Do they deserve it: Are endoclitics necessary for the description of Russian grammar? [Так им и надо: нужны ли эндоклитики для описания русской грамматики?]

The journal paper from 2018 is addressed two morphosyntactic phenomena in Russian grammar, which can be explained in terms of endoclitic insertion. The insertion of Russian prepositions in negative and reciprocal pronouns as well as in indefinite pronouns with кое- and the insertion of weak dative pronouns in the syntactic idiom так <Х-у> и надо 'X deserved it' are regular instances of endoclisis. Russian also displays the clitic/weak form versus stressed form asymmetry in some other syntactic idioms. Russian endoclitics may lack complete features of phonetic clitics. In Russian negative pronouns and indefinite pronouns with кое-, the linear order with endoclitic insertion embodies the scopal hierarchy of two operator elements in the context of embedded PP-arguments. In Russian reciprocals and in the idiom так <Х-у> и надо, endoclitic insertion lacks a clear semantic motivation. Comments: This paper is published in 2018 in vol. 36 (2) of the journal "Русский язык в научном освещении" ("Russian Language and Linguistic Theory"), pp. 159-179. The paper has a double load. I argue that the notion of endoclisis is useful for the description of Modern Russian grammar and outline a typology of the world's languages, where endoclitics are attested. I argue that endoclisis is merely a characteristics of ambivalent clitic bases that are ambiguos between morphological and syntactic structures and warn against postulating ad hoc unique phonetic and syntactic features to the endoclitic elements themselves.