References

References

Ackerman, Farrell, Robert Malouf & James P. Blevins
2016Patterns and discriminability in language analysis. Word Structure 9(2). 132–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.
2005Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Kristen Fudeman
2005What is morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron
2005Coordination of parts of words. Lingua 115(4). 359–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Fernando Zúñiga
2017The ‘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
2007Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83. 43–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt & René Schiering
2009The 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
2010Capturing 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.
2016Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Booij, Geertz E.
1996Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch. Linguistic Review 13. 219–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Córdoba, Lorena Isabel
2008Parentesco 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
2012Pano meridional. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.) Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol. 2, Amazonía, 27–69. La Paz: Plurales Editores.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2005Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Ten 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
2005Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
2002Word: 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.
2010Basic linguistic theory, vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka
2011An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42. 209–286.Google Scholar
2014The 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
2016Informativeness of linguistic unit boundaries. Italian Journal of Linguistics 28(1). 25–48.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff
2010Topic 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
2016The linguistic typology of templates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, Grant
2017Coordination 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
2011The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles
1958A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
2006Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23. 225–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31. 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll
2005Reduplication. Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, Andreas
2000Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, John
2015Morphotactic 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.
1991Morphology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002What 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
2004A structural typology of polysynthesis. Word 55(2). 189–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim
1993Morphological 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
2015Diagnostics 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
2018Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure. Language Under Discussion 5(1). 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon
1996On the prosodic representation of clitics. In Ursula Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in linguistic theory, 104–128. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Post, Mark W.
2009The phonology and grammar of Galo “words”: A case study of benign disunity. Studies in Language 34(4). 931–971.Google Scholar
Prost, Gilbert
1960Fonemas 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
1962Signaling of transitive and intransitive in Chacobo (Pano). International Journal of American Linguistics 28. 108–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1967Chacobo. In Esther Matteson (ed.), Bolivian Indian Grammars, vol. 1, 285–359. Summer Institute of Linguistics International Publications in Linguistics 16.Google Scholar
Rice, Karen
2011Principles of affix ordering: An overview. Word Structure 4(2). 169–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2011A guide to morphosyntax-Phonology interface theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
2010The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46(03). 657–709. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel, & Kristine Hildebrandt
2012Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in Prosodic Typology. STUF 65. 157–168.Google Scholar
Tallman, Adam J. R. & Tammi Stout
2018Tense 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.
2017A metrical analysis of nouns in Chácobo (Pano). Amerindia: Estudios sincrónicos y diacrónicos sobre lenguas Pano y Takana 39(1). 105–128.Google Scholar
2018aA grammar of Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2018bThere 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).
2020Beyond 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
2020The 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
2020Morphological 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
2016The 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.
2005Participant 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
2007El 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
2011Atkan 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
1998Diccionario 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