Article published in:
Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax: In honor of Janez Orešnik
Edited by Franc Lanko Marušič and Rok Žaucer
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 236] 2016
► pp. 91–128

Clitics are/become Minimal(ist)

| Indiana University
This paper considers the general question of what properties distinguish clitics from other sorts of words. Focusing on South Slavic and in particular Slovenian data, it is argued that canonically clitics are minimal vocabulary items with respect to sound, meaning, and syntax: they lack (i) prosodic structure (above the syllable), (ii) semantic features (beyond the purely grammatical), and (iii) syntactic structure (above the head). For some items, however, departures from this canonical characterization exist, as do additional restrictions.
Published online: 08 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.05fra
References

References

Anderson, Stephen
2005 Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Clitics. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Mark van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Karen Rice (eds). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Řezáč, Milan
2003 Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 244], Anna Teresa Perez-Leroux & Yves Roberge (eds), 49-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, David
1986 Toward an explanation of word-order differences between Slovene and Serbo-Croat. Slavonic and East European Review 64: 1–24.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
2001 On The Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2002 Clitics as nonbranching elements and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 329–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
this volume. On second position clitics crosslinguistically. In Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax, Franc Lanko Marušič & Rok Žaucer (eds) 23 53 Amsterdam John Benjamins
Bošković, Željko & Lasnik, Howard
2003 On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 527–546. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal
1999 The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 185–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle & Mateu, Victoria
2015 Antilogophoricity in clitic clusters. In Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O'Hara & Iris Chuoying Ouyang (eds), 1-10. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 Bare phrase structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, Gert Webelhuth (ed.), 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven
1987 Regular and irregular stress in Macedonian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35–36: 93–142.Google Scholar
1989 The monosyllabic head effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7: 551–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Another look at li placement in Bulgarian. The Linguistic Review 23: 161–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Macedonian pronominal clitics as object agreement markers. In A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, Steven Franks, Vrinda Chidambaram & Brian D. Joseph (eds), 189-221. Bloomington IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
2010 Clitics in Slavic. Glossos 10: Contemporary Issues in Slavic Linguistics. http://​slaviccenters​.duke​.edu​/projects​/glossos​-journal​/issues​/issue​-10Google Scholar
2011 Dynamic spell–out as interface optimization. In Formalization of Grammar in Slavic Languages, Peter Kosta & Lilia Schürcks (eds), 127–163. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013 Orphans, coordination, doubling, phases: On the rise of DP in Slovenian. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 9: 55–92. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/1808​/11431Google Scholar
2014 Multiattachment syntax, “movement” effects, and spell–out. In Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces [Language Faculty and Beyond 11], Peter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds), 195–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven & Holloway King, Tracy
2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven & Rudin, Catherine
2005 Bulgarian clitics as K0 heads. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Columbia Meeting, Steven Franks, Frank Gladney, & Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva (eds), 104–116. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Golden, Marija & Milojević-Sheppard, Milena
2000 Slovene pronominal clitics. In Clitic Phenomena in European Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 30], Frits Beukema & Marcel den Dikken (eds), 191-207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris
1997 Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Interface [MITWPL 30], Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–449. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron
1995 On the Morphology and Placement of Clitics. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hauge, Kjetil Rå
1999 A Short grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1935[1971] Les enclitiques slaves. In Selected writings. Vol. 2, 16–22. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith
1985 The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61(1): 95–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koneski, Blaže
1976 Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik. Skopje: Kultura.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan
2008 Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 877–924. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1999 On feature strength: Three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 197–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc & Žaucer, Rok
2009 On clitic doubling in Gorica Slovenian. In A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, Steven Franks, Vrinda Chidambaram & Brian D. Joseph (eds), 281–296. Bloomington IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
2015 Coordinate Structure Constraint can be violated with PF movement. Ms, University of Nova Gorica.Google Scholar
Mišeska-Tomić, Olga
1996 The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14: 811–872. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene
1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo
2004 Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David & Orešnik, Janez
1973 Language-particular rules and explanation in syntax. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 419–459. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Priestly, Tom
1993 Slovene. In The Slavonic Languages, Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds), 388–451. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa
1993 Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian yes–no questions: V0 raising to -li vs. li-hopping. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 567–575.Google Scholar
2005 Topics in Bulgarian morphology and syntax: A minimalist perspective. Lingua 115: 1083–1128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1998  Have/Be raising, Move F, and procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, Catherine
2007 Multiple wh-relatives in Slavic. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto Meeting, Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds), 282–306. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Rudnickaya, Elena
2000 The derivation of yes–no li questions in Russian: Syntax and/or phonology? In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting, 1999, Tracy Holloway King & Irina Sekerina (eds), 347–362. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Runić, Jelena
2013 The person-case constraint: A morphological consensus. Poster presented at the 87th Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America .
Sadock, Jerrold
1991 Autolexical Syntax. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1984 Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The prosodic structure of function words. In Papers in Optimality Theory, Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds), 439–470. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2011 The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C.L. Yu (eds), 435–484. Malden MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique
1996 Clitic constructions. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laura Zaring (eds), 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stegovec, Adrian
2015 Personality disorders and missing persons: Deriving the person-case constraint without case. Ms, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
this volume. Not two sides of one coin: Clitic person restrictions and Icelandic quirky agreement. In Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax, Franc Lanko Marušič & Rok Žaucer (eds) 283 311 Amsterdam John Benjamins
Stepanov, Arthur
1998 On Wh-fronting in Russian. In Proceedings of North East Linguistics Society 28, Pius N. Tamanji & Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds), 453–467. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Werle, Adam
2009 Word, Phrase and Clitic Prosody in Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1981 Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1(1): 43–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Matthew
2007 For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 32: Papers in Optimality Theory III, Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly & Adam Werle (eds), 315–404. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga
2009 Review of Stephen R. Anderson, Aspects of the Theory of Clitics . Word Structure 2.1, 139–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold
1977 On Clitics. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1983 Cliticization vs. inflection: The case of English n’t . Language 59(3): 502–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Franks, Steven L.
2018. Person Feature Geometry and Pronominal Clitic Ordering Preferences. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 63:4 ► pp. 627 ff. Crossref logo
Ruda, Marta
2021. Polish Personal Pronouns: [PersPPers [NumPNum [n]]] and [NumP Num [n]]1. Studies in Polish Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 23 ff. Crossref logo
Ruda, Marta
2021. Strict and Sloppy Readings of Pronominal Objects in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics 16:2 ► pp. 121 ff. Crossref logo
Stegovec, Adrian
2020. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38:1 ► pp. 261 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2021. 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.