Article published in:
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: 01 October 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.215.11gro
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4): 354–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T. & Groß, T.
2012 Antecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66(2): 94–127. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985b Clitics and particles. Language 61: 283–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23: 133–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A.M. & Pullum, G.K.
1983 Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59(3): 502–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar