(5) DISC QU DISC ADV AUX1 DAT (REFL)<fnref n="9" /> ACC AUX2 ADV

According to the so-called 'historical principle', the order of the clitics in the cluster mirrors the chronology in which they have become 'weak', a pre-condition for their later reanalysis as clitics. This principle predicts that potential members of the clitic cluster would join the clustering elements only to their right. According to Zimmerling (2013), this principle cannot explain the order but can only account for the change in the status of the elements, which is a mechanism for expanding the cluster. Observations on the data that will be discussed, however, show that this is true for a limited set of elements with relatively fixed slots, either in the clause or in the phrase – the discourse markers and the pronominal clitics, which, as mentioned above, constitute the core of the clitic cluster (while verbal elements fluctuate).<fnref n="9" />

The discussion is based on data that has been excerpted from texts from three diachronic corpora. For Old Church Slavonic (OCS), these are the annotated texts of two monuments – Codex Marianus (CM) and Codex Suprasliensis (CSpr) within the TOROT corpus (Haug, Eckhoff 2011a; 2011b), which are used for the numbers; variant readings here are consulted according to three monuments – Codex Zographensis (CZ), Codex Assemani (CA), and Codex Sabbae (CSb) in the TITUS database. For Middle Bulgarian, the texts used are the Legend of Troy (LTr) (14th c.; Miklošič 1871) and the Vlacho-Bulgarian Charters (VB) (15th-16th c.; Bogdan 1902) that are available in the Diachronic Corpus of the Bulgarian Language (Totomanova 2015). For Early Modern Bulgarian (EMB), the texts in two damaskins (17th c.) are used: the Damaskin of Troyan (DTr; Ivanova 1967) and the Damaskin of Lovech (DLv; Mladenova, Velčeva 2013). The texts were chosen because of their accessibility and availability<fnref n="10" /> for replica and the hypothetical closeness to the vernacular.<fnref n="11" />

<footnote n="8">8 The reflexive pronoun CA 'self.ACC' exhibits 'mixed' behaviour of a marker that re-flexivises the verb and a semi-clitic but is also found among the clustering elements as we will see later. There are a couple of examples with other accusatives, therefore the reflexive is placed within the pattern here, albeit tentatively.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Expectably, some orders that are present in our data are not found in present-day standard Bulgarian: for example, pronominal clitics could occupy the first sentential position that is never the case in present-day standard Bulgarian (though this phenomenon is observed in some dialects, see Iliev 2018, Tiševa 2008, among other). Also expectably, clitics were found in the absolute second prosodic position as well; in some cases, they could split a noun phrase much like what happens in present-day Serbian. This is no longer the case in standard Bulgarian.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Within the TOROT corpus: http://syntacticus.org/; the TITUS database: https://titus.fkidgl.uni-frankfurt.de/framee.htm?/index.htm; and Diachronic Corpus of the Bulgarian Language: https://histdict.uni-sofia.bg/textcorpus/list</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Texts in CSpr, VB, DTr and DLv have different linguistic properties, probably following different redactions (and translations) (in the case of CSpr, DTr, DLv; the collection of VB in the Bogdan's 1902 publication contains texts written over two centu-</footnote>
## 3.1 Discourse Clitics

The discourse clitics же (a focus marker or an emphatic particle) and бо (a complementiser or a marker of subordination) are widely attested in OCS (with parallels in Greek; cf. Thayer 1889). These clitics usually appear in the second clausal and/or phrasal position: they are the earliest 2P clitics and both were already used as suffixes (as in иже 'who/which', никътоже 'nobody', неже 'than'; ойбо 'therefore', ибо 'because', etc.). Migdalski (2016) calls them "opera-tor clitics" since they additionally 'operate' on the information struc-ture of the sentence. If found together (rarely in the observed texts), the order is же > бо, as in (6a); pronominal clitics follow them (6b-c).

(6) a.

<table><tr><td>āko</td><td>же</td><td>бо</td><td>вълѣзе</td><td>къ</td><td>бученикомъ</td><td>C Spr, 251r, 19-20</td></tr><tr><td>if¹</td><td>EMPH</td><td>because</td><td>entered</td><td>to</td><td>disciples</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Οτι</td><td>μὲν</td><td>γὰρ</td><td>εἰσῆλθε</td><td>πρὸς</td><td>τοὺς μαθητὰς</td><td></td></tr></table>

i Due to space limitation, glosses are given if there is no appropriate translation and with elements that are in focus in the article, mainly clitics (e.g., is.AUX.3pSg: present-tense auxiliary, 3pSg; be.AUX.COND: conditional auxiliary; etc.).

b.

<table><tr><td>οὐνhte</td><td>bo</td><td>tu</td><td>estb</td><td></td><td>CM, Mt. 5,29</td></tr><tr><td>better</td><td>because</td><td>you.DAT</td><td>is.COP.3pSg</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>συμφέρει</td><td>γάρ</td><td>σοι</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>da</td><td>погыблетъ</td><td>единъ</td><td>оудъ</td><td>твоихъ</td></tr><tr><td>to</td><td>die</td><td>one</td><td>members.GEN</td><td>your.GEN</td></tr><tr><td>íνα</td><td>ἀπόληται</td><td>ἐν</td><td>τῶν μελῶν</td><td>σου*</td></tr></table>

* Three Greek NT editions were consulted. Wherever possible, I supply the corresponding Greek text with variants according to other editions if they attest for variant readings with respect to the clitics. If there is no reference to an edition, the text is given according to Nestle 1904; for a discussion on editions vs. manuscripts, see Toufexis 2010.

c.

<table><tr><td>въздастъ</td><td>бо</td><td>tu</td><td>ca</td><td>CM, Lk. 14,14</td></tr><tr><td>give</td><td>because</td><td>you.DAT</td><td>RefcL</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ἀνταποδοθήσεται</td><td>γάρ</td><td>σοι</td><td></td><td>Nestle 1904</td></tr><tr><td>ἀνταποδοθήσεται</td><td>δέ</td><td>σοι</td><td></td><td>Tischendorf 8th ed.</td></tr></table>

ries ago, which reflect different language varieties and influences). The raw numbers given in the article show the overall trends without aiming at a thorough analysis as the data is quite heterogeneous.
BO вьскрѣшение праведъныхъ

in resurrection righteous.GEN

ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων.

ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων.

The particle же is used for emphatic marking of the preceding constituent and has the semantics of a weak adversative conjunction, most often translating Greek δέ 'but, and' – as in (7a) – and more rarely μέν 'while', but also (in various contexts) τέ 'and, also', οὖν 'therefore', δή 'but, then', γάρ 'because', γέ 'in fact, only', καὶ 'and'. In some cases, there is no parallel element in Greek, as in (7b); see also the variation in (7c) where οὖν is translated as 'же ойбо', only 'ойбо' and only 'же' in the three manuscripts cited.

(7) a.

οἰη ἀναστάσει ἐν ἐμοῦ

he ἐν ἐμοῦ

Glue

he ἐν ἐμοῦ

ó ἐν ἐμοῦ

раби же ρθωλα

slaves ἐμοῦ

Οἱ же ἐν ἐμοῦ

Οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι λέγουσιν

b.

[...] приходится же непризнаны [...]

comes ἐν ἐμοῦ

[...] приходится же непризнаны [...]

[...] приходится же ὁ πονηρὸς [...]

c.

ерда же ойбо придетъ гѣб винограда [...] CM, CA, Mt. 21,40

when therefore comes owner vineyard.GEN

ерда же придетъ гѣб винограда [...] CZ

ʻи эгда ойбо приде гѣб виноградоу [...] CSb

LAND
Both же and бо may split a constituent – see (8) where же separates зѣло ‘much’ and зовѣшτοу ‘who is calling (him)’ (επικράζοντος).

(8)

<table><tr><td>Зѣло же зовѣшτοу</td><td>ми</td><td>ίέο</td><td>много и глагολικшτοу</td><td>CSpr, 21r, 28-29</td></tr><tr><td>much <strong>EMPH</strong> calling</td><td><strong>I.DAT</strong></td><td>he.acc</td><td>much and speaking</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Έπικράζοντος δέ</td><td><strong>μου</strong></td><td>αὐτῶ</td><td>καὶ λέγοντος πολλάκις</td><td></td></tr></table>

The complementiser бо (Sławski 1974, 285-6) is predominantly found after a single constituent, which can be preceded by a preposition, a conjunction or negation particle he (which can also precede бо). It translates the Greek emphatic conjunction γάρ ‘because’. The use of oybo as an emphatic particle is a very early development, mostly in interrogative sentences – oybo is predominantly found after a wh-word (Cejtlin 1994, 721-2) and translates different elements in Greek: ἄρα μὲν ‘then indeed’, οὖν ‘therefore’, τοίνυν ‘therefore’ (each has specific placement: οὖν is predominantly in 2P, and μὲν can be found after the definite article, i.e. phrase-internally). There are adjacent placements of oybo and бо, with variant readings as in (9).

(9)

<table><tr><td>τῶκο</td><td><strong>οὐδο</strong></td><td>οὐδο</td><td>събираıkτъ</td><td>πλѣвелѣι.</td><td>CM, Mt. 13,40</td></tr><tr><td>as</td><td><strong>therefore</strong></td><td>collect</td><td></td><td>weeds</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>τῆκσι</td><td><strong>οὐδο</strong></td><td>πλѣвелι</td><td>събираıkτъ</td><td>сᾱ</td><td>CA</td></tr><tr><td>τῶκο</td><td><strong>οὐδοδη</strong></td><td>събираıkτъ</td><td>πλѣвелы</td><td></td><td>CZ</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>οὐδο</strong></td><td>συλλέγεται</td><td></td><td>τὰ ζιζάνια</td><td></td></tr></table>

The constituent preceding же and бо can be a verbal element, a noun or a pronoun, an adjective, an adverbial, a wh-word such as къто ‘who’, чъто ‘which/that’, по чъто ‘because of which’, etc., which can be preceded by a conjunction, negation particle, and/or followed by ми ‘I.DAT’, ти ‘you.DAT’, та ‘you.acc’, са ‘self.acc’, etc.

In Middle Bulgarian texts observed here, both discourse markers are rare. In LTr, же has only 9 occurrences, and бо is found 7 times. The raw numbers given by Dimitrova and Bojadziev (2014) show that many later non-canonical sources exhibit higher numbers for oybo but not for бо. In VB, бо is missing and же occurs 47 times, mainly in fixed expressions such as великъ же и малъ ‘big but also small’ (26 occurrences) and еще же (12 occurrences). же is also found after pronominals such as the dative ви ‘you.2pPl’ in: варе що **ви же** речет ж團ан Кр(ъ)стѣ и ж團ан Ханжш ‘something that župan Krastyo and župan Hanush told you’.
In the two 17th-century damaskins, же and бо are missing (except for in citations).<fnref n="12" />

## 3.2 Pronominal Clitics, Semi-Clitic and Clitic-Like Elements

The short forms of personal and anaphoric pronouns can be grouped into three subclasses according to their cliticisation status in OCS. The raw numbers in **table 1** support the assumption that they were all on the path to becoming clitics (in some of the accounts cited above, they are already analysed as such) but there are differences as well.

The first subclass includes the datives **ми** 'I.DAT' and **ти** 'you.DAT', which are the first pronominals to exhibit the behaviour of clitics: according to Wackernagel (2009), the Greek datives μοι 'I.DAT' and σοι 'you.DAT' were clitics, hence, their corresponding pronouns in OCS **ми** and **ти** might have been clitics, as well (Večerka 1989; Wackernagel 2009, 496, fn. 8 by D. Langslow). In the data observed here, they tend to appear in 2P (ca. 73%) preceded by a verb (ca. 67% of all 2Ps; and 72% of all occurrences) or after a nominal element, an adverb, a conjunction such as **да** 'to', **аште** 'if', **ѣко** 'as', and a wh-word (ca. 25% of all 2Ps; and ca. 21% of all occurrences). Although Migdalski (2016) claims that these were mainly ethical datives functioning as 'operator clitics', a study on these specific cases by Krapova and Dimitrova (2015) shows that many of these datives can be analysed either as affected participants, or as inalienable possessors, or as both (i.e. affected participants that are also inalienable possessors, see Minčeva 1964).

The second subclass of pronominal clitics comprises the so-called semi-clitics and can be further divided into two groups: a) the first- and second-person accusatives **МА** 'I.ACC' and **ТА** 'you.ACC', which appear after a preposition and in first position; and b) the third-person accusatives (и 'he.ACC', **А** 'she.ACC', **А** 'they.ACC', е 'it.ACC', **ѣ** 'they.ACC'), which often translate non-clitic Greek pronouns. Elements of both groups show a strong tendency to appear in second position, as well as post-verbally. There is a slight precedence of the second group to appear post-verbally: ca. 78% (**МА**, **ТА**) vs. ca. 93% (и, **А**, **А**, е, **ѣ**). When in second position, however, there is a clear difference between the two groups with respect to their pre-verbal placement: ca. 6% (**МА**, **ТА**) vs. ca. 25% (и, **А**, **А**, е, **ѣ**).

The third subclass of pronominals - involving pronouns that will be defined as 'clitic-like' in the present discussion - includes the short dative bi-syllabic емoy 'he.DAT', еи 'she.DAT', имъ 'they.DAT', etc.,

<footnote n="12">12 In the so-called archaic damaskins, however, both are still present, in the earlier positions.</footnote>
which have ambiguous behaviour with respect to discourse markers and the first two pronominal subclasses, and whose successors in later stages of Bulgarian (мой 'he.DAT', й 'she.DAT', etc.) are clitics. They are also found predominantly in second position (ca. 75%) and, (even) more often, post-verbally (ca. 92%). However, only 7% of the clitic-like pronouns are both 2P and pre-verbal – this percentage is comparable to the one seen in the preceding paragraph with respect to the first- and second-person accusatives MA 'I.ACC' and TA 'you.ACC' (the first subclass of the semi-clitics).

These results may indicate, albeit it is a tentative proposal, that 2P cliticisation was the dominant pattern, at least during the period witnessed by these OCS texts, and that this pattern was not in competition with pre-verbal placement but could co-exist with the latter in case the word order would allow for it. The 2P pattern and the post-verbal one were not in competition either and perhaps can be seen as alternative mechanisms motivated also by word order and/or information-structure principles and/or the syntax of the original Greek text.

<table><caption>**Table 1** Pronominal clitics, semi-clitics and clitic-like pronouns in OCS (according to CM and CSpr)</caption><thead><tr><th>CL<sup>i</sup></th><th>2P, pre-V<sup>ii</sup></th><th>2P, post-V</th><th>2P, non-V-adjacent<sup>iii</sup></th><th>non-2P, pre-V</th><th>non-2P, post-V</th><th>non-2P, non-V-adjacent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ми, ти</td><td>75<sup>iv</sup></td><td>204</td><td>26</td><td>12</td><td>97</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>емоу, еи, имъ</td><td>77</td><td>1053</td><td>17</td><td>23</td><td>362</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>ма, та, нъы, въы</td><td>83</td><td>241</td><td>15</td><td>22</td><td>194</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>и, ёх, а, е, ёъ</td><td>49</td><td>788</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>278</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

i Clustering clitics are calculated as part of the cluster (as well as interrogative ли, monosyllabic adverbs и, ти, той), i.e. another clitic, which is part of the cluster, can precede or follow (e.g. приведъте МИ.ДАТ и.АСС съмо 'bring him to me here' will be calculated both for the dative МИ and for the accusative И as 2P, post-V; ръци оубо намъ чъто ТИ.ДАТ СА.REFL мънитъ 'therefore, tell us what you think' will be calculated for the dative ТИ as 2P, pre-V).

ii The constituent in 1P can be preceded by a coordinating monosyllabic conjunction such as и 'and', а 'but', нъ 'but', etc., and the negation не. Elements after infinitives were calculated accordingly (повелъ аноупатъ принести врътиште. й въсадити и.АСС въ не. 'order the proconsul to bring the back and to put it inside (in-it)' was 2P, post-V for the accusative и) but periphrastic verb constructions are not included.

iii One or more constituents (noun phrases, prepositional phrases, adverbial phrases, including non-monosyllabic adverbs such as пакъ, пакъы) can be placed between the clitic/clitic cluster and the verb.

iv Numbers do not involve periphrastic constructions, first-position elements or prepositional phrases.

If clusterised, the dative МИ 'I.DAT' and ТИ 'you.DAT' tend to precede the accusative semi-clitics (and the reflexives), as in (10a-c). This is not true for the clitic-like datives, though, as in (10d).
(10) a.

<table><tr><td>приведъте</td><td>ми</td><td>и</td><td>съмо.</td><td>СМ, Mt. 17,17</td></tr><tr><td>bring</td><td>i.DAT</td><td>he.acc</td><td>here</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>φέρετέ</td><td>μοι</td><td>αὐτὸν</td><td>ῶδε.</td><td></td></tr></table>

b.

<table><tr><td>принесъте</td><td>ми</td><td>HA</td><td>съмо.</td><td>СМ, Mt. 14,18</td></tr><tr><td>bring</td><td>i.DAT</td><td>they.acc</td><td>here</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>принесъте</td><td></td><td>Ä</td><td>съмо</td><td>CA</td></tr><tr><td>принесъете</td><td></td><td></td><td>съемо</td><td>CSb</td></tr><tr><td>Φέρετέ</td><td>μοι</td><td>ῶδε</td><td>αὐτούς.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>φέρετέ</td><td>μοι</td><td>αὐτοῦς</td><td></td><td>Scrivener 1894</td></tr></table>

c.

<table><tr><td>ръци</td><td>оубо</td><td>намъ</td><td>чъто</td><td>ТИ</td><td>СА</td><td>мьнитъ</td><td>СМ, Mt. 22,17</td></tr><tr><td>tell</td><td>then</td><td>we.DAT</td><td>what</td><td>you.DAT</td><td></td><td>think</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>εἰπὲ</td><td>οὖν</td><td>ήμιν</td><td>τί</td><td>σοι</td><td></td><td>δοκεῖ</td><td></td></tr></table>

d.

<table><tr><td>НАЗНАМЕНА</td><td>ЖЕ</td><td>СА</td><td>ΙΕΜΟΥ</td><td>ВѣНЬЦЪ</td><td>ПО</td><td>ТЪЛОУ·</td><td>CSpr, 72v, 4</td></tr><tr><td>indicated</td><td>EMPH</td><td>RefLCL</td><td>he.DAT</td><td>wreath</td><td>ON</td><td>body</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ἐσημάνθη</td><td>δὲ</td><td>αὐτοῦ</td><td>ولي</td><td>στέφανος</td><td>καὶ</td><td>διὰ</td><td>τοῦ σώματος.</td></tr></table>

The placement of the pronominal elements often echoes the respective placement of the parallel elements in the Greek text but with variant readings (especially if there were no corresponding constructions in Greek – Sławski 1946 – such as the reflexive constructions and periphrastic verb constructions). The verbal elements are discussed further in the article; here I will only mention that clitics and semi-clitics demonstrate similar behaviour: both may precede the auxiliary and, by transitivity, also the participle (the active l-participle as well as the passive n/m/t-participles). Both may be found in 2P, in the order X > CL > AUX > Participle, where X can be a wh-word, as in (11a), a subjunction such as ‘to’, as in (11b), or some other functional element in first position.

(11) a.

<table><tr><td>како</td><td>и</td><td>бѣ</td><td>погоубили.</td><td>СМ, Mk. 3,6</td></tr><tr><td>how</td><td>he.acc</td><td>are.AUX.</td><td>3Sg</td><td>murdered</td></tr><tr><td>ovan</td><td>αὐτὸν</td><td>ἀπολέσωσιν.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
b.

<table><tr><td>[...] съвъшташӑ</td><td>да</td><td>и бх</td><td>оубили</td><td>CM, Mar. 3,6</td></tr><tr><td>[...] consulted</td><td>to</td><td>he.acc are.aux.3Sg</td><td>killed</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>[...] ёбουлеўсавто</td><td>і́ва</td><td>àποκτείνωσιν</td><td>αὐτόν.</td><td></td></tr></table>

Semi-clitic reflexive pronoun са 'self.acc' exhibits variation in its behaviour just like the other semi-clitic pronominals: it may appear after the (reflexive) verb (more often) but also among the clustering elements (more rarely) in a slot of another pronominal and, more specifically, in the slot of the accusative pronominals.

We have already distinguished between 'true' clitics (ми 'I.dat' and ти 'you.dat') and clitic-like pronouns (емoy 'he.dat', etc.) above, but their different status with respect to the cliticisation behaviour also manifests with respect to са 'self.acc': ми and ти always precedes it, as in (10c), while the clitic-like pronouns typically follow it, as in (10d) above.

If the semi-clitic са 'self.acc', however, is found beside the elements in the core in (5), as indicated by (10c), it may also appear in 2P beside other elements as in (12) where it aspires for a slot within the cluster. In (21) below, we will see another example where са is placed in front of the auxiliary but also after the main verb in compound tenses in a variant reading.

(12)

<table><tr><td>колико</td><td>сӑ</td><td>бы</td><td>троудилъ</td><td>CSpr, 49r, 11-12</td></tr><tr><td>how-much</td><td>Refcl</td><td>be.aux.cond</td><td>worked</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Пόσа</td><td>äv</td><td></td><td>ěkaμες,</td><td></td></tr></table>

As mentioned above, semi-clitics (reflexives included) are mainly post-verbal. Pronominal non-reflexive semi-clitics, though, may also appear either post-verbally, in most cases, or in 2P. If 2P, however, is occupied by a 'true' discourse clitic же or бо, the semi-clitic is often post-verbal, as in the examples in (13). This may signal that these semi-clitic pronouns do not behave as clitics yet.

(13) a.

<table><tr><td>потомь</td><td>же</td><td>обрѣте</td><td>и</td><td>йс.</td><td>въ</td><td>цркве.</td><td>CM, Jo. 5,14</td></tr><tr><td>later</td><td>EMPH</td><td>found</td><td>he.acc</td><td>Jesus</td><td>in</td><td>temple</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>потомь</td><td>же</td><td>обрѣте</td><td></td><td>йс</td><td>въ</td><td>цркъве</td><td>CZ</td></tr><tr><td>Метà</td><td>taŭta</td><td>εὐρίσκει</td><td>αὐτὸν</td><td>ó'lησοῦς</td><td>ἐν</td><td>τῷ ἱερῷ</td><td></td></tr></table>
b.

<table><tr><td>седмъ <b>бо</b> ихъ</td><td>имѣшА</td><td><b>ІХ</b></td><td>женъ.</td><td>CM, Mk. 12,23</td></tr><tr><td>seven <b>because</b> they.GEN</td><td>had</td><td><b>she.Acc</b></td><td>wife.Acc</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>седмъ <b>бо</b></td><td>‘имѣшА</td><td><b>ІХ</b></td><td>женъ.</td><td>CZ</td></tr><tr><td>οἱ γὰρ ἐπτὰ</td><td>ἔσχον</td><td><b>αὐτὴν</b></td><td>γυναῖκα.</td><td></td></tr></table>

c.

<table><tr><td>они же оукориша и</td><td>[...]</td><td>CM, Jo. 9,28</td></tr><tr><td>they <b>EMPH</b> rebuked he.Acc</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>καὶ ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτὸν</td><td>[...]</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ἐλοιδόρησαν οὖν αὐτόν</td><td>[...]</td><td>Scrivener 1894</td></tr></table>

The inventory of clitics (and clitic-like elements) in OCS texts is rather limited. It is to be expanded in Middle Bulgarian but some forms are already attested in the early texts: for example, contracted forms of clitic-like datives, though very rarely and with variant readings, as in (14).

(14)

<table><tr><td>‘Ι ὃ μρὶ κρατὰς<br>and in<br>temple being</td><td>σκωτιο</td><td><b>μοῦ</b>·</td><td>πριδοσα</td><td>καὶ ἡμοῦ</td><td>CZ, Mk. 11,27</td></tr><tr><td>Ι ὃ μρὶ κρατὰς<br>καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ</td><td>χοδαωτιο</td><td><b>he.DAT</b></td><td>came</td><td>to</td><td>he.AT</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>περιπατοῦντος</td><td><b>εμοῦ</b></td><td>‘πριδα</td><td>καὶ</td><td>немοῦ</td><td>CM</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><b>αὐτοῦ</b></td><td></td><td>ἔρχονται</td><td>πρὸς</td><td>αὐτὸν</td></tr></table>

The class of pronominal clitics expands in the Middle Bulgarian texts that I have considered. In LTr, the respective clitics occur in the same positions and order with the addition of third-person accusative ro 'he. ACC' and dative moy 'he.DAT', which behave as 'true' clitics. The earlier forms, however (ero and emoy), are still found in LTr but in different functions. The accusative clitic ro 'he.ACC' is used for direct objects only, while the genitive (genitive-accusative) ero predominantly expresses the possessive genitive. The dative clitic moy 'he.DAT' refers to external possessors and is found in 2P, while emoy refers to indirect object (and is found after a verb and after some prepositions such as против 'against'). Expectably, ero and emoy do not cluster.

The clustering elements exhibit the pattern in (5), as illustrated by the examples in (15), with the core (DAT > ACC) in 2P, and the verbal elements placed to its right (in AUX2).
(15) a.

[...] оумыслити, како **го** и расыпати LTr

[...] think.INF how **he.ACC** also.EMPH scatter.INF

b.

[...] **които** **моу** **СА** ω(те)цъ бѣ нарекль LTr

[...] who **he.DAT** **RefclL** father was called

c.

[...] **какото** **х** **СИ** и пръвое чюлъ. LTr

[...] how **she.ACC** **be.AUX.2Sg** also.EMPH first heard

d.

[...], да **мӳ** е имА Прижіа градъ. LTr

[...], to **he.ACC** **is.COP.3Sg** name Paris town

e.

[...] **помного** **моу** **би** лѣпоты прибыло LTr

[...] much **he.DAT** **be.COND** beauty been

f.

[...] **нӑ** **ми** **еси** ты оброкъ. LTr

[...] but **I.DAT** **is.COP.2Sg** you.NOM.2Sg oath

In VB, pronominal clitics continue to cluster in the order **DAT > ACC** (including reflexives). As in (16a), the cluster is placed before the negation particle and can be separated by the verb (although both pronominal clitics and the cluster are already mainly verb-adjacent).

(16) a.

[...] да **мӳ** **га** не липсат ни един влас VB

[...] to **he.DAT** **it.ACC** NEG lack no one hair

b.

A ако **мӳ** **се** криво видит томӳ [...] VB

and if **he.DAT** **RefclL** awry see this.DAT
The numbers in **table 2** show clitics' overall preference to second position and pre-verbal placement in VB.

<table><caption>**Table 2** Pronominal clitics in VB</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>2P, pre-V</th><th>2P, post-V</th><th>2P, non-V-adjacent</th><th>non-2P, pre-V</th><th>non-2P, post-V</th><th>non-2P, non-V-adjacent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ми, ти, моу, й, им</td><td>560</td><td>43</td><td>21</td><td>14</td><td>15</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>га/го, ю, их, ме, те, ни, ви</td><td>237</td><td>18</td><td>12</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

In VB, a certain number of pronominal clitics are found after a monosyllabic conjunction such as a 'but', и 'and', and after a pause, as well as in second prosodic position where it can split a noun phrase.

(17)

И **ми** доде слуга моа, да **ми** е VB
and **I.DAT** came servant my to **I.DAT** **is.AUX.3Sg**

күпилъ що **мү** смь казал ωτ все
bought what **he.DAT** **am.AUX.1Sg** said from all

In the two 17th-century damaskins that are took into consideration, pronominal clitics are also found in 2P but pre-verbal and post-verbal positions are almost equally distributed. Although rarely, the cluster may split a noun phrase, as in (18d). The example in (18e) illustrates the portion of the pattern in (5): **DAT ACC AUX2**.

(18) a.

та_ёдийть ча_мұ_се йұ'корені сйлата й_юнӑшьството DLv
for_one hour **he.DAT_RefCL** eradicated power.DEF and_courage.DEF

b.

и Оста́ви си го на Очите и на срцёто, DTr
and leave **RefPossCL** **it.ACC** on eyes.DEF and on heart.DEF

c.

á любовь не йма̧ нийцо **ми** **се** **не** придáва. DTr
and love **NEG** have nothing **I.DAT** **RefCL** **NEG** lend
d.

И тогъва árrgl' **му** **се** гнь **явъ** DTr
and then angel **he.DAT** **RefLCL** of-God showed up

ŵrótþ hæ¹ **нєєго**
from-above over **he.acc**

e.

[...] **амъ** **сú** **ўзмý** **своӑта** кръпа, детó DTr
[...] but **ReflPossCL** **take** **own** **towel** that

**мї** **а** **сй** **дӑла** **на** **дѣль**
**I.DAT** **she.acc** **is.AUX.2Sg** **given** **on** **deed**

<table><caption>**Table 3** Pronominal clitics in DTr and DLv</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>2P, pre-V</th><th>2P, post-V</th><th>2P, non-V-adjacent</th><th>non-2P, pre-V</th><th>non-2P, post-V</th><th>non-2P, non-V-adjacent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ми, ти, моу, й, им...</td><td>538</td><td>418</td><td>52</td><td>26</td><td>49</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>ме, те, ны, вы...</td><td>147</td><td>58</td><td>19</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>го, я, гы, ӑ...</td><td>586</td><td>425</td><td>44</td><td>17</td><td>33</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

To sum up, the inventory of the clitical pronouns that are found in second position and pre-verbally increases in the history of Bulgarian, mainly as a result of the changes in the inventory of pronominal elements. The accusatives го 'he.acc', я 'she.acc', гы 'they.acc' and datives моу 'he.DAT', й 'she.DAT' have joined the cluster after the re-analysis of the earlier forms of anaphoric pronouns.

### 3.3 Verbal Clitics and Clitic-Like Elements

Both in the early and in later texts, the behaviour of most monosyllabic verbal elements such as be-auxiliaries/copulas, future auxiliaries щх/ще 'will/shall', is ambiguous. They may be found in first position, including immediately after negation, and preceding the discourse clitics – as in (19), but also in 2P, within a cluster and in second prosodic position, splitting a noun phrase, as in (19b) – in parallel to the orders in the Greek text.
(19) a.

<table><tr><td>бѣ</td><td>же</td><td>toy</td><td>мӑѣ</td><td>магдалынй.</td><td>[...]</td><td>CM, Mt. 27,61</td></tr><tr><td>was.COP</td><td>EMPH</td><td>there</td><td>Maria</td><td>Magdalene</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>тHv</td><td>δè</td><td>ἐκεῖ</td><td>Μαρία</td><td>ή Μαγδαληνὴ</td><td>[...]</td><td></td></tr></table>

b.

<table><tr><td>пать же</td><td>бѣ</td><td>отъ нихъ</td><td>боуи.</td><td>[...]</td><td>CM, Mt. 25,2</td></tr><tr><td>five</td><td>EMPH</td><td>was.COP</td><td>of they.GEN</td><td>wise</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>πέντε</td><td>δè</td><td>ήσαν</td><td>ἐξ αὐτῶν</td><td>φρόνιμοι</td><td></td></tr></table>

Auxiliaries are found either to the left, or to the right of the pronomi-
nals among the clustering elements, as exemplified by the periphras-
tic verb constructions in (20).

(20) a.

<table><tr><td>[...]</td><td>hăko да</td><td>бъ</td><td>hăk</td><td>й̧zбавилъ</td><td>ōtb</td><td>hĕko·</td><td>CSpr, 280r, 26</td></tr><tr><td>[...]</td><td>if</td><td>to</td><td>be.AUX.COND</td><td>she.Acc</td><td>saved</td><td>from</td><td>he.GEN</td></tr></table>

b.

<table><tr><td>[...]</td><td>l</td><td>въ водъ</td><td>да и<br>би погоубилъ.</td><td></td><td>CM, Mk. 9,22</td></tr><tr><td>[...]</td><td>and</td><td>in</td><td>water to</td><td>he.Acc be.AUX.COND</td><td>murdered</td></tr><tr><td>[...]</td><td>καὶ</td><td>εἰς</td><td>ὑδατα, ἵνα</td><td>ἀπολέσῃ.SUBJ</td><td>αὐτόν.</td></tr></table>

c.

<table><tr><td>да би</td><td>CA</td><td>ихъ</td><td>коснълъ.</td><td>CM, Lk. 18,15</td></tr><tr><td>to</td><td>be.AUX.COND</td><td>RefIcL</td><td>they.Acc</td><td>touched</td></tr><tr><td>íνα</td><td></td><td>αὐτῶν</td><td></td><td>ἄπηται.SUBJ</td></tr></table>

The positions of the reflexive and the auxiliary often vary, with the
former more often found in 2P, while the latter is adjacent to nega-
tion, as in (21).

(21)

<table><tr><td>добръā</td><td>би бъило емоу</td><td>CM, Mt. 26,24</td></tr><tr><td>better</td><td>be.AUX.COND been he.DAT</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>добрѣ</td><td>ēмоу би бъило</td><td>CA</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>добрѣе</td><td>емоу би было</td><td>CZ</td></tr><tr><td>добр'ее</td><td>было бы емоу</td><td>CSb</td></tr><tr><td>каλὸν</td><td>ΗΝ.IND αὐτῷ</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>аште са би не родилъ</td><td>ЧКЪ</td><td>тъ.</td></tr><tr><td>If <b>Refclc</b> <b>be.AUX.COND</b> NEG born man</td><td>this</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ӑще бі не роділъ са</td><td>Члкъ</td><td>тъ'</td></tr><tr><td>ӑште са би не родилъ</td><td>Чкъ</td><td>тъ'</td></tr><tr><td>аще са бы не родилъ</td><td>Члкъ</td><td>тъ'</td></tr><tr><td>εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη.IND</td><td>ο ἄνθρωπος</td><td>ἐκεῖνος.</td></tr></table>

In Middle Bulgarian, fluctuations in the positions of auxiliaries remain, as exemplified in (22) from LTr.

(22) a.

<table><tr><td>и</td><td>поиди</td><td>противъ</td><td>Ектороу</td><td>кралю,</td><td>да</td><td>LTr</td></tr><tr><td>and</td><td>came</td><td>against</td><td>Hector</td><td>king</td><td>to</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>би</td><td>са</td><td>оставилъ</td><td>гръцкія</td><td>воискі</td></tr><tr><td><b>be.AUX.COND</b></td><td><b>Refclc</b></td><td>left</td><td>Greek</td><td>army</td></tr></table>

b.

<table><tr><td>[...]</td><td>и</td><td>метнӑ</td><td>прѣд</td><td>фарижа</td><td>ерова,</td><td>LTr</td></tr><tr><td>[...]</td><td>and</td><td>threw</td><td>in-front-of</td><td>Paris</td><td>his</td><td></td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>давно</td><td>са</td><td>би</td><td>възвратилъ</td></tr><tr><td>long-ago</td><td><b>Refclc</b></td><td><b>be.AUX.COND</b></td><td>come back</td></tr></table>

In VB, monosyllabic auxiliaries are mostly in AUX2, i.e. to the far right, where the latest clustering elements were joining, presumably, as in (23a-b), with 6 examples of the reverse order of which 5 are with смо 'are.1pPl' and one - with the conditional auxiliary би 'would' and negation particle - see (23c) (and 13 instances are with future auxiliary).

(23) a.

<table><tr><td>[...] epe ne ми е</td><td>ъзел</td><td>вражмаш</td><td>господства</td><td>ми</td><td>VB</td></tr><tr><td>[...] that</td><td>NEG</td><td><b>i.DAT</b></td><td><b>is.AUX.3Sg</b></td><td>taken</td><td>enemy</td><td>my</td></tr></table>
b.

a пръгари заприхъ ти добитокъ, VB
and burghers shut you.DAT cattle

та ме съ молил(и) мене.
thus I.ACC Are.AUX.3Pl asked I.ACC

c.

и за мођ сљђбј не би мљ мило VB
and for my service NEG be.COP.COND he.DAT dear

vs.

ако мљ не би платил ѝт вола. VB
if he.DAT NEG be.AUX.COND paid from will

The trend continues into the Early Modern Bulgarian with auxilia-
ries placed on the far right (including the present-tense ones), as in
(24a-c), in contrast to the situation in present-day standard Bulgarian
(compare also their positions in the dialects according to Antonova-
Vasileva et al. 2016, map 144 where the majority of dialects instan-
tiates the order AUX > DAT / ACC). There are again single instances of
verbal clitics found before the pronominal ones, as in (24c). The or-
der with respect to the reflexive, as in (24c), is the same as in pre-
sent-day standard Bulgarian.

(24) a.

Защо **го** **си** мъчйль, и **защо** **го** **си** испъдиль DTr
why **he.ACC** **is.AUX.2Sg** tortured and why **he.ACC** **is.AUX.2Sg** driven away

b.

ак' _ҫь_ ᶜстоявале прӑво та_е_ҫа юле DLv
if_are.AUX.3pPl defended rightly then_it.ACC_are.AUX.3pPl eaten

c.

Затовӑ_ca_e веќе й_покаӑніе [...] DLv
therefore_**ReflcL_is.AUX.3pSg** already also_repentance [...]  
**за**товӑ_ca_ce веќе й_рӑискьие [...]  
therefore_**are.AUX.2pPl_**_ReflcL_ already also_heavenly [...]
d.

а"мй_си_ča
but\_ReflPossCL_are.AUX.3pPl

Омрьсйле момйн'ството пръдй сваб'ата
sinned
virginity.DEF
before

DLv

wedding.DEF

e.

Товá_са
This_are.COP.3pPl

дěто_си
that\_ReflPossCL

нѣ_ҫь
NEG_are.AUX.3pPl

паžиле [...] kept

Negation may separate clustering elements, with the reflexive to the left and the auxiliary to the right to form two prosodic words (whose constituents are linked via ‘-‘), as in (25a) (see also (24e) with the possessive reflexive). Pronominal clitics are in second position while auxiliaries are verb-adjacent, as in (25b-c).

(25) a.

й_Още_се
and_yet\_ReflCL

нѣ_è
NEG_is.AUX.3pSg

добрѣ́
well

[тӳка намѣстил]ь
here arranged

[...] [...]

b.

Зámь догдě_ви
for
until\_you.DAT

напрѣ́ нѣ_è
before
NEG_is.AUX.3pSg

прѣвáрила сáбía съмрътнӑ
overtook
sword

deadly

c.

й_догдě_са
and\_until\_ReflCL

паžárь нѣ_è
market
NEG_is.AUX.3pSg

рађвáльль.
broken

**Table 4** gives the order of clustering be- and future-auxiliaries (the latter in Middle Bulgarian and Early Modern Bulgarian) and pronominal clitics, semi-clitics, and clitic-like elements with the periphrastic verb constructions. The numbers attest for variation in the placement of auxiliaries among the clustering elements with preference to the right slot AUX2 of the pattern in (5). This is also true for the future auxiliary (the form Щх was attested very early: Mirčev 1956, 202; Haralampiev 2001, 149). In the texts here, the position of Щх is also ambivalent (in AUX1 and AUX2), but it is negation-adjacent and also found in second prosodic position.
<table><caption>**Table 4** Pronominals and auxiliaries with periphrastic verb constructions</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Pron > Aux</th><th>Aux > Pron</th><th>Non-adjacent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>OCS</th><td>53</td><td>18</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><th>MB</th><td>143</td><td>10</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><th>EMB</th><td>103</td><td>25</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

The clitic cluster in the noun phrase is left outside the scope of the present article but its phrasal position (2P) and order is very similar to that of the clausal cluster, with the earliest clitics to the left and the latest to the right (for comparison with Greek, see Eckhoff 2018). This cluster may not be considered viable in present-day Bulgarian if we assume that the definite article is an affix. The presumed pattern of the noun-phrase clitic cluster might have been DISC > DEM/ART > POSS/GEN/DAT > (AUX). There are very early examples of demonstrative pronouns that are in second position in the noun phrase and immediately follow a nominal element in first phrasal position: these are exactly the demonstratives that may be interpreted as clitic-like articles (Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Vulchanov 2012). However, there are also examples of discourse markers followed by demonstrative pronouns, clusterised in the same phrasal second position, which attests that the reanalysis has not been completed yet (as per Kurz 1963).

## 4 A Tentative Conclusion

The data that have been discussed in the article backs the assumption that, historically, there might have been no significant changes in the position of the elements in the core of the primary clitic cluster, i.e. the pronominal clitics, with variations happening (and still) among the elements in the verbal periphery. The earliest 2P clitics were lost, somewhat expectably, because they were non-paradigmatic unlike those that have remained. The set of elements filling the respective slots among the clustering elements was expanded as a result of the restructuring within the pronominal and verbal systems. Similar developments might have been at play for the (partial) loss of the noun-phrase cluster. A more thorough analysis of the variant readings across the monuments and constructions (matrix vs. subordinate clause, clause types, absolute constructions) is due in order to highlight the numerous intricacies of cliticisation and clitic patterns in the history of Bulgarian.
Bibliography

Antonova-Vasileva, L.; Vasileva, L.; Vitanova, M.; Vălčeva, E.; Keremidčieva, S.; Kostova, T.; Kočev, I.; Kjaeva, E.; Smedovska, K.; Tetovska-Troeva, M.; Urumova, P. (2016). *Bălgarski dialekten atlas. Obobštavašt tom IV. Morfologija Български диалектен атлас. Обобщаващ том IV. Морфология (Bulgarian Dialect Atlas. Generalising. Vol. 4, Morphology).* Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

Bogdan, I. (1902). *Documente şi regeste privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Rumineşti cu Braşovul şi Ungaria in secolul XV şi XVI* (Documents and Private Registers of the Romanian Counties of Brasov and Hungary in the 15th and 16th Centuries). Bucureşti.

Bujukliev, I.; Georgiev, I.V.; Davidov, A.; Dobrev, A.; Dogramadžieva, E.; Duridanov, I.; Zlatanova, R.; Ivančev, S.; Ilčev, P.; Minčeva, A.; Mirčeva, D. (1993). *Gramatika na starobălgarskija ezik Граматика на старобългарския език* (Grammar of the Old Bulgarian Language). Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

Cejtlin, R.; Večerka, R.; Blagova, E. (1994). *Staroslavjanskij slovar' (po rukopisjam X-XI vekov)* Старославянский словарь (по рукописям Х - ХІ веков) [Old Slavic Dictionary (According to Manuscripts of the X-XI Centuries)]. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M.; Vulchanov, V. (2012). "An Article Evolving: The Case of Old Bulgarian". Jonas, D; Whitman, H, Garrett, A. (eds), *Grammatic Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes*. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0008.

Dimitrova, T.; Bojadziev, A. (2014). "Historical Corpora of Bulgarian Language and Second Position Markers". *Proceedings of the First International Conference Computational Linguistics in Bulgaria*. Sofia: Institute for Bulgarian Language, 55-63.

Eckhoff, H.M. (2018). "Quantifying Syntactic Influence: Word Order, Possession and Definiteness in Old Church Slavonic and Greek". *Diacronic Slavonic Syntax*. De Gruyter Mouton, 29-62. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110531435-003.

Franks, S. (1997). "South Slavic Clitic Placement is Still Syntactic". *Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics*, 4, 111-26.

Franks, S. (1998). *Clitics in Slavic*. Paper presented at Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Bloomington (IN).

Franks, S. (2017). *Syntax and Spell-Out in Slavic*. Bloomington (IN): Slavica.

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

Halpern, A.L. (1995). *On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics*. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Haralampiev, I. (2001). *Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik* Историческа граматика на българския език (Historical Grammar of the Bulgarian Language). Veliko Tärnovo.

Haug, D.; Eckhoff, H.M. (2011). "The PROIEL Corpus as a Source to Old Church Slavic: a Practical Introduction". Baranov, V. (ed.), *Pis'mennoe nasledie i sovremennye informacionnye technologii* Письменное наследие и современные информационные технологии (Written Heritage and Modern Information Technologies). Iževsk: Iževskij gosudarstvennyj technicheskij universitet, 37-55.
Haug, D.; Eckhoff, H.M. (2011). "Making the Most of the Data: Old Church Slavic and the PROIEL Corpus of Old Indo-European Bible Translations". *Łodź Studies in Language*, xxiv, 411-31.

Iliev, I. (2018). "Săpostavka meždu malomirovskija govor v Elhovsko i kajrakliškija i šikirlijskija govor v Besarabija i Priazovieto" Съпоставка между Маломировския говор в Елховско и кайракслийския в шикирлийския говор в Бесарабия и Приазовието (Comparison Between the Malomir Dialect in the Elhovo Region and the Kayrakli and Shikirli Dialects in Bessaria-bia and the Azov Region). Dzjalo, 6(12). https://www.abcdar.com/magazine/XII/Iliev_1314-9067_XII.pdf

Ivanova, A. (1967). *Trojanski damaskin* Троянски дамаскин (The Damaskin of Troyan). Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

Kosek, P. (2011). *Enklitika v češtině barokni doby* (Enclitics in the Czech Language of the Baroque Period). Brno: Host.

Krapova, I.; Dimitrova, T. (2015). "Genitive-Dative Syncretism in the History of the Bulgarian Language. Towards an Analysis". *Studi Slavistici*, 12, 181-208. https://doi.org/10.13128/Studi_Slavis-17976.

Krästeva, H. (2020). "Sravnenie na rozodičnite osobenosti na klitičnija kompleks v šobštitelni i váprositelni izrečenija v bălgarskija ezik" Сравнение на произодичните особености на клитичния комплекс съобщителни и въпросителни изречения в българския език (A Comparison of the Prosodic Features of the Clitic Cluster in Bulgarian Declarative and Interrogative Sentences). Bălgarski ezik Български език (Bulgarian Language), 77(3), 112-21. https://doi.org/10.47810/bl.67.03.09.

Kurz, J. (1963). "Problema člena v staroslavjanskom jazyke" Проблема члена в старославянском языке (The Problem of the Article in Old Church Slavonic). *Issledovaniya po sintaksisu staroslavjanskogo jazyka* Исследования по синтаксису старославянского языка (Studies in the Old Church Slavonic syntax). Praha: Československa akademie věd, 121-82.

Migdalski, K. (2013). "Diachronic Source of Two Cliticization Patterns in Slavic". Salvesen, C.M.; Helland, H.-P. (eds), *Challenging Clitics*. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 135-58. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.206.06mig.

Migdalski, K. (2016). *Second Position Effects in the Syntax of Germanic and Slavic Languages*. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

Miklošič, F. (1871). "Trojanska priča" (The Legend of Troya). *Starine* (Antiquity), 3, 147-88.

Minčeva, A. (1964). *Razvoj na datelnija pritežatelen v bălgarskija ezik* Развой на дателния притежателен падеж в българския език (The Development of Dativus Possessivus in the Bulgarian Language). Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN.

Mirčev, K. (1963). *Istoričeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik* Историческая граматика на българския език (Historical Grammar of the Bulgarian Language). Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo

Mladenova, O.; Velčeva, B. (2013). *Loveški damaskin. Novobălgarski pametnik ot XVII vek* Ловешки дамаскин. Новобългарски паметник от XVII век (The Damaskin of Lovech. Modern Bulgarian monument of the 17th century). Sofia: NBKM.

Mussafia, A. (1888). "Enclisi o proclisi del pronome personale atono quale oggetto". *Romania*, 27, 145-6.

Nestle, E. (1904). *Novum Testamentum Graece*. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt.
Nicolova R. (2008). *Bălgarska gramatika. Morfologija Българска граматика*. Морфология (Bulgarian Grammar. Morphology). Sofia: Universitesko izdatelstvo "Sv. Kliment Ohridski".

Pancheva, R. (2005). "The Rise and Fall of Second-Position Clitics". *Natural Language and Linguistic Theory*, 23, 103-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-2510-y.

Petersen, U. (2016). *Tischendorf's 8th Edition Greek New Testament with Morphological Tags*. Based on G. Clint Yale's Tischendorf text and on Dr. Mau-rice A. Robinson's Public Domain Westcott-Hort text. DiMedia, Department of Communication, Aalborg University.

Radanović-Kocić, V. (1988). *The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective* [PhD dissertation]. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Scrivener's *Textus Receptus* (1894). With Morphology. Prepared by M.A. Robinson. Bellingham 2002.

Sławski, F. (1946). *Miejsce enklityki odmiennej w dziejach języka bułgarskiego* (The Placement of Enclitics in the History of the Bulgarian Language). Kraków: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności.

Sławski, F. (1974). *Słownik prasłowiański* (Dictionary of the Proto-Slavic Language). Tom I, A-B. Wrocław-Warszawa-Krakow-Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii nauk.

Thayer, J.H. (1889). *Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament*. New York: American (Harper).

Tiševa, J. (2008). "Za bălgarskite ezikovi ostrovi" За българските езикови острови (On the Bulgarian Language Islands). *Plovdivski universitet "Paisij Hilendarski" - Naučni trudove. Filologija Пловдивски университет "Паисий Хилендарски" - Научни трудове*. Филология (Plovdiv University "Paisii Hilendardski" - Research Papers. Philology), 46(1), 133-45.

Tobler, A. (1875). *Vermischte Beitrage zur französischen Grammatik. Erste bis fünfte Reihe*. Leipzig: Hirzel.

Totomanova, A.-M. (2015). "Proektăt 'Informatika, gramatika, leksikografija'i digitalnata obrabotka na srednovekovni slavjanski tekstove" Проектът "Информатика, граматика, лексикография" и дигиталната обработка на средновековни славянски текстове (The Project "Informatics, Grammar, Lexicography" and the Digital Processing of Mediaeval Slavic Texts)". *Sbornik dokladi i materiali ot zaključitelnata konferencija po proekta "Informatika, gramatika, leksikografija"* Сборник доклади и материали от заключителната конференция по проекта "Информатика, граматика, лексикография" (Proceedings of the Final Conference of the Project "Informatics, Grammar, Lexicography"). Sofia: Grafis, 5-16.

Toufexis, N. (2010). "One Era's Nonsense, Another's Norm: Diachronic Study of Greek and the Computer". Bodard, G.; Mahony, S. (eds), *Digital Research in the Study of Classical Antiquity*. Aldershot, 105-20.

Vaillant, A. (1948). *Manuel du vieux slave*. Paris: Institut d'études slaves.

Večerka, R. (1989). *Altkirchenslavische (Altbulgarische) Syntax*. Bd. I, *Die lineare Satzorganisation*. Freiburg.

Večerka, R. (1993). *Altkirchenslavische (Altbulgarische) Syntax*. Bd. II, *Die inneere Satzstruktur*. Freiburg.

Wackernagel, J. (2009). *Lectures on Syntax. With Special Reference to Greek, Latin and German*. Ed. by D. Langslow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zaimov, Y.; Capaldo, M. (1982-83). *Suprasălski ili Retkov sbornik* Супрасълски или Ретков сборник (Suprasălski or Retkov Collection), vols 1-2. Sofia: Iz-datelstvo na BAN.

Zaliznjak, A.A. (2008). *Drevnerusskie enklitiki Древнерусские энклитики* (Old Russian Enclitics). Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul'tur.

Zimmerling, A.V. (2013). *Sistemy porjadka slov slavjanskih jazykov v tipologičeskom aspekte* Системы порядка слов славянских языков в типологическом аспекте (Word-Order Systems in Slavic Languages in a Typological Perspective). Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskich kul'tur.

Zwicky, A.M. (1985). "Clitics and Particles". *Language*, 61(2), 283-305. https://doi.org/10.2307/414146.

Zwicky, A.M. (1977). *On Clitics*. Bloomington (IN). https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/on_clitics.pdf.
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
# Postposed Articles and DP Structures in Torlak

**Beatrice Azzolina**
Università degli Studi di Verona, Italia

**Veronica Girolami**
Università degli Studi di Verona, Italia

**Jelena Živojinović**
Università degli Studi di Verona, Italia; UiT Norges arktiske universitet, Tromsø

**Abstract** This article sheds light on postposed articles and DP structures in Torlak, a non-standardised Balkan Slavic variety. Torlak and specifically Trgoviste-Torlak, unlike Bulgarian and Macedonian, does not exhibit MD. We argue that this scenery is due to a partial grammaticalization of the determiner, which is arguably an inflectional affix and maintains the demonstrative feature. In addition, we verify the nature of the Torlak DP and we make some considerations on the intermediate nature of this element with respect to the grammaticalization path, followed by the other Balkan Slavic varieties.

**Keywords** Torlak. Balkan Slavic. Multiple determination. Articles. DP structure.

**Summary** 1 Introduction. – 2 State of the Art. – 2.1 Early Proposals on the Balkan DP. – 2.2 Current Assumptions on the Structure of the Balkan DP. – 3 Testing the Nature of the Enclitic Article. – 4 Looking for the Torlak DP Layer. – 5 Discussion and Further Remarks. – 5.1 Multiple Determination. – 5.2 Grammaticalization Hypothesis. – 6 Conclusion.

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

**Edizioni Ca' Foscari**

**Peer review**

Submitted 2021-07-20
Accepted 2021-10-15
Published 2020-12-20

**Open access**

© 2021 | ©® Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

**Citation** Azzolina, B.; Girolami, V.; Živojinović, J. (2021). "Postposed Articles and DP Structures in Torlak". *Balcania et Slavia*, 1(1), 97-116.
# 1 Introduction

Torlak is a non-standard Old-Shtokavian Slavic variety spoken in the southern or southeastern area of Serbia and in the bordering areas of Bulgaria and Macedonia (see **fig. 1** below). It is also called the Prizren-Timok dialect in the attempt to delimit its distribution within the boundaries of Serbia. This variety has recently started getting more attention from the scientific community, mainly dealing with a variety of phenomena related to the central and north-eastern Timok area.<fnref n="1" /> So far, the literature has focused on the postposition of the article and on the use of pronominal clitics, claiming that Torlak is a transitional area having both Balkan and non-Balkan features. For instance, it has second-position clitics as Serbo-Croatian, but makes consistent use of direct object clitic reduplication as Bulgarian and Macedonian.<fnref n="2" />

When it comes to the use of articles, the Trgovište-Torlak variety presents an overt postposed *t*-type particle deriving from the demonstrative pronoun *taj/ta/to* ‘that’, for instance:

(1) a. Bulgarian

*dete-to*

child.DET

‘the child’

b. Albanian

*ribar-at*

fisherman.DET

‘the fisherman’

c. Romanian

*žena-ta*

woman.DET

‘the woman’

The particle can also enclitisize to the (first) adjective, for instance in (2), whereas the presence of a demonstrative pronoun incorporates the determiner as in (3).

<footnote n="1">1. Runić 2013a; 2013b; Vuković, Samardžić 2015; Makarova et al. 2020; Vuković 2021, among others.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Cf. Runić 2014, 11-94 for an overview of the clitic system; Živojinović 2021 for a comparative perspective on the use of clitics in Torlak.</footnote>
(2)

<table><tr><td>ubavo-to</td><td>malecko</td><td>dete</td></tr><tr><td>beautiful.DET</td><td>little</td><td>child</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">'beautiful little child'</td></tr></table>

(3)

<table><tr><td>Ja</td><td>gu</td><td>čuvam</td><td>kako</td><td>golupče, u</td></tr><tr><td>l</td><td>her</td><td>guard/raise.PRES.1SG</td><td>as</td><td>pigeon in</td></tr><tr><td>onuj</td><td>buljinu</td><td>što</td><td>kuka</td><td>cel</td></tr><tr><td>that</td><td>owl</td><td>that</td><td>complain/cry.PRES.3SG</td><td>entire</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>a</td><td>ona</td><td>izraste</td></tr><tr><td>but</td><td>she</td><td>grow.PRF.3SG</td></tr></table>

noć
night

'I raise her like a pigeon (kindly), but she grew into that owl that cries all night'

The productivity and distribution of such particles seems to be considerably subjected to diatopic variation. Indeed, the literature on postposed articles and DP structures in the north-eastern and central areas shows instead some inconsistencies; for example, Runić (2014, 66) suggests that Torlak<fnref n="3" /> is an article-less variety, whereas Vuković and Samardžić (2015) present the distribution of the postposed overt article. However, the former study is based on a data collection in urban areas, such as the central Niš and Leskovac area, whereas the latter relies on fieldwork data gathered in north-eastern isolated and urban areas of the Timok Valley. Indeed, Vuković and Samardžić (2015) show that the postposed article<fnref n="4" /> is productive in isolated rural areas (e.g. *dubre-to* 'the garbage') that are less influenced by the Serbo-Croatian superstratum.

Our research presents a contribution in the study of the postposed articles and DP structures by providing novel data from the southern sub-variety of Trgovište, which borders Macedonia and Bulgaria (see the indication in **fig. 1**). The data was collected in the rural areas of Trgovište through the recordings of natural speech of 8 participants whose age range is 70-90.

<footnote n="3">3 PTS (Prizren-Timok Serbian) in Runić's terms (2014).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Specifically, Vuković and Samardžić (2015) argue that the Timok area maintains all three types of articles, namely the distal *t-* and *n-* types, deriving from demonstrative pronouns *taj*, *ta*, *to* and *onaj*, *ona*, *ono* 'that' as in *brat-at* 'the brother/that brother' and *vrata-na* 'the door/that door' respectively, and the proximal *v*-type, as in *baba-va* 'the grandmother/this grandmother'.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 The overall distribution of Torlak</figcaption></figure>

This investigation is an additional puzzle piece to Stanković (2013) who scrutinises three Torlak isoglosses<fnref n="5" /> along with Macedonian in terms of Bošković's generalisations (2008), showing that DP/NP partition is not a sustainable description for these varieties. What

<footnote n="5">5 Stanković (2013) relies on the partition of Torlak varieties provided by Ivić (1994), who distinguishes the following isoglosses: Kosovsko-Resavski, Prizrensko-Južnomoravski, Svrljiško-Zaplanjski and Timočko-Lužnički. Trgovište-Torlak is located within Prizrensko-južnomoravski, an article-less variety (cf. Ivić 1994).</footnote>

<footnote>ALL and LWA indicate article-less languages and languages with articles respectively. Trgovište-Torlak is located within Prizrensko-južnomoravski (PJ).</footnote>
Stanković (2013), who assumes that the southern Torlak isogloss is an article-less variety, proposes is rather a phonologically null vs. saturated DP structure on the basis of a set of structural and lexical properties which the isoglosses may or may not share.

In this article we will address the postposition of articles by test-
ing the nature of the Torlak enclitics and we delineate its domain by
framing Trgovište-Torlak within the Balkan Slavic context. Paragraph
2 of this article illustrates the existing proposals on the Balkan DP
structure, which mainly focus on Bulgarian and Macedonian data.
Paragraph 3 tests the nature of the Torlak article-like particles fol-
lowing Halpern (1992), whereas paragraph 4 provides further clues
on the Torlak DP layer. Finally, paragraph 5 presents a brief compar-
ative analysis with respect to the multiple determination phenome-
non as opposed to Bulgarian and Macedonian and provides a note on
the development of the Torlak article.

2 State of the Art

The issue surrounding the structure of postposed article has been a
central topic in the generative literature.<fnref n="6" /> Accordingly, several pro-
posals were put forward in order to explain the structure of the DP
in the Balkan languages.

In the following paragraphs, we will revise some of the most influ-
ential assumptions regarding the DP in Balkan Slavic essentially re-
ferring to Balkan Slavic languages, i.e. Bulgarian and Macedonian,
to provide an appropriate starting point for the analysis of our Tor-
lak data. In addition, some considerations on the nature of the post-
posed article will follow. As such, we will mostly build on Halpern
(1992) and Franks (2001) to shed light on the affixal properties of the
postposed article found in Trgovište-Torlak.

2.1 Early Proposals on the Balkan DP

The extensive bulk of literature on postposed articles has established
a clear relationship between the presence of this affixal-like marker
of definiteness in languages like Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian and
Macedonian to the Balkan *Sprachbund*, for instance:

<footnote n="6">6 Tomić 1996; Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Giusti 1995; 1998; Franks 2001; Rudin 2018a; 2018b for Balkan Slavic; Cornilescu 2016 for Romanian, among others.</footnote>
(4) a. Bulgarian

kniga-ta

book.DET

‘the book’

b. Albanian

krevat-i

bed.DET

‘the bed’

c. Romanian

baiat-ul

boy.DET

‘the boy’

Nonetheless, the assumption on whether the postposed article can
be considered an actual inflectional marker has been widely debated.
We will return to the affixal nature of the postposed article with spe-
cific reference to Torlak in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. However, it seems
crucial to point out two major lines of research that consider post-
posed articles either as (i) proper clitics (Scatton 1980; Tomić 1996)
or (ii) inflectional affixes (Halpern 1992; Franks 2001; Rudin 2018a;
2018c; Embick, Noyer 2001 among others).

Tomić (1996), for instance, argues for a clitic-like nature of the ar-
ticle, which is to be found in a Wackernagel position within the DP.
She claims that the postposed article is generated on the D°, trigger-
ing the movement of the highest, leftmost head to SpecDP. The move-
ment of the noun, or whichever element follows the clitic, be it an ad-
jective, numeral, or possessive, is considered a type of transformation
applying from D-structure to S-structure in pure government and
binding terms. In other words, the article as a nominal clitic is gen-
erated in D° and triggers the movement of N to SpecDP, which ends
up in a spec-head relation with the article. However, even though
Tomić (1996) assumes that nominal clitics, i.e. articles and posses-
sive clitics, are Wackernagel clitics, she also admits that they seem to
show some typical properties that are normally ascribed to affixes.<fnref n="7" />

For this reason, Dimotrova-Vulchanova and Giusti (1998) dis-
pensed with N-to-D movement,<fnref n="8" /> arguing that Bulgarian does not dis-

<footnote n="7">7 An anonymous reviewer also points out the fact that, if we were to follow the idea that the article is merged in D, coordinated Ns would display the article only on the first noun contrary to fact.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 See also Bošković 2019 for a more detailed explanation to discard N-D raising in affixal article languages.</footnote>
play any instance of movement of the noun to a higher position, as
opposed to the optional movement of N, which is found in both Alba-
nian and Romanian. This assumption allows the authors, on the one
hand, to rule out the movement of N to D in the narrow syntax and,
on the other hand, to rely on the movement of N to D at LF in order to
check definiteness [Def] features. Franks’ (2001) proposal goes along
these lines, assuming movement of the highest head below D at LF in-
cluding AP, which, following Abney’s (1987) account, dominates NP.<fnref n="9" />

These two accounts, therefore, provide a solid basis to consider
the article in Balkan Slavic (and non-Balkan Slavic languages) a prop-
er affix, regardless of their assumptions related to movement oper-
ations taking place at LF.

2.2 Current Assumptions on the Structure of the Balkan DP

Abstracting away from the proposals that were analysed in § 2.1, we
now review Rudin’s (2018a; 2018b) assumptions as a starting point to
better capture the structure of the Torlak DP. For now, we will con-
sider the relationship between D° and X° as an agreement relation
for definiteness, bearing in mind the existence of different propos-
als (Koev 2011; Petroj 2020 among others) which argue for phi-fea-
tures and definiteness agreement.<fnref n="10" />

Considering the structure in (5), Rudin (2018a; 2018b) adopts an
Abney-type of structure in which the AP dominates the NP.<fnref n="11" /> She
claims that D, being phonologically null, bears definiteness features
that enter in an agreement relation with the articled word, namely
the first head below the DP.

We acknowledge Cinque (2010) in asserting the phrasal status of adjectives and their
adjunction to the NP. However, we believe that, for the purposes of this paper, both ac-
counts, i.e. AP dominating NP or AP adjunction to NP, allow us to describe the behav-
iour of definiteness agreement with respect to post-posted articles in these Balkan Slav-
ic varieties. Rudin (2018a) also points out that, even by adopting the perspective of ad-
junction, definiteness agreement still appears on the highest leftmost head, namely A.

<footnote n="9">⁹ In Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Giusti 1998, the AP moves entirely to SpecDP and it checks [Def] features within the AP projection.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 In a slightly different way, Giusti (2015) argues for the absence of a [Def] feature, introducing a scattered head bundled with other features proper to the nominal group, which could explain the presence of the inflectional article especially in the case of Romanian.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 An anonymous reviewer points out that the head status of adjectives in struc-
tures like (2) is challenged by the fact that it fails to describe cases like the following:</footnote>

<footnote>[DP | AP glavna-ta po značenie] pričina] Bg. (Cinque 2010, 47)
Lit. 'the main in importance reason'.</footnote>
(5)

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

As it is shown above, the agreement relation between the adjective and the [Def] feature allows us to explain the presence of the inflectional article on the highest head below D, in this case, AP. Following the idea put forward in Rudin (2018a; 2018b), we could try to describe definiteness agreement through the operation Agree (Chomsky 2000; 2001) by adopting a bidirectional approach (see for instance Baker 2008; Bjorkman, Zeijlstra 2019 among others).

(6)

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

As shown in (6), the uninterpretable [Def] feature acts as a probe for the interpretable [Def] feature on D; it therefore looks up, as an instance of upward Agree, and checks its [uDef].<fnref n="12" />

According to these theoretical premises, in principle, it could be possible to apply the structure in (6) to the Torlak DP. However, before turning to the analysis of the DP of this Balkan Slavic variety, some considerations on postposed articles as inflectional markers for definiteness are needed.

<footnote n="12">12 Franks (2020) proposes to consider this type of agreement in terms of feature sharing, where D assigns definiteness features to XP that, in turn, shares them with the head X. As such, this account considers definiteness agreement as a more morphological process than the operation Agree and crucially as a more local relation.</footnote>
3 Testing the Nature of the Enclitic Article

In the previous subsections, we mainly argued for the presence of
an affixal-like postposed article specifically for Bulgarian and Mac-
edonian. At this point of the analysis, it is necessary to understand
where Trgovište Torlak stands concerning the nature of the enclitic
particles and whether the assumptions that were put forward for Bul-
garian and Macedonian still hold for this Balkan Slavic variety. The
analysis covering our Torlak data is carried out below, after provid-
ing a quick review of the main phonological arguments to consider
postposed articles as actual suffixes as outlined in Halpern (1992)
and subsequently applied to Bulgarian in Franks (2001).

Halpern (1992) proposes four “tests” to validate the hypothesis
that articles are actual suffixes, i.e. final-devoicing as shown in (7),
consonant-schwa metathesis as shown in (8), changes in the place-
ment of the stress as shown in (9) and the appearance of a special
form of the stem in the articled word as shown in (10).

(7) a. Bulgarian

bratovčed [bratofčet]
‘cousin’ (Franks 2001)

b. Bulgarian

bratovčedât [bratofčedət]
cousin.DET
‘the cousin’ (Franks 2001)

(8) a. Bulgarian

grâk*
‘Greek’ (Franks 2001)

* The letter â represents a schwa.

b. Bulgarian

gârkât
Greek.DET
‘the Greek’ (Franks 2001)

(9) a. Macedonian

brAtučed
‘cousin’ (Tomić 1996, 531-2)
b. Macedonian

bratUčedot

cousin.DET

‘the cousin’ (Tomić 1996, 531-2)

(10) a. Bulgarian

interesen grad

interesting city

‘the interesting city’

b. Bulgarian

interesnijat grad

interesting.DET city

‘the interesting city’

These tests, carried out by Franks (2001), clearly show the affixal nature of the post-posted article in Bulgarian ruling out their clitic-like nature. Building on these assumptions, it is now crucial to understand whether the Torlak article displays any difference with respect to the neighbouring Slavic languages.

Firstly, final devoicing is a systematic phenomenon in Trgovište-Torlak, as in brod-brot ‘ship’, grad-grat ‘town’, Glog-Glok,<fnref n="13" /> leb-lep ‘bread’. Devoicing is blocked by the addition of the suffixal element that forms CVC syllables, for instance grat ‘town’ vs. gradat ‘the town’.

The second test determined by Halpern (1992) is more problematic, as confirmed by Franks (2010, 111-13), who instead argues that the metathesis is the result of a schwa epenthesis (see (4) above). On this note, we do not identify relevant examples in our Trgovište-Torlak corpus either related to (ii) or (iii). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that 3+ syllable words containing a postposed *t*- particle bear the stress on the antepenultimate syllable, as in trAktor-at ‘the tractor’.

The word length however plays a role, thereby allowing us to apply Halpren’s fourth test, which broadly affirms that the masculine form of the article only attaches to long adjectival stems. This is clearly visible in adjectives such as ubav ‘beautiful’, or nov ‘new’, which do not allow forms such as *ubav-at muž or *nov-at stol, but require a restructuring of the syllable arrangement in the adjective, obtaining ubavijat muž ‘the beautiful husband’ or novijat stol ‘the new table’.

The application of the tests related to the nature of the enclitics provides therefore a partial outcome. By claiming such results, we intend that the *t*-particle may not be a fully functional suffixal ele-

<footnote n="13">13 Glog is a village located in the area of Trgovište/Vranje.</footnote>
ment, but it could be retaining some degree of lexical value, hence
the absence of the particle in examples containing a demonstrative
(cf. (3) illustrated above).

4 Looking for the Torlak DP Layer

Coming back to the analysis of the Balkan Slavic DP, it seems clear
that the assumptions that we put forward in § 2.2 may be challenged
by the behaviour of the Torlak article with respect to Halpern's tests.
As we previously argued, these articles partially fit the tests, show-
ing different outcomes compared to the Bulgarian and Macedoni-
an ones. Considering these results, it may be useful to go deeper in-
to the analysis of the Torlak DP, testing whether this understudied
variety fits Bošković's (2008; 2012) diagnostics as an NP or DP lan-
guage. Tasseva-Kurktchieva and Dubinsky's (2018) study already ap-
plied some of Bošković's (2012) 18 diagnostics on Bulgarian and their
results showed that this Balkan Slavic language falls in a category
that is neither the one of full DP nor a full NP language. Their propos-
al is that Bulgarian is, in fact, a weak DP language that projects the
DP layer only in the presence of the definite article. Following from
their results, we applied the same diagnostics, checking the behav-
iour of the structures listed in table 1, to Trgovište-Torlak in order
to find out its status and the behaviour of the DP projection in this
understudied variety.

<caption>**Table 1** Syntactic contexts based on Bošković 2008</caption>

(i) Clitic doubling
(ii) Left-branch extraction
(iii) Negation raising
(iv) Scrambling
(v) Presence of majority superlative reading
(vi) Superiority and Multiple Wh-Fronting
(vii) Adnominal Genitives
(viii) Head-Internal Relatives and Locality

Specifically, clitic doubling and the related generalisations have been
widely discussed in Živojinović (2021), claiming that Trgovište-Torlak
stands in a compromise position showing overt postposed articles
and allowing clitic doubling, but having Wackernagel-type clitics (11).
On this matter, Bošković generalises that (i) second position clitic
systems are only found in NP languages, (ii) only languages with ar-
ticles may allow clitic doubling, (iii) there is no clitic doubling with
second-position clitics.
(11)

<table><tr><td><i>Odamna</i></td><td><i>ga</i></td><td><i>upozna</i></td><td><i>Milovana.</i></td></tr><tr><td><i>long_time_ago</i></td><td><i>him.CL.ACC</i></td><td><i>met</i></td><td><i>Milovan</i></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">'I met Milovan a long time ago'.</td></tr></table>

When it comes to left-branch extraction, Trgovište-Torlak does not allow such structures (12), following Bošković (2008) who affirms that only languages without articles may allow LBE.

(12)

<table><tr><td>*Maleckoto</td><td><i>vido</i></td><td><i>dete.</i></td></tr><tr><td>little.DET</td><td><i>saw</i></td><td>child</td></tr></table>

While Torlak does not allow scrambling, as predicted for languages with articles, the Neg-raising test requires some further explanation. Precisely, Bošković (2008) claims that the negation in a matrix clause negates the content of a subordinate clause and in such contexts it makes use of a licensed negative polarity item. However, Stanković (2013) observes that languages without articles, such as Serbo-Croatian, exhibit Neg-raising, but do not license an NPI with verbs such as *believe*. This observation can be extended to Trgovište-Torlak as well.

(13)

<table><tr><td><i>Ivan</i></td><td><i>ne</i></td><td><i>veruje</i></td><td><i>da</i></td><td><i>Bog[k]</i></td><td><i>postoji.</i></td></tr><tr><td><i>Ivan</i></td><td><i>not</i></td><td><i>believe</i></td><td><i>that</i></td><td><i>God</i></td><td><i>exists</i></td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">'Ivan does not believe that God exists'. (Cf. Stanković 2013)</td></tr></table>

Trgovište-Torlak does not show the majority superlative reading unlike varieties such as Slovenian (for instance, *Največ ljudi pije pivo* 'Most people drink beer'). Similarly, it does not show strict superiority effects to multiple wh-fronting, an expected feature of varieties with articles (e.g. *Koj koga vidi? / Koga koj vidi?* lit. Who whom sees/ whom who sees). On the same line, our Torlak subvariety does not provide examples of two adnominal genitives and only allows head-external relatives.

Once again, the overall position of Trgovište-Torlak seems to be a compromise one, partially fitting Bošković's (2008) generalisations and presenting features belonging to article, but also article-less varieties.
5 Discussion and Further Remarks

The discussion on definite articles in Torlak and the analysis of the
previous sections allows us to make some further remarks, specifi-
cally concerning the comparison among Bulgarian, Macedonian, and
Torlak. An interesting phenomenon worth discussing, which interests
mostly Bulgarian and Macedonian, falls under the name of Multiple
Determination (MD). The presence (or absence) of MD provides us
with the opportunity to shed some light on the properties of the suf-
fixal articles found in the three languages in question. The frame-
work that we adopt follows Rudin (2018c) with the addition of a nov-
el proposal aiming at explaining the anomalous behaviour of Torlak
compared to the other neighbouring varieties. Namely, we will call
into question the process of partial or total grammaticalization of
the article and its outcome in the different languages.

5.1 Multiple Determination

As anticipated, one of the phenomena that is worth analysing to better
understand the characteristics and peculiarities of the DP in Torlak
is Multiple Determination (MD). MD is defined as the presence, inside
the DP layer, of a double or multiple realisation of the DP in certain en-
vironments (Alexiadou 2014). There are different hypotheses that try
to explain the functioning of MD, two of the most relevant are (i) the
split DP-Hypothesis and (ii) the ‘distributed’ DP-Hypothesis. Accord-
ing to the first one, the DP is divided into at least two layers that con-
tribute differently to the meaning of the structure. This distinction is
between a part where deixis is encoded and another part where deter-
mination is: [DP1 Deixis [DP2 Determination]]. According to the oth-
er hypothesis, instead, the Det can realise several other non-D related
projections within the extended projection of the noun.

In the Balkan Slavic languages analysed, namely Bulgarian and
Macedonian, MD is characterised by the presence of a Demonstra-
tive and one or more definite article suffixes (Rudin 2018c), like the
examples in (14) show:

(14)

a. Bulgarian

<table>
   <tr>
    <td>
     tija
    </td>
    <td>
     novi-te
    </td>
    <td>
     telefoni
    </td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
    <td>
     these
    </td>
    <td>
     new.DET
    </td>
    <td>
     phones
    </td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
    <td colspan="3">
     ‘these new phones’
    </td>
   </tr>
  </table>
b. Macedonian

tie ubavi-te fustani
these pretty.DET dresses
'these pretty.DET dresses'

According to Rudin (2018c), in Bulgarian and Macedonian MD is used in colloquial speech and has a specific pragmatic reading that can be judged either positively or negatively by the speakers. However, as it will be demonstrated below, the situation concerning MD in Torlak is dramatically different. In particular, any instance of MD is judged un-grammatical by speakers of this language. Consider for instance (15).

(15) Torlak

*'ovoj* ubavo-to dete
this beautiful.DET child
'this beautiful.DET child'

Going back to the structural analysis of the DP, we assume that in case of MD, the Dem is located higher up in the structure. Furthermore, we hypothesise that in Bulgarian and Macedonian there is a split in the DP and that the features that enter in an agreement relation are those present in the D head while those belonging to the Dem are on-ly deictic. As such, since the featural content of the two heads does not interfere with one another, MD is allowed (a). In Torlak, instead, there is no split in the DP between the features of the Dem and of the D head and for this reason agreement is possible only from one head at a time (b). The two structures in (16) are taken from Rudin (2018c).

(16)

a.

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

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

## 5.2 Grammaticalization Hypothesis

The peculiar characteristics of the DP in Torlak, which seems to be-
have differently with respect to other Balkan Slavic languages like
Bulgarian and Macedonian, can be explained as caused by a process
of partial grammaticalization. The grammaticalization path that is
taken into consideration here is the one used to describe some Scan-
dinavian varieties too, for instance Nynorsk Norwegian, namely *con-
tent item* > *grammatical word* > *clitic* > *inflectional affix* (Faarlund
2018, 618, the original theoretical framework from Hopper, Trau-
gott 2003). In the case of Macedonian and Bulgarian, the articles
seem to have undergone a full grammaticalization into purely func-
tional elements and for this reason they are able to occur with a de-
monstrative in a MD construction. In Torlak, instead, the grammat-
icalization of the Det is only partial resulting in an inflectional affix
that maintains the demonstrative semantics. We argue that the pe-
culiarity of the situation in Torlak is that the Dem and the Det share
the features that are semantically encoding part of their meaning,
namely the demonstrative ones. This sharing is not allowed because
the two heads are not differentiated enough due to the grammatical-
ization of the determiner, that is only partially undergone in Torlak.
This claim is also supported by the results of the tests carried out in
the previous sections, which confirm a compromise position of the
article.<fnref n="14" /> In the case of Bulgarian and Macedonian, instead, the com-
plete process of grammaticalization renders the Det a purely func-
tional element that does not enter into competition with the Dem for
the semantic features encoding [+Dem] and hence the construction

<footnote n="14">14 An anonymous reviewer asks whether Torlak affixes encode deictic differences as the Macedonian article and the variety of Bulgarian spoken in the Rhodope mountains. As we previously argued, Trgovište-Torlak only displays a t-type of article; however, some other varieties of Torlak (cf. Vuković, Samardžić 2015 for the Timok area) may retain this distinction.</footnote>
allows for MD. Being grammaticalization a gradual process, even in Bulgarian and Macedonian it is possible to find articles that have not completely undergone semantic bleaching.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper we attempted to provide a contribution to the study of the Balkan Slavic postposed article by providing novel data from an understudied non-standardised variety. The study highlights yet again the transitional nature of Torlak that balances Balkan and non-Balkan features. Indeed, Torlak and specifically Trgovište-Torlak present a postposed suffixal article-like element, but they do not allow the use of multiple determination. We argued that this behaviour with respect to MD is explained by a lack of a split in the D features in Torlak, which is instead present in the neighbouring Bulgarian and Macedonian. To conclude the article, we noted that the peculiar behaviour of the DP in Torlak could be due to a partial grammaticalization.

## Abbreviations

ACC Accusative

CL Clitic

CVC Consonant-vowel-consonant

DET Determiner

DP Determiner phrase

LBE Left branch extraction

NP Noun phrase

NPI Negative polarity item

PRES Present

PRF Perfect

SG Singular

XP X phrase
Bibliography

Abney, S. (1987). *The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect* [BA thesis]. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Baker, M. (2008). *The Syntax of Agreement and Concord*. New York: CUP.

Alexiadou, A. (2014). *Multiple Determiners and the Structure of DPs*. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bjorkman, B.M.; Zeijlstra, H. (2019). "Checking up on (-)Agree". *Linguistic Inquiry*, 50, 527-69. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319.

Bošković, Ž. (2008). "What Will You Have, DP or NP?". Elfner, E.; Walkow, M. (eds), *Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society*. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, 101-14.

Bošković, Ž. (2012). "On NPs and Clauses". Grewendorf, G.; Zimmermann, T.E. (eds), *Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories*. De Gruyter Mouton, 179-246. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.179.

Bošković, Ž. (2019). "On Affixal Articles: An Argument from Bantu for Bulgarian, Romanian, and Icelandic". Franks, S.; Chidambaram, V.; Joseph, B.; Krapova, I. (eds), *Katerino Mome: Studies in Bulgarian Morphosyntax in Honor of Catherine Rudin*. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 37-52.

Chomsky, N. (2000). "Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework". Martin, R.; Michaels, D.; Uriagereka, J. (eds), *Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik*. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 89-155.

Chomsky, N. (2001). "Derivation by Phase". Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), *Ken Hale: A Life in Language*. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1-52.

Cinque, G. (2010). *The Syntax of Adjectives. A Comparative Study*. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Cornilescu, A. (2016). "The Low Definite Article and the Evolution of the Romanian DP". *Generative Grammar in Geneva*, 9, 3-26.

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M.; Giusti, G. (1995). "Quantified Noun Phrase Structure in Bulgarian". *Working Papers in Linguistics*, 5(1), 43-65.

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M.; Giusti, G. (1998). "Fragments of Balkan Nominal Structure". Alexiadou, A.; Wilder, C. (eds), *Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 333-60. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.22.12dim.

Embick, D.; Noyer, R. (2001). "Movement Operations after Syntax". *Linguistic Inquiry*, 32(4), 555-95.

Faarlund, J.T. (2009). "On the History of Definiteness Marking in Scandinavian". *Journal of Linguistics*, 45(3), 617-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990041.

Franks, S. (2001). "The Internal Structure of Slavic Noun Phrases, with Special Reference to Bulgarian". Przepiörkowski, A.; Banski, P. (eds), *Generative linguistics in Poland: Syntax and Morphosyntax*. Warsaw: Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN, 53-69.

Franks, S. [1998] (2010). "Clitics in Slavic". *Glossos*, 10, 1-157.

Franks, S. (2020). *Microvariation in the South Slavic Noun Phrase*. Blooming-
ton: Slavica.

Giusti, G. (2015). *Nominal Syntax at The Interfaces*. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Halpern, A. (1992). "The Balkan Definite Article and Pseudo-Second Position".
*Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics*
*Society: General Session and Parasession on The Place of Morphology in a Grammar*. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 338-49. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v18i1.1593.

Hopper, P.J.; Closs Traugott, E. (2003). *Grammaticalization*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koev, T. (2011). "Definiteness as Agreement: Evidence from Bulgarian". Byram Washburn, M. et al. (eds), *Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics*. Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 133-41.

Makarova, A.; Konior, D.V.; Vuković, T.; Sobolev, A.N.; Winistörfer, O. (2020). "Automatic Language Profiling of a Dialect Speaker: The Case of the Timok Variety Spoken in the Village of Berčinovac (Eastern Serbia)". *Acta Linguistica Petropolitana*, 16(2), 160-80. https://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573716207.

Petroj, V. (2020). *Ignoring Language Barriers: Romanian-Serbian Code-Switching* [PhD dissertation]. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/2473.

Rudin, C. (2018a). "On DP Structure in Balkan Slavic: Evidence from Multiple Determination". *Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 27*. Stanford: Michigan Slavic Publications, 418-37.

Rudin, C. (2018b). "Multiple Determination in Bulgarian and Macedonian: An Exploration of Structure, Usage, and Meaning". Dickey, S.M.; Lauersdorf, M.R. (eds), *V zeleni drzeli zeleni breg: Studies in Honor of Marc L. Greenberg*. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 263-86.

Rudin, C. (2018c). "Demonstratives and Definiteness: Multiple Determination in Balkan Slavic". Blumel, A.; Gajic, J.; Geist, L.; Junghanns, U.; Pitsch, H. (eds), *Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2018*. Berlin: Language Science Press, Ch. 12, 305-38.

Runić, J. (2013a). "On Some Doubling Constructions in Non-Standard Serbian and Slovenian Dialects". *Quaderni di lavoro ASIt*, 16, 21-44.

Runić, J. (2013b). "Cliticization Phenomena in Languages 'on the Border'". *University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics*, 19(1), art. 21. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol19/iss1/21.

Runić, J. (2014). *A New Look at Clitics, Clitic Doubling, and Argument Ellipsis: Evidence from Slavic* [PhD dissertation]. Storrs: University of Connecticut.

Scatton, E. (1980). "On the Shape of the Bulgarian Definite Article". Chvany, C.; Brecht, R. (eds), *Morphosyntax in Slavic*. Columbus: Slavica, 204-11.

Stanković, B. (2019). "DP or NP? The Case of Serbian Southeastern Dialects and Macedonian Language". Stanković, B.; Janić, A. (eds), *SinFonIJA 6 Proceedings (The 6th International Conference Syntax, Phonology and Language Analysis (SinFonIJA 6), held at the Faculty of Philosophy of University of Niš, Serbia* (September 26-28, 2013). Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš, 83-118.

Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M.; Dubinsky, S. (2018). "On the NP/DP Frontier: Bulgarian as a Transitional Case". Franks, S.; Chidambaram, V.; Joseph, B.; Krapova, I. (eds), *Katerino Mome: Studies in Bulgarian Morphosyntax in Honor of Catherine Rudin*. Bloomington: Slavica, 287-312.

Tomić, O.M. (1996). "The Balkan Slavic Nominal Clitics". Halpern, A.L.; Zwicky, A., *Approaching Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena*. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 511-36.

Vuković, T.; Samardžić, T. (2015). "Prostorna raspodela frekvencije postpozitivnog člana u timočkom govoru" (Areal Distribution of the Frequency of the
Post-positive Article in the Timok Vernacular of Southeast Serbia). Ćirković, S. (ed.), *Timok. Folkloristička i lingvistička terenska istraživanja 2015-2017* (Timok. Folklore and Linguistic Field Research 2015-2017). Knjaževac: Narodna biblioteka "Njegoš", 181-99.

Vuković, T. (2021). "Representing Variation in a Spoken Corpus of an Endangered Dialect: The Case of Torlak". *Lang Resources, Evaluation*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-020-09522-4.

Živojinović, J. (forthcoming) “Torlak Clitic Doubling: A Cross-linguistic Comparison”. Blümel, A.; Gajić, J.; Geist, L.; Junghanns, U.; Pitsch, H. (eds), *Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2018*. Berlin: Language Science Press, 423-41.
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>
# Language Ideologies and Multilingual Practices of Post-Soviet Migrants in Western Europe from a Translanguaging Perspective

Erzhen Khilkhanova

Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

**Abstract** The main point of this paper is to describe, discuss and analyse multilingual practices of non-Russian migrants from the former Soviet Union from a translanguaging perspective uncovering language ideologies underpinning these practices. Using data collected through a 3-month linguistic ethnography supplemented by linguistic analysis of informal online communication, the Author found that fluid, translingual practices are generally not characteristic for the majority of well-educated post-Soviet migrants. Instead, we observe in the normative linguistic behaviour a lack of need or unwillingness to cross language boundaries and create hybrid linguistic forms.

**Keywords** Language ideologies. Multilingualism. Post-Soviet migrants. Non-Russian migrants. Translanguaging. Code switching. Code mixing. Social network groups. Western Europe.

**Summary** 1 Introduction. – 2 Theoretical Framework: Concepts of Translanguaging, Code Switching and Language Ideologies. – 3 Methodological Considerations. – 4 Translanguaging Practices of Post-Soviet Non-Russian Migrants. – 5 Language Ideologies at Work. – 6 Results and Discussion.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

**Edizioni Ca' Foscari**

**Peer review**

Submitted
Accepted
Published

2021-07-20
2021-10-25
2020-12-20

**Open access**

© 2021 | ©® Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

**Citation** Khilkhanova, E. (2021). "Language Ideologies and Multilingual Practices of Post-Soviet Migrants in Western Europe from a Translanguaging Perspective". *Balcania et Slavia*, 1(1), 117-148.
I am interested in another linguistic aspect of post-Soviet migra-
tion, that is how language ideologies manifest themselves in the mul-
tilingual strategies and practices of the multiethnic body of migrants
from the FSU, regulating their language attitudes and language prac-
tices. This problem is studied in this article in connection with the
concept of translanguaging, which is becoming increasingly popular
in modern studies of multilingualism, language contacts and migra-
tion. Translanguaging means "the ability of multilingual speakers to
shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form
their repertoire as an integrated system" (Canagarajah 2011, 401).

This problem statement stems from my observations made during
a field study conducted in 2016 within the framework of a project *Lang-
guage and Ethnic Identity of Non-Russian Immigrants from the For-
mer Soviet Union in Western Europe*. The aim of the project was to
examine processes of negotiation, (re)construction and transforma-
tion of ethnic identity and its connection with language and culture
among non-Russian migrants from the FSU. This multiethnic body of
immigrants shared some common characteristics that were essential
for my research aim and made them an interesting and little-studied
research object: they were united by a common history, (Soviet) cul-
ture and (Russian) language, but at the same time represented other
ethnicities and cultures. From the linguistic point of view, each eth-
nic group was multilingual and had at least three languages in their
linguistic repertoire: the ethnic language (L1) (sometimes only at a
symbolic level), the Russian language (L2) and the host country lan-
guage/languages (L3-n).

The project aim did not include the study of translanguaging, but
during the interview and participant observation I noticed a very lim-
ited use of the migrants’ multilingual repertoire, lack of language
creativity and switching between languages – what is usually defined
as translanguaging. This fact was particularly striking against the
background of quite frequent translanguaging strategies and prac-
tices of migrants in different regions of the world (Lee 2014; Li 2018;
Pennycook 2008). I assume that this is due to language ideologies
acquired in childhood that continue to guide (to a certain extent)
the speech behaviour of migrants whose acculturation took place
in the FSU. Therefore, the goal of this article is to examine multi-
lingual practices of first-generation migrants from the FSU from a
translanguaging perspective aiming to reveal and analyse translin-
gual resources (or their absence) used by this multilingual and mul-
ticultural group and to uncover language ideologies underpinning
these practices.

This research falls within the frame of critical ethnographic so-
ciolinguistics. At the beginning of the article, the theoretical frame-
work of this study is considered, namely concepts of translanguaging,
code switching and language ideologies (paragraph 2). Then, I will
provide methodological considerations related to the characteristics
of the social research object and research materials (paragraph 3). I
will then examine translilingual practices of post-Soviet migrants in
their oral speech and informal written communication in social net-
works (paragraph 4). The next section is devoted to the description
and analysis of several language ideologies in the historical context
of the Soviet language policy and in the modern context of migrants'
life in Western Europe. Finally, the summary of the results of this re-
search is provided and conclusions are drawn.

2 **Theoretical Framework: Concepts of Translanguaging, Code Switching and Language Ideologies**

Language ideologies are the systems of ideas about social and lin-
guistic relationships and how they relate to social values (Woolard
2003; Kroskrity 2000, 5). They have an affective dimension and are
related to what Cavanaugh calls a "social aesthetics of language"
(2009, 194-5). They are also defined as "the cultural conceptions
of the nature, form, and purpose of language, and of communica-
tive behavior as an enactment of the collective order" (Gal, Wool-
ard 1995, 30).

Sociolinguists distinguish many ideologies related to the use or
non-use of ethnic, or minority languages. These include folklorisa-
tion, hypertraditionalisation, and the association of the language
only with the past and old times (Sallabank, Marquis 2018; Woolard
2020). Many ideologies revolve around the concepts of legitimacy,
'language ownership', and authenticity usually going hand in hand
with language purism (Pischlöger 2016). In real life, these ideologies
are intertwined with each other and their action is carried out in a
complex way; often contradictory ideologies coexist in the minds of
the same people.

In the context of my research, it is important to identify and show
how language ideologies can act as an internal regulator of people's
linguistic behaviour. Language ideologies are also closely related
to translanguaging, since they are the source of linguistic varia-
bility and the driving force for the creation of new hybrid 'languag-
es' by people who are on the border of two or more 'worlds'. This is
why translingual strategies are so common in the migration envi-
ronment. Migrants invent a new language to reflect their inner real-
ity determined by their migration experience and destabilised iden-
tities (Hüppauf 2004).

The theory of translanguaging, which originates within the frame-
work of pedagogy, has long gone beyond its framework and is active-
ly used in modern studies of multilingualism and language contacts.
Today, linguists are already saying that it is necessary to distinguish
between the pedagogical use of translanguaging and spontaneous
translanguaging, the latter referring to the complex discursive prac-
tices of bilinguals (see García 2009). In addition to the well-known
definition by Canagarajah given above, translanguaging is also de-
fined as a smooth synergetic transition from one linguistic culture
to another, as a result of which there is some merging of them, while
there is no complete assimilation and the linguistic and cultural iden-
tity of language users is preserved, and a mixed discourse is creat-
ed (Canagarajah 2002). Translanguaging implies the permeability of
languages, their mutual influence, as a result of which a new quali-
ty of an enriched linguistic culture arises. The translingual area is
characterised by blurriness, indistinctness, uncertainty, “linguistic
fluidity” (Lee 2014). In language studies and in language pedagogy,
the translingual approach focuses not on language as a system, but
on language as a practice, i.e. activity (Lee 2014, 305).

It should be emphasised that translanguaging is the use of a speak-
er's entire communicative repertoire, as a result of which languages
and cultures smoothly flow into each other, sometimes helping, and
sometimes hindering (Pennycook 2008). Code switching and code
mixing are considered one of the translingual strategies (Pennycook
2008, 30.4), or as an instance of translanguaging, alongside other
bilingual phenomena such as translation, borrowing, and additional
processes, in a range of modalities (MacSwan 2017, 191).

Thus, translanguaging is, firstly, a broader phenomenon including
code switching (hereafter CS) and code mixing (hereafter CM).<fnref n="3" /> Sec-
ondly, the more fundamental difference between them is the paradig-
matic difference. The translanguaging concept belongs to the post-
colonial paradigm (see Pennycook 2006), while the notions of CS and
CM appeared in earlier studies of multilingualism and language con-
tacts. This causes a difference in approaches: the terms CS and CM
are based on the vision of languages as separate systems. According-
ly, speech, where there is a mixing and switching of codes, was of-
ten assessed rather as defective speech, since the reasons for these
phenomena were seen in the speaker's insufficient linguistic compe-
tence in any of the languages involved, or even in both. This is the ba-
sis for the designations of such mixed speech as "macaronic" (Bert-

<footnote n="3">3 The term *code switching* is used here as a term with a broader meaning, which in-
cludes *codes mixing* (see also Myers-Scotton 1993, 1; Gumperz 1982, 59). The prefer-
ence for the term *code switching* is also due to considerations of brevity and conveni-
ence. At the same time, I understand by code mixing the process of using two (or more)
codes (languages) in speech, which has acquired a more or less regular form and has
gone further than just code switching. But the most important differentiating criterion
is grammatical: if the morphosyntactic rules of both languages are not violated, this is
*code switching*. If the lexemes acquire morphological indicators of another language,
this is *codes mixing*. In other words, as long as the morphosyntactic basis of a particu-
lar code is preserved, we can talk about CS. If not, about CM.</footnote>
agaev 1969, 127), “mestizo language”: in relation to the FSU, these
characteristics were often used to describe speech, where Russian
and other languages of the peoples of the USSR were mixed. A pu-
ristic, normative approach to language is clearly seen behind these
epithets. The translanguaging approach is fundamentally different
and positive. Translanguaging

has a pronounced active and lingvocreative character, representing
a new, creative, transformative and integrative use of all bilingual
resources. Additional opportunities for the lingvocreative activi-
ty of bilinguals arise precisely in the ‘indefinite zone’ on the bor-
der of languages. (Proshina 2017, 161; see also MacSwan 2017, 190)

Since the main difference lies precisely in the approach, in the as-
sessment of translanguaging and CS phenomena, I believe that a re-
searcher can, however, work with the terminological apparatus tra-
ditionally used in CS research, as it is done, for example, in research
by Karpava et al. 2019. Otherwise, the scholars remain both without
a terminological apparatus, and, as J. MacSwan rightly notes, with-
out empirical case and are left only with an ideological one that de-
nies languages as social and political constructs (MacSwan 2017,
169, 177). I generally support MacSwan’s multilingual perspective on
translanguaging, which acknowledges the existence of discrete lan-
guages and multilingualism reconciling educational (that is, trans-
languaging) and linguistic research. The reconciliation becomes
possible through distinguishing mental grammars from linguistic
repertoires, arguing that bilinguals, like monolinguals, have a sin-
gle linguistic repertoire but a richly diverse mental grammar (Mac-
Swan 2017, 167).

Since, speaking of translanguaging, we talk primarily about in-
dividual bi- and multilingualism,<fnref n="4" /> a look at what motivates people
to switch and mix codes sheds additional light on the mechanism of
translanguaging. Factors that contribute to the dynamic use of two
or multiple languages in a particular instance can be broadly divid-
ed into three groups – external, internal, and linguistic:

1. *external* factors, i.e. independent of a speaker (such as history, politics or demography);

2. *internal* factors, i.e. attached to a speaker, both as an individual and as a group member (such as psycholinguistic, pragmatic, sense of ethnic identity);

<footnote n="4">⁴ Although, as J. MacSwan rightly notes, a language is the product of a communi-
ty of speakers, a collection of overlapping individual languages (MacSwan 2017, 174).</footnote>
3. linguistic factors (such as lack of a concept in a minority lan-
guage-L1, insufficient linguistic competence of speakers in L1).

Although all the factors are intertwined and act in a complex way in
a real language contact situation, translanguaging and CS from the
point of view of this scheme are motivated primarily by internal fac-
tors. External or linguistic factors also contribute to "multiple dis-
cursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense
of their bilingual worlds" (García (2009, 45), but in a more indirect
way. In some way, only unconscious or, vice versa, conscious, pur-
poseful cases of CS driven from within can be considered truly trans-
lingual strategies. The first ones are valuable for sociolinguistics be-
cause 'automatic' CSs, when a speaker would like to, but cannot speak
without switching the code, or when a mixed code has become a kind
of norm for the speaker (or for the entire language community) are
the true indicators of real processes occurring in the contacting lan-
guages. Automatic 'slips of the tongue' in another language can be
caused by such psycholinguistic factors as (i) insufficient linguistic
competence in L1 combined with higher linguistic competence in a
majority language (L2); (ii) the habit of speaking one of the languag-
es from the bilingual repertoire (a stereotype of speaking behaviour);
(iii) linguistic economy, or economy of speaking efforts.

Vice versa, a deliberate, goal-oriented CS discovers various speak-
ers' intentions: for instance, the translilingual strategy of mixing lan-
guages can be chosen consciously – as a special slang – to construct
one's group identity, which also includes ethnicity (Moustaoui, Pre-
go, Zas 2019). Vivid examples of 'protest' motivation can be found
in translilingual/transcultural literature created by bi- or polylingual
writers. This is, for instance, the book by the German-Turkish author
Feridun Zaimogly *Kanak Sprak*. The book's language is the language
of protest, violence, obscenity, 'dirty' metaphors and slang, but it is
also some kind of artificial language containing words and expres-
sions that are not present in either German or Turkish (Yildiz 2004).
Similarly developed and used is the pidginised German of 'Russian
Germans' called 'kvelya' and 'legitimised' by Vladimir Kaminer's
book *Russendisko* (Kaminer 2000; Kirilina 2011). My research, how-
ever, focuses not on professional creative writing 'at the crossroads
of cultures' but on 'ordinary' multilingual migrant speakers and their
translanguaging practices through which they represent their expe-
riences and relationships in their new localities.

As already mentioned, translanguaging is an integral feature of
increasing migration flows in the modern world. In the sociolinguis-
tic literature, quite well studied are the 'big' languages involved in
the translilingual process in a migration situation. These are, for ex-
ample, new transnational forms on the border between German and
Turkish languages (Zaimogly 2004), translanguaging practices in the
home among bilingual/multilingual Russian-speaking children and their parents in Cyprus, Sweden and Estonia (Karpava, Ringblom, Zabrodskaja 2019). But the most widespread translingual forms are (for obvious reasons) the so-called World Englishes (including Runglish, Spanglish, Chinglish etc.) (Li 2018; Pennycook 2008). From the point of view of translanguaging theory, these combined variants that have arisen as a result of cultural and linguistic contact and carry the features of both English and other languages (sometimes serving as a means of communication for entire countries) are not defective speech, but specific translingual formations.

With the approaches, definitions and theoretical discussions presented above in mind, let us now turn to the methodological considerations and the description of data collection procedures.

## 3 Methodological Considerations

The data include a corpus of spoken materials, collected as part of the field research conducted in the period from July to October 2016 in four Western European countries (Germany, France, Netherlands, and Great Britain with the focus on Germany).<fnref n="5" /> A total of twenty-six in-depth, semi-structured interviews lasting from one to several hours were collected. The interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed by the author in person. Apart from the interviews, the data were collected employing extensive ethnographic observation. From an ethnic point of view, the pool of informants included Buryats, Yakuts and Kazakhs from two countries, i.e. Russia (twenty-four people) and Kazakhstan (two people). Of course, there is a bias towards the Russian area, which is explained both by the complexity of data collection among migrants and by a rather short field study duration. Therefore, the conclusions are made mainly on the Russian material, although the commonality of background and linguistic strategies of post-Soviet migrants are very much alike, as evidenced in other studies on post-Soviet migration (Kasatkina 2011). Interviews typically lasted one to two, sometimes more hours, and were usually held in public venues, such as restaurants, local businesses, and private homes.

The diagrams below [figs 1-2] show two important characteristics of the sample: age and the fields of professional activity/status of informants. I divided the study participants into four age groups, and

<footnote n="5">5 All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. Transcripts are fully anonymised, with each participant being ascribed a pseudonym. Any information that could reveal the informants' identity such as names of localities, places of study etc. is removed from the published interview fragments. Information about the countries of residence is, however, retained, since it is impossible to determine the participants' identity from it, and yet this is important for analysis.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** Age characteristics of informants

**Figure 2** Professional characteristics / status of informants</figcaption></figure>

we can see that the most numerous (almost half of the respondents) was the group of migrants, whose ages ranged from 26 to 35 years.

The informants' educational level and social status are reflected in their fields of activity [fig. 2]. Note that almost all participants worked or studied, except for three who were housewives at that time. Figure 2 shows that the majority of respondents work in the field of education and science (32%) or are college students (23%), mainly enrolled in master programmes.
The interview toolkit consisted of (1) questions identifying the re-
spondents' social characteristics (age, sex, marital status, number of
years spent in Western European countries, information on education
both in the home country and the host countries, professional back-
ground, migration status as well as reports on the ethnic self-identi-
fication of the participants), (2) questions aimed at identifying the in-
teraction of language, culture and ethnic identity, (3) questions that
solicited participants' reports on their language proficiency in Rus-
sian, ethnic language and L3-n, and the use of these languages in the
migration context. In addition, attention was paid to the social com-
munication circle of post-Soviet migrants, i.e. social networks. An im-
portant goal was to find out how social networks (connections) of mi-
grants affect their language practices and, vice versa, what this case
adds to the already known models of interaction between the struc-
ture of social networks and the use of languages in migrant commu-
nities. Therefore, a part of the interview questionnaire focused spe-
cifically on eliciting information on participants' networks and the
links between the personal social networks and language use.

Since the original purpose of the study was not related to trans-
linguaging, I drew attention to the almost complete absence of a dy-
namic and functionally integrated use of different languages in the
participants' speech later. Therefore, for a deeper study of this topic
I decided to study samples of spontaneous speech, since it is in spon-
taneous speech that the creativity of multilingual speakers can man-
ifest itself to the fullest (see also García 2009). Interviews, despite
being held in a relaxed atmosphere and being close to a natural con-
versation, cannot by definition represent completely free speaking.
Therefore, the field research materials were subsequently supple-
mented with data obtained from the analysis of virtual social com-
munities of several migrant groups from post-Soviet Russia. Social
media such as Facebook are a popular object of research on translin-
gual practices (Halim, Maros 2014), because they represent

a new, delocalized, multimodal space positioned on the boundary between orality and literacy in which translingual practices emerge spontaneously. (Moustaoui, Prego, Zas 2019, 3)

This method called ‘virtual ethnography’ was carried out on posts
and informal discussions in social network groups of Russian-speak-
ing migrants of non-Russian ethnicity residing in different western
countries.

So, generally this study is based on a variety of methods to obtain
and analyse empirical data, namely interviews and participant ob-
servations as central ones, in conjunction with a virtual ethnography
of online interactions of Buryat, Yakut and Kalmyk migrants living
in western countries and the sociolinguistic analysis of online social
media. Six social network groups in Facebook and Instagram became the object of my study. In total, I analysed the written speech practices of the following online communities: Kalmyks in USA / Kalmyki v SShA, which included 3,000 members at the time of writing this part of the article (June 2021), sakhadiaspora.official in Instagram with 2,695 subscribers and Sakha Diaspora community organisation in Facebook (171 followers), and three Buryat groups in Facebook (Vstrechi v Evrope; Buryat House, USA; and Buryat connection UK with total 1,600 members). All social media were viewed in the period from 2016 to June 2021, with the exception of the Sakha Diaspora Facebook page, which was created on December 11, 2020.

Using virtual ethnography poses additional ethical considerations, although most Internet communication is considered public due to its free availability. Like in other studies employing data from social media (Kliuchnikova 2016, 71), my approach was also to avoid using any material that could not be accessed freely, without the special permission of the author. Nevertheless, I still do not provide the full (nick)names of the writers I quote. Only the initials, names of the participant's group and the dates of publications are indicated.

For the comparative analysis of modern data with historically earlier information about the speech practices of non-Russian migrants from the Soviet Union, the paper employs secondary sources, i.e. interviews with Oirat-Kalmyks living in the United States. The interviews were published in the book by E. Guchinova who studied the history and ethnicity of the Kalmyk community in the USA in 1997-98 (Guchinova 2004).

It should be noted that the pool of informants is limited by two important and related characteristics: the high level of education of the studied migrants and the legality of migration channels. Almost all interviewed informants had a higher education (24 people), seven of them possessed PhD and Candidate of Sciences degree, and two people have finished professional (vocational) schools. The high level of education reflects the general picture of post-Soviet migration, which is closely related to the problem of 'brain drain' from Russia. For example, in the United States the 2000 census recorded a very high level of education among the Russians who arrived: more than half of those over 25 years old (52%) had a bachelor's and master's degree. Only one in four Americans had an equivalent level of education (24%) (Denisenko 2013). In the early 2000s, 43% of Russian migrants in OECD countries aged 15 years and over had higher education. For immigrants from most other countries, including the OECD, this indicator was lower (Dumont, Lemaître 2005).

Thus, the studied group represents a certain segment in the general emigration flow from FSU countries - namely intellectual migration. Currently, the concept of 'intellectual migration' mainly describes the processes of departure of scientists and qualified per-
sonnel to work outside their country. But there is no single mean-
ingful definition of the phenomenon of intellectual migration in the
scientific discourse. The broadest interpretation implies that intel-
lectual migrants are all professionally qualified persons who have
been abroad for more than one year (Ledeneva 2014, 107). This broad
interpretation of intellectual migration is adopted in this paper. Ac-
cordingly, the characteristics and behavioural strategies of Buryat,
Kazakh and Yakut migrants are determined by belonging to this cat-
egory of migrants and, most likely, cannot be extrapolated to other
groups, for example, unskilled migrants or illegal labour migration.

The next limitation was due to my ignorance of the Kazakh and Yakut languages, which also excluded the possibility of Kazakh-Russian and Yakut-Russian CS and CM. However, considering that there were 22 Buryat migrants among the Russian participants, the possibility of communicative practice that “blurs or breaks through apparent boundaries” (Blackledge, Creese 2016, 2) between Russian and Buryat remained open but was rarely noticed by the researcher during ethnographic observation and interviews. It should be noted that the possibility of translilingual transitions between Buryat and Russian was initially excluded for seven Buryat informants who did not know the Buryat language (there were no such people among the Yakut and Kazakh informants). Despite my attempts to conduct a conversation in the Buryat language with Buryat informants, most of them could not maintain a lengthy conversation in it. As one of the participants put it, “I’m not as good [in Buryat] as you are” (Vlada, 32, Germany). So, the main language of the interview and communication beyond it was Russian.

In addition, all informants had a good (in many cases native-like)
command in at least one foreign language, primarily English, but also
German, French etc. They knew that the interviewer was also fluent
in English and German, so they had a full opportunity to dynamical-
ly use at least these languages along Russian. However, despite their
multilingual past and present, the speakers remained mostly within
the monolingual Russian discourse, although the cases of translan-
guaging were also present. They are discussed in the following section.

4 Translanguaging Practices of Post-Soviet Non-Russian Migrants

In this section, I consider translilingual transitions and creative, play-
ful usage (or the lack thereof) of languages by migrants in oral speech
(recording during interviews and ethnographic observation) and in-
formal written communication in social networks. The data obtained
contain not so many examples when the speakers collaboratively en-
gage in fluid, plurilingual communication practices.
The recorded cases of translanguaging were mostly *insertions* of single lexemes (sometimes longer speech segments) from L1 and L3-n into the predominantly Russian discourse. I interpret insertions as incidental cases of CS (see also Myers-Scotton 1993, 163). The identified CSs can be grouped into the following categories:

1. non-equivalence vocabulary (when describing cultural-specific realities) or words for which the speaker could not immediately find a translation equivalent or did not want to spend speaking efforts on it.<fnref n="6" />

А самое-то интересное было, что дети иногда приезжали, и заходили вот так за порог, да, и мы, значит, с ними здороваемся, я в бурятском всегда была, буряад дэгэлтэй, гутал, малгагай ху умдөд. (Densema, 56, Germany)

And the most interesting thing was that children sometimes came, and went like this over the threshold, yes, and we, then, say hello to them, I was always in Buryat, in the Buryat clothes, shoes, cap and all on.

ALYONA Я учусь сейчас на Arzthelferin

INTERVIEWER Но это не bachelor's?

ALYONA Нет. Просто Ausbildung. Среднее (Alyona, 24, Germany)

ALYONA I am currently studying to become medical assistant.

INTERVIEWER But it's not bachelor's?

ALYONA No. Just training. Vocational'.

Mendid Kalmyks! In celebration of the year of the Gaha, there will be a Tsagan Dance next month in Philly. ALL PROCEEDS WILL BENEFIT THE PHILLY HURUL! (Facebook, Kalmyks in USA / Калмыки в США, Т., 6 January 2019)

Hello Kalmyks! In celebration of the Pig year, there will be a White Dance next month in Philly.

ALL PROCEEDS WILL BENEFIT THE PHILLY TEMPLE!

2. Clichéd etiquette formulas (for example, greetings):

Они заходят, я говорю: "Сайн байна! Зэ орогты даа, дээшэ гарагты", и потом на русском. Так дети ни бурятского, ни русского не знают! (Densema, 56, Germany)

They come in, I say: "Hello! Well, come in, come right in", and then in Russian. So the children do not know neither Buryat nor Russian!

Хальмгуд, мендут! кто в США, добавляйтесь! Давайте общаться! (Facebook, Kalmyks in USA / Калмыки в США, А., 20 March 2019)

Kalmyks, hello! Who is in the USA, please add! Let's communicate'

<footnote n="6">6 Transcripts' legend: *italics* for ethnic language (L1); standard font for Russian language (L2); underlined for English, German (L3-n); *bold* for mixed translilingual forms. Examples from social networks are given completely in the authors' design. I only removed non-verbal symbols (such as emoticons) as uninformative in the context of this study.</footnote>
3. Quotation:

... и я вдруг где-то там в шкафу нашла стихотворение “шинии нюдэн хара мойһон шэнги...” (Densema, 56, Germany)

... and I suddenly found a poem "your eyes are like black currants" somewhere in the closet...

Они говорят: Sie sind doch hier geboren, т.е. они себя чувствуют себя как дома. (Sara, 25, Netherlands)

They say: "They are born here", that is, they feel at home.

4. Communication topic:

Могу бурядар дуугарха (Radzana, 48, Germany)
'I can speak Buryat'

Ухата эк-эцкир! Даже в американской реальности надо попытаться сделать маленький шаг навстречу калмыцкому языку!

(Facebook, Kalmyks in USA / Калмыки в США, D., 14 August 2020)

Smart moms and dads! Even in the American reality, it is necessary to try to take a small step towards the Kalmyk language!

5. Externally unmotivated intersentential CSs:

И там я два года в школу ходила, тиихэдэ һургуулимнэ буряад байга хаим.
(Densema, 56, Germany)

'And there I went to school for two years, at that time the school was Buryat'

Слушайте до конца. Сертн, серцхәтн хальмгудм. Просыпайтесь, пробуждайтесь калмыки!<fnref n="7" /> (Facebook, Kalmyks in USA / Калмыки в США, Е., 11 December 2020)

'Listen to the end. Wake up, wake up Kalmyks. Wake up, wake up Kalmyks!'

6. Externally unmotivated intrasentential CSs:

Тут можешь сесть в ресторан **рандомно** и у тебя за соседним столом будут сидеть русские, в пабе будут русские, т.е. чувствовать **homesick** – нету здесь. (Kira, 28, Great Britain)

'Here you can sit in a restaurant randomly and you will have Russians at the next table. There will be Russians in the pub, that is, to feel <u>homesick</u> – there is no such thing here'

Минус в том что постоянно prejudice. Постоянно misunderstanding, все дела. (Sara, 25, Netherlands)

'The disadvantage is that there is always prejudice. Constantly misunderstand-
ing, all that stuff'

<footnote n="7">7 Here the translation from Kalmyk into Russian is given by the author of this post.</footnote>
Какие desired outcomes? (Dari, 32, Switzerland)
‘What are _desired outcomes_?’

Не то чтобы она [английская культура] так ярко выражена, она довольно plain по сравнению с другими культурами. (Dari, 32, Switzerland)
‘It’s not that it [English culture] is so pronounced, it’s quite _plain_ compared to other cultures’

Есть предложение, скинуться по £15 с каждого взрослого и накрыть самим стол, а самое главное налепить _as much as we want_ наши БУУЗЫ. (Facebook, Buryat connection UK, D., 23 February 2017)

‘There is an offer to chip in £15 from each adult and cover the table ourselves, and most importantly, to make _as much as we want_ our BUUZAS’.

7. Language creativity, language game:

А ты **хамагуист**? :) (Facebook, Buryat connection UK, B., 12 October 2020)
Are you a **khamaguist** ('don't-care-at-all **loafer**')?

8. Discourse markers:

И вот сейчас, смотря, да, обратно, also те два года которые я в [mentions the name of the village] провела, были самыми тяжелыми в моей жизни. ('Radzana, 48, Germany')

‘And now, looking back, yes, well those two years that I spent in [mentions the name of the village] were the hardest in my life’

When looking at these CS examples, we see that they occur under the
influence of external, internal and linguistic factors, which were dis-
cussed in section 2. Quotations and communication topic (examples 3
and 4) are well-known and frequent linguistic factors of CS (see, e.g.,
Gumperz 1982). Similarly, a person has to resort to the resources of
another language while referring to the realities of the correspond-
ing culture and using clichéd etiquette formulas, as in examples 1 and
2 (for more detail, see Khilkhanova 2009). As J. Fishman explained it,

That language which has traditionally been linked with a given eth-
noculture is, at any time during which that linkage is still intact,
best able to name the artefacts and to formulate or express the in-
terests, values and world-views of that culture. (Fishman 1991, 20)

However, as stated in section 2, primarily unmotivated, unconscious
(examples 5, 6, 8) or, on the contrary, conscious, purposeful CSs (ex-
ample 7) can be considered truly translingual strategies. For instance,
in example 7 the popular Buryat expression “khama ugy” (‘all the
same, no care, no difference’) is played with. The addition of the pro-
ductive Russian suffix -ist creates an occasionalism with the meaning
'a person who doesn't care' (in Russian there is a similar slang equiv-
alent, *pofigist*, formed according to the same model from the non-lit-
erary word *pofig*). The morphosyntactic basis of the phrase "Are you
a khamaguist?" is provided by the Russian language, serving here
as a *matrix language* (Myers-Scotton 1993). In the examples of intra-
sentential switching, we see that the speakers use different strate-
gies, sometimes mixing, sometimes switching codes. Among the inser-
tions, forms without matrix language affixes are quite frequent - the
so-called *bare forms* (Myers-Scotton 2006): чувствовать (homesick);
постоянно (prejudice); постоянно (misunderstanding); она довольно
(plain). The frequent use of bare forms is noteworthy, because they
do not violate the grammar of CS. Other cases, such as the word 'ran-
domly', where the English root morpheme is supplied with the affix of
the matrix language - the Russian adverbial suffix -o - are very rare.

The example with a German discursive marker ‘also’ deserves a
separate comment. Discursive markers (hereinafter – DM) in general
and in bilingual speech in particular are a separate topic that I can
only touch on briefly here. As a rule, DMs perform modal, deictic and
metalinguistic functions. In this example, we are dealing with the
speaker’s automatic choice of the DM ‘also’, which happens when lan-
guage units are more active in the speaker’s cognitive base due to the
more frequent use. In this case, objective, propositional information
is expressed in Russian, while subjective, evaluative, additional infor-
mation is expressed using DM from German. Perhaps this is the first
step towards understanding, evaluating, and commenting on reali-
ty in another language, i.e. one of the first links in the mechanism of
language shift (from Russian to German) by this particular speaker.

It is noteworthy that there are more creative translilingual prac-
tices and language games in the spontaneous online communication
of migrants from the FSU. Nevertheless, the analysis of social net-
works shows that the language of communication there is mainly Rus-
sian, especially in Kalmyk and Buryat social networks. The situation
with the Yakut online communication is somewhat different. There
are more instances of spontaneous Yakut speech in posts, responses
and comments to them, for example:

Скоро День якутских оладушек! Күндү Саха Сирин олохтоохторо, болfferюн!
Муус устар 7 күнүгэр Алгыстаах АЛААДьы күнэ бэлиэтэнэр буолла.
Бу күннэ мааны алаадьыбытын астаан аймахтарбытын, доfferиторбутун ыны-
ран амсатабыт, күндүлүүбүт.

Атын группаларга тарчат, биллэр.

Готовьте алаады #якутскиеоладьи, публикуйте в Инстаграм и не забудьте
поставить хэштег #алаадьыкунэ!

The Day of Yakut pancakes is coming soon! *Dear Sakha residents, attention!*
*April 7 is the Day of the Blessed Pancakes.*
On this day, we fry pancakes and invite and give to try pancakes, we honour our relatives and friends with pancakes.

Report on other groups.

Prepare alaadyi #yakutskieoladyi, post on Instagram and do not forget to put the hashtag #alaadyikune!

The activity of the Yakut online and offline community, related to the relatively good state of the Yakut language, is a well-known fact for Turkologists and sociolinguists. According to comparative statistics on the presence of minority languages of the Russian Federation in the global network (Map of Languages 2016), the Yakut language is best represented online along with Bashkir, Udmurt and Tatar. These are the languages with the greatest linguistic vitality among all minority languages of Russia. This indicates that the Internet does not create a new reality, it only reflects the current situation with multilingualism in the country. Languages that are safe without the Internet, with a high level of language activism and national consciousness of native speakers, are widely used in the global network as well.

One could assume that few cases of translanguaging in interviews between Russian and other languages are due to the fact that the interview is not a suitable place where personal linguistic creativity can be deployed. However, examples of other studies where people easily switch between different languages during interviews refute this assumption. For comparison, here is a fragment from the interview with a Kalmyk emigrant of the second emigration wave<fnref n="8" /> taken from the book by E. Guchinova who studied the Kalmyk diaspora in the United States (Guchinova 2004, 168):

Главная разница – то, что те калмыки считают, что under коммунизм бээсн и some kind тиим анти religion тиим ютма... хотя тенд были divided и были такие которые действительно against религия, но большинство были и сохраняли тер. Тер коммунистический режим далта җилд бәгәд ... abolish кечксн – тииг җ саннав. Вот тиим suggestion. И би старался follow зврәнь parents-инь. Я не скажу что был best студент, но average... янад. И экләд, тигәд тер мана old generation Әдрхәрәнь йовад сурһульд они были манд real mother. Теднә поведение манд понравилось. Они показали нам knowledge, intelligence и книжкс дуудг, и мне это понравилось. Теднә behaviar манд in- fluance кенәд мы поехали Адрхнюр. Конечно, мана уровень knowledge-а ик биш билә, но все же мы могли читать, арифметик... Нас все же приняли в 30-м году в Калмыцкий педагогический техникум.

The main difference is that those Kalmyks believe that *being* under communism and *some kind* of *such* anti-religion *such things*... although *there* were *divided* and *there* were those who were really *against* religion, but most were and re-

<footnote n="8">8 The second wave of Kalmyk emigration occurred during the period of the construction of socialism, Stalin's repressions and the Second World War.</footnote>
tained that. That communist regime having existed for seventy years... was abolished – so I think. Here is such suggestion. And I tried to follow my **parents-in'-**
I will not say that I was the best student, but like the average.... And to begin,
then that our old generation went to study in Astrakhan, they were real mother for us. Their behaviour was liked by us. They showed us knowledge, intelligence and reading books aloud, and I loved it. Their behaviour made influence
on us, we went to Astrakhan. Of course, our level of **knowledge-a** was not high,
but still we could read, arithmetic... We were still accepted in the year of 1930
in the Kalmyk Pedagogical College.

This fragment, which is typical in the speech practices of non-Rus-
sian migrants of previous waves of the Russian emigration (at least
the first and second waves), is an example of a translingual discourse
that the author has rarely encountered not only in the migrant en-
vironment, but also in Russia. In this fragment, all three languag-
es are almost equally involved: L1 (Kalmyk, in italics), L2 (Russian,
standard font) and L3 (in this case, English, underlined). It presents
a striking contrast to the speech of post-Soviet migrants (especial-
ly well-educated ones), which is an example of 'pure', grammatically
correct and unmixed Russian speech. Despite the fact that constant
bilingualism is often considered to create a specific context that is
particularly conducive to developing linguistic creativity (Kellman
2000), speakers remain in a predominantly monolingual Russian-
speaking mode both online and offline, even in 'ethnic' social net-
works and when communicating with co-ethnics.

In general, my data confirmed that for first-generation migrants
from the FSU the Russian language plays the role of a collective uni-
fier of the immigrant community, and its pragmatic value is similar
to that in the USSR. At the same time, the data obtained indicate the
heterogeneity of speech practices and language competencies of the
studied migrants' group. For the majority, however, fluid, transling-
ual practices employing the rich repertoire of their multilingual re-
sources are not typical, which is especially noticeable in compari-
son with the speech of representatives of the previous 'waves' of the
multilingual and multiethnic part of the Russian emigration. I be-
lieve that this is largely due to linguistic ideologies, which will be
discussed in the next section.

5 Language Ideologies at Work

Language ideologies, like any mental formations, are difficult to
study due to their implicit representation in speech and often hid-
den character for the speakers themselves. Sometimes they can be
identified based on specific statements, sometimes only by analys-
ing speech behaviour regarding the presence or, on the contrary,
absence of relevant linguistic phenomena. Addressing language ide-
ologies presents a new turn in my research, that is I empirically ar-
rived at this concept when trying to explain the rarity of transling-
ual speech practices by the studied migrant group. I will begin my
analysis with one piece of interview that is indicative in this regard:<fnref n="9" />

INTERVIEWER What about the language?

NORA Buryat? No, [mentions the name of town] is a Russian village anyway. More Russians live and... my parents did not speak Buryat with me. They didn't want people to make fun of me with my accent. They were ridiculed in Soviet times. Well, I myself no longer... did not try, or something, to learn the language. In principle, if I really wanted to, I could have learned it, but... but when everyone around me speaks Russian [...]. But when I came here, I missed it a little, and I'm a little ashamed, because I don't know it. Because everyone here asks me first of all: do you know your language? When people ask me where I am from, I say: I am from Russia, from Buryatia. Where's that? I say: well, there ... between Lake Baikal and Mongolia. Or they say to me for example: you don't look like a Russian. I say: well, we live there on the border with Mongolia. Oh, do you speak Mongolian? No, don't. Well, it's a little embarrassing, of course. When I moved here, for some reason I wanted to learn Buryat even more than when I was in Buryatia. (Nora, 30, Germany)

This fragment reflects both objective and subjective factors that de-
termined the language situation and speech behaviour of people in
the Soviet period through the prism of the migrant's personal per-
ception. One of the objective factors is demography - by 1989, Rus-
sians made up 49.3% of the total population of the Soviet Union (All-
Union Population Census 1989) and 79.8% in the Russian Federation
eleven years after the collapse of the USSR (All-Russian Population
Census 2002). Subjective factors refer to people's perception and han-
dling the language inequality in the Soviet Union reflected in Nora's
brief narrative. Traumatic experience and internalized ideological
views about the status, hierarchy and pragmatic values of Russian
and minority languages resulted in a certain linguistic behaviour,
when the older generation did not pass on the ethnic languages to
children and encouraged their study of the Russian language. In this
way, they wanted to save their children from the negative experience
they themselves went through and to ensure their social success. In
that way, the 'monolingual ideology', i.e. Russian monolingualism,
was formed in the mass consciousness of the Soviet people, Russians
and non-Russians alike. As A. Burykin put it: "Bilingualism in gen-
eral is not characteristic of the Russian language mentality. At the
level of everyday consciousness, the command and use of other eth-
nic groups' languages is not encouraged and not welcomed by carri-

<footnote n="9">9 Since there are no cases of translanguaging here, the fragment is given in English translation at once.</footnote>
ers of this mentality” (Burykin 2004a; see also Baranova, Fedorova 2018). This statement is confirmed statistically as well: only 0.6% of ethnic Russians spoke regional languages or the languages of the indigenous peoples of Russia, and the tendency of Russians to remain monolingual continues (Mikhalchenko, Trushkova 2003; Kharitonov, Stepina 2020). Speaking in a non-Russian language in the presence of Russian speakers was also considered ‘indecent’ in almost all regions of the former USSR (Burykin 2004b, 27). It is also a manifestation of ‘monolingual ideology’ in communicative behaviour. Other studies have also repeatedly stated that during the Soviet years, people were reprimanded or given pejorative assessments in cities because they spoke non-Russian languages in public places (Ferguson 2016b, 99; Khilkhanova 2020).

However, the above fragment reflects not only the ideology of (Russian) monolingualism. Nora also speaks about the shame for not knowing the native language and about her wish to learn Buryat “even more than when I was in Buryatia”. Although such feelings and the desire to ‘regain’ an ethnic language rarely result in concrete actions to learn it and the majority of migrants remain with the same knowledge (or ignorance) of ethnic language with which they went abroad, their language attitudes, however, change. It can be also seen in another interview fragment:

> Я столько разных языков знаю, а своего родного не знаю. Поэтому missing something, ощущение потери. (Sara, 25, Netherlands)
> 
> I know so many different languages, but I don't know my native one. Therefore, missing something, a sense of loss.

This quote illustrates that abroad, in a foreign cultural environment, the ethnic awareness of migrants raises, including a sense of the value of native language as an important component of identity. In addition, the Soviet ideas of language hierarchy and association of the Russian language with progress and civilisation, and other languages with backwardness and an uncivilised way of life are erased in the minds of migrants. Such changes in the perception and evaluation of languages are also determined by the migrants' new European localities. I mean that Western Europe is the birthplace of a new ideological paradigm built on the recognition of multilingual and multicultural values (Smokotin 2010, 4). This ideological turn was caused by the liberalisation of economic, political and social life in Western countries after the Second World War. In the USSR at that time, on the contrary, the early Soviet policy of supporting multilingualism was replaced by the policy of promoting the Russian language as the language of interethnic communication, so that it became the lingua franca of the entire country. Of course, even in Western Europe, the liberal approach is not universally recognised: there are enough
examples of preserving ‘old’ ideologies such as ‘one nation-one lan-
guage’, ‘language-of-the-past’ (in relation to minority languages), and
many others (Sallabank, Marquis 2018; Toivanen 2015). Neverthe-
less, in general, the liberation from language bias and the increased
interest and pride in their language and culture are noted by many
interview participants. This indicates that language ideologies as dy-
namic entities strongly depend on the social context.

The next interview fragment illustrates the attitude of a study par-
ticipant to her CS between Russian and German:

А в целом если брать, я чувствую себя свободнее, когда на русском, потому что я лучше могу сформулировать свои фразы и выразиться точнее. То, что переключаюсь – это печально. (Edita, 26, Germany)

And in general, if you take it, I feel freer in Russian, because I can better formu-
late my phrases and express myself more accurately. The fact that I switch is sad.

We see that the informant assesses her CS as a disadvantage. In my
view, this statement manifests the normative idea about language
purity shared by many Russians. Purism and prescriptive language
ideologies are very characteristic of the language culture of Russian
society. As K. Pischlöger put it,

Although language purism or ‘prescriptivism’ is not restricted to
Russia, Russia belongs to a ‘standard language culture’ [...] in
which there [...] is the view that one variety of language has an in-
herently higher value than others, and that this ought to be im-
posed on the whole of the speech community [...]. This attitude is
true particularly for the Russian language, but these ideas and
standards are transferred by philologists and speakers of Udmurt
and other minority languages in Russia to their own language(s).
(Pischlöger 2016, 112)

These prescriptive and puristic attitudes have led to an almost ex-
clusive scholarly interest in the standardised modern literary lan-
guage (114) and in the ‘high’ spheres such as fiction, which is also
explained by the authority of classical Russian literature. Therefore,
‘low’ spheres – such as the language of mass communication, spo-
ken language and obscene vocabulary – have become objects of lin-
guistic research in Russia only since the last decades of the twenti-
eth century.

In many respects, such normative language attitudes originate in
the Russian school where the normative approach to language dominates. The mode of duty, prescriptions, as well as ‘orthographocentrism’ are the most important features of Russian linguistic thinking (Golev 2002).
The desire to ‘abstain from mistakes’ taken to its farthest limit becomes a brake on the speech development, which should lead to free, creative expression of thought (it is enough to recall the advice of experienced teachers and tutors to their pupils to avoid phrases in the unmistakable spelling of which they are not sure).

(Golev 2002, 190)

This is true both in relation to Russian and foreign languages. In So-
viet times, the grammar-based method was dominant in foreign lan-
guage teaching at Russian schools and universities. This resulted in
grammatically correct speech, on the one hand, and in the fear of
speaking out of fear of making mistakes, on the other.

Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that translingual freedom
and creative treatment of languages, by definition violating their
grammatical correctness and 'purity', are not widespread in the mass
language consciousness of Russian residents. Of course, this is not an
absolute statement, and the lingvocreative treatment of the Russian
language is a frequent phenomenon both among professionals and
lay people. Constant CS between Russian and minority languages is
also widespread in Russia. However, for a large number of people,
especially educated ones, correctness is absolutised, dogmatised,
and sacralised (Golev 2002, 184), and language purism is one of the
most common language ideologies in Russia. This explains the nu-
merous debates about the 'corruption' of the Russian language under
the influence of English. One of the Russian politicians V. Zhirinovs-
ky expressed this mass concern proposing to do everything to "stop
the Russians from using borrowed words and replace them with na-
tive Russian words" (Boguslavskaya, Kitanina 2016, 12). The prev-
alence of puristic ideologies in relation not only to Russian, but al-
so towards minority languages was noted, apart from K. Pischlöger,
by researchers of Sakha-Russian bilingualism (Ferguson 2016a), of
Ukrainian and Russian languages (Bilaniuk 2005).

In the migration context, similar results were obtained by Kliuch-
nikova (2016) who studied linguistic practices, language attitudes
and discourses on language(s) of Russian-speaking migrants in the
North-East of England. She states that despite her initial assump-
tions, in her fieldwork she found very little evidence of any 'ludic'
initiatives among the group under study, at least in the way that
would explicitly operate both sets of linguistic resources – English
and Russian. Kluchnikova explains rare linguistic games among Rus-
sian-speaking migrants by several reasons including low numbers,
irregular contacts and general unpreparedness for creative experi-
ments. However, as one of the cornerstones for maintaining linguistic
practices, the author names the set of attitudes towards language(s)
and normative linguistic behaviour by bilingual speakers themselves
(Kliuchnikova 2016, 277). The most influential language attitude, in
Kluchnikova's view, is Russian speakers' admiration of highly stand-
ardised, 'classical', literary norm of Russian that dominates over any
urge to explore bilingual limits. The sense of belonging to the 'Rus-
sian-speaking continuum' through shared norms and practices leaves
little space for bilingual manoeuvres on the margins. Rare counterex-
amples illustrate the point providing a scarce contrast to wider cre-
ative passivity and inertness (Kliuchnikova 2016, 271).

6 Results and Discussion

This research examined the speech practices of a well-educated mul-
tiethnic and multilingual group of migrants from the former USSR
in Western Europe from the translanguaging perspective. The field
study participants were a heterogeneous group not only in terms of
ethnicity, but also in terms of linguistic competence in L1, L2 and
L3-n. Russian was the native language for one third of Buryat mi-
grants who did not speak their ethnic language. At the same time, all
migrants' Russian language proficiency was native or native-like. Al-
so, all of them had high linguistic competence in foreign languages,
primarily in English. Thus, the possibility of translanguaging (includ-
ing CS as one of the translingual strategies or as an instance of trans-
linguaging,) between Russian and foreign languages was open to all
research participants, and between L1 and L2, for two-thirds of them.

Nevertheless, the analysis of interviews, ethnographic observation
data and the language of migrant social networks revealed few trans-
lingual strategies and practices; in fact, instead of translanguaging,
both conscious and unconscious language choices in favour of Rus-
sian were made. There are many reasons for this: external, internal
and linguistic. Among the external ones are low numbers of Buryat,
Kazakh and Yakut migrants, irregular contacts with co-ethnics and
dispersed living of these small groups' members. However, the main
reason for replacing translanguaging with linguistic assimilation is, in
my opinion, that first-generation migrants from the FSU countries are
products of the Soviet language policy. Therefore, in addition to 'ex-
porting' their linguistic repertoire, they also export the relationships
between L1 and L2 that have been established in their home country.
Both in the country of origin and abroad, L2 (Russian) satisfies the
need for mutual understanding, being the 'language of interethnic
communication' of the multiethnic group of migrants from the FSU.

In post-Soviet Russia, language relations between the state (Rus-
sian) language and more than 150 other languages have not changed
much. The short period of the 'parade of sovereignies' and "mobi-
lised linguicism'<fnref n="10" /> in the nineties brought some changes: in almost all
national republics of the Russian Federation, laws on languages and
the concepts for the development of titular languages were adopted,
and minority languages were introduced in school education. How-
ever, already shortly afterwards, the state returned to the Russian-
dominated ethnolinguistic policy; as a result, the language shift to-
wards Russian continues among most minority groups in Russia (see
also Mikhal'chenko 2019).

In addition to the ideas of language hierarchy and the pragmatic
value of languages ingrained in the consciousness of people, language
purism and the (Russian) ‘monolingual ideology’ are also widespread
in the mass consciousness of Soviet people and Russian citizens. Of
course, the ‘monolingual ideology’ was primarily part of the state lan-
guage policy, but, like with all ideologies, the mechanism of its forma-
tion and functioning is reciprocal. By reciprocity I mean that, on the
one hand, this and other ideologies regulate people’s social behaviour
and dictate how they should think and behave. On the other hand, the
language ideologies were implemented not only ‘from above’, but also
‘from below’, driven by ideological views about languages and their val-
ues internalised by the Soviet people. Since the language policy of Rus-
sia largely reproduces the Soviet one, as mentioned above, these lan-
guage ideologies are also common among citizens of modern Russia.

Reciprocity is also manifested in the fact that language ideolo-
gies influence social and political reality and, in turn, are formed
under the influence of situational, institutional and social contexts.
Migration to Western European countries - where, according to in-
formants, there is the rule of law and democratic values, non-dis-
crimination, equality of career opportunities and conditions for self-
realisation - changes language ideologies towards greater liberality
and tolerance. This proves once again that language ideologies are
dynamic entities and strongly depend on the social climate and soci-
etal expectations. Similar changes in language ideologies are taking
place in Russia, but with a delay of several decades.

All this explains the migrants' reluctance or lack of need to cross
the language boundaries and to create hybrid forms. The above-de-

<footnote n="10">10 The ‘parade of sovereignties’ was a series of declarations of sovereignty of various degrees by the constituent republics of the Soviet Union from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. It followed a loosened power grip of the Soviet Communist Party as a result of the (democratisation) policy of the perestroika period. These declarations challenged the priority of the all-Union legislation over the republican ones (which started the so-called ‘war of laws’) and took actions to strengthen the republics’ economic dependencies. The ‘parade of sovereignties’ ended with the collapse of the USSR (Sintsov, Bityutskiy 2019). ‘Mobilised linguicism’ refers to those movements in the republics the USSR consisted of, which ended with the adoption of laws proclaiming the languages of the peoples (nationalities), after which the republics were named, as their state languages (Guboglo 1998).</footnote>
scribed language ideologies block the potential translanguaging that
is based on the recognition of all languages as equal. Or vice ver-
sa, translanguaging can also be driven by directly opposite motives:
awareness of linguistic inequality and protest against it encourage a
person to provocation, aggression and creation of artificial 'languag-
es', as in the mentioned book by Zaimogly, *Kanak Sprak*. In the ab-
sence of such awareness and protest, a person, especially one who
has passed all levels of the Russian-language education system, au-
tomatically reproduces the monolingual patterns of 'pure' speaking
in a more prestigious and more frequently used language.

The control of consciousness that prohibits making mistakes and the normative linguistic behaviour are also due to the fact that all highly educated migrants grew up reading classical Russian literature<fnref n="11" /> and absorbed the values of Russian 'standard language culture'. Thus, the general cultural level of the migrants also does not contribute to non-literary, profane, provocative treatment of languages. The little 'urge to explore bilingual limits' and to dynamically move between languages applies to both minority and foreign languages in contact with Russian.

To conclude, I hope that empirical findings and theoretical insights generated from the research presented in this paper can improve our understanding of translanguaging and language ideologies, particularly in relation to the FSU region. Hopefully, it also adds to an existing body of research on the Russian-speaking 'ethnic' migration and contributes to the disciplinary fields of sociolinguistics, linguistic and cultural anthropology.

<footnote n="11">11 Other ethnic literatures are not taught in Russian schools and universities, except for a few so-called ‘national’ faculties and schools.</footnote>
Bibliography

Akhmetova, Ja.M. *Axmetova Я.М.* (2004). *Govor tatar Finljandii: V sravnitel’no-
istoricheskom aspekte* Говор татар Финляндии: В сравнительно-
историческом аспекте (The Patois of the Tatars of Finland: In the Com-
parative-historical Aspect) [PhD Dissertation]. Kazan: Kazan State Peda-
gogical University.

Aliev, R.T. Алиев Р.Т. (2017). “Izmenение rjada jazykovyh patternov tatar na prigranichnyh prostranstvah: tatary Astrahanskogo kraja i tatary-migranty Kitaja” Изменение ряда языковых паттернов татар на приграничных пространствах: татары Астраханского края и татары-мигранты Китая (The Changes in Some Linguistic Patterns of the Tatars in the Frontier Spaces: The Tatars of the Astrakhan Region and the Tatar Migrants in China). *Journal of Frontier Studies*, 4, 58-71.

Anstatt, T. (2012). "In zwei Sprachen zu Hause: Slavisch-deutsche Mehrsprachigkeit im Ruhrgebiet". *Osses, D.* (Hrsg.), *Nach Westen. Zuwanderung aus Osteuropa ins Ruhrgebiet*. Essen: LWL-Industriemuseum, 47-53.

Artoni, D.; Pomarolli, G.; Urkhanova, R. Артони, Д.; Помаролли, Д.; Урханова, Р. (2021). “Kul’turnaya iazykovaja identichnost’ buryatskih, kalmytskikh, mongol’skikh immigrantov v Italii” Культурная и языковая идентичность бурятских, калмыцких, монгольских иммигрантов в Италии (Cultural and Linguistic Identity of Buryat, Kalmyk, and Mongol Immigrants in Italy). *Sociolinguistics*, 1(5), 91-112. http://doi.org/10.37892/2713-2951-2021-1-5-91-112.

Baranova, V.V.; Fedorova, K.S. Баранова, В.В.; Федорова, К.С. (2018). "Mnogoia-
azychie v gorode: iazykovaia politika, diskursy i praktika". Многоязычие в
городе: языковая политика, дискурсы и практика (Multilingualism in the
city: language policy, discourses and practice). *Acta Linguistica Petropoli-
tana*, XIV, Ch. 3, 38-56. http://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573714303.

Bedretdin, K. (2017). "Preserving of Mother Tongue, Religious and Cultural Identity of Tatar Migrants (the Case of the Tatar Community in Finland)". *Istoricheskaja jetnologija* Историческая этнология (Historical Ethnology), 2(2), 233-42.

Ben-Rafael, E.; Lyubansky, M.; Glöckner, O.; Harris, P.; Israel, Y.; Jasper W.; Schoeps, J. (2006). *Building a Diaspora. Russian Jews in Israel, Germany and the USA*. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

Bertagaev, T.A. Бертагаев Т.А. (1969). “К вопросу о vzaимовlijanii jazykov (o mongolizmah i dvujazychii)” К вопросу о взаимовлиянии языков (о монголизмах и двуязычии) [About the Mutual Influence of Languages (on Mongolisms and Bilingualism)]. *Vzaимodejstvie i vzaimoobogashhenie jazykov narodov SSSR* Взаимодействие и взаимообогащение языков народов СССР (Interaction and Mutual Enrichment of the Languages of the Peoples of the USSR). Moscow: Nauka, 121-5.

Besters-Dilger, J. (2013). "Russian in Germany – Intermediate Results on L1 At-
trition." Moser, M.; Polinsky, M. (eds), *Slavic Languages in Migration*. Vien-
na: LIT, 189-203.

Bilaniuk, L. (2005). *Contested Tongues: Language Politics and Cultural Correction in Ukraine*. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.

Bitkeeva, A.N. Биткеева А.Н. (2018). “Jazykovaja adaptacija diasporry: strate-
gii i perspektivy razvitija” Языковая адаптация диаспоры: стратегии и
перспективы развития (Language Adaptation of the Diaspora: Strategies
and Development Prospects). *Acta Linguistica Petropolitana*, 14, part 3, 57-81. http://doi.org/10.30842/alp2306573714304

Blackledge, A.; Creese, A. (2016). "Translanguaging as Cultural and Cosmopolitan Competence". *IALIC 2016 Keynote presentation. Book of Abstracts IALIC 2016 Barcelona* (Barcelona, 25-27 November 2016), 2.

Boguslavskaya, V.V.; Kitanina, E.A. Богуславская, В.В.; Китанина, Е.А. (2016). "Ideologicheskij purizm v kontekste patriotizma: sociokul'turnyj aspect" Идеологический пуризм в контексте патриотизма: социокультурный аспект (Ideological Purism in the Context of Patriotism: Socio-cultural aspect). *Obshhestvo: sociologija, psihologija, pedagogika* Общество: социология, психология, педагогика (Society: sociology, psychology, pedagogy), 3, 10-13.

Burykin, A.A. Бурыкин А.А. (2004а). *Jazyk malochislennogo naroda v ego pis-mennoy forme (na materiale evenskogo jazyka)* Язык малочисленного народа в его письменной форме (на материале эвенского языка) [The Language of a Small People in its Written Form (Based on the Material of the Even Language)]. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie.

Burykin, A.A. (2004b). *Jazyk menshinstva kak 'tajnyj jazyk' v otechestven-nom sotsiokulturnom kontekste* Язык меньшинства как 'тайный язык' в отечественном социокультурном контексте (электронный ресурс) (Minority Language as a 'Secret Language' in the Russian Socio-Cultural Context). https://www.km.ru/referats/BD7FDF83F8E4453D8804C-216C325E380.

Canagarajah, S. (2002). "Multilingual Writers and the Academic Community: Towards a Critical Relationship". *Journal of English for Academic Purposes*, 1, 29-44.

Canagarajah, S. (2011). "Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging". *Modern Language Journal*, 95, 401-17.

Cavanaugh, J.R. (2009). *Living Memory: The Social Aesthetics of Language in a Northern Italian Town*. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Denisenko, M. (2013). *Historical and Current Trends in Emigration From Russia*. http://russiangovernment.ru/en/inner/?id_4=2292#top (2015-06-10).

Dietz, B. (2000). "German and Jewish Migration from the Former Soviet Union to Germany: Background, Trends and Implications". *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*, 26(4), 635-52. http://doi.org/10.1080/713680499.

Dumont, J.-C.; Lemaître, G. (2005). *Counting Immigrants and Expatriates: A New Perspective*. Paris: OECD.

Ferguson, J.K. (2016a). "Code-Mixing Among Sakha-Russian Bilinguals in Iakutsk: A Spectrum of Features and Shifting Indexical Fields". *Journal of Linguistic Anthropology*, 26(2), 141-61.

Ferguson, J.K. (2016b). "Language Has a Spirit: Sakha (Iakut) Language Ideologies and Aesthetics of Sustenance". *Arctic Anthropology*, 53(1), 95-111.

Gal, S.; Woolard, K. (1995). "Constructing Languages and Publics: Authority and Representation". *Pragmatics*, 5(2), 129-38.

García, O. (2009). "Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century". Mohanty Minati Panda, A.; Phillipson, R.; Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (eds), *Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local*. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 128-45.

Glovinskaya, М. Гловинская, М. (2004). "Obshchiye tipy izmeneniy v yazyke pervogo pokoleniya emigratsii" Общие типы изменений в языке первого
поколения эмиграции (General Types of Changes in the Language of the First Generation of Emigration). Mustayoki, A.; Protasova, Y. (eds), *Russkoyazychnyy chelovek v inoyazychnom okruzhhenii* Русскоязычный человек в иноязычном окружении (A Russian-Speaking Person in a Foreign-Speaking Environment). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 13-20. Slavica Helsingiensia 24.

Golev, N.D. Голев, Н.Д. (2003). "Sovremennaja mental'no-jazykovaja situacija v aspektе vzaimootnoshenija ee lingvisticheskogo i lingvodidakticheskogo aspektov" Современная ментально-языковая ситуация в аспекте взаимоотношения ее лингвистического и лингводидактического аспектов (The Modern Mental and Linguistic Situation in the Aspect of the Relationship Between its Linguistic and Linguodidactic Aspects). Golev, N.D. (ed), *Eestestvennaja pis'mennaja russkaja rech': issledovatel'skij i obrazovatel'nyj aspekty* Естественная письменная русская речь: исследовательский и образовательный аспекты (Natural Written Russian speech: Research and Educational Aspects). Part. 2: *Teorija i praktika sovremennoj pis'mennoj rechi: materialy konf* Теория и практика современной письменной речи: материалы конф (Theory and Practice of Modern Written Speech: Conference Proceedings). Barnaul: Izd-vo Alt. gos. universiteta, 178-92.

Guboglo, M.N. Губогло, М.Н. (1998). *Yazyki etnicheskoi mobilizatsii* Языки этнической мобилизации (Languages of Ethnic Mobilization). Moscow: lazyki russkoi kul'tury.

Guchinova E.-B. Гучинова Э.-Б. (2004). *Ulitsa Kalmuck road. Istorija, kul'tura I identichnosti kalmytskoj obsh'iny SShA* Улица Кalmuck road. История, культура и идентичности калмыцкой общины США (The Street Kalmyck road. History, Culture and Identities in the Kalmyk Community of the USA). St. Petersburg: Aleteiya.

Gumperz, J.J. (1982). *Discourse Strategies*. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Halim, N.S.; Maros, M. (2014). "The Functions of Code-switching in Facebook Interactions". *Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences*, 118, 126-33. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.017.

Hüppauf, B. (2004). "Globalization – Threats and Opportunities". Gardt, A.; Hüppauf, B. (eds), *Globalization and the Future of German*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3-25.

Isurin, L. (2011). *Russian Diaspora: Culture, Identity, and Language Change*. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078457.

Karpava, S.; Ringblom, N.; Zabrodskaja, A. (2019). "Translanguaging in the Family Context: Evidence from Cyprus, Sweden and Estonia". *Russian Journal of Linguistics*, 23(3), 619-41. http://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-3-619-641.

Kasatkina, N. (2011). "Language Shift and Maintenance Among Russian Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union". *Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching*, 18, 35-54.

Kellman, S. (2000). *The Translingual Imagination*. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska Press.

Kharitonov, V.; Stepina D. Харитонов, В.; Степина, Д. (2020). "Monolingualnyy gabitus v mnogoyazychnom obshchestve: kak i chto govoryat o yazykakh v Rossii" Монолингвальный габитус в многоязычном обществе: как и что
говорят о языках в России (Monolingual Habitus in a Multilingual Society: How and What People Say About Languages in Russia). *Antropologiya. Folkloristika. Sotsiolingvistika. Konferentsiya molodykh uchenykh. Sbornik tezisov* (Anthropology. Folkloristics. Sociolinguistics. Conference of Young Scientists. Book of Abstracts). St. Petersburg: s.n., 92-4.

Khilkhanova, E.V. Хилханова, Э.В. (2009). *Faktory yazykovogo sdviga i sokhraneniya minoritarnykh yazykov: diskursnyy i sotsiolingvisticheskiy analiz* (na primere yazykovoy situatsii v etnicheskoy Buryatii) Факторы языкового сдвига и сохранения миноритарных языков: дискурсный и социолингвистический анализ (на примере языковой ситуации в этнической Бурятии) [Factors of Language Shift and Minority Languages Maintenance: Discourse and Sociolinguistic Analysis (on the Example of Language Situation in Ethnic Buryatia)] [Habil. thesis]. Barnaul: Altaj State University.

Khilkhanova, E.V. Хилханова Э.В. (2017). “Minoritarnye jazyki i migraciya: na primere migrantov iz nacional’nyh regionov Rossii v Zapadnoj Evrope” Миноритарные языки и миграция: на примере мигрантов из национальных регионов России в Западной Европе (Minority Languages and Migration: on the Example of Migrants from the National Regions of Russia in Western Europe). *Vestnik Khakasskogo universiteta im. N.F. Katanova* Вестник Хакасского университета им. Н.Ф. Катанова 19, 54-6.

Khilkhanova, E.V. Хилханова Э.В. (2020). “Mnogoyazychie postsovetskoy migratsii: funktsional’nyy aspekt” Многоязычие постсоветской миграции: функциональный аспект (Multilingualism of Post-Soviet Migration: Functional Aspect). *Sociolinguistics*, 1, 63-78. http://doi.org/10.37892/2713-2951-2020-1-1-63-78.

Kirilina, A.V. Кирилина А.В. (2011). “Kontakt jazykov v nemeckom jazykovom prostranstve” Контакт языков в немецком языковом пространстве (Language Contacts in the German Language Space). *Vestnik Moskovskoj mezhdunarodnoj akademii* Вестник Московской международной академии (Bulletin of the Moscow International Academy), 2, 36-45.

Kliuchnikova, P. (2016). *Linguistic Biographies & Communities of Language of Russian Speakers in Great Britain* [PhD dissertation]. Durham: Durham University. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11374/.

Kroskrity, P.V. (2000). “Regimenting Languages: Language Ideological Perspectives”. Kroskrity, P.V. (ed.), *Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities*. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1-34.

Ledeneva, V.Ju. Леденева, В.Ю. (2014). “Intellektual’naja migracija: mirovye i rossijskie tendencii” Интеллектуальная миграция: мировые и российские тенденции (Intellectual Migration: Global and Russian trends). *Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii* Высшее образование в России (Higher Education in Russia), 2, 106-13.

Lee, J.W. (2014). “Transnational Linguistic Landscapes and the Transgression of Metadiscursive Regimes of Language”. *Critical Inquiry in Language Studies*, 11(1), 50-74. http://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2014.871623.

Li, W. (2018). “Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language”. *Applied Linguistics*, 39(1), February, 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039.
MacSwan, J. (2017). "A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging". *American Educational Research Journal*, 54(1), 167-201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935.

Mikhal'chenko, V. Yu. Михальченко, В. Ю. (2019). "Dinamika yazykovoy situatsii v Rossiyskoy Federatsii" Динамика языковой ситуации в Российской Федерации (Dynamics of the language situation in the Russian Federation). Wingender, M.; Bitkeeva, A.N.; Khilkhanova, E.V. (eds), *Perspektivy i vyzovy yazykovoy politiki i yazykovoy situatsii v Krymu*. Mezhdunarodnyy kruglyy stol (Moskva, 05-06 noyabrya 2019 г.): doklady i soobshcheniya Перспективы и вызовы языковой политики и языковой ситуации в Крыму. Международный круглый стол (Москва, 05-06 ноября 2019 г.): доклады и сообщения (Prospects and Challenges of Language Policy and Language Situation in the Crimea. International Round Table (Moscow, 05-06 November 2019): Reports and Presentations). Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Linguistics of RAS/Institute for Slavic Studies, Justus Liebig University Giessen, The Giessen Centre for Eastern European Studies (GiZo), 8-24.

Mikhalchenko, V. Ju.; Trushkova, J. (2003). "Russian in the Modern World". Mau-rais, J.; Morris, M.A. (eds), *Languages in a globalizing world*. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 260-90.

Moustaoui Srhir, A.; Prego Vázquez, G.; Zas Varela, L. (2019). "Translingual Practices and Reconstruction of Identities in Maghrebi Students in Galicia". *Languages*, 4(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4030063.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). *Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structure in Code-Switching*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). *Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism*. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Nabiullina, G.; Yusupova, A. (2015). "On the Linguistic Situation of the Tatar Diaspora in the USA". *Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences*, 6(5), 298-302. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n5s3p298.

Nabiullina, G.A.; Yusupova, A.Sh. (2014). "Tatar-Chinese Language Interactions (Based on Chinese Loanwords in the Speech of the Tatar Diaspora Living in Modern China)". *Journal of Language and Literature*, 5(3), 241-5.

Pennycook, A. (2006). "Postmodernism in Language Policy". Ricento, T. (ed), *An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method*. London: Blackwell, 60-7.

Pennycook, A. (2008). "Translingual English". Sharifian, F.; Clyne, M. (eds), *Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, International Forum on English as an International Language*, 31(3), 30.1-30.9. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0830.

Pischlöger, C. (2016). "Udmurt on Social Network Sites: A Comparison with the Welsh Case". Toivanen, R.; Saarikivi, J. (eds), *Linguistic Genocide Or Superdiversity? New and Old Language Diversities*. Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, 14, 108-32.

Proshina, Z.G. Прошина З.Г. (2017). "Translingvizm i ego prikladnoe znachenie" Транслингвизм и его прикладное значение (Translingualism and its Application). *RUDN Journal of Language Education and Translingual Practices*, 14(2), 155-70.

Sallabank, J.; Marquis, Y. (2018). ""We Don't Say It Like That': Language Ownership and (De)Legitimising the New Speaker". Smith-Christmas, C.; Hornsby, M.; Moriarty, M.; Ó Murchadha, N. (eds), *New Speakers of Minority Languages: Linguistic Ideologies and Practices*. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, 67-90.
Sintsov, G.; Bityutskiy, E. Синцов, Г.; Битюцкий, Е. (2019). “Rol’ i posledstvija ‘parada suverenitetov’ 1990-1991 gg. v stanovlenii i razvitii rossijskoj go-sudarstvennosti” Роль и последствия “парада суверенитетов” 1990-1991 гг. в становлении и развитии российской государственности (The Role and Consequences of the 1990-1991 “Parade of Sovereignties” in the Formation and Development of Russian Statehood). *Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Povolzhskiy region. Obshhestvennye nauki* Известия высших учебных заведений. Поволжский регион. Общественные науки (News of Higher Educational Institutions. Volga Region. Social Sciences), 1(49), 59-66. http://doi.org/10.21685/2072-3016-2019-1-7.

Smokotin, V.M. Смокотин, В.М. (2010). *Evropeyskoe mnogoyazychie: ot gos-udarstv-natsiy k mnogoyazychnoy i polikulturnoy Evrope* Европейское многоязычие: от государств-наций к многоязычию и поликультурной Европе (European Multilingualism: From Nation-states to a Multilingual and Multicultural Europe). Tomsk: Tomsk State University Press.

Toivanen, R. (2015). “Obstacles and Successes Comparing Minority Language Activism Among the Sorbs in Germany and the Sámi in Finland”. Marten, H.F.; Riessler, M.; Saarikivi, J.; Toivanen, R. (eds), *Cultural and Linguistic Minorities in the Russian Federation and the European Union. Comparative Studies on Equality and Diversity*. London: Springer International Publishing, 83-105. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10455-3_4. Series Multilingual Education 13.

Woolard, K.A. (2003). “We Don’t Speak Catalan Because We Are Marginalized: Ethnic and Class Connotations of Language in Barcelona”. Blot, R.K. (ed), *Language and Social Identity*. Westport (CT): Praeger Publishers, 85-103.

Woolard, K.A. (2020). “Language Ideology”. Stanlaw, J. (ed.), *The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology*. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0217.

Yildiz, Y. (2004). “Critically ‘Kanak’: A Reimagination of German Culture German”. Gardt, A.; Hüppauf, B. (eds), *Globalization and the Future of German*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 319-40.

Yusupova, A.Sh.; Nabiullina, G.A. Юсупова, А.Ш.; Набиуллина, Г.А. (2016). “Jazyk i etnicheskaja identichnost’ tatarskoj diaspory v SShA” Язык и этническая идентичность татарской диаспоры в США (Language and Ethnic Identity of the Tatar Diaspora in the United States). *Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta* Вестник Чувашского университета (Bulletin of the Chuvash University), 2, 158-64.

Yusupova, A.Sh. et. al. (2013). “Features of the Language of Tatars Living in China”. *Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research*, 17(2), 168-72.

Zemskaya, Ye.A. Земская, Е.А. (ed.) (2001). *Yazyk russkogo zarubezh’ya: Obshchiye protsessy i rechevyye portrety* Язык русского зарубежья: Общие процессы и речевые портреты (The Language of the Russian Abroad: General Processes and Speech Portraits). Moscow; Vienna: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 53.
Rivista semestrale | Semestral journal

Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici
e Culturali Comparati

Università Ca' Foscari Venezia

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

Università
Ca'Foscari
Venezia