Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 135–160 | Cite as

Word and the Americanist perspective

  • Rik van GijnEmail author
  • Fernando Zúñiga
Article

Abstract

Even though recently appeared reference grammars of lesser-known languages usually do pay attention to issues to do with wordhood, studies of the theoretical and typological import of wordhood-related questions in indigenous languages of the Americas are not numerous. This publication aims to address the challenges posed by individual phenomena found in the Americas to the received views of wordhood.

Keywords

Phonological word Grammatical word South American languages Clitics Affixes Morphology 

Abbreviations

a

subject of transitive verb

abs

absolutive

abst

absential

acc

accusative

av

affix vowel

comp

complementizer

compl

completive

dat

dative

dir

direct

du

dual

emph

emphatic

erg

ergative

evid

evidential

foc

focus

gen

genitive

g-word

grammatical word

ind

indicative

intr

intransitive

irr

irrealis

loc

locative

m

masculine

n

neuter

neg

negative

nom

nominative

ns

nominal suffix

pfv

perfective

pl

plural

poss

possessed

prf

perfect

prog

progressive

prs

present

pst

past

p-word

phonological word

rel

relativizer

sg

singular

ta

transitive animate

thm

theme

top

topic

tr

transitivizer

tv

theme vowel

ver

veracity

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Geert Booij for valuable comments on this paper. All remaining errors are ours.

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2002). A grammar of Tariana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. R. (2005). Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickel, B., Hildebrandt, K., & Schiering, R. (2009). The distribution of phonological word domains: a probabilistic typology. In J. Grijzenhout & B. Kabak (Eds.), Phonological domains: universals and deviations (pp. 47–75). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booij, G. (1983). Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics, 21, 249–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Booij, G. (1999). The phonology of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Booij, G. (2009). Lexical integrity as a formal universal: a constructionist view. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp. 83–100). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Brown, D., Chumakina, M., & Corbett, G. (Eds.) (2012). Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Corbett, G. (2005). The canonical approach in typology. In Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges, & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Studies in language companion series: Vol. 72. Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp. 25–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  11. da Cruz, A. (2011). Fonologia e gramática do Nheengatú: a língua geral falada pelos povos Baré, Warakena e Baniwa. Utrecht: LOT. Google Scholar
  12. Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). Some phonological rules in Yidiny. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 1–34. Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, R. M. W. (2002). The Jarawara language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  14. Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (Eds.) (2002). Word: a cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Dryer, M. (2013). Coding of nominal plurality. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at: http://wals.info/chapter/33. Accessed on 2013-11-21. Google Scholar
  16. Elbert, S. H., & Pukui, M. K. (1979). Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Google Scholar
  17. Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  18. Guillaume, A. (2008). A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, T. A. (1999). The phonological word: a review. In T. A. Hall & U. Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, T. A., Hildebrandt, K. A., & Bickel, B. (2008). Introduction: theory and typology of the word. Linguistics, 46(2), 183–192. Google Scholar
  21. Haspelmath, M. (2011). The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica, 45(1), 31–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haude, K. (2006). A grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Google Scholar
  23. Inkelas, S. (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  24. Inkelas, S. (1998). The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study from dominance. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology. 1997. Google Scholar
  25. Kim, Y. (2008). Topics in the phonology and morphology of San Francisco del Mar Huave. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  26. Magalhães, M. M. S. (2007). Sobre a morfologia e a sintaxe da língua Guajá (família Tupí-Guaraní). PhD dissertation, Universidade de Brasilia. Google Scholar
  27. Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology (pp. 79–153). Google Scholar
  29. Mithun, M. (2003). Pronouns and agreement: the information status of pronominal affixes. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 235–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  31. Pearce, E. (2012). Number within the DP: a view from Oceanic. In L. Brugé, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, & C. Poletto (Eds.), Functional heads: the cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 7, pp. 81–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peperkamp, S. (1997). Prosodic words. Amsterdam: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Google Scholar
  33. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript, available at http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF.
  34. Rankin, R., Boyle, J., Graczyk, R., & Koontz, J. (2002). Synchronic and diachronic perspective on ‘word’ in Siouan. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Word: a cross-linguistic typology (pp. 180–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Rice, K. (2011). Principles of affix ordering: an overview. Word Structure, 4(2), 169–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiering, R., Bickel, B., & Hildebrandt, K. A. (2010). The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics, 46, 657–709. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. Selkirk, E. O. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers: Vol. 18. Papers in optimality theory (pp. 439–469). Amherst, MA: GLSA. Google Scholar
  39. Spencer, A., & Luís, A. (2012). The canonical clitic. In D. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax (pp. 123–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevens, C. M. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: on the grammaticalization of the word. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 71–83). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas, D. D. (1962). On defining the ‘word’ in Vietnamese. Văn-Hóa Nguyệt-San, 11, 519–523. Google Scholar
  43. Tuttle, S. (2008). Phonetics and word definition in Ahtna Athabaskan. Linguistics, 46(2), 439–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Gijn, R. (2006). A grammar of Yurakaré. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Google Scholar
  45. Villafañe, L. (2004). Gramática Yuki. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Google Scholar
  46. Wackernagel, J. (1892). Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen, 1, 333–436. Google Scholar
  47. Wolfart, H. C. (1996). Sketch of Cree, an Algonquian language. In I. Goddard (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 17. Languages (pp. 390–439). Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Google Scholar
  48. Woodbury, A. (2002). The word in Cup’ik. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Word: a cross-linguistic typology (pp. 79–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  49. Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On clitics. Bloomington: IULC. Google Scholar
  50. Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Clitics and particles. Language, 61(2), 283–305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 59(3), 502–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of comparative linguisticsUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations