-
configurational change in indo-europeancoordinate
construction
MorenoMitrovic
Manuscript, draft ver. 4 June 10, 2014
man
usc
ript
Don
otcitewith
outcon
sulta
tion.
1 introduction
This paper investigates the word order change in Indo-European
(IE)coordinate construction. Across the entire IE family, two
morphosyn-tactic patterns of coordination are found as Agbayani and
Golston (2010)have investigatedmost recently. In one type of
coordinate construction,the coordinator occupies the enclitic
(peninitial, or second)positionwithrespect to the internal (second)
coordinand (1a), while in another type,the coordinator is initially
placedbetweenany two, ormore, coordinands(1b), as the the minimal
representative pair from Homeric Greek showsin (1). Diachronically,
the change from the two competing structureswith peninitial and
initial positions to the initial type is uniform acrossthe IE
board.
(1) a. aspidasshields
eukuklousround
laiseiapelt
teand
.pteroentafeathered
The round shields and fluttering targets.(Homer, Iliad, book M:
l. 426)
b. kesthere
emigo
kaand
antiomeet
polemoiobattle
Go thither, and confront the war.(Homer, Iliad, book M: l.
368)
Moreno Mitrovic ()Jesus CollegeCambridge cb5 [email protected]
http://mitrovic.co
mailto:[email protected]://mitrovic.co
-
2 Mitrovic
The proposed synchronic analysis of the two coordinate
structures,represented in (1a) and (1b), identifies two coordinate
positions: I willshowthat enclitic (peninitial) coordinators
occupyoneof thosepositions,while the orthotone (initial)
coordinators occupy both coordinator posi-tions. By looking into
the fine-grained structure of coordination syn-chronically in IE
languages, a diachronic account resting on the
feature-checkingmechanismwill lend itself straightforwardly.
Themorphosyn-tactic change inword order patterns in
coordinationwill be shown tonotonly have ramifications in terms of
linearisation (change from penini-tial to initial position), but
are tightly related to the semantics underly-ing the two positions
we syntactically identify. I show that the alterna-tion between the
two (1a) and (1b) constructions is not free and randombut rather
that it obeys the phasal logicality of derivation.
In the remainder of this section, I outline the theoretical
foundationsregarding the syntax of coordination thatmy analysis
rests on. Once thebinary and phrase-structure compliant idea is
laid out in 1.1, I theoret-ically and empirically motivate an
enrichment of the this structure in1.2 by appealing to a more
fine-grained model of coordinate construc-tion.
1.1 Background assumption
The syntactic structure for coordination is taken to be binary
as mostnotably argued for by Kayne (1994) and Zhang (2010).
Earliest argumentsfor a binary-branching model of coordinate syntax
go back to Blumel(1914)with subsequent substantiation
fromBloomfield (1933), Bach (1964),Chomsky (1965),Dik
(1968),Dougherty (1969), Gazdar et al. (1985), Goodall(1987) and
Muadz (1991), and many others in the last two decades. Fol-lowing
Kayne (1994), we will assume that coordinators are heads, merg-ing
an internal argument (coordinand) as its complement, and adjoin-ing
an external argument (coordinand) in its specifier, as per (2).
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
3
(2) ....&P.....
......
..YP...
..coordinand2.
..
..&0...
..coordinator.
..
..XP...
..coordinand1
In the following three subsection, I motivate a revision of (2):
insteadof one coordinator position, two are additionally proposed
to accommo-date some theoretical and empirical facts.
1.2 An enriched structure
1.2.1 Den Dikkens J(unction)
Assuming a binary branching structure for coordination, which
cor-responds to the representation in (2), den Dikken (2006) argues
that ex-ponents such as and and or do not in fact occupy the
coordinator-head po-sition as indicated in (2) but are rather
phrasal subsets of the coordinatorprojection, with their origins in
the internal coordinand. The actual co-ordinator head, independent
of conjunction and/or disjunction whichoriginate within the
internal coordinand, is a junction head, J0.
(3) ....&P.....
......
..andP.....
..YP...
..coordinand2.
..
..and0...
..and.
..
..J0...
..coordinator...
..(silent).
..
..XP...
..coordinand1
The coremotivation for denDikkens postulationof the silent
presenceof J0 is to capture the distribution of the floating either
in English. AsMyler (2012) succinctly summarises:
(4) denDikkens either is a phrasal category and can be adjoined
to anyXP as long as:
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
4 Mitrovic
a. XP is on the projection line of the element focused in the
firstdisjunct; and
b. XP is not of C category; and
c. no CPnode intervenes between either and the focused elementin
the first disjunct; and
d. either surfaces to the left of the aforementioned focused
ele-ment at PF.
This characterisation of either predicts its floatation
(optional height ofadjunction), which is, in den Dikkens words,
either too high (5) (his 1)or too low (6) (his 2).
(5) a. John ate either rice or beans.
b. John either ate rice or beans.
c. Either John ate rice or beans.
(6) a. Either John ate rice or he ate beans.
b. John either ate rice or he ate beans.
(7) .........
..JP.....
......
..YP...
..or ...
.
..
..J0.
..
..XP...
..(. . .) either . . ..
..
....
..either . . .
Employing (in his words, the abtsract head) J0, den Dikkens
accountcovers and explains not only the either.. .or coordinate
constructions butalso thewhether.. .or and
both...and,whichareunifiedunder the structuralumbrella of JP
structure. den Dikken (2006: 58) takes the head introduc-ing the
internal (second) coordinand not as the lexicalisation of J0 butas
a phrasal category establishing a feature-checking relationship
withabstract J0 instead.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
5
An updated and enriched structure of (2) that den Dikken puts
forthand I assume here is therefore the following.
(8) ....JP.....
......
..P.....
..coordinand2.
..
..0.
..
..J0.
..
..P.....
..coordinand1.
..
..0
There is no principled reason in his account according to which
theabstract head J0 would resist or be banned from lexicalisation.
For denDikken, J0 is an abstract junction category inherently
neutral betweenconjunctionanddisjunction forwhichnoovert evidence
is provided sincehis account rests on J0 not being lexicalised. I
take it as a reasonable hy-pothesis that there may be languages,
which overtly realise this junc-tional component of coordination.
In 1.2.2, empirical justification for(8) is provided. The following
section will show that IE syntax of coordi-nation was of the same
type.
1.2.2 Lexicalised J: Avar, Hungarian, South Slavonic
There are empirical arguments substantiating the fine-grained
(dou-ble-headed) structure for coordination (3). Our structure for
coordina-tion supposes there are three heads involved (a J and two
s). Mutatismutandis, the theory predicts that theremay be languages
that realise allthree (J+/) heads simultaneously.
In this subsection, we consider contemporary languages, which
showevidence for the split coordination structure, i.e. two
coordinator posi-tions.
- Southeastern Macedoni-an (Stojmenova & Stojmenov, p.c.)
boasts a rich set of overt coordinatepositions. Aside from the
standard (English-like) type (9) and a polysyn-detic
(both/and-like) type (10) of conjunctive structure,
SoutheasternMace-donian also allows a union of exponency of the
latter two (12) shows:
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
6 Mitrovic
(9) [(0)
Roska]R
iJ0
[(0)
Ivan]I
Roska and Ivan.
(10) [i0
Roska]R (J0)
[i0
Ivan]I
both Roska and Ivan.
(11) [(0)
Roska]R
iJ0
[i0
Ivan]I
Roska and also Ivan.
(12) [i0
Roska]R
iJ0
[i0
Ivan]I
both Roska and also Ivan.
It is only SEMacedonian among the Indo-European languages that,
tothe best of our knowledge, allows pronunciation of all three
coordinateheads (two 0 and a J0) without an explicit
counterexpectational (but-like) morpheme. SerBo-Croatian, as
reported in (13), also allows threecoordinate morphemes per two
conjuncts but the J head is adversative,unlike (12).
(13) [i0
Mujo]M
aJ0.but
[i0
Haso]H
Not only Mujo but also Haso.
Beyond Slavonic (and Indo-European), we also find
triadicexponency of conjunction inHungarian,which our
systempredicts, i.e.the phonological realisation of the two heads
and the J head, as per(3). Hungarian allows the polysyndetic type
of conjunction with redu-plicative conjunctive markers. As given in
(14), Hungarian allows theoptional realisation of the medial
connective es (=J0) co-occurring withpolysyndetic additive
particles is (=0), as Szabolcsi (2013: 17, fn. 21) re-ports.
(14) KatiK
is
(es)J
MariM
is
Both Kate and Mary
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
7
Avar, anortheastCaucasian languageofDaghestan, provides
suchevidence.1 Avar boasts three structural possibilities for
conjunction. Itfirst allows coordinate constructions of the
polysyndetic (Latin que/que,Japanese mo/mo) type (15), which,
according to our JP system, involvestwo overt heads and a silent
J0.
(15) ketocat
gi (J)
hvedog
gi
cat and dog
Taking gi to be of category, we predict it to feature
independently giventhe prediction of subphrasal-status of
complement to J0. This in fact ob-tains and the gi-phrasea
Pexhibits additive (focal) semantics. Thefollowing shows the
strings and (generalised) structures of such Ps inAvar.
(16) DidaI
[gyebknow
gi]
lalathis
I [even/also know] this
(17) [DidaI
gi]
gyebknow
lalathis
[Even I/I too] know this
Aside from the polysyndetic type (18), Avar also allows an
English-likeconstruction with a conjunctionmarker placed between
the two coordi-nands (19), which we take to be a phonological
instantiation of J0:
(18) ketocat
gi (J)
hvedog
gi
cat and dog
(19) ketocat ()
vaJ
hvedog ()
cat and dog
(20) ketocat
gi
vaJ
hvedog
gi
cat and dog
1 This novel data was provided by Ramazanov (p.c.) and
Mukhtarova (p.c.).
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
8 Mitrovic
It is the possibility of co-occurring realisations of the two
types of posi-tions thatAvar allowswhich is typologically novel
and, for our purposes,most intriguing. The last type 20 shows a
union of phonological real-isations in 18 and 19 and the triadic
exponency of conjunction. In thisconstruction type, both heads as
well as J are realised simultaneously.
There is currentlynoalternative syntacticmodel of
coordination,whichcould explain the third (20) option of
co-occurring realisation of coordi-nation markers without further
stipulations. Our fine-grained system(8), however, can not only
handle (20) without any problem, it even pre-dicts its existence.
Equippedwith these theoretical and empirical obser-vations,wenow
turn to the core component of this paper and investigatethe syntax
of coordination in IE.
2 indo-european
Havingmotivates fine-grained J- complex for coordinate
construction,both theoretically and empirically, we now address the
central concernof this paper, the IE coordinate construction. The
existence of two typesof construction with respect to the
pen/initial positioning of the coordi-nator does not only correlate
with
(i) the alternation in linear placement of coordinator but
also
(ii) the very morphological structure of the the two types of
coordina-tors heading pen/initial constructions.
In the following two subsections, we take each of the two (i,
ii) prop-erties in turn.
2.1 Alternation in linear placement
We start our discussion with a diachronic perspective on IE
syntax ofcoordination,which shows linear alternation in coordinator
placement.The earliest IE languages show that there existed two
syntactic types ofcoordinate structures. One in which the
coordinator occupies the ini-tial, and another in which the
coordinator occupies the peninitial po-sition with respect to the
internal coordinand. Klein (1985a, 1985b) has
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
9
shown for R. gvedic, and Agbayani and Golston (2010) for IE more
gener-ally, that the alternation between initial and peninitial
placements ofthe coordinator patterns with the category of the
coordinands, wherebythe peninitial (enclitic) coordinators
generally cannot coordinate clauseswhich the initial coordinators
can.
The following pairs of initial (a) and peninitial (b) coordinate
configu-rations from Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin exhibit the
alternation in linearplacement of the coordinating particle.
(21) Homeric Greek:
a. aspidasshields
eukuklousround
laiseiapelt
teand
.pteroentafeathered
The round shields and fluttering targets. (Hom., Il., M:
l.426)
b. kesthere
emigo
kaiand
antiomeet
polemoiobattle
Go thither, and confront the war. (Hom., Il., M: l. 368)
(22) Vedic Sanskrit:
a. vayav-ndras-caVayu-Indra-and
cetathah.rush.2.dl
sutanam.rich
vajinvasustrength-bestowing
Vayu and Indra, rich in spoil, rush (hither). (R.
gveda,1.002.5a)
b. pars.isave.imp.2.sg
tasyathis
utaand
dvis.ah.enmity
Save us from this and enmity. (R. gveda, 2.007.2c)
(23) Classical Latin:
a. adto
summamutmost
remweal
publicamcommon
atqueand
adto
omniumall
nostrumof us
to highest welfare and all our [lives] (Cic., Or.,
1.VI.27-8)
b. vamlife
samutemsafety
queand
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
10 Mitrovic
the life and safety (Cic., Or., 1.VI.28-9)
The syntactic duality of the double placement of the coordinator
ex-tends beyond the three classically representative IE languages
above. Itis clear from these pairs of examples that IE had
prepositive (a) and apostpositive (b) series of coordinators.
Wecoulddistinguish the two typesof configurations by positing that
the peninitially placed (enclitic) coor-dinator induces some form
of movement, either syntactically or post-syntactically, but that
the difference lies only in the linearisation of thesurface
placement of the coordinator. Let us now turn to briefly sketch-ing
the empirical facts surrounding this taxonomy of two types of
coor-dinators in IE.
Old Avestan, just like R. gvedic, distinguishes between initial
uta andenclitic ca:
(24) Old Avestan:
a. atuutaand
ldzammazdawisdom.m.sg.gen
amQuruhhurumaincrease.m.sg.nom
amoahhaomahaoma.m.sg.voc
esoarraosegrow.2.subj.mid
araggaramountain.sg.m.loc
itiappaititowardAnd [thus] may you grow upon that mountain, O
Haoma,[bringing] the increase of wisdom, [...].
(YasnaHaptanghaiti,10.4)
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
11
b. mVZUYyuz eemyou.2.sg.nom
OiibiEaaeibiiothem.pl.dat
Aruhaahuralord.m.sg.voc
OJoaaogostrength.n.sg.acc
AtAddatagive.2.pl.aor.imp
ACaas.atruth.n.sg.inst
mvrQaCxxs.ar
empower.n.sg.acc
Accaand
O Lord, may you give strength to them2 through Truth andthat
power [... ] (YasnaHaptanghaiti, 29.10)
Hittite, alongwith otherAnatolian languages, distinguishes
betweenthe initial nu and enclitic (y)a.
(25) Hittite:
a. nuand
kanprt
MursilinMursilis.acc
kuennirthey.killed
nuand
esarblood
ieirshed.3.pl
nuand
HantilisHantilis
nahsariyatatifeared.3.sg.m
And they killed Mursilis and they shed blood and Hantiliswas
afraid. (2BoTU. 23.1.33-35)
b. ansu.kur.ra.mescharioteers
lu.mesis.guskingrooms.golden
yaand
humandanall
Charioteers and all the golden grooms. (StBoT. 24.ii.60-61)
c. kassthis.nom
aand
zaptc
uru-azcity.nom
parnanzasshouse.nom
aand
[ud]u.a.lumram
du-rubecome.3sg.impand let (both) this city and house become the
ram (KUB41.8 iv 30.)
Old Church Slavonic also boasts a pair of coordinators: an
initial i and
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
12 Mitrovic
a peninitial ze (
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
13
enclitic uh.
(28) Gothic:
a. akakneither
ana
anaon
lukarnastavin
lukarnastaincandle.dat.sg
jah
jahand
liuteiv
liuteilight.ind.3.sg
allaim
allaimall.dat.pl
vaim
aimit.dat.pl
in
inin
vamma
ammathat.m.dat.sg
garda
garda.house.m.dat.sg
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel.(Codex
Argenteus, Mat. 5:15)
b. (galaiv(galaicame.pret.3.sg
in
inin
praitauria
praitauriajudgement hall.acc.sh
aftra
aftraagain
peilatus
PeilatusP.nom
jah)jah)and
woida
wopidacalled.pret.3.sg
iesu
IesuJ.acc
qav
qasaid.pret.3.sg
uh
uhand
imma
immahim.m.dat.sg(Then)Pilate entered into the judgmenthall
again, andcalledJesus, and said unto him. (Codex Argenteus, Joh.
18:33)
While Gothic still shows the dual type of coordination (28),
there is nosuch evidence for other early Germanic languages. The
only early Runicinscriptionwe have is the one in (29), where
amedial conjunction andi isemployed.
(29) Runic Germanic:
a. 1aigil1.aigilAigil.pn
andi1.andiand
aIlrun1.alrun.Alrun.pn
Aigil and Alrun.(Looijenga 2003: 253Pforzen I (Bavaria), mid 6th
c., silver
belt buckle)
The enclitic series is generally and freely prone to
reduplication. AsGonda (1954) and Dunkel (1982) note, a peninitial
connective like kwe is
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
14 Mitrovic
traditionally reconstructed with a twofold syntax: both single
(X Y kwe)and double (X kwe Y kwe), as the following three pairs
representativelyshow.
(30) Vedic and Classical Sanskrit:
a. dharmedharma/law.loc
caand
arthecommerce.loc
caand
kamepleasure.loc
caand
moks.eliberation.loc
ca&
bharataBharata
r.s.abhagiant
yadwhich
ihahere
astiis.3.sg
tadthat
anyatraelsewhere
yadwhich
nanot
ihahere
astiis.3.sg
nanot
tatthat
kvacitanywhere
Giant amongBharataswhatever is here on Law, and on com-merce,
andonpleasure, andon liberation is foundelsewhere,but what is not
here is nowhere else. (Mahabharata, 1.56.34)
b. vayavVayu
ndrasIndra
caand
cetathah.rush.2.dl
sutanam.rich
vajinvasustrength-bestowing
Vayu and Indra, rich in spoil, rush (hither).(R. gveda,
1.002.5
a)
(31) Homeric Greek:
a. oswhich
edewere (=know.plup)
tathe
teand
eontaexist.part
tathe
teand
essomenaexist.fut
probefore
teand
eontaexist.part
That were, and that were to be, and that had been before.(Homer,
Iliad A: 70)
b. aspidasshields
eukuklousround
laiseiapelt
teand
pteroentafeathered
The round shields and fluttering targets.(Homer, IliadM:
426)
(32) Classical Latin:
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
15
a. iamalready
tumthen
tenditpursue
queand
fovetfavour
queand
Already then, she both pursued it and (also) favoured it.
(Vir.,Aen., 1.18)
b. vamlife
samutemsafety
queand
the life and safety (Cicero, Or., 1.VI.28-9)
The polysyndetic pattern of enclitic coordinators in (30a),
(31a) and(32a) seems to have carried an emphatic component, akin to
themodernEnglish emphatic conjunction with both...and. We find the
same redu-plicative pattern with emphatic/focal semantics in Old
Church Slavonic(OCS), which survives in synchronic SerBo-Croatian,
among other syn-chronic Slavonic languages. It is OCS, and its
diachronic descendants,that shows the independence of linear
placement and semantic force be-hind the coordinator.
Proto-Slavonic has independently syncretised theprepositive
(initial atque-type) and postpositive (peninitial/enclitic
que-type) coordinators but only lexically. As the following OCS
example in(33) shows, conjunctor ihas both the conjunctive
semantics of the initialatque-type coordinators in IE as well as
the emphatic/focal semantics ofthe enclitic que-type coordinators.
While the dual semanticsto be ad-equately addressed belowis
retained in Slavonic, the moprho-lexicaldifference between the two
classes of coordinators has been collapsed.We will return to the
syntax of this collapse below. In (33), the first pair(a) shows
(reduplicative) polysyndetic coordinationwith
emphatic/focalmeaning,while the secondpair (b) is an example of
amonosyndetic con-struction.
(33) Old Church Slavonic:
a. boitefear
zebut
serefl
pacerather
mogostaagowhich may
iand
dsosoul
iand
telobody
pogubitidestroy
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
16 Mitrovic
But rather fear thatwhich is able todestroy both soul
andbody.(CM, Mat. 10:28)
b. bodetebe
zebut
modriwise
ekoas
zmijeserpents
iand
celiharmless
ekoas
golobedoves
Rather be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.(CM, Mat.
10:16)
Note that the focal additive meaning related to polysyndeticity
hasbeen retained in some of the contemporary varieties of Slavonic.
Thefollowing are parallel examples fromMathew in
SerBo-Croatian:
(34) Synchronic SerBo-Croatian:
a. Bojtefear
serefl
visemore
onogathat
kojiwhich
mozemay
iand
dususoul
iand
tijelobody
pogubitidestroyBut rather fear thatwhich is able todestroy both
soul andbody.(Mat. 10:28)
b. buditebe
dakletherefore
mudriwise
kaoas
zmijeserpents
iand
bezazleniharmless
kaoas
golubovidovesRather be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(Mat.10:16)
In this subsection weve shown that IE indeed freely allowed
redupli-cation of the coordinator. Having explored the possible
semantic side-effect of such reduplication yielding enriched
conjunction2, we nowturn to another feature of the double system of
coordination.
2.2 Morphemicity
There is one additional, and for our purposes crucial, fact
distinguish-ing the initial and the peninitial types of
coordinators. The differencealso lies in the morphological
structure of the two series.
2 In Mitrovic (2014: ch. 6), the historical and cross-linguistic
dimensions ofnon/reduplicative coordination is investigated.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
17
While peninitial coordinators are monomorphemic, the initial
coor-dinators are not. Initially placed coordinators are
bimorphemic and assuch are decomposable synchronically or
diachronically into two coor-dinators, each underlying a morpheme.
Greek kai, for instance, derivesfrom kati, itself being a
concatenation of kwe + te (Beekes 2010: 614, ?:390). Conversely,
Indo-Iranian (IIr.) uta comprises of coordinator u + ta(
-
18 Mitrovic
dependent / composed independentkwe te h2u
yo nu [+] []kwe Gr. kai
IIr. caLat. queOIr. chGoth. uhGaul. cueVen. keCeltib. ku
te OIr. to-chHit. tak-ku
Gr. te, deAlb. dheSkt. tuSl. ze
Sl. to
h2uSkt. u caLat. at-que
IIr. u-taGr. au-teLat. au-t
Sl. i-noIIr. uGr. auCLuw. ha
Sl. i
yo Goth. ja-h Goth. j-au Hit. yaTochA. yoMyc. jo
nu OIr. na-ch OIr. na-de Hit. nuOIr. noSl. nu
Table 2: Clitic combinatorics as strategy for development of
orthotone coordinators.
nate morphemes are distributed between J0 and the head of its
comple-ment, 0, as per Tab. 2.4 This idea is summarised in (35)
with the threetypes of coordinate construction; Classical Latin
(at)que is taken as an ex-
4 Thenotation [] in Tab. 2 refers towhether a particle is
aWackernagel element, requir-ing second-position ([+]), or not
([]). The theory and details behind the notationsare addressed
below.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
19
ample ( is a notation for phonological silence).
(35) a. Peninitial coordinate constructions
i. Peninitial monosyndetic coordination (30a, 31a, 32a, 33a):[[P
.........que
coord1 ] [ ....J0.....
[P .........que
coord2 ]]]ii. Peninitial monosyndetic coordination (30b, 31b,
32b, 33b) with
phonologically silent 0ext:[[P .........
coord1 ] [ ....J0.....
[P .........que
coord2 ]]]b. Initial (bimorphemic) coordinate constructions (??,
??, 23a)
with phonologically silent 0ext:[[P .........
coord1 ] [ ....J0.....at
[P .........que
coord2 ]]]The analysis of compound coordinators sketched in
(35b), where the
morphological components of initial particles like Latin at-que
or San-skrit u-ta are spread between 0 and J0, also lends itself to
a diachronicanalysis of the development of linear placement of
coordinators in syn-chronic IE, which is uniformly head-initial.
The analysis put forth herealsomakes an empirical prediction for
IE.Ourhaving assigned the lower-headed coordination structure a
category status, we predict the inde-pendence of P. According to
(8), the syntax of coordination is brokendown into categories of
two kinds. While the higher J0 is taken to joincoordinate
arguments, its substructural P is thus,mutatismutandis, pre-dicted
to be an independent phrasal category. By virtue of being
junc-tional, J0 establishes a two-place relation between
coordinands (a for-mal default of coordination). P, on the other
hand, does not establish atwo-place coordinate relation, which
leads us to the possibility there aremono-argumental
andmorphosyntactically coordination-like construc-tions headed by
in IE. Given the generalisation on monomorphemicenclitic
coordinators, now treated as 0s, to establish (8), weneed to
find
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
20 Mitrovic
in IEmono-argumental constructionsheadedbymonomorphemic
par-ticles like Latin que, Sanskrit ca or OCS i. This is in fact
what we find inall IE branches. Independent Ps are of three types:
polarity construc-tions (I didnt see anyone), free-choice
constructions (You may haveany/whichever one) and focus
constructions (Even he came in). In theformer two, Ps contain a 0
and a wh-element. The following exam-ples show a consistent spread
of Ps, marked with brackets, across theboard of old IE
languages.
Movingwestward,we startwith Indo-Iranian. BothR. gvedic
andpost-Vedic Sanskrit show the non-coordinate use of the
coordinating particleca, where it forms a free-choice expression of
the wh-ever-type (36a,36b),or a negative polarity item (36c). When
not combined with a wh-host,the particle forms an additive
expression with focus semantics, akin tothe function ofalso/even in
English, as shown in (36d).
(36) Vedic & Classical Sanskrit:
a. pratdam.this
visvamworld
modateexults
yatwhich
[km.[what
ca]]
pr.thivyamworld.f.acc
adhiupon
This whole world exults whatever is upon the earth.(R. gveda,
5.83.9
a)
b. yady-if
abhyupetam.promised to be accepted
[kvawhere
ca]
sadhuhonest
asadhudishonest
vaor
kr.tam.done.pst.part
maya1.sg.instr
If you acceptwhatever Imay do,whether honest or
dishonest.(Bhagavatapuran.a, 8.9.12)
c. naneg
yasyawhom.gen
[kas[who.m.sg
ca]]
tititartiable to overcome
maya?illusions.pl
No one [=not anyone] can overcome that (=the Supreme
Per-sonality of Godheads) illusory energy.
(Bhagavatapuran.a, 8.5.30)
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
21
d. [cintayam. s-thinking.pres.part
ca]
naneg
pasyamisee.1.sg
bhavatam.you
pratiunto
vaikr.tamoffence.accEven after much thinking, I fail to see the
injury I did untoyou. (Mahabharata, 2.20.1)
In Latin, too, the combination of a particle and awh-termmay
yield afree-choice item like whatever in (37a). Alternatively, the
combinationmay obtain a universal quantificational expression like
all or each, asexamples which Bortolussi (2013) collected in
(37b37d) show.
(37) Latin:
a. ut,that
inin
quowho
[quis[what
que]]
artificiocraft
excelleret,excels,
isis
inin
suohis
generefamily
RosciusR
dicereturspoken
so thathe, inwhatever crafthe excels, is spokenof as aRosciusin
his field of endeavor. (Cic., deOr. 1.28.130)
b. Sicso
singillatimindividually
nostrumwe
unusone
quis-quewh-
moueturmoved
So each of us is individually moved (Lucil. sat. 563)
c. Morbussickness
estis
habitusreside
cuius-quewh-
corporisbody
contracontrary
naturamnature
The sickness is the situationof any/every/eachbody contraryto
nature (Gell. 4,2,3)
d. auentwant
audirehear
quidwhat
quis-quewh-
senseritthink
theywish tohearwhat eachman s (everyones) opinionwas(Cic. Phil.
14,19)
Note the same free-choice meaning in Gothic, where the
combi-nation of awh-term like where and a particle uh,
diachronicallyderiving from kwe, yields wherever as (38a) suggests.
Just as in
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
22 Mitrovic
Latin, and other IE languages, the wh+ combination may alsoform
a universal quantificational expression as per (38b).
(38) Gothic:
a. visxad[ishvad[where
uh
uh]]
(. . .) gaggisgaggis.go.2.sg.pres.act.ind
wherever you go (Mat. 8:19)
b. jahjahand
xaz
[hvazwho.m.sg
uh
uh]and
saei
saeipro.m.sg
hauseiv
hauseihear.3.sg.ind
waruda
waurdawords.acc.pl
meina
meinamineAnd every one that heareth these sayings of mine
(Mat. 7:26)
In Old Church Slavonic, there were two kinds of particles: i and
ze,both of whichwere conjunctive; zewas adversative in nature and
histor-ically related to Greek (translating as but). In
non-coordinate uses,i was additive-focal (cf. Sanskrit ex. 36d),
while ze combined with wh-hosts to form a negative polarity item or
a free-choice expression. Theformer additive and the latter
free-choice functions are shown in (39a)and (39b),
respectively.
(39) Old Church Slavonic:
a. posulasent.3.pl.aor
[i[
togo]him.m.sg.acc]
kuto
nimuthen.pl.dat
He sent also him to them. (Mar. 12:6)
b. suwith
kletvojooath.f.sg.ins
izdrecepromised.3.pl.aor
eiher.f.sg.dat
datigive.inf
[ego[what
ze]]
asteif
vusprosituask.sg.pres
With an oath he promised to give her whatsoever she wouldask.
(Mat, 14:7)
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
23
We also find the additive use of the coordinator pe (
-
24 Mitrovic
(42) Hittite:
a. nu-waand-quot
ulneg
[kuit[who
ki]]
saktiknow.2.sg.pres
You know nothing (=not anything) (KUB XXIV.8.I.36)
b. nuJ
dumu.mes-Usons.his
[kuiss-a]who- =
kuwattasomewhere
utnecountry.loc
paizziwent
Each of his sons went somewhere to a country.
(KBo.3.I.1.1718)
c. nuJ
[kuitt-a]what- =
arhayanseperately
kinaizz[isifts
She sifts everything seperately. (KUB XXIV.11.III.18)
Old Irish ch, itself a reflex of PIE kwe, aside from the
coordinate func-tion, also creates free-choice (43a) anduniversal
quantificational (43b,43c)expressions.
(43) Old Irish:
a. [ce[what
ch]]
taibregive.2.subj
what[so]ever thoumays give.(Zu ir. Hss. 1.20.15; Thurneysen
2003: 289)
b. [ce[what
ch]]
orrslay.3.m.subj
whichever hemay slay.(Anecd. ii.63.14.h; Thurneysen 2003:
289)
c. avoc
huiliall
duiniman
.i.i.e.
avoc
[ca-ch]wh-=every
duiniman
O, all men i.e. O, every man (Wb. 10c20)
Themorphosyntactic independence of P across awide range of IE
lan-guages is strong evidence for the J0-0 coordination complex (8)
defendedhere and elsewhere (cf. Slade 2011,Winter 1998, Szabolcsi
2013, inter alia).There is additional semantic evidence for the
proposed structure, which
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
25
semantically obtains two different operators. In the absence of
J0, Psare predicted to have the three kinds semantic contribution
(additive fo-cus, polarity, free choice).
By the same reasoning, we predict, for instance, that the
Slovenianconjunctor in, being derived from a compounding of
Proto-Slavonic iand adverbial-like connective nu, is not of but of
J category, which ex-plains its inability to
formapolarity/free-choice itemwith awh-element(44), unlike
SerBo-Croatian (45), which has retained the
Proto-Slavonicmonomorphemic i (Derksen, 2008: 207), taken here to
be of category.
(44) * inJ
kdowho
anyone/whoever
(45) i(t)kowho
anyone/whoever
Equippedwith a fine-grained structure for coordination, we now
turnour focus to the synchronic syntax of peninitially placed
Wackernagelcoordinators and derive a diachronic analysis of its
loss.
3 deriving peninitial placement
We have empirically established that there were two canonical
con-structions available in IE languages: a head initial and a head
peninitialone, the latter with the twomono- and polysydentic
subtypes. Theoret-ically, given the three properties of the double
systemlinearisation,focus and morphemic structureaddressed in
2.12.2, we derived allthree properties differentiating the two
canonical patterns within ourJP structure.
This section addresses the syntactic derivation behind the
peninitialplacement of the coordinator. We first investigate the
synchronic con-structions in IE that featurepeninitial particles
andoutlineadiachronicaccount, according to which the initial
pattern is the surviving one.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
26 Mitrovic
The secondpositioneffecthas its traditional aetiology inwhat is
knownasWackernagels Law. Wackernagel (1892) is credited to have
dubbed theone generalisation that applies to the syntax of PIE,
namely that someelements consistently occupy the second position in
a given string ofwords, or, in modern terminology, in a given
constituent. Suffice it tosay that the 1892 generalisation is far
beyond explanatory: it is solelya descriptive observation
pertaining to word count. An explanation is,however, feasible in a
theory of syntaxwhich, for instance, attributes allconfigurational
(word order related) differences to differences in move-ment.
Therehave essentially been two theoretically different approachesto
the explanatory account of Wackernagels Law. Although both
theo-ries see the cause of the second position effect in movement,
one con-fines this movement to narrow syntax while another places
the move-ment in the post-syntactic module where prosody is
king.
The purpose of this section is not to categorically suggest a
confine-ment space wherein the W(ackernagel)-movement takes place,
but tosuggest an over-arching factor of the distribution of the
second positioneffects that the IE coordination data suggests. This
factor, as it were,is the phasal architecture, to which not only
the syntactic derivation issubject but also the phonological and
prosodic processes that follow it.
AWackernagel element like our (Lat. -que, Hom. -te, Lat. que,
Goth.Lat. -uh, Skt. Lat. -ca, etc.) has a requirement which demands
be pre-ceded by a head.5 Let us assume that particles come
hardwired with a[EPP]-like feature which, unlike [EPP], attracts
and inducesmovementof the closest and the smallest syntactic
object, a terminal/head. Justlike [EPP], [] must be checked in line
with the principle of economy (assoon as possible). If there is a
syntactically available object satisfyingthe two movement
criteriai.e., the syntactic object is (a) the closest(b) Xminthen
[] is checked syntactically. If there is no eligible local
ter-minal in the syntactic structure, [] is checked
post-syntactically, as pereconomy (better later thannever). The
visibility and eligibility of such
5 The clitic host is necessarily (of the size of) a head; we do
not come across entire cate-gories preceding enclitics.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
27
head targets is determined, as we shall see, by
phasality.Phases, as domain delimiters for structure building, do
not only con-
cern syntactic processes. It is a standardminimalist assumption
to viewphasalheads as closingoff a cycle,which isuponmerger of
thephasalhead, X0transferred to the two interfaces for semantic and
phonologi-cal processing (interpretation and externalisation
respectively). A phasethereforenot onlypartitionsnarrowsyntactic
derivation into logical build-ing blocks but also delimits
post-syntactic operations and synchronisesthem with narrow syntax.
In this direction, Samuels (2009: 242) takesas a starting point the
conceptual argument laid out in the foundationalwork byMarvin
(2003: 74): Ifwe think of levels in the lexicon as levels
ofsyntactic attachment of affixes, we can actually say that Lexical
Phonol-ogy suggests that phonological rules are limited by
syntactic domains,possibly phases. Samuels thus proposes a
Phonological Derivation byPhase (PDbP), which relies on a cycle
that is not proprietary to phonol-ogy. (Samuels, 2009: 243)
Combining Samuelss theory with a recogni-tion of
post-syntacticmovement, we should predict the domain or scopeof
such operations based on the narrow syntactic derivation. Assume in
(46) is a Wackernagel-type coordinator specified with [], which
rep-resents the requirement for peninitial placement. Lets assume
it takesa phasal complementXP,whichhas ZP as its specifier andYP as
its com-plement.
(46) ....P.....
..XP.....
......
..YP.
..
..X0
.
..
..ZP.....
....
.....
.
..
..Z0
.
..
..0[]
a. -checkable terminals narrow syntactically:
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
28 Mitrovic
b. -checkable terminals post-syntactically: {Z0, . . . ,X0}c.
closest accessible terminal: Z0
Since the phasal head, X0, triggers the transfer of its
complement,only the edge of XP is accessible to outside operations.
The head ofZP is ineligible for narrow syntactic head movement,
possibly for rea-sons to do with anti-locality. Post-syntactically,
movement takes place,checking []. Should the -accessible domain of
heads be non-empty,we predict narrow syntactic incorporation to
take place, in line with theaforementioned economy. Nominal
coordination of the type in (47) thusget linearised narrow
syntactically since the set of -accessible terminalswould not be
empty, unlike in (46).
(47) ajanayanfor.men
manavecreated.mid.3.sg.m
ks. amearth (J)
apasiwater
ca
ti
For men he created the earth and water. (R. gveda, 2.20.7c)
On the other hand, a structure like the one in (48) could only
be an in-stance of post-syntactic movement since the target of
movement is syn-tactically inaccessible and incorporable
(head-immovable) as the set of-accessible terminals is in fact
empty (null C0) and does not contain thewh-terminal, which
originates within the specifier of the kartva-headedCP. Assuming
phonology doesn t have to read syntactic boundaries,since it just
applies to each chunk as it is received (Samuels, 2009:250), the
syntactically inaccesible wh-temrinal ya is made available to 0
post-syntactically, thereby checking via movement the []
feature.(48)
kr.tanimade.prt. (J)
yaiwhich.rel
ca
tikartvato.be.made.fut.part
. ..what has been and what will be done. (R. gveda,
1.25.11c)
So far, we have set a system of post-syntactic rescue for
-checking,appealing to post-syntactic access of the internal
structure of specifiersand availability of post-syntactic
incorporation of narrow syntactically
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
29
frozen specifiers. Nowwe turn to cases where the edge,
comprising of aspecifier and head, of a phasal category is empty.
Take (49):
(49) hantislay.pres.3.sg
raks. asodemons.acc.pl
He slays the demons. (R. gveda, 5.83.2a)
The present verb hanti seems to sit in T0 with the object, the
demons,lower in the structure, presumably in its V-complementing in
situ posi-tion. Assuming the category of (49) is that of CP, we see
that CP edge isempty: the indicativeC0 is phonologicallynull andno
syntacticmaterialhas been extraposed or otherwise moved to any of
the left-peripheral CPspecifiers, such as a Rizzian Focus head.
Should such a CP undergo coor-dination, the [] feature on 0 would
not be deleted. Given our assump-tions, the derivation would crash
due to this. Structure in (50) sketchesthis scenario, where there
are no syntactically or post-syntactically ac-cessible terminals
within 0s search domain. The Wackernagel effectis therefore blocked
by virtue of there being no suitable post/syntacticmaterial below
0.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
30 Mitrovic
(50)....JP.....
......
..P.....
..CP.....
......
..TP
.
..
..C...
..
.
..
...
..
..0[].
..
..J0...
..
.
..
.....
.
empty edge
.
empty X0
.
inaccessible
a. -checkable terminals narrow syntactically:
b. -checkable terminals post-syntactically:
c. closest accessible terminal:
The structure in (49) is nonetheless a coordinand: as last
resort, theotherwise silent J0 receives phonological realisation
for -checking rea-sons. The full internal coordination structure of
(49) is given in (51). Thelast resort mechanism qua phonological
realisation of J0 may be analo-gised to expletive subjects in a
language like English. Just as there is nosubject (in the vP)
eligible to raise to [Spec, TP] in sentences like it is rain-ing,,
an expletive subject is realised as last resort. Equally, when
thereare no eligible heads for []-checking, J0 is overt.(51)
uJ
-ta
hantislay.pres.3.sg
raks. asodemons.acc.pl
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
31
And he slays the demons. (R. gveda, 5.83.2a)
The proposed analysis is also an explanation of an empirical
gener-alisation that has not only been extensively shown to hold
not only inR. gvedic (Klein 1985a,1985b) and Old Persian (Klein,
1988) but across thevast arrayof ancient IE languages (Klein 1992,
Agbayani andGolston 2010).
(52) categorial generalisation:Peninitial coordinators do not
head clausal coordinations.
Since clauses (CPs) are inherently phasal (Chomsky 2001, et
seq.), theyprovide the selecting head with far less search space,
or in the case of(51), an empty set of possible incorporees. In
non-CP coordinands, []may be checked by virtue of access to
terminals in 0s complements in-terior. The derivation of
non-clausal coordination is therefore strictlycyclical: once anXP
is derived (cycle I), it is selected by 0 (cycle II.)whose[]
feature is checked Agree-wise. The category is in turn
incrementedby J0 (cycle III.), as shown in (53a). The external
coordinand6 ismerged in[Spec,JP] (cycle IV.) in line with cycles
II. and III. Stopping off the deriva-tion at the point of the
second cycle obtains bare Ps with focal/polar-/scalar semantics
(36)(43). The third J0-cycle obtains a sysntactic struc-ture for
coordination. Diachronically, the change occurs in the collaps-ing
of the second and third cycles, whereby 0 and J0 feature in a
singlecycle and thereby inherently yielding bimorphemic
coordinators, mor-phologically and lexically deleting [] on 0,
which in time gets buriedunder J0, as instantiated in (53b). The
interdependence of the J- com-plex is empirically and technically
analogous to proposals by Chomsky(2008) and Richards (2007), among
others, who claim that T0 is lexicallydefective, bearing no
-features of its own, and instead inherits its -features from the
phase head C0. In light of this, 0 can be analysed aslexically
defective, requiring an overt (clitic hosting/*) J0 to delete
[].
6 The derivation of the external coordinand is ignored here.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
32 Mitrovic
(53) a. III. II. I.....JP.....
......
...
..
..J0
.
..
.....
. ..Pint.....
...
..
..0[]
. ..XP.....
......
..YP...
.....
.
..
..X0
.
..
..ZP
b. II. I.....JP.....
......
..Pint.....
..
.
..
..0
..[]..
..
..J0...
..*
.
..
.....
. ..XP.....
......
..YP...
......
..
..X0...
..
.
..
..
This view predicts that the loss of enclitic monomorphemic
coordina-tors, and the inverse rise of the inherently initial
bimorphemic coordi-nators, entails the loss of independent P, which
features in focal ad-ditive, polar and scalar construction as in
(36)(43). This is in fact con-firmed.7
Diachronically, the last resort option of realising an overt J0
to hostthe -particles (53b) becomes the first response, as
schematised in Fig.1. Clausal coordination type generalises to all
categories as 0 comes pre-installed with a hosting morpheme.
7 The only exception to this diachronic interlock between
changes in word order and se-mantics, would be a case where 0 would
not carry [] and thus would not get buriedunder J0 in time. The
Slavonic branch is such an exception, which has lexically
syncre-tised the entries for J0 and 0 as i but the semantics of the
coordinate/non-coordinateconstructions clearly shows that two forms
of i existed in OCS, which is preserved inmost branches of
synchronic Slavonic. See ? for details.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
33
..
stage
I
.
JP
.
P
.
J0
.
P
.
0
.
first re
sponse
.
X0 -m
oveme
nt
.
lastreso
rt
.sta
geII
.JP
.
P
.
J0
.
P
.
0
.
.
first re
sponse
Figure 1: A diachronic sketch of syntactic development of
coordination in Indo-European.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
34 Mitrovic
4 summary and outlook
This paper looked at the synchronic and diachronic status of
word or-der in Indo-European (IE) coordinate construction. It
empirically estab-lished that all earliest attestations show that
IE boasted a double syn-tactic system of coordination where the
coordinate constructions wereessentially of two types:
(i) in one type, the coordinator occupies the initial position
with re-gards to the second conjunct, as is the case in synchronic
IE lan-guages;
(ii) in another type, the coordinator is placed in the
peninitial posi-tion with regards to the second conjunct, which is
the standardeffect of the so-called Wackernagels law, which
describes the factthat the syntax required particular elements to
be second in posi-tion.
The first desideratum was therefore to unify syntactically the
two se-ries of coordinate structures,whichhas been accomplished by
appealingto den Dikkens J(unction) structure. The proposed analysis
has givenboth types (i) and (ii) the same structure, namely a
double-headed co-ordinate structure. The Wackernagel type (ii)
construction, obtainingpeninitial placement of the coordinator,
consisted of a covert high J0
and an overt lower 0 carrying an incorporation-triggering
feature [],which weve taken to be on a par with [epp], which is
itself reducible tothe requirement that syntactic objects follow
ametrical boundary as de-veloped inRichards (2014). Coordination
structures inwhich []maynotbe checked (syntactically or
postsyntally), feature an overt realisation ofJ0, which acts as
checker. We have thus derived the two empirical gen-eralisations on
IE coordination.
(54) a. i. initial coordinators (i) in IE are generally
bimorphemic
ii. peninitial coordinators (ii) in IE are
generallymonomorphemic
b. i. bimorphemic initial coordinators (i) in IE can coordinate
CPs
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
35
ii. monomorphemic peninitial coordinators (ii) in IE cannot
coor-dinate CPs
The J- system is also alignedwith themodel of
DistributiveMorphol-ogy. Assuming morphemes correspond to syntactic
heads (Halle andMarantz 1994, et seq.), initial coordinators,of
(i)-type, are taken to in-stantiate phonologically both of the two
coordinate heads (J0+0), whileenclitic coordinators (of (ii)-type)
are instances of partially spelled out JPstructure.
If nothing else, we have demonstrated in this paper that
themarriageof theoretical syntax and historical IE linguistics is a
very fruitful onesince we have attempted to definitively resume a
106 year old topic dat-ing back to Meillet (1908). As Gonda (1954:
180) remarks, it was Meillet(1908)whoexpressed theopinion that the
conjoiningandnon-conjoiningkwe are originally the same, i.e. the
non-conjoining kwe belongs tothe family of indefinites and
interrogatives. (Meillet, 1908: 353) Gonda(1954) was among the
first to resume the discussion and to formulate theproblem
precisely:
The question may, to begin with, be posed whether weare right in
translating Skt. ca, Gr. , Lat. que, etc., sim-ply by ourmodern and
in regarding the prehistoric kwe as aconjunction in the traditional
sense of the term. It is a mat-ter of general knowledge that many
words which at a laterperiod acted as conjunctions originally, or
at the same time,had other functions. (Gonda, 1954: 182)
Gonda (1954: 182) continues to note that the relation between
the cop-ulative [coordinate] ( A) and the epic [non-coordinate] (
B) hasnever been correctly formulated. It ishard to envisagea
correct formula-tionwithout the the precise tools that
theoreticalmodelsmake availableand with which we have proposed a
rather detailed formulation of thisvery relation.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
36 Mitrovic
references
Agbayani, B. and Golston, C. (2010), Second-position is
first-position:Wackernagels law and the role of clausal
conjunction, Indogermanis-che Forschungen: Zeitschrift fur
Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
115, 121.
Bach, E. (1964), An Introduction to Transformational Grammars,
New York:Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Beekes, R. (2010), EtymologicalDictionary ofGreek, Leiden
Indo-European Et-ymological Dictionary Series, Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Bloomfield, L. (1933), Language, New York: Holt, Rinehart
&Winston.
Blumel, R. (1914), Einfuhrung in die Syntax, Heidelberg: C.
Winter.
Bortolussi, B. (2013), Latin quisque as a floating quantifier,
Journal ofLatin Linguistics 12(1), 526.
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge,
MA: MITPress.
Chomsky, N. (2001), Derivation by phase, in M. Kenstowicz, ed.,
KenHale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 152.
Chomsky, N. (2008), On Phases, in R. Friedin, C. Otero and M. L.
Zu-bizarreta, eds, Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays
inHonour of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.
133165.
den Dikken, M. (2006), Either-float and the syntax of
co-or-dination,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(3),
689749.
Derksen, R. (2008), Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic
Inherited Lexicon, Vol. 4of Leiden Indo-European Etymological
Dictionary, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Dik, S. C. (1968), Coordination: its implications for the theory
of general linguistics,Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
37
Dougherty, R. C. (1969), Review of Coordination: Its
Implications for theTheoryof General Linguistics by simon c. dik,
Language 45, 624636.
Dunkel, G. E. (1982), IE conjunctions: pleonasm, ablaut,
suppletion,Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 96(2),
178199.
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum,G.andSag, I.
(1985),GeneralizedPhraseStruc-ture Grammar, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Gonda, J. (1954), Thehistory and original function of the
indo-europeanparticle *kwe, especially in greek and latin,Mnemosyne
4(7), 177214.
Goodall, G. (1987), Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination,
Causatives and Re-structuring, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Halle,M. andMarantz, A. (1994), Some key features of
distributedmor-phology.,MITWPL 21, 275288.
Kayne, R. (1994), The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Klein, J. S. (1985a), Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda.
Part 1., Vol. I,Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag.
Klein, J. S. (1985b), Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda.
Part 2., Vol. II,Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag.
Klein, J. S. (1988), Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian,
Journal of theAmericanOriental Society 108(3), 387417.
Klein, J. S. (1992), Some Indo-European Systems of
Conjunction:Rigveda, Old Persian, Homer, Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 94, 151.
Klein, J. S. (1997), Indefinite pronouns, polarity and related
phenomenain Classical Armenian: A study based on the Old Armenian
gospels,Transactions of the Philological Society 95(2), 189245.
Looijenga, T. (2003), Texts & Contexts of the Oldest Runic
Inscriptions, Vol. 4 ofTheNorthernWorld, E.J. Brill,
Leiden/Boston.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
38 Mitrovic
Marvin, T. (2003), Topics in the Stress and Syntax ofWords, PhD
thesis,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Meillet, A. (1908), Introduction a letude comparative des
langues indoeuropeennes,Paris: Hachette.
Mitrovic, M. (2014), Decomposing connectives, PhD thesis,
Universityof Cambridge.
Muadz, H. (1991), Coordinate structure: a planar representation,
PhDthesis, University of Arizona.
Myler,N. (2012), Anote ondendikkens (2006) arguments for a
j(unction)head. Ms. NYU.
Richards, M. (2007), On feature inheritance: an argument from
thephase impenetrability condition, Linguistic Inquiry 38,
563572.
Richards, N. (2014), Uttering Theory. Unpublished Monograph.
MIT.
Rizzi, L. (1997), The fine structure of the left periphery, in
L. Haegman,ed., Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp.
281337.
Samuels, B.D. (2009), TheStructure of Phonological Theory,
PhDthesis,Harvard University.
Slade, B. M. (2011), Formal and philological inquiries into the
na-ture of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in
Sinhalaand other languages, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Szabolcsi, A. (2013), What do quantifier particles do? Ms.
NYU.
Thurneysen, R. (2003), AGrammar ofOld Irish, Dublin: Dublin
Institute forAdvanced Studies.
Wackernagel, J. (1892), Uber ein Gesetz der indo-germanischen
Wort-stellung, Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 333436.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
-
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
39
Winter, Y. (1998), Flexible Boolean Semantics: coordination,
pluralityand scope in natural language, PhD thesis, Utrecht
University.
Zhang, N. N. (2010), Coordination in Syntax, Cambridge Studies
in Linguis-tics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manuscript draft ver. 4
introductionBackground assumptionAn enriched structureDen
Dikken's J(unction)Lexicalised J: Avar, Hungarian, South
Slavonic
indo-europeanAlternation in linear placementMorphemicity
deriving peninitial placementsummary and outlook