A very important preliminary comment that should be made before discussing the patterns of ordering observed in the present sample and that can diminish the value of the proposed findings is that the data considered in the present section is not fully homogeneous (as it has already been noted it in the introductory part). That means that the conclusion on the `typical' constituent order is often made based on a single example from a grammar or bible translation. As will be shown in what follows, sometimes, the order can be different within a language depending on the lexico-semantic class of a common noun involved. Due to the shortage of available data it was not possible to find out if such variation takes place in all the languages. The information on the type of the context considered is given in the Table 1 in the Appendix 1. In the majority of cases, the order claimed to be `representative' for the constructions with toponyms is the one found with the nouns denoting any place of living (town, city etc.). Otherwise, a special indication is given. For the constructions with personal names of humans, in most of the cases it was possible to find information on more than one type of expression. Moreover, dealing with examples from grammars (which are sometimes taken from natural texts) I could not control for discourse conditions, which is significant as the word order in general and the order of constituents in the constructions of specification is highly dependent on the discourse.

In (Logvinova 2019), I proposed the following observations about the constituent order in appositive constructions of specification:

1. In constructions involving personal names of humans, languages tend to place a common noun before a proper name regardless of other patterns observed in NP constituent ordering.

2. Generally, languages follow the predictions made by G. Cinque's correction to Greenbergian 23rd universal (Cinque 2009), which says that languages with “right branching” within the NP domain (and the clause as the whole) tend to place a common noun before a proper name in an appositive construction, whereas languages with “left branching”, on the contrary, prefer preposition of proper names. That is:

(106) Here and further the abbreviations should be read as follows: [N] stands for a head noun of an NP, [Gen] stands for a genitive dependent in an NP; [C] is for a common noun and [P] is for proper name. V indicates verb and O -- its direct object. Combinations of these designations indicate the order of the parts in a possessive or appositive phrase and clause as a whole.

Only 10 languages in the sample are characterized as having `strict' The characteristic `strict' does not imply that the inversion is impossible in these languages in different discourse conditions. It only means, that there is no other information on the basic order. PC order in appositions with personal names of humans (Aymara, Chinantec, Hungarian, Kanuri, Koasati, Korean, Lezgian, Mundari, Warrongo, Yoruba). In fact, for some of them it is not possible to check if the order can be reversed with the other lexical types of common nouns, and the conclusion is made based on a single example only (the list of languages using the preposition of proper name can be seen in the Appendix 1). It can be said for sure, that among the `rigid' languages are Hungarian and Korean, which, place a common noun after a proper name regardless of the lexicosemantic type of that noun:

(107) Hungarian (< Ugric < Ugric, KonText, glosses are mine)

a. Dvubratszkij költõn-ek

Dvubratszkij poet-dat

`to the poet Dvubratszkij'

b. Sztravinszkij professzor

Sztravinszkij professor

`professor Sztravinszkij'

c. Dolcino testvér-rõl

Dolc?ino brother-del

`about the brother Dolc?ino'

d. Párthén barát-om

Parphen friend-1sg.poss

`my friend Parphen'

(108) Korean (koTenTen18 (SE), A. Pukhovskaia, personal communication)

a. ÅÒ ³²µ¿»ý

teom namdongsaeng

Tom my;tounger;brother

`my younger brother Tom'

b. ¹Ú±ÙÇý ´ëÅë·ÉÀÌ^(>17000) The number in brackets show the number of matches in the corpus.

bag geun hye daetonglyeong

Park Geun-hye president

`the president Park Geun-hye'

As had been already discussed in (Logvinova 2019), most of the languages allowing preposition of proper name in some cases, opt for postposition in others. For example, in Basque, CP is normally used with religious titles and kinship terms, although in other types of expressions the PC (proper--common) order is the basic one:

(109) Basque (BasqueWaC v2 (SE), the glosses are mine)

a. Larran?aga ida?le-a

Larran?aga writer-erg

`the writer Larran?aga'

b. osaba Andoni `uncle Tony'

Almost the same distinction is observed in Armenian, with the only difference being that CP order is also preferred with nouns naming titles equivalent to `mister' and `miss' in Armenian. In some languages (Ket, Mongolian, Lezgain, Chuvash and Ingush), putting a common noun before a proper name is believed to be a feature of a `new language', acquired due to contact with Russian (for a more detailed discussion see (Logvinova 2019)). Regarding all the other languages in the sample, for which it is specified that only the CP order is possible in constructions with animate referents, it is important to keep in mind that for the big part of them this order is one that appears in constructions like `a_kinship_term X' and `prophet Isaiah', as exactly for this type of expressions it was possible to find any examples in existing grammars or retrieve them from the Bible translation. It is a question of data accessibility to find out if those languages in fact show any variation of the sort discussed above.

The clear preference to the preposition of a common noun which is found in constructions with proper names of humans, is not observed in the constructions of specification with toponyms. A I wrote it in (Logvinova 2019), in a number of languages one can observe the contrast in the order of constituents between these types of expressions. The examples from Lak (108), Haida (109), Ingush (110), Yine (111) and Yukaghir (112) below illustrate exactly this phenomenon:

(110) Lak (< Lak-Dargwa < Nakh-Daghestanian, (Kakvaeva 2010: 52-53], glosses are mine)

a. ÷Iàõõóùàð Àüèøàò

neighbor Ajs?at

`neighbor Ajs?at'

b. ÒöàðöI ìóðëó

Pole rock

`the Pole rock'

(111) Haida (< Haida < Haida, (Enrico 2003: 297), Bible in Haida, glosses are mine in case of the example

from the Bible translation)

a. daaraay quhlk'ii, dang-gi hill giidaa-ra-gan

brother name you-to I give.food-leave.to-pa

`Brother Quhlk'ii, I came to give you food'.

b. Prophetgas Isaiah

`prophet Isaiah'

c. Nazareth ilnaga-i

Nazareth city-art

`the city of Nazareth'

(112) Ingush (< Nakh < Nakh-Dagestanian, Ì. Dahkilgova, À. Merz?oeva, personal communication,

glosses are mine)

a. ÑîâãIàò âåøèéí-à Àëåêñàíäð-à

present brother.obl-dat Alexander-dat

`the present to my brother Alexander'

b. ã1àëà Ìîñêâà-õ âà ñî

city Moscow-loc be.prs.1sg I

`I live in the city of Moscow'.

(113) Yine (Southern Maipuran < Arawakan, (Hanson 2010: 185, 241))

a. wane n-heta-ya-tka-l? no-t?r? Hawye

there/thus 1sg-see-appl-pfv-3sgm 1sgPssr-son.of name

`There I saw my son Javier'.

b. hewi-ko n-hapoka-n?-tnaka [wa Dianante pokt?i

here-emph 1sg-arrive-antic-reit ref name village

`I will return right here again (to) Diamante village'.

(114) Yukaghir ((Krejnovic? 1958: 125), L. Kurilova, glosses are mine)

a. íèìýëýñèè÷ý Ïóøêèí-?èíü

writer Pus?kin-dat

`to the writer Pus?kin'

b. Ëóãà ãîðîò-qa

Luga city-loc

`in the city of Luga'

For the languages in the sample it is true that if in apposition with a toponym the order of constituents is CP, the same order is found in constructions with proper names of humans. That is:

(115) CP_[toponym] ? CP_{[personal_name]}

The only possible exception case is represented by Central Yup'ik. Although the order of a toponym and a generic term is PC, according to the Bible translation to Yup'ik, both the orders CP and PC are attested:

(116) Central Yup'ik (< Eskimo < Eskimo-Aleut, Bible in Yup'ik, glosses are mine)

a. Isaiah-kun prophetaa-kun Glosses are made with the reference to (Miyaoka 2012).

Isaiah-prl prophet-prl

`by prophet Isaiah'

b. angutngunra Lazarus-aaq

man-be-vnnm-abs.3sg.sg. Lazar-lnk.abs.sg.

`(her) older brother Lazar'

Regarding the examples in (114), it appears that the PC order in (114)a is probably idiomatic in nature, as it is, for example, in Russian (normally CP): Nikolaj ugodnik `Saint Nicholas', lit. `Nicholas the pleaser (of God)'. Other languages allowing CP/PC variation in constructions with animate referents all show the PC order in constructions with toponyms. This contrast is not so easy to explain and the reasons can be different in each case.

The observed contrast between personal names and toponyms s not easy to explain. What definitely distinguishes construction with personal names from those with toponyms is the fact that they are used in vocative contexts. Not accidentally, the CP order in Basque and Armenian appears in the “most vocative” contexts of all. Another possible explanation can be that 66 languages in the present sample use juxtapositive strategy The reason why languages using attributive strategy are not counted here is that the order of constituents in constructions of specification in these languages is the same as in possessive constructions and is fully predicted by it. to code the relationships of specification in constructions with toponyms. 31 of these languages generally place verbs after their direct objects (SOV S -- subject, V -- verb, O -- direct object., OVS orders in the current sample). As can be seen from the Table 11, in the verb-final languages the postposition of a proper name is clearly the preferred option. Moreover, the distribution of numbers in the Table 11 confirms that there is a correlation between the order of constituents in a genitival phrase and the relative order of common and proper nouns in apposition, namely, in languages with a preposition of a genitival modifier, proper names tend to come before common noun as well. In contrast, the relative order of the head and an adjectival modifier is not a good predictive feature. The parameter of relative ordering of a head and its adjectival modifier did not show to be relevant.

Table 12

The relative order of a common noun and a proper name in OV (SOV, OVS) languages in correlation to the order of other modifiers in NP The abbreviation [n/d] is used if the arrangement is free (no dominant).

	CP	PC	CP/PC
GenN	4	23	1
NGen	1	1
n/d		1
Total in column	5	25	1
Total			31

The data on the languages with verbs preceding their direct objects is not so consistent, but the general trend is to place a common noun before a proper name (exactly as it is predicted by the correction to the Grinbergerian universal). Most of the cases (3/4) of the reverse order (a common noun following a proper name) are found in languages with a head noun following its genitival modifier.



Table 13

The relative order of a common noun and a proper name in VO languages (SVO, VOS, VSO) in correlation to the order of other modifiers in NP

	CP	PC	CP/PC
GenN	4	6
NGen	7	1	1
AN & n/d	1
NA & n/d	1
Total in column	13	7	1
Total			21

The data on the languages showing no dominant order of constituents in the clause and on those languages for which the relative order of a verb and a direct object is unknown (VS and SV in WALS) is presented in the Table 14.

Table 14

The relative order of a common noun and a proper name in languages with no dominant order in the clause and languages for which the relative order of verb and its object is unknown (VS/SV) in correlation to order of other modifiers in NP

	CP	PC	CP/PC
GenN	4	5
NGen	1		1
n/d	3
Total in column	8	5	1
			14

As can be seen from the table above, the PC order is again only found in the languages of the sample with the genitival modifier in preposition to its nominal head. The preferred option in this group is CP.

The data considered in the tables above with a few exceptions For the languages Akuntsu, Ese Ejja, Northwest Sahaptin, Tariana and Tiriyo it was not possible to obtain any data on how constructions of specifications with city names are coded in them. Instead the information on the relative order in constructions with the manes of rivers and mountains is considered. represents the relative order of a common noun and a proper name in constructions of specification with a generic noun naming a type of a living place (town, city, village, campus, etc.). Languages can be consistent in using the same order in different constructions. For example, Romanian and Greek use CP order in constructions referring to cities as well as in constructions naming rivers and mountains. Basque and Hungarian exploit PC in all of these contexts. However, in some languages, the order of constituents can be different with different types of common nouns. Exactly that is observed in Abkhaz (115), where the PC order found elsewhere, changes to CP in constructions referring to rivers and in Urarina (116), where even more contrast can be observed:

(117) Abkhaz (Northwest Caucasian < Northwest Caucasian, E. Avtunic?, personal communication, glosses are mine)

a. Ãàãðà à-?àëà?ü

Gagra art-city

`the city of Gagra'

b. à-?èàñ Ê?ûäðè

art-river Kodor

`the Kodor river'

(118) Urarina (< Urarina < Urarina (Olawsky 2006: 165-169, 345-347))

a. lejhii nese betafwahee

one town pln

`one town Bethphage'

b. n?k?e taba-j e?frate a?ania

river be.big-nom_subj pln edge

`at the edge of the big river Euphrates' (preposition of a common noun)

c. egipto b-atane

pln ascm-lang

`the land of Egypt'

d. sinai b-it?atane-?

pln ascm-mountain-loc

`at mountain Sinai'

e. taba-i nauta nese

be.big-neg:3ps/a pln town

`The town of Nauta is not big'. (postposition of a common noun)

Unfortunately, in most cases it is impossible to find any data on the order of constituents in different types of expressions. For that reason, almost no typological comparison can be made. As was already mentioned in (Logvinova 2019) in some languages, like in Bargimi the order of constituents in appositional phrases is absolutely free (Hepner 2006: 94)

(119) Bargimi (< Madang < Trans-New Guinea, (Hepner ibidem))

a. Mataw uli? Mudoy-ab ti-leh-01-iy

people village Mudoj-dat pft-go-pa-n1p

`The people went to Mudoj village'.

b. Kaul te? ni Karkar nud-ib leh-e?...

Kaul conj you Karkar village-dat go-spir

`Kaul, you will go to the Karkar village and...'

5.1 Conclusions

The conclusions of this section are the following:

1. In appositive constructions with personal names of humans languages tend to place a common noun before a proper name.

2. In all the languages having CP order in the appositive constructions with toponyms the order in the constructions with the personal names of humans is also CP.

3. The relative positioning of the common noun and the proper noun in appositions with toponyms generally agrees with the adjusted formulation of the 23rd J. Greenberg universal (Greenberg 1966: 89-90, 112; Cinque 2009): in languages with the head-initial position, common nouns tend to be prepossessed in appositional phrase, while in languages the head-final position, common nouns usually follow proper names.



6. A sketch on definiteness in appositive constructions

Proper nouns are widely believed to be definite by default since their referents usually have high accessibility in discourse (Chafe 1972: 57). That is why most linguists working on apposition in English agree that the feature of definiteness is inherited by appositional construction from proper names they contain (although some counter examples from a text corpus are introduced in (Kaizer 2005) and analyzed in more detail in (Kojadinoviæ 2018)). However, this assumption is not universal. The explicit requirement for a definite article in appositive constructions of specification is found at least in grammars of, Armenian (118), Icelandic (119) and Arabic (al_DEF-imbiraatuur qustantiin `the emperor Constantine' (Ryding 2005: 242)):

(120) Armenian (< Armenian < Indo-European, (Dum-Tragut 2009: 111))

Nrank' gnal-u en Moskva k'a?ak'-e?

they.nom go-ptcp.fut are Moscow.nom town.nom-the

`They will go to the town of Moscow'.

What is interesting about Icelandic, is that close appositions exploit the free-standing article, which is not natural anywhere else and apart from apposition only occurs in poetry (Thráinsson 2007: 49):

(121) Icelandic (< Germanic < Indo-European, (Thráinsson 2007: 49), glosses are modified):

a. rauði hestur-inn

red horse-def

`the red horse'

b. hinn pekkti leiakri Clin Eastwood

def famous actor Clin Eastwood

`the famous actor Clin Eastwood'

Judging from the corpus, definite marking in appositive construction is also preferable in Albanian (president-i_def Ibrahim Rugova (16) In brackets, the number of corresponding form in the corpus is given. / ⁽*⁾president Ibrahim Rugova (0), Sketch Engine/OPUS2 Albanian) and Romanian (presedinte-le_def Plevneliev (14)/ ^(*) presedinte Plevneliev (0), ora?u-lui_def.art Dublin `to the city of Dublin', Sketch Engine/roTenTen16; profesor-ul<sub>det</sub> Ionescu `professor Ionescu', inginer-ul_det Radu `engineer Radu'( Stoianova 1993: 104-107)). Note that according to (Stoianova 1993: 104-107) the placement of the definite marker on a common noun in Romanian signals that it is the head of a construction, but no independent evidence for that is provided. In contrast to Icelandic, Armenian, Albanian and Romanian, definite marking in apposition does not appear in Hungarian: (*a<sub>def</sub>) Csoóri Sándor költõ `the poet Csoóri Sándor'. In Supyire (< Gur < Niger-Congo) definite marking of nouns, which is obligatory in any other argument position, is absent when a common noun is in the construction of specification (Carlson 1990: 352).

According to (Stojanov 1977: 235-240), Bulgarian common nouns in apposition are normally not marked for definiteness (akademik(-at_def) V. V Vinogradov `the academician V. V. Vinogradov'), but when they are (the conditions are not discussed), they should be considered as heads of the constructions, while the common noun is a modifier: poruc?ik-at<sub>def</sub> Sokolov. On a separate note, Stoianova in (Stoianova 1993) mentions the following contrast: kinship terms and titles in apposition never get the definite marking, while nouns denoting profession or nationality always do: proffesor Penev `the professor Penev', but inginer-at_DEF Kanev `the engineer Kanev'. Things become even more complex with articulation in appositive constructions with toponyms. Stojanov (Stojanov 1977: 144-145) indicates that common nouns in preposition to toponyms generally lack the definite article. He gives the following examples: grad-? Sofija `the city of Sophia' reka-? Marica `the ricer Maritsa'; but at the same time: pustynja-ta<sub>def</sub> Gobi `the Gobi desert', vzero-to_def Van `the lake Van'. S. Stojanov does not make any comments on how these articulated forms are distributed, but mentions that in some cases articulation is obligatory: zvezda-ta Orion `the Orion star', planeta-ta Venera `the planet Venus', pustinja-ta Saxara `the Sahara desert', ezero-to Bajkal `the lake Baikal', plato-to Pamir `the Pamir Plato'. From the given examples it remains unclear, what determines marking or its absence. The most recent work on the Bulgarian definiteness (Mladenova 2007) gives no special attention to this question. But it seems possible to observe at least some patterns based on the corpus data. Thus, the distribution of the definite article in appositive constructions in Bulgarian is clearly dependent on the lexico-semantic category of a common noun itself. As the Table 14 below shows, certain categories of nouns are prone to show articulation in appositive constructions, while others are not.

Table 15

Articulated and non-articulated appositions in Bulgarian The data is from bgTenTen12 corpus (Sketch Engine). URL:

https://app.sketchengine.eu/#dashboard?corpname=preloaded%2Fbgtenten12_tt2

Common noun in apposition	Non-articulated /articulated forms Before slash comes the number of non-articulated forms and after the slash, the number case with the article.	% of articulated forms	Total number of non- articulated / articulated forms in the corpus	% of articulated forms in total
ãðàä `city'	>76*103/ 146	0	186679/ 13404	7
îñòðîâ `island'	13*103/ 39	0,03	236173/ 1165	0
ðåêà `river'	>21*103/345	1,5	33955/ 15384	31
ÿçîâèð `lake'	1848/ 13	1,5	8213/ 449	5
ñåëî `village'	>57*103/ 2000	3	100773/ 36759	27
ïëàíåòà `planet'	703/ 2050	74	12834/ 21797	63
ïëàíèíà `mountain'	988 / 2883	74	19827/ 18098	48
ñúçâåçäèå `constellation'	156/ 659	81	807/ 926	53

From the Table 14 it can be seen that there is a clear difference between the use of article in appositions with common nouns ãðàä `city', îñòðîâ `island', ðåêà `river', ÿçîâèð `lake', ñåëî `village', from the one hand, and ïëàíåòà `planet', ïëàíèíà `mountain', ñúçâåçäèå `constellation' -- from the other, with the later group showing significantly more cases with articulation. The observed discrepancy could be partially attributed to the difference observed between the nouns even beyond the appositive contexts, since the percentage of articulated forms in the whole corpus is as well significantly lower in the first group than in the second. However, although the difference between the nouns ðåêà `river' and ïëàíèíà `mountain' is generally not that big (31 and 48 percent of articulated forms respectively), they behave very differently when placed in an appositional construction (1,5% against 74% respectively). The homogeneity (at least syntactical) of the external context is also ensured in that case, as the majority of examples in both cases are found in the position after a preposition. This contrast is not fully clear, but for some reason it is similar to the contrast observed between common nouns allowing more or less agreement of a proper name, observed in the Section 4.3.

Macedonian is very closely related to Bulgarian and is the second of the two Slavic languages having articles. The situation with articulation in Macedonian appositional constructions is similar to what is found in Bulgarian but is different is some aspects. According to (Usikova 2003: 138-139), (almost) exactly as in Bulgarian, titles followed by proper names generally do not receive definite marking, while nouns denoting profession or “qualification” are always marked. What is interesting, that the same nouns are sometimes classified differently in Bulgarian and Macedonian. For example, the noun for engineer in Bulgarian appositions is said to generally receive articulation, but in Macedonian it is classified as usually unmarked. The fact that both Bulgarian and Macedonian do not mark appositions with kinship terms and other nouns denoting “permanent” status, is revealing because it shows that expressions like that are not considered to constitute what is called DP D(eterminer)P(hrase) is the highest projection in the nominal domain (usually including an article), as postulated in generative grammar (Abney 1987; Szabolcsi 1981, 1983, 1987). Nominal phrases lacking DP layer are believed to have more restricted distribution than those having it. level in the generative grammar, i.e. are `smaller' than a standard nominal phrase in theset languages. Regarding the constructions with toponyms, Usikova (ibidem) mentions, that a common noun can be either articulated or not: grad(ot) Oxrid `the city of Ohrid', selo(to) Kosel `the Kosel village'. On contrast to Bulgarian, in Macedonian appositions a common noun is generally marked for definiteness. The (only) Only the presented list of contexts is considered. Of course, there can be variation in other types of expressions. exception is the noun ãðàä `city', which only reveals articulation in about one third of the cases considered.

Table 16

Articulation in Macedonian

Common noun in apposition	Non-articulated /articulated forms Before slash comes the number of non-articulated forms and after the slash, the number case with the article.	% of articulated forms	Total number of non- articulated / articulated forms in the corpus	% of articulated forms in total
ãðàä `city'	6466/ 2505	30	16809/ 7596	31
ðåêà `river'	115/ 2227	95	460/ 3022	86
ïëàíèíà `mountain'	54/ 1052	95	328/ 1248	79
åçåðî `lake'	16/ 40	71	208 /353	62
ñåëî `village'	541/ 1939	78	1886/ 2661	58
ïëàíåòà `planet'	4/ 21	84	186/ 134	41

Any more comprehensive analysis of the variation observed in Bulgarian and Macedonian evidently requires more attention to the conditions for definiteness marking in these languages in general. What this data shows is that definiteness is not a universal feature of apposition and, what is more, essential that appositions are not the same even within one language and represent more variation than is commonly assumed.

In contrast, when a common noun is followed by a coordinated phrase, it is always articulated: profesori*(-te_def) Popov i Xristov `the professors Popov and Xristov'.

Another possible field variability in definiteness marking in appositive phrases is pointed out by Plank (2003: 241). He notes that languages, marking definiteness on proper names can either shed (as English: the Thames vs. the river (*the) Thames) or preserve definite marking in appositive constructions. Plank gives an example of double articulation from Greek, similar to the one provided in (120) and claims that Greek-like pattern is not common across European languages.

(122) Greek (< Indo-European, (Holton 1972: 441))

Åóåßò ïé Üëë-ïé åßäáôå ôç ößë-ç

2pl art different-nom.pl see.aor.2pl art.acc friend-acc

ìïõ ôçí Káßôç

my.acc art-acc Kate

`Have you seen my friend Kate?'

I did not come across any other languages of the Greek pattern in the present sample.



7. Conclusions

A major conclusion of the present work as a whole is that although constructions of specification are quite similar across languages, they represent much more variation than is commonly believed and certainly deserve more attention, as the facts presented by apposition can give more insights about the architecture of the nominal domain in the languages of the world. The biggest obstacle that I faced while working with appositions was scarcity or almost complete absence of descriptions of these constructions in the existing grammars.

The results of this work are the following:

1. Nominal juxtaposition was the most frequent strategy exploit in the languages of the world to express the meaning of specification. It is found in 90 out of 95 languages of the sample and is the only possible strategy in 65 languages.

2. The second most common strategy was attributive. In languages using attributive strategy one of the members of construction of specification is structurally identical to other (substantival) adnominal modifiers. The key properties of attributive strategy are the following:

a. Attributive strategy is a clearly areal phenomenon, as it only appears in Africa and Western Eurasia;

b. Attributive strategy is in competition with juxtaposition and sometimes gets replaced with it both on the synchronic and diachronic level.

c. Attributive strategy comes in two types:

I. Attributivization process is similar to the one found in possessive constructions.

Constructions of this type are predominant (25). They have the following properties:

- attributivization is only found in constructions of specification with toponyms and other types of proper nouns different from personal names of humans. The sole exception is found with title-terms in Latvian and Persian;

- the constituent that gets the distribution of a modifier is always a proper name, while a common noun has a role of a syntactic head. I argue that this fact suggests that common nouns are heads in the constructions of specification cross-linguistically;

II. Attributivization process is different from one found in expressions of possession.

Constructions of this type are less common (3 (Georgian, Basque, Kannada) in the sample and 1 considered additionally -- Adyghe). In 3 out of 4 cases constructions of specification in these languages:

- presumably find no restriction on distribution;

- designate the head role to the proper name rather than to common noun.

3. The other observed strategies are much less common and represented by the following list:

1) relativization (Movima, Japanese);

2) representative markers (Niuean);

3) special markers of apposition (Urarina);

and, presumably,

4) non-verbal predication (Ma'di).

4. The distribution of the case markers in appositive phrases clearly indicates that the languages treat appositions as a single NP rather than juxtaposed NPs. In addition, impossibility to add any other modifiers inside the phrase, observed in some languages, indicates that appositions can be in fact “smaller” that the typical NPs.

5. Case agreement between the members of apposition is the field of great variation and is subject to different factors. Nevertheless, in the present work it was shown that, at least in Slavic, the factor that influenced the agreement the most was frequency.

6. In the ordering of constituents in appositive constructions languages generally a guided by the following principles:

a. in constructions with personal names of humans the clear tendency is to place a common noun linearly before a proper name;

b. in constructions with toponyms the relative order of a common noun and a proper name is to a large extent predicted by the ordering of a genitival modifier and nominal head.

7. Languages explicitly marking definiteness may either require a definite article to be present in appositive construction or not. In some cases, observed at least in Bulgarian and Macedonian, this is a matter of variation.



References

1. Acuña-Fariña 1999 -- Acuña-Fariña, J. C. On apposition. English Language and Linguistics, 1999, 3, 1: 59-81.

2. Acuña-Fariña 2009 -- Acuña-Fariña, J. C. Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase. English Language and Linguistics, 2009, 13, 3: 453-481.

3. Acuña-Fariña 2016 -- Acuña-Fariña, J. C. The grammars of close apposition. Journal of English Linguistics, 2016, 44, 1: 61-83.

4. Aikhenvald 2003 -- Aikhenvald A. Y. A grammar of Tariana, from northwest Amazonia. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

5. Aikhenvald, Dixon 2013 -- Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R. M. W. Possession and ownership. A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

6. Ajiboye 2005 -- Ajiboye O. J. Topics on YaruÌbaì nominal expressions. A Thesis submitted on the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of the doctor of philosophy. The University of British Columbia, 2005.

7. Apres'an 2010 -- Apres'an, J. D. Theoreticheskie problemy russkogo sintaksisa: vzaimodejstvie grammatiki i slovar'a. Moskva: Jazyki slav'anskikh kul'tur, 2010.

8. Aragon 2004 -- Aragon C. C. A grammar of Akuntsú, a Tupían language. A dissertation submitted to the graduate division of the University of Hawai`i at Mânoa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy in linguistics. Mânoa, 2004.

9. Arakin 1973 -- Arakin, V. D. Samoanskij jazyk. Ìoscow: Nauka, 1973.

10. Aronson 1991 -- Aronson, H. I. Modern Georgian. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Volume 1. The Kartvelian languages. A. C. Harris (ed.), 1991, 221-269.

11. Ashton et al. 1954 -- Ashton E. O., Mulira E. M. K., Ndawula E. G. M., Tucker A. M. A Luganda grammar. London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green and CO, 1954.

12. Ašmarin 1903 -- Ašmarin, N. I. Opyt issledovanija èuvašskogo sintaksisa. Kazan: Tipolipografija V. M. Kljuènikova, 1903.

13. Auzina 2013 -- Auzina, I. et. al. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Riga: LU Latvies?u valodas institu?ts, 2013.

14. Awobuluyi 2005 -- Awobuluyi, O?. On the syntax and semantics of the noun ti in Yoruba. Africa and its Diaspora Languages, Literature and Culture. Orie, O. O., Oyetade, A., Sheba, L. (ed.). Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 2019.

15. Bartnika et al. 2004 -- Bartnicka, B., Hansen B., Klemm W., Lehman V., Satkiewicz H. Grammatik des Polnischen. München: Otto Sanger, 2004.

16. Bechhaus-Gerst 2011 -- Bechhaus-Gerst M. The (Hi)story of Nubiin. 1000 years of language change. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peterlang, 2011.

17. Belaj 2014 -- Belaj, B. Nekoliko napomena o odnosu glave i modifikatora u nekim tipovima Hrvatske apozicijske sintagme [Some notes on the head-modifier relation in certain types of apposition in Croatian]. Sarajevski filološki susreti: zbornik radova, 2014110-128.

18. Bell 2015 -- Bell, H. Nobíin Nubian Toponyms. Nubia: Area of the Nobíin Nubian language tentative results as of 1 March 2015 by Prof Herman Bell. From the Language Archive, URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2196/00-0000-0000-0012-B928-A@view.

19. Berg-Olsen 2004 -- Berg-Olsen, S. The Latvian dative and genitive: a cognitive grammar account. Oslo: University of Oslo, 2004.

20. Bernadett 2007 -- Bernadett, S. Mi fán terem a szoros értelmezõ? Tanulmányok Kenesei István 70. születésnapjára. P. 160-180.

21. Blackings, Fabb 2003 -- Blackings M., Fabb N. A Grammar of Ma'di. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.

22. Biryla, S?uba 1986 -- Biryla M. V., S?uba P. P. Belaruskaja gramatyka. U 2-x c?. C?. 2. Sintaksis. Minsk: Navuka i texnika, 1986.

23. Bowen 1858 -- Bowen, R. T. G. Grammar and dictionary of the Yoruba Language with an introductory description of the country and people of Yoruba. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1858.

24. Bowen 1997 -- Bowen, J. Taba (Makian Dalam). Description of an Austronesian language from Eastern Indonesia. University of Melburn, 1997.

25. Brill 1852 -- Brill, W. G. Nederlandsche spraakleer. Leer van den Volzin (Syntaxis). Leiden: Brill, 1852.

26. Broadwell 2006 -- Broadwell, G. A. A Choctaw reference grammar. Bloomington: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

27. Bruce 1984 -- Bruce, L. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). Canberra: The Australian National University, 1984.

28. Burt 1910 -- Burt, F. Swahili grammar and vocabulary. London: Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1910.

29. Burton-Roberts 1975 -- Burton-Roberts, N. Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language,13, 1975. P. 391-419.

30. Butt 2006 -- Butt, M. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

31. Byrila, S??uba 1986 -- Byrila, M. V., S??uba P. P. Belarusskaja gramatyka: u 2-x c?. C?. 2. Sintaksis. Minsk: Navuka i texnika, 1986.

32. Carlier, Verstraete 2013 -- Carlier, A. Verstraete J. C. The Genitive. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2013.

33. Carlson 1990 -- Carlson, R. J. A grammar of Supyire: Kampwo dialect. A dissertation presented to the Department of Linguistics and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1990.

34. Chirikba 2003 -- Chirikba, V. A. Abkhaz. München: Lincom Europa, 2003.

35. Clair-Tisdall 1902 -- Clair-Tisdall, M. A. Modern Persian conversational grammar. London, New York, 1902.

36. Cook 1965 -- Cook, W. A. A descriptive analysis of Mundari. Washington, Georgetown University, 1965.

37. Crystal 1997 -- Crystal, D. 1997. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

38. Curme 1931 -- Curme, G. O. A Grammar of the English language III. New York, London: D.C. Heath & Co., 1931.

39. da Silva 2013 -- da Silva, G. B. Morfossintaxe da língua Paresi-Haliti (Arawak). Rio de Janeiro, 2013.

40. David 2014 -- David, A. B. Descriptive grammar of Pashto and its dialects. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2014.

41. de Jong Boudreault 2009 -- de Jong Boudreault L. J. A Grammar of Sierra Popoluca (Soteapanec, a Mixe-Zoquean Language). Dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in partial ful?llment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. The University of Texas at Austin, 2009.

42. de Rijk 2008 -- de Rijk, R. P. G. Standard Basque. A progressive grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2008.

43. Dehé 2014 -- Dehé, N. Parentheticals in spoken English: The syntax-prosody relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

44. Dench 1987 -- Dench, A. C. Martuthunira a language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Canberra: The Australian National University, 1987.

45. Diagne 1971 -- Diagne P. Grammaire de Wolof moderne. Paris, 1971.

46. Dikken, Singhapreecha 2004 -- Dikken, M., Pornsiri, S. Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax, 2004, 7: 1-54.

47. Dindelegan, Maiden 2016 --Dindelegan, G. P., Maiden, M. The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford University Press, 2016.

48. Dixon 2010 -- Dixon, R. M. A grammar of Yidin. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2010.

49. Dobrovie-Sorin, Giurgea 2013 -- Dobrovie-Sorin, C., Giurgea I. Reference grammar of Romanian. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2013.

50. Donohue 1999 -- Donohue M. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.

51. Donohue 1999 -- Donohue, M. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.

52. Dorvlo 2008 -- Dorvlo K. A Grammar of Logba (Ikpana). Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden. Leiden, 2008.

53. Doyle 2001 -- Doyle, I. Irish. München: Lincom Europa, 2001.

54. Dryer 2006 -- Dryer, M. S. Noun Phrase Structure. Language typology and syntactic description. Second edition. Volume II: Complex Constructions. T. Shopen (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 151-205.

55. Dryer 2013 --Dryer, M. S. Position of Case Affixes. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. In: Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/51, Accessed on 2020-05-25.)

56. Duden -- Duden 04. Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch: Band 4 (Duden-Deutsche Sprache in 12 Bänden). Kunkel-Razum, K., Münzberg, F. Manheim, Wein, Zürich: Dudenverlag: 2009.

57. Dum-Tragut 2009 -- Dum-Tragut, J. Armenian. Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2009.

58. Dürr 2003 -- Dürr, M. Morphologie, Syntax und Textstrukturen des (Maya-)Quiche des Popol Vuh. Linguistische Beschreibung eines kolonialzeitlichen Dokuments aus dem Hochland von Guatemal. Durchgesehene und korrigierte elektronische Neuausgabe, 2003. First published in hard-cover in 1987.

59. Dvornjakov 1960 -- Dvornjakov, N. À. Jazyk puštu. Ìoskva: Izdatelstvo vostoènoj literatury, 1960.

60. Edmonson 1988 -- Edmonson, B. W. A descriptive grammar of Suastec (Potosino dialect). A dissertation submitted to the department of anthropology of the graduate school of Tulane university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. Tulane University, 1988.

61. Ejtrejn 1982 -- Ejtrejn, G. I. Albanskij jazyk. Leningrad: Izdatel?stvo Leningradskogo universiteta, 1982.

62. Enriko 2003 -- Enriko, J. Haida syntax. Volume 1. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press, 2003.

63. Evans 1995 -- Evans, N. A grammar of Kayardild. Part I. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995.

64. Everett, Kern 2006 -- Everett, D. L., Kern B. Wari'. The Pacaas Novos Language of Western Brazil. London, New York: Routledge, 2006.

65. Foris 1993 -- Foris, D. P. The grammar of Sochiapan Chinantec. A thesis submited in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in University of Auckland, 1993.

66. Golub 2016 -- Golub, I. B. Stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Ajris-press, 2016.

67. Graczyk 2007 -- Graczyk, R. A grammar of Crow. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press, 2007.

68. Graudina et al. 1976 -- Graudina L. K., Ickovic?, V. A., Katlinskaja, L. P. Grammatic?eskaja pravil'nost' russkoj rec?i. Opyt stilistic?eskogo slovarja variantov. Moskva: Nauka, 1976.

69. Grašèenkov 2007 -- Grašèenkov, P. V. Tipologija posessivnyx konstrukcij. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 3, 2007: 25-54.

70. Grienvald 2000 -- Grienvald, C. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. Systems of nominal classification. Senft, G. (ed.), 2000, 50-92.

71. Guru 1962 -- Guru, K. Grammatika jazyka xindi. C?ast' II. Moscow.: Izdatel'stvo nacional'noj literatury, 1962.

72. Hagman 1973 -- Hagman, R. S. Nama Hottentot grammar. New York: Columbia University, 1973.

73. Hams 1994 -- Hams, P. Epena Pedee Syntax. Arlington: The University of Texas at Arlington, 1994.

74. Hanson 2010 -- Hanson, R. A grammar of Yine (Piro). A thesis submitted in total ful?llment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Trobe University, 2010.

75. Haspelmath 1993 -- Haspelmath, M. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993.

76. Haude 2006 -- Haude. K. A grammar of Movima. Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen <...>. Zetten: Drukkerij Manta, 2006.

77. Haugen 1953 -- Haugen, E. On resolving the close apposition. American Speech, 1953, 28: 165-170.

78. Hepner 2006 -- Hepner, B. Grammar sketch. Manuscript version, 2006.

79. Heringa 2012 -- Heringa, H. Appositional constructions. Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Letteren aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2012.

80. Hockett 1955 -- Hockett, C. F. Attribution and apposition in English. American Speech, 1955, 30: 99-102.

81. Hoskison 1983 -- Hoskison, J. T. A grammar and dictionary of Gude language. Dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree doctor of philosophy in the Graduate school of The Ohio State University. The Ohio State University, 1983.

82. Hualde, de Urbina 2003 -- Hualde, J. I., Ortiz de Urbina, J. A grammar of Basque. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gryter, 2003.

83. Hutchison 1976 -- Hutchison, J. P. Aspects of Kanuri Syntax. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, 1976.

84. Jaggar 2001 -- Jaggar, P. H. Hausa. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001.

85. Jakovlev, As?xamaf 1941 -- Jakovlev, N., As?xamaf, D. Grammatika adygejskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1941.

86. Janhunen 2012 -- Janhunen, J. A. Mongolian. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 2010.

87. Jansen 2010 -- Jansen, J. W. A grammar of Yakima Ichishkiin /Sahaptin. A dissertation presented to the department of linguistics and the graduate school of the University of Oregon. Oregon, 2010.

88. Jensen 1969 -- Jensen, H. Grammatik der Kanaresischen Schriftsprache. Leipzig, 1969.

89. Jesús, Álvarez 2011 -- Jesús J., Álvarez V. A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Dissertation presented to the faculty of the graduate school of The University of Texas at Austin. Austin, 2011.

90. Kakvaeva 2010 -- Kakvaeva, S. B. Substantivnye soc?etanija v lakskom i russkom jazykax. Maxachkala: Dagestanskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogic?eskij universitet, 2010

91. Kamoga, Stevick 1968 -- Kamoga, F. K., Stevick E. W. Luganda. Basic course. Washington, D. C.: Foreign service institute, 1968.

92. Karlson 1983/2002 -- Karlson, F. Finnish: An essential grammar. London, New York: Routledge, 2002. First published in 1983.

93. Kazenin 2013 -- Kazenin, K. I. Sintaksis sovremennogo lakskogo jazyka. Maxac?kala: Aleph, 2013.

94. Keiser et all. 2001 -- Keiser, S., Ichikawa, Y., Kobayashi, N., Yamamoto. Japanese. A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge, 2001.

95. Keizer 2005 -- Keizer, E. The Discourse Function of Close Appositions. Neophilologus, 89, 2005, P. 447-467.

96. Keizer 2007 -- Keizer, E. The English noun phrase. The nature of linguistics categorization. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

97. Khachaturyan 2014 -- Khachaturyan, M. Grammaire de la langue mano (mandé-sud) dans une perspective typologique. INaLCO, Paris, 2014.

98. Kibrik 1998 -- Kibrik, A. E. Does intragenetic typology make sense? Sprache in Raum und Zeit. Band 2. Beiträge zur empitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Boeder W., Schroeder C., Wagner C. H., Wilden W. (eds.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1998. P. 61-68.

99. Kimball 1991 -- Kimball, G. D. Koasati grammar. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1991.

100. Kljuc?kovsky 1962 -- Kljuc?kovsky, B. G. Do pitannnja pro appoziciju i strukturno-grammatic?ni sposobi ïï vyraz?ennja v ukraïns'kij movi. Problemi sintaksisu. Praci miz?vuzivs'ko¿ naukovo¿ konferencii z pitan' sintaksisu. L'viv, 25--28 sic?nja 1962 roku, 74-84.

101. Kljuc?kovsky 1963 -- Kljuc?kovsky, B. G. Appozitivnye konstrukcii v sovremennom ukrainskom literaturnom jazyke. Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uc?enoj stepeni kandidata filologic?eskix nauk. L'vov, 1963.

102. Kojadinoviæ 2018 -- Kojadinoviæ, Z. Close apposition in English: the discourse-functional factors accounting for the existence of indefinite close appositive constructions. Master's thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (MA). Wien, 2018.

103. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2002 -- Kaptjevskaja-Tamm, M. Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 55, 2: 141-172.

104. Kulik 1961 -- Kulik, B. M. Kurs suc?asno¿ ukra¿nskoy literaturno¿ movi. C?astina II. Sintaksis. Kiev: Derz?avne uc?ebovo-pedagogic?ne vidavnictvo “Radjams'ka s?kola„, 1961.

105. Kullmann 1996 -- Kullmann, R. Mongolian grammar. Ulaanbator, 1996.

106. Langdon 1966 -- Langdon, M. H. A grammar of Dieguen?o: The Mesa Grande dialect. University of California, Berkeley, 1966.

107. Lander 2004 -- Lander, Yu. A. Dealing with relevant possessors. Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax. Kim, J., Lander, Yu. A., Partee, B.H. (eds.) Amherst (Mass.): GLSA, 2004, 309-336.

108. Langedonk, Van de Velde 2016 -- Langedonk, W. V., Van de Velde, M. Names and grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming. Hough, C. (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

109. Laskovsky 2013 -- Laskovsky, R. Markedness and the category of case in Polish. Markedness in synchrony and diachrony. Tomicì O. M. (ed.). Berlin, New York: Mounton de Gruyten, 1989.

110. Launey 1986 -- Launey, M. Catégories et opérations dans la grammaire Nahuatl. Thèse présentée à l'Université de Paris IV. Paris, 1986.

111. Lebedev 1970 -- Lebedev, K. A. Grammatika jazyka puštu. Uèebnoe posobie. Moscow, 1970.

112. Lee 1952 -- Lee, D. W. Close apposition: an unresolved pattern. American Speech, 1952, 27: 268-275.

113. Lekakou, Szendroi 2007 -- Lekakou, M., Szendroi, K. Eliding the noun in close apposition, or Greek polyde?nites revisited. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2007, 19.

114. Liperovskij 1987 -- Liperovskij, V. P. Sintaksis sovremennogo xindi. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.

115. Logvinova 2019a -- Logvinova, N. N. Tipologija appozitivnyx konstrukcij. Kursovaja rabota studentki 3-go kursa. Saint-Petersburg: NRU HSE, 2018.

116. Logvinova 2019b -- Logvinova, N. N. Towards a typology of close appositional constructions with proper names. The talk given at the conference “Typology of morphosyntactic parameters”. Moscow, 16-18 October 2019.

117. Logvinova, in press -- Logvinova, N. N. Imennye appozitivnye konstrukcii s imenami sobstvennymi v russkom jazyke. Materialy k korpusnoj grammatike russkogo jazyka, in press.

118. Louagie, Verstraete 2016 -- Louagie, D., Verstraete, J.-C. Noun phrase constituency in Australian languages: A typological study. Linguistic Typology, 2016, 20: 25-80.

119. Lukas 1967 -- Lukas, J. A study of the Kanuri language: Grammar and vocabulary. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1967.

120. Mace 2003 -- Mace, J. Persian grammar: for reference and revision. Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2003.

121. Markoviæ 2008 -- Markoviæ, I. Hrvatska apozitivna sintagma i sintaksa imena. [Croatian appositive syntagm and nominal syntax] Folia onomastica croatica, 2008, 17: 119-137.

122. Markoviæ 2008 -- Markoviæ, I. Hrvatska apozitivna sintagma i sintaksa imenâ. Folia Onomastica Croatica, 17, 2008: 119-137.

123. Marlett 2009 -- Marlett, S. A. A grammar of Seri. Manuscript. URL: http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/smarlett/Stephen_Marlett/GrammarDraft.html

124. Martin 1975/ 1991 -- Martin, S. A. A reference grammar of Japanese. Tokyo, Vermont: Charles Tuttle Company, 1991. First published in 1975.

125. Martin 2011 -- Martin, J. B. A grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln, London: The University of Nebraska Press, 2011.

126. Maslova 2003 -- Maslova, E. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.

127. Matasoviæ 2018 -- Matasoviæ, R. An areal typology of agreement systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

128. Mathiasse 1996 -- Mathiassen, T. A short grammar of Latvian. Slavic Publishers, 1996.

129. Matushansky 2012 -- Matushansky, O. The case of close apposition. The talk at symposium “(ap)positive thinking in linguistics”, Groningen, January 20, 2012.

130. Matushansky 2013 -- Matushansky, O. Sorts of proper names. The talk at “Semantics and philosophy in Europe” (SPE) 6, St. Petersburg, June 10-13, 2013.

131. Meyer 1992 -- Meyer, C. F. Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

132. Mizak 1966 -- Mizak, A. A. Konsrtukci¿ z prikaldkoju v anglijski¿ i ukrainski¿ movax. Inozemna filologija. L'viv: Vidavnitctvo L'vivskogo universitetu, 1966.

133. Moroz 2017 -- Moroz, G. _lingtypology: easy mapping for Linguistic Typology_. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lingtypology>.