those with a relatively high F1 score for the different clusters. An
interesting characteristic of Pular is that it possesses several counterparts
to when, several more, in fact, than the ones suggested by the Kriging areas
in the Pular map (Figure 6.7, repeated from Chapter 5).

Figure 6.7: Kriging map for Pular (Atlantic-Congo, Africa), repeated

We can attempt to use existing descriptions of Pular to understand the
meanings of each subordinator, potentially using them as a means of confirming
(or refining) the observations made so far about the semantics of the
different clusters in the semantic map of when
According to Evans (2017), each connective conveys a particular temporal
meaning and can generally only be found in combination with specific temporal-
aspectual morphology on the clause it introduces. Figure 6.8 schematizes the
range of their functions.

Figure 6.8: Temporal connectives meaning ‘when’ in Pular according to Evans
(2017: 61)

By crossing Evans’s (2017) overview with the Kriging map in Figure 6.7, we see
that four of the several means in Figure 6.8 are captured as Kriging areas.
The TL cluster is mostly under the domain of nde but competes with tuma,
which, in fact, has a small Kriging area in between the Kriging area for nde
and the one for null constructions. Nde, according to the overview of Evans
(2017), is used to introduce both future and past eventualities. However, a
number of occurrences of nde are found in the bottom area, so it is possible
that the latter reflect the use of this connective for past-tense clauses,
whereas those under the Kriging area at the top-left of the map are,
presumably, those introducing future-tense clauses, similarly to this usage of
German wenn, Norwegian/Danish når or Afrikaans wanneer seen in the previous
chapter. This seems to be confirmed by its competition with tuma, which,
according to the overview, has a similar function.
The ML cluster is under the scope of fewndo, which the overview labels as past
circumstance. According to Evans (2017: 62), when introducing past events, the
main difference among all the connectives is between those that are used to
express sequentiality (or ‘main event line’) and those that introduce
background information. The circumstance category is considered as an
intermediate category since ‘it can be used in the story line, but can also be
used to provide a setting for what follows’ (Evans 2017: 65).
The BL cluster is instead under the domain of bay. This connective is one of
several that are used to express sequentiality between the events they
connect, differing in the level of ‘suddenness’ they convey. With bay, ‘there
is no sense of suddenness; rather one of expected development’ (Evans 2017:
63), whereas the verbal noun (-ugol), tun, and no… -irnoo, convey a ‘greater
sense of suddenness’, ‘a fair degree of suddenness’, and ‘the greatest sense
of urgency’, respectively. (6.2a), (6.2b) and (6.2c) are examples containing
bay, tun, and no…-irnoo, respectively, where the difference in ‘suddenness’
or ‘urgency’ is reflected, to some extent, in the English translations.

  * a.

Bay o hewtii ka suudu, bumbe ben badii mo. Iisaa wi’i be: “Hidon sikka mido
waawi wadude dun?” Be jaabii mo: “Hiiyii, yaa an Koohoojo.”
‘When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them,
“Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.”’
(Matthew 9:28)

  * b.

Tun o hewti, o badii Iisaa, e house himo wi’a: “Karamoko’en!” Onsay o hirbii
mo.
‘And when he came, he went up to him at once and said, “Rabbi!” And he kissed
him’ (Mark 14:45)

  * c.

No Elisabaatu nanirnoo salminaango Mariyama ngon, biddo makko on memminii ka
nder reedu makko, kanko Elisabaatu o heewi Ruuhu Seniido on
‘And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.
And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit’ (Luke 1:41)

Tun and no…-irnoo, along with several other connectives from the overview in
Figure 6.8, are not visible from the Kriging map but are represented, albeit
to a much lesser extent, in the dataset of when-parallels. We can abstract
from the individual forms and use their meanings as provided by Evans (2017)
and run Kriging on the functional labels instead of the forms themselves. We
can then look at where in the semantic map the different functions of when, as
encoded by Pular connectives, cluster. To do so, unambiguous connectives with
their functional labels are first annotated automatically. These include the
following:

  * •

si, which is used ‘to refer to a proposed or potential action in the future by
relating it to another action which should precede it’ (Evans 2017: 61).
However, a closer look at all the occurrences of si suggested that what is
meant by Future:Certain in the overview are, in fact, non-past clauses with a
universal (as opposed to existential) interpretation, as in (• ‣ 6.2).

Kono si fewta e Joomiraado on, taway tiggaare nden ittaama ka berde mabbe.
But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. (2 Corinthians 3:16)

The ‘logical’ or ‘certainty’ relation referred to be Evans (2017), therefore,
may have to do with the observation that what is described by the main
eventuality occurs whenever the eventuality described by the when-clause
occurs. Recall that this is precisely the use of universal when commented on
in the previous chapter. All these occurrences were therefore tagged as
NonPast:Universal.

  * •

ande and tuma (on its own, i.e. without woo following): Evans (2017: 62)
explains that ‘uncertainty has basically to do with the time the event will
happen, not whether the event will happen (although inevitably there is also
some implication that way as well)’. This time, a closer look at the relevant
examples indicates that these are instead non-past existential when-clauses,
as in (• ‣ 6.2).

Tuma o aroyi, o weebitanay aduna on fii junuubu e peewal e aawoore
And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness
and judgment (John 16:8)

These examples are therefore tagged as NonPast:Existential.

  * •

bay, verbal nouns (-ugol) or tun, and no…-irnoo: as explained above, these all
introduce sequential events in the past with different degrees of ‘suddenness’
or ‘urgency’. Among these connectives, bay is the only frequent one, the
others occurring relatively rarely in our dataset. All of them are therefore
tagged as Past:Sequence.

  * •

fewndo-clauses were all tagged as Past:Circumstance. A closer look at all the
occurrences indicates that this connective is used predominantly in
existential, but stative/durative past clauses, as in (• ‣ 6.2).

Fewndo o joododi e mabbe fii aamugol, o yetti bireedi on, o du’ii, o tayiti, o
jonni be.
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and
gave it to them. (Luke 24:30)

Connectives with more than one meaning were then manually disambiguated
depending on the context. These are tuma…woo and nde, which can be used,
according to Evans (2017), in clauses referring to the future or to the past.
However, tuma…woo can convey repetition (i.e. a universal reading), not only
in past but also in nonpast sentences, as (6.8) clearly shows. In fact, no
example of this construction in past sentences was found in the dataset, so
all its occurrences were tagged as NonPast:Universal.

Tuma men hoynaa woo, men du’anoo. Tuma men cukkaa woo, men wakkiloo. Tuma men
o’aa woo, men jaabora no newori. Men woni tuundi oo aduna, men hawkaa e di
fow, haa weetaango hande ngoo.
When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we
entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse
of all things. (1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

Nde, which is widely represented in the dataset, was tagged as Past:Background
when in past clauses, as indicated by Evans (2017); however, it was also often
found in pre-matrix position in past sentences, unlike what is stated by the
author, as in (6.2c). Regardless of position, nde in past sentences was
assumed to introduce Past:Background. A close look at the of nde in non-past
sentences showed that it is used both existentially, as in (6.2a) and
universally (6.2b). These were tagged as NonPast:Existential and
NonPast:Universal, respectively.

  * a.

dun, nde mi aroyi, mi wattiday e be subidon ben dokke mon den, wondude e
bataake, be naba Yerusalaam
And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your
gift to Jerusalem. (1 Corinthians 16:3)

  * b.

Nde neddo dolnudo, jom aalaaji ayni galle mun woo, jawle mun den daday.
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe
(Luke 11:21)

  * c.

Nde Iisaa hewtunoo e ley kin yibbehi, o tiggitii, o wi’i
And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him (Luke 19:5)

Ka, expressing Past:Circumstance was left out because of a high degree of
homophony with other instances of ka and/or multifunctionality, which made it
difficult to annotate it with confidence.
Additionally, bawto was annotated as After (see Bah 1980), while ontuma and
onsay, both meaning ‘at that time’ (Evans 2017: 64), were tagged as MainClause
if no other connective was found, else as other.333The annotated dataset is
available in the project repository at
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24166254.
The result of running Kriging on the new labels is shown in Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9: Pular when-map with Kriging based on the functional annotation of
Pular connectives

The new Kriging map shows better-defined areas for the functional scopes of
the various Pular connectives. Besides confirming that both universal and
existential non-past clauses cluster at the top of the map, it shows a more
clear-cut separation between the top area and the bottom area by means of
connectives conveying what Evans (2017) calls Past:Circumstance. The
intermediate status of these constructions between sequential and non-
sequential uses of when-clauses referred to by Evans (2017) thus finds clear
confirmation in the intermediate position of this functional cluster between
the when-clauses at the top of the map and those at the bottom in the semantic
map. It also provides further confirmation that one of the main differences
between the top and bottom area, the latter corresponding to the vast majority
of absolute constructions and conjunct participles in the Old Church Slavonic
map, is the stress on sequentiality conveyed by the situations corresponding
to the data points at the bottom. We also observe that main clauses dominate
the very bottom right corner, as expected, where Old Church Slavonic and
Ancient Greek main clauses corresponding to English when also cluster (cf.
Figure 6.12).
It is important, however, to stress that cases such as Pular simply confirm
that the bottom area of the semantic map, within which most participle
constructions fall in Early Slavic, corresponds to a relatively well-defined
function from the perspective of temporal relations, namely that between
existential-eventive clauses, which translates into the sequentiality between
events being stressed. What it does not help clarify is the competing
motivations governing the choice between when-counterparts that also occur in
the same area and participle clauses. In all likelihood, this is a matter of
information structure and discourse organization, which the semantic map does
not capture well.
In Chapters 1-4, the analysis of the information-structural properties of
subjects in jegda-clauses and participle clauses suggested that jegda-clause
may be a better choice when there is a topic continuation from the immediately
preceding discourse, as opposed to a topic shift, more likely to be signalled
by some sentence-initial framing participle. This observation was prompted,
among other things, by the fact that several jegda-clauses have a null subject
despite more frequently having a different subject from that of their matrix
clause. As we will see in the next section, the topic-shift function of
framing participles finds some cross-linguistic parallels in other types of
null constructions, particularly those used with a clause-linkage function.
However, other factors related to discourse organization and Time-Space-
Participant-connectedness (Rothstein 2003, Fabricius-Hansen 2006) are at play,
which different phenomena that have fallen so far under the generic notion of
‘null constructions’ in the world’s languages can help clarify.

###  6.3 Null constructions in a cross-linguistics perspective

As discussed in previous chapters, the discourse functions of conjunct
participles in Ancient Greek and Early Slavic can partly be inferred
compositionally from the relative order and tense-aspect of participle and
matrix clause (Haug 2012), allowing us to single out their usage as
independent rhemes, which are discourse-coordinated and can be found stacked
up as sequences of foregrounded clauses controlled by an argument of the
matrix clause, as in the Old Church Slavonic and Ancient Greek example in
(b.a) and (b.b).

  * a.

i abie tekъ edinъ otъ nichъ. i priemъ gǫbǫ. isplьnь ocьta. i vьznezъ na
trьstь. napaěše i and immediately run.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg one.m.nom.sg from
he.gen.pl and take.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg sponge.acc.sg fill.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg
vinegar.gen.sg and put.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg on reed.acc.sg
give.to.drink.impf.3.sg he.acc.sg

  * b.

kai eutheōs dramōn heis ex autōn kai labōn spongon plēsas te oxous kai
peritheis kalamō epotizen auton and immediately run.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg
one.nom.sg from he.gen.pl and take.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg sponge.acc.sg
fill.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg with vinegar.gen.sg and put.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg
reed.dat.sg give.to.drink.impf.3.sg he.acc.sg ‘Immediately one of them ran and
took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it
to him to drink’ (Matthew 27:48)

Pre-matrix perfective conjunct participles in New Testament Greek and Old
Church Slavonic were singled out as most typically independent rhemes,
although an (often ambiguous) frame reading can be available for sentence-
initial conjunct participles. We have seen in Chapters 1 and 2 that absolutes
regularly occur sentence-initially, often introducing a series of foregrounded
clauses, and can instead be considered typical background material (i.e.
frames) regardless of tense-aspect (cf. also Pedrazzini 2022).

We can test this claim by identifying typical independent rhemes and frames
among null alignments using the linguistic annotation in PROIEL, which may
allow us to look at differences in where they cluster in the semantic map.
Using Ancient Greek, because of its greater coverage of the New Testament, all
pre-matrix aorist conjunct participles with an aorist main verb were tagged as
independent rhemes and all sentence-initial absolute constructions as frames.
This is reminiscent of what we did in Figure 6.4(b); this time, however,
while-situations are not included, and a specific configuration of conjunct
participles (pre-matrix, aorist) is isolated as a construction of its own.
After running Kriging on the newly labelled data points, we obtain the map in
Figure 6.10(a) (remaining null alignments are labelled as ‘other_NULL’). For
ease of comparison, Figure 6.10(b) highlights all and only the null
observations belonging to the Kriging areas for the identified typical frames
and independent rhemes.

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.10: (a) Ancient Greek when-map with Kriging based on functional
labels, namely typical independent rhemes (i.e. pre-matrix, perfective, with
an aorist main verb) and typical frames (i.e. sentence-initial absolute
constructions); (b) highlights of any point found inside the Kriging areas for
frames (blue) and independent rhemes (red).

As the figures show, typical independent rhemes and frames (or, in other
terms, foreground and background matter, respectively) are predominant in a
dedicated Kriging area at the bottom half of the map, stretching out from the
area corresponding to GMM cluster 4 (i.e. the BL area) towards the right side
of the map, where other, non-further-defined NULL constructions are found.
Independent rhemes and frames each receive a contiguous, but relatively well-
defined Kriging area.
It is interesting to notice that typical frames are found above independent
rhemes in the map, that is, closer to lexified when-clauses.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the connective when (and similarly lorsque and
quand in the literature on French, as well as English while) have been widely
recognized as ‘triggers’ or ‘clues’ for backgrounding rhetorical relations in
formal frameworks of discourse representation (Reese et al. 2007; Asher 2004;
Prévot 2004; Asher et al. 2007), namely as introducers of a background frame
for a foregrounded event(uality). If an equivalence be made in discourse-
structural terms between hóte/hótan and when as Background-triggers, then the
relative greater closeness of frames to hóte and hótan in the map in Figure
6.10(a) adds a further layer of distinctions within the when-map—that between
backgrounds and foregrounds (or frames and independent rhemes). If this were
the case, then the semantic map for Ancient Greek is close to the idea of a
continuum between the various constructions, including null ones—from typical
foregrounded clauses at the bottom to typical backgrounded clauses at the top
of the map.
As Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b) show, even by simply highlighting finite when-
counterparts, absolute constructions and conjunct participles on the MDS map,
we clearly see that absolute constructions occupy an intermediate position
along the $y$-axis between the bulk of conjunct participles (at the very
bottom of the map) and when-counterparts (jegda, hóte/hótan, at the top of the
map).

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.11: MDS maps of when, highlighting all finite subordinates (jegda and
hóte/hótan), absolute constructions and conjunct participles in (a) Old Church
Slavonic and (b) Ancient Greek

In a way, this continuum also reflects the intuition that the closer we get to
the conjunct participles at the bottom of the map, the less subordinate-like
the constructions are from the pragmatic perspective—from when-counterparts at
the top (most subordinate-like) to the conjunct participles at the bottom
(least subordinate-like). At the same time, the constructions should be less
and less subordinate-like moving rightwards along the $x$-axis, since the
bottom right corner is where null constructions are found in all languages in
the dataset, albeit to very different extents. This is, in fact, reflected in
the location of Ancient Greek and Old Church Slavonic independent clauses
corresponding to when-clauses in the semantic map. Figure 6.12 shows the
average location of different constructions corresponding to when in Ancient
Greek and Old Church Slavonic. To obtain the map, the Ancient Greek and Old
Church Slavonic counterparts to when were first divided into groups,
corresponding to different constructions in the two languages. Each
construction was then represented on the map by averaging all the observations
for that particular group. In this way, we can then check where in the map the
average observation for a particular construction is found.

Figure 6.12: Location of the average observation for each different
construction in Old Church Slavonic and Ancient Greek. AcI = accusative with
infinitive, absoluteadv = absolute construction, xadv = conjunct participle,
PP = prepositional phrase, explrel = explicit relative.

As expected, independent clauses are found, on average, towards the bottom
right of the semantic map, similarly to prepositional phrases (e.g. vъ syrě
drěvě, corresponding to English ‘when the tree is green’, in Old Church
Slavonic literally ‘in the moist [as opposed to dry] tree’), among others.
The blurred boundaries between coordination and subordination when it comes to
participle clauses had already been stressed by Bary and Haug (2011) in their
account of Ancient Greek conjunct participles. As we could already gather from
the cross-linguistic pattern of concentration of null observations to the
bottom half of the map (cf. the heatmap in Figure 5.9 in Chapter 5), this is
by no means unique to Old Church Slavonic and Ancient Greek. The dependence of
clauses on context for their interpretation as coordinate or subordinate
structures is, in fact, a major feature of languages that make extensive use
of converbal forms and/or that allow clause chaining and has thus been an
important topic in the relevant literature (see, among others, Finer 1984,
1985; Roberts 1988a; Bickel 1991; Bisang 1995b; König 1995; Broadwell 1997;
Longacre 2007; Dooley 2010; Nonato 2014). The rest of this section touches on
a number of (often interconnected) phenomena, observed in languages that
appear to be typologically similar to Old Church Slavonic and Ancient Greek
(i.e. with a similar split between lexified when-counterparts and null
constructions), or whose Kriging map only contains null constructions. Section
6.3.1 looks at clause chaining, which has already been mentioned in passing in
previous sections, before looking at examples of bridging (or clause-linkage)
(Section 6.3.2), switch-reference (Section 6.3.3), and insubordination
(Section 6.3.4). As we will see, the clear parallels to these phenomena,
attested in genetically and areally unrelated languages, provide some
independent evidence in support of the observations made so far on the
functional scope of null constructions in the when-map, but will also provide
some clarifications regarding the division of labour between absolute
constructions and conjunct participles.

####  6.3.1 Clause chaining

Clause chaining is the ‘possibility of long sequences of foreground clauses
with operator dependence, typically within the sentence’ (Dooley 2010: 3).
Operator dependence refers to the fact that the clauses in clause chains are
typically deranked verb forms (Stassen 1985; Croft 1990; Cristofaro 1998,
2019), that is, lacking marking of one or more tense, aspect, or mood
distinctions (‘operators’) compared to independent clauses in the same
language. They can be additionally marked by specific means signalling their
status as ‘medial’ clauses or ‘converbs’, as the Avar and Korean examples in
the previous chapter, for instance, showed. However, as is clear from Dooley’s
(2010) definition, the presence of converbal morphology in a language (e.g.
Italian or Ukrainian, as we saw in the previous chapter) does not necessarily
entail the possibility of clause chaining, which specifically refers to the
possibility of having sequences of foregrounded clauses, namely clauses that
function as independent predications from the discourse perspective. The Avar
sentence in (6.3.1) is a prototypical example of clause chaining.444All
glossing in this chapter is my own unless otherwise stated.

Avar (North Caucasian) Ładał ččun vaqun hebsaġat $\dot{q}$vaţive łuhun vaç̌ana
Ġisa. Hebmexał zobgi ķibiļizabun, mikkidul suratalda boržun baç̌un, Allahasul
Ru$\hbar$ Ġisaqe reššţuneb bixana. water dip.pfv.cvb rise.pfv.cvb immediately
out go.pfv.cvb behold Jesus then sky split.pfv.cvb dove image fly.pfv.cvb
approach.pfv.cvb God Spirit Jesus rest see.aor ‘And when Jesus was baptized,
immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to
him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on
him’ (Matthew 3:16).

As Dooley (2010) observes, a clause chaining sentence may, and often does,
also contain backgrounded clauses, which can have the same type of operator
dependence as the foregrounded clauses, that is, they can be morphologically
identical to foregrounded clauses, but their content is presuppositional and
serves to limit the scope of the main predication, similarly to how we have
been defining frames in the previous chapters. The Old East Slavic and Mbyá
Guaraní sentences in (6.3.1) and (6.3.1), respectively, from our corpus
exemplify this.

i prišьdъ kъ prpdbьnumu antoniju jego že viděvъ i padъ pokloni sja jemu sъ
slьzami molja sja jemu da by u nego bylъ and come.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg to
saint.dat.sg Antonij.dat 3.sg.m.gen ptc see.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg and
fall.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg bow.aor.3.sg refl 3.sg.m.dat with tear.inst.pl
beg.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.sg refl 3.sg.m.dat so that be. aor.3.sg at 3.sg.m.gen
be.ptcp.result.act.m.nom.strong ‘When he came to St. Antonij and saw him, he
prostrated himself and bowed, begging him with tears to let him stay with him’
(Life of Feodosij Pečerskij, Uspenskij Sbornik f. 31b)

Mbyá Guaraní (Tupian) Ha’e nunga ha’e kuery oendu vy ko’em̃ba’i ramove templo
py oike vy nhombo’e such things they coll hear ss daybreak right after temple
in enter ss teach ‘And when they heard that, they entered the temple early in
the morning and taught’ (Acts 5:21)

In (6.3.1), the conjunct participles prišьdъ (lit.) ‘having come’ and viděvъ
(lit.) ‘having seen’ can be considered as background material (i.e. frames),
unlike the morphologically identical participle padъ (lit.) ‘having fallen’,
which belongs instead to the foreground, as also reflected in the English
translation. Similarly, the first verb in the Mbyá Guaraní chain sentence in
(6.3.1) belongs to the background, while the following is part of the
foreground.
As Dooley (2010: 12) observes, a clause in a chaining structure can be
ambiguous between foreground and background, similarly to the ambiguity we
have seen between independent rheme and frame participles sentence-initially,
as the example in (6.3.1) shows.

  * a.

i povelěvъ narodomъ vьzlešti na trěvě i priemъ pętь chlěbъ i dьvě rybě
vьzьrěvъ na nbo blgsvi. i prělomъ chlěby dastъ oučenikomъ. oučenici že
narodomъ. and command.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg crowd.dat.pl lay down.inf on grass.loc
and take.sptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg five.acc bread.gen.pl and two.acc fish.acc look
up.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg to heaven.acc bless.aor.3.sg and break.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg
bread.acc give.aor.3.sg disciple.dat.pl disciple.nom.pl ptc crowd.dat.pl

  * b.

kai keleusas tous okhlous anaklithenai epi tou khortou labōn tous pente artous
kai tous duo ikhthuas anablepsas eis ton ouranon eulogesen kai klasas edōken
tois mathetais tous artous hoi de mathetai tois okhlois and
command.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg the.acc.pl crowd.acc.pl lay down.inf.pas.aor on
the.gen grass.gen take.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg the.acc.pl five bread.acc.pl and
the.acc.pl two fish.acc.pl look up.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg to the.acc heaven.acc
bless.aor.3.sg and break.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg give.aor.3.sg the.dat.pl
disciple.dat.pl the.acc.pl bread.acc.pl the.nom.pl ptc disciple.nom.pl
the.dat.pl crowd.dat.pl ‘Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass,
and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a
blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the
disciples gave them to the crowds’ (Matthew 14:19)

In (6.3.1), the series of conjunct participles could be seen as ambiguous
between background and foreground material. This is also reflected in the
different English translations—the English Standard Version (given under the
example), for instance, interprets the clause corresponding to the first
conjunct participle as an independent clause (he ordered the crowds), the
second as a subordinate (taking the five loaves), and all the others as
independent clauses (he looked up… said a blessing … broke the loves … gave
them to the disciples). Other versions show different interpretations. For
example, the King James Version (and similarly NKJV) translates the first two
clauses as main clauses (he commanded… and took the five loaves), the third as
subordinate (looking up), then all the remaining ones as main clauses (he
blessed, and brake, and gave).

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.13: Kriging maps for Avar (Nakh-Daghestanian, Eurasia) and Mbyá
Guaraní (Tupian, South America)

As pointed out by Dooley (2010: 13), not every language with a chaining
construction is necessarily a clause-chaining language. Whichever the case for
Early Slavic, there are clear similarities in the use of chaining
constructions in clause-chaining languages such as Avar and Mbyá Guaraní and
series of conjunct participles in Old Church Slavonic. Even among clause-
chaining languages, there are major differences in the functions of chaining
constructions, as is also reflected in the different maps for Mbyá Guaraní
(Figure 6.13(b)) and Avar (Figure 6.13(a)), despite both being clause-chaining
languages.
Several authors who have proposed explanations for the use of clause chaining
as a narrative strategy have put forward criteria that could be subsumed under
a general principle of event grouping, as is referred to by Dooley (2010: 14).
In a nutshell, the assumption is that the syntactical integration of clauses
in narrative chaining reflects some level of conceptual conflation as well
(Dooley 2010: 14; cf. also Chafe 1994: 145; Givón 2001; Talmy 1991). A
chaining construction may thus constitute a complete discourse or
‘developmental’ unit (Levinsohn 2009). In Thurman’s (1975: 344) words:

> Primarily final verbs [i.e. the finite verb at the end of a chaining
> construction, A/N] are used to alter the perspective on the topic at hand by
> terminating one chain so that another may begin. This may mean a change in
> participant orientation so that another character in the narrative becomes
> prominent; or it may involve reorientation only in time or space.

Similarly, Fabricius-Hansen (2007) and Sæbø (2011b) argued that absolute
constructions, and similarly co-predicative participles, provide a guarantee
of tense-space-participant connectedness and ‘serve to build groups of events
or states, expressing that the host and supplement eventualities form
interesting sums of eventualities’ whereby ‘the core event and co-
eventualities all add up to one super-group eventuality’ (Sæbø 2011b: 1438).

####  6.3.2 Bridging

Background clauses in clause chains, just like frames, are presuppositional
(in the sense of Lambrecht 1994: 36-73), that is, they contain reference to
given or accessible information and, because they can link back to the
previous discourse, they often work as bridging devices. It is not uncommon
for languages with clause chaining to use bridging systematically at the
beginning of most chaining constructions by repeating the content of the
previous foregrounded clause and re-purposing it, as it were, as the
background for a new clause chain. This is a phenomenon variously referred to,
among others, as bridging constructions (e.g. Guérin and Aiton 2019), tail-
head linkage (e.g. de Vries 2005), recapitulation clauses (e.g. Stirling
1993), summary-head linkage (Thompson et al. 2007), or simply clause linkage
(AnderBois and Altshuler 2022). While bridging is not used as systematically
in Early Slavic as in some of these languages, we have seen how we frequently
find frames using either previously foregrounded eventualities or event
participants as part of the background for a new portion of foregrounded
discourse to come (cf. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2). Bridging as a systematic
discourse-organization device follows precisely this overall principle, as is
clear from its definition in Guérin and Aiton (2019: 2–3):

> A bridging construction is a linkage of three clauses. The first clause of
> the construction (i.e., the reference clause) is the final clause in a unit
> of discourse. The second clause (i.e., the bridging clause) recapitulates
> the reference clause. It usually immediately follows the reference clause
> but it acts as the initial (albeit non-main) clause of a new discourse unit.
> The primary discourse function of a bridging construction is to add
> structure and cohesion: recapitulation backgrounds the proposition of the
> reference clause and foregrounds the clause following the bridging clause.
> This third clause is discourse-new and typically sequentially ordered.

Or, in AnderBois and Altshuler’s (2022: 802) schematization:

> [ Reference ]${}_{\textsc{R}}$. [[ Bridge ]${}_{\textsc{B}}$ Continuation
> ]${}_{\textsc{C}}$

where R is the reference clause as per the definition by Guérin and Aiton
(2019) above, B is the bridging clause which, together with the discourse unit
following the bridging clause (the third, foregrounded clause of Guérin and
Aiton’s definition), constitute the continuation clause (C).
AnderBois and Altshuler (2022) studied the phenomenon in A’ingae (Cofán; see
the map in Figure 6.14, where only null constructions have a Kriging area) and
gave an SDRT account of the rhetorical relations systematically triggered by
bridging constructions.

Figure 6.14: Kriging map for Cofán (Isolate, South America)

According to them, bridging requires the relations Narration(R,[B,C]) and
BackgroundForward(B,C). In other words, the reference clause attaches to the
complex discourse unit made of the bridging clause and continuation clause via
Narration, whereas the bridging clause attaches to the continuation clause via
BackgroundForward. This is the same principle that we observed in the case
study on strategically annotated treebanks in Chapter 2, specifically when we
observed that dative absolutes appeared to systematically repeat some portion
of a previously foregrounded unit, either the immediately preceding clause or
some clause not far behind in the discourse. This is what we see in (6.3.2),
repeated from Chapter 2, and (6.3.2)-(6.3.2).

[prizovi mi ju]${}_{{\textbf{R}}}$ da se poveselju dnьs s njeju. zělo bo jako
slyšalь jesm o njei godě mi jestь. [[prizvaně že byvši ei]${}_{{\textbf{B}}}$.
pride k njemu]${}_{{\textbf{C}}}$ summon.imp 1.sg.dat 3.sg.f.acc so that refl
enjoy.prs.1.sg today with 3.sg.f.inst much for that hear.ptcp.result.m.sg
be.prs.1.sg about 3.sg.f.loc pleasant.adv 1.sg.dat be.prs.3.sg
summon.ptcp.pfv.pass.f.dat.sg ptc be.ptcp.pfv.f.dat.sg 3.sg.dat come.aor.3.sg
to 3.sg.dat “‘Summon her, so that I can enjoy myself with her today. From what
I’ve heard of her, I am much attracted by her”. After being summoned, she came
to him.’ (Life of Mary, Abraham’s Niece, Bdinski Sbornik f. 7v)

nъ sice sъtvorivě da [azъ ti ljagu na vozě]${}_{{\textbf{R}}}$ ty že mogyi na
koni ěchati. to že blaženyi sъ vьsjakyimь sъměrenijemь vъstavъ sěde na koni.
[[a onomu že legъšju na vozě.]${}_{{\textbf{B}}}$ i idjaše putьmь raduja sę i
slavja ba.]${}_{{\textbf{C}}}$ but thus do.imp.1.du that 1.sg.m.nom ptc lie
down.prs.1.sg on chariot.loc.sg 2.sg.nom ptc be able.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom on
horse.loc.sg ride.inf so ptc blessed.m.nom.sg with all.n.inst.sg
humility.n.inst.sg stand up.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg sit.aor.3.sg on horse.loc.sg and
that.dat.sg ptc lie down.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg on chariot.loc.sg and go.impf.3.sg
way.inst.sg rejoicing.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.sg refl and glorify.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.sg
god.gen ‘[Izyaslav:] “But let’s do this: I’ll lie down in the chariot, and you
can ride the horse". The Blessed Theodosius humbly got up and mounted his
horse. And as he [Izyaslav] lay down in the chariot, he [Theodosius] continued
on his way, rejoicing and glorifying God.’ (Life of Feodosij Pečerskij,
Uspenskij Sbornik f. 43b)

i došedъ velika dne. vskrsnьja po obyčaju. prazdnova světlo. [vpade v
bolěznь.]${}_{{\textbf{R}}}$ [[razbolěvšju bo sę jemu.]${}_{{\textbf{B}}}$ i
bolěvšju. dnii .e. po semь byvšju večeru. povelě iznesti sę na
dvorъ.]${}_{{\textbf{C}}}$ and reach.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg great.m.gen.sg
day.m.gen.sg resurrection.n.gen.sg according to custom.dat.sg
celebrate.aor.3.sg joyfully fall.aor.3.sg in illness.acc fall
ill.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg ptc refl 3.sg.m.dat and be ill.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg
day.gen.pl five after this.loc.sg be.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg evening.dat.sg
command.aor.3.sg carry.inf refl in yard.acc ‘But when the great day of Easter
arrived [lit. when he reached the great day of Easter], according to custom,
he celebrated it joyfully. He fell ill. Having fallen ill and having been ill
for five days, once in the evening he ordered to be carried out to the yard’
(PVL, 62d)

In (6.3.2), the dative absolute prizvaně byvši ‘being summoned’ repeats the
main verb of the previous sentence (prizovi ‘summon’), repurposing it as the
background for the new portion of the discourse (pride ‘she came’),
sequentially located after the summoning event. This could be analysed
following the structure described by Guérin and Aiton (2019) and AnderBois and
Altshuler (2022), where prizovi is part of the reference clause, prizvaně
byvši is the bridging clause and pride is part of the continuation clause.
Very similarly, in (6.3.2), ljagu ‘I will lie down’ can be seen as the
reference clause, onomu že legъšju ‘having lain down’ as the bridging clause,
and idjaše ‘he went’ as the continuation clause. Likewise, in (6.3.2), vpade v
bolěznь ‘he got sick’ would be the reference clause, the immediately following
razbolěvšju bo sę jemu ‘having gotten sick’ the bridging clause, and povelě
‘he commanded’ as the continuation clause.
As the simple example in (6.3.2) shows, bridging clauses in A’ingae are
introduced by subordinators with switch-reference morphology, indicating
whether the subject of the bridging clause is the same or different from that
of the continuation clause (cf. Fischer and van Lier 2011; AnderBois et al.
2023).555As we will see in more detail in Section 6.3.3, ‘switch-reference’
does not specifically only refer to different-subject marking, as the term has
sometimes been used in the literature on Early Slavic dative absolutes (e.g.
Collins 2011), but it is the general term used to describe the phenomenon
whereby clauses are marked according to whether their subject is co-
referential or not with that of the matrix (i.e. it includes both different-
subject and same-subject markers).

Tse’faei’ccuyi [aje chattian.]${}_{{\textbf{R}}}$ [[Aje chattian-
si]${}_{{\textbf{B}}}$ tsa pushesuja poiyi’cconga cui’ña]${}_{{\textbf{C}}}$.
immediately fever alleviate fever alleviate-ds ana woman all serve ‘and the
fever left her, and she began to serve them’ (Matthew 8:15)

Marking bridging clauses for switch reference is very common among languages
where such marking is available (cf. Stirling 1993; de Vries 2005; Guérin and
Aiton 2019). In fact, we find many similarities between the use of participle
constructions in Early Slavic and switch reference systems of several language
families, most notably many Papuan (Roberts 1997) and South American (van Gijn
et al. 2011; van Gijn 2012, 2016b; Overall 2014, 2016) families, beyond
bridging constructions. We now therefore turn to looking at some of these
parallels in more detail.

####  6.3.3 Switch reference

In a nutshell, switch reference is a morphological system for tracking
referents in an ongoing discourse (Roberts 2017: 538). In a ‘canonical’
switch-reference system (cf. Haiman and Munro 1983: ix), a clause is marked to
signal whether its subject is co-referential or not with the subject of
another, usually adjacent, clause. With subject co-reference, a same-subject
marker is used (ss), else a different-subject marker is employed (ds). Switch
reference is overwhelmingly present in languages that allow and use clause
chaining extensively, in which case switch reference marking would typically
occur on each medial clause leading up to the final verb. (b.) is an example
of ‘canonical’ switch reference in Huichol-Wixárika from our corpus.666In the
Huichol example, I kept the spelling of the Bible translation in Mayer and
Cysouw’s (2014) corpus. Note, however, that this is not the most common
orthography found in most studies on Huichol today. In (b.a), me-’u’-axüa-cu
has the ds marker -cu, indicating that its subject referent differs from that
of its matrix clause. Conversely, me-’u’-axüa-ca (b.b) has the ss marker -ca,
indicating co-referentiality with the matrix subject.

Huichol-Wixárika (Uto-Aztecan)

  * a.

Hesüana me-’u’-axüa-cu müpaü ti-ni-va-ru-ta-hüave to.him 3.pl.sbj-vis-
arrive.pl-ds thus distr-narr-3.pl.nsbj-pl-sg-say ‘When they came to him he
said to them’ (Acts 20:18)

  * b.

Hesüana me-’u’-axüa-ca müme, müpaü me-te-ni-ta-hüave to.him 3.pl.sbj-vis-
arrive.pl-ss men thus 3.pl.sbj-distr-narr-sg-say ‘When the men had come to him
they said’ (Luke 7:20)

However, definitions of switch reference based on canonical switch reference
and on purely morphosyntactic criteria (most notably Finer 1984, 1985) have
now long been challenged and revisited to account for the fact that several
languages use switch reference markers regardless of subject co-reference, to
indicate some other type of (dis)continuity. This discussion is
extraordinarily reminiscent of previous literature on the functions and origin
of Early Slavic participle constructions,777Corin (1995: 268), for example,
argued that ‘exceptions to the subject non-identity condition imply
neutralization of the sole syntactic feature which differentiates the function
of absolute and non-absolute participial constructions’, and similarly Večerka
(1996: 190); Bauer (2000: 280) considers the lack of co-reference with the
matrix subject in Old Church Slavonic as evidence that ‘absolute constructions
were fully understood’ and therefore not a Greek imitation. Collins (2004,
2011) instead challenges views based on allegedly ‘canonical’ constraints on
subject non-coreference, providing instead possible explanations based on
discourse-structuring criteria. and the parallels between the use of
participles in Early Slavic and switch-reference systems in the world’s
languages are, in fact, several.
In her seminal account of switch reference and discourse representation,
Stirling (1993) defines switch reference more broadly as a ‘clause level
function which does not deal with the reference of NPs as such but with
degrees and types of cohesion between eventualities’ (Stirling 1993: 136;
similarly Mithun 1993 and more recently McKenzie 2012, 2015a, 2015b and Keine
2013) so that while referential (dis-)continuity is the basic meaning marked
by all switch-reference systems, these may be seen as ‘types of clause linkage
rather than as mere devices of referential tracking’ (Stirling 1993: 151). She
identifies at least six main factors, or ‘pivots’, playing a role in the use
of switch-reference markers among the world’s languages, which provide a
useful basis for comparison with the different contexts in which Early Slavic
dative absolutes as opposed to conjunct participles are used:

  * (1)

Referential (non-)identity between one or more NPs. This largely corresponds
to Haiman and Munro’s (1983) definition of canonical switch reference,
although Stirling’s approach to referential continuity also encompasses cases
in which what is tracked are syntactic roles other than subjects (e.g.
objects) or semantic roles (e.g. agents).

  * (2)

The agentivity of important event participants: ‘the SS/DS markers signal not
simply continuity of reference, but more complexly, continuity of reference
and of agentivity value: SS always implies both same referent and same
agentivity or control value (whether high or low), while DS marks a
discontinuity in either reference or agentivity value (high to low or low to
high)’ (Stirling 1993: 150; see also Foley and Van Valin 1984).

  * (3)

The time of the event: temporal shifts between situations or ‘from one
situation or event complex to another’ (Stirling 1993: 220) can trigger ds
marking (similarly also Roberts 1988a: 98–100). Conversely, temporal
continuity may license ss marking even without referential identity (see
Mithun 1993: 126; van Gijn 2016a: 35).

  * (4)

The location of the event: a shift in location can trigger ds marking. This
seems to occur most frequently with verbs of motion (cf. also Roberts 1988a:
60).

  * (5)

Mood of the clause, whereby ds marking may be used to indicate a shift between
realis and irrealis mood. Related to this are shifts in what is referred to as
‘actuality’ (cf. Kaplan 1989: 19), which a change between current and reported
speaker can indicate.

  * (6)

‘Continuance or shift out of a cohesive sequence of events’. This includes ds
marking used for signalling an unexpected, ‘surprise’ change in the course of
events (see also Roberts 1988a: 98–100), as well as a change in grounding
(Grimes 1975; Hopper 1979 [2020]) or transitivity (in the sense of Hopper and
Thompson 1980).

It is interesting to see that all of these factors, to different extents, also
explain several of the occurrences of both ‘canonical’ and ‘non-canonical’
participle constructions, particularly dative absolutes whose subject is co-
referential with the one of the matrix clause.
Point (2), namely a change of agentivity as a possible trigger for ds marking,
has also been pinpointed as one of the most common explanations for co-
referential dative absolutes in (Old) Church Slavonic. Collins (2011:
110-112), for example, argues that a change in semantic role or shift in the
degree of agentivity can warrant the use of an absolute construction, as
(6.3.3) and (6.3.3) exemplify. Similarly, Kurešević (2006: 105) observes that
some of the several occurrences of co-referential dative absolutes in medieval
Serbian/Serbian Church Slavonic are motivated by the different semantic roles
of the subjects in the absolute and in the matrix clause. In languages with
switch reference, it is not uncommon to find comparable instances. In Eastern
Pomo, for example, changes in agentivity regularly license the use of ds
markers, despite subject co-reference, as in (c.).888The opposite also occurs,
i.e. continuity in agentivity licenses the use of ss even if the subjects are
not coreferential).

i bystъ idǫštemъ imь. ištistišę sę and happen.aor.3.sg go.ptcp.ipfv.dat.pl
3.pl.dat cleanse.aor.3.pl refl ‘And it came to pass that, as they went, they
were cleansed’ (Luke 17.14)

i prišedšju vyšegorodu razbolě sę velmi. and arrive.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg
Vyšegorod.dat get sick.aor.3.sg refl very ‘And when he arrived in Vyšegorod,
he got very sick’ (Primary Chronicle, Codex Laurentianus f. 54d)

Eastern Pomo (Pomoan, North America; from McLendon 1978, cited in Roberts
2017: 549)

  * a.

Há: káluhu-y si:má:mérqaki:hi 1.sg.a go.home-ss went to bed ‘I went home and
then went to bed’

  * b.

Há: káluhu-qan mí:ṕ mérqaki:hi 1.sg.a go.home-ds 3.sg.a went to bed ‘I went
home and he went to bed’

  * c.

Há: xá: qákki-qan wi q́a:lál ṭá:la 1.sg.a water bathe-ds 1.sg.u sick become ‘I
took a bath and got sick’

The Eastern Pomo examples show some of the contexts in which ds and ss markers
are used. (c.a) is a typical, ‘canonical’ example of ss marking, indicating
referential identity between the subjects of the two clauses. (c.b),
conversely, is a typical example of ds marking, indicating referential non-
identity between the subjects of the two clauses. (c.c) is an example of ‘non-
canonical’ switch-reference marking: ds is used even if the subjects of the
two clauses have the same referent, which can be explained with a shift in
agentivity or semantic role of the subject referent, from agent/actor to
experiencer/undertaker (Roberts 2017: 549).
A similar explanation can be given to both the Old Church Slavonic example
(6.3.3) and the Old East Slavic example (6.3.3), where the subjects of the
absolute construction and of the matrix clause are co-referential, but a shift
in the agentivity of the subject can be observed. Note how, incidentally, the
matrix clause in the Old East Slavic example in (6.3.3) and that in the Easter
Pomo example (c.c) have verbs with the same meaning in the two languages (i.e.
‘get sick’, a typically non-agentive predicate).
Point (3) and (4), namely temporal (dis-)continuity between situations and
shifts in the location of an event as factors in the use of a switch-reference
marker, also find some parallels in the use of absolute constructions as
opposed to conjunct participles in Early Slavic. Among the world’s languages,
this is the case, for instance, in Amele, which may use ds marking even with
subject co-reference if a new temporal setting or location is introduced, as
the examples in (6.3.3) exemplify.

Amele (Nuclear Trans New Guinea; from Stirling 1993: 114)999These examples are
originally from Roberts (1988a: 61), but I am here using the more explicit
glossing by Stirling (1993), which, for example, also adds glosses for zero-
marking on third persons singular.

  * a.

Eu 1977 jagel November na odo-co-b cul-ig-$\emptyset$-en that 1977 month
November in do-ds-3.sg leave-1.pl-3.sg-remp ‘That was in November 1977 that he
did that and then he left it for us’

  * b.

Age ceta gul-do-co-bil l-i bahim na tac-ein. 3.pl yam carry-3.sg-ds-3.pl go-
pred.ss floor on fill-3.pl.remp ‘They carried the yams on their shoulders and
went and filled up the yam store’

According to Roberts (1987, 1988a, 1988b), the ds marker on odo-co-b ‘did’ in
(6.3.3a) can be explained with the fact that there is a temporal shift between
the first and the second clause, as also signalled by the time adverbial ‘in
November 1977’. Similarly, the ds marking in gul-do-co-bil ‘carried’ in
(6.3.3b), despite its subject being coreferential with the one of the matrix
clause, can be motivated by the change in place from the ds-marked clause to
the following. In the words of Roberts (1988a: 60):

> The explanation given by native speakers for such instances is that
> “something has changed" or this is “a new situation", and often it is
> obvious that the change being indicated is deictic rather than syntactic and
> that these deictic changes are in the area of world, time, or place
> reference points. For example, a change of time marked by the SR system is
> often backed up by a temporal expression; a change of place marked by the SR
> system occurs most frequently with verbs of motion, and a change of location
> can also be indicated by a locative expression; a change of world marked by
> the SR system is normally a switch from an intended or proposed action to
> the real action itself or vice versa

Many co-referential dative absolutes in the corpus, particularly in Old East
Slavic, fit Roberts’s (1988a) above characterization, whereby a change in
place (often accompanied by a change in time setting) can motivate the use of
ds marking. (6.3.3)-(6.3.3) are all co-referential dative absolutes from Old
East Slavic texts where movement of some kind from one setting to another is
involved.

i všedšim v gorodъ utěšista volodimercě and enter.ptcp.pfv.dat.pl in
city.acc.sg console.aor.3.du people of Vladimir.acc.pl ‘And when they entered
the city, they consoled the people of Vladimir’ (Suzdal Chronicle, Codex
Laurentianus f. 126r)

i vъ jedinъ ot dnii šьdъšju kъ tomu blagomu i bonosьnomu ocju našemu
ḟeodosiju. i jako vъnide vъ chramъ ideže bě knęzь sědę. i se vidě mnogyja
igrajušta prědъ nimь and in one.m.acc from day.m.gen.pl go.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg
to that.m.dat.sg good.m.dat.sg and God-bearing.m.dat.sg father.m.dat.sg
our.m.dat.sg Feodosij.dat and as enter.aor.3.sg in palace.acc.sg where
be.impf.3.sg prince.nom.sg sit.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.sg and behold see.aor.3.sg
much.m.acc.pl play.ptcp.ipfv.acc.pl before 3.sg.m.inst ‘Once our good and God-
bearing father Theodosius came to the prince and as he entered the palace
where the prince was, he saw many musicians playing in front of him’ (Life of
Feodosij Pečerskij, Uspenskij Sbornik f. 59g)

polovci že gjurgevi ni po strělě pustivъše togda poběgoša. a potom olgoviči. a
potom gjurgi z dětmi. i běžaštim imъ čresъ rutъ. mnogo družiny potope v rutu.
bě bo gręzokъ. i běžaštimъ imъ ověchъ izbiša. a drugyja izъimaša. i poludne
priběgoša ko dněpru. Polovtsy.nom.pl ptc Yuri’s.nom.pl neg with arrow.dat.sg
release.ptcp.pfv.nom.pl then run.aor.3.pl but after Olgoviči.nom.pl but after
Yuri.nom with child.inst.pl and run.ptcp.ipfv.dat.pl 3.pl.m.dat through
Rut’.acc much.n.nom.sg retinue.gen.sg drown.aor.3.sg in Rut’.loc be.impf.3.sg
because swampy.nom.sg and run.ptcp.ipfv.dat.pl 3.pl.m.dat this.m.gen.pl
kill.aor.3.pl but other.m.acc.pl capture.aor.3.pl and noon.loc come
running.aor.3.pl to Dnieper.dat ‘Yuri’s Polovtsy, without shooting arrows at
that time, ran, and then the Olgoviči, and then Yuri with his children. And
when they fled through the [river] Rut’, several of the retinues drowned in
Rut’ because it was swampy. And as they were fleeing, they killed some and
captured others. And by noon, they had run to the Dnieper’ (Suzdal Chronicle,
Codex Laurentianus f. 111v)

(6.3.3)-(6.3.3) are only some of the several examples of coreferential dative
absolutes introducing a shift in setting. The absolute in (6.3.3) introduces
the arrival of Yaropolk Rostislavich in Vladimir, where he becomes Grand
Prince, after travelling from Moscow and, before that, Chernihiv. In (6.3.3),
Feodosij Pečerskij (Theodosius of Kyiv) arrives to visit his brother, the
Grand Prince Iziaslav Yaroslavich of Kyiv. The example is from a series of
passages in which the narrative goes back and forth from the prince’s palace
to Feodosij’s monastery. In (6.3.3), where the broader context is also
provided, the rapid shifts in location are clear from the repeated verb
(po)bežati ‘run, flee’, following the movement of Yuri and Yuri’s Polovtsy and
of the Olgoviči through the river Rut’ till the Dnieper.
Point (5) from Stirling’s (1993) pivots, namely shifts in the mood or
actuality from the marked clause to the next, also finds a potential parallel
in Early Slavic. This is specifically in regard to Stirling’s observation that
a shift in actuality can be seen in correspondence to changes between current
and reported speakers, a change which can be marked by ds. In Early Slavic it
is relatively common to see dative absolutes introducing reported speech, even
if the subject of its syntactic matrix is coreferential with the subject of
the absolute. (6.3.3)-(6.3.3) are some of such examples.

onomu že rekšu něstъ došъla zapadъnyichъ stranъ arijanъskaja chula
that.m.dat.sg ptc say.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg not be.prs.3.sg
reach.ptcp.result.f.nom.sg Western.gen.pl land.gen.pl Arian.nom.sg
controversy.nom.sg ‘He said that the Arian controversy had not reached the
Western lands’ (Vita of Isaakios of Dalmatos, Codex Suprasliensis f. 99r)

prišedšju že igumenu ko mně. i rekšju mi poidevě v pečeru k feodosьjevi […]
onomu glštju ko mně oudariša v bilo. mně že rekuštju prokopachъ ouže
arrive.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg ptc abbot.m.dat.sg to 1.sg.m.dat and
say.ptcp.pfv.m.dat.sg 1.sg.m.dat go.imp.1.du in cave.acc to Feodosij.sg.m.dat
[…] that.m.dat.sg say.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg to 1.sg.m.dat hit.aor.3.pl in
semantron.acc 1.sg.m.dat ptc say.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg dig.aor.1.sg already ‘So,
the abbot came to me and said: “Let’s go to the cave to Feodosij" […] And when
he told me: “They hit the semantron," I said: “I finished digging"’ (Primary
Chronicle, Codex Laurentianus f. 70b)

oněmъ mnjaštemъ jako bratii polunoštьnoje pěnije sъvьrьšajuštemъ. i tako paky
otidoša. čajušte donъdeže sii sъkonьčajutь pěnije. i tъgda vъšьdъše vъ crkъvь
pojemljutь vьsę suštaja vъ i that.dat.pl think.ptcp.ipfv.dat.pl that
brethren.dat midnight.acc.sg prayer.acc.sg finish.ptcp.ipfv.dat.pl and so
again leave.aor.3.pl wait.ptcp.ipfv.nom.pl until this.m.nom.pl finish.prs.3.pl
singing.acc and then enter.ptcp.pfv.nom.pl in church.acc take.prs.3.pl
all.n.acc.pl be.ptcp.ipfv.n.acc.pl in 3.sg.f.acc ‘They thought that the
brethren was [still] finishing singing the midnight prayers, so they [the
robbers] left again, waiting until they finished singing, when they could then
enter the church and take everything that was in it’ (Life of Feodosij
Pečerskij, Uspenskij Sbornik f. 46g)

otcъ že našъ sergii poklonь sę i reče jako gvi godě tako i budi blsvenъ gь vo
věki. i vsěmъ rekšimъ aminь father.nom.sg ptc our.m.nom.sg Sergij.nom
bow.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg refl and say.aor.3.sg that lord.dat pleasant so then
be.imp.3.sg blessed.m.nom.sg lord.m.nom.sg for ever and all.dat.pl
say.ptcp.pfv.dat.pl Amen ‘Our father Sergij bowed and answered: “As the Lord
pleases, so be it; blessed be the Lord forever!”, and they all said “Amen!"’
(Life of Sergij of Radonezh f. 102v)

In (6.3.3) the dative absolute rekšu ‘(he) said’ has no apparent matrix clause
and, in light of similar non-canonical usages of switch-reference markers in
the world’s languages, its use could then be explained by the shift to
reported speech that the absolute introduces.
The absolutes in (6.3.3) introduce the reported speech of two different
protagonists (one of them in the first person) and are part of a longer
dialogue chain.
In (6.3.3), the absolute introduces the thoughts of the subject. In this case,
the reported thought is introduced as an indirect speech, as jako signals, and
this time the absolute clause is overtly coordinated with the matrix clause,
as is also stressed by the discourse-coordinating connective tako ‘so, thus’.
Finally, in (6.3.3), the post-matrix, overtly coordinated absolute rekšimъ
‘(they) said’ does not seem to have any other apparent function but
introducing a reported speech. The speaker introduced by the absolute is
different from the previously reported speaker, which was, in fact, introduced
by the finite clause reče ‘(he) said’.

Turning now to the final point from Stirling’s (1993) pivots, the use of
switch reference to signal a change in grounding, namely from foregrounding to
backgrounding or vice-versa, is, as we have repeatedly seen, the main constant
function of dative absolutes and conjunct participles emerged from the
previous chapters. In Chapter 2, we have also seen that even in post-matrix
position the temporal relation of dative absolutes to their matrix clause is
most typically consistent with the temporal relation they have with the matrix
when they are fronted, i.e. as typical frames. Given the attested, albeit much
less frequent, use of post-matrix absolute constructions as elaborations and
the fact that these are all non-coreferential with the subject of their matrix
clause, we can consider referential (non-)identity as the basic criterion, as
it were, whereby an absolute is chosen over a conjunct participle and vice-
versa. That is, given a discourse function, if both conjunct participles and
absolute constructions are equally viable means for fulfilling that function,
then the former is used when the subject referents are the same, the latter if
they differ. This is in many ways similar to what has been claimed about
switch reference systems cross-linguistically, namely that ‘all other things
being equal, the same referent marker […] appears in situations of referential
identity between the subject participants of two clauses, and the different
referent marker […] when there is no such referential identity. However, other
factors, to do with discourse cohesion may overrule this basic set-up’101010I
have masked the reference to the specific markers in Tsafiki, namely ss -to
and ds -sa, from the source since it is clear from van Gijn’s (2016a) overview
that this statement is generally applicable to switch-reference systems cross-
linguistically, where participant (non-)identity is the basic factor even when
several other discourse variables can supersede those factors. (van Gijn
2016a: 3). Regarding referential (non-)identity as the baseline of all switch
reference systems, Stirling (1993: 151), after listing the six ‘pivots’ for
switch-reference marking reported above, claims that all switch-reference
systems mark at least point (1), namely referential (non-)identity. However,
the common cross-linguistic coverage of all six pivots indicates that switch
reference may be regarded as a type of clause linkage and not simply a
referential-tracking device.
At an event-ontological level, it has been observed that there are clear ties
between disjoint reference and backgrounding and between coreference and
foregrounding. Building on Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) notion of
‘transitivity’ as a value assignable to clauses on the basis of properties
such as the number of participants (i.e. the basic notion of transitivity),
the Aktionsart (e.g. ‘kinesis’, i.e. states versus non-states; ‘punctuality’,
i.e. punctual versus durative, or ‘nonpunctual’) or the individuation of the
event participants, Stirling (1993: 147–150) highlights the apparent
correlation between backgrounding and low transitivity, and between
foregrounding and high transitivity, adding that

> chains of foregrounded clauses (within one episode) typically continue to
> talk about the same participants rather than introducing new ones, thereby
> maintaining same subject. Furthermore, chains of foregrounded clauses tend
> to present sequential events, while simultaneous events (along with states
> and on-going or repeated events) appear in background clauses.

This is an observation that can be easily applied to independent rhemes
(foregrounded clauses), typically encoded by conjunct participles and
typically involving the same participants as their matrix (and any other
conjunct participle dependent on it) and presenting sequential events, as
opposed to frames (backgrounded clauses), more typically encoded by absolute
constructions and normally involving overlap/simultaneity/inclusion. The
similarity between absolute constructions and switch-reference markers had, in
fact, been observed before by Bickel (1999), who argued that many formal
synchronic switch-reference systems have originated from absolute
constructions ‘in pragmatic competition with conjunct participles (participia
coniuncta) that show case agreement with a coreferential argument of the
matrix, occupy roughly the same adsentential position as absolutes, and
fulfill a similar discourse function’ (Bickel 1999: 46), which, Bickel argues,
is the grammaticalization paths followed by the switch-reference systems of
languages in the Muskogean, Yuman and Uto-Aztecan families.
There are thus clearly stronger connections between ds markers in switch
reference systems and absolute constructions, and between ss markers and
conjunct participles, than the mere marking of referential (non-)identity. The
languages mentioned in this section that are also in our dataset, namely Amele
and Huichol, had already been assigned to the same pattern (B) as Old Church
Slavonic in the classification in the previous Chapter. Their Kriging maps,
particularly the one for Huichol are, in fact, quite similar to the Old Church
Slavonic one (Figure 6.1(a) above), as Figures 6.15(a) and 6.15(b) show.

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.15: Kriging maps for Amele (Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Papunesia) and
Huichol (Uto-Aztecan, North America)

Since both Amele and Huichol, as well as Cofán (A’ingae) from the previous
section, also use converbal/medial forms marked for switch reference as
temporal clauses, in an ideal scenario, a complete semantic map for when would
also include different switch-reference markers. This would allow us to
capture the competition not only between potential subordinating conjunctions
(if present at all) and null constructions, but also between different null
constructions. Doing this at scale would require detailed annotation, at
least, at the morphosyntactic level, as the one we currently have for Old
Church Slavonic and Ancient Greek in the PROIEL treebanks, which did, in fact,
allow us to add a further layer of distinctions in their semantic map.
Gathering such information for all the languages in the dataset would be
hardly feasible, but a preliminary, automatic test on Amele, Huichol, and
Cofán indicates that such direction could lead to very informative maps and
may thus be worth pursuing for more languages. All three languages have
relatively isolable switch-reference morphemes. Amele has -co-/-ce\- +
personal endings for ds and -me\- + personal endings for ss.111111Following
Roberts (1988a: 48) summary of endings, this gives the following possible
markers for ds: -comin, -com, -cob, -cohul, -cobil, -comun, -cemin, -cem,
-ceb, -cehul, -cebil, -cemun; and these for ss: -meig, -meg, -meu, -meb,
-mesi, -mei. Note that these are only the ‘sequential’ switch-reference
endings in Amele, namely those that are used to express the sequentiality of
events. Those expressing simultaneity are not isolable as they involve stem
reduplication. Huichol has -ku and -ka (spelled as -cu and ca in our dataset)
for ds and and ss respectively (Comrie 1983). Cofán has -si for ds and
-pa/-mba for ss (AnderBois et al. 2023). Similarly to what did for Old Church
Slavonic and Ancient Greek participles in Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b), the
placeholders ‘DS’ and ‘SS’ were inserted before any word in the corpus ending
with the respective markers in each of these languages, thus allowing the
model to capture the placeholders as dummy subordinators. After realigning the
processed texts to the English version and extracting when and its parallels
in the three languages, we can superimpose the occurrences of when aligned to
the dummy switch-reference subordinators on the raw MDS map. Figures
6.16(a)-6.16(c) show the results for the three languages. Based on the
previous Kriging analysis, Amele and Huichol also have lexified when-
counterparts, whereas Cofán does not. These are, therefore, also superimposed
on the map for the former two to allow for easier comparison with the maps for
Old Church Slavonic and Greek in Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6.16: MDS map of when highlighting overt subordinators and switch
reference markers in (a) Amele (Nuclear Trans New Guinea, Papunesia), (b)
Huichol (Uto-Aztecan, North America) and (c) Cofán (Isolate, South America).

The result for Cofán indicates that switch-reference markers in this language
have a much wider scope and are likely to be used with different functions
than Old Church Slavonic absolutes and conjunct participles. Judging from the
Kriging map shown in the previous section, Cofán does not appear to have a
lexified counterpart to when but instead uses switch-reference markers for the
whole semantic space in the when-map.
On the other hand, the maps for Amele and Huichol, but particularly the
latter, bear great similarities with the ones we have seen for Old Church
Slavonic and Ancient Greek in Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b). At least in
Huichol, we observe that same continuum from when-counterparts (quepaucua) at
the top of the map to ss markers at the very bottom (corresponding to what the
highlighted conjunct participles in the Old Church Slavonic and Ancient Greek
maps), with ds markers also clustering in the bottom area, but in a relatively
defined band above ss markers, similarly to the position occupied by absolute
constructions in Figures 6.11(a) and 6.11(b). In the Amele map, this continuum
is less neat but does overall reflect a very similar distribution between
switch reference markers and when-counterpart (saen). Besides, the Amele map
only includes switch-reference markers indicating sequentiality, not those
conveying simultaneity, for reasons of isolability of the morphemes, as
explained earlier. Further annotation may thus improve the map considerably.

####  6.3.4 Insubordination

As we saw in Chapter 2, seemingly independent dative absolutes often become
clearly backgrounding devices for some portion of discourse to come when units
larger than clauses and sentences are taken into consideration (cf. Collins
2011), and this may well be the case for all the examples of seemingly
independent absolutes seen above, as in (6.3.3)-(6.3.3).121212As with
coreferential dative absolutes, syntactically independent dative absolutes
have also been specifically discussed in previous literature as ‘non-
canonical’ occurrences of the construction. On the topic of
independent/coordinated absolutes, see, for example, Corin (1995: 262-276),
Večerka (1961: 50–51), Alekseev (1987), Gebert (1987: 568), Remneva (1989:
35-39), Collins (2011: 113-126). However, what is interesting to notice there
is that, even at the inter-clausal level, such ‘non-canonical’ instances of
dative absolutes could be motivated as devices to indicate a shift in
actuality, as Stirling (1993) puts it, and that these instances have cross-
linguistic counterparts in the way switch reference systems may use ds markers
for goals other than subject co-reference. Yet, both functions, namely the use
of seemingly independent absolutes as background for discourse segments larger
than sentences and as markers of shifts in actuality, are by no means mutually
exclusive. Similar functions have been observed cross-linguistically on so-
called ‘insubordinate’ constructions (Evans 2007; Evans and Watanabe 2016).
Insubordination is widely attested among the world’s languages independently
of switch-reference systems and can be defined, from the synchronic
perspective, as ‘the independent use of constructions exhibiting prima facie
characteristics of subordinate clauses’ (Evans and Watanabe 2016: 2),
representing a ‘redeployment of linkages from intra-clausal to general
discourse links’ (Evans 2007: 370).
Within switch-reference systems, insubordination has been observed by Wilkins
(1988: 154–156), for example, in Mparntwe Arrernte (Pama–Nyungan, Australia),
where ss\- or ds-marked clauses may occur on their own in a sentence without
any apparent matrix clause (a phenomenon referred to as trans-sentential
switch-reference by Wilkins), which, in most occurrences, is explained with
the fact that ‘a main clause in a text or discourse can, later in the text or
discourse, be referred to by an anaphor or can be ellipsed, as long as it is
contextually recoverable’ (Wilkins 1988: 154).
In the switch reference system of Yuman languages (Cochimí-Yuman), the ss
marker -k is typically used, at the inter-clausal level, to represent closely
related events as belonging to a higher level event (i.e. the typical stacking
of clauses in chains to form a sentence), while the ds marker -m is used to
link clauses ‘representing less closely related event or states’ (Mithun 2008:
100; see also Winter 1976; Slater 1977; Langdon and Munro 1979; Hardy 1982;
Gordon 1983). However, some languages within the family (in the Hualapai
branch) have extended the use of the markers to ‘marking relations of full
sentences to each other in larger discourse contexts, providing higher-level
chunking of experience into events’ (Mithun 2008: 100), which is very similar
to what has been claimed about non-canonical dative absolutes in studies such
as Collins (2011).
Insubordination with functions similar to those observed on non-canonical
absolutes is well-attested also beyond switch-reference markers. The
adverbializer =go in Navajo (Athabaskan-Eyan-Tlingit, North America), for
example, which marks the subordinate relations of adverbial clauses within
sentences often also ‘specifies relations of sentences to larger stretches of
discourse’ (Mithun 2008: 72).
In Navajo narrative discourse, we can find a series of clauses, seemingly
independent, some marked with =go, some unmarked (i.e. formally independent).
According to Mithun, the latter advance the storyline, whereas the former
‘provide background, incidental information, explanation, and emotional
evaluation’ and, as observed by Mithun, can thus be reconducted within models
of narrative structure (e.g. Hopper 1979 [2020]; Chafe 1994) to foreground and
background, respectively.
Similarly, in Central Alaskan Yup’ik (Eskimo-Aleut), participles can be used
insubordinately to ‘provide background information, parenthetical comments off
the event line, elaboration, and evaluation’ and are ‘often used when speakers
open narratives or episodes by setting the scene’ (Mithun 2008: 90). As
pointed out by Heine et al. (2016: 51), the functions of insubordinate
constructions observed by Mithun are described in the literature on
parentheticals as ‘meta-discursive’ (e.g. Hansen 1998: 236), ‘meta-textual’
(e.g. Traugott and Dasher 2002b: 155), and ‘meta-communicative’ (e.g. Grenoble
2004: 1953). This is precisely how Collins (2011) describes one of the main
functions of ‘independent’ participle constructions. (6.3.4)-(6.3.4) are
examples of independent participle clauses which, as Collins (2011: 120–122)
observes, function as ‘meta-discursive’, ‘meta-comment’, or ‘meta-textual’
devices.

troje jestь nemoštьno mi razouměti a četvora ne razoumějǫ slěda orьlou
lětęštou xristosovo vъšьstije i potii zmiinъ po kameni dijavolъ ne obrěte bo
slěda grěxovьnaago na tělesi xsvě i pouti lodija po vodě plovoušti crьkъvi aky
vъ poučině žitьja sego naděždejǫ jaže vъ xsa krsьmь pravimě i poutii moužę vъ
jǫnosti roždenaago otъ svętaago dxa i otъ dvca three be.prs.3.sg impossible
1.sg.dat understand.inf and fourth neg understand.prs.1.sg track.gen.sg
eagle.dat.sg fly.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg Christ’s.nom.sg ascension.nom.sg and
path.gen.pl serpent’s.gen.sg over rock.loc.sg devil.nom neg find.aor.3.sg
because trace.gen.sg sin’s.gen.sg on body.loc.sg Christ’s.loc.sg and
path.gen.sg boat.f.gen.sg through water.loc float.ptcp.ipfv.f.gen.sg
Church.dat like in gulf.loc.sg life.gen.sg this.gen.sg hope.f.inst.sg
which.f.nom.sg in Christ.gen cross.inst.sg govern.ptcp.pass.ipfv.f.dat.sg and
path.gen.pl man.m.gen.sg in youth.loc born.m.gen.sg from holy.gen spirit.gen
and from virgin.gen ‘Three things it is impossible for me to understand, and a
fourth I do not understand: the track of an eagle flying (Christ’s Ascension);
and a serpent’s paths over a rock (the Devil; for he did not find a trace of
sin on Christ’s body); and the path of a boat sailing through the water (like
the Church being governed in the gulf of this life by hope in Christ, by the
Cross); and the paths of a man in youth (the One born of the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin)’ (Izbornik of 1073, f. 156c1–20)

  * a.

mol lěžjǫšte na loži prayer.nom.sg lie.ptcp.ipfv.nom.pl in bed.loc ’A prayer
[when people are] lying in bed’ (Euchologium Sinaiticum f. 37a)

  * b.

mol egda chotęšte vinogradъ saditi prayer.nom.sg when want.ptcp.ipfv.nom.pl
vineyard.acc.sg plant.inf ‘A prayer when [people are] wanting to plant a
vineyard’ (Euchologium Sinaiticum f. 13b)

ot mě:stę:tь : ko ga:vo:šь : i : ko : so:di:lь : po:py:ta:i:=ta mi : konę : a
: mě:stę:ta : sę : va:ma poklanę : a:že : va : cь:to : na:do:bь : a soli=ta :
ko monь : a gramotuo : vodai=ta a uo pavla : skota poprosi:=ta a mь:stę from
Mestjata.gen.sg to Gavša.dat.sg and to Sdila.dat.sg find.imp=ptc 1.dat.sg
horse.gen.sg and Mestjata.nom.sg refl 2.dat.du bow.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.sg if
2.dat.du something needed and send.imp=ptc to 1.dat.sg and letter.acc.sg
give.imp=ptc and from Pavel.gen.sg money.acc.sg ask.imp=ptc and Mestja[ta]
‘From Mestjata to Gavša and to Sdila. Get a horse for me. And Mestjata bows to
you (both). If you need anything, send to me, and give (the messenger) a
letter. And ask for money from Pavel, and Mestja[ta] (bows to you).’
(Birchbark letter N422, translation by Schaeken 2018b: 146)

(6.3.4), from the Izbornik of 1073 (also known as Izbornik of
Svjatoslav)131313The Izbornik of 1073 is not part of the datasets used in this
thesis. The passage and translation are from Collins (2011: 120), but
transcription and glossing are mine and follow the photographic edition in
Morozov (1880)., presents a passage from the Book of Proverbs (30:18–19)
interpolated with exegetical commentaries (rendered in Collins’s (2011)
translation with parentheses). These comments, including the third (the dative
absolute), are clearly ‘syntactic parentheticals functioning as metadiscourse
rather than as part of the basic text’ (Collins 2011: 121).
(6.3.4a-b) are standard examples of the rubrics with which euchologia
introduce prayers to be recited aloud by the clerical readers in the specified
occasion. In the Euchologium Sinaiticum, we also find several examples of the
meta-comment imę rekъ ‘having said the name’ in correspondence of names to be
said out loud throughout the prayer (ten occurrences, according to Nahtigal
1942: xxxix, as reported in Collins 2011: 121). As Collins (2011: 121) points
out, ‘the indirect command conveyed by imę rekŭ can be understood as a
continuation of this same implicit speech act [the one conveyed by the
rubrics]: Here say the beneficiary’s name, and then continue the prayer’.
(6.3.4) contains the nominative absolute a městęta sę vama poklanę ‘and
Mestjata bows to you (both)’, where you refers to addressees of the letter
(Gavša and Sdila) and the clause is an instruction to the messenger to bow to
the addressees on Mestjata’s behalf, which reflects the common practice of
reading the letters aloud to the addresses (Zaliznyak 2004: 297; Schaeken
2018b: 11-12). The metatextual function of the participle construction in this
example is backed up by several other occurrences of instructions with similar
functions (cf., for example, birchbark letters N354 and N358).
All these examples indicate that the ‘non-canonical’, independent use of
participle constructions corresponds, in fact, to a rather well-attested and
well-understood pattern.

###  6.4 Summary

This chapter addressed the issue of understanding the functions of null
constructions in the semantic map of when, started in the previous chapter,
not only at the level of their competition with when-counterparts, but also
with respect to the competition between different null constructions, which
the semantic map of when, without further annotation, could not address.
Section 6.1 looked at the distribution of absolute constructions and conjunct
participles in the map for Old Church Slavonic by adding targeted annotation,
allowing to distinguish the two constructions among otherwise unspecified null
alignments to when. The analysis showed that, as anticipated in the previous
chapter, both absolutes and conjunct participles cluster at the bottom of the
map and occupy rather contiguous than fully overlapping areas, with absolutes
relatively closer to the main jegda-cluster at the top of the map. Adding
while to the Kriging maps indicated that absolutes in Old Church Slavonic
cover much of the same ground as English while, unlike Greek, whose Kriging
for area for absolute constructions, both in the when-only and in the when-
while-map, corresponds largely to uses of English when. This difference
corresponds to the observation made in Chapter 1 on Old Church Slavonic-Greek
mismatches, which showed that there is a small but consistent group of
constructions in Greek (en tōi \+ infinitive) that are translated into
absolutes in Old Church Slavonic and convey temporal inclusion of the main
eventuality in the eventuality introduced by the adverbial clause, similarly
to the function of English while.
Section 6.2 looked into an example of language (Pular) with relatively well-
defined lexified counterparts to when not only for the top and middle cluster
as in several other languages (including Old Church Slavonic), but also for
the bottom left cluster. Following grammatical descriptions of this language,
functional labels were substituted for the particular connectives, with the
aim of pinpointing functional differences between the top half and bottom half
of the semantic map of when, as well as specifically clarifying differences in
the meaning of the middle-left cluster (corresponding to the Kriging area for
Greek hóte and part of the Kriging area for Old Church Slavonic jegda) and the
bottom-left cluster. The analysis confirmed, as was suspected in the previous
chapter, that the bottom area of the semantic map, within which most
participle construction fall in Early Slavic, corresponds to a relatively
well-defined function from the perspective of temporal relations, namely that
between existential-eventive clauses, which translates into the sequentiality
between events being stressed.
Finally, Section 6.3.4 looked at various well-studied phenomena from languages
that displayed similar patterns to Old Church Slavonic in the previous Chapter
or that seemingly only use null constructions across the semantic map of when,
specifically clause chaining, bridging, switch reference and insubordination.
The goal was to clarify the competing motivations governing the choice between
different types of null constructions, as well as between null constructions
and when-counterparts that appear to be in intense competition with null
constructions in the bottom region of the semantic map.
First, we substituted functional labels (independent rhemes and frames) in the
Ancient Greek map (because of its greater coverage of the New Testament) for
specific configurations of participle constructions known from previous
chapters to be correlated with those functions. The maps generated with these
functional labels indicated more clearly that typical framing participles
(sentence-initial absolutes) and independent rhemes (pre-matrix, aorist
participles with an aorist matrix) dominate in contiguous, but not fully
overlapping areas in the map, with frames being relatively closer to finite
competitors at the top of the map than independent rhemes. The same pattern
was observed by simply overlaying the observation for the three constructions
to the raw MDS map.
The overview on clause chaining suggested that similar criteria of discourse
organization govern the use of chaining constructions in clause-chaining
languages and participle constructions in Old Church Slavonic, including the
possibility of backgrounded clauses alternating with foregrounded clauses, as
well as overarching principles of tense-space-participant connectedness and
event conflation/integration.
We then looked at how the ‘topic-shift’ function of dative absolutes mentioned
in previous chapters, whereby elements of a foregrounded eventuality in the
previous discourse get repurposed as background for a new portion of
foregrounded discourse to come, has, in fact, clear parallels in bridging
constructions as a systematic, formalizable phenomenon. In particular, we saw
that formal accounts of bridging based on the SDRT rhetorical relations
Background and Narration, which we already partially implemented in Chapter 5,
are clearly applicable to several similar examples of absolute constructions
in Old Church Slavonic.
The clearest parallels to the use of conjunct participles as opposed to
absolute constructions, as well as the common thread between all the phenomena
touched upon in this section, were observed in synchronic switch-reference
systems across the world’s languages. Especially considering the areal and
genetic unrelatedness of the languages mentioned in this overview to Old
Church Slavonic, the similarities between the former and the latter were found
to be quite striking. In particular, the automatic addition of switch
reference markers to the semantic map of when for Amele, Huichol and Cofán
suggested that languages with a switch reference system and a lexicalized
counterpart to when (i.e. in our case Amele and Huichol, not Cofán) show an
extremely similar distribution of when-counterparts, ds-markers and ss-
markers, approximately placed in a continuum comparable to jegda-clauses,
absolutes, and conjunct participles in Old Church Slavonic. Overall, they
provided some independent evidence that the use of absolute constructions as
opposed to conjunct participles is regulated by very similar principles to the
‘pivots’ that play a role in the use of switch-reference markers cross-
linguistically, as described in detail, among others, by Stirling (1993).
Finally, we saw how insubordination, namely the ‘independent use of
constructions exhibiting prima facie characteristics of subordinate clause’
(Evans and Watanabe 2016: 2), and the independent uses of dative absolutes
analysed by Collins (2011) also bear great similarities, particularly in light
of the fact that insubordination and switch-reference are often related in the
same languages.
Crucially, all these principles are also able to motivate several of the uses
of ‘non-canonical’ participle constructions, particularly dative absolutes,
which had otherwise often been written off as ‘aberrations’ or as signs of
‘decay’ by the earlier scholarship on Early Slavic (e.g., among many others,
Večerka 1961: 49; Večerka 1996: 190; Corin 1995: 268).

## Chapter 7 Conclusions

In the Introduction, the goal of this thesis was set up to be the study of
‘the semantic and pragmatic properties of Early Slavic conjunct participles
and absolute constructions to understand what principles motivate their
selection over one another and over jegda-clauses at the synchronic level’.
The investigation, I believe, led to some genuine progress on several fronts
and raised some new questions on others.

The stated goal was addressed by adopting two broadly different approaches: a
quantitative, corpus-based one, exploiting data from Early Slavic treebanks,
and a typological one, leveraging massively parallel corpora consisting of
translations of the New Testament in over 1400 linguistic varieties, including
Old Church Slavonic.

Since very early on in the investigation, it became clear that the competition
between conjunct participles, absolute constructions, and jegda-clauses occurs
at the level of discourse organization, where the major common denominator is
that all of them may function as event-framing devices. The concept of
‘framing device’ was meant as a discourse segment that is used ‘to limit the
applicability of the main predication to a certain restricted domain’, which
is Chafe’s (1976: 50) definition of frame setters and was consistently
associated with the background content of a (complex or elementary) discourse
unit. The main contrast throughout the thesis, then, was between background
clauses and discourse segments corresponding to the foreground content of a
predication. The background-foreground contrast informed much of the
discussion, encompassing all theoretical frameworks followed in this thesis.

From the investigation, the following findings can be highlighted.

###  7.1 Overview of the main findings

  * (a.)

Conjunct participles are typical foreground material
Early Slavic conjunct participles can be both background and foreground
clauses, but in their most typical functions they are part of the foreground
content of a discourse unit. Like their Ancient Greek counterparts, following
Bary and Haug (2011) and Haug (2012), they are most typically either
independent rhemes or elaborations, which are both foregrounded material in
the sense that they encode new information and are part of the main line of
events, but with very different semantic properties. As independent rhemes,
they are discourse-coordinated and are typically interpreted as independent
clauses, as the second and third conjunct participle in ((a.)). As
elaborations, they add granularity to the matrix event and are most often
interpreted as manner or means adverbials, as in ((a.)).

borisa že [oubivše]frame okanьnii [ouvertěvše]indrheme v šaterъ
[vъzloživše]indrheme na kola povezoša i Boris.sg.m.gen ptc
kill.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.pl cursed.m.nom.pl wrap.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.pl in tent.sg.m.acc
load.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.pl on cart.sg.n.acc take.aor.3.pl 3.sg.m.acc ‘After
killing Boris, the raiders wrapped him in a canvas, loaded him on a cart, and
took him off’ (Primary Chronicle, Codex Laurentianus 46b)

stoěchu plačjušte se i divešte se stand.impf.3.pl cry.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.pl refl
and marvel.ptcp.ipfv.m.nom.pl refl ‘They stood crying and marvelling’ (Life of
Mary, Abraham’s Niece, Bdinski Sbornik f. 16r)

Their temporal effects are also very different. Independent rhemes can (and
normally do) introduce new temporal referents, and when perfective (which is
most of the time in narrative discourse), they always induce narrative
progression. Elaborations depend on the matrix event for their temporal
reference and always temporally coincide with the matrix event.

When occurring in chaining constructions, the leftmost conjunct participles
can be ambiguous between independent rhemes and, in Bary and Haug’s (2011)
terminology, frames, which set the stage for and provide temporal anchoring
for the matrix event, as in ((a.)). In specific configurations, they are
instead most clearly frames, most notably in sentence-initial position with
the subject following the participle, as in the first conjunct participle in
((a.)) above, or as part of two or more pre-matrix coordinated conjunct
participles, as in ((a.)), where the coordination suggests that they are found
in the specifier of the matrix I’ (as with frames) rather than adjoined to I’
(as with independent rheme) (Haug 2012).

i [rastrьzavši]indrheme/frame ryzi svoe biěše se po licju i chotěše se sama
udaviti ot pečaly and tear.part.prf.m.nom.sg robe.acc.pl her beat.impf.3.sg
refl on face.dat and want.impf.3.sg refl self suffocate.inf from sorrow.gen.sg
‘And after tearing her own robes/she tore her own and she started striking her
own face and wanted to suffocate herself from sorrow’ (Life of Mary, Abraham’s
Niece, Bdinski Sbornik f. 3v)

[Sia že vъsi slyšavše i viděvše] množaišǫ věrǫ i usrъdie kъ stmu pokazovaachǫ
this.n.acc.pl ptc this.n.acc.pl hear.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg and
see.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg more.f.acc faith.f.acc and zeal.n.acc to saint.m.dat.sg
show.impf.3.pl ‘After hearing and seeing all these things, they started
showing greater faith and zeal towards the Saint’ Life of Ivan of Rila,
Zografski Sbornik f. 102r)

  * (b.)

Dative absolutes are typical background material

Early Slavic dative absolutes are instead typically frames, i.e. background
clauses. As such, they depend on the context for their own temporal reference,
which is given by previously mentioned or easily inferable events. When
occurring after the matrix clause, where they are much less frequent, they are
most often interpreted as clause-final restrictive adjuncts (Fabricius-Hansen
and Haug 2012b). These are very similar to frames from the temporal and event-
structuring perspective, since they restrict the domain of the matrix clause
by introducing a state within which the main eventuality holds, as in ((b.)).
Like clause-final restrictive adjuncts, post-matrix absolutes may also receive
a contrastive reading, as in ((b.)).

onъ že šedъ sěde na stolě černigově jaroslavu suštju nověgorodě togda
that.m.nom.sg ptc go.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg sit.aor.3.sg on throne.sg.m.loc
Chernigov.sg.m.loc Yaroslav.m.dat.sg be.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg Novgorod.sg.m.loc
then ‘He thus departed thence and established himself upon the throne of
Chernigov, while Yaroslav was in Novgorod.’ (Primary Chronicle, Codex
Laurentianus f. 50b)

i povelě prinesti svěštę goręštę. i prižagati lice paule. propovědniku
vьpijǫštu i glagolǫštu and command.aor.3.sg bring.inf candle.pl.f.acc
burn.ptcp.ipfv.f.acc.pl and burn.inf face.sg.n.acc Paul’s.sg.n.acc.strong
preacher.m.dat.sg cry out.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg and say.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg ‘And
he commanded to bring burning candles and burn Paul’s face, while the preacher
was crying out, saying’ (Vita of Paul and Juliana, Codex Suprasliensis f. 7r)

A small number of post-matrix occurrences can function as elaborations,
similarly to post-matrix conjunct participles, as in ((b.)).

i to rekъ paki po pervoe drъžaše sę dobroe ustroenie. bogu pomagajuštu emu na
blagoe proizvolenie and that.n.acc.sg say.ptcp.pfv.m.nom.sg more on
righteous.n.acc.sg stay.impf.3.sg refl good.n.acc.sg behaviour.sg.n.acc
god.sg.m.dat help.ptcp.ipfv.m.dat.sg 3.sg.m.dat on good.n.acc.sg
intention.n.acc.sg ‘After saying this, he stayed on the righteous path more
than before, with God helping him in his good intentions’ (Life of Sergij of
Radonezh f. 46v)

However, several elaborating absolutes occur in rather predictable, perhaps
formulaic, verb-subject combinations (as in ((b.)) above), suggesting that the
role of absolutes as elaborations is quite peripheral.

  * (c.)

Perfective jegda-events can include perfective matrix events

Jegda-clauses can be analysed as background clauses by default because of the
explicit subordinator jegda ‘when’ (following SDRT’s account of when-clauses,
see Asher et al. 2007), but their precise interpretation depends on several
distinctions at the level of event structure (e.g. events versus states,
durativity versus punctuality, telicity versus atelicity). Despite clear
overlaps with participle frames in their distribution and discourse functions,
at least one clear semantic difference emerged between jegda-clauses and
participle constructions. Namely, participle clauses, when perfective, always
induce narrative progression, so that a perfective matrix clause is always
interpreted as occurring (just) after the participle event. This led to the
observation that perfective participle frames always introduce a consequent
state within which the matrix clause occurs. While this is also possible with
perfective jegda-clauses, perfective jegda-clauses can introduce a durative
but bounded referent within which the matrix event occurs, which is a temporal
reading that does not seem to be available to perfective participle
constructions. ((c.)) is one such example.

Bystъ že egda krъstišę sę vьsi ljudьe. isou krьštьšju sę i molęštju sę.
otvrъze sę nebo happen.aor.3.sg ptc when baptize.aor.3.pl refl all.pl.m.nom
people.pl.m.nom Jesus.dat baptize.ptcp.pfv.m.sg.dat refl and
pray.ptcp.ipfv.m.sg.dat refl open.aor.3.sg refl heaven.sg.n.nom ‘It came to
pass that, when all the people were baptized, as Jesus was baptized and as he
was praying, the heaven was opened’ (Luke 3:21)

  * (d.)

INDEPENDENT RHEMES trigger Strong Narration, FRAMES trigger Background

A formalization was proposed under an SDRT framework whereby conjunct
participles functioning as independent rhemes trigger a Strong Narration
rhetorical relation (Bras et al. 2001) to the next event in a sequence. Strong
Narration involves a strict discourse topic requirement and a temporal
relation of abutement (strict sequentiality) to the following event in a
series (i.e. either another independent rheme or its matrix clause). Pre-
matrix frames are instead formalized as triggers of a Backgroundforward
relation (Asher et al. 2007), which does not attach directly to the foreground
(e.g. a series of independent rhemes), but introduces a more complex structure
consisting of a Framing Topic, linked to the background clause(s) (e.g. dative
absolutes or framing conjunct participles) via Background and to the
foreground clause(s) via Elaboration. The discourse topic requirement of
independent rhemes therefore nicely fits the possible interpretation of
sentence-initial conjunct participles as frames, as well as the predominance
of sentence-initial dative absolutes over those in any other positions in the
sentence. In other words, while independent rhemes involve a strict discourse
topic requirement, frames introduce one explicitly.

  * (e.)

Sequentiality and event conflation as defining principles?

The competition between participle adjuncts and jegda-clauses cannot be
captured in terms of discrete, categorical variables but must be modelled as a
continuum, allowing a large degree of overlap. Yet, there are very clear
cross-linguistic patterns in the way this continuum is divided between overtly
subordinated (finite) constructions and juxtaposed (non-finite or
‘unbalanced’, cf. Cristofaro 2013a, b, 2019) constructions. A semantic map of
when built from around 1400 linguistic varieties, including Old Church
Slavonic, showed that ‘null’ constructions (e.g. participles, converbs, simple
main clause juxtaposition, that is, non-overtly subordinated constructions)
cluster in particular regions, indicating that they are not equally viable as
alternatives to any use of when, but carry particular meanings that make them
less suitable for some of its functions. Comparisons with genealogically and
areally unrelated but typologically similar languages showed that the majority
of participle constructions in the semantic map correspond to cross-linguistic
means used to stress the sequentiality of events, whereas jegda-clauses show
virtually no competition when it comes to universal uses of when in any tense,
as well as existential uses in non-past tenses.

The stronger suitability of participle constructions to express sequentiality
may be connected to the different temporal semantic properties mentioned
above. These are the Strong Narration relation seemingly triggered by most
pre-matrix conjunct participles (since these are most typically independent
rhemes) and the possibility for perfective jegda-clauses to be interpreted as
including the following event in line (matrix or adjunct), which, as we saw,
is instead never a possible reading for perfective participle constructions
(which always induce narrative progression). It is possible that participle
frames contribute to stressing the sequentiality of events by triggering a
Background relation, which entails the explicit introduction of a Framing
Topic. The Framing Topic, then, ensures discourse cohesion between the
foreground events and satisfies the strict discourse topic requirement of
independent rhemes.

Similar criteria of discourse organization govern the use of chaining
constructions in clause-chaining languages and participle constructions in Old
Church Slavonic, both of which are regulated, behind the specific principles
and constraints defined in each language, by the discourse distinction between
foreground and background (Dooley 2010). Crucially, both clause chaining in
clause-chaining languages and participle constructions (whether as frames,
independent rhemes or elaborations) in Early Slavic may be seen as a broader
strategy for event grouping (or ‘conflation’) and as a guarantee of tense-
space-participant connectedness (Dooley 2010; Saebo 2011).

  * (e.)

‘Non-canonical’ participle constructions are canonical after all

Virtually all ‘non-canonical’ usages of participle constructions mentioned or
discussed in the previous literature on Early Slavic participles (i.e. co-
referential dative absolutes, syntactically independent absolutes and conjunct
participles, and participle constructions with no apparent matrix clause; cf.
Collins 2011) are very well-attested in cross-linguistically phenomena that
are functionally very similar to Early Slavic participles.

In particular, a shift in agentivity of a subject, a shift in time, location
or grounding (from background to foreground) can all warrant the use of
absolute constructions even when their subject is co-referential with the one
of their matrix clause (i.e. the most common ‘non-canonical’ example of
absolute constructions), similarly to how these same factors can explain the
use of different-subject markers in several switch-reference systems across
the world’s languages.

A shift in mood or actuality (Stirling 1993), for example when introducing
direct speech, as well as parenthetical or metadiscursive functions, may
instead warrant insubordination (i.e. the use as independent clauses) of
conjunct participles and dative absolutes.

Given how both subject co-referentiality in dative absolutes and
insubordination of participle constructions are found particularly frequently
in original (non-translated) sources and outside of sacred and liturgical Old
Church Slavonic texts, these clear cross-linguistic parallels incidentally
also support the ‘nativeness’ of the constructions and their independent use
from their Greek counterparts.

###  7.2 Where to from here?

The cross-linguistic perspective on Early Slavic participle constructions has
shown, I believe, that token-based typological approaches can be very fruitful
when adopted to study constructions in historical languages, for which
elicitation of new data is not an option, for obvious reasons. The final
chapter, in particular, has highlighted the great similarities between the
functions of phenomena attested cross-linguistically in languages areally and
genealogically unrelated to Old Church Slavonic, particularly switch-reference
systems, and provided Early Slavic examples that clearly support such
similarities. These examples were found upon close reading the occurrences of
the constructions and checking their surrounding discourse. However, some of
these phenomena lend themselves well to larger-scale, quantitative analyses.

In particular, clause bridging, presented in Section 6.3.2 of Chapter 6, has a
regular, schematizable structure (cf. Guérin and Aiton 2019 and AnderBois and
Altshuler 2022), which is worthwhile attempting to capture quantitatively in
Early Slavic, by leveraging the recurrence of lemmas in adjacent portions of
discourse. We have preliminarily shown (particularly in Section 2.3.2 of
Chapter 2, besides Section 6.3.2 of Chapter 6) that clause bridging can be
considered one of the functions of dative absolutes, but the close reading of
examples from the corpus indicated that it likely deserves a separate,
dedicated study investigating how pervasive it is, whereas in this thesis it
only received relatively sporadic mentions.

Similar observations hold for the correspondences to switch-reference systems
in the world’s languages. As pointed out in Section 6.3.3 of Chapter 6, a
large-scale computational comparison would require annotation at the
morphosyntactic level for more languages than current computational tools can
achieve, especially considering that several switch-reference languages are
extremely low-resourced. However, we have seen that it is possible to obtain
some clear patterns by automatically adding annotation for switch-reference
markers in languages where these are relatively isolable. A promising next
step, therefore, is to annotate several more languages for switch reference
marking, following the plethora of existing descriptions of such systems. A
larger parallel dataset with switch-reference annotation may then allow for
semantic maps capturing finer-grained semantic and discourse distinctions in
the usage of switch-reference markers and make better-informed comparisons
with the distributions of participle constructions in Early Slavic.111See an
ongoing experiment in ‘subtoken-based typology’ in Pedrazzini (2024).

An aspect that was not taken into account in the semantic map of when, nor in
this thesis as a whole, is the discourse functions of much more polyfunctional
subordinators, most notably Old Church Slavonic jako, whose meanings span
‘when’, ‘as’, ‘if’, ‘because’, ‘how’, ‘since’, among others, and similarly
Ancient Greek hōs, which is very similar in meaning to Old Church Slavonic
jako. ‘When’ used as a question word (kogda in Old Church Slavonic) has also
emerged from the semantic maps of Old Church Slavonic and is likely to deserve
separate investigation. The semantic map of when pointed to potential cross-
linguistic patterns of coexpression, whereby the question word when, when not
separately lexicalized, is colexified with universal when. However, this issue
was not addressed directly, and our study hardly allows for proper
generalizations on this matter.

From a theoretical perspective, I only touched upon the idea that clause
chaining in Early Slavic and clause-chaining languages may convey a higher
degree of event integration than what is conveyed by jegda-clauses and finite
temporal subordinates in general. However, event conflation and the structure
of macro-events are theoretically well-established, so a comprehensive account
of finite and non-finite competitors in Early Slavic may benefit from fully
modelling the competition within an event conflation theory as conceived and
progressively refined mainly by Leonard Talmy since the 1970s (Talmy 1972,
1975, 1985, 1991, 2000).

Finally, the formulaic tendencies observed on dative absolutes across the
corpus certainly deserve a dedicated study. We have seen (particularly
throughout Chapter 2, but also as generally transpired from the low lexical
variation) that dative absolutes tend to occur in very predictable participle
lemma-subject lemma combinations and, not infrequently, in what seems like
fixed or semi-fixed expressions. We have also noticed how some of these
expressions are attested across different texts and genres, for example in
generic temporal frames such as pozdě byvъšu ‘when it got late’ and variations
of the basic phrase ne věduštju nikomuže ‘without anyone knowing’, as well as
seemingly semi-fixed expressions of the type ‘God <help> <person>’, where help
is generally one of a set of verbs semantically similar to help (e.g.
sъbljudati ‘guard, watch over’, pomagati ‘help’, or ukrěpljati ‘give
strength’). Other expressions, however, seem predictable only contextually to
a specific text or genre, for instance in ‘reigning <ruler> in <place>’ (e.g.
crstvujuštju olьkse vъ csrigradě ‘when Oleksa was reigning in
Constantinople’), which are predominantly found in the chronicles. The
‘predictability’ of dative absolutes, then, seems to be well-suited for a
study of the occurrences of the construction as potential instantiations of a
limited set of constructions in the Construction Grammar sense of the term
(i.e. ‘learned pairings of form with semantic or discourse functions’;
Goldberg 2005: 5). The question may be fruitfully addressed under a
distributional semantic framework and using language models trained on Early
Slavic to capture the productivity of absolute constructions at different
levels of abstraction (i.e. a lower level of abstraction may consider position
and tense-aspect combinations as a construction, e.g. <absolute lemma-pfv \+
matrix lemma-aor>; a higher level of abstraction may only consider aspect; the
highest level may consider any configuration, and so on), in the spirit of
what studies such as Perek (2016), Bozzone (2014), Rodda et al. (2019) and
Rodda (2021) have done on different phenomena in English and Ancient Greek.
Despite the high diachronic and diatopic variation of historical languages,
historical language modelling has been advancing at a rapid pace, which makes
distributional semantic studies of variation in participle constructions much
more likely to be achievable than had been previously conceived.222Ancient
Greek word embeddings I have developed with colleagues, for example, are
described in Stopponi et al. (2023a) and Stopponi et al. (Forthcoming) and
available in Stopponi et al. (2023b). Language modelling of Early Slavic,
unsurprisingly, has so far received much less (and virtually no) attention,
except for preliminary attempts by Pedrazzini (2023a).

##  Appendix A Massively parallel dataset: corpus representativeness

###  A.1 Language families

Table LABEL:tab:completelangdfamilies lists all the world’s language families
according to the Glottolog database (https://glottolog.org; Nordhoff and
Hammarström 2011, Hammarström et al. 2023), how many languages belong to each
of them, always following Glottolog, compared to how many languages from each
family are represented in the massively parallel Bible corpus used in Chapters
5 and 6. In the table, bible_ refers to the massively parallel corpus and
world_ to the languages family from Glottolog. raw are the raw number of
languages belonging to the relevant family, rel is the relative frequency of
these in relation to the total number of languages in the respective dataset
(the parallel Bible dataset for bible_, the whole Glottolog language database
for world_).

Table A.1: Language families represented in the massively parallel Bible dataset compared with the world’s language families according to Glottolog. family | world_raw | world_rel | bible_raw | bible_rel
---|---|---|---|---
Atlantic-Congo | 1380 | 18.1% | 249.0 | 17.2%
Austronesian | 1289 | 16.9% | 246.0 | 17.0%
Indo-European | 595 | 7.8% | 110.0 | 7.6%
Sino-Tibetan | 441 | 5.8% | 90.0 | 6.2%
Afro-Asiatic | 371 | 4.9% | 47.0 | 3.3%
Nuclear Trans New Guinea | 313 | 4.1% | 94.0 | 6.5%
Pama-Nyungan | 268 | 3.5% | 13.0 | 0.9%
Otomanguean | 180 | 2.4% | 79.0 | 5.5%
Isolate | 167 | 2.2% | 16.0 | 1.1%
Austroasiatic | 160 | 2.1% | 10.0 | 0.7%
Sign Language | 156 | 2.1% | Absent | Absent
Tai-Kadai | 91 | 1.2% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Dravidian | 84 | 1.1% | 6.0 | 0.4%
Mande | 77 | 1.0% | 24.0 | 1.7%
Tupian | 73 | 1.0% | 17.0 | 1.2%
Central Sudanic | 65 | 0.9% | 15.0 | 1.0%
Uto-Aztecan | 64 | 0.8% | 26.0 | 1.8%
Nilotic | 57 | 0.7% | 21.0 | 1.5%
Arawakan | 56 | 0.7% | 23.0 | 1.6%
Nuclear Torricelli | 55 | 0.7% | 9.0 | 0.6%
Algic | 48 | 0.6% | 8.0 | 0.6%
Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit | 46 | 0.6% | 7.0 | 0.5%
Quechuan | 45 | 0.6% | 27.0 | 1.9%
Turkic | 45 | 0.6% | 21.0 | 1.5%
Uralic | 41 | 0.5% | 8.0 | 0.6%
Kru | 38 | 0.5% | 9.0 | 0.6%
Hmong-Mien | 37 | 0.5% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Mayan | 35 | 0.5% | 25.0 | 1.7%
Sepik | 34 | 0.4% | 8.0 | 0.6%
Pano-Tacanan | 33 | 0.4% | 11.0 | 0.8%
Nakh-Daghestanian | 32 | 0.4% | 6.0 | 0.4%
Lower Sepik-Ramu | 30 | 0.4% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Cariban | 29 | 0.4% | 8.0 | 0.6%
Salishan | 27 | 0.4% | Absent | Absent
Artificial | 26 | 0.3% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Nuclear-Macro-Je | 25 | 0.3% | 7.0 | 0.5%
Tucanoan | 23 | 0.3% | 16.0 | 1.1%
Timor-Alor-Pantar | 23 | 0.3% | Absent | Absent
Chibchan | 21 | 0.3% | 9.0 | 0.6%
Lakes Plain | 20 | 0.3% | Absent | Absent
Ta-Ne-Omotic | 19 | 0.2% | 7.0 | 0.5%
Dogon | 19 | 0.2% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Siouan | 18 | 0.2% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Mixe-Zoque | 17 | 0.2% | 8.0 | 0.6%
Yam | 17 | 0.2% | Absent | Absent
Anim | 16 | 0.2% | Absent | Absent
Mongolic-Khitan | 16 | 0.2% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Pidgin | 16 | 0.2% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Border | 15 | 0.2% | 2.0 | 0.1%
North Halmahera | 15 | 0.2% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Nubian | 14 | 0.2% | Absent | Absent
Angan | 13 | 0.2% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Ndu | 13 | 0.2% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Japonic | 13 | 0.2% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Tor-Orya | 13 | 0.2% | Absent | Absent
Khoe-Kwadi | 13 | 0.2% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Iroquoian | 13 | 0.2% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Tungusic | 12 | 0.2% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Totonacan | 12 | 0.2% | 8.0 | 0.6%
Eskimo-Aleut | 12 | 0.2% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Worrorran | 12 | 0.2% | Absent | Absent
Western Daly | 11 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Great Andamanese | 11 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Geelvink Bay | 10 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Miwok-Costanoan | 10 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Sko | 10 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Songhay | 10 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Heibanic | 10 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Nyulnyulan | 10 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Ijoid | 10 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Gunwinyguan | 10 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Saharan | 10 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Surmic | 10 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Dagan | 9 | 0.1% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Chocoan | 9 | 0.1% | 3.0 | 0.2%
South Bougainville | 9 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Maban | 9 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Cochimi-Yuman | 9 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Koiarian | 8 | 0.1% | 5.0 | 0.3%
Greater Kwerba | 8 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Narrow Talodi | 8 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Dajuic | 7 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Muskogean | 7 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Matacoan | 7 | 0.1% | 6.0 | 0.4%
Pomoan | 7 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Bosavi | 7 | 0.1% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Tuu | 7 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Kiwaian | 6 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
East Strickland | 6 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Baining | 6 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Kartvelian | 6 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Nambiquaran | 6 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Left May | 6 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Lengua-Mascoy | 6 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Chumashan | 6 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Mailuan | 6 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Kiowa-Tanoan | 6 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Kadugli-Krongo | 6 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Zaparoan | 6 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Wakashan | 6 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
South Bird’s Head Family | 6 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Arawan | 6 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Yareban | 5 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Caddoan | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Abkhaz-Adyge | 5 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
South Omotic | 5 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Yanomamic | 5 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Pauwasi | 5 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Kxa | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Guaicuruan | 5 | 0.1% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Yeniseian | 5 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Chukotko-Kamchatkan | 5 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Keram | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Barbacoan | 5 | 0.1% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Eleman | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Mirndi | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Guahiboan | 5 | 0.1% | 3.0 | 0.2%
Misumalpan | 5 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Sahaptian | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Yuat | 5 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Nimboranic | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Huitotoan | 5 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
West Bird’s Head | 5 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Naduhup | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Huavean | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Koman | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Tangkic | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
North Bougainville | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Suki-Gogodala | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Sentanic | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Chicham | 4 | 0.1% | 4.0 | 0.3%
Iwaidjan Proper | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Walioic | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Chapacuran | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Yukaghir | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Eastern Jebel | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Blue Nile Mao | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Mangarrayi-Maran | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Maiduan | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Wintuan | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Eastern Trans-Fly | 4 | 0.1% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Turama-Kikori | 4 | 0.1% | Absent | Absent
Maningrida | 4 | 0.1% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Chinookan | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Lepki-Murkim-Kembra | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kwalean | 3 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Giimbiyu | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kayagaric | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Yangmanic | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Tamaic | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Dizoid | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kunimaipan | 3 | 0.0% | 3.0 | 0.2%
ArafundiArafundi | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
East Bird’s Head | 3 | 0.0% | 3.0 | 0.2%
West Bomberai | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kalapuyan | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kolopom | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Saliban | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Tsimshian | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Jarrakan | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Aymaran | 3 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Kamula-Elevala | 3 | 0.0% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Mixed Language | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Mairasic | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kuliak | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Bororoan | 3 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Amto-Musan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kresh-Aja | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Gumuz | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Teberan | 2 | 0.0% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Senagi | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Harakmbut | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Manubaran | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Doso-Turumsa | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Inanwatan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Furan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Nyimang | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
GarrwanGarawa | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Limilngan-Wulna | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Peba-Yagua | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Cahuapanan | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Eastern Daly | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kakua-Nukak | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Bulaka River | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Keresan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Tarascan | 2 | 0.0% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Haida | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Zamucoan | 2 | 0.0% | 2.0 | 0.1%
East Kutubu | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Chonan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Jarawa-Onge | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Palaihnihan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Konda-Yahadian | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Yuki-Wappo | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Mombum-Koneraw | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Yawa-Saweru | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Baibai-Fas | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Tequistlatecan | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Rashad | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Temeinic | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Hibito-Cholon | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Piawi | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Koreanic | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Bunaban | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Katukinan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Northern Daly | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kwomtari-Nai | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Southern Daly | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Bogia | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
ChimakuanChimakum | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Somahai | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Boran | 2 | 0.0% | 2.0 | 0.1%
Coosan | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Marrku-Wurrugu | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Pahoturi | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Katla-Tima | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Bayono-Awbono | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Namla-Tofanma | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kaure-Kosare | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Hurro-Urartian | 2 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Uru-Chipaya | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Araucanian | 2 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Puri-Coroado | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kawesqar | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Ainu | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Kamakanan | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Hatam-Mansim | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Shastan | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Yokutsan | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent
Nivkh | 1 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Chiquitano | 1 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Jicaquean | 1 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Ticuna-Yuri | 1 | 0.0% | 1.0 | 0.1%
Taulil-Butam | 1 | 0.0% | Absent | Absent

##  Appendix B Language classification by pattern of co-expression

Table LABEL:langpatternscomplete contains all the languages in the massively
parallel dataset used in Chapters 5 and 6 to generate the semantic map of
when. In the table, languages are ordered by their ISO 639-3 code and
classified by pattern and subpattern, which was assigned automatically as
outlined below. Each language has an indication of its name, language family,
and main macroarea in which it is attested. This metadata, as explained in
Section 5.2 of Chapter 5, is obtained from the Glottolog database
(https://glottolog.org; Nordhoff and Hammarström 2011, Hammarström et al.
2023).

###  B.1 Pattern and subpattern assignment

The three basic patterns are defined on the basis of the top-left (TL), mid-
left (ML) and bottom-left (BL) areas of the semantic map of when and assigned
as shown in Table B.1.

pattern | areas coexpressed
---|---
A | TL = ML = BL
B | (TL = ML) $\neq$ BL
C | TL $\neq$ (ML = BL )
D | TL $\neq$ ML $\neq$ BL
E | (TL = BL) $\neq$ ML
Table B.1: Basic coexpression patterns

Subpatterns are assigned to languages that do not fit one of the five basic
patterns above, due to one or more of the clusters being under the scope of
more than one linguistic item. Depending on how many items there are in total
for the three areas, there is a different number of total logical
combinations, all of which are taken into consideration when assigning a
subpattern. To take the possible combinations into account, we use a
construction with the following template:

> [ ]TL [ ]ML [ ]BL

where each slot is filled by arbitrary letters standing for each different
linguistic item having scope over the relevant cluster. To capture that two or
more clusters are colexified, the same latter is repeated in all those
clusters and, conversely, different letters indicate different linguistic
items. In this way, we can schematically represent more complex patterns than
those in Table B.1. For example, below, (a.) corresponds to pattern D, since
the three cluster are dominated by three different linguistic items. Instead,
(b.) represents a language in which the TL cluster is dominated by both a
lexical item unique to that cluster (X in the template), but the same item
that has scope on the ML cluster has also scope over the TL cluster (Y in the
template). (c.) instead corresponds to a language in which the ML and BL
clusters are colexified, while the TL cluster is under the scope of not one,
but two lexical items.

>   * (a.)
>
> [X]TL [Y]ML [Z]BL
>
>   * (b.)
>
> [XY]TL [Y]ML [Z]BL
>
>   * (c.)
>
> [XY]TL [Z]ML [Z]BL
>
>

In the overview in Table B.2, for ease of presentation, the three slots in the
template are only separated by a space, but the order remains the same as in
the template shown above. For example, (c.) above is represented as XX Z Z. ?
indicates ‘no lexical item’, representing a language in which the relevant
cluster has no Kriging area.

configuration | subpattern label
---|---
XY Y X | BxE
X XY Y | BxC
X Y XY | CxE
XW Y Z | D2a
X YW Z | D2b
X Y ZW | D2c
XZ Y Y | C3
X YZ X | E3
X X YZ | B3
XY X X | CxA
X XY X | ExA
X X XY | BxA
X YX Z | DxX
X Y ZX | DxX
XY Y Z | DxX
X Y ZY | DxX
XZ Y Z | DxX
X XY XY | AxC
XY X XY | AxE
XY XY X | AxB
XYZ X X | AxC3
X XYZ X | AxE3
X X XYZ | AxB3
XYZ X Y | D-Other
X XYZ Y | D-Other
X Y XYZ | D-Other
XY XY XY | A2
? X X | A?C
? X Y | B?D?E
X ? X | A?E
X ? Y | B?C?D
X X ? | A?B
X Y ? | C?D?E
Table B.2: Subpatterns of coexpression Table B.3: Classification of the languages in the massively parallel dataset into patterns and subpatterns. iso |  name |  family |  macroarea |  pattern |  subpattern
---|---|---|---|---|---
aai |  Arifama-Miniafia |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  E |  E
aak |  Ankave |  Angan |  Papunesia |  A |  A
aau |  Abau |  Sepik |  Papunesia |  D |  DxX
aaz |  Amarasi |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  C |  C
abt |  Ambulas |  Ndu |  Papunesia |  A |  A
abx |  Inabaknon |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  D |  D
aby |  Aneme Wake |  Yareban |  Papunesia |  A |  A
aca |  Achagua |  Arawakan |  South America |  C |  C
acd |  Gikyode |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  D |  D
ace |  Acehnese |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  D |  DxX
acf |  Saint Lucian Creole French |  Indo-European |  Eurasia |  A |  A
ach |  Acoli |  Nilotic |  Africa |  E |  E
acn |  Longchuan Achang |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  E |  E
acr |  Achi |  Mayan |  North America |  C |  CxA
acu |  Achuar-Shiwiar |  Chicham |  South America |  A |  A
ade |  Adele |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  D |  D
adh |  Adhola |  Nilotic |  Africa |  C |  C
adi |  Bori-Karko |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  C |  C
adj |  Adioukrou |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  A |  A
adl |  Galo |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  A |  A
aeb |  Tunisian Arabic |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  C |  AxC
aer |  Eastern Arrernte |  Pama-Nyungan |  Australia |  A?E |  A?E
aeu |  Akeu |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  A |  A
aey |  Amele |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  B |  B
afr |  Afrikaans |  Indo-European |  Eurasia |  C |  C
agd |  Agarabi |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  B |  B
agg |  Angor |  Senagi |  Papunesia |  A |  A
agm |  Angaataha |  Angan |  Papunesia |  A |  A
agn |  Agutaynen |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  C |  C
agr |  Aguaruna |  Chicham |  South America |  A |  A
agt |  Central Cagayan Agta |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  B?C?D |  B?C?D
agu |  Aguacateco |  Mayan |  North America |  C |  C
agw |  Kahua |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
agx |  Aghul |  Nakh-Daghestanian |  Eurasia |  A |  A
ahk |  Akha |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  A |  A
aia |  Arosi |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
aii |  Assyrian Neo-Aramaic |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
aim |  Aimol |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  D |  D
aji |  Ajië |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  D |  D2c
ajz |  Amri Karbi |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  A |  A
akb |  Batak Angkola |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  B?C?D |  B?C?D
ake |  Akawaio-Ingariko |  Cariban |  South America |  A |  A
akh |  Angal Heneng |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  A |  A
akp |  Siwu |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  C |  C
ald |  Alladian |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  A |  A
alj |  Alangan |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  D |  D
aln |  Gheg Albanian |  Indo-European |  Eurasia |  A |  A
alp |  Alune |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  C |  CxA
alq |  Algonquin |  Algic |  North America |  A |  A
alt |  Southern Altai |  Turkic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
aly |  Alyawarr |  Pama-Nyungan |  Australia |  A |  A
alz |  Alur |  Nilotic |  Africa |  C |  CxA
ame |  Yanesha’ |  Arawakan |  South America |  D |  D2a
amf |  Hamer-Banna |  South Omotic |  Africa |  B |  B
amh |  Amharic |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
amk |  Ambai |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  E |  E
amm |  Ama |  Left May |  Papunesia |  B |  B
amn |  Amanab |  Border |  Papunesia |  A |  A
amp |  Alamblak |  Sepik |  Papunesia |  A |  A
amr |  Amarakaeri |  Harakmbut |  South America |  A |  A
amu |  Guerrero Amuzgo |  Otomanguean |  North America |  E |  AxE
amx |  Anmatyerre |  Pama-Nyungan |  Australia |  C |  C
anm |  Anal |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  A |  A
ann |  Obolo |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  C |  CxA
anv |  Denya |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  B |  B
any |  Anyin |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  C |  C
aoi |  Anindilyakwa |  Gunwinyguan |  Australia |  A |  A
aoj |  Mufian |  Nuclear Torricelli |  Papunesia |  C |  C
aom |  Ömie |  Koiarian |  Papunesia |  A?E |  A?E
aon |  Bumbita Arapesh |  Nuclear Torricelli |  Papunesia |  B |  B
aoz |  Uab Meto |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
apb |  Sa’a |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
ape |  Bukiyip |  Nuclear Torricelli |  Papunesia |  B |  B
apn |  Apinayé |  Nuclear-Macro-Je |  South America |  B |  B
apr |  Arop-Lokep |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
apt |  Apatani |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  D |  D
apu |  Apurinã |  Arawakan |  South America |  A |  A
apw |  Western Apache |  Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit |  North America |  A |  A
apy |  Apalaí |  Cariban |  South America |  C |  C
apz |  Safeyoka |  Angan |  Papunesia |  E |  E
arb |  Standard Arabic |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  C |  CxA
are |  Western Arrarnta |  Pama-Nyungan |  Australia |  E |  E
arl |  Arabela |  Zaparoan |  South America |  A |  A
arn |  Mapudungun |  Araucanian |  South America |  B |  B
arp |  Arapaho |  Algic |  North America |  C |  C
ary |  Moroccan Arabic |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
arz |  Egyptian Arabic |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  C |  CxA
asg |  Western-Kambari-Cishingini |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  D |  DxX
aso |  Dano |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  A |  A
ata |  Pele-Ata |  Isolate |  Eurasia |  A |  A
atb |  Zaiwa |  Sino-Tibetan |  Eurasia |  B |  B
atd |  Ata Manobo |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  B |  B
atg |  Ivbie North-Okpela-Arhe |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  C |  C
att |  Pamplona Atta |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  C |  C
auc |  Waorani |  Isolate |  Eurasia |  A |  A
aui |  Anuki |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
auy |  Awiyaana |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  A |  A
ava |  Avar |  Nakh-Daghestanian |  Eurasia |  B |  B
avt |  Au |  Nuclear Torricelli |  Papunesia |  D |  D
avu |  Avokaya |  Central Sudanic |  Africa |  B?C?D |  B?C?D
awa |  Awadhi |  Indo-European |  Eurasia |  A |  A
awb |  Awa |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  A |  A
awi |  Aekyom |  Kamula-Elevala |  Papunesia |  A |  A
ayo |  Ayoreo |  Zamucoan |  South America |  C |  C
ayr |  Central Aymara |  Aymaran |  South America |  B |  B
aze |  South Azerbaijani |  Turkic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
azg |  San Pedro Amuzgos Amuzgo |  Otomanguean |  North America |  B |  B
azz |  Highland Puebla Nahuatl |  Uto-Aztecan |  North America |  A |  A
bak |  Bashkir |  Turkic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
bam |  Bambara |  Mande |  Africa |  A |  A
ban |  Balinese |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  C |  C3
bao |  Waimaha |  Tucanoan |  South America |  A |  A
bar |  Bavarian |  Indo-European |  Eurasia |  C |  C
bav |  Vengo |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  BxC |  BxC
bba |  Baatonum |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  D |  DxX
bbb |  Barai |  Koiarian |  Papunesia |  A |  A
bbc |  Batak Toba |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  A?E |  A?E
bbj |  Ghomálá’ |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  B |  B
bbr |  Girawa |  Nuclear Trans New Guinea |  Papunesia |  A |  A
bcc |  Southern Balochi |  Indo-European |  Eurasia |  E |  ExA
bch |  Bariai |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  D |  D
bci |  Baoulé |  Atlantic-Congo |  Africa |  C |  CxA
bcl |  Coastal-Naga Bikol |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  C |  C
bco |  Kaluli |  Bosavi |  Papunesia |  A |  A
bcw |  Bana |  Afro-Asiatic |  Eurasia |  A |  A
bdd |  Bunama |  Austronesian |  Papunesia |  D |  D
bdh |  Baka |  Central Sudanic |  Africa |  C |  CxA
bea |  Beaver |  Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit |  North America |  C |  C