Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:38:05.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clitics: Separating syntax and prosody1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

JOHN J. LOWE
JOHN J. LOWE*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
*
Author’s address: University of Oxford, Centre for Linguistics & Philology, Walton Street, Oxford OX1 2HG[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A problematic feature of clitic positioning attested in a number of languages is the ability of a clitic to appear inside a syntactic unit of which it is not itself a part, apparently due to prosodic restrictions on its positioning. The influence of prosody on syntax presents a challenge for any formal account, particularly any that strives to respect a modular view of the grammatical architecture. I present an account of clitic positioning within a recently proposed model of the syntax–phonology interface that aims at full modularity, showing that it is indeed possible in such an architecture, and showing where and how prosody and syntax interact in this model.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , 01 July 2016 , pp. 375 - 419
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agbayani, Brian & Golston, Chris. 2010. Second-position is first-position: Wackernagel’s law and the role of clausal conjunction. Indogermanische Forschungen 115, 1–21.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language 69.1, 68–98.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1996. How to put your clitics in their place. Linguistic Review 13, 165–191.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2000. Towards an optimal account of second-position phenomena. In Dekkers et al. (eds.), 302–333.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. The English ‘group genitive’ is a special clitic. English Linguistics 25, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Doug & Sadler, Louisa. 2013. Displaced dependent constructions. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG13, 48–68. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. 2009. Adjacency and locality: A constraint-based analysis of complementizer-adjacent extraction. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG09, 106–126. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, Dalrymple, Mary & Toivonen, Ida. 2008. Constructions with lexical integrity: Templates as the lexicon–syntax interface. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG08, 68–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, Dalrymple, Mary & Toivonen, Ida. 2013. Constructions with lexical integrity. Journal of Language Modelling 1.1, 1–54.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter & Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14.2, 215–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Payne, John. 2011. There are no special clitics. In Galani, Alexandra, Hicks, Glyn & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 57–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bögel, Tina. 2010. Pashto (endo-)clitics in a parallel architecture. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG10, 85–105. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina, Butt, Miriam, Kaplan, Ronald M., King, Tracy Holloway & Maxwell, John T. III. 2009. Prosodic phonology in LFG: A new proposal. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG09, 146–166. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina, Butt, Miriam, Kaplan, Ronald M., King, Tracy Holloway & Maxwell III, John T.. 2010. Second position and the prosody–syntax interface. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG10, 106–126. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bögel, Tina, Butt, Miriam & Sulger, Sebastian. 2008. Urdu ezafe and the morphology–syntax interface. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG08, 129–149. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax–phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bozic, Mirjana & Marslen-Wilson, William. 2010. Neurocognitive contexts for morphological complexity: Dissociating inflection and derivation. Language & Linguistics Compass 4.11, 1063–1073.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1996. LFG in an OT setting: Modelling competition and economy. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG96. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects.In Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds.), Is the best good enough? Proceedings from the Workshop on Optimality in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000a. Optimal syntax. In Dekkers et al. (eds.), 334–385.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000b. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001a. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. In Legendre et al. (eds.), 113–142.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001b. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13.2, 181–254.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway. 1998. Interfacing phonology with LFG. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG98. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 427–495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ćavar, Damir & Seiss, Melanie. 2011. Clitic placement, syntactic discontinuity and information structure. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG11, 131–151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Choi, Hye-Won. 1999. Optimizing structure in context. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 1997. Cliticization in European Portuguese using parallel morpho-syntactic constraints. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG97. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2000. On the placement and morphology of Udi subject agreement. Presented at the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Berkeley, 21–23 July 2000.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical functional grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Mycock, Louise. 2011. The prosody–semantics interface. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG11, 173–193. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.). 2000. Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dost, Ascander. 2007. A domain-based approach to 2P clitics in Pashto. In Hoyt, Frederick, Seifert, Nikki, Teodorescu, Alexandra & White, Jessica (eds.), Texas Linguistic Society IX: The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages, 89–110. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2000. Why there are no clitics: On the storage, insertion, and form of ${\it\phi}$-features. In Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin & Grimshaw, Jane (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 91–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1996. Functional categories, cliticization, and verb movement in the early Germanic languages. In Thráinsson, H., Epstein, S. D. & Peter, S. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II, 109–139. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-functional grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella. 2005. Word order and phrase structure in Gothic. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Frank, Annette, King, Tracy Holloway, Kuhn, Jonas & Maxwell, John. 1998. Optimality Theory style constraint ranking in large-scale LFG grammars. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG98. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 2008. Clitic placement, prosody, and the Bulgarian verbal complex. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16, 91–137.Google Scholar
Gaselee, Stephen. 1969. Achilles Tatius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gerlach, Birgit & Grijzenhout (eds.), Janet. 2000a. Clitics in phonology, morphology and syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gerlach, Birgit & Grijzenhout, Janet. 2000b. Clitics from different perspectives. In Gerlach & Grijzenhout (eds.), 1–29.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. In Bresnan(ed.), 87–148.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic position and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems. In Legendre et al. (eds.), 205–240.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark R.1995. Wackernagel’s Law. Draft MS, available at: http://modlang-hale.concordia.ca/Hale-WackernagelsLaw1995.pdf.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark R. 1996. Deriving Wackernagel’s law: Prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda. In Halpern & Zwicky(eds.), 165–197.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark R. 2007. Historical linguistics: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron L. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Halpern, Aaron L & Zwicky (eds.), Arnold M.. 1996. Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2000. Where in the word is the Udi clitic? Language 593–616.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1981. Separating phonology from syntax: A reanalysis of Pashto cliticization. Journal of Linguistics 17.2, 197–208.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. 1987. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In Whitelock, P., Wood, M. M., Somers, H. L., Johnson, R. & Bennett, P. (eds.), Linguistic theory and computer applications, 149–181. London: Academic Press. [Also in Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III and Annie Zaenen (eds.). 1995. Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, 339–367. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.]Google Scholar
Keydana, Götz. 2011. Wackernagel in the language of the Rigveda. Historische Sprachforschung 124, 80–107.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1996. Slavic clitics, long head movement, and prosodic inversion. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4.2, 274–311.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Some problems in a theory of clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61.1, 95–120.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas. 1999. Two ways of formalizing OT syntax in the LFG framework. Ms., Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.34.747, November 2011.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas. 2001. Generation and parsing in Optimality Theoretic syntax: Issues in the formalization of OT-LFG. In Sells(ed.), 313–366.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas & Roher, Christian. 1997. Approaching ambiguity in real-life sentences – the application of an Optimality Theory-inspired constraint ranking in a large-scale LFG grammar. Beiträge zur 6. Fachtagung der Sektion Computerlinguistik DGfS-CL, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Kupść, Anna. 1999. Clitic climbing in Polish verb clusters: An HPSG approach. In Kruijff, Geert-Jan M. & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.), Formal Grammar 1999, 75–82.Google Scholar
Kupść, Anna. 2000. An HPSG grammar of Polish clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, Polish Academy of Sciences & Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Plank, Frans. 2010. Phonological phrasing in Germanic: The judgement of history, confirmed through experiment. Transactions of the Philological Society 108.3, 370–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Warlpiri and the theory of second position clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26.3, 3–60.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1996. Clitics, verb (non)-movement, and optimality in Bulgarian (Tech. Rep. JHU-CogSci-96-5). Baltimore, MD: Department of Cognitive Science, John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1997. Second position in a verb-second language: Conflict resolution in Macedonian. In Austin, Jennifer & Lawson, Aaron (eds.), The Fourteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), 1997, 139–149. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1999. Morphological and prosodic alignment at work: The case of South Slavic clitics. In Blake, S. J., Kim, E.-S. & Shahin, K. N. (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics XVII (WCCFL 17), 436–450. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2000a. Morphological and prosodic alignment of Bulgarian clitics. In Dekkers et al. (eds.), 423–462.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2000b. Positioning Romanian verbal clitics at PF: An Optimality Theoretic analysis. In Gerlach & Grijzenhout(eds.), 219–254.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 2003. What are clitics? Evidence from Balkan languages. Phonological Studies (Journal of the Phonological Society of Japan) 6, 89–96.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane & Vikner, Sten (eds.). 2001. Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2011. Ṛgvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement’. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG11, 360–380. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J. 2014. Accented clitics in the Ṛgveda. Transactions of the Philological Society 112.1, 5–43.Google Scholar
Lowe, John J.Forthcoming. English possessive ’s: Clitic and affix. To appear in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana & Otoguro, Ryo. 2004. Proclitic contexts in European Portuguese and their effect on clitic placement. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG04, 334–352. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana & Otoguro, Ryo. 2005. Morphological and syntactic well-formedness: The case of European Portuguese clitics. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG05, 253–270. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana & Sadler, Louisa. 2003. Object clitic and marked morphology. In Beyssade, Claire, Bonami, O., Cabredo Hofherr, P. & Corblin, F. (eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 4, 133–153. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana & Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Udi clitics: A generalized Paradigm Function Morphology approach. In Otoguro, Ryo, Popova, Gergana & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 48, 47–59. Colchester: Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Marchant, Edgar Cardew. 1900–1920. Xenophontis opera omnia (5 vols.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Tyler, Lorraine K.. 1997. Dissociating types of mental computation. Nature 387, 592–594.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Tyler, Lorraine K.. 2007. Morphology, language and the brain: The decompositional substrate for language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, vol. 362, 823–836.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. & Patterson, Karalyn. 2002a. ‘Words or rules’ cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 464–465.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. & Patterson, Karalyn. 2002b. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 465–472.Google Scholar
McCone, Kim. 1997. Delbrück’s model of PIE word order and the Celtic evidence. In Crespo, Emilio & García Ramón, José-Luis (eds.), Berthold delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropean hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, 363–396. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
McCone, Kim. 2006. The origins and development of the Insular Celtic verbal complex. Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip H. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 1993. Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian HPSG grammar. The Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 437–442. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 1999. A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 2000. Clitic placement in the Romanian verbal complex. In Gerlach & Grijzenhout(eds.), 255–293.Google Scholar
Mycock, Louise. 2010. Prominence in Hungarian: The prosody–syntax connection. Transactions of the Philological Society 108.3, 265–297.Google Scholar
Mycock, Louise & Lowe, John J.. 2013. The prosodic marking of discourse functions. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG13, 440–460. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nevis, Joel A. & Joseph, Brian D.. 1993. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 93–111. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nevis, Joel A., Joseph, Brian D., Wanner, Dieter & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1994. Clitics: A comprehensive bibliography, 1892–1991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newman, Paula S. 1996. Representing 2P clitic placement in LFG. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG96. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998a. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998b. Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2002a. Clitics and phrasal affixation in Constructive Morphology. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG02, 315–332. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Rob. 2002b. The placement of enclitics in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. Ms., University of Manchester. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/521-0502/521-0502-OCONNOR-0-0.PDF.Google Scholar
Payne, John. 2009. The English genitive and double case. Transactions of the Philological Society 107.3, 322–357.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven A. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253, 530–535.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven A. & Ullman, Michael. 2002a. The past and future of the past tense. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 456–463.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven A. & Ullman, Michael. 2002b. Combination and structure, not gradedness, is the issue. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 472–474.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [Blackwell version 2004. (Tech. Rep. CU-CS-696-93). Boulder: Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado. (Tech. Rep. TR-2). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, April 1993.]Google Scholar
Radanović-Kocić, Vesna. 1988. The grammar of Serbo-Croatian clitics: A synchronic and diachronic perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Radanović-Kocić, Vesna. 1996. The placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: A prosodic approach. In Halpern & Zwicky(eds.), 429–445.Google Scholar
Roberts, Taylor. 1997. The optimal second position in Pashto. In Booij, Geert & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Phonology in progress – progress in phonology: HIL phonology papers III, 367–401. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Roberts, Taylor. 2000. Clitics and agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rudnickaya, Elena. 2000. The derivation of yes-no liquestions in Russian: Syntax and/or phonology? In King, Tracy Holloway & Sekerina, Irina (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting, 347–362. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Arnold, Doug. 1994. Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction. Journal of Linguistics 30, 187–226.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2010. Lateral theory of phonology, vol. 1: A guide to morphosyntax–phonology interface theories: How extra-phonological information is treated in phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2012. Lateral theory of phonology, vol. 2: Direct interface and one-channel translation: A non-diacritic theory of the morphosyntax–phonology interface. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1994. Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement and the phonology–syntax interface. In Carnie, Andrew & Harley, Heidi (eds.), Papers on phonology and morphology (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21), 373–473. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Slightly revised version at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.79.5747&rep=rep1&type=pdf.]Google Scholar
Schwarze, Christoph. 2001. On the representation of French and Italian clitics. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG01. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter(ed.). 2001. Formal and empirical issues in Optimality Theoretic syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 2007. Expressing pragmatic constraints on word order in Warlpiri. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.), Architectures, rules and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan Bresnan, 403–427. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, Patrick. 1984. The double system of verbal inflexion in Old Irish. Transactions of the Philological Society 82.1, 138–201.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Luís, Ana [R.]. 2012. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 213–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1989. Zum Wandel der morphotaktischen Positionsregeln des baltischen Reflexivzeichens. Folia Linguistica Historica IX.1, 13–27.Google Scholar
Stuart-Jones, Henry & Enoch Powell (eds.), J.. 1902. Thucydidis historiae vol. 2, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Šurkalović, Dragana. 2011. Lexical and functional decomposition in syntax: A view from phonology. Posnań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47.2, 399–425.Google Scholar
Tegey, Habibullah. 1977. The grammar of clitics: Evidence from Pashto and other languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-projecting words: A case study of Swedish verbal particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30.2, 219–255.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Lorraine K., Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Stamatakis, Emmanuel A.. 2005. Differentiating lexical form, meaning, and structure in the neural language system. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102.23, 8375–8380.Google Scholar
van der Leeuw, Frank Reinoud Hugo. 1997. Clitics: Prosodic studies. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Vigário, Marina. 2003. The prosodic word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 2001. Competition and correspondence in syntactic change: Null arguments in Latin and Romance. In Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. & Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 25–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1963. Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb. Celtica 6, 1–49.Google Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2005. English nonsyllabic auxiliary contractions: An analysis in LFG with lexical sharing. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG05, 468–486. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2009. Udi person markers and lexical integrity. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), LFG09, 604–622. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2002. Clitics and agreement in competition: Ergative cross-referencing patterns. In Carpenter, A., Coetzee, A. & De Lacy, P. (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory II, 421–449. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Wright, Paul, Stamatakis, Emmanuel A. & Tyler, Lorraine K.. 2012. Differentiating hemispheric contributions to syntax and semantics in patients with left-hemisphere lesions. The Journal of Neuroscience 32.24, 8149–8157.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61.2, 283–305.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.1994. What is a clitic? In Nevis et al. xii–xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59.3, 502–513.Google Scholar