CONVERGENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH SLAVONIC AND GREEK PRONOMINAL SYSTEMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Section 1 introduces one of the salient Balkanisms - the 'proleptic use of pronouns', called crossindexing of the direct and indirect objects / clitic doubling constructions - in the context of other Balkanisms. The necessary diachronic background for the present study, case syncretism and the emergence of the postpositive article in South Slavonic languages, is provided in 2 and 3. The development of the Bulgaro-Macedonian pronominal system from that of Old Church Slavonic is outlined in 4, and the parallel development of the Greek system in 5. The current controversy regarding the synchronic status of Modern Greek and Bulgaro-Macedonian clitics is addressed in 6. It is demonstrated that pronominal clitics of Modern Greek cannot be considered to be bound morphemes and that Macedonian clitics stand a better chance to qualify for the status of bound morphemes / affixes vis-a-vis those of Greek but also those of closely related Bulgarian. Section 8 attempts to establish a causal nexus between the loss of case and the emergence of crossindexing of the recipient / beneficiary and the patient by means of clitic doubling constructions. Modern Greek went as far as Middle Bulgaro-Macedonian before the loss of case marking on the definite article; Macedon ian, however, converged with Greek in favouring the strategy of proclisis vs. Bulgarian enclisis: ton=vlepo, ton=j6 (Greek) and go=gledam sinot vs. gledam=go, sina (Bulgarian) '[ see the son'. Furthermore, only Macedonian demarked this construction in that the doubling is necessary outside pragmatic contexts. Morphological corollaries are the uninterruptibility of the clitic block recipient=patient and its immediate attachment to the verb in Macedonian (vs. Bulgarian). Some desiderata for further typological and functional research along the lines of the present study are outlined in 7 and 9.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".