Peculiarities and origins of the Russian referential system

Thebe‐auxiliary's categorial status in Old Russian1

“…Budennaya's criticism is also relevant to my analysis because the null auxiliary in third person is an important factor in my account as well. However, my argument differs from those by Jakobson (1971/1935), Lindseth (1998), and Kibrik (2004, 2013) in that in my view it is not the eventual loss of auxiliary forms in the 16 th century but the non‐obligatoriness of the auxiliary in the presence of a strong subject pronoun in the 12 th century that resulted from the subject reanalysis of AUX based on the parallelism between the AUX‐participle (1 st /2 nd p.) and the strong subject‐participle (3 rd p.) sequences. The absence of third person auxiliary and the status change of AUX from an agreement marker to a subject pronoun do not pose a problem of chronological gap.…”

“…The current analysis in some respects is similar to the arguments by Jakobson (1971/1935), Lindseth (1998), and Kibrik (2004, 2013), who suggest that the absence of third person auxiliary forms triggered auxiliary drop in first and second person. The loss of AUX, which resulted in the absence of referential markers, caused the expansion of the use of overt pronouns, i.e., the loss of referential null subjects.…”

Languages Across Boundaries

“…It is difficult to say where the cross-indexing ends and the gramm-indexing begins. Or consider the Slavic languages, where generally Russian is regarded as a gramm-indexing language and the others are regarded as cross-indexing, but the data in Table 1 show that different languages show different frequencies, and conominating pronouns are far from obligatory in Russian (see also Kibrik 2013, in this volume). Table 1.…”

Sistema de seguimiento de referencia en wixárika

“…Algunos de estos estudios mencionan los mecanismos en cláusulas complejas (Grimes 1964;Comrie 1983) o a nivel discursivo (Gómez & Ortiz 2004;Iturrioz & Gómez 2006;Gómez 2009) pero sin profundidad. Por lo tanto, siguiendo una perspectiva tipológica funcional (Givón 2001;Kibrik 2011Kibrik , 2013Gundel & Hedberg 2016;Frajzyngier 2018), este estudio tiene dos propósitos: (i) ofrecer una caracterización de los mecanismos referenciales que se observan en la lengua y (ii) dar cuenta de la frecuencia de estos para determinar cuál(es) de ellos es el más productivo.…”