Clitics, anti‐clitics, and weak words: Towards a typology of prosodic and syntagmatic dependence

Abstract

AbstractSome reference grammars and cross‐linguistic works describe all elements that are not clear‐cut words as “clitics.” As a consequence of this practice, the class of suggested clitics is highly heterogeneous, which reduces the usefulness of the “clitic” label as a whole. In response to this situation, a more nuanced typology of grammatical forms is proposed here. The argument crucially relies on the notion of formal “dependence,” which is essentially a synchronic indicator of grammaticalisation status. The resulting system limits the term “clitic” to its prototypical manifestation, which combines a syntactic distribution with some degree of prosodic dependence on a host. Meanwhile, the class of “weak words” subsumes elements that are independent words in every regard except that they do not bear stress and/or tone, whereas “anti‐clitics” are affixes except that they share some behaviour with phonological words. Lastly, there are “mobile” and “suspended” affixes, which show types of syntagmatic freedom not found with prototypical affixes. All form classes proposed in this typology are attested across unrelated languages and are thus of relevance to typology and language‐specific analyses alike.