Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 167–184

Semantic factors in case loss

The Serbian-Bulgarian dialectal continuum

| University of Surrey
| University of Surrey | University of Oxford
| University of Surrey
| University of Surrey
The South Slavic dialect continuum formed by Serbian and Bulgarian provides a fine environment to investigate case loss. Different points on this continuum show varying degrees of case loss: standard Serbian represents a conservative variety with six cases, and standard Bulgarian represents an innovative variety with no nominal case inflection. The continuum between these two extremes shows a transition from larger to smaller case systems. We focus on three functions: instrument, transport, and trajectory, which were originally conveyed by the non-prepositional instrumental, and model what happens to them when the case form is lost. We demonstrate how they lose their original unity and are distributed over different constructions.
Keywords: South Slavic, morphology, dialects, case, instrumental
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Serbian-Bulgarian dialectal continuum
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1Object of study
    • 3.2Sources
  • 4.Meanings of instrumental
    • 4.1Instrument
    • 4.2Transport
    • 4.3Trajectory
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (28)
References
Andrejčin, Ljubomir, Asenova, P., Georgieva, E., Ivanova, K., Nicolova, R., Pašov, P., Părvev, X., Rusinov, R., Stankov, V., Stojanov, S. & Čolakova, K. 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom II. Morfologija [Grammar of modern Bulgarian literary language, vol. II: Morphology]. Sofia: BAN.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Leonid Kulikov. 2009. Case in decline. In Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 470–9. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belić, Aleksandar. 1905. Dijalekti istočne i južne Srbije [Dialects of Eastern and Southern Serbia]. Belgrade: Državna Štamparija Kraljevine Srbije.Google Scholar
Ivić, Milka. 1954. Značenja srpskohrvatskog instrumentala i njihov razvoj [Meanings of the Serbo — Croatian instrumental and their development]. Belgrade: Izdavačko Preduzeće.Google Scholar
. (ed.). 2005. Sintaksa savremenoga srpskog jezika: Prosta rečenica [Syntax of the modern Serbian language: A simple sentence]. Belgrade: Matica srpska.Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 1985. Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika: Uvod i štokavsko narečje [Serbo — Croatian dialectology: Introduction to Shtokavian dialects]. Belgrade: Matica srpska.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 6. 240–88.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian & Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance: A typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In C. Lehmann (ed.), Typological studies in participation, vol. 7, 9–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miloradović, Sofija. 2003. Upotreba padežnih oblika u govoru Paraćinskog Pomoravlja: Balkanistički i etnomigracioni aspekt [The use of case forms in the speech of Paraćinsko Pomoravlje: Balkanistic and ethnomigrational aspect]. Belgrade: Etnografski Institut SANU.Google Scholar
Mirčev, Kiril. 1963. Istoričeska gramatika na bâlgarskija ezik [Historical grammar of Bulgarian]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
Moroz, George. 2017. Lingtypology: easy mapping for linguistic typology. [URL] (19 December, 2022)
Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Varieties of instrumental. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 593–601. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. & Shinya Ito. 2007. Reconstructing semantic maps — The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60. 273–92.Google Scholar
Pârvev, Hristo. 1975. Očerk po istorija na bâlgarskata gramatika [Essay on the history of Bulgarian grammar]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani. 2010. Europe and Caucasus. In C. Moseley, Atlas of the world’s languages in danger, 32–42. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case: semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1974. The principle of concomitance: instrumental, comitative, and collective. Foundations of Language 12(2). 215–47.Google Scholar
Sobolev, Andrey. 1991a. K istoriji utraty balkanskogo sklonenija [On loss of inflection in Balkan Slavic]. Zbornik Matice Srpske za Filologiju i Lingvistiku XXXIV/2. 7–41.Google Scholar
. 1991b. Kategoria padezha na periferii balkanoslavyanskogo areala [Category of case on the periphery of the Balkan Slavic area]. Zbornik Matice Srpske za Filologiju i Lingvistiku XXXIV/1. 93–139.Google Scholar
. 2009. From synthetic to analytic case: variation in South Slavic dialects. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 716–730. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stojkov, Stojan. (ed.). 1975. Bâlgarski dialekten atlas. T. III. Jugozapadna Bâlgaria. Čast 1. Karti. Čast 2. Statii, komentari, pokazalci [Bulgarian Dialectological Atlas. Volume III. South-West Bulgaria. Part 1. Maps. Part 2. Articles, Commentaries, Indices]. Sofia: Bâlgarskata akademija na naukite.Google Scholar
. 1981. Bâlgarski dialekten atlas. T. IV. Severozapadna Bâlgaria. Čast 1. Karti. Čast 2. Statii, komentari, pokazalci [Bulgarian Dialectological Atlas. Volume IV. North — West Bulgaria. Part 1. Maps. Part 2. Articles, Commentaries, Indices]. Sofia: Bâlgarskata akademija na naukite.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1996. Some instruments are really good companions — Some are not. On syncretism and the typology of comitatives and instrumentals. Theoretical Linguistics 23(1/2). 113–200.Google Scholar
. 2001. To be with X is to have X: comitatives, instrumentals, locative, and predicative possession. Linguistics 39(2). 321–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomić, Olga Mišeska. 2006. Balkan sprachbund morpho-syntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuković, Teodora. 2020. Spoken Torlak dialect corpus 1.0 (transcription), Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN.SI. ISSN 2820-4042, [URL]
Wahlström, Max. 2015. The loss of case inflection in Bulgarian and Macedonian. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.