Cover not available
Part of
Dependency Linguistics: Recent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures
Edited by Kim Gerdes, Eva Hajičová and Leo Wanner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 215] 2014
► pp. 229–252

Clitics in dependency morphology

| Aichi University, Toyohashi, Japan
Clitics are challenging for many theories of grammar because they straddle syntax and morphology. In most theories, cliticization is considered a phrasal phenomenon: clitics are affix-like expressions that attach to whole phrases. Constituency-based grammars in particular struggle with the exact constituent structure of such expressions. This paper proposes a solution based on catena-based dependency morphology. This theory is an extension of catena-based dependency syntax. A syntactic catena is any word or any combination of words that are continuous with respect to dominance. Likewise, any morph or any combination of morphs that is continuous with respect to dominance form a morph catena. Employing the concept of morph catena together with a hyphenation convention leads to a parsimonious and insightful understanding of cliticization.
Published online: 1 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.215.11gro
References (60)
References
Anderson, J. 1980. Towards dependency morphology: The structure of the Basque verb. In Studies in Dependency Phonology, J. Anderson & C. Ewen (eds), 221–271. Ludwigsburg: R.O.U. Strauch.Google Scholar
Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology, Cambridge: CUP.
. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1986. The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics [Syntax and Semantics 19]. Orlando FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Creider, C. & Hudson, R. 1999. Inflectional morphology in word grammar. Lingua 107: 163–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. 1987. Serbo-Croat. In The World’s Major Languages, B. Comrie (ed.), 391–409. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. 2005. Asymmetry in Morphology [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 46]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Duchier, D. & Debusmann, R. 2001. Topological dependency trees: A constrained-based account of linear precedence. In Proceedings of the ACL 2001 , 180–187. Toulouse.
Embick, D. & Noyer, R. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (eds), 289–324. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2003. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interaction. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
Eroms, H.-W. 2010. Valenz und Inkorporation. In Infinite Kontrastive Hypothesen, L. Kolehmainen, H.E. Lenk & A. Liimatainen (eds), 27–40. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gerdes, K. & Kahane, S. 2001. Word order in German: A formal dependency grammar using a topological hierarchy. In Proceedings of the ACL 2001 , 220–227. Toulouse.
. 2006. A polynominal parsing algorithm for the topological model: Synchronizing constituency and dependency grammars, illustrated by German word order phenomena. In Proceedings of the ACL 2006 , 1097–1104. Sydney.
Gerdes, K. & Yoo, H.-Y. 2003. La topologie comme interface entre syntaxe et prosodie, une système de génération appliqué au grec modern. In Proceedings of TALN 2003 , 123–34. Batz-sur-Mer.
Groß, T. 2010. Chains in syntax and morphology. In Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, O. Ryo, K. Ishikawa, H. Uemoto, K. Yoshimoto & Y. Harada (eds), 143–152. Tokyo: Waseda University.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Catenae in morphology. In Proceedings of the Depling 2011. Conference , 47–57. Barcelona.
. 2011b. Clitics in dependency morphology. In Proceedings of the Depling 2011. Conference , 58–68. Barcelona.
Groß, T. & Osborne, T. 2009. Toward a practical DG theory of discontinuities. Sky Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, A. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Halpern, A.L. 1998. Clitics. In The Handbook of Morphology, A. Spencer & A.M. Zwicky (eds), 101–122. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halpern, A.L. & Zwicky, A.M. 1996. Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Noyer, R. 2003. Distributed morphology. In The Second GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book, 463–496. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harnisch, R. 2003. Verbabhängige Morphologie und Valenzmorphologie der Subjekt-Verb-Kongruenz. In Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, V. Ágel, L.M. Eichinger, H.W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H.J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds), 411–421. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heringer, H.-J. 1970. Einige Ergebnisse und Probleme der Dependenzgrammatik. Der Deutschunterricht 4: 42–98.Google Scholar
Heringer, H.J. 1973. Theorie der deutschen Syntax, 2nd edn. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
. 1996. Deutsche Syntax Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23: 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Word grammar. In Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, V. Ágel, L.M. Eichinger, H.W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H.J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds), 508–526. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, E.M. 1985. Connected Speech. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klavans, J.L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61: 95–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P.H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation, Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Maxwell, D. 2003. The concept of dependency in morphology. In Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, V. Ágel, L.M. Eichinger, H.W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H.J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds), 678–684. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Levels of dependency in linguistic description: Concepts and problems. In Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, V. Ágel, L.M. Eichinger, H.W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H.J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds), 188–229. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevis, J.A. 1986. Finnish Particle Clitics and General Clitic Theory [Working Papers in Linguistics 33]. Columbus OH: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 79–312.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. 2005. Beyond the constituent: A dependency grammar analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39(3–4): 251–297.Google Scholar
. 2011. Type 2 rising: A contribution to a DG account of discontinuities. In Proceedings of the Depling 2011. Conference , 38–46. Barcelona.
. 2012. Edge features, catenae, and dependency-based minimalism. Linguistic Analysis 34(3–4): 321–366.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. & Groß, T. 2012. Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1): 163–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T., Putnam, M. & Groß, T. 2011. Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax: Is minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4): 354–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. & Groß, T. 2012. Antecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66(2): 94–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Katena und Konstruktion: Ein Vorschlag zu einer dependenziellen Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(1): 41–73.Google Scholar
Robins, R.H. 1959. In defense of WP. Transactions of the Royal Philological Society, 116–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J.M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stump, G.T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–274.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M. 1977. In Clitics. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
. 1985a. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985b. Clitics and particles. Language 61: 283–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23: 133–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.M. & Pullum, G.K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59(3): 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Osborne, Timothy & Jiaxin Li
2023. Coordination and referential dependencies: a dependency grammar account in terms of predicate-valent structures. Folia Linguistica 57:3 ► pp. 629 ff. DOI logo
Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Groß
2021. Bracketing paradoxes: A dependency grammar analysis in terms of morph catenae. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:3 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Serbian Clitics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 229], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.