions contain other universally applicable concepts of three kinds: universal conceptualsemantic concepts, general formal concepts (such as precede, overt), and other (more primitive) comparative concepts. (HaspelmatH 2010: 665, 670, 673)This is precisely what Hjelmslevs concept of defining general notions of his linguistic theory looks like: one has to proceed from simpler, and not linguisticspecific, notions (his indefinables) to more complex composed notions (cf. Hjelmslev 1961: 29; 1975). Symptomatically enough, HaspelmatH (2010: 674) also needs to stress the importance of the terminological question of naming individual comparative concepts, much the same as Hjelmslev was confronted with the problem of naming the notions established by his formaldeductive analytic procedure (cf. also vykypl 2009: 65).Furthermore, it is telling that Haspelmath confesses that he came to the idea of the need for comparative concepts when working on a linguistic atlas based on broad linguistic data (HaspelmatH 2010: 678). Similarly, Hjelmslev made his deductive turn to a formal theory after working on a crosslinguistic description of cases based on broad linguistic data (Hjelmslev 193537). Hjelmslevs and Haspelmaths recognition of the need for definitions of notions without regard to empirical data and for a successive deductive building of the inventory of comparative concepts seems thus to have originated in extreme induction and ended up in extreme deduction. It is very probable that Haspelmaths enterprise will have the same end which that of Hjelmslevs had: Wanting to have all, he will have nothing, and the work will remain an unfinished fragment, interesting with respect to its general ideas and limitedly usable for practical linguistic work. It appears evident that the approach of the Prague School, being slightly inductive und slightly deductive, is more natural or realistic (cf. also vykypl 2009: 49).3. struCturalism, tHe straw man. Quoting Hjelmslev, Skalika and others above, we also touched on the irritating component in Haspelmaths argumentation. He constantly refers to a structuralist tradition without specifying it properly and has even created a nonaprioristic structuralism (mixing disparate figures such as Boas, Saussure, Martinet and Peter Matthews; cf. HaspelmatH 2009: 1921). He introduced the following three answers to the question of whether or not typology, conceived roughly as classificatory comparison of languages leading to uncovering their universal properties (or, in fact, rather simply as an epiteton ornans for the mere comparison of languages, as skalika 1965 put it), is possible:(1) a. La typologie des langue[s] est effectivement impossible (structuralisme nonaprioristique).b. La typologie des langues est possible sur la base de catgories translinguistiques (gnrativisme aprioristique).c. La typologie des langues est possible sans catgories partages par les langues (typologie nonaprioristique). (HaspelmatH 2009: 19)The first answer is possibly the answer of American descriptivists (however, also in this case, this is not as certain as it would seem to be at first sight; cf. 10 BOHUMIL VYKYPLHymes FougHt 1981). The second answer is not only that of generativists, but also that of the structuralist Hjelmslev (cf. vykypl 2005: 179ff); it is telling that this was one of the main points for which Skalika reproached Hjelmslev in his evaluation of glossematics from the Praguean point of view (cf. skalika 194748: 141). Finally, the third answer might in fact be the answer of the functional structuralists of the Prague School, as we have seen above.One really wonders what sort of structuralism is meant when Haspelmath writes: Et gnralement on peut dire que le structuralisme a dlivr peu de contributions une comparaison systmatique des langues. (HaspelmatH 2009: 20)This can be understood in such a way that: either Mathesius, Trubetzkoy, Skalika, Vachek, Krmsk, Popela, Sgall and many others are not structuralists, or their comparisons are not systematic enough.In another location, the relevant period is limited to the first half of the twentieth century and two exceptions are conceded:As we saw in 4, however, the structuralists of the first half of the twentieth century were not much concerned with crosslinguistic studies (with some exceptions such as Hjelmslev and Trubetzkoy). (HaspelmatH 2010: 675)But unfortunately, as mentioned above, with respect to crosslinguistic comparison, or more precisely, to the ontological status of notions used in this comparison, Hjelmslev is rather to be regarded as a protogenerativist.Another, and even bigger, foul is the claim that structuralist linguists were not interested in connections of frequency with language structure (HaspelmatH 2005: IX). This was substantiated by one sentence in a letter by Trubetzkoy, which completely ignores the numerous papers by Praguean structuralists on this topic (cf. vykypl 2009: 6667).In general, it is of course not necessary that everyone read Skalika, Hjelmslev or Mathesius. But one would then plead with the nonreaders of them not to speak of structuralists or not to frame generallinguistic treatises historiographically. In addition, it is also clear that Haspelmath is not the only one who may irritate readers of structuralists writings with his claims (indeed, there are far worse cases); he featured here only as a straw man.4. a brieF ConCluding note on present-day linguistiCs. If the kind reader may permit me to make an additional brief general remark, then I would point to the striking fact that in presentday linguistics one meets with a very intensive effort to present everything as something entirely new, if possible fundamentally different from what has preceded it, in other words something groundbreaking. Apparently, we are dealing here with pressures arising from the social situation of linguists (and possibly, scientists in general): linguistics (science) is pursued nowadays by substantially more people than before and it is thus somewhat naturally necessary to assert oneself, make oneself visible, distinguish oneself in this competition. Delimiting oneself against incompetent predecessors has indeed always existed; it suffices here to mention, for example, the neogrammarian manifestoes or later, in turn, the structuralist portraits of the neogrammarians. But it is obvious that, from a historical point of view, the present situation of a 11 BRIEFLY On THE USE OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF LInGUISTICS...hard competitive fight represents an evolution of the polemic radicalism of early Chomskyanism. Connected to this strong desire to be original is another distinctive feature of presentday linguistics that is apparent at first sight: considerable diversity of general theoretical frames (cf. e.g. Heine narrog 2010, although, with one or two exceptions, only theories with American roots are presented in this handbook). Regarding this issue one may, however, ask the question of how it appears at second sight and ask, on the one hand, whether or not the external, or declarative, diversity hides an inner uniformity, and whether or not, on the other hand, this diversity has, in fact, always existed. Answering both of these questions would, naturally, require a separate treatise, or rather a large monograph. notwithstanding, it is perhaps possible to remark briefly that diversity and uniformity are in the end not descriptive categories, but more likely evaluative categories; in other words, differences between certain theories are eventually irrelevant if the theories in question are equally weak regarding the value of what they say (one can see this instructively, I believe, with the individual variants of generativism). With respect to the situation regarding diversity in the past, it is without doubt that different approaches in linguistics also existed side by side in the past, but it nevertheless seems that the diversity was not as strong; there are surely multiple causes of this, but one of the main ones is, in my opinion, of a social nature as mentioned above.REFEREnCESdane, Frantiek. The sentencepattern model of syntax. Philip A. Luelsdorff (ed.). The Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics: A short introduction. Amsterdam Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1994, 197221.HaspelmatH, Martin. Preface to the reprinted edition. Joseph H. Greenberg. Language Universals. Berlin new York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005, VIIXVII.HaspelmatH, Martin. Pourquoi la typologie des langues estelle possible? Bulletin de la Socit de linguistique de Paris 104/1 (2009): 1738.HaspelmatH, Martin. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86 (2010): 663687.Havrnek, Bohuslav. Trends in presentday linguistic research. Josef Vachek (ed.): Praguiana: Some basic and less known aspects of the Prague Linguistic School. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1983, 6575.Heine, Bernd, Heiko narrog (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Hjelmslev, Louis. La catgorie des cas. III. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus, 193537.Hjelmslev, Louis. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Translated by Francis J. Whitfield. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.Hjelmslev, Louis. Rsum of a Theory of Language. Edited by Francis J. Whitfield. Copenhague: nordisk Sprog og Kulturforlag, 1975.Hymes, Dell, John FougHt. American Structuralism. The Hague etc.: Mouton, 1981.Koerner, E. F. K. Essays in the History of Linguistics. Amsterdam Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2004.meaninov, I. I. leny predloenija i asti rei [Members of Sentence and Parts of Speech]. Moskva Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1945.popela, Jaroslav. Skalikova jazykov typologie [Skalikas Language Typology]. Edited by Bohumil Vykypl and Vt Boek. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2006.skalika, Vladimr. Kodask strukturalismus a prask kola [Copenhagen structuralism and the Prague School]. Slovo a slovesnost 10 (194748): 135142.skalika, Vladimr. Tipologija i grammatika [Typology and grammar]. Slavia 34 (1965): 412414.12 BOHUMIL VYKYPLskalika, Vladimr. Typologische Studien. Edited by Peter Hartmann. Braunschweig Wiesbaden: Vieweg 1979.vasiljev, Ivo. The type of Vietnamese. Bohumil Vykypl, Vt Boek (eds.). Recherches fonctionnelles et structurales 2009. Mnchen: Lincom Europa, 2009, 93131.vykypl, Bohumil. Glossematikstudien. Unzeitgeme Betrachtungen zu Louis Hjelmslevs Sprachtheorie. Hamburg: Kova, 2005.vykypl, Bohumil. Empirical Functionalism and the Prague School. Mnchen: Lincom Europa, 2009. ! . . , , , . . (, , ). , , . , . , , . Institute of the Czech LanguageAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicVeve 97, CZ60200 Brno, Czech Republicvykypel@iach.cz13 BRIEFLY On THE USE OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF LInGUISTICS...UDC 811.1601367.62 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB . *gb / *gyb / *gub, . e , . e . : , , . *gb / *gyb / *gub, , , .This pa per gi ves an ac co unt of the le xi cal, word for ma tion and se man tic struc tu re of the Pro toSla vic word fa mily *gb / *gyb / *gub using the the o re ti calmet ho do lo gi cal fra mework of pro totype the ory. The pa per stu di es the ove rall se man tic struc tu re of the word fa mily, the ba sic se man tic and word for ma tion cha rac te ri stics of the le xe mes be lon ging to it and the me a ning con fi gu ra ti ons of its cen tral mem bers. The re se arch sho wed that the men ti o ned linguistic ca te go ri es are pro totypi cally or ga ni zed sin ce they ex hi bit the fe a tu res of nonequ a lity and nondi scre te ness which play a ma jor ro le in the pro totypethe o re ti cal con cept. Key words: Pro toSla vic, Sla vic lan gu a ges, PSl. ba ses *gb / *gyb / *gub, cog ni ti ve lin gu i stics, hi sto ri cal se man tics, pro totype the ory.1. . . *gb / *gyb / *gub, ( ; sp),1 . , . , , . . , , , , (178007), .1 . , . . , , , . t p g gt LIV/2 (2011): 1529. , , . . *gb / *gyb / *gub . , . . 2. . , (lan gaC ker 1987: 1213) , . , , , (la koFF 1987: 5), (ge e ra erts 1997: 7) (la koFF 1987: 58). , , 2 , (lan gaC ker 1987: 1617; la koFF 1987; ge e ra erts 1997: 1023).3 . , , ; , , , (lan gaC ker 2 , , , ; , , (rosCH mer vis 1975: 573574, ge e ra erts 1997: 1011; lan gaC ker 1987: 16). , , , (ge e ra erts 2006 [1989]: 142). , , , , (la koFF 1987: 7). 3 . la koFF 1987: 1257. . evans green 2006: 249. . ge e ra erts 2010: 244249.16 1987: 1617, 371). , ( ) (rosCH mer vis 1975: 574575, ge e ra erts 1997: 12). (mer vis rosCH 1981: 109). (nondi scre te ness), , (nonequ a lity), ; , (ge e ra erts 1997: 21). 4 , . (la koFF 1987: 13, 56). , , , : , , , , . (ge e ra erts 2006 [1989]: 144145),5 , ( ) , (lan gaC ker 1987: 369, 378, 386). (ge e ra erts 1997). , , , . , : ( ), , , , , , , , 4 , (ge e ra erts 1997: 112114).5 , , (kli ko vaC 20062; 2008), (kli ko vaC 2004: 167188), (kli ko vaC 2004: 239256), ( 2001), (ra su li 2004), ( 2006) ( - 2007: 6176).17 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB (lan gaC ker 1987: 380, 381, 396; ra su li 2004: 38). , , , , 6 (tyler evans 2003: 4548). , . , , , . . (lan gaC ker 1987: 376) (raF Fa el li 2000: 136; 20102: 82). . (lan gaC ker 1987: 381; gerarts 1997: 62). , , 7 . , , , (la koFF 1987: 91; ner liCH Clar ke 2003: 5).3. . *gb- / *gyb- / *gub- - . , , , , :1. . *gb / *gyb / *gub ,2. ,3. .8 . . . , , 6 . ; , ( 2001: 1821; 20102: 202204). ( - 1997: 136139; 20102) , ( 2004; dra gi e vi 2010: 2627; raF Fa el li ke ro veC 2008).7 , , , , . .8 . 18 , ( ) , ( 2008: 20, 32). . : . 3.1. (). , , . , , , (. lan gaC ker 1987: 380). . .9 , . . gbti, gumba, gbo , , , . gubt, gub stu, gu bu , , , g bu o ti es , ( 7: 188, 217; sp 8: 320), . *g(u)eu bh ( bi e gen, . LIV 2001: 188), . , , . () , ; ; , ; , , , . . () (), . .. . *gyba ti (s), , , . , , ; 9 60 , ( ; sp), , ( ) 50 ().19 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB , (). , , e , , , . ; ; , () . : () , , , , . ; ; (SP 8: 333; ESJS 4: 213; . LIV 2001: 188). : , , , , , , , , (. ) (. Ci en ki 1998: 305; - 2007: 360). , , . , . , (. - l.c.). () , , ( ) (ESJS 4: 213; n meC 1954). . . , , . ( 2: 322).10 ; () , , (SP 8: 298).3.2. , . *g(b)nti (), *gyba ti (s) ; , *gy(b)nti ; ; *gu bi ti ; . *g(b)nti oj je . ( ; SP) .11 : , . . *bgati ( 7: 188189; SP 8: 320). 10 . kli ko vaC 2004: 161 .. .11 . , , . *gyba ti (SP 8: 320), .20 , . . , . *nagbnti (s), *nagyba ti (s),12 *jzgy(b)nti, *jzgubiti (. 22: 6970, 76; 9: 3233), . *or zgu bja ti , ; , , *or zgu bi ti ; (. 33: 122123) *obgyba ti (s) : 1. *gyba ti *ob , . . gbati impf. , : ogbati pf. , , 2. *obgbnti , . . oh no u ti se pf. (); : ohba ti (se) impf. (); (. 27: 5859; 7: 216 217). , ( . 2006) ( , ). , . *g(b)ta ti . ( 7: 189), . . (SP 8: 320). . *gb no mi na ac ti(onis), . . *gbe , , , < *gbnti, *gbati ( 7: 188; SP 8: 319), no mi na re sul ta ti va, . . *gyba ni ca , < *gyba ti ( 7: 216; SP 8: 319) no mi na in stru men ti, . . *gyba dlo < *gyba ti ; () ( 7: 216). , . . *gybk < *gyba ti ( 7: 219; SP 8: 333334) , . . *obgybn(j) , (27: 60), *obgyb / *obgyb *obgyba ti, *obgybnti. : . *dvogub , , , , *dv gub ( 5: 190; SP 5: 178), *dngub / *dnguba , *dn *gu bi ti, *dn gu bi ti ( 5: 214). . , : , 12 *obgyba ti (s), .21 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB .13 , ., ., . *gban(n)ica , ( 7: 187; SP 8: 319; 2: 160) . *negyba , ( 24: 131), , . *gbk , ( 7: 189; SP 8: 321; 1984: 112), ( , *gybk), , . *gu bi tel ( 7: 165166; SP 8: 297), *gbit(), . hbit , gbit , ( 7: 188), . . . . Ge bi et (SP 8: 320). , . 14 :*orz + *gbnti *orzgbnti (s) ( 33: 126) *orzgyba ti (s) *orzgyb (id. 132) *orz + *gyba ti *orzgyba ti (s) *orzgyb . *gb / *gyb / *gub. , : , , , , . . *gb , , . . , . *gb . , , . 13 , , .14 . 2009. 22 , . , ., ., .. ;15 .. , . ;16 ., . oh ni vo, . og ni wo, ., . : , , , , , , .;17 . . () impf. / () pf. (), (); (); () ; ( , ); ; ; ; ; ( ), .18 , , . *gb *bg, , .3.3. . . *gb *g(b)nti , *gyba ti (s) ; , *gy(b)nti ; ; *gu bi ti ; , . , . : *lu pa ti . ( ) ( - 2002: 175). (...) ( ) , . , , , . (...) , 15 . ( 24: 131), . . ( 1974: 211214), *negba *gb / *gyb, . . *negy, *negve ( ) ( 1998: 5960), (skok 2: 510), (Ha dro viCs 1985: 374375). 16 . . . . *obgba < . *gb ( 27: 48), . . . *bg (sad nik ait zetmller 2: 110111).17 . , . *obgbnti ( 27: 4850), (brCkner 1957 [1927]: 375) (maC Hek 1968: 410) . *og ni vo . 18 . : *obgyba ti (s) ( 27: 5859) *obbyga ti ( 26: 127), (1: 257258) . . . , . s.v. bgati (SP 1: 463).23 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB , (id. 305). . , , , . , ( ), , . (. ge e ra erts 1997: 163175). . *gb (. - 2010: 4950). *gyba ti (s), () , . , > y * (SP 1: 4647), . *gu bi ti : *i, (. SP 1: 5657). , . . j . . , , . *g(b)nti , , . *gyba ti, . () , *gy(b)nti, , . *g(b)nti, ( 7: 188); . (SP 8: 320). *gyba ti : 19 () (SP 8: 331), . , , ., ., .. gQba ti . gbati 19 *g(b)nti. 24 . , , . , .. , . ati . gyba ti, gyblje pe ri re (le thme dinfi ni tif en ati est ima gi na i re), gyblje gybne *gy(b)nti, (va il lant 1965: 128).20 . , .., , je (te de sCo 1948: 375382, 386), . .. . . gbati, , . pogbati (ple ter nik). . *gy(b)nti ; ; . , , ( 7: 188189). , , : impf. ; , / pf. ( )21 , impf. (). .. . *gy(b)nti. , , (). RJA , . , , . . . , , , .22 . / pf. . *gy(b)nti . *gyba ti ( 7: 188). M, .. . . *gu bi ti, ; , , . *gy(b)nti, . .. , , . . , , ( 7: 166). , .2320 . , . . n , : The re is no evi den ce for an in fi ni ti ve gXba ti (lunt 20017: 130). 21 . . (be ne i).22 . . / , ; ( ) ( XiXvii), . ; ; ; . ( ).23 . go b 1968: 1516; - 2007: 369. 25 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB , . *gy(b)nti, ; ; , () , . *gu bi ti, . . . hi no ut ( 7: 218), hyno ut n co (maC Hek 1968: 193) . ; , , , (), , . ( 1987: 357). : . . . , , , . , , , , , (go b 1968: 2023). .. , , . (2007: 91) ( ) , , . ( ), (. to po li ska 2010: 46), .. , ( - 2007: 1617). , , . , , . *gu bi ti, . , , , , , . , , , . .. : , . , , , (RJA), , , 26 6, (). , , . , , , , , , , , . ( 2008: 176).4. . . *gb / *gyb / *gub . , . : . . . , . . ( ). : , 2006. , . , . : , 1984. - , . . ( .. 21). : , 2002. -, . ( .. 14). : , 1997. - , . . : , 2007. - , . . , (.). o . : , 2010, 4362. , . , IIV. : , 198119828. , . . ( .. 18). : , 2001. , . . VI II (2004): 120127. , . . : , 20102. (. ), 1. : , , 2003. , . . , (.). . : , 2008, 95127. , . , III. : , 1987. , . ( ). (.). . : , 2006, 163173.27 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB (. ) ( .. 15). : , 1998. , . 2. . 1972 (1974): 208214. , . . : , 2009. (. ). : , , 1986. . IIII. : , 19671969. IVVI. : , 19711976. , 1. : , , 1959. XiXvii IVII ., 1. : , 1975. , . . . : , 2008. , . . , 15. : , 19751990. , . ( ), IIV. : , 198619872. (. ), 1. : , 1974.*be ne i, Ju li je. Rje nik hr vat sko ga knji ev no ga je zi ka od pre po ro da do I. G. Ko va i a (pri re dio Jo sip Hamm), 1. Za greb: JA ZU, 1985.brCkner, Alek san der. S ow nik etymo lo giczny jzyka pol ski e go. Krakw: Kra kow ska Spka Wydaw nic za, 1927. War sza wa: Wi ed za Pow szec hna, 1957.Ci en ki, Alan. Sla vic Ro ots for Stra ight and Bent: Ex pe ri en ti al Ge stalts, Con cep tual Me tap hors, and Cul tu ral Mo dels as Fac tors in Se man tic Chan ge. Ro bert A. Ma gu i re, Alan Tim ber la ke (eds.). Ame ri can Con tri bu ti ons to the Twelfth In ter na ti o nal Con gress of Sla vists: Li te ra tu re. Lin gu i stics. Po e tics. Co lum bus: Sla vi ca, 1998, 298313.dra gi e vi, Raj na. Lek si ka se man ti ka u sr bi sti ci kra jem 20. i po et kom 21. ve ka. Chri stian Vo, Bi lja na Go lu bo vi (hrsg.). Srp ska lin gvi sti ka / Ser bische Lin gu i stik. Eine Bes tand sa uf nah me. Mnchen Ber lin: Ver lag Ot to Sa gner, 2010, 1532.ESJS Etymo lo gick slovnk jazyka sta ro slo vnskho (red. Eva Havlov), 1. Pra ha: Aca de mia, 1989.evans, Vyvyan, Me la nie green. Cog ni ti ve Lin gu i stics: An In tro duc tion. Edin burgh: Edin burgh Uni ver sity Press, 2006.ge e ra erts, Dirk. Di ac hro nic Pro totype Se man tics: A Con tri bu tion to Hi sto ri cal Le xi co logy. Ox ford: Cla ren don Press, 1997.ge e ra erts, Dirk. Pro totype the ory: Pro spects and pro blems of pro totype the ory. Dirk Ge e ra erts (ed.). Cog ni ti ve Lin gu i stics: Ba sic Re a dings. Ber lin new York: Mo u ton de Gruyter, 2006 [1989], 141165.ge e ra erts, Dirk. The o ri es of Le xi cal Se man tics. Ox ford: Ox ford Uni ver sity Press, 2010.go b, Zbig ni ew. The Gram mar of Sla vic Ca u sa ti ves. He nry Ku e ra (ed.). Ame ri can Con tri bu ti ons to the Sixth In ter na ti o nal Con gress of Sla vists, Vol. 1. Lin gu i stic Con tri bu ti ons. The Ha gue: Mo u ton, 1968, 124. Ha dro viCs, Lszl. Un ga rische Ele men te im Ser bo kro a tischen. Bu da pest: Akadmi ai Kiad, 1985.kli ko vaC, Du ka. Me ta fo re u mi lje nju i je zi ku. Be o grad: Bi bli o te ka XX vek, 2004.kli ko vaC, Du ka. Se man ti ka pred lo ga. Be o grad: Fi lo lo ki fa kul tet, 20062.la koFF, Ge or ge. Wo men, Fi re, and Dan ge ro us Things. What Ca te go ri es Re veal abo ut Mind. Chi ca go Lon don: The Uni ver sity of Chi ca go Press, 1987.lan gaC ker, Ro nald. W. Fo un da ti ons of Cog ni ti ve Gram mar, Vol. 1. The o re ti cal Pre re qu i si tes. Stan ford: Stan ford Uni ver sity Press, 1987.LIV Le xi kon der in do ger ma nischen Ver ben. Die Wur zeln und ihre Primrstammbildungen (un ter Le i tung von Hel mut Rix). Wi es ba den: Dr. Lud wig Re ic hert Ver lag, 2001.lunt, Ho ra ce G. Old Church Sla vo nic Gram mar (7th re vi sed edi tion). Ber lin new York: Mo u ton de Gruyter, 20017.maC Hek, Vclav. Etymo lo gick slovnk jazyka eskho. Pra ha: Aca de mia, 1968.mer vis, Ca rolyn B., Ele a nor rosCH. Ca te go ri za tion of na tu ral ob jects. An nual Re vi ew of Psycho logy 32 (1981): 89115.28 n meC, Igor. O slo vansk p ed po n po slo vesn. Sla via XXI II/1 (1954): 122.ner liCH, Bri git te, Da vid D. Clar ke. Polysemy and fle xi bi lity: In tro duc tion and over vi ew. Bri git te ner lich et al. (eds.). Polysemy: Fle xi ble Pat terns of Me a ning in Mind and Lan gu a ge. Ber lin new York: Mo u ton de Gruyter, 2003, 330.ple ter nik, Maks. Slo ven skonem ki slo var, III. Lju blja na 18941895.raF Fa el li, Ida. ne ki vi do vi kog ni tiv ne se man ti ke u re kon struk ci ji se man ti kih struk tu ra. Su vre mena lin gvi sti ka 4950 (2000): 125141.raF Fa el li, ida, Bar ba ra ke ro veC. Morp ho se man tic fi elds in the analysis of Cro a tian vo ca bu lary. Je zi ko slo vlje 9/12 (2008): 141169.ra su li, Ka ta ri na. Je zik i pro stor no is ku stvo. Be o grad: Fi lo lo ki fa kul tet, 2004.RJA Rje nik hr vat sko ga ili srp sko ga je zi ka, IXXI II. Za greb: JA ZU, 18801976.rosCH, Ele a nor, Ca rolyn B. mer vis. Fa mily re sem blan ces: Stu di es in the in ter nal struc tu re of ca tego ri es. Cog ni ti ve Psycho logy 7/4 (1975): 573605.sad nik, Lin da, Ru dolf ait zetmller. Ver gle ic hen des Wr ter buch der sla vischen Sprac hen, 17. Wi es ba den: Ot to Har ras so witz, 19631973.skok, Pe tar. Eti mo lo gij ski rje nik hr vat sko ga ili srp sko ga je zi ka, IIV. Za greb: JA ZU, 19711974.sp S ow nik pra s o wi a ski (pod red. Fran cis zka S aw ski e go), 1. Wro c aw etc., 1974.te de sCo, Paul. Sla vic nePre sents from Ol der jePre sents. Lan gu a ge 24/4 (1948): 346387.to po li ska, Zu zan na. The Bal kan Sprac hbund from a Sla vic Per spec ti ve. LI II/1 (2010): 3360.tyler An drea, Vyvyan evans. The Se man tics of En glish Pre po si ti ons. Spa tial Sce nes, Em bo died Me a ning and Cog ni tion. Cam brid ge: Cam brid ge Uni ver sity Press, 2003.va il lant, An dr. Slovnk jazyka sta ro slo venskho, Le xi con lin gu ae pa la e o slo ve ni cae, 7, p. 321384, 8, p. 385448. Pra gue, 1963 et 1964, Acadmie des Sci en ces de Tchco slo va qu ie. Bul le tin de la So cit de Lin gu i sti que de Pa ris 60 (1965): 127128.Ma ri ja Vu ko viTHE PRO TOSLA VIC WORD FA MILY *GB / *Gyb / *GUB In LIGHT OF PRO TOTYPE THE ORYS u m ma r yThis pa per gi ves an ac co unt of the Pro toSla vic word fa mily *gb / *gyb / *gub, pla ced in the fra me work of pro totype the ory. The re se arch fo cu ses on the ove rall se man tic struc tu re of the word fa mily, the ba sic se man tic and word for ma tion cha rac te ri stics of the gro up of le xi cal items be lon ging to it, and the me a ning con fi gu ra ti ons of its cen tral mem bers. It is ar gued that the se linguistic ca te go ri es are pro totypi cally or ga ni zed sin ce they ex hi bit the fe a tu res of nonequ a lity and nondi scre te ness which play, ac cor ding to D. Ge e ra erts, a ma jor ro le in the pro totypethe o re ti cal con cep tion. nonequ a lity in vol ves the fact that so me mem bers of a ca te gory are mo re sa li ent re presen ta ti ves of the ca te gory than the ot hers. nondi scre te ness shows up in the fact that pro totypi cal ca te go ri es are blur red at the ed ges which en ta ils de mar ca tion pro blems. The in sights of the prototypethe o re ti cal ap pro ach con tri bu ted sig ni fi cantly to the de scrip tion and in ter pre ta tion of the se man tic and word for ma tion cha rac te ri stics of the abo vemen ti o ned Pro toSla vic word fa mily. 36, 11000 , ma ri vu74@yahoo.com29 *GB / *Gyb / *GUB UDC 091=163.4111/12811.163.1367 XII XI II * XII XI II . , : ) , ) ) . , , , . : , , , , .This pa per di scus ses the di stri bu tion of en cli tics in the ol dest Ser bian ad mi ni stra ti ve, com mer cial and le gal texts writ ten from the end of the 12th cen tury till the end of the 13th century. In ac cor dan ce with the ir syntac tic fun ction, the Old Ser bian en cli tics are di vi ded in to three gro ups: (a) sen ten tial en cli tic li, (b) nounphra se en cli tics and (c) pre di ca tephra se en clitics. Two con cepts are con tra sted in the di stri bu tion of Old Ser bian en cli tics: the old Wac kerna gel one, the post fron tal sen ten tial con cept, and the new con fi gu ra ti o nal, post fron tal phra sal con cept, which is de ve lo ped with the sta bi li za t ion of the cen tra li zed sen ten ce.Key words: Old Ser bian en cli tics, Wac ker na gels law, pre di ca te phra se, noun phra se, con fi gu ra ti o nal syntax.1. . , , (gre en berg 1963).1 , * (178001), .1 . , XVI II , , ( , , ) SVO , , ( , , ) SOV , a (ra mat 2011: 17). , , . (graF Fi 2011: 26), XIX . t p g gt LIV/2 (2011): 3152. ) ) . , . , ,2 (., , 1976; 1997; 2005).3 , , : , , .4 , , ,5 , , . , , . , , , ( [] ), . , , ( ) , .6 , 2 , , , . (., , dryer 2007).3 (., , 1993: 281; tur ner 2007: 131; mCa nal len 2009: 225227).4 , (. 1976: 35) 5 , . , ( ) , . (. 2005: 123). 6 . (1979: 41), , : , , , ( , SOV) , , .32 , , (. ve er ka 1989: 4146).2. - - . In do ger ma nische For schun gen ber ein Ge setz der in do ger ma nischen Wort stel lung, ( ) (. 1892: 342, 371 .). , j ,7 .8 , , , . (wat kins 1964: 1036) .97 () , . . (jan se 1994: 391), . (Stel lungs)ge setz (Stel lungs)re gel, Drang, Stel lung sge wohnhe it, Ten denz, regelmssige Stel lung, al te Re gel, tra di ti o nel le Stel lung, . 8 , , . (1892: 342) . : Be re its 1877 hat Ber ga ig ne Mmo i res de la So cit de Lin gu i sti que III 177. 178 da ra uf hin ge wi e sen, dass die en kli tischen Pro no mi nal for men ber ha upt se pla cent de prfren ce aprs le pre mi er mot de la pro po si tion. . (1892: 402403) . . : Fr die Al tin dische Pro sa le hrt Del brck Syntakt. For schun gen III 47: En kli tische Wr ter rcken mglichst nah an den An fang des Sat zes. We sen tlich stimmt da zu die Be mer kung, die Bart ho lo mae Ar. For schun gen II 3 fr den Ri gve da gi ebt: Auch bei oberflchlicher Be trac htung drngt sich die Wa hr neh mung auf, dass im RV. die en kli tischen For men der Per so nal pro no mi na, so wie ge wis se Par ti keln, in den me i sten Fllen die zwe i te Stel le in ner halb des Ver ses oder des VersAbschnitts ein neh men. (Vorle sun gen ber Syntax) . ([1926] 2009: 67) : in San skrit pro se he [Del brk] di sco ve red the ru le (1878: 478, 76) that en cli tics are pla ced pre fe rably, and so me ti mes obli ga to rily, im me di a tely af ter the first word in the sen ten ce, even if the con sti tu ent struc tu re of the sen ten ce wo uld call for a com ple tely dif fe rent po si tion, in a la ter part of the sen ten ce. , . (Col lin ge 1985: 218) , . . (dunn 1989: 67) , , : this Law re ally a sta ti sti cal ten dency and di sco ve red not by Wac ker na gel but by Del brck (18931900), ma kes the cla im that in the In doEuro pean lan gu a ges the nor mal po si tion for the en cli tics is im me di a tely af ter the sen ten ce front, i.e. postfron tal po si tion.9 one of the few ge ne rally ac cep ted syntac tic sta te ments abo ut IndoEuro pean is Wac ker na gels law, that en cli tics ori gi nally oc cu pied the se cond po si tion in the sen ten ce, , , 33 ... . ( ), , (2P) . , , .10 2.1. (., , dunn 1989; adams 1994) , zwe i te Stel le im Satz . , Satz , , (jan se 2000),11 , ( 2005).12 , (1), , , (. 2005: 129) (2), : . , . (1989: 16) i. in the pe riod un der study (c. 750 BC100 AD) the re is a steady trend away from Wac ker na gels Law as a de ter mi nant of en cli tic pro noun pla ce ment. ii. The re is an in ver se trend to wards post ver bal pla ce ment of en cli tic pro no uns. es se , . (adams 1994) , (. ClaC kson 1996: 378).10 (1892: 406) die Stel le un mit tel bar hin ter dem er sten Wort des Sat zes mit Tonschwche ver bun den sei, und die dort hin ge stell ten Wr ter ent we der von Ha us aus en kli tisch se ien oder es durch eben di e se Stel lung wer den , , (1878: 48) : die En kli ti ka wird von dem am strksten be ton ten Wor te, und das ist das er ste im Sat ze, wie von einem Mag net an ge zo gen. , the po si tion bet we en the to pic (the me) and the com ment (rhe me) of the sen ten ce (Co mrie 1980: 86). , , . (1892: 427) : und we i ter hin mssen wir auf Grund des frher Vor ge tra ge nen er war ten, dass in der Grund sprac he das Ver bum des Ha up tsat zes, we il und in so fern es en kli tisch war, un mit tel bar hin ter das er ste Wort des Sat zes ge stellt wor den sei.11 .: The Wac ker na gels po si tion is best ta ken as se cond wit hin the in to na tion unit rat her than se cond wit hin the sen ten ce or cla u se, even tho ugh the for mer and the lat ter are of ten co ex tensi ce (jan se 2000: 233).12 . (2005: 128129) , [ ] , , . . , , . (Fra en kel [1933] 1964: 93), XX : di e se ural te Stel lung sten denz he rrscht nun ge nau so wie am An fang des Sat zes auch am An fang je ner kle i ne ren Ein he it, die in me hr fac her Hin sicht ein Ab bild des Sat zes ist, nmlich des Ko lons.34 (1) ( . 12341235, 8.9);13(2) ( . 1254, 28.7). , , , (1), , (2) (krisCH 1990).14 , , XII XI II , . (1990), (2) , (. adams 1994: 4). . (2008: 25) . , . , , . .15 , , , , . , (3):(3) (.) || 1196, || || 689, XIV ( 2008: 97),16 (.) : : : : : || 13 ( 2006).14 . : sol che nichtWac ker na gelEn kli ti ka ste hen im mer bei dem Wort, das sie mo di fi zi e ren, und sind nicht beschrnkt auf die zwe i te Sat zpo si tion (1990: 65). , . (i) , (1994: 23), (ii) , , . , the host may oc cupy dif fe rent po si ti ons in the sen ten ce, and as a re sult the en cli tic need not oc cupy the socal led Wac ker na gel po si tion (1994: 34) (iii) , , (1994: 5).15 . (2008: 24) , : , , , (, , ), e . , , ( ). 16 , ... ( 2008: 28).35 ... : : ( 12321235, 7.1), || : ( . 12341235, 8.37). (3) ( ||) , , ( ), , .17 . (2008: 51) , ) ( ), , ) ( ), *i esm.2.2. , , , , .18 , , , . (. 1984: 267319; leH man 1996: 208233), (. - 2010; gr ko vi-ma jor 2010) (., , rgnvaldsson 1995, Hew sonbubenk 2006; lu rag Hi 2010), (. ), .19 , , , . , 17 (||) ( ) .18 . ([1935] 1971: 16, 17) le sla ve com mun possda it de ux catgo ri es gram ma ti ca les den cli ti qu es: les par ti cu les et les mots en cli ti qu es flchis, 1) for mes pro no mi na les, per son nel les et rflchi es; 2) for mes per son nel les du ver be auxi li a i re.19 , , , , (. - 2007: 118133), ., ( 2011). 36 , .20 , , , .21 , , , ) (S) ( ) , ) (VP) (. ) ) (NP) .3. Xii Xi ii . ) , ) ) .3.1. . XII XI II ( 1981: 180181), . 3.2. ( , ) , , . XII XI II ( ) ( ~ , ~ , [] ~ , [] ~ , ~ , [] ~ , ~ , ~ , [] ~ ), 20 , . (2008: 68) : , , , . [...] ( ) , .. .21 , , , . (1989: 16) 750. 100. . , , , , , (. nasH 1986: 5564, 185187), (. je li nek 1996).37 ... ( ~ , ~ , [] ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ ) ( ~ [],22 ~ , ~ ). . , , (, , , , , , ).23 ( , , [], , , , []) ([] ~ ).3.3. , , , . ( ) (. 2005: 4445; 2008: 2627). , .24 . ,25 (. [] ~ , [] ~ , [] ~ [] ~ ). , .2622 (. 12671268, 31.2) , .23 , [] ( 1235. , 10.22), ( 12431276, 32.2).24 . (1979).25 ( *by): ( 12431276, 32.7), [] [ ] ( 1254, 26.16). 26 XII XI II , . , .38 3.4. , : . . 1. 2. 3. (, ) () (, ) () . 1.2. 3. 1. 2. 3. / , , .4. . XII XI II , . , , . , , (4), (5), , (67):(4) ( 1215, 4.11), ( 12141235, 6.12), . (. 12761281, 38.38);(5) (. 12351241, 14.6);(6) (. 1234, 5.20);(7) ( . 1254, 28.31).5. . (, , , , , , , ) ( ) . XII XI II , ( ) (8):39 ...(8) || (. 1200, 3.72), - || (. 1234, 5.13), ... : : || (. 12341235, 8.16), [...] || || (. 12431253, 22.14), || (. 12431253, 22.42), || || || || ( . 1254, 28.7), || (. 12771281, 35.1). ( ) (9): (9) (. 12821285, 40.1). , , . , , mi hi est (. - 2007: 98117) (10):(10) [] (. 1199, 2.65), ( . 12341235, 8.8). mi hi est , . , , mi hi est , .27 (. ve er ka 1989: 56; 1983: 5662; 2006: 372386), 27 . (1964: 153154) *byti, *i esm, , . , . esse (2007: 108), (2007: 102). , , , , , , esse .40 mi hi est , .28 , ( ) (11), (12):(11) || (. 1234, 5.23), . || ( 1240, 13.7); (12) : : : || : || - ( . 12341235, 8.34),29 : : || : (. 1289, 43.2). , , , .30 (11) (12) 9,5 : 1 . ( ) () ,31 , . , .3228 . (2008: 35) , , .29 . || || (. 1254, 28.36) . , . 30 . (2005: 129) , .31 || || (. 12821285, 40.5) ( ) . , .32 , () (. 2005: 4849)41 ...6. . (VP) ( ) , , . ( , ), . , , , . a) (, , ) (13) (, , , , , , , , , , )33 (14) 24% , ) (, , , ) 18% (15), ) + . 35% (16),34 ) 13% (17), ) 3% (18), ) 3% (19), ) 2% (20) ) 2% (21): (13) ( 12521254, 24.9), ( XI II, 34.6), (. 12821298, 41.43);(14) : : : ( 1189, 1.5), . ( 1215, 4.5), . (. 1234, 5.9), [] (. 12341235, 9.7), (. 12341242, 15.6), 33 () , . 34 da , ( ) XIII : ( 12431276, 32.6), da molite kneza va[ega kako bi mq rUkU dalq i sq vami || da bi sydyli ne boeke se ( 12431276, 32.7), molU kneza va[ega kako bi Upisalq ;to e egova vola i va[a 0 da bi mi Udalq po sihq poslyhq ( 12431276, 32.10) (. 2009: 8990). . , ( 2008: 72). , . . (1971) . . (2008) .42 (. 1243, 16.31), [] . (. 1243, 16.34), [] ( 12521254, 24.21), (. 1254, 27.8), (. 1254, 27.18), (. 12771281, 37.7);(15) : ( . 12341235, 8.26), (. 12341243, 16.25), . . (. 1252, 21.15), ( 12521254, 24.20);(16) ( 12141235, 6.15), : ( . 12341235, 8.12), : ( . 12341235, 8.32), ( 12471249, 19.29);(17) : ( . 12341235, 8.36), (. 12651266, 30.8);(18) (. 12381240, 11.11);(19) ( 12521254, 24.12);(20) [] ( XI II, 34.2);(21) ( 1249, 20.3). , : ... (13), ... (16), ... (17) . o . XII XI II . 88% , , , (1321). 12% , , , 7,3 : 1 , .35 , . , 35 , 20,7 : 1 , 4,5 : 1 , .43 ... ) 74% + . (22), ) 15% (23), ) 6% (24) ) 5% (25):(22) || (. 1234, 5.30), : || ( . 12341235, 8.6), || (. 12341235, 9.6), || : (. 1282, 39.4);(23) : : || : : ( 12321235, 7.1), . || (. 12341243, 16.38);(24) || . ( 1240, 13.15), || (. 1234, 5.8);(25) || ( . 12381240, 12.4), || ( . 1253, 23.20).36 XII XI II , . . , , ) 65% (26), ) 25% (27) 10% (28):(26) || ( . 12341235, 8.23), . . || ( 1254, 26.15), || : (. 1282, 39.4);(27) : || ( . 12341235, 8.6), . || . ( 1240, 13.13);36 , , || (. 1235, 23.10) + . . . || . (. 1243, 16.7).44 (28) || ( . 12341235, 8.16), [ ] : : || (. 12671268, 31.3). , , , . , . . , . ( , , ), ( ), (. 1981: 10). XII XI II . .377. . , , . , ( ) . , () . , XII XI II 37 () , , . (wanner 1996: 554) () ( ), , , . ( ), ( 2011: 51), (dimitrova-vulCHanova 1999: 90101). . 45 ... . , . , .38 , , , . , (., , 2008: 27). XII XI II , , . ) (29), ) (30) ) (31):(29) . . (. 1252, 21.5), . . [...] . (. 1252, 21.12), (. 1254, 27.16), ( 12431276, 32.8);(30) : ( . 12341235, 8.11), . . (. 1252, 21.6), [] . (. 12431276, 33.3);(31) (. 12341243, 16.30). , , (32):(32) ( 12431276, 32.10), [] . . . . [] ( 1254, 26.16). ) (33), ) (34) ) (35):(33) . : . ( 1215, 4.5), . . ( 1215, 4.6), : ( . 12341235, 8.32), 38 ( XII XIII ) .46 (. 1254, 27.26), ( . 1254, 28.12), [] (. 12771281, 36.4), . (. 12771281, 37.6);(34) : ( . 12341235, 8.38), (. 12341235, 9.7), : : : (. 12381240, 11.5), [...] [...] . (. 1252, 21.13);(35) [] (. 1199, 2.65), . ( 1215, 4.5), : || ( . 12341235, 8.6), ( . 12341235, 8.8), : ( . 12341235, 8.36), ( 12471249, 19.8), . (. 1252, 21.13), . . (. 1252, 21.15),39 (. 12431253, 22.44), (. 1289, 44.1). (36):40(36) (. 12341235, 9.6), : (. 12381240, 11.4), ( 1249, 20.11), (. 12821285, 40.8). XII XI II : 1. , 2. , 3. , 4. , 5. .41 , . , 39 (34) . [] .40 ( 12321235, 7.3), , XIV XV (. 1991: 203).41 j (. 2008: 2739). 47 ... , . . (1972: 95), , . , , , .8. . XII XI II . , , , , . (88%), .42 , , , . (waC ker na gel 1982) (. Hew son bubenk 2006), (. nasH 1986; je li nek 1996) , . , , . , XI XI II ( ) ( 2008: 263264), , , (. ve er ka 1989: 4163), . ( 2008: 121128), .43 XII XI II , 42 , (13%) + . (35%). .43 , ( ) (. 2011).48 , . , ( ). , , , , , . , , , , (. 2009). , , . . . I. : , 1984., . . : , 1972.-, . . : , 2007.-, . . , (.). . : , 2010, 4362., . . 6 (1971): 7784., . . , (.). . 19841989 . : , 1993, 191343., . . : , 2008., . . (.). Balcanica: . : , 1979, 3955., , . XII XIII . : , 1981., . : . : , 1976., . . : , 2005., . ( ). : , 1983., . . 73 (2008): 267281., . . : , 1964.49 ..., . . : , 2006., . XII XV . : , 2009., . . 80 (2011): ., . . : , 1997., . . : , 2009., . Word Order and Scrambling. 4 (2005): 121128., . XIV XV . . . , . , . . (.). . . . 60 . . . . : , , 1991, 201205. , . . (.). . . : , 2005, 10611106., . . 8 (2005): 3688. , . . (.). , ( ). : , 2011, 967.*adams, James noel. Wackernagels Law and the Placement of the Copula Esse in Classical Latin. Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society, 1994.Comrie, Bernard. Morphology and Word Order Reconstruction: Problems and Prospects. Jacek Fisiak (ed.). Historical Morphology. new York: Mouton, 1980, 8396.ClaCkson, James. J. n. Adams: Wackernagels Law and the Placement of the Copula Esse in Classical Latin. The Classical Review 46/2 (1996): 378.Collinge neville. The Laws of IndoEuropean. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985. graFFi, Giorgio. The Pioneers of Linguistic Typology: From Gabelentz to Greenberg. Jae Jung Song (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 2542.greenberg, Joseph. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. Joseph Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1963, 73113.grkovi-major, Jasmina. The Role of Syntactic Transitivity in the Development of Slavic Syntactic Structures. Bjrn Hansen, Jasmina GrkoviMajor (eds.). Diachronic Slavonic Syntax. Gradual Changes in Focus. Wiener slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband 74. Mnchen Berlin Wien: Otto Sagner, 2010, 6374.delbrCk, Berthold. Syntaktische Forschungen III: Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem atapathabrhmaa. Halle an der Saale: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1878.dimitrova-vulCHanova, Mila. Clitics in the Slavic Language. Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.). Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin new York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999, 83122.dryer, Matthew. Word order. Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume I: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 61131.dunn, Graham. Enclitic Pronoun Movement and the Ancient Greek Sentence Accent. Glotta 67 (1989): 119.Fraenkel, Eduard. Kleine Beitrge zur klassischen Philologie. Erster Band. Zur Sprache zur griechischen Literatur. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1964.Hewson, John, Vt bubenk. From Case to Adposition: the Development of Configurational Syntax in IndoEuropean Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006.jakobson, Roman. Selected Writings. II. Word and Language. The Hague Paris: Mouton, 1971, 1622.50 janse, Mark. Clitics and Word Order since Wackernagel: One Hundred Years of Research into Clitics and Related Phenomena. Orbis 37 (1994): 389410.janse, Mark. he Development of the Greek and Latin Clitic Pronouns. Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe, Ariel ShishaHalevy (eds.). Stability, Variation and Change of WordOrder Patterns over Time. Amsterdam: 2000, 231258.jelinek, Eloise. Definiteness and Second Position Clitics in Straits Salish. Aaron Halpern, Arnold Zwicky (eds.). Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1996, 271298.krisCH, Thomas. Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht. Heiner Eichner, Helmut Rix (eds.). Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie. Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1990, 6481.leHmann, Winfred Philip. Explanation for Some Syntactic Phenomena of IndoEuropean. Glossa 7/1 (1973): 8488.leHmann, Winfred Philip. Theoretical Bases of IndoEuropean Linguistics. London new York: Routledge, 1996.luragHi, Silvia. The Rise (and Possible Downfall) of Configurationality. Silvia Luraghi, Vit Bubenik (eds.). Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London new York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010, 212229. mCanallen, Julia. The Competing Roles of SV(O) and VS(O) Word Orders in Hodenie igumena Danila. Russian Linguistics 33 (2009): 211228.nasH, David. Topics in Warlpiri Grammar. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. new York London: Garland Publishing, 1986.ramat, Paolo. The (Early) History of Linguistic Typology. Jae Jung Song (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 924.rgnvaldsson, Eirkur. Old Icelandic: A nonConfigurational Language? NorthWestern European Language Evolution 26 (1995): 329.turner, Sarah. Methodological Issues in the Interpretation of Constituent Order in Early East Slavonic Sources. Russian Linguistics 31 (2007): 113135.veerka, Radoslav. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Sintax. I. Die lineare Satzorganisation. Freiburg im Breisgau: UW Weiher, 1989.waCkernagel, Jacob. ber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen I (1892): 333436.waCkernagel, Jacob. Lectures on Syntax: With Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. David Langslow (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.wanner, Dieter. Second Position Clitics in Medieval Romance. Aaron Halpern, Arnold Zwicky (eds.). Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1996, 537578.watkins, Calvert. Preliminaries to the Reconstruction of IndoEuropean Sentence Structure. Horace Gray Lunt (ed.). Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton, 1964, 10351045.Slobodan PavloviTHE PLACEMEnT OF EnCLITICS In OLD SERBIAn DOCUMEnTS OF THE 12TH AnD 13TH CEnTURYS u m ma r yThis paper discusses the distribution of enclitics in the oldest Serbian administrative, commercial and legal texts which are preserved in manuscripts written at the end of the 12th century and during the 13th century. In accordance with their syntactic function, the Old Serbian enclitics may be divided into three groups: (1) sentential enclitic li which applies to the sentence as a whole, (2) nounphrase enclitics (nP enclitics) the enclitic dative of the personal pronouns that function as possessive determiners in noun phrases, and (3) predicatephrase enclitics (VP enclitics) verbal enclitics used in forming complex verb forms or complex predicates and the enclitic dative or ac51 ...cusative of the personal pronouns that function as complements of verbs. The sentential enclitic li takes the second place in the sentence, i.e. postfrontal sentence position. The nounphrase enclitics, as a rule, occupy the second place in the nounphrase. Their sentence position depends on the position of their host (noun phrase). The normal position for the predicatephrase enclitics is immediately after the clausefront position. Outside of this position, predicate enclitics tend to occur closer to the verb. This tendency may be conditioned by the development of configurational syntax which is directly related to the development of syntactic transitivity. 2, 21000 , slobodanpavlovic@sbb.rs52 UDC 811.161.10136 Philip MinlosSOME COnTROVERSIES COnCERnInG POSSESSIVEPROnOUn PLACEMEnT In OLD RUSSIAnThis paper discusses the placement of possessive pronouns in Old Russian, using the novgorod birchbark letters and Volhynian Chronicle. The placement correlates with animacy (with kinship terms, possessives tend to be postposed) and with the appositive context (in noun phrases followed by an appositive proper name, possessives also tend to be postposed). The two parameters are most likely interrelated, as the analyzed appositive constructions mostly contain kinship terms, but the exact relations between them remains uncertain. The paper hypothesizes that appositive constructions may have influenced simple noun phrases: for example the order was extracted from appositives like .ywords: Old Russian, word order, noun phrase, possessive pronouns, animacy. , . ( ) ( ). , , . : , . : , , , , .1. introduCtion. In medieval Slavic languages, both descriptive adjectives and similar modifiers (adjectives in a broader sense, including possessives and demonstratives) could either precede or follow the head noun. The most powerful tradition dealing with word order variation ascribes such variants to some general discoursesensitive contrasts (for exa