Donald F. Reindl 
Indiana University, Bloomington 
Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures 
in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages 
Raziskovalci od Aristotela in Dionizija TraSkega do Bloomfielda in Chomskega so razpravljali o 
lastnostih prirednosti, npr. o derivaciji in tlanstvu v prirednih strukturah. Vezalno priredje lahko 
izraia pomen 'in' z vezanjem, ki ga je moino nadalje deliti na Stiri razrede. Vsi se uporabljajo v 
slovanskih jezikih. V teh strukturah je mogote prepoznati tudi nekatere vrste dvoumnosti. Proti 
priCakovanju lahko poleg klasitnih jezikov (npr. stare perzijSCine) tudi nekateri slovanski jeziki v 
teh strukturah besedno razlikujejo tlanstvo na viSji in niiji ravni. SlovenSCina v ta namen uporab- 
Ija veznike ter, in, pa.  Drugi mehanizem, s predlogom z (s), npr. midva s Petrom, lahko izraia Se 
niijo raven prirednosti. 
The nature of coordination, including derivation and constituency in coordinate structures, was 
debated by earlier writers, such as Aristotle and Dionysius Thrax, up to the present day by lin- 
guists such as Bloomfield and Chomsky. Copulative coordination expressing the meaning 'and' is 
achieved in four different ways, each of which are realized in the Slavic languages. It is also pos- 
sible to find some kinds of ambiguity in these structures. Contrary to expectations, in addition to 
classical languages (e.g., Old Persian), some Slavic languages distinguish constituency on both 
higher and lower levels in these structures. Slovene uses the conjunctions ter, in, p a  for these pur- 
poses. Another mechanism, with the preposition z (s) (e.g., midva s Petrom), expresses a lower level 
of coordination. 
1. Introduction 
Coordination has received attention as a topic of linguistic research for a num- 
ber of reasons.' One of the most frequently cited is that it appears to be a linguistic 
universal (Dik 1968: 1, Sag et al. 1985: 133, Oirsouw 1987: 1). Another reason is that 
some coordinate structures are a source for the "immanent productivity of natural 
languages" (Dik 1968: 1); coordination is one means by which we may form an infi- 
nite set of new sentences. Finally, and most intriguing, is the fact that the structural 
analysis of coordination has remained controversial (Oirsouw 1987: 1). The debate 
over whether coordination has a typical X-bar binary structure is very much alive 
today (cf. Borsley 1994). 
1.1 Early Work 
Interest in coordinate structures is not a recent phenomenon. Many of the is- 
sues being debated today were considered by earlier grammarians, or at least have 
their roots in the analyses of these thinkers. 
' I would like to thank those native speakers who provided and corroborated my data: Boiena 
Shallcross (Polish), Dmitri Savintsev (Russian), Bogdan RakiC (Serbo-Croatian), and Peter Mikek 
and Jera Rojko (Slovene), as well as Steven Franks for his comments on an earlier version of this 
paper. 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 25 
For example, in De Sophisticis Elenchis Aristotle observes that "five is two and 
three" does not imply that "five is two and five is three" (cited in Dik 1968: 227). 
Over two thousand years later, the inadequacy of deriving all coordination from 
grammatical sentence-coordination i la Chomsky's Syntactic Structures has been cri- 
ticized on the basis of just such sentences (cf. Oirsouw 1987: 5 ff.). 
Similarly, Dionysius Thrax distinguished within his category of odv6sopot 
(conjunctions) a special sub-class of o v p n h ~ ~ ~ t ~ o i  (conjunctions which can take in- 
finite arguments). As Simon C. Dik (1986: 26) observes, this distinction has implica- 
tions for transformational grammar; since not all coordinations can have unlimited 
constituents, coordination per se is not necessarily a source of infinite generation of 
new sentences. 
Even in our own century, Bloomfield recognized another important (and much 
discussed) property of coordinate structures: structural ambiguity. In his Linguistic 
Aspects of Science (1939), he notes that "an apple and a pear or a peach" may de- 
note exactly two pieces of fruit, or a choice between one piece or two (cited in Dik 
1967: 227). That is, 
or: 
(2) 
an apple and a pear or a peach 
an apple and a pear or a peach 
It is this last aspect of coordinate structures, their ambiguity, which will be 
addressed in this paper. 
26 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
2. Coordination: Types and Mechanisms 
Various types of coordination are recognized: copulative (A and B), disjunctive 
(A or B), resultative (A since B), adversative (A but B), concessive (A though B), 
etc2 Only the first of these will be addressed in this paper. 
Traditionally, three types of mechanisms are cited for the expression of copula- 
tive coordination: parataxis, composition and conjunction. 
2.1 Parataxis (Asyndeton) 
Parataxis3 consists of the simple juxtaposition of coordinated elements (A B). 
Parataxis is perhaps the most ancient of the coordinate mechanisms. Its use is com- 
mon in many languages, including Slavic; the following are from Russian and Upper 
Sorbian: 
(3) Vtera ja kupil knigi, karandaii. 
'Yesterday I bought books, pencils.' 
(4) We wsy, w polu, w holi, w haju knjeii starosc' iiwjenja. 
'Apprehension about life reigns in the village, in the field, on the heath, in 
the woods.' (REzak 1920: 984) 
In other Slavic languages in which parataxis is not widespread (e.g., Kashu- 
bian), it is nonetheless occasionally employed: 
(5) V sob&@ vjetbr wcz?n pfiridze do mje, sadnje do stolu, njic nje fete. 
'On Saturday evening he comes to me, sits at the table, says nothing.' (Lo- 
rentz 1919: 87) 
Frequently, paratactic coordination is used for lists. A characteristic example 
from Ukrainian is: 
(6)  My rnajerno dva dyvany, p'jat' krisel, Sist' liiok, odyn kuxonnyj stil i Sist' 
stikiv, odin holodyl'nyk. 
'We have two sofas, five armchairs, six beds, one kitchen table and six 
chairs, one refrigerator.' (Slavutych 1959: 130) 
and, in Slovene: 
(7) Iz srca namret prihajajo hudobne misli, uboji, preSuStva, netistovanja, tat- 
vine, kriva pritevanja, bogokletstva. 
'From the heart proceed namely evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornica- 
tions, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies.' (Mt 15: 19) 
2.2 Composition 
Composition, which consists of the fusion of two coordinated elements (AB), is 
highly developed in some languages, especially ancient ones; e.g., Sanskrit: satyanrtd 
'truth and falsehood', krtakrtdrn 'done and undone', or even devagandharvarna- 
not 
ther 
It is notable that many languages have refinements of coordinated types which are often 
expressed in English. German aber/sondern 'but', Hungarian vagy . . . vagy/akdr . . . akdr 'ei- 
... or', Russian i/a 'and' are well-known examples. 
Properly speaking, parataxis is coordination without a conjunction, while asyndeton is co- 
ordination which omits an expected conjunction. Although the latter has been used extensively in 
the literature on coordination, I shall use the former, as it is a somewhat broader term. 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 27 
nusoragaraksasiis 'gods, heavenly musicians, men, serpents and demons' (Whitney 
1931: 481).4 With the possible exception of compound numbers (i.e., twenty-one = one 
and twenty), modern Indo-European languages do not frequently use this device; 
German Butterbrot 'bread and butter' is one such example. These constructions are 
rarely, if ever, encountered in Slavic languages. 
2.3 Conjunction 
Conjunction, which links conjuncts with a Cj (A Cj B), is the most common 
type of coordination in Slavic, as it is in modern Indo-European languages in gen- 
eral. Analysis of this type of construction will form the major part of this paper. 
Robert R. van Oirsouw (1983: 142-44) distinguishes four types of conjunction: 
ordered, identity, concomitant and coincidental. As will be seen, it is necessary to 
make a distinction between these types of conjunction in order to attain a coherent 
picture of coordinate structure in Slavic. 
2.3.1 Ordered Conjunction 
Ordered conjunction necessarily occurs between VPs (or Ss containing VPs), 
since it implies a non-symmetrical temporal ordering of the conjuncts. An example 
similar to that given by Oirsouw is the following, from Russian: 
(8) . . . vzjali telo ego i pogrebli ego. 
'they took his body and buried it.' (Mt 14: 12) 
Although this example may be analyzed as a coordination of 'They took his 
body' and 'They buried his body', the order obviously may not be reversed, as it 
could be in: 
(9) On el mjaso i pi1 pivo. 
'He ate meat and drank beer.' 
even though Russian does not mark the two constructions differently. 
However, in Slovene a different conjunction is frequently used-namely, t e ~ - . ~  
The Slovene version of (8) reads: 
(10) ... so ... vzeli truplo ter ga pokopali ... 
'. . . they took the body and buried it . . .' 
A similar example of sequentiality is seen in: 
(11) . . . zgrabila me je za lase ter me treSCila v prah. 
'. . . she grabbed me by the hair and flung me in the dust.' (Cankar 1920: 32) 
Bulgarian can use the cognate Cj ta for the same purpose: 
(12) Erkulna se prez glava, ta Cak v dola. 'He turned a somersault and rolled 
all the way to the hollow.' (Atanassova et al. 1990: 909). 
Compare also classical Greek vu~9.ilp~pov 'day and night' and Latin suovetaurelia 'a sacri- 
fice of a pig, sheep and bull' (MacDonell 1927: 169). 
The Russian cognate of this word, to, has become a consequential Cj: Raz tak, to ja ne poj- 
du. ' I f  so, then I shall not go.' 
28 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
as can Eastern Ruthenian: 
(13) Ydit' do vaSoji komnaty ta utit'sja. 
'Go upstairs to your room and study.' (Magocsi 1979: 55) 
Although te, the Serbo-Croatian cognate of ter, is seen in literary Serbo-Croa- 
tian: 
(14) Dodi odmah te namesti krevet. 
'Come and make your bed immediately.' 
it is perceived as old-fashioned and its use is seen as stilted. 
It should be noted that, though quite acceptable, the Slovene ter in examples 
(10) and (11) is by no means obligatory, and is often felt to be synonymous with in. 
In fact, Mt. 14: 12, cited in (lo), continues: 
(15) . . . potem so Sli in to sporotili Jezusu. 
'...then they went and told it to Jesus.' 
where surely there is an equal degree of sequentiality. 
2.3.2 Identity Conjunction 
Identity conjunction establishes an identity between two conjuncts, presumably 
derived from 'A is C and B is C'; for example: 
(16) Moja sestra in tvoj brat sta bila v Ljubljani. 
'My sister and your brother were in Ljubljana.' 
which may be analyzed as a coordination of 
(17) Moja sestra je bila v Ljubljani in tvoj brat je bil v Ljubljani. 
'My sister was in Ljubljana and your brother was in Ljubljana.' 
Again, Slovene does not mark this conjunction differently from, for example: 
(18) Dva in tri je pet. 
'Two and three are five.' 
which, as we have seen in 1.1, is not a case of identity conjunction. 
2.3.3 Concomitant Conjunction 
Concomitant conjunction links two or more related sentences, without there 
necessarily being any overt identity. Because of this, these sentences are not subject 
to gapping or reduction. For example, in Russian: 
(19) Solnce svetit i neb0 jasnoe. 
'The sun is shining and the sky is clear.' 
As has been noted elsewhere, they must nonetheless have some shared relevance 
to the discourse. Example (19) is cohesive because of the consistent theme of weath- 
er, but it would be difficult to imagine a situation in which one could say: 
(20) ?Moskva bol'Soj gorod i moja sestra s"e1a dve ryby. 
'Moscow is a big city and my sister ate two fish.' 
2.3.4 Coincidental Conjunction 
Coincidental conjunction, which contrasts two different but related statements, 
is well-known to students of Slavic as it is here that a number of Slavic languages, 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 29 
including Slovene, demand a lexical distinction which is not obligatory in English. 
For example: 
(21) Tvoj pes je bel, a moj je trn. 
'Your dog is white andlwhile mine is black.' 
In fact, this lexical distinction between coincidental conjunction and other 
types of conjunction is common to most Slavic languages. For example, in Bulgar- 
ian, Polish and Serbo-Croatian: 
(22) Edni takaxa pred garata, a drugi nu perona. 
'Some waited in front of the station and/?while/?but others on the plat- 
form.' (Atanassova et al. 1990: 13) 
(23) On plakal a oni sie Smiali. 
'He wept and/while/but they laughed.' (Stanislawski and Szercha 1993: 1) 
(24) Ja sum veliki a moj brat je joS mali. 
'I'm big ?andlwhile/but my brother is still small.' (Magner 1972: 336) 
Only a few of the Slavic languages have lost this distinction, using a more 
generally. For example, in Eastern Ruthenian, both coincidental and concomitant 
conjunction are expressed with a: 
(25) a. Korovy pasut' na toloci a viivci pasut' na berezi. 
'The cows are in the pasture and/while/but the sheep are up in the 
hills.' (Magocsi 1979: 58) 
b. Sonce svityt' a neb0 jasnoje. 
'The sun is shining and/*while/*but the sky is clear.' (Magocsi 1979: 10) 
3. Ambiguity 
Dik (1968: 228-37) distinguished three types of ambiguity which are encount- 
ered in coordinate structures: functional, relational and hierarchical. 
3.1 Functional Ambiguity 
Functional ambiguity occurs in sentences of the type: 
(26) My cats are black and white. 
in which it is unknown whether the predicate is to be applied collectively or distrib- 
utively to the subject; i.e., whether the cats are spotted or solid colored. 
3.2 Relational Ambiguity 
Relational ambiguity occurs in sentences of the type: 
(27) Only old men and women are in the village. 
in which the scope of the attribute is unknown; i.e., whether the subject is equal to 
old men and old women or women and old men. 
3.3 Hierarchical Ambiguity 
Hierarchical ambiguity occurs in sentences of the type: 
(28) Tom and Dick and Harry lifted the stone. 
30 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
in which the stone may have been lifted once by three persons, three times by three 
different persons, or twice: once by one person, and once by two persons (there be- 
ing two possibilities for this final grouping). 
While the structure of a sentence like (28) may be completely ambiguous, oft- 
entimes a hierarchical structure may be read into the sentence by nesting certain 
conjuncts. Dik (1968: 30) states that although Cjs conjoin elements "at the same level 
of structural hierarchy," nonetheless "it is not excluded that in a coordinate express- 
ion different coordinated members occupy different structural levels." Such is appar- 
ently the case in the following Old Persian sentence: 
(29) Yanunii tayaiy uikahaya utii tayaiy drayahaya utii dahayava 
Greeks who mainland.LOC and who sea.LOC and 1ands.LOC 
taya para draya. 
which beyond sea. 
'The Ionians who are of the mainland and who (dwell) on the sea, and 
the countries which are beyond the sea' 
In analyzing this sentence, Klein (1988: 392) says that "there appears to be a 
hierarchical structure in which the two groups are taken as a unit and then conjoined 
with the (other) countries. The structure of this passage is therefore (X uta Y) uta Z." 
3.3.1 Non-Lexical Disambiguation 
It is also important to note that these structures are frequently disambiguated 
(at least in speech) through the appropriate placement of rising intonation. Such in- 
tonation can cue the listener as to which Cjs are main Cjs, and which are subordi- 
nate (Gleitman 1965: 276-77). 
Hudson (1988: 318) shows how background knowledge can sometimes help re- 
solve ambiguity by offering the sentences: 
(30) a. Fred and Bill and Mary play piano trios every Friday. 
b. Fred and Bill and Mary played a solo and a duet, respectively. 
Knowing that it takes three to play a trio, (30a) does have a default interpretation, 
although it is conceivable that they all play trios with other people. 
3.3.2 Lexical Disambiguation 
Some languages seem to be able to disambiguate these larger conjunctions 
through the use of overtly hierarchically ordered Cjs. Such a lexical distinction ap- 
pears to have been possible in Old Persian, as in the following: 
(31) Piirsam[c]ii Miidam[c]ii utii aniyii dahayiiva 
Persia.and Media.and and other lands 
'Persia and Media and the other provinces' 
where Klein (1988: 402) says that the text "appears to denote a part of the Achaemenid 
Empire to which is contrasted all other provinces. This passage therefore seems to 
suggest that -cii may function as a lower level or tighter conjunction than utii and be 
capable of signaling an internal constituency within a conjoined structure." 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 31 
That is, the structure: 
is suggested by the Cjs employed. 
Such a distinction is also suggested for other ancient languages; e.g., Latin, 
Greek and Sanskrit. It has even been postulated that there was an original Indo-Eu- 
ropean hierarchical ordering of Cjs. In addressing this issue, Dunkel (1982: 181) con- 
cludes: "Were *kwe, *-Au and *-yo semantically or stylistically distinct? Probably, if 
only in the sense that some were 'newer' or more emphatic than others. The syn- 
chronic IE situation was roughly comparable to that in Latin (-que, et, atque), 
Greek (~ai ,  T E ,  6 ~ )  or Sanskrit (ca, uta, u ,  dpo. This is a luxury that modern IE 
languages have by and large given up." 
3.3.3 Slavic 
However, a number of Slavic languages do nonetheless appear to preserve the 
ability to lexically differentiate higher- and lower-level constituency within conjoined 
structures. 
In Polish, Grappin (1949: 288) notes that "dans le phrases ou il s'agit de plus de 
deux objets, i et a s'emploient c6te ?I c6te pour indiquer les groupes entre lesquels ces 
objets sont rkpartis." He gives the example: 
(33) rbinica miedzy jezykiem szlacheckim a miejskim i gburskim 
which he glosses as "la diffkrence entre la langue des nobles, d'une part, et celle des 
bourgeois et manants, d'autre part." A similar example is seen in: 
(34) Kanada a Anglia i Stany Zjednoczone 
which he glosses as "Canada devant l'Angleterre et les ~ ta t s -~nis . "  
The situation is even more striking in Slovene. 
3.3.4 Slovene 
Slovene is particularly rich in Cjs. As de Bray (1980: 369) observes, "These pre- 
sent no syntactical difficulties, but as Slovenian is far more fond of various modi- 
fying conjunctions and particles than English, they are often difficult to translate." 
Those Cjs generally translated as copulative 'and' are in, pa and ter. 
In is the most general of the Slovene copulative Cjs. This Cj can be used for 
ordered, identity and concomitant conjunction, while coincidental conjunction is 
usually expressed with a. Native speakers' perspective on pa6 is usually that, while 
Pa may also be used as an  enclitic particle, equivalent to Russian ie, especially in questions 
(de Bray 1980: 369); e.g., Kaj pa delaf? 'What are you doing?. 
32 Slovenski iezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
synonymous with in and able to be used to express the same types of conjunction, it 
is more characteristic of colloquial speech and may be interpreted as having a sup- 
plementary feel; for example, in response to the question Koliko hlebov imate? 'How 
many loaves do you have?' we find the response: 
(35) Sedem [hlebov], pa malo ribic. 
'Seven [loaves], and a little fish (as well).' (Mt 15: 34) 
Obviously, the choice between pa and in is often determined at the discourse 
level, for now that both loaves and fish are thematically relevant, we see: 
(36) . . . vzel je sedmero hlebov in ribe . . . 
'. . . he took the seven loaves and fish . . .' (Mt 15: 36) 
In contrast to pa, ter is usually felt to be restricted to literary language (and it 
is in literature that it is most often encountered), and it is even perceived as snob- 
bish, although it is synonymous with in7 It is frequently characterized as the Cj 
used for the last element in a list (Bajec et al. 1962: 889, JuranCiC 1965: 272, Bajec et 
al. 1970: V. 64); for example: 
(37) VpraSal nas je, kje smo dobili knjige in kaj smo brali ter kakSne zapiske 
smo si delali. 
'He asked us where we had gotten the books and what we had read and 
what kinds of notes we made for ourselves.' (JuranCiC 1965: 272) 
Ter probably had greater range of use in the past, based on constructions like 
the following, from 1584: 
(38) AuguJtus inu TrajanuJ Jta bild dobra tir modra Gjuda. 
'Augustus and Trajan were good and wise leaders.' (BohoriC 1584: 11.55) 
Despite their overt synonymy, these three Cjs may be used in combination with 
one another to disambiguate hierarchical ambiguity, such as that in (28), with the 
order ter-in-pa (structurally highest to lowest). For example, 
(39) jaz pa Zora in ti pa Jana 
'Zora and I and you and Jana' 
necessitates the structure: 
(40) 
N Cj N Cj N Cj N 
I I I l l  I 
jaz pa zdra in ti pa Jana 
Ter is rarely used in locutions of this type, and constructions such as: 
(41) ?Zora in ti ter Tomai in jaz 
'Zora and you and Tomai and I' 
At least one source says that ter may not join nominal pairs (*oEe ter mati 'father and 
mother') (Bajec 1962: 889); however, some informants find this construction awkward or stilted 
rather than ungrammatical. 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 33 
are deemed stilted, or even questionable. However, it is encountered more frequently 
with more complex conjuncts: 
(42) ... je imela trne lase in trne oti  ter bolno, rumeno polt. 
'. . . [she] had black hair and black eyes and a sickly, yellow complexion.' 
(Cankar 1920: 8) 
in which, presumably, the more similar features black hair and black eyes are con- 
joined at a lower level than the feature sickly, yellow complexion: 
(43) 
NP' 
trne lase in trne oti  ter bolno, rumeno polt 
It is true that the use of ter in (42) is another example of it linking the last 
element in a list, as in (37), but it may not be possible to separate the roles of struc- 
tural disambiguation vs. final element conjunction. It is natural that similar elements 
will be grouped together in a list; e.g.: 
(44) a. He was walking with his son, daughter and dog. 
b. ?He was walking with his son, dog and daughter. 
or: 
(45) a. The suspect has blue eyes, blond hair and a limp. 
b. ?The suspect has blue eyes, a limp and blond hair. 
So, although it is accurate to say that ter connects the last element in a list, 
the final-position use of ter may be determined by the structure, which sets off se- 
mantically disparate elements by default. 
3.3.5 Russian 
Russian seems to have no provision for disambiguating hierarchically ambi- 
guous constructions through the use of different Cjs. The Cj da is sometimes equa- 
ted with Slovene ter (as in de Bray 1980: 369); but constructions like: 
(46) Na veterinke byli Dmitrij i NataSa da Aleksandr i Lena. 
'Dmitri and NataSa and Aleksandr and Lena were at the party.' 
sound hopelessly folkloric. However, usages like: 
(47) Tam byli Petr, Aleksej da ja. 
'Petr, Aleksej and I were there.' 
at least echo the Slovene construction, though they are felt to be rather colloquial. 
Constructions like (46) are either rephrased as: 
34 Slovenski iezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
(48) Na veterinke byli Dmitrij, Nataia, Aleksandr i Lena. 
'Dmitri, NataSa, Aleksandr and Lena were at the party.' 
in which no hierarchical construction is expressed or inferred, or: 
(49) Na veterinke byli Dmitrij s Nataiej i Aleksandr s Lenoj. 
'Dmitri and NataSa, and Aleksandr and Lena were at the party.' 
in which the preposition s 'with' functions as a lower-level conjunction and is used to 
produce the structure: 
much as Slovene might with Cjs, as in (39). 
This comitative construction, which we might call s-coordination, is fundamen- 
tally different from cases in which s functions to introduce a NP to complement the 
main NP. This can be illustrated by the following sentences: 
(51) Dmitrij s Nataiej *byl/byli nu veterinke. 
'Dmitri and NataSa were [*sg./pl.] at the party.' 
(52) ~ e n i t i n a  s korobkoj poexala/*poexali nu vokzal. 
'A woman with a box went [*sg./pl.] to the train station.' 
In the first, an example of s-coordination, NataSa is a co-participant in the 
event and her participant status is reflected in the number of the verb. In the sec- 
ond, the box is a mere accessory to the woman, and to assign it participant status 
would be most unusual. 
S-coordination is also found in Slovene: where it may function identically to 
the Russian example in (49): 
(53) Vinko z Marjano in Joie z Marico sta odila. 
'Vinko and Marjana, and Joie and Marica have left.' 
Note that the perception of two groups is reflected in the verb, here a masculine 
dual. 
S-coordination seems to be at a level below that of all other Cjs? potentially 
offering four levels of hierarchical distinction in Slovene coordinate structures, 
though encountering all of them in the same utterance would be unusual. The fol- 
lowing example comes close: 
In Slovene the preposition is written s only before voiceless consonants; otherwise it appears 
as Z. 
Pit'ha (1986: 164) makes a similar observation with regard to Czech a 'and' and s 'with'. 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 35 
(54) hterka Pavla z druiino, sin Andrej, sestri Marjana in Micka ter ostalo 
sorodstvo 
'the daughter Pavla and her family, the son Andrej, the sisters Marjana 
and Micka and the remaining relatives' (Bajec et al. 1970: V. 64) 
the structure of which can be represented as: 
\ ,  
NP 
N N Cj N Cj 
I I I I I  
hterka P. z druiino, sin A., sestri M. in M. ter ostalo sorodstvo 
It is one of the unusual aspects of these s-coordinations that when they are 
used with pronouns the number of the pronouns is often increased by one (Slovene 
singular obligatorily becomes dual, while Russian 1st person singular obligatorily be- 
comes plural): 
(56) Midva s Petrom sva kupila hiio. 
we.DU with Peter bought.1-DU house 
'Peter and I bought a house.' 
(57) My s Petrom kupili dom. 
we with Peter bought.PL house 
'Peter and I bought a house.' 
This is probably to help motivate the logical verbal number, in view of the 
grammatically reduced participant status of the second conjunct. Nevertheless, the 
verbal number may be maintained without the pronoun in Slovene: 
(58) nisva govorila z materjo nobene besede 
didn't speak.1-DU with mother no word 
'Mother and I didn't speak a single word' (Cankar 1920: 63) 
In order to compensate for its smaller stock of copulative Cjs, Russian allows a 
much more liberal use of s-coordination than Slovene. Table 1 shows the grammati- 
cality of, and number of participants in, the various combinations of pronominal 
s-coordination in Slovene and Russian. 
Singular Dual Plural Singular Plural 
1st p * 2 * 
2nd p * 2 * 
3rd p * ? * 
Slovene 
* 2+ 
2 2+ 
2 3+ 
Russian 
Table 1. Grammaticality and Participants in Slovene 
and Russian Pronominal S-Coordination 
36 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
Slovene also frequently seems to assign less participatory status to conjuncts 
linked by s than does Russian. While Russians find the sentence: 
(59) Ja ljublju pivo s vinom. 
'I love beer and wine.' 
unusual, as it restricts them to being drunk at the same sitting, Slovenes respond to: 
(60) Rad imam pivo z vinom. 
'I like beer and wine.' 
with disgust, as it implies that the two beverages are mixed. 
Evidence for the lesser participatory status of s-coordinated conjuncts in Slo- 
vene is also seen in the pattern of verbal agreement. While Russian always finds the 
plural variants of the following sentences acceptable:" 
(61) ienitina s muitinoj *byla/byli nu ulice. 
'A woman withland a man *wadwere on the street.' 
(62) ienitina s sobakoj byla/byli nu ulice. 
'A woman withland a dog waslwere on the street.' 
Slovene always treats the non-pronominal s-coordinated NP as singular, and al- 
lows only the first conjunct to control verbal agreement: 
(63) i ena  z moiem je bila/*sta bila nu ulici. 
'A woman withland a man was/*were on the street.' 
(64) i e n a  s psom je bila/*sta bila nu ulici. 
'A woman withland a dog was/*were on the street.' 
5. Conclusions 
Of course, there are other ways of resolving the ambiguity of these construc- 
tions (e.g., through paraphrase) which destroy the coordinate structure, and native 
speakers are quick to suggest them, especially for the more awkward constructions. 
As a communicative act, language is able to tolerate much ambiguity. For example, 
the coordination of the gloss of (46) has at least 11 possible structures, yet we need 
not examine all of them to understand the statement. 
Although hierarchical ambiguity can exist in coordinate structures, it has been 
shown that there can be higher and lower levels of coordination within these coor- 
dinate structures. Slavic languages are capable of resolving that ambiguity to a great 
degree through purely lexical means, albeit with different degrees of distinction and 
somewhat different mechanisms. 
lo The second variant of (62), though semntically odd, is grammatically acceptable. 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 37 
References 
Atanassova et al. 1990. Bulgarian-English dictionary. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. 
Bajec, Anton et al., eds. 1962. Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana: SAZU. 
Bajec, Anton et al., eds. 1970-91. Slovar slovenskega knjiinega jezika I-V. Ljublja- 
na: Driavna zaloiba Slovenije. 
BohoriC, Adam. 1584 (1970). Arcticae horulae. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. 
Borsley, Robert D. 1994. In defense of coordinate structures. Linguistic Analysis 
24: 218-46. 
de Bray, R. G. A. 1980. Guide to the south Slavonic languages. Columbus: Slavica. 
Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coordination: its implications for the theory of general linguis- 
tics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 
Dunkel, George E. 1982. I.E. conjunctions: pleonism, ablaut, suppletion. Zeitschrift 
fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 96: 178-99. 
Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41: 260-93. 
Grappin, Henri. 1949. Grammaire de la langue polonaise. 2nd. ed. Paris: Institut des 
ktudes Slaves. 
Hudson, Richard. 1988. Coordination and grammatical relations. Journal of Linguis- 
tics 24: 303-42. 
JuranEiE, Janko. 1965. Slovenatki jezik. Ljubljana: Driavna zaloiba Slovenije. 
Klein, Jared S. 1988. Coordinate conjunction in Old Persian. Journal of the Ameri- 
can Oriental Society 108: 387-417. 
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1919 (1971). Kaschubische Grammatik. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg. 
MacDonell, Arthur A. 1927 (1982). A Sanskrit grammar for students. Oxford: Ox- 
ford University Press. 
Magner, Thomas F. 1972. Introduction to the Croatian and Serbian language. 
Ephrata: Science Press. 
Oirsouw, Robert R. van. 1983. Coordinated sentences. Lingua 60: 135-45. 
Oirsouw, Robert R. van. 1987. The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm. 
Pit'ha, Petr. 1986. Four (simple) remarks on coordination. Language and discourse: 
test and protest. A festschrift for Petr Sgall. 163-69. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. 
REzak, Filip. 1920 (1987). NZmsko-serbski wSowZdny stownik hornjoluiiskeje [serb- 
skeje] rZte. Budygin: Domovina. 
Sag. Ivan A.. Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination -. 
and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 
3: 117-71. 
Slavutych, Yar. 1959. Conversational Ukrainian. Edmonton: Gateway. 
Stanislawski, Jan, and Malgorzata Szercha. 1993. A practical Polish-English diction- 
ary. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna. 
Whitney, William Dwight. 1931. Sanskrit grammar. 2nd. ed. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press. 
38 Slovenski jezik - Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997) 
Text Sources 
Cankar, Ivan. 1920 (1991). Moje iivljenje. Ljubljana: Tiskarna ljudske pravice. 
Magocsi, Paul R. 1979. Let's speak Rusyn: Transcarpathian edition. Fairview: Carpa- 
tho-Rusyn Research Center. 
Prispelo novembra 1996, sprejeto decembra 1996 
Received November 1996, accepted December 1996 
HierarhiEne dvoumnosti v vezalnih prirednih strukturah 
v slovenSEini in drugih slovanskih jezikih 
Lastnosti prirednosti so vrota tema v sodobni lingvistiki. Mnogi problemi, ki 
so ge danes v ospredju jezikoslovnega raziskovanja, so pritegovali pozornost avtorjev 
i e  v Easu antike. Tako i e  Aristotel in Dionizij Tragki razpravljata o derivaciji in 
tlanstvu v prirednih strukturah. V tem stoletju najdemo podobno razpravljanje v de- 
lih Bloomfielda in Chomskega. 
Identificirati je mogote nekaj vrst priredja. Vezalno priredje, ki izraia pomen 
'in' s priredjem (>>dostavljanje<< tipa A B), sestavljanjem (spojitev tipa AB) in vezan- 
jem (besedno povezovanje z veznikom tipa A in B), je glavna tema tlanka. Priredje 
in vezanje sta najpogostejga mehanizma prirednosti v slovanskih jezikih. Po van 
Oirsouwu je vezanje mogote deliti na zaporedno, identitno, hkratno in nakljutno. 
Vse gtiri vrste se uporabljajo v slovanskih jezikih z vetjo ali manjgo stopnjo besedne 
razlitnosti. 
Dvoumnost v teh vezalnih prirednih strukturah je funkcionalna, odnosna ali 
hierarhitna. Nekateri avtorji so pokazali besedno >>razdvoumljenje<< teh dvoumnosti 
za klasitne jezike, npr. staro perzijgtino, latingtino, grgtino in sanskrt. Ceprav se 
domneva, da danagnji indoevropski jeziki takih struktur besedno ne ~>razdvoumljajo<< 
vet, nekateri slovanski jeziki vendarle lahko besedno razlikujejo tlanstvo na vigji in 
niiji ravni v prirednih strukturah. 
Slovengtina je v tem pogledu posebno bogata, saj ima tri vezalne veznike: ter, 
in, pa. Ti izraiajo tlanstvo v prirednih strukturah od strukturno najvigjega do naj- 
niijega, teprav v njihovi rabi obstajajo stilistitne omejitve. Drugi slovanski jeziki so 
v zmoinosti, da bi besedno nrazdvoumili<< priredne strukture, bolj omejeni. 
Slovengtina in nekateri drugi slovanski jeziki imajo za izraianje prirednosti na 
ge niiji ravni dodatni mehanizem s predlogom z (s), npr. midva s Petrom. Vendar v 
razlitnih slovanskih jezikih opazimo variacije v slovnitnosti in gtevilu udeleiencev v 
teh strukturah. Zlasti slovengtina je v rabi priredja s predlogom z (s) bolj omejena 
kot rugtina. 
D. F. Reindl. Hierarchical Ambiguities ... 39 
Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures 
in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages 
The nature of coordination is a current topic of debate in linguistic research. 
Many of the issues being discussed today, including derivation and constituency in 
coordinate structures, were debated by earlier writers, such as Aristotle and Dionysi- 
us Thrax, and have been paralleled in this century by linguists such as Bloomfield 
and Chomsky. 
A number of coordination types are recognized. Copulative coordination, ex- 
pressing 'and' is achieved through parataxis (juxtaposition of the type A B), compo- 
sition (fusion of the type AB) and conjunction (lexical linkage of the type A and 
B), is the focus of this article. Parataxis and conjunction are the most frequently 
employed coordinate mechanisms in the Slavic languages. This latter can be subdi- 
vided, ?i la van Oirsouw, into ordered, identity, concomitant and coincidental con- 
junction. All four types occur in Slavic with varyingdegrees of lexical distinction. 
Ambiguity in these copula coordinate structures is functional, relational or hie- 
rarchical. Lexical disambiguation of these ambiguities has been demonstrated or po- 
sited for classical languages such as Old Persian, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. Al- 
though it has been assumed that the modern Indo-European languages no longer le- 
xically disambiguate such constructions, some Slavic languages are able lexically to 
differentiate higher- and lower-level constituency within coordinate structures. 
Slovene is particularly capable in this regard, employing three copulative con- 
junctions: ter, in and pa. These express structurally highest to lowest constituency in 
coordinatestructures, although there are stylistic limitations on their use. Other Sla- 
vic languages are more limited in their ability lexically to disambiguate coordinate 
structures. 
A further coordination mechanism, expressed with the preposition z (s) (e.g., 
midva s Petrom), can express yet a lower level of coordination in Slovene and some 
other Slavic languages. However, there is cross-linguistic variation in the grammati- 
cality and number of participants of these constructions. In particular, Slovene is 
more limited than Russian in its use of coordination with the preposition z (s).