ИСТИНА

Basing on a sample of languages including two dialects of Udi (Lezgic), Andi (Avar-Andic), Degema (Edoid), Gban, Yaure (both ― Mande), two dialects of Ossetic, Pashto, Sorani Kurdish (all ― Indo-Iranian), European Portuguese (Romance), Albanian, Old Czech (Slavic), Gothic (Germanic), Old Latin (Italic), I develop a parametric typology of endoclitics i.e. clitics inserted into morphological structure. The main hypothesis is that world's languages with endoclitics constitute a class definable in terms of shared parameters on linearization and prosody-to-syntax interface. The models of grammar denying endoclisis, cf. Bresnan & Mchombo (1995), Klavans (1995) fail to make correct predictions. At the same time, the practice of ascribing unique morphosyntactic properties to endoclitics, cf. Harris (2002), Spencer & Luis (2012) rather than to structures hosting them is not entirely justified. I claim that endoclisis is triggered by specific features of those clitic hosts which are ambivalent between morphological and syntactic structures in languages with exoclitics (proclitics and enclitics) and not by any inherent features by clitics. Endoclitics are a subset of exoclitics. In all known languages, they retain parallel uses as proclitics or enclitics, while endoclitic insertion requires special syntactic positions where only part of clitics existing in this language can appear. E.g., endoclisis in Yaure and Gban takes place in clausal right periphery, where only few discourse clitics can аppear due to the limitations imposed by clausal structure. Cross-linguistic variation in the class of languages with endoclitics is triggered by such parameters as endomorphemic vs exomorphemic insertion, external syntactic position, possibility of clustering, category of the inserted element and its prosodic type. Endomorphemic vs exomorphemic languages. Degema and two dialects of Udi ― Vartashen and Nigj, cf. Ganenkov, Lander & Maisak (2012) are rigid endomorphemic languages, which ban the insertion of clitics between morphemes. Gban and Yaure are free endomorphemic languages, where insertion of clitics into roots or affixes is an option. All other languages in our sample require exomorphemic insertion, typically ― between a preverb and stem. External position. Endoclitics are oriented towards clausal left periphery in Ossetic, Pashto, Old Czech, VP-internal left periphery in Sorani, clausal right periphery in Degema, Gban, Yaure and Andi. Clustering. Most languages only allow single endoclitics, while Ossetic, Pashto, Old Czech and European Portuguese allow the insertion of clusters. Gothic and Udi allow clustering with endoclisis, not with exoclisis. Category of endoclitic. Endoclitics can be pronominals, auxiliaries, person markers and discourse particles.