Negative correlative coordination in Indo-European: emergence, evolution and variability
-
Iker Salaberri
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of the emergence, evolution and variability of negative correlative coordination (ncc) constructions in Indo-European, such as Armenian očʻ A (ew) očʻ B and Hindi nə A nə B. A new definition of ncc is put forward that takes into account the construction’s semantic and pragmatic properties, and this clause linkage strategy is analyzed in a sample of 240 historical and present-day doculects. It is argued that ncc constructions emerged in the proto-language by analogy with positive correlative conjunctions like Latin A-que B-que. The relationship between positive and negative correlative conjunctions is argued to be due to the fact that both constitute a system of question and response. Furthermore, a cyclic change is identified by which ncc markers bleach through frequent use and are regularly reinforced and renovated. A number of paths of renewal are identified, which are used to explain the variation of ncc constructions observed across the Indo-European family.
Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this paper were presented on 29/08/2023 at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, on 04/09/2023 at the 26th International Conference on Historical Linguistics in the University of Heidelberg, Germany, and on 22/08/2024 at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea in the University of Helsinki, Finland. I would like to express my warmest thanks to the audiences of those conferences, as well as to all the people who helped me improve this paper, particularly Ashwini Deo, Fernando García Murga, Guglielmo Inglese, Johan van der Auwera, Mira Ariel, Nigel Vincent, Peter Kocharov and Reinhard Stempel, whose ideas and contributions I have marked throughout the text. Thanks are also due to FLH editor Maria Napoli and two anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism, corrections and contributions to earlier versions of this paper. Any remaining errors are my exclusive responsibility.
-
Research funding: This paper has been supported by the research project The transversality of grammatical categories: a typological study (PID2021-124769NB-I00) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation / Spanish Research Agency (AEI) /10.13039/501100011033 and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) A way of making Europe, as well as by the research project Diachronic Linguistics, Typology and the History of Basque (DLTB) (IT1534-22) funded by the Government of the Basque Autonomous Community.
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 2021. Quirky negative concord: Croatian, Spanish and French ni’s. Jezikoslovlje 22(2). 195–225. https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2021.5.Suche in Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Sepideh Koohkan. 2022. Extending the typology: Negative concord and connective negation in Persian. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 2(1). 1–36.Suche in Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Daniel Van Olmen. To appear. Additive negation in Dutch, from synchrony to diachrony, cyclical and non-cyclical. In Richard Waltereit & Maj-Britt Mosegaard-Hansen (eds.), Cycles in grammar and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der, Motoki Nomachi & Olga Krasnoukhova. 2021. Connective negation and negative concord in Balto-Slavic. In Peter Arkadiev, Jurgis Pakerys, Inesa Šeškauskienė & Vaiva Žeimantienė (eds.), Studies in Baltic linguistics: A Festschrift for Axel Holvoet on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 45–66. Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.10.15388/SBOL.2021.2Suche in Google Scholar
Bibiko, Hans-Jörg. 2005. The interactive reference tool. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Boas, Evert V. E., Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink & Mathieu de Bakker. 2019. The Cambridge grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Camaj, Martin. 1984. Albanian grammar with exercises, chrestomathy and glossaries. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Suche in Google Scholar
Cardona, George & Dhanesh Jain. 2003. General introduction. In George Cardona & Dhanesh Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, 1–45. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203214961-20Suche in Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 1994. The linguistic relationship between Armenian and Greek. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1960. Greek ou and Armenian očʽ. Language 36(3). 347–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/410960.Suche in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. The evolution of negation. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700012391.Suche in Google Scholar
David, Anne B. 2014. Descriptive grammar of Pashto and its dialects. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614512318Suche in Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1893. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 1. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner.10.1515/9783111448374Suche in Google Scholar
De Swart, Henriëtte. 2020. Double negation readings. In Viviane Déprez & Maria T. Espinal (eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation, 479–496. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830528.013.26Suche in Google Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern eastern Armenian. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.14Suche in Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & François Thomas. 1964. Syntaxe latine, 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.Suche in Google Scholar
García Murga, Fernando. 2014. Semántica. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.Suche in Google Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara. 2018. Indefinites between Latin and Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198812661.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Hackstein, Olav. 2020. The system of negation in Albanian: Synchronic constraints and diachronic explanations. In Bardhyl Demiraj (ed.), Altalbanische Schriftkultur aus der Perspektive der historischen Lexikographie, 13–32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Suche in Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank. 2024. Glottolog 5.0. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Suche in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, 2nd edn., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.001Suche in Google Scholar
Hendriks, Petra. 2001. “Either” as a focus particle. Unpublished manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1937. Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil VII: Syntax II: die Lehre vom einfachen und zusammengesetzten Satz. Heidelberg: Winter.Suche in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Victoria Burke & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 125–142. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Suche in Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.Suche in Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne B. 2005. The syntax of correlative adverbs. Lingua 115(4). 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerimova, Aza A. 1959. Govor tadžikov buxary [The subdialect of Bukharan Tajiks]. Moscow: Vostočnaja Literatura.Suche in Google Scholar
Klein, Ernest. 1971. A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Suche in Google Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2003. Armeniaca: Comparative notes. Ann Arbor: Caravan Books.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316479704Suche in Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Méndez Ruiz, María. 2023. The construction neither … nor …: Origin and evolution in the history of English. Vitoria-Gasteiz: University of the Basque Country MA thesis.Suche in Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe. 2016. Sampling for variety. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 233–296. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0006.Suche in Google Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 2021. Cyclic changes to the negative coordinating conjunction from Latin to Modern French. Folia Linguistica Historica 42(2). 223–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2021-2023.Suche in Google Scholar
Neckel, Gustav. 1913. Zu den germanischen Negationen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 45(1). 1–23.Suche in Google Scholar
Ó Baoill, Dónall P. 2010. Irish. In Martin J. Ball & Nicole Müller (eds.), The Celtic languages, 2nd edn., 163–229. London & New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Ojah, Deepali. 1995. A critical study of Barpeta dialect. Guwahati: Beltola College dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Ostrowski, Norbert. 2014. From sentence negation to connective: Old Lithuanian nei(gi) ‘and not; nor; than; before’. Baltic Linguistics 5. 123–143. https://doi.org/10.32798/bl.405.Suche in Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary , online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/7735200052 (accessed 18 September 2023).Suche in Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 2007 [1881]. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 25th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110942347Suche in Google Scholar
Payne, John R. 1985. Complex phrases and complex sentences. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions, 3–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. 2. Bern & Munich: Francke Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar
Riesco, Luis. 1971. Estudio sobre las conjunciones ac, atque, et y -que en el epistolario de San Braulio. Habis 2. 183–197.Suche in Google Scholar
Salaberri, Iker. 2022. A cross-linguistic study of emphatic negative coordination. Studies in Language 46(3). 647–717. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20047.sal.Suche in Google Scholar
Schrijnen, Josef & Christine Mohrmann. 1937. Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian, vol. 2. Nijmegen: Dekker & van de Vegt.Suche in Google Scholar
Schuster-Šewc, Heinz. 1996. Grammar of the Upper Sorbian language: Phonology and morphology. Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar
Schützeichel, Rudolf. 2012. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, 7th edn. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110268812Suche in Google Scholar
Skeat, Walter W. 1874. The gospel according to Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian versions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2000. and-languages and with-languages. Linguistic Typology 4(1). 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2000.4.1.1.Suche in Google Scholar
Stenson, Nancy. 2020. Modern Irish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315302034Suche in Google Scholar
Stilo, Donald. 2004. Coordination in three Western Iranian languages: Vafsi, Persian and Gilaki. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating constructions, 269–330. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.16stiSuche in Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna & Bill Haddican. 2004. Conjunction meets negation: A study in cross-linguistic variation. Journal of Semantics 21(3). 219–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.3.219.Suche in Google Scholar
Thorpe, Benjamin. 1846. The homilies of the Anglo-Saxon church. London: Richard & John E. Taylor.Suche in Google Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Suche in Google Scholar
Torrens Álvarez, María J. 2014. Los coordinadores disyuntivos latín et aut > castellano (e)do > vasco edo: Una historia inadvertida. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 130(3). 671–697. https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2014-0055.Suche in Google Scholar
Untermann, Jürgen. 2000. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Suche in Google Scholar
Vaillant, André. 1977. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, vol. 5: La syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.Suche in Google Scholar
Vasmer, Max. 1987. Etmologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka, vol. 3: Muza-Sjat [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language, vol. 3: Muse (Muza)-Speak (Sjat)]. Moscow: Progres.Suche in Google Scholar
Viti, Carlotta. 2008. The meanings of coordination in the early Indo-European languages. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 24. 35–65.Suche in Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, 2nd edn. Basel: Emil Birkhäuser & Cie.Suche in Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter. 2012. A grammar of North West Lovari Romani. Prague: Univerzita Karlova dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilde, Christopher P. 2008. A sketch of the phonology and grammar of Rājbanshi. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Suche in Google Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot & John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 416–544. London & New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
