Mitrovic2012 Coordination Indoeuropean

configurational change in indo-european
coordinate construction
Moreno Mitrovic
manuscript Do not cite without consultation.
Manuscript, draft ver. 4 June 10, 2014
1 introduction
This paper investigates the word order change in Indo-European (IE)
coordinate construction. Across the entire IE family, two morphosyntactic patterns of coordination are found as Agbayani and Golston (2010)
have investigated most recently. In one type of coordinate construction,
the coordinator occupies the enclitic (peninitial, or second) position with
respect to the internal (second) coordinand (1a), while in another type,
the coordinator is initially placed between any two, or more, coordinands
(1b), as the the minimal representative pair from Homeric Greek shows
in (1). Diachronically, the change from the two competing structures
with peninitial and initial positions to the initial type is uniform across
the IE board.
(1)
a. .
eia te pteroenta
aspidas eukuklous lais
shields round
pelt
and feathered
The round shields and fluttering targets.
(Homer, Iliad, book M: l. 426)
b.
o polemoio
kes emi ka anti
there go and meet battle
Go thither, and confront the war.
(Homer, Iliad, book M: l. 368)
Moreno Mitrovi
c( )
Jesus College
Cambridge cb5 8bl
mm821@cam.ac.uk http://mitrovic.co
Mitrovi
c
The proposed synchronic analysis of the two coordinate structures,

represented in (1a) and (1b), identifies two coordinate positions: I will
show that enclitic (peninitial) coordinators occupy one of those positions,
while the orthotone (initial) coordinators occupy both coordinator positions. By looking into the fine-grained structure of coordination synchronically in IE languages, a diachronic account resting on the featurechecking mechanism will lend itself straightforwardly. The morphosyntactic change in word order patterns in coordination will be shown to not
only have ramifications in terms of linearisation (change from peninitial to initial position), but are tightly related to the semantics underlying the two positions we syntactically identify. I show that the alternation between the two (1a) and (1b) constructions is not free and random
but rather that it obeys the phasal logicality of derivation.
In the remainder of this section, I outline the theoretical foundations
regarding the syntax of coordination that my analysis rests on. Once the
binary and phrase-structure compliant idea is laid out in 1.1, I theoretically and empirically motivate an enrichment of the this structure in
1.2 by appealing to a more fine-grained model of coordinate construction.
1.1 Background assumption
The syntactic structure for coordination is taken to be binary as most

notably argued for by Kayne (1994) and Zhang (2010). Earliest arguments
mel
for a binary-branching model of coordinate syntax go back to Blu
(1914) with subsequent substantiation from Bloomfield (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. Following Kayne (1994), we will assume that coordinators are heads, merging an internal argument (coordinand) as its complement, and adjoining an external argument (coordinand) in its specifier, as per (2).
Manuscript draft ver. 4
Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction
(2)
&P
.
.
XP
.
coordinand
.
1
.
&.
YP
.
.
.coordinator
coordinand
.
2
In the following three subsection, I motivate a revision of (2): instead

of one coordinator position, two are additionally proposed to accommodate 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 corresponds to the representation in (2), den Dikken (2006) argues that exponents such as and and or do not in fact occupy the coordinator-head position as indicated in (2) but are rather phrasal subsets of the coordinator
projection, with their origins in the internal coordinand. The actual coordinator head, independent of conjunction and/or disjunction which
0
originate within the internal coordinand, is a junction head, J .

(3)
&P
.
.
XP
.
J.
coordinand
.
1
.
andP
.
.
0
coordinator
.
and
.
(silent)
.
.
.and
YP
.
coordinand
.
2
The core motivation for den Dikkens postulation of the silent presence
0
of J is to capture the distribution of the floating either in English. As

Myler (2012) succinctly summarises:
(4)
den Dikkens either is a phrasal category and can be adjoined to any

XP as long as:
Mitrovi
c
a. XP is on the projection line of the element focused in the first

disjunct; and
b. XP is not of C category; and
c. no CP node intervenes between either and the focused element
in the first disjunct; and
d. either surfaces to the left of the aforementioned focused element at PF.
This characterisation of either predicts its floatation (optional height of
adjunction), 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)
either. . . .
XP
.
JP.
.
0
(. . .) either
. ...
J.
.
.
YP
.
or ... .
Employing (in his words, the abtsract head) J , den Dikkens account
covers and explains not only the either...or coordinate constructions but
also the whether...or and both...and, which are unified under the structural
umbrella of JP structure. den Dikken (2006: 58) takes the head introduc0
ing the internal (second) coordinand not as the lexicalisation of J but

as a phrasal category establishing a feature-checking relationship with
0
abstract J instead.
An updated and enriched structure of (2) that den Dikken puts forth
and I assume here is therefore the following.
(8)
.
.
JP.
.
P
.
coordinand
.
1
.
.
J.
.
.
.
0
.
.
P
.
coordinand
.
2
There is no principled reason in his account according to which the

0
abstract head J would resist or be banned from lexicalisation. For den

0
Dikken, J is an abstract junction category inherently neutral between

conjunction and disjunction for which no overt evidence is provided since
0
his account rests on J not being lexicalised. I take it as a reasonable hypothesis that there may be languages, which overtly realise this junctional component of coordination. In 1.2.2, empirical justification for
(8) is provided. The following section will show that IE syntax of coordination was of the same type.
1.2.2 Lexicalised J: Avar, Hungarian, South Slavonic
There are empirical arguments substantiating the fine-grained (double-headed) structure for coordination (3). Our structure for coordination supposes there are three heads involved (a J and two s). Mutatis
mutandis, the theory predicts that there may be languages that realise all
three (J+/) heads simultaneously.
In this subsection, we consider contemporary languages, which show
evidence for the split coordination structure, i.e. two coordinator positions.
Southeastern Macedoni-
an (Stojmenova & Stojmenov, p.c.) boasts a rich set of overt coordinate

positions. Aside from the standard (English-like) type (9) and a polysyndetic (both/and-like) type (10) of conjunctive structure, Southeastern Macedonian also allows a union of exponency of the latter two (12) shows:
Mitrovi
c
(9) [
Roska] i [
Ivan]
0
0
0
( ) R
J ( ) I
Roska and Ivan.
(10)
[i Roska]
[i Ivan]
0
0
0
R
(J ) I
both Roska and Ivan.
(11)
[
Roska] i [i Ivan]
0
0 0
( ) R
J I
Roska and also Ivan.
(12) [i Roska] i [i Ivan]

0
0 0
R
J I
both Roska and also Ivan.
It is only SE Macedonian among the Indo-European languages that, to
the best of our knowledge, allows pronunciation of all three coordinate
0
heads (two and a J ) without an explicit counterexpectational (butlike) morpheme. SerBo-Croatian, as reported in (13), also allows three
coordinate morphemes per two conjuncts but the J head is adversative,
unlike (12).
(13)
[i Mujo] a
[i Haso]
0
0
0
M
J .but H
Not only Mujo but also Haso.
Beyond Slavonic (and Indo-European), we also find triadic
exponency of conjunction in Hungarian, which our system predicts, i.e.

the phonological realisation of the two heads and the J head, as per
(3). Hungarian allows the polysyndetic type of conjunction with reduplicative conjunctive markers. As given in (14), Hungarian allows the
0
optional realisation of the medial connective es (=J ) co-occurring with

0
polysyndetic additive particles is (= ), as Szabolcsi (2013: 17, fn. 21) reports.

(14)
s) Mari is
Kati is (e
K
J
M
Both Kate and Mary
Avar, a northeast Caucasian language of Daghestan, provides such

1
evidence. Avar boasts three structural possibilities for conjunction. It

first allows coordinate constructions of the polysyndetic (Latin que/que,
Japanese mo/mo) type (15), which, according to our JP system, involves
0
two overt heads and a silent J .

(15) keto gi
hve gi
cat (J) dog
cat and dog
Taking gi to be of category, we predict it to feature independently given
0
the prediction of subphrasal-status of complement to J . This in fact obtains and the gi-phrasea Pexhibits additive (focal) semantics. The
following shows the strings and (generalised) structures of such Ps in
Avar.
(16) Dida [gyeb gi] lala
I
know this
I [even/also know] this
(17) [Dida gi] gyeb lala
I
know this
[Even I/I too] know this
Aside from the polysyndetic type (18), Avar also allows an English-like
construction with a conjunction marker placed between the two coordi0
nands (19), which we take to be a phonological instantiation of J :

(18)
keto gi
hve gi
cat (J) dog
cat and dog
(19) keto va hve

cat () J dog ()
cat and dog
(20) keto gi va hve gi
cat J dog
cat and dog
1
This novel data was provided by Ramazanov (p.c.) and Mukhtarova (p.c.).
Mitrovi
c
It is the possibility of co-occurring realisations of the two types of positions that Avar allows which is typologically novel and, for our purposes,
most intriguing. The last type 20 shows a union of phonological realisations in 18 and 19 and the triadic exponency of conjunction. In this
construction type, both heads as well as J are realised simultaneously.
There is currently no alternative syntactic model of coordination, which
could explain the third (20) option of co-occurring realisation of coordination markers without further stipulations. Our fine-grained system
(8), however, can not only handle (20) without any problem, it even predicts its existence. Equipped with these theoretical and empirical observations, we now turn to the core component of this paper and investigate
the syntax of coordination in IE.
2 indo-european
Having motivates fine-grained J- complex for coordinate construction,
both theoretically and empirically, we now address the central concern
of this paper, the IE coordinate construction. The existence of two types
of construction with respect to the pen/initial positioning of the coordinator 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 coordinators heading pen/initial constructions.
In the following two subsections, we take each of the two (i, ii) properties in turn.
2.1 Alternation in linear placement
We start our discussion with a diachronic perspective on IE syntax of
coordination, which shows linear alternation in coordinator placement.
The earliest IE languages show that there existed two syntactic types of
coordinate structures. One in which the coordinator occupies the initial, and another in which the coordinator occupies the peninitial position with respect to the internal coordinand. Klein (1985a, 1985b) has
shown for R
. gvedic, and Agbayani and Golston (2010) for IE more generally, that the alternation between initial and peninitial placements of
the coordinator patterns with the category of the coordinands, whereby
the peninitial (enclitic) coordinators generally cannot coordinate clauses
which the initial coordinators can.
The following pairs of initial (a) and peninitial (b) coordinate configurations from Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin exhibit the alternation in linear
placement of the coordinating particle.
(21) Homeric Greek:
a. .
eia te pteroenta
shields round
pelt
and feathered
(Hom., Il., M: l.
426)
b.
polemoio
kes emi kai antio
there go and meet battle
Go thither, and confront the war.
(Hom., Il., M: l. 368)
(22) Vedic Sanskrit:

a.

yav-ndras-ca cetathah. suta

n
ajinvasu
va
am
. v
strength-bestowing
Vayu-Indra-and rush.2.dl rich
Vayu and Indra, rich in spoil, rush (hither).
(R. gveda,
1.002.5 )
b.

rs. i
sy
dvis. a
h.
pa
ta
a uta
save.imp.2.sg this and enmity
Save us from this and enmity.
(R. gveda, 2.007.2 )
(23) Classical Latin:
blicam atque ad omnium nostrum

a. ad summam rem pu
to utmost weal common and to all
of us
to highest welfare and all our [lives]
tem que
b. vam samu
life safety
and
(Cic., Or., 1.VI.27-8)
10
Mitrovi
c
(Cic., Or., 1.VI.28-9)
the life and safety
The syntactic duality of the double placement of the coordinator extends beyond the three classically representative IE languages above. It
is clear from these pairs of examples that IE had prepositive (a) and a
postpositive (b) series of coordinators. We could distinguish the two types
of configurations by positing that the peninitially placed (enclitic) coordinator induces some form of movement, either syntactically or postsyntactically, but that the difference lies only in the linearisation of the
surface placement of the coordinator. Let us now turn to briefly sketching the empirical facts surrounding this taxonomy of two types of coordinators in IE.
Old Avestan, just like R
. gvedic, distinguishes between initial uta and
enclitic ca:
(24)
Old Avestan:
a. atu ldzam
amQuruh
uta mazd
a
huruma
and wisdom.m.sg.gen increase.m.sg.nom
amoah
esoar
arag
haoma
raose
gara
haoma.m.sg.voc grow.2.subj.mid mountain.sg.m.loc
itiap
paiti
toward
And [thus] may you grow upon that mountain, O Haoma,

[bringing] the increase of wisdom, [...]. (Yasna Haptangh
aiti,
10.4)
11
b. mVZUY
OiibiEa
Aruha
z m
ahur
a
yu
a
eibiio
you.2.sg.nom them.pl.dat lord.m.sg.voc
ee
OJoa
aogo
AtAd
ACa
d
at
a
a
s. a
strength.n.sg.acc give.2.pl.aor.imp truth.n.sg.inst
Ac
mvrQaCx
x
s. ar m
c
a
power.n.sg.acc and
e
O Lord, may you give strength to them2 through Truth and

that power [. . . ]
(Yasna Haptangh
aiti, 29.10)
Hittite, along with other Anatolian languages, distinguishes between

the initial nu and enclitic (y)a.
(25)
Hittite:
a.

n Mursilin
nu ka
kuennir
nu e
sar ieir
nu
and prt Mursilis.acc they.killed and blood shed.3.pl and

Hantilis
Hantilis
nahsariyatati
feared.3.sg.m
And they killed Mursilis and they shed blood and Hantilis
was afraid.
(2BoTU. 23.1.33-35)
b.

an
su.kur.ra.me
s lu
.mesis.guskin ya humandan
charioteers
grooms.golden and all
Charioteers and all the golden grooms.
(StBoT. 24.ii.60-61)

c.
[ud]u.a.lum
za uru-az parnanzass a
a
kass
this.nom and ptc city.nom house.nom and ram
` -ru
du
become.3sg.imp
and let (both) this city and house become the ram
(KUB
41.8 iv 30.)
Old Church Slavonic also boasts a pair of coordinators: an initial i and
12
Mitrovi
c
a peninitial ze (< te, possibly via Greek ):

(26)
Old Church Slavonic:

a.

vetu
tvori
knezi
su
su
su
counsel.m.sg.acc took.3.sg.aor with princes.pl.inst
svoimi
i
s
Moravl
eny
poss.refl.inst and with the Moravians.pl.inst

carju
ku
posla
Mixailu
sent.3.sg.aor to tsar.sg.dat M.sg.dat
the Prince of Moravia took counsel with his Moravian princes
2
and appealed to Emperor Michael, [...]. (Vita Constantini, 14 )

b.
ze gljo
...
Azu
vamu
I
but tell.1.sg.pres you.dat
(Codex Marianus, Mat. 5:28)
But I tell you ...
Similarly, Old Irish possessed a complex ocus, which occupied the first
position, and a simplex ch (< kwe, cf. IIr. ca, Lat. que, etc.).
(27) Old Irish:
a. bo
Conchubur
ocus maithi
was.3.sg.aor C.m.nom.sg and the nobles.pl.nom
N
i nEmuin
Ulad
Ulstermen.m.pl.gen in Emain Macha
Conchobar and the nobles of the Ulstermen were in Emain
(Compert Con Culainn, 1.1)
Macha.
b. ba ch ri
Temrach
cop and king Tara.gen
And he was king of Tara.
(Laws, 4.179)
Among the old Germanic languages, only Gothic boasts a double set
of coordinators differing in the linear placement: an initial jah and an
13
enclitic uh.
(28) Gothic:
a. ak
ana lukarnastavin j ah liuteiv
ak
ana lukarnastain
jah liutei
neither on candle.dat.sg
and light.ind.3.sg
allaim
vaim
in vamma
garda
allaim
aim
in amma
garda.
all.dat.pl it.dat.pl in that.m.dat.sg house.m.dat.sg
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel.
(Codex Argenteus, Mat. 5:15)
b. (galaiv
in praitauria
aftra
(galai
in praitauria
aftra
came.pret.3.sg in judgement hall.acc.sh again
peilatus j ah) woida
iesu qav
uh
Peilatus jah) wopida
Iesu qa
uh
P.nom
and called.pret.3.sg J.acc said.pret.3.sg and
imma
imma
him.m.dat.sg
(Then) Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
Jesus, and said unto him.
(Codex Argenteus, Joh. 18:33)
While Gothic still shows the dual type of coordination (28), there is no
such evidence for other early Germanic languages. The only early Runic
inscription we have is the one in (29), where a medial conjunction andi is
employed.
(29)
Runic Germanic:
a. 1aigil1 andi1 aIlrun1
.andi .alrun.
.aigil
Aigil.pn and 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. As

w
Gonda (1954) and Dunkel (1982) note, a peninitial connective like k e is
14
Mitrovi
c
w
traditionally reconstructed with a twofold syntax: both single (X Y k e)

w
and double (X k e Y k e), as the following three pairs representatively

show.
(30)
Vedic and Classical Sanskrit:

a.

dharme
ca arthe
ca k
ame
ca
dharma/law.loc and commerce.loc and pleasure.loc and

moks. e
ca bharata r. s. abha yad
iha asti
tad
liberation.loc & Bharata giant which here is.3.sg that

anyatra yad
na iha asti
na tat kvacit
elsewhere which not here is.3.sg not that anywhere
Giant among Bharatas whatever is here on Law, and on commerce, and on pleasure, and on liberation is found elsewhere,
but what is not here is nowhere else. (Mah
abh
arata, 1.56.34)
b.

s ca cetathah
ajinvas
u
va
yav ndra
n
am
. suta
. v
strength-bestowing
Vayu Indra and rush.2.dl rich
Vayu and Indra, rich in spoil, rush (hither).
a
(R. gveda, 1.002.5 )

(31)
Homeric Greek:
a.

te eonta
te
os
ede
ta
ta
which were (=know.plup) the and exist.part the and

essomena pro
te eonta
exist.fut before and exist.part
That were, and that were to be, and that had been before.
(Homer, Iliad A: 70)
b.
eia te pteroenta
and feathered
pelt
shields round
(Homer, Iliad M: 426)
(32) Classical Latin:
15
a. iam
tum tendit que fovet que
already then pursue and favour and
Already then, she both pursued it and (also) favoured it. (Vir.,
Aen., 1.18)
b. vam sam
utem que
life safety
and
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 the modern
English emphatic conjunction with both...and. We find the same reduplicative pattern with emphatic/focal semantics in Old Church Slavonic
(OCS), which survives in synchronic SerBo-Croatian, among other synchronic Slavonic languages. It is OCS, and its diachronic descendants,
that shows the independence of linear placement and semantic force behind the coordinator. Proto-Slavonic has independently syncretised the
prepositive (initial atque-type) and postpositive (peninitial/enclitic quetype) coordinators but only lexically. As the following OCS example in
(33) shows, conjunctor i has both the conjunctive semantics of the initial
atque-type coordinators in IE as well as the emphatic/focal semantics of
the enclitic que-type coordinators. While the dual semanticsto be adequately addressed belowis retained in Slavonic, the moprho-lexical
difference 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 coordination with emphatic/focal
meaning, while the second pair (b) is an example of a monosyndetic construction.
(33) Old Church Slavonic:

a.
t
elo
d
so
i
o
staago i
e pace mog
ze s
boite
fear but refl rather which may and soul and body
pogubiti
destroy
16
Mitrovi
c
But rather fear that which is able to destroy both soul and body.
(CM, Mat. 10:28)
b.

eko gol
b
od
ete
ze m
odri
eko zmij
e
i
c
eli
obe
be
but wise as serpents and harmless as doves
Rather be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(CM, Mat. 10:16)
Note that the focal additive meaning related to polysyndeticity has
been retained in some of the contemporary varieties of Slavonic. The
following are parallel examples from Mathew in SerBo-Croatian:
(34)
Synchronic SerBo-Croatian:
a. Bojte se vi
se onoga koji
mo
ze i
du
su i
tijelo
fear refl more that which may and soul and body
pogubiti
destroy
But rather fear that which is able to destroy both soul and body.
(Mat. 10:28)
b. budite dakle
mudri kao zmije
i
bezazleni kao
be
therefore wise as serpents and harmless as
golubovi
doves
Rather be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
(Mat.
10:16)
In this subsection weve shown that IE indeed freely allowed reduplication of the coordinator. Having explored the possible semantic side2
effect of such reduplication yielding enriched conjunction , we now

turn to another feature of the double system of coordination.
2.2 Morphemicity
There is one additional, and for our purposes crucial, fact distinguishing the initial and the peninitial types of coordinators. The difference
also lies in the morphological structure of the two series.
2
In Mitrovi
c (2014: ch.
6), the historical and cross-linguistic dimensions of
non/reduplicative coordination is investigated.
17
While peninitial coordinators are monomorphemic, the initial coordinators are not. Initially placed coordinators are bimorphemic and as
such are decomposable synchronically or diachronically into two coordinators, each underlying a morpheme. Greek kai, for instance, derives
from kati, itself being a concatenation of k e + te (Beekes 2010: 614, ?:

390). Conversely, Indo-Iranian (IIr.) uta comprises of coordinator u + ta
(< h2 (e)u + te); Gothic coordinators jah and jau result from yo + kee and
yo + h2 u respectively. Dunkel (1982) reconstructs two [enclitic] series
of four coordinators for PIE. One series is orthotone and another enclitic
3
as shown in Tab. 1 .
orthotone
w
w
k
o / k i
h2ew
y
o
t
o
enclitic
-k e
-h2 u
-yo
-te
Table 1: Dunkels (1982) reconstruction of two coordinator series in IE

The initial coordinators in IE are generally decomposable intoand
reconstructable only asa pair of orthotone and enclitic coordinators.
0
I take these halves to correspond to the two coordinate heads J and
that we have independently motivated in 1.2 using den Dikkens (2006)

proposal.
Dunkels orthotone connectives, however, are not found in independent (uncomposed) word-level compositions, which begs the question of
redundancy of the orthotone series. In its stead we may simply assume
a single, inherently enclitic, series, out of which bimorphemic coordinators are composed. This reasoning derives the empirical facts in Tab.
2 in a more economical way.
We are now in a position to distinguish the three canonical word order
types in IE coordination. In monosyndetic coordinations with enclitic
particles, the external (first) coordinand (P) is silent. In coordinations
headed by a linearly initial bimorphemic coordinator, the two coordi3
The philological notation h2 refers to the a-colouring laryngeal.
18
Mitrovi
c
dependent / composed
w
k e
k e
te
h2 u
Gr. kai
te
OIr. to-ch
Hit. tak-ku
h2 u
Skt. u ca
Lat. at-que
IIr. u-ta
Gr. au-te
Lat. au-t
yo
Goth. ja-h
Goth. j-au
nu
OIr. na-ch
OIr. na-de
independent
nu
[+]
[]
IIr. ca
Lat. que
OIr. ch
Goth. uh
Gaul. cue
Ven. ke
Celtib. ku
Gr. te, de
Alb. dhe
Skt. tu
Sl. ze
Sl. to
Sl. i-no
IIr. u
Gr. au
CLuw. ha
Sl. i
Hit. ya
TochA. yo
Myc. jo
Hit. nu
OIr. no
Sl. n
u
yo
Table 2: Clitic combinatorics as strategy for development of orthotone coordinators.
nate morphemes are distributed between J and the head of its comple0
ment, , as per Tab. 2. This idea is summarised in (35) with the three
types of coordinate construction; Classical Latin (at)que is taken as an ex-
The notation [] in Tab. 2 refers to whether a particle is a Wackernagel element, requiring second-position ([+]), or not ([]). The theory and details behind the notations
are addressed below.
19
ample ( is a notation for phonological silence).

(35)
a. Peninitial coordinate constructions

i. Peninitial monosyndetic coordination (30a, 31a, 32a, 33a):
0
[[P . coord1 ] [ J . [P . coord2 ]]]

.
que
.
que
.
ii. Peninitial monosyndetic coordination (30b, 31b, 32b, 33b) with

0
phonologically silent ext :

0
[[P . coord1 ] [ J . [P . coord2 ]]]

.
que
.
b. Initial (bimorphemic) coordinate constructions (??, ??, 23a)

0
with phonologically silent ext :

0
[[P . coord1 ] [ J . [P . coord2 ]]]

.
at.
que
.
The analysis of compound coordinators sketched in (35b), where the

morphological components of initial particles like Latin at-que or San0
skrit u-t
a are spread between and J , also lends itself to a diachronic
analysis of the development of linear placement of coordinators in synchronic IE, which is uniformly head-initial. The analysis put forth here
also makes an empirical prediction for IE. Our having assigned the lower
-headed coordination structure a category status, we predict the independence of P. According to (8), the syntax of coordination is broken
0
down into categories of two kinds. While the higher J is taken to join
coordinate arguments, its substructural P is thus, mutatis mutandis, predicted to be an independent phrasal category. By virtue of being junc0
tional, J establishes a two-place relation between coordinands (a formal default of coordination). P, on the other hand, does not establish a
two-place coordinate relation, which leads us to the possibility there are
mono-argumental and morphosyntactically coordination-like constructions headed by in IE. Given the generalisation on monomorphemic
0
enclitic coordinators, now treated as s, to establish (8), we need to find
20
Mitrovi
c
in IE mono-argumental constructions headed by monomorphemic particles like Latin que, Sanskrit ca or OCS i. This is in fact what we find in
all IE branches. Independent Ps are of three types: polarity constructions (I didnt see anyone), free-choice constructions (You may have
any/whichever one) and focus constructions (Even he came in). In the
0
former two, Ps contain a and a wh-element. The following examples show a consistent spread of Ps, marked with brackets, across the
board of old IE languages.
Moving westward, we start with Indo-Iranian. Both R
. gvedic and postVedic Sanskrit show the non-coordinate use of the coordinating particle
ca, 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 to
the function ofalso/even in English, as shown in (36d).
(36) Vedic & Classical Sanskrit:

a.

dhi
tda
m
ca]
a
vi
s
vam
modate
y
a
t
[k
m
pra
pr
thivy
a
m
.
.
.
world exults which [what ] world.f.acc upon
this
This whole world exults whatever is upon the earth.

a
(R. gveda, 5.83.9 )

b.
dhu
yady- abhyupetam
[kva
ca]
s
a
dhu
asa
.
if
promised to be accepted where honest dishonest

va kr. tam
may
a
.
or done.pst.part 1.sg.instr
If you accept whatever I may do, whether honest or dishonest.
(Bh
agavatapur
an. a, 8.9.12)
c.
m
ay
a?
ca] tititarti
[ka
s
na yasya
neg whom.gen [who.m.sg ] able to overcome illusions.pl
No one [=not anyone] can overcome that (=the Supreme Personality of Godheads) illusory energy.
(Bh
agavatapur
an. a, 8.5.30)
21
d.

[cintayam
ca] na pasyami bhavatam
. s. prati
thinking.pres.part neg see.1.sg you
unto

vaikr. tam
offence.acc
Even after much thinking, I fail to see the injury I did unto
(Mah
abh
arata, 2.20.1)
you.
In Latin, too, the combination of a particle and a wh-term may yield a

free-choice item like whatever in (37a). Alternatively, the combination
may obtain a universal quantificational expression like all or each, as
examples which Bortolussi (2013) collected in (37b37d) show.
(37) Latin:
a. ut, in quo [quis que] artificio excelleret, is in suo genere
that in who [what ]
craft
excels,
is in his family
Roscius diceretur
R
spoken
so that he, in whatever craft he excels, is spoken of as a Roscius
in his field of endeavor.
(Cic., de Or. 1.28.130)
b. Sic singillatim nostrum unus quis-que mouetur

so individually we
one wh-
moved
So each of us is individually moved
(Lucil. sat. 563)
c. Morbus est habitus cuius-que corporis contra naturam

sickness is reside wh-
body
contrary nature
The sickness is the situation of any/every/each body contrary
to nature
(Gell. 4,2,3)
d. auent audire quid quis-que senserit

want hear what wh-
think
they wish to hear what each mans (everyones) opinion was
(Cic. Phil. 14,19)
Note the same free-choice meaning in Gothic, where the combination of a wh-term like where and a particle uh, diachronically
w
deriving from k e, yields wherever as (38a) suggests. Just as in
22
Mitrovi
c
Latin, and other IE languages, the wh+ combination may also

form a universal quantificational expression as per (38b).
(38)
Gothic:
a. visxad uh
gaggis
[ishvad uh] (. . .) gaggis.
[where ]
go.2.sg.pres.act.ind
wherever you go
(Mat. 8:19)
b. j ah xaz
uh saei
hauseiv
waruda
jah [hvaz
uh] saei
hausei
waurda
and who.m.sg and pro.m.sg hear.3.sg.ind words.acc.pl
meina
meina
mine
And 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 which were conjunctive; ze was adversative in nature and historically related to Greek (translating as but). In non-coordinate uses,
i was additive-focal (cf. Sanskrit ex. 36d), while ze combined with whhosts to form a negative polarity item or a free-choice expression. The
former additive and the latter free-choice functions are shown in (39a)
and (39b), respectively.
(39)
Old Church Slavonic:

a.

la
nimu
posu
[i togo]
ku
sent.3.pl.aor [ him.m.sg.acc] to then.pl.dat
He sent also him to them.
(Mar. 12:6)
b.
ei
izdrece
etvoj
o
su kl
with oath.f.sg.ins promised.3.pl.aor her.f.sg.dat
sprositu
ste vu
ze] a
[ego
dati
give.inf [what ] if ask.sg.pres
With an oath he promised to give her whatsoever she would
ask.
(Mat, 14:7)
23
We also find the additive use of the coordinator pe (< k e?) in Tocharian:
(40)
Tocharian:
h
emintuyo
rt
a. [n
ypic olyiyam
sa
.
[jewels.pl.inst full ship.f.sg.loc caravan.m.sg.obl
Jambudvipac
pe]
Jambudvipa.m.sg.allt and/]
mura
s. ,
t
ya
s. pa
having been made.supp.abs.m.sg.abl seven
ukac
kom
kn
wram
. sa
.
day.m.pl.perlt neck.sg.allt water.sg.loc
With a caravan to Jambudvipa also having been made in a
ship filled with jewels [. . . ]
taka, 5 )
(tA, Pun
. yavanta-Ja
w
While Classical Armenian did not possess the enclitic k e-type coordinator, we can ascertain its loss in the pre-Classical period, since the
w
remnant k e still shows in fossilised non-coordinate form, with the semantics aligned with the remainder of other IE languages.
(41)
Classical Armenian:
a.
ete [ok] . . .
if who-
If anyone [strike (thee) upon thy right cheek . . . ]
(Mat.,
5.39; Klein 1997: 196)

b.
[erbek] . . .
[time.loc ]
At any time/ever.
(Mat., 5.39; Klein 1997: 191)
Hittite, along with the rest of Anatolian, also shows mono-argumental

functions of the coordinator, of which there were two kinds: kki/kku and
(y)a. In non-coordinate uses in combination with wh-hosts, the former
creates negative polarity terms (42a), while the latter creates universal
quantificational expressions (42b,42c), a feature common among its IE
brethren.
24
Mitrovi
c
(42)
Hittite:
a.

ul
nu-wa
[kuit ki] sakti
and-quot neg [who ] know.2.sg.pres
You know nothing (=not anything)
(KUB XXIV.8.I.36)
b.
nu dumu.me
s-U [kui
s
s-a] kuwatta
utn
e
paizzi
J sons.his
who- = somewhere country.loc went
Each of his sons went somewhere to a country.
(KBo.
3.I.1.1718)
c.

nu [kuitt-a]
arhayan kinaizz[i
J what- = seperately sifts
She sifts everything seperately.
(KUB XXIV.11.III.18)
Old Irish ch, itself a reflex of PIE k e, aside from the coordinate function, also creates free-choice (43a) and universal quantificational (43b,43c)
expressions.
(43)
Old Irish:
a. [ce
ch] taibre
[what ] give.2.subj
what[so]ever thou mays give.
(Zu ir. Hss. 1.20.15; Thurneysen 2003: 289)
b. [ce
ch] orr
[what ] slay.3.m.subj
whichever he may slay.
(Anecd. ii.63.14.h; Thurneysen 2003: 289)
c. a
huili duini .i. a

[ca-ch]
duini
voc all man i.e. voc wh-=every man
O, all men i.e. O, every man (Wb. 10c20)
The morphosyntactic independence of P across a wide range of IE lan0
guages is strong evidence for the J - coordination complex (8) defended

here and elsewhere (cf. Slade 2011, Winter 1998, Szabolcsi 2013, inter alia).
There is additional semantic evidence for the proposed structure, which
25
semantically obtains two different operators. In the absence of J , Ps

are predicted to have the three kinds semantic contribution (additive focus, polarity, free choice).
By the same reasoning, we predict, for instance, that the Slovenian
conjunctor in, being derived from a compounding of Proto-Slavonic i
and adverbial-like connective n

u, is not of but of J category, which explains its inability to form a polarity/free-choice item with a wh-element
(44), unlike SerBo-Croatian (45), which has retained the Proto-Slavonic
monomorphemic i (Derksen, 2008: 207), taken here to be of category.

(44)
* in kdo
J who
anyone/whoever
(45)
i (t)ko
who
anyone/whoever
Equipped with a fine-grained structure for coordination, we now turn

our focus to the synchronic syntax of peninitially placed Wackernagel
coordinators and derive a diachronic analysis of its loss.
3 deriving peninitial placement

We have empirically established that there were two canonical constructions available in IE languages: a head initial and a head peninitial
one, the latter with the two mono- and polysydentic subtypes. Theoretically, given the three properties of the double systemlinearisation,
focus and morphemic structureaddressed in 2.12.2, we derived all
three properties differentiating the two canonical patterns within our
JP structure.
This section addresses the syntactic derivation behind the peninitial
placement of the coordinator. We first investigate the synchronic constructions in IE that feature peninitial particles and outline a diachronic
account, according to which the initial pattern is the surviving one.
26
Mitrovi
c
The second position effect has its traditional aetiology in what is known
as Wackernagels Law. Wackernagel (1892) is credited to have dubbed the
one generalisation that applies to the syntax of PIE, namely that some
elements consistently occupy the second position in a given string of
words, or, in modern terminology, in a given constituent. Suffice it to
say that the 1892 generalisation is far beyond explanatory: it is solely
a descriptive observation pertaining to word count. An explanation is,
however, feasible in a theory of syntax which, for instance, attributes all
configurational (word order related) differences to differences in movement. There have essentially been two theoretically different approaches
to the explanatory account of Wackernagels Law. Although both theories see the cause of the second position effect in movement, one confines this movement to narrow syntax while another places the movement in the post-syntactic module where prosody is king.
The purpose of this section is not to categorically suggest a confinement space wherein the W(ackernagel)-movement takes place, but to
suggest an over-arching factor of the distribution of the second position
effects that the IE coordination data suggests. This factor, as it were,
is the phasal architecture, to which not only the syntactic derivation is
subject but also the phonological and prosodic processes that follow it.
A Wackernagel element like our (Lat. -que, Hom. -te, Lat. que, Goth.
Lat. -uh, Skt. Lat. -ca, etc.) has a requirement which demands be pre5
ceded by a head. Let us assume that particles come hardwired with a

[EPP]-like feature which, unlike [EPP], attracts and induces movement
of the closest and the smallest syntactic object, a terminal/head. Just
like [EPP], [] must be checked in line with the principle of economy (as
soon as possible). If there is a syntactically available object satisfying
the two movement criteriai.e., the syntactic object is (a) the closest
(b) X
min
then [] is checked syntactically. If there is no eligible local ter-
minal in the syntactic structure, [] is checked post-syntactically, as per

economy (better later than never). The visibility and eligibility of such
5
The clitic host is necessarily (of the size of) a head; we do not come across entire categories preceding enclitics.
27
head targets is determined, as we shall see, by phasality.

Phases, as domain delimiters for structure building, do not only concern syntactic processes. It is a standard minimalist assumption to view
phasal heads as closing off a cycle, which isupon merger of the phasal
0
head, X transferred to the two interfaces for semantic and phonological processing (interpretation and externalisation respectively). A phase
therefore not only partitions narrow syntactic derivation into logical building blocks but also delimits post-syntactic operations and synchronises
them with narrow syntax. In this direction, Samuels (2009: 242) takes
as a starting point the conceptual argument laid out in the foundational
work by Marvin (2003: 74): If we think of levels in the lexicon as levels of
syntactic attachment of affixes, we can actually say that Lexical Phonology suggests that phonological rules are limited by syntactic domains,
possibly phases. Samuels thus proposes a Phonological Derivation by
Phase (PDbP), which relies on a cycle that is not proprietary to phonology. (Samuels, 2009: 243) Combining Samuelss theory with a recognition of post-syntactic movement, we should predict the domain or scope
of such operations based on the narrow syntactic derivation. Assume
in (46) is a Wackernagel-type coordinator specified with [ ], which represents the requirement for peninitial placement. Lets assume it takes
a phasal complement X P, which has ZP as its specifier and YP as its complement.
(46)
.
P
.
[]
.
.0
.Z
X.P
.
ZP
0
X.
.
.
YP
. ...
.
a. -checkable terminals narrow syntactically:
28
Mitrovi
c
b. -checkable terminals post-syntactically: {Z , . . . , X }

c. closest accessible terminal: Z
Since the phasal head, X , triggers the transfer of its complement,

only the edge of X P is accessible to outside operations. The head of
ZP is ineligible for narrow syntactic head movement, possibly for reasons 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 the
aforementioned economy. Nominal coordination of the type in (47) thus
get linearised narrow syntactically since the set of -accessible terminals
would not be empty, unlike in (46).
(47)
janayan ma
nave
si ca ti
a
apa
ks. a
m
for.men created.mid.3.sg.m earth (J) water
For men he created the earth and water.
(R. gveda, 2.20.7 )
On the other hand, a structure like the one in (48) could only be an instance of post-syntactic movement since the target of movement is syntactically inaccessible and incorporable (head-immovable) as the set of
0
-accessible terminals is in fact empty (null C ) and does not contain the
wh-terminal, which originates within the specifier of the k
artv
a-headed
CP. Assuming phonology doesnt have to readsyntactic boundaries,
since it just applies to each chunk as it is received (Samuels, 2009:
250), the syntactically inaccesible wh-temrinal y
a is made available to
post-syntactically, thereby checking via movement the [ ] feature.

(48)
ni
rtv
ca ti ka
a
ya
i
kr. ta
made.prt. (J) which.rel to.be.made.fut.part

. . . what has been and what will be done.
(R. gveda, 1.25.11 )
So far, we have set a system of post-syntactic rescue for -checking,

appealing to post-syntactic access of the internal structure of specifiers
and availability of post-syntactic incorporation of narrow syntactically
29
frozen specifiers. Now we turn to cases where the edge, comprising of a

specifier and head, of a phasal category is empty. Take (49):
(49)
so
hanti
raks. a
slay.pres.3.sg demons.acc.pl
a
(R. gveda, 5.83.2 )
He slays the demons.

0
The present verb hanti seems to sit in T with the object, the demons,
lower in the structure, presumably in its V-complementing in situ position. Assuming the category of (49) is that of CP, we see that CP edge is
0
empty: the indicative C is phonologically null and no syntactic material

has been extraposed or otherwise moved to any of the left-peripheral CP
specifiers, such as a Rizzian Focus head. Should such a CP undergo coor0
dination, the [ ] feature on would not be deleted. Given our assumptions, the derivation would crash due to this. Structure in (50) sketches
this scenario, where there are no syntactically or post-syntactically ac0
cessible terminals within s search domain. The Wackernagel effect

is therefore blocked by virtue of there being no suitable post/syntactic
0
material below .
30
Mitrovi
c
(50)
.
JP.
.. ...
J.
.
.
.
[]
.
.
P
C.P
.
.
.
empty edge
C.
0
empty X
.
TP
.
.
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, the
0
otherwise silent J receives phonological realisation for -checking reasons. The full internal coordination structure of (49) is given in (51). The
0
last resort mechanism qua phonological realisation of J may be analogised to expletive subjects in a language like English. Just as there is no
subject (in the vP) eligible to raise to [Spec, TP] in sentences like it is raining,, an expletive subject is realised as last resort. Equally, when there
0
are no eligible heads for [ ]-checking, J is overt.
(51)
so
raks. a
a hanti
u -t
J slay.pres.3.sg demons.acc.pl
31
a
(R. gveda, 5.83.2 )
And he slays the demons.
The proposed analysis is also an explanation of an empirical generalisation that has not only been extensively shown to hold not only in
R
. gvedic (Klein 1985a,1985b) and Old Persian (Klein, 1988) but across the
vast array of ancient IE languages (Klein 1992, Agbayani and Golston 2010).
(52)
categorial generalisation:
Peninitial coordinators do not head clausal coordinations.
Since clauses (CPs) are inherently phasal (Chomsky 2001, et seq.), they
provide the selecting head with far less search space, or in the case of
(51), an empty set of possible incorporees. In non-CP coordinands, [ ]
0
may be checked by virtue of access to terminals in s complements interior. The derivation of non-clausal coordination is therefore strictly
0
cyclical: once an XP is derived (cycle I), it is selected by (cycle II.) whose
[] feature is checked Agree-wise. The category is in turn incremented

6
by J (cycle III.), as shown in (53a). The external coordinand is merged in

[Spec,JP] (cycle IV.) in line with cycles II. and III. Stopping off the derivation at the point of the second cycle obtains bare Ps with focal/polar0
/scalar semantics (36)(43). The third J -cycle obtains a sysntactic structure for coordination. Diachronically, the change occurs in the collaps0
ing of the second and third cycles, whereby and J feature in a single
cycle and thereby inherently yielding bimorphemic coordinators, mor0
phologically and lexically deleting [ ] on , which in time gets buried

0
under J , as instantiated in (53b). The interdependence of the J- complex is empirically and technically analogous to proposals by Chomsky
0
(2008) and Richards (2007), among others, who claim that T is lexically
defective, bearing no -features of its own, and instead inherits its 0
features from the phase head C . In light of this, can be analysed as

0
lexically defective, requiring an overt (clitic hosting/*) J to delete [ ].
The derivation of the external coordinand is ignored here.
32
Mitrovi
c
(53)
a. III.
. JP.
II.
.Pint
.
I.
. XP
.
.. ...
.
[ ]
.
. .
0
.
.ZP
J.
.
.
.
YP
.0
.X
. ...
b. II.
I.
. XP
.
. JP.
.. ...
.
J.
0
.
.
.
.Pint
.
0
X.
.
YP
.
.
. ...
.
.*
.
[.]
.
This view predicts that the loss of enclitic monomorphemic coordinators, and the inverse rise of the inherently initial bimorphemic coordinators, entails the loss of independent P, which features in focal additive, polar and scalar construction as in (36)(43). This is in fact confirmed.
7
0
Diachronically, the last resort option of realising an overt J to host

the -particles (53b) becomes the first response, as schematised in Fig.
0
1. Clausal coordination type generalises to all categories as comes preinstalled with a hosting morpheme.
The only exception to this diachronic interlock between changes in word order and se0
mantics, would be a case where would not carry [ ] and thus would not get buried
0
under J in time. The Slavonic branch is such an exception, which has lexically syncre0
0
tised the entries for J and as i but the semantics of the coordinate/non-coordinate
constructions clearly shows that two forms of i existed in OCS, which is preserved in
most branches of synchronic Slavonic. See ? for details.
ge
II
a
st
P
JP
st
fir
e
ag
st
33
p
res
se
on
JP
0
en
em
ov
-m
r
st
fir
ns
po
es
t
sor
t re
las
Figure 1: A diachronic sketch of syntactic development of coordination in IndoEuropean.
34
Mitrovi
c
4 summary and outlook

This paper looked at the synchronic and diachronic status of word order in Indo-European (IE) coordinate construction. It empirically established that all earliest attestations show that IE boasted a double syntactic system of coordination where the coordinate constructions were
essentially of two types:
(i) in one type, the coordinator occupies the initial position with regards to the second conjunct, as is the case in synchronic IE languages;
(ii) in another type, the coordinator is placed in the peninitial position with regards to the second conjunct, which is the standard
effect of the so-called Wackernagels law, which describes the fact
that the syntax required particular elements to be second in position.
The first desideratum was therefore to unify syntactically the two series of coordinate structures, which has been accomplished by appealing
to den Dikkens J(unction) structure. The proposed analysis has given
both types (i) and (ii) the same structure, namely a double-headed coordinate structure. The Wackernagel type (ii) construction, obtaining
peninitial placement of the coordinator, consisted of a covert high J
and an overt lower carrying an incorporation-triggering feature [ ],

which weve taken to be on a par with [epp], which is itself reducible to
the requirement that syntactic objects follow a metrical boundary as developed in Richards (2014). Coordination structures in which [ ] may not
be checked (syntactically or postsyntally), feature an overt realisation of
0
J , which acts as checker. We have thus derived the two empirical generalisations on IE coordination.
(54)
a.
i. initial coordinators (i) in IE are generally bimorphemic

ii. peninitial coordinators (ii) in IE are generally monomorphemic
b.
i. bimorphemic initial coordinators (i) in IE can coordinate CPs
35
ii. monomorphemic peninitial coordinators (ii) in IE cannot coordinate CPs

The J- system is also aligned with the model of Distributive Morphology. Assuming morphemes correspond to syntactic heads (Halle and
Marantz 1994, et seq.), initial coordinators,of (i)-type, are taken to in0
stantiate phonologically both of the two coordinate heads (J + ), while

enclitic coordinators (of (ii)-type) are instances of partially spelled out JP
structure.
If nothing else, we have demonstrated in this paper that the marriage
of theoretical syntax and historical IE linguistics is a very fruitful one
since we have attempted to definitively resume a 106 year old topic dating back to Meillet (1908). As Gonda (1954: 180) remarks, it was Meillet
(1908) who expressed the opinion that the conjoining and non-conjoining
w
k e are originally the same, i.e. the non-conjoining k e belongs to
the family of indefinites and interrogatives. (Meillet, 1908: 353) Gonda

(1954) was among the first to resume the discussion and to formulate the
problem precisely:
The question may, to begin with, be posed whether we

are right in translating Skt. ca, Gr. , Lat. que, etc., sim w
ply by our modern and in regarding the prehistoric k e as a

conjunction in the traditional sense of the term. It is a matter of general knowledge that many words which at a later
period 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 copulative [coordinate] ( A) and the epic [non-coordinate] ( B) has
never been correctly formulated. It is hard to envisage a correct formulation without the the precise tools that theoretical models make available
and with which we have proposed a rather detailed formulation of this
very relation.
36
Mitrovi
c
references
Agbayani, B. and Golston, C. (2010), Second-position is first-position:
Wackernagels law and the role of clausal conjunction, Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift f
ur Indogermanistik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft
115, 121.
Bach, E. (1964), An Introduction to Transformational Grammars, New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Beekes, R. (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Bloomfield, L. (1933), Language, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
mel, R. (1914), Einfuhrung in die Syntax, Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Blu
Bortolussi, B. (2013), Latin quisque as a floating quantifier, Journal of
Latin Linguistics 12(1), 526.
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001), Derivation by phase, in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken
Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 152.
Chomsky, N. (2008), On Phases, in R. Friedin, C. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds, Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in
Honour of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 133
165.
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. 4
of 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.
37
Dougherty, R. C. (1969), Review of Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory

of General Linguistics by simon c. dik, Language 45, 624636.
Dunkel, G. E. (1982), IE conjunctions: pleonasm, ablaut, suppletion,
Zeitschrift f
ur vergleichende Sprachforschung 96(2), 178199.
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. and Sag, I. (1985), Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gonda, J. (1954), The history and original function of the indo-european
particle *kwe, especially in greek and latin, Mnemosyne 4(7), 177214.
Goodall, G. (1987), Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives and Restructuring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1994), Some key features of distributed morphology., 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,
tsverlag.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universita
Klein, J. S. (1985b), Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda. Part 2., Vol. II,
tsverlag.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universita
Klein, J. S. (1988), Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian, Journal of the
American Oriental Society 108(3), 387417.
Klein, J. S. (1992), Some Indo-European Systems of Conjunction:
Rigveda, Old Persian, Homer, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94, 1
51.
Klein, J. S. (1997), Indefinite pronouns, polarity and related phenomena
in 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 of
The Northern World, E.J. Brill, Leiden/Boston.
38
Mitrovi
c
Marvin, T. (2003), Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words, PhD thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Meillet, A. (1908), Introduction `
a letude comparative des langues indoeuropeennes,
Paris: Hachette.
Mitrovi
c, M. (2014), Decomposing connectives, PhD thesis, University
of Cambridge.
Muadz, H. (1991), Coordinate structure: a planar representation, PhD
thesis, University of Arizona.
Myler, N. (2012), A note on den dikkens (2006) arguments for a j(unction)
head. Ms. NYU.
Richards, M. (2007), On feature inheritance: an argument from the
phase 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), The Structure of Phonological Theory, PhD thesis,
Harvard University.
Slade, B. M. (2011), Formal and philological inquiries into the nature of interrogatives, indefinites, disjunction, and focus in Sinhala
and other languages, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.
Szabolcsi, A. (2013), What do quantifier particles do? Ms. NYU.
Thurneysen, R. (2003), A Grammar of Old Irish, Dublin: Dublin Institute for
Advanced Studies.
Wackernagel, J. (1892), Uber

ein Gesetz der indo-germanischen Wortstellung, Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 333436.
39
Winter, Y. (1998), Flexible Boolean Semantics: coordination, plurality

and scope in natural language, PhD thesis, Utrecht University.
Zhang, N. N. (2010), Coordination in Syntax, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitrovic2012 Coordination Indoeuropean

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mitrovic2012 Coordination Indoeuropean

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

configurational change in indo-european

manuscript Do not cite without consultation.

Manuscript, draft ver. 4 June 10, 2014

The proposed synchronic analysis of the two coordinate structures,

1.1 Background assumption

The syntactic structure for coordination is taken to be binary as most

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction

In the following three subsection, I motivate a revision of (2): instead

originate within the internal coordinand, is a junction head, J .

of J is to capture the distribution of the floating either in English. As

den Dikkens either is a phrasal category and can be adjoined to any

Manuscript draft ver. 4

a. XP is on the projection line of the element focused in the first

a. John ate either rice or beans.

a. Either John ate rice or he ate beans.

ing the internal (second) coordinand not as the lexicalisation of J but

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction

There is no principled reason in his account according to which the

abstract head J would resist or be banned from lexicalisation. For den

Dikken, J is an abstract junction category inherently neutral between

an (Stojmenova & Stojmenov, p.c.) boasts a rich set of overt coordinate

Manuscript draft ver. 4

(12) [i Roska] i [i Ivan]

exponency of conjunction in Hungarian, which our system predicts, i.e.

optional realisation of the medial connective es (=J ) co-occurring with

polysyndetic additive particles is (= ), as Szabolcsi (2013: 17, fn. 21) reports.

Both Kate and Mary

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction

Avar, a northeast Caucasian language of Daghestan, provides such

evidence. Avar boasts three structural possibilities for conjunction. It

two overt heads and a silent J .

nands (19), which we take to be a phonological instantiation of J :

(19) keto va hve

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction

(Hom., Il., M: l. 368)

(22) Vedic Sanskrit:

yav-ndras-ca cetathah. suta

(R. gveda, 2.007.2 )

(23) Classical Latin:

blicam atque ad omnium nostrum

Manuscript draft ver. 4

(Cic., Or., 1.VI.27-8)

(Cic., Or., 1.VI.28-9)

the life and safety

And [thus] may you grow upon that mountain, O Haoma,

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction

strength.n.sg.acc give.2.pl.aor.imp truth.n.sg.inst

O Lord, may you give strength to them2 through Truth and

Hittite, along with other Anatolian languages, distinguishes between

Manuscript draft ver. 4

a peninitial ze (< te, possibly via Greek ):

Old Church Slavonic:

and appealed to Emperor Michael, [...]. (Vita Constantini, 14 )

But I tell you ...

Manuscript draft ver. 4

Configurational change in Indo-European coordinate construction

(Codex Argenteus, Joh. 18:33)

The enclitic series is generally and freely prone to reduplication. As