Муратов, Ю.М. (2015). Генетическая и мотивационная характеристики лексико-семантического поля 'присвоение чужого' в русском языке. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Москва.

РСКJ = Речник српскохорватског књижевног језика. Књ. 1-6. Нови Сад-Загреб: Институт за српскохорватски језик, 1967-76.

РЭС = Аникин, А.Е. (2007-). Русский этимологический словарь. Вып. 1-15. Москва: Ин-т рус. яз. им. В.В. Виноградова РАН; Ин-т филологии Сибирского отделения РАН.

СДРЯ ХІ-XVII (1975-). Словарь древнерусского языка ХІ-XVII вв. Вып. 1-30. Москва: Наука – Азбуковник.

ССТМЯ = Горцевская, В.А.; Колесникова, В.Д.; Константинова, О.А.; Новикова, К.А.; Петрова, Т.И.; Цинциус, В.И.; Бугаева, Т.Г. (1975). Сравнительный словарь тунгусо-маньчжурских языков. Т. І-ІІ. Ленинград: Наука. Ленинградское отделение.

ЭСРЯ = Фасмер, М. (1964-73). Этимологический словарь русского языка. Перевод с немецкого языка и дополнения О.Н. Трубачева. Т. І-IV. Москва: Прогресс.

ЭССЯ = Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд. Под ред. О.Н. Трубачева, А.Ф. Журавлева и Ж.Ж. Варбот. Вып. 1-42. Москва: Наука, 1974-2011.

Beekes, R.S.P. (2013). *Etymological Dictionary of Greek*. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Bezlaj F. (1977-2005). *Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika*. Knj. I-IV. Ljubljana: Zalošba ZRC.

Boryś, W. (2005). *Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego*. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.

Brückner, A. (1957). *Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego*. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna (Przedruk z pierwszego wydania). Kraków, 1927).

Demiraj, B. (1997). *Albanische Etymologien. Untersuchungen zum Albanischen Erbwortschatz*. Amsterdam; Atlanta (GA): Rodopi.

Derksen, R. (2008). *Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Inherited Lexicon*. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Derksen, R. (2015). *Etymological Dictionary of the Baltic Inherited Lexicon*. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

EJSJ = *Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslověnského*. Red. E. Havlová, A. Erhart, I. Janyšková. Seš. 1-19. Praha-Brno: Academia-Tribun, 1989-2018.

EWAia = Mayrhofer, M. (1992-2001). *Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen*. I-III Bde. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

IEW = Pokorny, J. (1959). *Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch*. Bern; München: Francke.

KEWA = Mayrhofer M. (1956-76). *Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen*. Bde. 1-4. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

Králik, L' (2015). *Stručný etymologický slovník slovenčiny*. Bratislava: VEDA.

Kroonen, G. (2013). *Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic*. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

LEW = Fraenkel, E. (1955-65). *Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch*. Heidelberg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Winter; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Liden, E. (1899). "Ein baltisch-slavisches Anlautgesetz". *Gøteborgs Högskoloras Årsskrift*, 5.

Machek, V. (1957). *Etymologický slovník jazyka českého a slovenského*. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd.
ME = Mühlenbach, K. (1923-25). *Lettisch-Deutches Wörterbuch, ergänzt und fortgesetzt von J. Endzelin*. I-IV. Riga: Herausgegeben vom lettischen Bildungsministerium.

LIV² = Rix, H.; Kümmel, M.; Zehnder, T.; Lipp, R.; Schirmer, B. (2001). *Lexikon des Indogermanischen Verben*. 2-te Aufl. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Orel, V. (1998). *Albanian Etymological Dictionary*. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill

Ozoliņš, K. (2015). *Revisiting Proto-indo-european Schwebeablaut. A Dissertat-ion Submitted in Partial Satisfaction of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies*. Los Angeles: University of California.

Persson, P. (1912). *Beiträge Zur Indogermanischen Wortforschung*. Bde 1-2. Uppsala: A.-B. Akademiska Bokhandeln.

Rejzek, J. (2001). *Český etymologický slovník*. Voznice: Leda.

Skok P. (1973). *Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika*. Knj. I-IV. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti.

Smoczyński, W. (2021). *Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego*. Wydanie drugie, poprawione i znacznie rozszerzone. Na prawach rękopisu. https://rromanes.org/pub/alii/Smoczy%C5%84ski%20W.%20S%C5%82ownik%20etymologiczny%20j%C4%99zyka%20litewskiego.pdf.

Steer, Th. (2015). *Amphikinese und Amphigenese: Morphologische und phonolo-gische Untersuchungen zur Genese amphikinetischer Sekundärbildungen und zur internen Derivation im Indogermanischen*. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. https://doi.org/10.29091/9783954906475.
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>
# Towards the Definition of the Bulgarian Word Order System

Anton Zimmerling

Pushkin State Russian Language Institute; Institute of Linguistics Russian Academy of
Science, Russia

**Abstract** The world's languages with clitic clusters pattern with four major types of the word order systems, depending on the presence or absence of the 2P condition and the parameter of clitic-verb adjacency. Bulgarian has a double-focus system of clitic placement (2P condition and clitic-verb adjacency), which has typological parallels outside Europe but lacks direct counterparts in modern European languages. Neither the analogy with standard 2P languages without clitic-verb adjacency nor the analogy with the Romance systems with vP-internal clitics captures the profile of the Bulgarian clitic syntax. Historically, the rise of the clitic-verb adjacency is an innovation of Bulgarian, but its exact time and triggers are unclear. The language of the Wallachian letters (ca. 1386-1509) has a marked tendency towards the clitic-verb adjacency and is typologically similar to Modern Bulgarian but still has residual #XP – CL – [Y] – V orders. This idiom spoken by the L2 speakers of Middle Bulgarian cannot be viewed as a source of the Modern Bulgarian but hints that the clitic-verb adjacency parameter could develop in the history of Bulgarian because of the contact influence on the part of some Non-Slavic clitic systems.

**Keywords** Typology. Word order. Clitics. Clitic clusters. Bulgarian. Syntax. Prosody.

**Summary** 1 Ordering of Non-clitic Categories. – 1.1 Greenbergian Typology. – 1.2 Sentence Cartography. – 2 Clitics and Word Order Typology. – 2.1 Wackernagel's Law and Tobler-Mussafia's Law. – 2.2 Clitic Hosts and Clausal Architecture. – 2.3 Clitic Clusters and Clustering Clitics. – 3 Word Order Systems with Clustering Clitics. – 4 Defining the Bulgarian Word Order System. – 4.1 Synchrony. – 4.2 Diachrony and the Inventory of Clitics. – 4.3 Old Church Slavonic and Vernacular Texts. – 5 Middle Bulgarian: The Wallachian Letters. – 6 Conclusions.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Edizioni
Ca' Foscari

**Peer review**

Submitted
Accepted
Published

2021-10-13
2021-12-22
2022-02-15

**Open access**

© 2021 | © Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

**Citation** Zimmerling, A. (2021). "Towards the Definition of the Bulgarian Word Order System". *Balcania et Slavia*, *1*(2), 239-256.
# 1 Ordering of Non-clitic Categories

Word order systems can be classified in terms of linearisation principles. For the ordering of non-clitic categories, two different measures – branching conditions and sentence cartography – are available.

## 1.1 Greenbergian Typology

The approach introduced by Greenberg (1963) is based on branching conditions, i.e. relative ordering of the head (Xº) vs complement in binary groups (Aº, B) and the so-called sentence formula or basic word order showing the ordering of three diagnostic sentence categories – subject (S), object (0) and verb/predicate (V): in the pair (Vº, 0), the verb is analysed as the head; in the pair (Sº, V), the subject under standard assumptions is analysed as the head. In the early versions of the Greenbergian typology (cf. Hawkins 1983), all languages including the so-called scrambling (free word order) languages, where the phrasal categories can be ordered in more than one way, have the basic word order per definition. With this approach, Slavic languages are relatively uniform: they can be classified as SVO languages with a predominant right branching. The modern data-oriented version of the Greenbergian analysis, based on the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) sample of 1376 world's languages (Dryer 2013b), confirms the existence of all six logically possible combinations of S, V, and 0, i.e. SOV, SVO, VSO, VOS, OVS, OSV, although the last three types are rare (2,9% of the sample). The seventh class in Dryer's classification – languages lacking a dominant word order (189 languages, 13,73%) – is rather a concession to the agnostic view than a challenge to the initial Greenberg's assumption that all languages have a basic word order. I interpret it as a technical requirement that all languages in a typological sample must be described at the same depth of analysis: if a basic word order in a European language like German, Dutch, Frisian, Hungarian, Modern Greek, Welsh Romani, or Belorussian can only be established based on a formal syntactic analysis, which has not been done for other languages from the sample, the language patterns with the class lacking a basic word order.<fnref n="1" /> A further problem with the input data is that typological databases occasionally put languages with similar word order systems into different classes because of the decisions made by the authors of the ref-

I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments. The responsibility for all shortcomings is on the Author.

<footnote n="1">1 The notion of ‘depth’ is discussed in Haspelmath 2019.</footnote>
erence grammars. For example, Modern Belorussian is classified in Mayo (1993, 924) as a language lacking a basic word order and allowing both VO and OV,<fnref n="2" /> while Modern Russian is classified as an SVO, VO language (Bivon 1971) in a description made 22 years earlier. It is unclear whether such decisions are motivated by the real differences between the languages, by the theoretical sympathies of the authors, or by the changing beliefs in the linguistic mainstream.<fnref n="3" />

## 1.2 Sentence Cartography

Another approach for ordering sentence categories has been known as ‘template analysis’ or ‘sentence cartography’. The insight behind it is that there is a correlation between word classes/types of category and their linear position so that each category has its diagnostic slot in the template (‘map’) of a sentence. Sentence templates can be interpreted both as language-specific rules and as a manifestation of universal ordering principles. Early versions of the template analysis arose as empiric generalisations on the syntax of selected Germanic languages with a presumably fixed order of the post-finite categories (Diderichsen 1946), while classical versions of the 1990s-2000s combine the template analysis with the hypothesis on generalised phrase structure (Cinque 1999; 2014; Belletti 2004). The cartographic approach is compatible with the analysis of the word order variation. However, if a category alternates between two or more slots P₁, P₂, ..., Pₙ, sentence templates become bulky since the alternations add extra slots, cf. the discussion in Zimmerling (2013, 28-33). Therefore, cartography is generally associated with those zones in clausal structure, where the ordering is more rigid, e.g. the clausal left periphery (Krapova 2002; Benincà, Munaro 2011), or clitic-internal ordering.

## 2 Clitics and Word Order Typology

The term ‘clitic’ emerged as a generalisation of the ancient terms enclitic (X=CL) and proclitic (CL=X), i.e. weak stress elements adjoining to their prosodic hosts (stressed words) from the right or the left, respectively (Spencer, Lüis 2010). It has been introduced to language

<footnote n="2">2 The WALS sample for the Vº, O languages includes 1516 languages, 101 of which (6,59%) are classified as “languages with both VO and OV” (Dryer 2013c).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 As for Modern Bulgarian, all sources cited in Dryer 2013b and 2013c. Cf. Hubenova et. al. 1968, 31; Scatton 1984, 374; Dyer 1992, 16, 55, 149, who classify it as SVO, VO language.</footnote>
theory by Arnold Zwicky (1977), who claimed that prosodically defi-
cient elements incapable of making a phonetic word without combin-
ing with other elements (= ‘phonetic clitics’) are also syntactically
deficient, i.e. have a special distribution in syntax and take positions
not available for the non-clitic categories.<fnref n="4" />

2.1 Wackernagel's Law and Tobler-Mussafia's Law

The first observations that clitics constrain the clausal syntax were
made in the late nineteenth century by Berthold Delbrück and Ja-
cob Wackernagel. The latter showed that in some Old Indo-Euro-
pean languages including Old Greek, Old Indian, Avestan, Old Per-
sian fixed-position enclitics took the clausal-second position after the
first stressed word and proved that this feature of the second-posi-
tion clitics (2P clitics) is triggered by a general principle, which does
not depend on the syntactic type or the origin of the clitic element
(Wackernagel 1892). The discovery of Hittite and Luwian confirmed
that Wackernagel’s law was characteristic of most Old Indo-Europe-
an languages. A definitional property of 2P clitics is that they attach
to at least two different syntactic types of the host (X, Y), but do not
license them simultaneously:

(i) #X=C, #Y=CL, *#X, Y-CL

The so-called Tobler-Mussafia's law (Tobler 1875; Mussafia 1886) is
based on the distribution of Old French and Old Italian clitic pro-
nouns: they are verb-adjacent and license the orders V=CL ~ CL=V
clause-internally, but not clause-initially, *#CL-V. This is a conse-
quence of Wackernagel's law, preventing strict enclitics from tak-
ing the clause-initial position. Similar conditions are attested in Old
Spanish (Wanner 1996). Bulgarian predicate clitics (clustering pro-
nouns and auxiliaries) have the same bundle of features: they are
both verb-adjacent and clause-internal. For such languages, it is pos-
sible to treat Tobler-Mussafia's law as a non-syntactic condition im-
posed on the parameter of the verb-clitic adjacency (cf. Franks 2008).
This conclusion is prompted by the fact that Old Romance word or-
der systems are historically transitional from systems with Wacker-
nagel's law and 2P clitics to systems of the Modern Romance type
with verb-adjacent clitics. Tobler-Mussafia's law is redundant for the

<footnote n="4">4 The initial version of Zwicky's analysis had a stipulation that special syntactic distribution is characteristic only of a subclass of clitics labelled "special clitics", but not for the residue labelled "simple clitics". However, simple clitics are elusive since their recognition crucially depends on the chosen theory of sentence derivation.</footnote>
description of those languages with 2P clitics, which lack the pa-
rameter of obligatory clitic-verb adjacency and license configura-
tions like #X=CL ...V.

## 2.2 Clitic Hosts and Clausal Architecture

Roman Jakobson (1935) was the first linguist who admitted that Wackernagel's law is instrumental in Modern Slavic languages, notably in the Balkan Slavic group, which partly retains the old accent conditions. Andrej Zaliznjak (1993) was the first linguist who proved that vernacular Old Russian had Wackernagel's law and explained, how the old East Slavic clitics were eliminated in the subsequent history of Russian (2008). Both Jakobson and Zaliznjak associated Wackernagel's law with 2P clitics after the first phonetic word and claimed that Modern Slavic languages placing 2P clitics after the first constituent (Slovenian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, etc.) lost Wackernagel's law. This claim finds little support from linguistic typology since Wackernagel's law is not a unique feature of Old European languages. From the 1920s on, 2P clitics were discovered in many genetically not related world's languages from different areas, including Luiseño and Mayo (Uto-Aztecan), Ossetic, and Pashto (Indo-Iranian), Warlpiri and Djaru (Pama-Nyungan), etc. A part of these languages, e.g. Ossetic, Pashto, Kavineña (Tacanan), Kashibo-Kakataibo (Pano) places clausal 2P clitics after the first spelled-out constituent, not the first phonetic word, while some languages, e.g. Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS), Luiseño and Warlpiri license the first phonetic word/first constituent variation (#X/XP=CL) (cf. Halpern 1996). Finally, clausal 2P clitics are also attested in languages that lack initial NPs and initial multi-word constituents, e.g. in Lummi (Salish), or Kabyle (Afroasiatic).

In subordinate clauses, 2P clitics generally attach to the com-
plementizer (Comp=CL), though languages where the clitics skip
the complementizer and attach to the next category Y (Comp Y=CL)
are attested as well. The latter scenario is required in Pashto (2P,
no verb-clitic adjacency), Tagalog (2P & verb-clitic adjacency) and
optional in colloquial Czech (2P, no verb-clitic adjacency) and Bul-
garian (2P & verb-clitic adjacency) (cf. Zimmerling 2013, 64, 114,
437). Additional types of the clitic hosts licensed by some languages
with 2P clitics include initial proclitics and sentential complements
([CP...]=CL): the latter option is regularly used in Cavineña, Kashibo-
Kakataibo, and Slovenian, sporadically also in Czech, Upper Sorbi-
an, South-Eastern Tepehuan, BCS, and Bulgarian (Zimmerling 2013,
154-62, 434-8). The principle of 2P clitic placement is strikingly uni-
form across the world's languages and compatible with different mor-
phosyntax, while the mechanisms licensing diverse clitic hosts in
languages with 2P depend on the clausal architecture in the corre-
sponding language. This makes the 2P syntax an interface phenom-
enon: a linguist must both explain the locus of the clitics, and the
choice and internal structure of the hosts. The terms ‘prosodic’ and
‘syntactic’ used in two competing descriptions of the same data – the
situation in BCS, a language with 2P clitics and the #X=CL ~ XP=CL
variation (Radanović-Kocić 1996; Progovac 1996) – are misleading:
they rather refer to different models of the prosody-syntax interface
than to the possibility to eliminate all syntactic vs prosodic informa-
tion from the description.

2.3 Clitic Clusters and Clustering Clitics

A cluster is a complex object satisfying the following criterion:

(ii) If a syntactic domain contains two (or more) clitics *a* and *b* and they stay contiguously, they are placed in a rigid order *a* > *b* ('a immediately precedes b').

The clitics conforming to the criterion (i) are called clustering, while
the rules predicting clitic-internal ordering are called clitic templates
or ranking rules (Zaliznjak 1993, 282; Franks, King 2000). True clus-
ters must be distinguished from occasional sequences of phonetical-
ly adjacent clitics. The latter can belong to different hierarchically in-
dependent syntactic domains, while clustering clitics represent one
domain.<fnref n="5" /> On the synchronic level, clitic templates are idiosyncratic
since the template order cannot be derived from the order of non-clit-
ic categories. However, it is up to a certain extent possible to explain
it historically (Zimmerling 2012) and to reconstruct the principles of
the prosody-to-syntax interface underlying the templates (Billings,
Konopasky 2002). For Slavic languages, it has been shown that de-
spite the clusters often contain clitics of more than one type – pro-
nouns vs auxiliaries vs particles – no Slavic language licenses the
insertion of an auxiliary into a block of clitic pronouns or vice ver-
sa. Other factors such as cliticization time or prosodic weight do not
override in the Slavic languages the principle of grouping the clus-
tering elements into blocks of clitics sharing the same syntactic cat-
egory (Franks 2008; Zimmerling, Kosta 2013).

Clustering clitics are attested both in 2P languages and in lan-
guages with vP/VP-internal clitics. At the same time, there exist lan-

<footnote n="5">5 In languages with the parameter of clitic climbing, e.g. in Slovak and BCS, the clitic template of the matrix clause includes slots for the climbed clitics generated in the embedded clause (Zimmerling 2013, 137).</footnote>
guages with single non-clustering 2P clitics. The ability to form a
cluster is not an inherent characteristic of clitics: a clitic morpheme
can be clustering in some configurations and non-clustering in oth-
er configurations in the same language. In Slavic languages, only
clause-level clitics cluster. For example, Old Church Slavonic, Old
Russian, and BCS accusative clitics are clustering as clause-level
argument clitics but non-clustering as PP-level clitics, when they at-
tach to prepositions. Old Russian free clitic же 'emphatic marker'
was clustering as an emphatic sentential particle, but non-cluster-
ing as a non-sentential additive marker (X же Y 'X and Y'), or as an
identifier (Zaliznjak 1993, 281) (for the external parallels from Non-
European languages, cf. Zimmerling 2012). The same holds for Bul-
garian dative clitics: they are clustering as clause-level argument
clitics but non-clustering as possessive DP-level clitics.<fnref n="6" /> Such facts
support the claim that clusterization takes place in dedicated syn-
tactic positions and is blocked in other positions. A possible solution
to this puzzle is to analyse the clusters as phrases of a special kind,
CLP (Zimmerling, Kosta 2013). A single clustering clitic is interpret-
ed as an occurrence of CLP, while the number of clitics in a sentence
depends on such factors as the valency frame of the predicate, the
type of the clause, etc.

Some authors argued that all parts of the cluster must be prosod-
ically homogeneous (Franks 2008, 95), but there is empirical counter-
evidence against this claim. Clustering and non-clustering clit-
ics have non-identical properties. Clusters arise as rhythmic patterns
and their elements often represent different layers of cliticization,
therefore some clustering elements can lack full properties of pho-
netic clitics. This was arguably the case with 1-2 p. present tense in-
dicative BE-auxiliaries in Old Russian (Zaliznjak 2008, 37). Never-
theless, the ordering of these elements was rigid (225-7).

3 Word Order Systems with Clustering Clitics

Languages with clustering clause-level clitics pattern with four types
depending on the presence/absence of the clitic-verb adjacency and
the 2P principle constraining either the position of the clustering clit-
ics (CL) or the position of the verb (V). Henceforth, I apply the nota-
tion introduced in Zimmerling 2013 and Zimmerling, Kosta 2013. The
position of the pivotal category (CL or V) respective the clausal left
border (#) is defined in terms of surface syntax, while the preceding
2P is analysed as X/XP, i.e. intra-clausal position licensing at least two

<footnote n="6">6 It is dubious that the suffixed article and the possessive pronoun in Bulgarian DPs like [DP, [книга-та]=my] represent the same level of cliticization.</footnote>
different categories A v B, but not simultaneously (Zimmerling 2015).

iii $[_{XP} A v B] - 2P, * [_{XP} A & B] - 2P$

The tag ‘W-system’ (‘W’ reads either ‘word’ or ‘Wackernagel’) stands for word systems with 2P clitics lacking the parameter of clitic-verb adjacency. W-systems are subdivided into W₁-systems, i.e. languages lacking clause-initial NPs and W₂-systems licensing them. W₂-systems are further subdivided into W₂A-systems, where 2P clitics are placed after the first phonetic word and split the initial multi-word constituent (#[XP W¹=CL, W²..Wⁿ]), W₂B-systems, where 2P clitics are placed after the first spelled-out constituent and W₂C-systems, which license the X/XP=CL variation. W₂-systems are attested in different areas and are common, while W₁-systems are only attested in those verb-initial languages, where V1 alternates with an operator category (clause-initial quantifier or T(ense) A(spect) M(ood) marker).

The tag ‘W⁺-system’ (‘W⁺’ reads ‘modified W’)<fnref n="7" /> stands for word order systems with clitic-verb adjacency and the 2P condition defined for one of the pivotal categories – either CL or V. There are two main varieties. In the Philippine-type W⁺-systems, the pivotal category is CL, which takes clausal 2P. If clitics are present, the verb adjoins to them either from the left or from the right (#V-CL ~ #XP-CL-V). Word order systems of this subtype are characteristic of Austronesian languages, especially from the Central Philippine area. Bulgarian seems to be the only representative of this subtype in Modern Europe. In the Germanic-type W⁺-systems, the pivotal category is V, which takes the V2 or the V1/V2 positions, while the clitics are realised in the postverbal positions as CL2/CL3 depending on the position of the verb. Word order systems of this type are attested only in Old Germanic languages: the V2 and V1/V2 constraints are typologically rare outside Europe.

The tag W\*-system (‘W\*’ reads ‘degraded W) stands for languages, where the 2P placement remains an option for the clause-level clitics and/or is not generalised for all types of clauses. This is, for example, attested in Old Church Slavonic, Modern Polish, Gurindi, and Mudburra (both are Pama-Nyungan languages).

Finally, the tag V-system (‘V’ reads ‘verb’) stands for languages of the Modern Romance type, where neither V nor CL has a fixed position respective to the clausal left border in the diagnostic type of clauses, but the verb and the clitics are adjacent (#....[V + CL]...). V-systems constitute a majority of European word order systems with the clustering clitics, but exact parallels outside Europe are rare.

<footnote n="7">7 The term ‘W⁺-system’ was first coined by the author of this article in 2002.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Word order systems with clustering clitics, after Zimmerling 2013</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">W-systems</th><th colspan="2">W+-systems</th><th rowspan="2">W*-systems</th><th rowspan="2">V-systems</th></tr><tr><th>W<sub>1</sub></th><th>W<sub>2A</sub></th><th>W<sub>2B</sub></th><th>W<sub>2C</sub></th><th>Philippine type</th><th>Germanic type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>clitic-verb adjacency</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td>2P condition for CL</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>(yes)</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>2P condition for V</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>no</td><td>yes</td><td>(no)</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Languages</td><td>Lummi, Kabyle</td><td>Hittite, Old Greek, Old Novgorod Russian</td><td>Czech, Slovak, Slovenian Ossetic, Pashto, Cavineña</td><td>BCS, Luiseño, Warlpiri</td><td>Tagalog, Cebuano, Bikol, Masbatenyo, Bulgarian, Old Italian</td><td>Old Icelandic, Middle Norwegian</td><td>Old Church Slavonic, Polish, Gurindi, Mudburra</td><td>French, Italian, Spanish, Rumanian Albanian, Modern Greek</td></tr></tbody></table>

W-systems, W+-systems, and V-systems represent stable ordering principles, while W*-systems are transitional, which partly explains the uneven coverage of these word order systems.

# 4 Defining the Bulgarian Word Order System

## 4.1 Synchrony

There are two main approaches to defining the Bulgarian word order system – to analyse it as a language with 2P clitics with an added CL-V adjacency (Gălăbov 1950; Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1999) or as a language with verb-adjacent clitics with a non-syntactic 2P condition (Tobler-Mussafia’s law) imposed on the distribution of CL (Rå Hauge 1976; Franks 2008). The first solution is more popular in functional studies, the second one in formal descriptions of Bulgarian. Both approaches are complementary, but from the typological perspective, the first one is preferable since the features ‘+ 2P’ and ‘+ verb-adjacent’ do not exclude each other. The parallel between Bulgarian and Central Philippine languages was first acknowledged in Billings, Konopasky 2002, cf. also a survey of Philippine W+-systems in Lee, Billings 2005. The dichotomy of mutually exclusive taxons ‘2P clitics’ vs ‘verb-adjacent clitics’ is prompted by the current distribution of W-systems and V-systems in modern Europe, whereas Bulgarian is the sole representative of the Philippine-type W+-system in this area. V-systems of the Modern Romance type, where V and CL are
adjacent, but neither V nor CL has a fixed position respective to the clausal left border, are rare outside Europe.

The orientation of Bulgarian clitics towards the left periphery is proved by such tests as the impossibility of the *NP1-NP2-V-CL order, cf. the pair of sentences, where both nominal arguments are indexed by the pronominal clitics, but the *\*#Xᵢ-Yⱼ V-[CL aᵢ bⱼ] order is blocked:

(1) Blg. a. [На Иван] [книгата]=съм=му=я, върнал 'I have returned the book to Ivan', lit. 'To Ivan, the book, I gave it back to him'.

b. *[На Иван] [книгата] върнал =съм=му=я.

Another test confirming the 2P-orientation of Bulgarian clustering clitics is based on the distribution of periphrastic verbal forms containing an optative marker (not a clustering clitic itself). These forms host the clitics, but do not combine with other elements in XP:

(2) Blg. a. [купил бих] (1)=я, книгатаᵢ 'I would buy that book'.

b. [книгатаᵢ] (1)=я, бих купил 'I would buy that book'.

c. *[книгатаᵢ] (1) [купил бих] (2)=я.

## 4.2 Diachrony and the Inventory of Clitics

The exact definition of the Proto-Slavic clitic system is a matter of debate. Jakobson (1935) and Gălăbov (1950) assumed that Proto-Slavic had Wackernagel's law, i.e. it was a standard W-system in terms of this paper, more exactly a W₂A-system. This assumption is based on the fact that the core of the 2P clitic inventory – the particles же 'emphatic marker', ли 'yes-no marker' and the 1-2 p. dative pronouns ми '1Sg.Dat', ти '2Sg.Dat', си 'Refl.Dat', ны '1Pl.Dat|Acc', вы '2Pl.Dat|Acc', на '1Du.Dat|Acc', ва '2Du.Dat|Acc' – is common Slavic, and all Old Slavic languages use them as clustering 2P elements. The same holds for the 2P particle бо 'causal marker' preserved in South Slavic and Southern Old Russian (Zaliznjak 2008, 31). The short accusative forms ма '1Sg.Acc', та '1Sg.Acc', са 'Refl.Acc', и '3Sg.M.Acc', ю '3Sg.F.Acc', є '3Sg.M.Acc', є '3Sg.N.Acc', ѝ '3Du.M.Nom|Acc' have common Slavic morphology and cluster clause-internally. However, they retain some non-clitic side uses in Old Church Slavonic texts, which shows that they were cliticised later than the 1-2 p. dative pronouns (Vaillant 1948, § 262; Zaliznjak 2008, 36).

In more recent times, the idea that Bulgarian inherited the 2P condition from Proto-Slavic was challenged. Pancheva (2005) argues that
not only the rise of the CL-V adjacency but also the uniform treatment
of clitic pronouns and BE-auxiliaries as 2P clitics was an innovation
realised during the history of Bulgarian. It is well-known that Slavic
present tense indicative BE-auxiliaries represent a relatively recent
layer of cliticization and were made part of the cluster later than da-
tive and accusative pronouns. This is mentioned by Zaliznjak (1993,
285) regarding the positions of Old Russian 1-2 p. auxiliaries, which
show the enclitic behaviour only as part of the perfect construction
with the -l participle. The slots of auxiliary clitics in a cluster are
different in three areal types of the Slavic template. Old East Slav-
ic dialects place the 1-2 p. auxiliary clitics<fnref n="8" /> after the block of clitic
pronouns in the slot labelled 'AUX2' in Zimmerling 2013, 110, 337.<fnref n="9" />

(iv) East Slavic [clp [ptcl...] [pron...]] AUX2]

West Slavic languages place the auxiliary clitics before the block of clitic pronouns in the slot labeled AUX1 (Zimmerling 2013, 110, 337).

(v) West Slavic [clp [ptcl...]] AUX1 [pron...]]

Finally, Balkan Slavic languages including Bulgarian use both AUX1 and AUX2: most auxiliaries take AUX1, while the 3Sg = *je* takes AUX2 (Franks, King 2000; Zimmerling 2013, 111, 337).

(vi) Balkan Slavic [clp [ptcl...]] AUX1 [pron...]] AUX2]

It is plausible that the AUX1 slot is an innovation compared to AUX2:
vernacular Old East Slavic texts with clitic clusters and the active
AUX2 slot date back to the eleventh century, while the earliest com-
parable West Slavic texts come from the first half of the fourteenth
century. The migration of auxiliary clitics from AUX2 to AUX1 is at-
tested in the fourteenth century in Old Serbian (Pavlović 2011) and
Old Czech (Zimmerling 2013, 474-8). However, neither the observed
geographical variation of the AUX slots nor the inconsistent place-
ment of the auxiliaries in some Old Slavic dialects proves that Proto-
Slavic lacked Wackernagel’s law. Wackernagel’s law predicts the 2P
placement of all elements that belong to the class of clustering clit-

<footnote n="8">8 Most Old Russian dialects lack overt 3 p. present tense auxiliary clitics. This holds for the North-Western (Novgorod and Pskov) and likely for the Western (Smolensk and Polotsk) dialects.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 A historical continuation of the East Slavic template rule is represented in Carpathian Rusyn dialects (Tolstaya 2012). These dialects have extra slots for the new plus perfect auxiliaries.</footnote>
ics. If this class is expanded during a period of time, it means that the same ordering principle is applied to a larger inventory of clitics. New clitics add extra slots to the existing templates or fill in the existing slots, but neither of these scenarios brings about a change of the word order system.

## 4.3 Old Church Slavonic and Vernacular Texts

Clitic clusters represent rhythmic patterns. One can disregard the type of the text only in a situation, when such patterns and word orders with clusters are generalised in all forms of a language, e.g. in the present-day codified Slavic languages. The situation in Old Slavic languages is less evident. Wackernagel's law and the conditions of standard W₂-systems are best displayed in the texts close to the oral speech, like birch bark letters and the direct speech fragments in the Old Russian languages. This has been proved in detail by Zaliznjak (2008), who demonstrated that the inconsistent bookish Old Russian W*-system was derived from the consistent colloquial Old Russian W-system by a parametric change licensing the end position of the clitics and the choice of the hosts. This change of parameters has both a diachronic and a stylistic dimension: the authors could shift the register in some hybrid text genres, e.g. in Old Russian chronicles. Letters and diplomas written by the professional scribes are generally a reliable source, too, especially in a situation, where non-bookish vs bookish texts require different forms of a language if not different languages (Church Slavonic vs vernacular Slavic idiom). Meanwhile, Old Church Slavonic as liturgic language poses a problem even for the group of Old South Slavic dialects most close to it: in those genres, where Old Church Slavonic was the required standard, the authors modelled their word order after the precedent texts, not their everyday speech. The same presumably holds for the early Old Church Slavonic, since the translators of the Slavic Bible in many cases copied the word order and clitic positions from the Greek text (Vaillant 1948, 261).

# 5 Middle Bulgarian: The Wallachian Letters

The word order system of the Wallachian letters (ca. 1386-1509) is similar to the Modern Bulgarian W+-system, though it cannot be viewed as its direct source: these letters are written by the L2 speakers of Middle Bulgarian, who also spoke a form of Rumanian and probably other languages. The clustering clitics take 2P, the contact orders of CL and V prevail. Still, there are 51 examples of the order #XP-CL-[Y]-V, with non-clitic categories intervening between
CL and V.

(3) Middle ω сем же віе добрѣ знаете, како =ви =смъ **до нинѣ**¹ азь² защитил
Blg. ωτ Турци, [LVI: Vlad I Dracul. (c. 1431-1446)].<fnref n="10" />

‘And you know it for sure, how I² have defended you from the Turks till now¹’.

Examples like (3) allow to qualify the language of Wallachian letters
as a W-system and not as a W+-system like Modern Bulgarian or Ta-
galog. Another deviation from Modern Bulgarian is that some authors
licensed the clustering clitics clause-initially. This is attested a doz-
en times in letters nos. 74, 179, 212, 213, 215, 216, 226: in 3 examples
the CL1 order comes up in yes-no questions like (4), in 8 examples it
is attested after the initial proclitic и ‘and’, cf. (5) and in one exam-
ple, cf. (6) the clitic is likely used after a prosodic break.

(4) Middle Тои не знам: **e=ли=ви доишла книга въ ръце**, или не е. [CCXII:
Blg. Petru Uroș, trimesul Brașovenilor la impăratul Sigismund, și Ștefan,
logofătul lui Vlad Dracul. (c. 1432-1437)].<fnref n="11" />

‘I am not aware of that: *did the book reach your hands, or not.*’

(5) Middle **Казахъ=ми шни:** ωста Мартин, да доде съ дроуги товар. **И=ми=**
Blg. поръчи съ Ханеш. ако ест хтѣніе ти, пусти ми съ Ханеш други
дукати, понеже ест зде и шщь мѣд, да ю купѣ. [CCXIII: Gherghe
Lascar, cămărașul lui Vlad I Dracul. (c. 1437)].<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="10">10 An anonymous reviewer indicates that word orders like (3) are marginally possi-
ble with some adverbials in some styles of Modern Bulgarian.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 The Wallachian Bulgarian example (4) likely has contrastive stress on the initial auxiliary e. In this case, the syntax of (4) is compatible with Modern Bulgarian sentences like Blg. Сте= ли или не=сте начело на движение за съединение на Княжество-то с Източна Румелия? I am grateful for the anonymous reviewer for providing this example and for the discussion. The fronting of the auxiliary clitic in contexts, where it gets contrastive stress can be explained in a twofold way: a) prosodically – the deficient elements that are used as enclitics clause-internally are boosted and ‘repaired’ in contrastive contexts, b) information-structurally – the clustering clitics that normally take 2P, are fronted if the 1P order has communicative motivation (Zimmerling 2015). It should be mentioned that standard definitions of clitics generally specify that true clitics cannot take contrastive stress, be negated or conjoined. While this condition holds for the majority of word order systems with clustering clitics, some languages have an option for the early placement of clitics in certain non-canonic positions.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 An anonymous reviewer points out that similar examples, where the clustering clit-
ics occur in such initial or quasi-initial positions can be found in Modern Bulgarian texts
as well, cf. Blg. И той се=нахвърля върху ми. А ми= е жал за момчето! Given that the
variant ъжал= ми=е за момчето! is rated as odd, these facts suggest that Modern
Bulgarian and the language of Wallachian Bulgarian letters have an option for the em-
phatic fronting of (some) clustering clitics. Similar type of clitic fronting is attested in
Slovenian, which is a W<sub>2B</sub> – system without the clitic-verb adjacency. The default order</footnote>
‘They told me that Martin stayed there and is going to come with more goods. **And** send *me* a message with Hanesh: “If you like, send me more ducats with Hanesh, because there is more honey here so that I buy it”’.

(6) Middle Друго, **ми**=дръжит Крстѣ Рошіул шнеи книге, не щет да=ми=их
Blg. даст; [СХХVI: Dragomir Udrişte, vornicul lui Vlad III Călugărul. (с. 1482-1492)].

‘Second, Krstia Roshiul keeps these books **from** me and is not going to give **them** to me’.

The authors of the examples (4)-(6) likely lacked the Tobler-Musaffia's law in their idioms, but there are no sufficient grounds to project this feature to Middle Bulgarian in general. The dialectal variation in the corpus of the Wallachian letters is not unlikely. Uroş (1432-37), Gherghe Lascar (1437), and Dragomir Udrişte (1482-1492) or their scribes could have CL1 in their Middle Bulgarian dialects and/or in their other language (e.g. Old Rumanian). However, the contexts of examples (4) and (5) are not entirely telling for the comparison with Modern Bulgarian since they involve such pragmatic mechanisms as contrastive stress on the perfect auxiliary *e* in (4) and emphasis in (5): in these contexts, Modern Bulgarian occasionally or regularly licenses contrastive and emphatic fronting of the clustering clitics.¹³

Regarding the auxiliary slots, the language of the Wallachian letters shows an intermediate-type clitic template like Old Czech or Old Serbian, with two slots – AUX2 and AUX1 – available for most auxiliary clitics. The complementary distribution of the 3Sg = *e* (AUX2) vs all other present tense indicative BE-clitics (AUX1) diagnostic for the Modern Balkan type of the template has not yet established. Moreover, AUX2 is the main slot, while AUX1 is a reserved option. Past tense auxiliaries opened an extra slot AUX4 to the right from AUX2, cf. example (7). Similar templates are attested in some Modern Carpathian Rusyn dialects (Tolstaya 2012).

(7) Middle И по сих давам у знан'ге господству=ви израд'і швою члов'къ мою
Blg. на име Стънислав, како=му=ест=бил дал¹ Марко един синъ=му, та
да=га научит² назик, да=му плащат; а шн, къда=ест бил³ летоска,
шн=ест бежал⁴, тако=ест ωтишел⁵ през Дунав и Хръсова та=се=ест
потурчил⁶. [CCXLVII: Carstian, vornicul lui Radu IV cel Mare. (с. 1496-
1507)].

for Slovenian clustering clitics is 2P, cf. Slv. *Videl=sem=ga* 'I have seen it'. However, colloquial Slovenian has an additional 1P option, when the clustering clitics are fronted in verificational and emphatic contexts, cf. Slv. #Sem=ga=videl 'I have indeed seen it'.

13 See the details in footnotes 11 and 12. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for the valuable comments.
'And now I notify your grace about my man, by the name Stănislav.
Marko had previously sent¹ him one of his sons, so that Stănislav
would teach² him the language for payment. But he ran⁴ away from
where he was³ last summer, so he drove down⁵ the Danube from
Hâršovo/Hâršova and converted⁶ to Islam [lit. became⁶ a Turk]'.

(7')

<table><tr><td>И</td><td>по сих</td><td>давам</td><td>у</td><td>знан̧іе</td><td>господству</td><td>=ви</td></tr><tr><td>And</td><td>till now</td><td>gave:1SG</td><td>by</td><td>knowledge</td><td>dominion</td><td>you: 2PL</td></tr><tr><td>израді</td><td>швою</td><td>чловѣкъ</td><td>мою</td><td>на</td><td>име</td><td>Стънислав,</td></tr><tr><td>sake</td><td>that</td><td>man</td><td>mine</td><td>by</td><td>name</td><td>Stănislav</td></tr><tr><td>како</td><td>=му</td><td>=ест</td><td>=бил</td><td>дал¹</td><td>Марко</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>how</td><td>him:CL.DAT</td><td>is: CL.3SG</td><td>was: 3SG</td><td>gave: 3SG</td><td>Marco</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>един син</td><td>=му</td><td>та</td><td>да</td><td>=га</td><td>научит²</td><td>язик,</td></tr><tr><td>one son</td><td>him: CL</td><td>so</td><td>to</td><td>him: CL.ACC</td><td>teach</td><td>language</td></tr><tr><td>да</td><td>=му</td><td>плащат;</td><td>а</td><td>шн,</td><td>къда</td><td>=ест</td><td>бил³</td></tr><tr><td>to</td><td>him: DAT.CL</td><td>pay: 3PL</td><td>but</td><td>he</td><td>when</td><td>is: CL.3SG</td><td>was: 3SG</td></tr><tr><td>летоска,</td><td>шн,</td><td>=ест</td><td>бежал,⁴</td><td>тако</td><td>=ест</td><td>штишел⁵</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>last summ</td><td>he</td><td>is: CL.3SG</td><td>ran: 3SG</td><td>so</td><td>is: CL.3SG</td><td>departed: 3SG</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>през</td><td>Дунав и</td><td>Хръсова</td><td>та</td><td>=се</td><td>=ест</td><td>потурчил⁶</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Along</td><td>Danube and</td><td>Hâršovo</td><td>so</td><td>REFL.CL is: CL.3SG</td><td></td><td>became.a.Turk: 3SG</td><td></td></tr></table>

[CCXLVII: Carstian, vornicul lui Radu IV cel Mare. (c. 1496-1507)].

'And now I notify your grace about my man, by the name Stănislav. Marko had previously sent¹ him one of his sons, so that Stănislav would teach² him the language for payment. But he ran⁴ away from where he was³ last summer, so he drove down⁵ the Danube from Hâršovo/Hâršova and converted⁶ to Islam [lit. became⁶ a Turk]'.

The Middle Bulgarian template is shown schematically in (vi).

(vii) Middle Bulgarian [CLP [PTCL...]] AUX1 [PRON DAT ACC] AUX2 AUX4]

## 6 Conclusions

Bulgarian has a double-focus system of clitic placement (2P condition and clitic-verb adjacency), which is not typologically rare but lacks exact counterparts in modern European languages. Therefore, neither the analogy with standard 2P languages without clitic-verb adjacency nor the analogy with the Romance systems with vP-internal clitics captures the profile of the Bulgarian clitic syntax. Bulgarian inherited the principle of 2P clitic placement and part of the clustering clitics inventory from Proto-Slavic, while the clitic-verb adjacency is an innovation. Its exact time and triggers are obscure, but a contact influence of a non-Slavic Balkan word order system is probable. The language of the Wallachian letters has residual #XP-CL-[Y]-V orders but is otherwise typologically similar to Modern Bulgarian. However,
er, this idiom spoken by the L2 speakers of Middle Bulgarian cannot
be viewed as a direct ancestor of Modern Bulgarian.

Bibliography

Belletti, A. (ed.) (2004). *Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures*, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press.

Benincà, P.; Munaro, N. (2011). *Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Billings, L.; Konopasky, A. (2002). "The role of morphology in ordering verb-ad adjacent clitics: from syntax to prosody in Bulgarian and Tagalog". *Alexia-dou, A. et al. (eds)*, *Linguistics in Potsdam*, vol. 19. Potsdam: Institut für Linguisistik, Universität Potsdam, 1-26.

Bivon, R. (1971). *Element Order*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Studies in the Modern Russian Language 7.

Bošković, Ž. (2004). "Clitic placement in South Slavic". *Journal of Slavic Linguistics*, 12(1-2), 39-90.

Cinque, G. (1999). *Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cinque, G. (2014). "Again on Tense, Aspect, Mood Morpheme Order and the 'Mirror Principle', Functional Structure from Top to Toe". *The Cartography of Syntactic Structures*, vol. 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232-65.

Diderichsen, P. (1946). *Elementaer Dansk Grammatik*. København: Gyldendal.

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (1999). "Clitics in the Slavic languages". van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), *Clitics in the languages of Europe* (Eurotype 20-5). Berlin; New York: Mouton, 83-121.

Dryer, M.S.; Haspelmath, M. (eds) (2013a). *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online*. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Dryer, M.S. (2013b). "Order of Subject, Object and Verb". Dryer, Haspelmath 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/81.

Dryer, M.S. (2013c). "Order of Object and Verb". Dryer, Haspelmath 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/83.

Dyer, D. (1992). *Word Order in the Simple Bulgarian Sentence*. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Franks, S. (2008). "Clitic Placement, Prosody and the Bulgarian Verbal Complex". *Journal of Slavic linguistics*, 16(1), 91-137.

Franks, S.; King, T.H. (2000). *A Handbook of Slavic Clitics*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gäläbov, I. (1950). "Zur Frage der bulgarischen Enklitika". *Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie*, 10(2), 417-18.

Greenberg, J.H. (1963). "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of the Meaningful Elements". *Universals of Language*. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 73-113.

Halpern, A.L. (1996). "Introduction". Halpern, Zwicky 1996, ix-xxiii.

Halpern, A.L.; Zwicky, A.M. (eds) (1996). *Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena*. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Haspelmath, M. (2019). "Ergativity and the Depth of Analysis". *Rhema. Рема*, 4, 118-30.

Hawkins, J. (1983). *Word Order Universals*. New York: Academic Press.
Hubenova, M.; Dzhumadanova, A.; Marinova, M. (1968). *A Course in Modern Bulgarian*, vol. 1. Columbus: Slavica.

Jakobson, R. (1971). "Les enclitiques slaves". *Selected Writings*. Vol. 2, *Word and Language*. The Hague; Paris, 16-22.

Krapova, I. (2002). "On the Left Periphery of the Bulgarian Sentence". *Working Papers*, vol. 12. Venezia: Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, 107-28.

Lee, C.; Billings, L. (2005). "Wackernagel and Verb-Adjacent Clisis in Central Philippines". Heinz, J.; Ntelitheos, D. (eds), *Proceedings of the 12th meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12)*. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California, 241-54.

Mayo, P. (1993). "Belorussian". Comrie, B.; Corbett, G.G. (eds), *The Slavonic Languages*. London: Routledge, 887-946.

Mussafia, A. (1886). "Una particolarità sintattica della lingua italiana dei primi secoli". Avolio, C.; Biadene, L.; Ascoli, G.I. (a cura di), *In memoria Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angelo Canello: Miscellanea di filologia e linguistica*, 155-261. Firenze: Successori Le Monnier.

Pancheva, R. (2005). "The Rise and Fall of Second-Position Clitics". *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory*, 23(1), 103-67.

Pavlović, S. (2011). "Distribucija enklitika u starosrpskim poveljama i pismima XII i XIII veka" (The Placement of Enclitic s in Old Serbian Documents of the XIIth and XIII Century). *Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku (Matica Srpska Journal of Philology and Linguistics)*, LIV(2), 31-52.

Progovac, L. (1996). "Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the Second Position". Halpern, Zwicky 1996, 411-28.

Radanović-Kocić, V. (1996). "The Placement of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Prosodic Approach". Halpern, Zwicky 1996, 429-48.

Rå Hauge, K. (1976). "The Word Order of Predicate Clitics in Bulgarian". *Journal of Slavic Linguistics*, 7(1), 89-137. (Originally appeared as Meddelelser 10, Oslo: Slavisk-baltisk institutt, Universitetet i Oslo).

Sadock, J.M. (1995). "A Multi-Hierarchy View of Clitics". *CLS 31*. Part 2, 258-79.

Scatton, E.A. (1984). *A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian*. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.

Spencer, A.; Lúis, A. (2012) *Clitics: An Introduction*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tobler, A. (1875). Review of Joules Le Coultre, de l'ordre des mot dan Crestien de Troyes. Extrait du programme de Pâques 1875 du Collége Vitzthum. Dresde 1875 ... [sic]. *Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen*, 2(34), 1057-82. (Reprinted in his *Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik*, vol. 5. Leipzig: Hirzel, 395-415).

Tolstaya, M.N. Толстая М.Н. (2012). "Karpatoukrainskie enklitiki v južnoslavyanskoj perspectivе" *Карпатоукраинские энклитики в южнославянской перспективе* (Carpathian Unkrainan Enclitics in a South Slavic Perspective). *Карпато-балканский диалектный ландшафт; язык и культура: 2009-2011* *Karpato-balkaniskij dialektnyj landshaft; Yazyk i kul'tura: 2009-2011* (Carpathian-Balcanian Dialectal Landscape: Language and Culture: 2009-2011), vol. 2. Moscow: Institute of Slavic Studies, 190-211.

Vaillant, A. (1948). *Manuel du Vieux Slave*. Paris: Institut d'Études Slaves.

Wackernagel, J. (1892). "Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung". *Indogermanische Forschungen*, 1, 333-436.
Wanner, D. (1996). "Second Position in Medieval Romance". Halpern, A.L.; Zwicky, A.M. (eds), *Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena*. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 537-78.

Zaliznjak, A.A. Зализняк, А.А (1993). "Lingvistečeskie issledovanija" Лингвистические исследования (Linguistic Studies). Janin, V.L. Янин, В.Л.; Zaliznjak, A.A. Зализняк, А.А. (eds), *Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste. Iz raskopok 1984-1989* Новгородские грамоты на бересте (из раскопок 1989-1989 гг.) (Novgorod Birch Bark Letters from the Excavations 1984-1989). Moscow: Nauka, 191-344.

Zalizniak, A.A. Зализняк, А.А. (2008). *Drevnerusskie enklitiki Древнерусские энклитики* (Old Russian Enclitics). Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoj Kultury.

Zimmerling, A. (2012). "A Unified Analysis of Clitic Clusters in the World's Languages". *Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, 11*(18), 726-38.

Zimmerling, A. Циммерлинг, А. (2013). *Sistemy poryadka slov slavyanskix yazykov v tipologičeskom aspekte Системы порядка слов славянских языков в типологическом аспекте* (Slavic Word Order Systems in Typological Perspective). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoj kultury.

Zimmerling, A. (2015). "Parametrizing Verb-Second Languages and Clitic-Second Languages". *WORLDCOMP'15. Proceedings of the 2015th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence*, vol. 1. CSREA Press, 281-7.

Zimmerling, A.; Kosta, P. (2013). "Slavic Clitics: A Typology". STUF, 66(2), 178-214.

Zwicky, A.M. (1977). *On Clitics*. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>
Rivista semestrale | Semestral journal

Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici
e Culturali Comparati

Università Ca' Foscari Venezia

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Università
Ca'Foscari
Venezia