Different Kinds of Second-position Clitics in Caquinte
Nicholas Rolle, Zachary O’Hagan
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004272
October 2018
This topic of this paper is kinds of second position (2P) clitics in Caquinte (Kampa Arawak: Peru). One sort are nominal 2P clitics which appear in nominal domains. The other sort, at least 25 clausal 2P clitics, appear in clausal domains. Neither sort ever appears in initial position, and may appear between words which otherwise form a syntactic constituent, e.g. [Adj=CL N] in the case of nominal clitics and [Dem=CL N] in the case of clausal clitics. Both sorts allow “stacking” (e.g., =ka=mpa=shine=te), but each is subject to distinct constraints on possible hosts. We provide an analysis of clausal clitics highlighting the behavior of two subtypes. First, we claim that all Caquinte clitics are prosodically deficient, as evidenced by stress shifts on the stem. We capture this by associating each clitic with a subcategorization frame (w […]=CL) that indicates that it must have a host to its left, and together they form a phonological word w, following Inkelas (1990) and Bennett, Harizanov, and Henderson (2018), among others. Second, we argue that the [X]=CL constituent is formed via a post-syntactic operation and not through syntactic movement, supported by the fact that clitics can break up syntactic constituents. Third, we argue that clausal clitics are merged at different points on the clausal spine, which accounts for the distribution of the two clausal clitic subtypes. Taken together, 2P clitics stand at the intersection of syntax, morphology, and phonology, and constitute an essential case study of interface phenomena.

The nature of the phonology-syntax interface, from variable adjective and noun
word order in Tagalog
Stephanie Shih, Kie Zuraw
direct link: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004296
November 2018
This manuscript is material from an earlier, unpublished version of Shih & Zuraw 2017 (in Language: Phonological Analysis) that did not appear in the published version after the final round of revisions, which requested that the paper shift its focus away from theoretical consequences for phonology-syntax interface design. Because the following discussion has been requested subsequently from readers of Shih & Zuraw 2017, we are making the material available.