mitrovic2012 coordination indoeuropean

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:


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.



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:


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



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.).


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



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


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)



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


12 Mitrovic

a peninitial ze (


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


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:



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


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.



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.



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


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)



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


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)



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



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.


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.



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:


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



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.


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



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.


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.



..

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.


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



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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


introductionBackground assumptionAn enriched structureDen Dikken's J(unction)Lexicalised J: Avar, Hungarian, South Slavonic

indo-europeanAlternation in linear placementMorphemicity

deriving peninitial placementsummary and outlook

mitrovic2012 coordination indoeuropean

Documents

coordinate positions

configurational change

initial positions

initial type

coordinate structures

model of coordinate

word order change

orthotone initial coordinators