Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski: profesor Uniwersytetu Fryburskiego (1895-1900)

Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski: a professor at the University of Fribourg (1895-1900) Ignacy Koschembahr-Łyskowski (1864-1945) was a Polish legal scholar researching into Roman and Private laws; one of the drafters of Polish unified Private Law in the Interwar era. After having obtained his PhD in Berlin in 1888 and postdoctoral degree in Breslau in 1894, he moved to Fribourg (Switzerland), where he stayed 5 years (1895-1900) as a professor for Roman law. Koschembahr-Łyskowski wrote there his fundamental works on the methodology of Roman law (1898) and its usefulness for modernity, as well as about the codification of Swiss Private Law (1899), demonstrating the usefulness of the Roman law experience for modern legislation. An overview of his works shows a surprising topicality of his ideas. The survey concentrates on his teaching in Fribourg as well as his writings, and is based on many newly discovered documents from the local archives, that have never been published before.

Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns

This paper proposes a diachronic typology for the various patterns that have been referred to as Hierarchical Alignment or Inverse Alignment. Previous typological studies have tried to explain such patterns as grammatical reflections of a universal Referential Hierarchy, in which first person outranks second person outranks third person and humans outrank other animates outrank inanimates. However, our study shows that most of the formal properties of hierarchy-sensitive constructions are essentially predictable from their historical sources. We have identified three sources for hierarchical person marking, three for direction marking, two for obviative case marking, and one for hierarchical constituent ordering. These sources suggest that there is more than one explanation for hierarchical alignment: one is consistent with Givón’s claim that hierarchical patterns are a grammaticalization of generic topicality; another is consistent with DeLancey’s claim that hierarchies reflect the deictic distinction between present (1/2) and distant (3) participants; another is simply a new manifestation of a common asymmetrical pattern, the use of zero marking for third persons. More importantly, the evolution of hierarchical grammatical patterns does not reflect a consistent universal ranking of participants – at least in those cases where we can see (or infer) historical stages in the evolution of these properties, different historical stages appear to reflect different hierarchical rankings of participants, especially first and second person. This leads us to conclude that the diversity of hierarchical patterns is an artifact of grammatical change, and that in general, the presence of hierarchical patterns in synchronic grammars is not somehow conditioned by some more general universal hierarchy.