Clitics and particles | Language | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Typological and theoretical speculations about clitics require that the CLITIC be adequately distinguished from the INFLECTIONAL AFFIX on the one hand and from the INDEPENDENT WORD on the other. The first of these tasks has been attended to, but the second has been slighted, with the result that many items labeled ‘particles’ have been treated as clitics.

After some remarks on the nature of ‘tests’ in linguistics, a series of tests is provided here for distinguishing clitics from independent words. On the basis of these, it is concluded that most of the ‘particles’ in the literature are simply words; from this conclusion, it is argued that treating words with idiosyncratic distributions as acategorial ‘particles’ is wrong.

We then consider the relevance of various cases of ‘particles‘—in German, Chrau, Hidatsa, and Welsh—to theoretical proposals about special clitics. These examples include some items that are independent words, some that are inflectional affixes, and others that are independent words with simple clitic variants.

Finally, a class of DISCOURSE MARKERS is delineated: a grammatical category of items which are often classified as ‘particles’ but which turn out, again, to be independent words rather than clitics of any sort.*

References

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1917. Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Bowen, John T., and Rhys Jones, T. J. 1960. Teach yourself Welsh. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar

Burt, Marina K. 1971. From deep to surface structure. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Carlson, Greg N. 1983. Marking constituents. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, ed. by Heny, Frank & Richards, Barry, 1.69–98. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1981. Notes on affixes, clitics, and paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 1980. A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1979. Hixkaryana syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph E. 1972. Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8.546–61.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: A theoretical synopsis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Julia A. 1980. Discourse particles: An analysis of the role of ‘y'know’, ‘I mean’, ‘well’, and ‘actually’ in conversation. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar

James, Deborah. 1974. The syntax and semantics of some English interjections. (University of Michigan papers in linguistics, 1:3.) Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

Johnson, David E. 1977. On Keenan's definition of 'subject of. LI 8.673–92.Google Scholar

Jones, Morris, and Thomas, Alan R. 1977. The Welsh language: Studies in its syntax and semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Kaisse, Ellen M. 1982. Sentential clitics and Wackernagel's Law. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1.1–14.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles, 303–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Klavans, Judith L. 1979. On clitics as words. CLS 15.68–80.Google Scholar

Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Some problems in a theory of clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Lg. 61.95–120.Google Scholar

Longacre, Robert E. 1976. ‘Mystery’ particles and affixes. CLS 12.468–75.Google Scholar

Muysken, Pieter. 1981. Quechua word structure. Binding and filtering, ed. by Heny, Frank, 279–327. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. Syncategorematicity and English infinitival TO. Glossa 16.181–215.Google Scholar

Rhys Jones, T. J. 1977. Living Welsh. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar

Robinett, Florence M. 1955. Hidatsa II: Affixes. IJAL 21.160–77.Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe T. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence C. 1983. Common discourse particles in English conversation. (Ohio State University working papers in linguistics, 28.) Columbus.Google Scholar

Speiser, E. A. 1941. Introduction to Hurrian. (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 20.) New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.Google Scholar

Thomas, David D. 1971. Chrau grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Ueber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1.333–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977a. Litmus tests, the Bloomfieldian counterrevolution, and the correspondence fallacy. Second Annual Metatheory Conference Proceedings, 93–151. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977b. On clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1982. Stranded to and phonological phrasing in English. Linguistics 20.3–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983a. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Lg. 59.502–13.Google Scholar