Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 45:2 (2021) ► pp.321–383

Constituency and coincidence in Chácobo (Pano)

ORCID logo | 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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Chácobo: Speakers, language and data
    • 3.1Data presentation
  • 4.Planar structure
  • 5.Constituency test results
    • 5.1Constituency tests and test fracturing
    • 5.2Test fracturing
    • 5.3Free occurrence (8–24, 7–25)
    • 5.4Interruptability (7–17, 7–11)
    • 5.5Permutability (7–10, 7–15)
    • 5.6Ciscategorial selection (8–16, 8–24)
    • 5.7Subspan repetition
      • 5.7.1Coordination
        • 5.7.1.1Asyndetic coordination (6–17, 7–13)
        • 5.7.1.2Same-subject syndetic coordination (6–17, 7–11)
        • 5.7.1.3Syndetic different subject coordination (6–21)
      • 5.7.2Reduplication (7–10, 7–22)
    • 5.8Segmental domains (7–8, 7–10, 7–24)
      • 5.8.1Glottal stop insertion
      • 5.8.2Vowel lengthening and bimoraic minimality
    • 5.9Tone domains (7–17, 7–27, 1–24, 1–28)
      • 5.9.1Tone insertion
      • 5.9.2Tone reduction
    • 5.10Stress domain (7–8)
    • 5.11Deviations from biuniqueness (7–9)
  • 6.Coincidence and convergence
  • 7.Conclusions and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 14 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19025.tal
References (65)
References
Ackerman, Farrell, Robert Malouf & James P. Blevins. 2016. Patterns and discriminability in language analysis. Word Structure 9(2). 132–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 831. 43–73. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 131. 219–242. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 421. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The linguistic typology of templates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 2017. Coordination in syntax. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford. Available at: [URL] (last access: 30 June 2020). DOI logo
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 231. 225–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 311. 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication. Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. In review. The word as a unit of internal predictability.
Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 281. 108–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967. Chacobo. In Esther Matteson (ed.), Bolivian Indian Grammars, vol. 11, 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel, & Kristine Hildebrandt. 2012. Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in Prosodic Typology. STUF 651. 157–168. DOI logoGoogle 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 211, 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 211, 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: [URL] (last access 27 June 2020).
2020. Beyond grammatical and phonological words. Language and Linguistics Compass, available at: DOI logo (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 1471. 3028–3042. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Tallman, Adam James Ross
2024. Clause-linkage, Embeddedness, and Nominalizations in Chácobo (Pano). Languages 9:3 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Sandra Auderset
2023. Measuring and assessing indeterminacy and variation in the morphology-syntax distinction. Linguistic Typology 27:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Tallman, Adam J. R.
2022. A desmemic architecture for autotyp: a review article. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 705 ff. DOI logo
Tallman, Adam J. R.
2021. Analysis and falsifiability in practice. Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Zingler, Tim
2022. Clitics, anti‐clitics, and weak words: Towards a typology of prosodic and syntagmatic dependence. Language and Linguistics Compass 16:5-6 DOI logo
Mansfield, John
2021. The word as a unit of internal predictability. Linguistics 59:6 ► pp. 1427 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2021. The cognition of caused-motion events in Spanish and German: AnAgentive Cognitive Construction Grammaranalysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.