Article in:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

Constituency and coincidence in Chácobo (Pano)

| Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage (UMR 5569)
This paper provides a detailed description of the results of 24 constituency diagnostics, both morphosyntactic and phonological, to Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. While it is often assumed that misalignments across the domains that emerge from constituency diagnostics can be resolved by reference to a distinction between phonological and morphosyntactic words, I argue that this is not true of Chácobo. Divergence is at least as high within phonological domains and morphosyntactic domains as it is across them. While it is often assumed that domains tend to converge overall on a single wordhood candidate or that domain divergence is marginal, I argue that this is not true of Chácobo. I present a cluster of methodologies that assess the motivation for a word constituent as an empirical hypothesis, rather than treating it as an a priori assumption. No strong evidence for a word constituent emerges from the Chácobo data. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.
Keywords: wordhood, constituency, syntax, morphosyntax, phonology, simulations
Published online: 14 September 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19025.tal
References

References

Ackerman, Farrell, Robert Malouf & James P. Blevins
2016 Patterns and discriminability in language analysis. Word Structure 9(2). 132–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.
2005 Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Kristen Fudeman
2005 What is morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron
2005 Coordination of parts of words. Lingua 115(4). 359–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Fernando Zúñiga
2017 The ‘word’ in polysynthetic languages: Phonological and syntactic challenges. In Michael Fortascue, Marianne Mithun & Nichols Evans (eds.), The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis, 158–186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenzsle, Elena Lieven, Netra Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel Kishor Rai & Sabine Stoll
2007 Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83. 43–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt & René Schiering
2009 The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Janet Grijzenhout & Kabak Baris (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 47–75. De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2010 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy, 51–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P.
2016 Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Booij, Geertz E.
1996 Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch. Linguistic Review 13. 219–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Córdoba, Lorena Isabel
2008 Parentesco en Femenino: Género, Alianza y Organización Social entre los Chacobo de la Amazonía Boliviana. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Córdoba, Lorena, Pilar M. Valenzuela & Diego Villar
2012 Pano meridional. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.) Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol. 2, Amazonía, 27–69. La Paz: Plurales Editores.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2005 Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. In Kasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 313–350. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff
2005 Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
2002 Word: A typological framework. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2010 Basic linguistic theory, vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka
2011 An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42. 209–286.Google Scholar
2014 The word in phonology. In Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Jose’Luis Mendívil-Giro (eds.), To be or not to be a word: New reflections on the definition of word, 6–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geertzen, Jeroen, James Blevins & Peter Milin
2016 Informativeness of linguistic unit boundaries. Italian Journal of Linguistics 28(1). 25–48.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff
2010 Topic and focus fields in Naki. In Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 The linguistic typology of templates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, Grant
2017 Coordination in syntax. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford. Available at: http://​oxfordre​.com​/linguistics​/view​/10​.1093​/acrefore​/9780199384655​.001​.0001​/acrefore​-9780199384655​-e​-36 (last access: 30 June 2020). Crossref
Haspelmath, Martin
2011 The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles
1958 A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
2006 Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23. 225–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31. 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll
2005 Reduplication. Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, Andreas
2000 Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, John
2015 Morphotactic variation, prosodic domains and the changing structure of the Murrinhpatha verb. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 1(2). 163–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
In review. The word as a unit of internal predictability.
Matthews, P. H.
1991 Morphology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 What can we conclude? In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 266–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna
2004 A structural typology of polysynthesis. Word 55(2). 189–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim
1993 Morphological units. In Robert E. Asher & James M. Y. Simpson (eds.) (ed.) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2543–2553. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy
2015 Diagnostics for constituents: Dependency, constituency, and the status of function words. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden August 24–26 2005 251–260.Google Scholar
2018 Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure. Language Under Discussion 5(1). 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon
1996 On the prosodic representation of clitics. In Ursula Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in linguistic theory, 104–128. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Post, Mark W.
2009 The phonology and grammar of Galo “words”: A case study of benign disunity. Studies in Language 34(4). 931–971.Google Scholar
Prost, Gilbert
1960 Fonemas de la lengua chacobo (Notas Notas lingüísticas de Bolivia; no. 2). La Paz, Bolivia: Publicaciones del Instituto Lingüístico de Verano en colaboración con el Ministerio de Asuntos Campesinos.Google Scholar
1962 Signaling of transitive and intransitive in Chacobo (Pano). International Journal of American Linguistics 28. 108–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1967 Chacobo. In Esther Matteson (ed.), Bolivian Indian Grammars, vol. 1, 285–359. Summer Institute of Linguistics International Publications in Linguistics 16.Google Scholar
Rice, Karen
2011 Principles of affix ordering: An overview. Word Structure 4(2). 169–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2011 A guide to morphosyntax-Phonology interface theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
2010 The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46(03). 657–709. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel, & Kristine Hildebrandt
2012 Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in Prosodic Typology. STUF 65. 157–168.Google Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Tammi Stout
2018 Tense and temporal remoteness in Chácobo (Pano). Megan Keough, Natalie Weber, Andrei Anghelescu, Sihwei Chen, Erin Guntly, Khia Johnson, Daniel Reisinger & Oksana Tkachman (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas 21, 210–224. Montreal: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 46.Google Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Sandra Auderset
Submitted. Measuring and assessing indeterminacy and variation in the morphology-syntax distinction. Rik van Gijn & Roberto Zariquiey eds. For a special volume in Linguistic Typology on morphosyntactic misfits
Tallman, Adam J. R.
2017 A metrical analysis of nouns in Chácobo (Pano). Amerindia: Estudios sincrónicos y diacrónicos sobre lenguas Pano y Takana 39(1). 105–128.Google Scholar
2018a A grammar of Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2018b There are no special clitics in Chácobo (Pano). Natalie Webber (ed.), Workshop on the Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas 21, 194–209. Vancouver: University of British Colombia Working Papers in Linguistics 26.Google Scholar
2018c Documentaiton of Chácobo-Pacahuara, southern Panoan languages of the northern Bolivian Amazon. Endangered Languages Archive at SOAS University of London, available at: https://​elar​.soas​.ac​.uk​/Collection​/MPI485795 (last access 27 June 2020).
2020 Beyond grammatical and phonological words. Language and Linguistics Compass, available at: Crossref (last access 30 June 2020).Google Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Elias-Ulloa, José Alberto
2020 The acoustic correlates of stress and tone in Chácobo (Pano): A production study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147. 3028–3042. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Patience Epps
2020 Morphological complexity, autonomy, and areality in Amazonia. In Gardani Francesco & Peter Arkadiev (eds.), Morphological complexities, 230–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Tammi Stout
2016 The perfect in Chácobo in cross-linguistic perspective. In Thuy Bui & Rudmila-Rodica Ivan (eds.), SULA 9: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas, 197–212. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R., Eric W. Campbell, Hiroto Uchihara, Ambrocio Guttierrez, Dennis Wylie, Eric Adell, Natalia Bermudez, Gladys Camacho-Rios, Javier Carol, Patience Epps, Michael Everdell, Cristian R. Juárez, Willem de Reuse, Kelsey Neely, Andrés Pablo Salanova, Anthony C. Woodbury, Magdalena Lemus, Denis Bertet
A new typology of constituency and convergence. 13th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology. Pavia (Italy), 4–6 September 2019.
Valenzuela, Pilar M.
2005 Participant agreement in Panoan. In Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Eva F. Schultze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification, 259–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Pilar M. & Oliver Iggesen
2007 El desarrollo de un marcador suprasegmental en chácobo (pano). In Romero-Figueroa, Andres and Fernández-Garay, Ana and Ángel Corbera Mori (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de América del Sur: Estudios descriptivo-tipológicos y sus contribuciones para la lingüística teórica, 187–199. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andres Bello.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C.
2002 “The word in Cup'ik." In Word: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 79–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2011 Atkan Aleut “unclitic” pronouns and definiteness: A multimodular analysis. In Estuyo Yuasa, Titsa Bagchi & Katharine Beals (eds.), Pragmatics and autolexical grammar. In honor of Jerry Sadock. 125–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zingg, Philippe
1998 Diccionario chácobo-castellano, castellano-chácobo con bosquejo de la gramática chacobo y con apuntes culturales. La Paz: Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación Viceministro de Asuntos Indígenas y Pueblos Originarios.Google Scholar