Halkomelem clitic types - Web hostingweb.uvic.ca/~werle/files/GERDTS_WERLE_2014.pdf246 D.B. Gerdts,...

Morphology (2014) 24:245–281DOI 10.1007/s11525-014-9241-0

Halkomelem clitic types

Donna B. Gerdts · Adam Werle

Received: 26 June 2014 / Accepted: 6 August 2014 / Published online: 25 September 2014© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract In the Salish language Halkomelem, there are numerous functional el-ements that we identify as clitics. In this study, we seek to improve our under-standing of Halkomelem clitics by classifying them according to their syntactic andphonological properties. We look in particular at data from the Island dialect, calledHul’q’umi’num’.

First, based on their patterns of syntactic placement, we classify Hul’q’umi’num’clitics into two general types, inner and outer. Inner clitics are more constrained intheir placement than outer clitics. When they co-occur, inner clitics are closer to thehost than outer clitics are. Second, we examine Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics in terms ofphonological integration, showing that clitics are less integrated than affixes, and,furthermore, that clitics that follow their hosts are more integrated than those thatprecede their hosts.

Finally, we analyze the prosodic representations of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics withinProsodic Clitic Theory. We propose that clitics receive at least three different parses inHul’q’umi’num’, namely internal enclisis, adjoined proclisis, and free clisis. That is,clitics can be parsed at the right edge of a prosodic word, at the left edge of a recursiveprosodic word, or directly by a phonological phrase. While Hul’q’umi’num’ cliticsexhibit a range of behaviors, those clitics with more constrained syntactic placementare generally more phonologically integrated, and vice-versa.

Keywords Salish languages · Halkomelem · Clitics · Second-position clitics ·Enclitics · Proclitics · Free clitics

D.B. Gerdts (B)Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canadae-mail: [email protected]

A. WerleUniversity of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canadae-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

246 D.B. Gerdts, A. Werle

1 Introduction

Halkomelem is a Salish language, indigenous to southwestern British Columbia,Canada.1 Like all Salish languages, it is endangered, and a dedicated effort is un-derway to revitalize and document the language. The data cited in this paper comefrom the Island dialect, called Hul’q’umi’num’, which is spoken on southeastern Van-couver Island and nearby islands by around forty elderly first-language speakers, andover two hundred second-language speakers. The data include examples from a cor-pus of Hul’q’umi’num’ texts collected from about fifty speakers, supplemented withelicited examples from native speaker linguists.2

In this paper, we seek to resolve some issues surrounding the notion word, asapplied to the description of Hul’q’umi’num’. As in other languages, one sees inHul’q’umi’num’ a continuum of wordhood, from independent words at one end toaffixes on the other, with so-called “particles” or “clitics” somewhere in the mid-dle. Based on an examination of the syntactic and phonological properties of somerepresentative clitics, we propose a taxonomy of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitic types.

In terms of its morphosyntactic structure, Hul’q’umi’num’ is a polysynthetic lan-guage, using affixation not only for voice and valence morphology but also for muchof its pronominal inflection.3 In addition, Hul’q’umi’num’ is typical of Salish lan-guages in that it employs over one hundred lexical suffixes, bound forms with mean-ings often expressed by incorporated nouns in other Native American languages(Gerdts 2003). We can illustrate the polysynthetic nature of Hul’q’umi’num’ withsentences like the following4:

(1) [email protected]

xwiP<

sas@ ’m-@s-t-a’lxw-@s-st@- ’na ’[email protected]

<sell-DAT-TR-1PL.OBJ-3SUB-CS-LC.REFL(IMPF)

‘He’s pretending to sell it to us.’

1Hul’q’umi’num’ (h@’l ’q@mi ’n@ ’m or Island Halkomelem) is one of three broad dialect groups withinthe language Halkomelem (ISO 639-3 language code hur). The other main dialect groups are UpriverHalkomelem (Halq’eméylem) and Downriver Halkomelem (h@ ’n ’q@mi ’n@ ’m) (Gerdts 1977).2The corpus includes texts from over fifty speakers on a wide variety of subjects.3See Gerdts and Hukari (to appear) for a survey of Hul’q’umi’num’ morphology.4The following abbreviations are used in the interlinear glosses: 1: first person, 2: second person, 3: thirdperson, ACT: activity, ADV: adversative, AUX: auxiliary, CERT: certainty, COL: collective plural, CN: con-nective element, CNJ: conjunction, CS: causative, DAT: dative applicative, DEM: demonstrative, DESID:desiderative, DLM: delimiter, DT: determiner, DUR: durative, FOC: contrastive focus, FUT: future, INC:inchoative, IMPF: imperfective, INF: inferential, INQU: inquisitive, LC: limited control, LPFX: lexical pre-fix, LSFX: lexical suffix, MID: middle, MIR: mirative, MIT: mitigative, N: nominalizer, OB: oblique, OBJ:object, PAS: passive, PERF: perfect, PERM: permissive, PRST: persistive, PST: past, PL: plural, POS: posses-sive, POST: positional stative, PRO: pronoun, Q: yes/no question, QUOT: quotative/hearsay, REFL: reflexive,RSLT: resultative, SEQ: sequential, SER: serial, SG: singular, SSUB: subordinate subject, ST: stative, SUB:subject, TR: transitive, VBL: verbalizer.

We use the following brackets and edge symbols.

. syllable edge (. . .) prosodic word edges- stem-affix edge {. . .} phonological phrase edges= inner clitic edge // vague prosodic break or pause

<outer clitic edge

Halkomelem clitic types 247

(2) niPAUX

s ’q-@lc@p-st-@n@q-sta ’mš[email protected] (wood)-CAUS-LSFX (person)-CS.1SG.OBJ-3SUB

‘He asked me to have someone cut some firewood.’

Hul’q’umi’num’ has hundreds of affixes, many occurring quite frequently, and oftenstacking on top of each other.5 Many sentences are built around large words likethese.

Conversely, the language exhibits numerous small, ubiquitous, non-affixal func-tional elements, such as PeP@t, xwiP, and niP in (1) and (2). In the Salishanist litera-ture, these are often called particles, and are distinguished from lexical words suchas nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.6 In Hul’q’umi’num’, particles are frequentenough that a sentence sounds bare without them. For example, sentence (3) consistsof two verbs (one per clause), one noun, and seven particles.

(3) niP<

y@xw<

c@n<

’peP

AUX<

INF<

1SG.SUB<

CERT

xwiP<

l@ ’ql@ ’q-@t,MIR

<drink-TR(IMPF)

[email protected]

P@ ’w ’kw

gonetT@DT

qaP.water

‘I must have drunk the water too fast, since it’s all gone.’

As a point of departure, we propose to treat Hul’q’umi’num’ particles as clitics,since they exhibit properties midway between words and affixes. Like affixes, parti-cles are typically unstressed, and express mostly functional meanings. But like words,particles can be perceived as independent elements, and can be ordered with respectto a phrase, rather than to a stem. Clitics are numerous, heterogeneous, and ubiquitousin Hul’q’umi’num’, and thus pose a descriptive and analytic challenge.7

The Hul’q’umi’num’ clitic system is so heterogeneous that, without further anal-ysis, it is difficult to generalize more effectively than this. At the same time, a properanalysis of clitics and wordhood requires a more precise description of the facts. Wetherefore approach the further analysis of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics first by executinga deeper description of some archetypal clitics and second by reconsidering theiranalysis from a clitic system-wide perspective.

We begin by selecting and describing several Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics in terms ofthe Canonical Typology framework (Brown et al. 2012; Spencer and Luís 2012; vanGijn and Zúñiga this issue). This approach posits typical properties of words andaffixes across languages, providing a baseline for the description of these elementsin particular languages. In short, we will consider any element that has propertiesbetween those of the canonical word and the canonical affix to be a clitic.

Interestingly, this definition of clitic forces us to consider that more elementsthan the traditional particles might be clitics. For example, the formative y@= (seeSect. 2.2.2) is often written together with a following stem, but comparison withcanonical prefixes shows that y@= is only loosely phonologically integrated into thefollowing word, suggesting that it is a proclitic rather than a prefix (see Sect. 3).

5See Gerdts and Kiyosawa (2007) and Gerdts (2012) for a discussion of morpheme ordering.6See Kinkade (1981) for a discussion of particles in Interior Salish languages. Word class remains a con-troversial topic in Salish linguistics.7Complex clitic systems are common in the languages of the Pacific Northwest. For example, see Mulderand Sellers (2010) on Sm’algyax, and Davidson (2002) and Anderson (2005) on Wakashan.


(4) w@ì<

y@=Pe ’w@

PERF<

SER=comekwT@

DT

sx@y ’ň.cold

‘Winter was coming.’

Also, compare past tense =@ì to pronominal c@n. Although both are ordered withrespect to a preceding element, =@ì is more integrated than c@n (see Sect. 3):8

(5) ne ’m=@ì<

c@ngo=PST

<1SG.SUB

[email protected]

‘I was going to leave.’

These examples help to illustrate two broad dimensions along which clitics candiffer from each other, which we will call orientation and integration. By orientation,we refer to the clitic’s placement with respect to an adjacent, host-like element (i.e.does it precede or follow the element that licenses its placement). By integration, werefer to the clitic’s closeness to its host. A closely integrated clitic is more likely toundergo phonological processes with its host, resist separation, and the like. A looselyintegrated clitic may show greater freedom in terms of placement in the clause andordering with respect to other clitics.

Referring to these two dimensions, we identify four types of clitics in Table 1.Our inner clitics are phonologically integrated with their hosts, to the extent that

we confidently classify them as proclitic or enclitic. By contrast, outer clitics are lessobviously integrated than inner clitics. To aid the reader in following our analysis,we use different symbols for these two types of clitics: we indicate inner clitics byequals (=) and outer clitics by undertie (

<).9 Outer clitics that follow their hosts are

straightforwardly analyzed as second-position clitics, as they are ordered with respectto a clause or determiner phrase, within which they follow some initial element. Werefer to outer clitics that precede their hosts as pre-predicate clitics, as they seem tobe ordered with respect to a following predicate.10

An additional clitic type—introducers—is essential to the description ofHul’q’umi’num’ clisis, but also brings complications outside the scope of this pa-

Table 1 A descriptive classification of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics

Orientation

Preceding Following

Integration Inner inner proclitics(e.g. serial y@=)

inner enclitics(e.g. past =@ì)

Outer pre-predicate clitics(e.g. mirative xwiP)

second-position clitics(e.g. pronominal c@n)

8Suttles (2004), in his grammar of the Downriver dialect of Halkomelem, refers to y@- as a prefix and -@ìas a suffix.9This use differs from orthographic conventions followed by native speakers, who write all clitics as sep-arate words, and also from representations in various previous works by linguists Donna Gerdts and/orThomas Hukari, who write inner clitics as affixes and outer clitics as separate words.10We coined the term “pre-predicate clitic” due to lack of an appropriate term to draw from the literature.As will be discussed in Sect. 4, pre-predicate clitics are free clitics, not proclitics.


per. We will therefore say only as much about this type as is necessary for the presentdescription. Introducers are various functional elements that take following phrasalcomplements:

(6) Introducer subtype Examplesclause introducers PiP (coordinator), haP (subordinator)focus markers niì (emphatic focus), hay (contrastive focus)verb phrase introducers Pi, niP (space-time auxiliaries)participant introducers P@ (generic preposition), tT@, ì@ (articles)

As Hul’q’umi’num’ is a head-first language, introducers are simple clitics inZwicky’s (1977) terms, in that their word order is as expected, based on their rolesas functional heads (such as Conjunction, Complementizer, Auxiliary, Preposition,and Determiner). Introducers are relevant to the description of second-position cliticsbecause some introducers are able to serve as hosts for second-position clitics (seeSect. 3.1).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sects. 2 and 3, we describe inmore detail the properties and behavior of several archetypal clitics belonging to thefour types in Table 1. We start with a discussion of the syntactic properties of cliticsin Sect. 2, and then turn to their phonological properties in Sect. 3. At appropriatejunctures we also present evidence that distinguishes clitics from affixes on one handand from words on the other. Then in Sect. 4, we revisit the analysis of the cliticsystem, seeking to refine the notions of phonological integration and morphosyntacticorientation in the more rigorous terms of Prosodic Clitic Theory (Selkirk 1995). Wepropose an analysis in which the four different types of clitics get only three differentprosodic parses. In Sect. 5, we give our conclusions. The correspondence of syntacticto prosodic types bears out the claim that syntax partly determines prosody. Roughlyspeaking, the more constrained clitics are syntactically, the more integrated they areprosodically.

2 Syntactic constraints

In this section, we discuss clitics with respect to their syntactic properties, such astheir placement within the clause or phrase, their orientation, their mobility, and thelexical categories of their hosts. We deal first with outer clitics in Sect. 2.1 and thenwith inner clitics in Sect. 2.2. We compare the two types and summarize in Sect. 2.3.

2.1 Outer clitics

We start with the second-position clitics, as they are the most numerous class of cliticand also the ones that straightforwardly fit with general assumptions regarding clitics,before turning to the pre-predicate clitics.

2.1.1 Second-position clitics

Hul’q’umi’num’ uses second-position clitics to express a variety of functions, includ-ing tense, aspect, mood, and modality. Main clause first- and second-person subjects


Table 2 Some second-position clitics in Hul’q’umi’num’

Function Meaning Form

mood question P@

mood imperative ìe, ì@

modal inferential y@xw

subject clitic 1SG / 2SG / 1PL / 2PL c@n / c / ct / ce:p

discourse particle quotative, hearsay ’c@

discourse particle emphatic ’q@

temporal/aspectual future ceP

discourse particle certain, veracitive ’peP

discourse particle assertive T@ì

discourse particle inquisitive Pa’l@

discourse particle thus, then kw@Peì, kwe:ì

are expressed as second-position clitics.11 Many second-position clitics are discourseparticles marking source of information, nature of logical connection, or speaker’sviewpoint. Gerdts and Hukari (to appear) discuss fifteen clitics, given in Table 2. Of-ten more than one second-position clitic appears in a clause, and, when they co-occur,those higher in the table precede those lower in the table.12

Second-position clitics, probably the best studied of clitic types cross-linguistical-ly, are ordered with respect to a clause, phrase, etc.13 That is, they appear after somefirst constituent, the details of which vary language by language. Our first task there-fore is to elaborate on how to define second position in Hul’q’umi’num’ by showingthe range of elements that clitics can follow.

Hul’q’umi’num’ can be characterized as a verb-first language, and NPs appearafter the verb.

(7) niPAUX

kw@n-@t-@stake-TR-3SUB

kwT@-n@

DT-1SG.POS

stiw@nnephew

kwT@-n@

DT-1SG.POS

š@[email protected]

‘My nephew took my knife.’

Second-position clitics also appear after the verb in examples like the following:

(8) Pi’tT@m-st@xw<

c<

’peP

clothe-CS<

2SG.SUB<

CERT

tT@DT

m@nayaPì

dollP@- ’kw

OB-DT

s-qeq-aPì

N-baby-ATTR

sPi’[email protected]

‘Dress the doll in the baby’s clothes.’

11Of the different clitics found in Salish languages, subject clitics are the best studied. See Kroeber (1992),Davis (1995), Jelinek (1996), and Bar-el et al. (2004). For analyses of clisis in Salish languages, see Beck(1999) for Lushootseed and (Koch 2008) for Thompson.12Not all clitics co-occur with each other, but the overall ordering is surmised from allowable combi-nations. (See Gerdts and Hukari (to appear) for Island Halkomelem and Suttles (2004) for DownriverHalkomelem.)13See Spencer and Luís (2012) for a survey of approaches to second position (Wackernagel’s position)phenomena.


When the verb phrase is more complex, for example when the verb is modified byan adverb, then the second-position clitics appear in second position, following theadverb.

(9) nan<

c@n<

’peP

very<

1SG.SUB<

CERT

P@ ’wCN

P@ ’[email protected]

‘I really like it.’

Complex verb phrases can be formed with the motion auxiliaries ( ’mi ‘come’ and ne ’m‘go’), which serve to host second-position clitics.

(10) ’mi<

c<

’peP

come<

2SG.SUB<

CERT

lem-@tlook-TR

kwT@-n@

DT-1SG.POS

smePkw@ì.injury

‘Come and look at my injury.’

(11) ne ’m<

P@<

c<

ceP

go<

Q<

2SG.SUB<

FUT

’qwaì-@twait-TR

ì@

DT

sti:c?bus

‘Are you going to wait for the bus?’

Other auxiliaries anchor the event in space and/or time: Pi marks events that happenhere or now, while niP marks events that happen there or then.

(12) Pi<

c@n<

’peP

AUX<

1SG.SUB<

CERT

t@ ’w<

liqw-@t-@lm@nDLM

<slack-TR-DESID

tT@DT

xwi’l@ ’m.rope.

‘I want to slacken the rope a little.’

(13) niP<

P@<

c<

ceP

AUX<

Q<

2SG.SUB<

FUT

c@P-elsdebark-ACT

P@- ’kw

OB-DT

xpe ’y?cedar

‘Are you going to pull off some cedar?’

As discussed in Sect. 1, Pi and niP are introducers, clitics that sit at the left edge of theclause, and host the second-position clitics. Besides verbs and auxiliaries, a numberof other elements appear at the left edge of the clause, including wh-words (e.g. stem‘what’), the emphatic contrastive focus clitic (hay), and subordinating clitics (e.g.haP ‘if, when’):

(14) stem<

ceP

what<

FUT

’kw@

DT

hakw@š-@xw?use-2SG.SSUB

‘What are you going to use?’

(15) hay<

c@nFOC

<1SG.SUB

P@w@

notne ’m-@ ’ngo-1SG.DEP.SUB

ta:[email protected]

‘I am not going to leave you.’

(16) haP<

c@n<

ceP

if<

1SG.SUB<

FUT

[email protected]

P@ ’wCN

’qw@yil@š=@l@p,dance=2PL

PiPCNJ

’qw@yil@š<

ce:p.dance

<2PL.SUB

‘When I tell you all to dance, make sure you all dance.’


Thus, elements of various categories and functions occupy first position in theclause and host second-position clitics. We can schematize Hul’q’umi’num’ sentencestructure as follows, and the second-position clitics will appear after the first availablehost.

(17) (subordinator) (focus) (space/time aux) (motion aux) (adverb) main verb

Some of the hosts are themselves clitics—introducer clitics. However, not all in-troducers can host clitics. The conjunctive clitic PiP does not host second-positionclitics, as seen in the following example:

(18) *PiP<

c@nCNJ

<1SG.SUB

haP

ify@T-@s-Tam@,tell-APPL-TR.2SG.OBJ

xw@m<

P@<

c<

kw@Peì

can<

Q<

2SG.SUB<

thus

heP ’kw?remember(IMPF)‘If I tell it to you, can you remember it?’

Rather, the correct position for the clitic in this example is after the subordinator haP

(‘if’, ‘when’):

(19) PiPCNJ

haP<

c@nif<

1SG.SUB

y@T-@s-Tam@,tell-APPL-TR.2SG.OBJ

xw@m<

P@<

c<

kw@Peì

can<

Q<

2SG.SUB<

thus

heP ’kw?remember(IMPF)‘If I tell it to you, would you remember it?’

Thus, clitics that function as space/time auxiliaries, focus markers, and subordinatorsare strong introducers, while the conjunctive clitic is a weak introducer with respectto second-position clitic placement.14

2.1.2 Pre-predicate clitics

It is not unusual in Hul’q’umi’num’ to have several clitics in a clause, e.g. the threeclitics that appear between the subordinating clitic haP and the verb c-qeq in thefollowing example:

(20) PiPCNJ

haP<

c<

ceP

if<

2SG.SUB<

FUT

w@ì<

c-qeqPERF

<VBL-baby

PiPCNJ

nanvery

P@ ’wCN

T@xw@ ’m.bleed

‘And when your baby is being born, you will bleed a lot.’

However, not all the clitics following the first position element haP in this exampleare second-position clitics. Some clitics in Hul’q’umi’num’ are ordered with respectto the predicate, appearing before it, e.g. the perfect clitic w@ì in the above example.Other clitics of this type include the delimiter particle t@ ’w, usually translated as ‘sort

14See Werle (2009) for a discussion of the distinction between strong and weak introducers in Bosnian,Serbian, and Croatian.


of’ or ‘a little’ and the mirative particle xwiP, usually translated as ‘now’, ‘next’,‘unusual’, or ‘unexpected’.15

(21) Pi<

c@n<

’peP

AUX<

1SG.SUB<

CERT

t@ ’w<

liqw-@t-@lm@nDLM

<slack-TR-DESID

tT@DT

xwi’l@ ’m.rope

‘I want to slacken the rope a little.’

(22) Pi:cAUX.2SG.SUB

xwiP<

qe’l-n@xw

MIR<

mad-LC.TR

ì@ ’nDT.2POS

si’l@?grandparent

‘Are you getting mad at your grandmother (who you usually get alongwith)?’

While such clitics have similar functions to the second-position clitics—temporal/aspect and discourse markers—they differ from them in their placement.

It is easy to see the difference between second-position clitics and pre-predicateclitics in examples that contain both an introducer and an auxiliary. For examplein (23), the second-position clitic T@ì comes after the introducer clitic haP, while thepre-predicate clitic w@ì comes before the verb, and thus the auxiliary niP appearsbetween them.

(23) haP<

T@ì

if<

ADV

niPAUX

w@ì<

c-y@w@nPERF

<VBL-spirit.dance

tT@DT

m@stim@xw,person,

PiPand

w@ì<

cse-t-al@-mPERF

<tell-TR-1/2PL.OBJ-PAS

P@ ’wCN

ne ’[email protected]

’ta ’kw.go.home

‘When the spirit dancing started, we were told to go home.’

Also, in the verb-initial clause in (24), the pre-predicate clitic w@ì comes before theverb while the second-position clitic c@n follows it:

(24) w@ì<

xw@Pal@m<

c@nPERF

<return

<1SG.SUB

ne ’mgo

P@

OB

tT@DT

ca’[email protected]

‘I am now going to return to the mountains.’

In sum, pre-predicate clitics are positioned relative to a host, often the head ofthe phrase they modify. However, there is some flexibility in the placement of pre-predicate clitics. For example, in a verb phrase that contains both a motion auxiliaryand a main verb, the pre-predicate clitic can appear before either one, with the samemeaning.

(25) ne ’m<

c@n<

ceP

go<

1SG.SUB<

FUT

xwiP<

xw@Pal@ ’m.MIR

<go.back

‘I am next going to return.’

(26) xwiP<

ne ’m<

c@n<

ceP

MIR<

go<

1SG.SUB<

FUT

xw@Pal@ ’m.go.back


15A discussion of the semantic range of the mirative clitic is given in Gerdts (2011).


Given that pre-predicate clitics often precede the main verb of the clause,what evidence is there that they are not simply adverbs, and thus lexical words?Hul’q’umi’num’ has a dozen adverbs, including q@’let ‘again’, ’ňli ’m (P@ ’w) ‘really’,c@lel (PiP) ‘almost’, nan (P@ ’w) ‘very’, and yaT (P@ ’w) ‘always’. They are often fol-lowed by a connective element, indicated in parentheses.16 In clauses with space/timeauxiliaries, adverbs (such as ’ňli ’m ‘really’ in (27)) can appear between the second-position clitics and the verb; thus they seem to be placed similarly to pre-predicateclitics.

(27) Pi<

’c<

T@ì

AUX<

QUOT<

ADV

’ňli ’mreally

P@ ’wCN

š-p@pa ’mST.L.PFX-swell(RSLT)

tT@DT

’kw@’[email protected]

‘His belly was indeed very bloated.’

Nevertheless, we can distinguish adverbs from pre-predicate clitics by a variety oftests. For example, some adverbs (e.g. q@’let ‘again’) can either precede or follow theverb.

(28) ne ’mgo

q@’letagain

’qw@yil@š.dance

‘She went and danced some more.’

(29) ’mi<

ct<

ceP

come<

1PL.SUB<

FUT

s@w ’q-tseek-TR

q@’let.again

‘We will come and look for him again.’

In contrast, post-verbal order is not allowed for pre-predicate clitics.

(30) Pi<

P@<

cAUX

<Q<

2SG.SUB

xwiP<

l@maP-T@t?MIR

<kick-REFL(IMPF)

‘Are you kicking yourself?’

(31) *Pi<

P@<

cAUX

<Q<

2SG.SUB

l@maP-T@t<

xwiP?kick-REFL(IMPF)

<MIR

‘Are you kicking yourself?’

Also, pre-predicate clitics (e.g. xwiP) can precede the emphatic focus clitic (niì).

(32) xwiP<

niì<

ceP

MIR<

3SG.PRO<

FUT

niPAUX

n@-š[email protected]

kw@[email protected]

niPAUX

qw@’lqw@’lspeak(IMPF)

[email protected]

qe ’nsteal

kwT@

DT

swi ’[email protected]

‘The young man made me feel guilty when I told that he stole.’

Adverbs (e.g. yaT ‘always’), however, follow rather than precede the focus marker.

16See Bätscher (2014) for a discussion of linking constructions.


(33) niì3SG.PRO

yaT

alwaysP@ ’wCN

š- ’qìanN.OB-bow

šlem@x@t@nwatchman

tT@DT

swi ’[email protected]

‘The young man is always up front as a watchman.’

Also note that adverbs, when they appear in clause-initial position, can hostsecond-position clitics (e.g. subject clitics).

(34) ’ňli ’m<

creally

<2SG.SUB

P@ ’wCN

’tTi’tT@ ’[email protected](IMPF)

‘Shut your eyes real tight.’

In contrast, pre-predicate clitics cannot host second-position clitics.17

(35) *w@ì<

c@nPERF

<1SG.SUB

xw@Pal@mreturn

ne ’mgo

P@

OB

tT@DT



A final point concerning adverbs is that they can also themselves host pre-predicate clitics (e.g. w@ì and t@ ’w):

(36) niPAUX

w@ì<

c@lelPERF

<almost

PiPCNJ

hayfinish

PiPCNJ

’ň@w@ì

also.PERF

t@sarrive

tT@DT

xe:’ls.Xeel’s

‘And he was almost finished and Xeel’s got there again.’

(37) t@ ’w<

q@’let<

’peP

DLM<

again<

CERT

xw-seP-@[email protected](edge)-TR

tT@DT

[email protected]

‘Open the box a little bit more.’

As in the examples with motion auxiliaries discussed above, placement of pre-predicate clitics is flexible in verb phrases with adverbs. The pre-predicate clitic canprecede the adverb as in (36) above, or precede the main verb as in (38).


’ňli ’mreally

w@ì<

s- ’p@le ’yPERF

<ST-attached(RSLT)

tT@DT

’kw@l@ ’wskin

P@

OB

tT@ ’wDT.CN

n@-sweP

1SG.POS-ownn@- ’kw@l@ ’w.1SG.POS-skin.

‘The skin has become attached (and it’s growing) into my own skin.’

In sum, despite the fact that both pre-predicate clitics and adverbs often occupypreverbal position, there are a variety of positional tests distinguishing them. An ad-verb is a lexical word: it exhibits substantial freedom of word order in the clauseand it hosts clitics. Pre-predicate clitics are placed relative to their hosts and cannotthemselves be hosts of second-position clitics.

17Compare with the grammatical example in (24) above.


2.1.3 Summarizing outer clitics

Hul’q’umi’num’ has two types of outer clitics—second-position clitics and pre-predicate clitics. Second-position clitics appear after the first available host, per head-initial, right-branching clause structure:18

(39) (subordinator) (focus) (space/time aux) (motion aux) (adverb) verb

Pre-predicate clitics attach before the main verb or alternatively before an adverb,motion auxiliary, or focus clitic, as represented by X in the following.

(40) (subordinator) X<

(focus) (space/time aux) X<

(motion aux) X<

(adverb)X

<verb

Unlike second-position clitics, pre-predicate clitics are not hosted by subordinators orspace/time auxiliaries.19 In comparing the two types of outer clitics, second-positionclitics allow for a broader range of hosts, but ‘blindly’ attach to whatever is in first po-sition. Pre-predicate clitics are more selective in their hosts, but allow more flexibilityin placement if more than one suitable host is available in the clause or phrase.

2.2 Hul’q’umi’num’ inner clitics

In this section, we turn our focus to functional elements that we refer to as inner cli-tics. Compared to outer clitics with the same orientation, inner clitics tend to have lessfreedom in terms of their placement in the clause or phrase. We start our discussionwith inner enclitics before turning to inner proclitics.

2.2.1 Inner enclitics

One grammatical element that is best classified as an inner clitic is the second-personplural enclitic =@l@p, which signals plurality in a variety of contexts.20 It marks de-pendent clause subjects, e.g. the subject of a relative clause:

(41) niP<

P@<

ce:pAUX

<Q<

2PL.SUB

leP-šstore-TR

kwT@

DT

sP@ìt@nfood

[niPAUX

Pil@q@t=@l@p]?buy=2PL

‘Did you (pl.) put away the groceries that you (pl.) bought?’

18Placement of second-position clitics is easily accommodated by an analysis following general assump-tions about the left periphery of the clause containing a landing site for syntactic movement. The clitics aregenerated in second position and the highest available element in the clause moves into the left peripherallanding site.

(i) ____ CLITICS (subordinator) (focus) (space/time aux) (motion aux) (adverb) verb.

In contrast, the syntax of pre-predicate clitics, given the flexibility in their placement, is more difficult tocharacterize.19The conjunctive clitic PiP does not serve as a host for any type of clitic.20Historically, the second-person plural form =@l@p is related to the second-person plural pronounclitic ce:p. The second-position clitic pronouns (c@n 1SG.SUB, c 2SG.SUB, ct 1PL.SUB, ce:p 2PL.SUB)are formed through common phonological processes from the subordinate clause subject suffixes (-e ’n1SG.SSUB, -@xw 2SG.SSUB, -@t 1PL.SSUB, -@l@p 2PL.SSUB) plus a base c.


It is used, together with the second person possessive P@ ’n, to form a second personplural possessive; the possessive precedes the noun, while the plural clitic follows it:

(42) niPAUX

P@nc@

whereì@ ’nDT.2POS

sn@xw@ì=@l@p?canoe=2PL

‘Where is your (pl.) canoe?’

Subjects in nominalized clauses are marked in a similar fashion; see the bracketedclause in the following example:

(43) s ’kweyimpossible

[kw@ ’nsDT.2POS.N

t@s-nam@t=@l@p].arrive-manage=2PL

‘You (pl.) cannot make it in there.’

One property of =@l@p that suggests that it is a clitic rather than an affix is itsmobility. For example, it can appear after the first suitable host in the clause, ratherthan on the verb that it is the subject of:21

(44) yaT=@l@palways-2PL

P@ ’wCN

s ’qwa ’qw@ì

wait(IMPF)

’kw@[email protected]

x@ì@s-t-a’[email protected](IMPF)

‘You (pl.) are always waiting for me to feed you (pl.).’

(45) P@ ’wCN

P@w=@l@pnot=2PL

y@=kw@ ’nePt-@xw

SER=take(DUR)-2DEP.SUB

T@ ’naDEM

ìe ’wq@ ’mmussel

PiPCNJ

T@

DT

seP@q,bracken.root

y@[email protected]

‘If you (pl.) do not have mussels and bracken fern roots, you (pl.) will beburned.’

Thus we see that =@l@p exhibits more flexibility in placement than would be typicalof a suffix.

Another example of an inner clitic is the past marker =@ì, which conveys the mean-ing of habitual past, relative past, or counterfactual event.22

(46) PiPCNJ

niì=@ì

3SG.PRO=PST

P@ ’wCN

’cew-@Ta ’mš-@s=@ì

help-TR.1SG.OBJ-3SUB=PST

ì@

DT

si’l@-s=@ì.grandparent-3POS=PST

‘And that was how his late grandmother used to help me.’

Past tense appears on the right edge of elements of different categories, includingintroducer clitics (e.g. emphatic focus niì), verbs, and even on nouns that refer toitems or people no longer present or living (‘grandmother’). It appears after suffixes,

21In (45) P@w@ ‘not’ and =@l@p contract to form P@w@l@p. For a discussion of contraction, see Sect. 3.1.22The semantic status of tense in Halkomelem is controversial (Wiltschko 2003; Matthewson 2005).


e.g. the third-person subject and third-person possessive suffixes in (46), and after the

second person enclitic =@l@p in (47).

(47) ì@ ’nDT.2POS

ten=@l@p=@ì

mother=2PL=PST

‘your (pl.) late mother’

The past tense marker exhibits clitic behavior in that it tends to attach to the first

word of the clause. The host can be a main verb (48), an auxiliary (49), an adverb (50),

or the first word of an NP (51).

(48) š’te-s=@ì

like-3SUB=PST

kw@

DT

’tat=@ì

old=PST

m@[email protected]

‘That’s how it used be with the old people.’

(49) ne ’m=@ì<

ctgo=PST

<1PL.SUB

h@yeP. . .leave

‘We were going to leave. . . ’

(50) nan=@ì

very=PST

P@ ’wCN

Piy@shappy

tT@DT

sxwiPe ’m-sstory-3POS

tT@DT

sP@’lel@xw=@ì.elders=PST.

‘Many beautiful legends were told by our Elders.’

(51) q@x=@ì

many=PST

TiT@big(PL)

h@lel@ ’mhouse(PL)

niPbe.there

P@

OB

t@DT

cec@ ’w.beach

‘There used to be a lot of bighouses down by the beach.’

In sum, the above data show that the past tense clitic =@ì acts more like a second-

position clitic than a suffix. In terms of placement, we see little difference between

inner enclitics and (outer) second-position clitics. Both occur after a wide variety of

first-position hosts. When they co-occur, inner clitics precede outer clitics.

(52) niP=@ì<

c@n<

’peP

AUX=PST<

1SG.SUB<

CERT

P@ ’wCN

xwi:nehear

Pa’l.MIT

‘Yes, I heard there was [one].’

However, inner enclitics and second-position clitics diverge in at least two ways.

In a noun phrase serving as a predicate nominal, both inner enclitics and second-

position clitics appear after the first element in the noun phrase:

(53) m@ ’kw=@ì<

y@xw

all=PST<

INF

stemwhat

šxw-haPkw-sN.OB-use(ST)-3POS

tT@DT

qeT@ìp.ocean.spray

‘The ocean spray plant must have been used for everything.’

(54) P@ ’wCN

’ň@ ’walso.CN

P@ ’n-ye ’y@=P@l@p<

’peP.2POS-friend=2PL

<CERT

‘And he is also connected to your (pl.) family tree.’


However, when the noun phrase occurs within a determiner phrase, the second-position clitic appears after the determiner, while the inner enclitic appears after thenoun.23

(55) tT@<

’peP

DT<

CERT

P@ ’n-sn@xw@ì=@l@p2POS-canoe=2PL

‘indeed your (pl.) canoe’

(56) niì=@ì

3SG.PRO=PST

kwT@<

’peP

DT<

CERT

sta’l@s-T=@ì.spouse-3POS=PST

‘He was indeed her late husband.’

In other words, the domain for the inner enclitics is smaller, limited to NP rather thanDP.24

Second, inner and outer clitics differ with respect to pre-predicate clitics. As notedabove, pre-predicate clitics cannot host second-position clitics.

(57) *w@ì<

c@nnow

<1SG.SUB

xw@Pal@mreturn

ne ’mgo

P@

OB

tT@DT



However, pre-predicate clitics can host inner enclitics.

(58) niPAUX

t@ ’w=@ì<

s@liPsiPDLM=PST

<afraid(PL)

tT@DT

’qe’[email protected](PL)

‘The girls were afraid.’

In (58), the pre-predicate clitic (t@ ’w) serves as a host for the following inner enclitic(=@ì), while depending in turn on its own host, the following predicate (s@liPsiP). Theexample in (59) contains both an inner clitic (=@ì), which follows the pre-predicateclitic, and a second-position clitic (ceP), which follows the predicate.25

(59) t@ ’w=@ì<

pìet<

ceP

DLM=PST<

thick<

FUT

tT@DT

meqeP

snowPiPCNJ

yeì-sSEQ-N

q@’let<

ctagain

<1PL.SUB

’kwš-em.count-MID

‘We’ll wait until the snow is thicker before we start counting again.’

In sum, a second-position clitic is licensed within the largest domain (clause orphrase) and attaches to the first suitable element of the domain, while inner encliticscan be licensed within smaller domains and can attach to the head.

23Note that =@ì appears twice in (56). In the first instance, it has scope over the entire clause and appears insecond position. Past tense on the noun sta’l@s-T ‘her spouse’ takes narrow scope, supplying in this instancea decessive meaning.24Another way to state this restriction is that determiner clitics act as strong introducers for second-positionclitics but as weak introducers for inner enclitics.25In (58), future tense refers to the time of the event of the first conjunct (relative to utterance time), whilepast tense refers to relative time between the first and second conjuncts.


2.2.2 Inner proclitics

The two inner clitics discussed above are enclitics, i.e. clitics that follow their hosts.Hul’q’umi’num’ also has proclitics, i.e. clitics that precede their hosts. These includey@= ‘serial’, xw@= ‘inchoative’, and xw@ ’n= ‘persistive’.

The inner proclitic y@= ‘serial’ indicates that an action is done while the agent is inmotion. It frequently co-occurs with imperfective verbs. It also links events that aredone in a series, and so it is not unusual to have passages in a text in which severalverbs are marked with this proclitic:

(60) s@ ’wN.CN

hayeP-sleave-3POS

camgo.up

tT@ ’w-niì,DT.CN-3SG.PRO

P@ ’wCN

y@=qwaqw@’l<

’c@

SER=talk(IMPF)<

QUOT

kwsDT.N

y@=Pi ’m@š-s,SER=walk(IMPF)-3POS

P@ ’wCN

y@=’te’tiy@ ’q.SER=angry(IMPF)

‘So he left and started going up the mountain, talking as he went along,angrily.’

The inner proclitic xw@= ‘inchoative’ attaches to nouns (e.g. ’qe ’miP), adjectives(e.g. sT@TiP), and verbs (e.g. Pi ’m@š) to indicate a change in state or the initial stagesof an event.

(61) niPAUX

w@ì<

xw@= ’qe ’miP.PERF

<INCH=young.woman

‘She’s a young lady now.’

(62) s@ ’wN.CN

ìxil@š-sstand-3POS

PiPCNJ

niPAUX

ne ’mgo

t@ ’w<

xw@=sT@TiPDLM

<INC=right

[email protected]

t@ ’w<

xw@=Pi ’m@š.DLM INC=walk(IMPF)‘And (Flea) tried to stand up and he did a little better so that he started walk-ing.’

Similarly, the persistive proclitic xw@ ’n=‘still, yet’ attaches to nouns (e.g. s ’ňiP ’ňq@ì),adjectives (e.g. xe ’ws), and verbs (e.g. ’kwi ’c@t) to indicate an on-going state or the lackof conclusion of an event.

(63) kw@[email protected]

PiAUX

w@ì<

y@= ’kwa ’m@’l,PERF

<SER=grow.up(IMPF)

xw@ ’n=s ’ňiP ’ňq@ì. . .PRST=child

‘When I was growing up, a child still. . . ’

(64) haP<

c<

T@ì

if<

2SG.SUB<

ADV

xw@ ’n= ’kwi ’c-@tPRST=butcher-TR

PiPCNJ

niPAUX

nanvery

P@ ’wCN

xw@ ’n=xe ’ws. . .PRST=fresh

‘If you start butchering it right away, when it is just really fresh. . . ’

It is possible to distinguish pre-predicate clitics from inner proclitics because pre-predicate clitics have more mobility, that is, they can appear in different positions.26

26Some speakers have a strong preference for one position or the other.


For example, a pre-predicate clitic appears before the main verb in (65) and (67), butalternatively it can appear before the motion auxiliary as in (66) and (68), with nochange in meaning:27


miPcome

w@ì<

’pil-@lm@nPERF

<over.flow-DESID

tT@DT

qaP

waterP@

OB

tT@DT

niPAUX

s-PeP ’ňqST-outside(POST)

’t@mo’[email protected]

‘The tub outside is starting to fill up with rainwater.’


w@ì<

miP ’pil-@lm@nPERF

<come over.flow-DESID

tT@DT

qaP

waterP@

OB

tT@DT

niPAUX

s-PeP ’ňqST-outside(POST)

’t@mo’[email protected]

‘The tub outside is starting to fill up with rainwater.’

(67) ne ’m<

c@n<

ceP

go<

1SG.SUB<

FUT

xwiP<

xw@Pal@ ’m.MIR

<go.back


(68) xwiP<

ne ’m<

c@n<

ceP

MIR<

go<

1SG.SUB<

FUT

xw@Pal@ ’m.go.back


In contrast, inner proclitics, such as the serial y@= in the following example, do notallow such mobility.

(69) niPAUX

ne ’mgo

y@= ’q@t@-q@ ’nSER=go.around-L.SFX(head)

kwT@

DT

šeì

roadniPAUX

T@y-t-@mmake-TR-PAS

niPbe.there

P@- ’ň

OB-DT

sw@ ’[email protected]. Prevost

‘The road that was built went around the base of Mt. Prevost.’

(70) *niPAUX

y@=ne ’mSER=go

’q@t@-q@ ’ngo.around-L.SFX(head)

kwT@

DT roadšeì

AUX

niP T@y-t-@mmake-TR-PAS

niPbe.there

P@- ’ň

OB-DT

sw@ ’[email protected]. Prevost

‘The road that was built went around the base of Mt. Prevost.’

Placement in examples containing more than one clitic also provides evidence fora difference between inner proclitics and pre-predicate clitics. Some inner procliticsare allowed to co-occur, but when they do, they appear in a fixed order.

(71) Pi<

cAUX

<2SG.SUB

P@ ’wCN

xw@ ’n=y@=Pi ’[email protected]=SER=walk(IMPF)

‘You are still just walking.’

27Pre-predicate clitics may appear only on motion auxiliaries and not on space/time auxiliaries.


(72) *Pi<

cAUX

<2SG.SUB

P@ ’wCN

y@=xw@ ’n=Pi ’[email protected]=PRST=walk(IMPF)

‘You are still just walking.’


xw@=y@=ìiPaP@qwtINC=SER=behind

tT@ ’nDT.2POS

[email protected]

P@

OB

tT@DT

y@=Pi: ’m@š.SER=walk(IMPF)

‘Your little brother is falling behind on the hike.’

(74) *[email protected]

y@=xw@=ìiPaP@qwtSER=INC=behind

tT@ ’nDT.2POS

[email protected]

P@

OB

tT@DT

y@=Pi: ’m@š.SER=walk(IMPF)

‘Your little brother is falling behind on the hike.’

In contrast, some pre-predicate clitics can cooccur, and exhibit freedom of order, withno effect on the meaning.28

(75) niP<

c@nAUX

<1SG.SUB

t@ ’w<

w@ì<

m@ ’q-@[email protected]

<PERF

<get.full-DESID

‘I am getting rather full.’

(76) niP<

c@nAUX

<1SG.SUB

w@ì<

t@ ’w<

m@ ’q-@[email protected]

<DLM

<get.full-DESID

‘I am getting rather full.’

Also, note that when pre-predicate clitics co-occur with inner proclitics, they alwaysprecede them.

(77) xwiP<

xw@= ’qa ’qiP.MIR

<INC=sick

‘Now he’s become sick.’

(78) *xw@=xwiP<

’qa ’qiP.INC=MIR

<sick

‘Now he’s become sick.’

(79) t@ ’w<

y@=s- ’pìi ’q<

ce:p!DLM

<SER=ST.close

<2PL.SUB

‘Go up closer to it!’

(80) *y@=t@ ’w<

s ’pìi ’q<

ce:p!SER=DLM

<ST.close

<2PL.SUB

‘Go up closer to it!’

28Again, there is some variability in judgments.


Pre-predicate clitics and inner proclitics also differ with respect to co-occurrencewith inner enclitics. As discussed above, pre-predicate clitics can host inner enclitics,as seen in the middle line of the following example:

(81) xw@ ’n=x@’t@PRST=do(IMPF)

PiPCNJ

’ňli ’mreally

niPAUX

w@ì<

y@T@s-t-al@mPERF

<tell-TR-1/2PL.PAS

[email protected]

’micome

t@ ’w=P@ì<

xw@=sP@’lel@xw,DLM=PST

<INC=old(PL)

ni:ìAUX.PST

š[email protected]

tT@DT

sxw@ye ’m.story

‘When we got a little older, then they told us the full story.’

The enclitic =P@ì comes after the pre-predicate clitic t@ ’w and before the inner procliticxw@=. In contrast, our corpus revealed no cases where an inner proclitic hosts aninner enclitic, and speakers rejected the above example with the enclitic followingthe proclitic:

(82) *. . . kw@ct ’mi t@ ’w<

xw@=P@ì=sP@’lel@xw. . .

In sum, the syntactic evidence suggests that clitics that appear before their host canbe divided into two types. Inner proclitics have a close relationship with their host,while pre-predicate clitics show a great deal of mobility, and are able themselves tobe hosts of inner enclitics.

2.3 Summing up: inner versus outer clitics

When we take the syntactic properties of the clitics under discussion into consider-ation, evidence on orientation allows us to classify the Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics intotwo types: those that precede the licensing element and those that follow it. This isseen clearly by comparing clauses with and without auxiliary verbs, as schematizedin (83):

(83) a. pre-predicate clitic<

inner proclitic=VERB=inner enclitic<

second-position clitic

b. AUX=inner enclitic<

second-position clitic pre-predicate clitic<

innerproclitic=VERB

Basically, inner enclitics and second-position clitics follow the first suitable elementof the clause (or phrase), while inner proclitics and pre-predicate clitics precede thepredicate (in this instance the verb).

An examination of the range of hosts for each clitic provides grounds to furtherdifferentiate each of the classes into those clitics that are closer to their hosts (innerclitics) and those that are farther from their hosts (outer clitics). When inner andouter clitics are licensed by the same host, inner clitics always appear inside outerclitics.

Of the four types of clitics, inner proclitics are the ones that are the most selectivein their placement, appearing consistently on the head of the phrase. Second-positionclitics are the most predictable, as they always appear after the first suitable element


of the clause or phrase. Inner enclitics and pre-predicate clitics show some flexibilityof placement.

Pre-predicate clitics show the most independence. For the other three types ofclitics, when more than one clitic of that type appears, they are always in a fixedorder. However, pre-predicate clitics allow some variability of order, with no effecton the meaning.

3 Phonological integration

One finds a range of clitic behaviors, not only in their placement in the clause, but alsoin how phonologically dependent they are on a host. We refer to such phonologicaldependence as “integration”. More integrated clitics undergo phonological processeswith their hosts, share the stress domain of their hosts, and generally resemble affixes.Less integrated clitics have the opposite properties. We consider integration from twodirections. In Sect. 3.1, we discuss evidence that clitics are integrated. In Sect. 3.2, wediscuss evidence that they are not. We synthesize these opposing patterns in Sect. 3.3.

3.1 Clitics are phonologically integrated

Syllabification provides evidence that inner proclitics are phonologically integratedwith their hosts. If the host starts with a consonant cluster, the first consonant issyllabified as a coda.29

(84) xw@=s ’q@ ’qaP [.xw@s. ’q@. ’qaP.]INC=be.with(ST)‘get with’

(85) xw@ ’n=šsiPe ’m [.xw@ ’nš.si.Pe ’m.]PRST=boss‘still the boss’

(86) y@=xw-siwe: ’m-q@ ’n [[email protected]: ’m.q@ ’n.]SER=LPFX-silent-LSFX(mouth)‘going along quietly’

Similarly, evidence for the phonological integration of inner enclitics comes fromsyllabification with a preceding consonant.

(87) .hi.T=@ì. long.time=PST

[email protected]@.t=@ì. take-TR=PST

.x@.’[email protected]@.xw=@ì. said-CS=PST

29It is difficult to draw conclusions about syllabification purely by ear. Rather, we think that the best evi-dence for syllabification comes from linguistically aware native speakers. The variety of syllable marginsand consonant clusters allowed in Hul’q’umi’num’, and interference from morphology, make such judg-ments challenging. Among the elicitation techniques used was the pencil tapping test: we asked speakersto say phrases while tapping a pencil for each syllable, and then to do this very slowly. Speakers placedbreaks at syllable boundaries, not, for instance, at morpheme boundaries.


(88) [email protected]@[email protected]@p. take-TR=2PL

[email protected]@[email protected]@p. stop=2PL

[email protected]@[email protected]@p. net=2PL

In the case of outer clitics, most second-position clitics consist of well-formed

syllables. However, the subject clitics c and ct syllabify with their hosts.

(89) Ti<

c m@stim@xw. [.Tic.]

big<

2SG.SUB person

‘You are an important person.’

(90) xw@m<

ct PiP h@yeP. [.xw@mct.]

can<

1PL.SUB CNJ leave

‘We can leave.’

Pre-predicate clitics consist of well-formed syllables and do not syllabify with their

hosts.

Other evidence for phonological integration comes from the resolution of se-

quences of vowels that arise when a vowel-final word hosts a vowel-initial clitic.

Hul’q’umi’num’ lacks vowel-initial words and vowel-vowel sequences. Three strate-

gies are used to resolve vowel sequences. One strategy is to insert a glottal stop:

(91) sukw@-el@ → sukw@Pel@ sugar-container ‘sugar bowl’p@lip@=@l@p → p@lip@P@l@p paper(PL)=2PL ‘your (pl.) paper’

Another is to delete a vowel:

(92) TiT@-@’lw@t → TiT@’lw@t big-blanket ‘big blanket’P@w@=@l@p → P@w@l@p not=2PL ‘you (pl.) are not’

In some cases, the final vowel of the host contracts (or coalesces) with the initial

vowel of the suffix or clitic.

(93) Ti-@ ’wtxw → Te: ’wtxw big-house ‘longhouse’P@w@-@s → P@we:s not-3SUB ‘it’s not’P@w@=@ì → P@we:ì not=PST ‘it wasn’t’si’l@=@ì → sile:ì grandparent=PST ‘my late grandparent’

In fact, contraction of the introducer clitics Pi and niP with a variety of suffixes

and clitics is a commonly observed phenomenon.

(94) Pi-@s → Pi:s AUX-3SUB ‘it is’Pi=@ì → Pi:ì AUX=PST ‘it used to be’Pi

<P@ → Pi: AUX

<Q ‘is it?

Pi<

y@xw → Pi:xw AUX<

INF ‘it must be’


(95) niP-@s → ni:s AUX-3SUB ‘it was’niP=@ì → ni:ì AUX=PST ‘it has been’niP

<P@ → ni: AUX

<Q ‘was it?’

niP<

y@xw → ni:xw AUX<

INF ‘it must have been’

Glottal stops and the glide /y/ are deleted under contraction.Contraction can be taken as evidence for phonological integration since it happens

only when the second element is a suffix or clitic and not an independent word. In ad-dition, we note that inner proclitics and pre-predicate clitics never exhibit contraction,possibly because each of them constitutes a well-formed syllable.

3.2 Clitics are phonologically free

The previous section discussed ways in which clitics show phonological integrationwith their hosts, thus paralleling affixes. However, in other ways, clitics are not asphonologically integrated as affixes.

3.2.1 Word-internal phonological processes

One test for wordhood in Hul’q’umi’num’ comes from the phonological process ofresonant glottalization, which spreads a suprasegmental glottalization feature to allpostvocalic resonants in the word.30 See, for example, the imperfective forms of theverbs in Table 3.

Resonant glottalization spreads to the end of the word, and suffixes are affected.So the postvocalic resonants in the second-person object suffix in (e), the desidera-tive suffix in (f), the middle suffix in (g), and the lexical suffixes in (g) and (h) are

Table 3 Resonant glottalization in imperfectives

Perfective Imperfective

a. qwal ‘speak’ qwaqw@’l ‘speaking’

b. yays ‘work’ ya: ’y@s ‘working’

c. P@ìt@n ‘eat’ PiPìt@ ’n ‘eating’

d. lem-@t[look-TR]

‘look at him’ le’l@ ’m@t ‘looking at him’

e. lem-@t-al@[look-TR-2PL.OBJ]

‘look at you (pl.)’ le’l@ ’m-@t-a’l@ ‘looking at you (pl.)’

f. Pit@t-@lm@n[sleep-DESID]

‘want to sleep’ PiPt@t-@’lm@ ’n ‘wanting to sleep’

g. ’tTxw-@ln@s-@m[brush-teeth-MID]

‘brush one’s teeth’ ’tT@xw-@’ln@s-@ ’m ‘brushing one’s teeth’

h. T@yqw-@n@p[dig-ground]

‘dig in the ground’ Te ’yqw-@ ’n@p ‘digging in the ground’

30See Hukari (1977, 1981) for discussion of resonant glottalization. See Gerdts (1988) for a use of resonantglottalization as a test for wordhood.


glottalized in the imperfective. However, the glottalization rule does not spread ontothe second-person plural clitic =@l@p, as seen in the following examples:31

(96) P@w@<

ce:p<

’peP

not<

2PL.SUB<

CERT

si:PsiP=@[email protected](IMPF)=2PL

‘Don’t you (pl.) be afraid.’

(97) P@w@<

ce:pnot

<2PL.SUB

qwi’l:qw@’l=@l@pspeak(IMPF)=2PL

kw@[email protected]

PiAUX

xw@=Pi.INC=be.here

‘You (pl.) do not tell that I am here.’

That is, glottalization spreads to suffixes, but not to clitics.

3.2.2 Pauses

Another phenomenon commonly associated with wordhood is pausing. Of course, notall pauses have the same status. Some occur naturally at edges of intonational unitsas a place to take a breath. Others are hesitations as the speaker seeks to constructa word or phrase, or sometimes to remember a word. Sometimes after a pause, thespeaker continues on where they left off. Other times, the speaker restarts the wordor phrase, as in (98). (Relevant pauses are marked with //.)

(98) s ’kweyimpossible

// s ’kweyimpossible

[email protected]

P@ ’wCN

’qay-tkill-TR

Pa’l.just

‘You can’t just kill whatever it is.’

It is not uncommon for speakers to pause after a word, but it is unusual to pausewithin a word. Pausing in the middle of the word is considered an error and the wordis restarted.

(99) ’qwa ’qw // ’qwa ’qw@qw-@tkill-TR(IMPF)

tT@DT

[email protected]

‘And that’s what they used to pound the cedar bark with.’

With inner proclitics, a pause between the clitic and host is possible (100), but itis also possible to restart, repeating the clitic (101).

(100) ’ňli ’m<

’c@

really<

QUOT

niPAUX

w@ì<

xw@=PERF

<INC=

// s’tepiPold

tT@DT

qwìe ’y.log

‘The log was really old.’

(101) yeì<

’c@

SEQ<

QUOT

sisN.AUX.3SUB

’ňli ’mreally

P@ ’wCN

xw@

INC

// xw@=P@ ’y@ ’ym@tINC=beautiful

sw@ ’yqeP.man

‘And then he became a very attractive man.’

These issues are largely a matter of performance. The same speaker may pauseor not after the same proclitic. In the following example, taken from a recorded text,y@= appears four times.

31Verbs in negative imperatives are in the imperfective aspect.


(102) ’ňli ’mreally

P@ ’wCN

y@

SER

// y@=xe: ’mSER=cry(IMPF)

P@ ’wCN

ni:sAUX.3SUB

y@=SER=

// s-kw@kwi ’nST-take(RSLT)

P@ ’wCN

ni:sAUX.3SUB

y@=scekw@’lSER=how

kwTe ’yDEM

PiPCNJ

niPAUX

y@=tePt@c@’l.SER=arrive(IMPF)

‘It was really wailing, like it was going into its cry, and it was close by.’

In the first instance, the speaker hesitates and then restarts the word. In the secondinstance, there is a pause of 610 milliseconds between the clitic and its host. In thethird and fourth instances, there is no hesitation, and in fact the first consonant of thehost in the third instance is syllabified as the coda of the syllable with the proclitic.

In contrast, pausing after a prefix is regarded as very unnatural, as shown by tryingto elicit pauses with a variety of prefixes. The collective prefix y@- provides a min-imal pair test for the serial clitic. This prefix is optionally added to plural forms ofverbs, adjectives, and adverbs to indicate collectivity.32 So, for example, the numberx@PaT@n ‘four’, has a plural form x@x@PaT@n ‘four of them’, and a collective formy@-x@x@PaT@n, as in:

(103) ìixw<

ceP

three<

FUT

y@-x@x@PaT@nCOL-four(PL)

tT@DT

x@’lt@npen

ne ’mgo

h@yeP-stxw-@ ’n.leave-CS-1SG.SSUB

‘Three bundles of four pens I will take with me.’

Notably, speakers have trouble understanding this word if there is a pause (*y@- //x@x@PaT@n) and when asked to repair it they did so by omitting the pause. The sameresults were confirmed by testing various verb prefixes, such as h@ ’n- ‘go towards’(h@ ’n-cew ‘go to the beach’, h@ ’n-n@ ’w ‘go inside’, h@ ’n-@ ’ňq ‘go outside’), as in:

(104) [* h@ ’n- // cew]ne ’mgo

P@ ’wCN

h@ ’n-cewgo-beach

P@’l.MIT

‘He arrived at the beach.’

These prefixes are much rarer than the ubiquitous y@= serial clitic. But listeningto texts revealed no occurrences of pauses after these prefixes. Given how readilyspeakers accept and use data with pauses after proclitics, and how intolerant they areof data with pauses after prefixes, pauses seem to be a reliable test for the distinctionbetween prefixes and proclitics.

In short, speakers find that after an inner proclitic and before its host is a naturalplace to pause, especially in the middle of a long sentence. Similarly, pauses are oftenobserved between pre-predicate clitics and their hosts.

(105) s@ ’wN.CN

ne ’mgo

P@

OB

T@

DT

šxwPa ’qwaP-s—sibling-3POS

t@ ’w //DLM

šneP@m<

’c@

shaman<

QUOT

T@

DT

šxwPa ’qwaP-s.sibling-3POS

‘And so she went to her sister—her sister was kind of a shaman.’

32The Island plural prefix corresponds to the plural determiner y@ found in the Downriver and Upriverdialects of Halkomelem.


It is also possible to restart with the pre-predicate clitic rather than continuing.33

(106) PiPCNJ

haP

whenniPAUX

ne ’mgo

t@ ’w //DLM

t@ ’w<

c@lelDLM

<almost

PiPCNJ

t@ ’w<

’qwi’l@s. . .DLM

<warm.weather

‘But when it’s pretty close to summertime. . . ’

Pauses also regularly occur after introducer clitics (auxiliaries, determiners, etc.)(107), though it is also possible to restart the phrase (108).34

(107) nanvery

P@ ’wCN

q@li:maP

dirtyT@

DT

// lel@ ’m-ct.house-1PL.POS

‘Our house is very dirty.’

(108) s@ ’wN.CN

’ci:-t-sthank-TR-3POS

w@ì<

’cim@lPERF

<close

kw@n-@t-@stake-TR-3SUB

tT@DT

// tT@DT

sce:ì[email protected]

‘When she got close, he thanked her and grabbed the salmon.’

The longer the pause, the more likely the speaker will restart the whole phrase.In contrast, pauses before an inner enclitic or a second-position clitic are not al-

lowed. No such natural data were observed, and when data were produced with de-liberate pauses, speakers judged the data to be unnatural.35

(109) ìwetwho

(*//)<

Pa’l@

<INQU

’kw@

DT

sne-sname-3POS

ì@ ’nDT.2POS

tenmother

(*//) =@l@p=2PL

(*//) =@ì?=PST

‘What was the name of your (pl.) late mother?’

(110) la’l@ ’m-@T@tlook-REFL(IMPF)

(*//)<

ce:p

<2PL.SUB

(*//)<

kw@Peì.

<thus

‘You (pl.) look after yourselves then.’

Rather than continuing after the pause with an inner enclitic or a second-positionclitic, the speaker restarts by repeating the host.

(111) ’[email protected]

niPAUX

w@ì<

hayPERF

<FOC

[email protected]

niPAUX

// niP<

cAUX

<2SG.SUB

y@=yam ’q-T@tSER=scrub-REFL

y@ ’we ’nfirst

yeì

SEQ

P@ ’n-s2POS-N

niPAUX

P@[email protected](body)-MID

‘When you have finished, then you scrub yourself first before you scrapeyourself with it.’

33Note that the delimiter t@ ’w appears both before the adverb c@lel and before the verb ’qwi’l@s in (106).34Long pauses between determiners and nouns are quite common. Brown and Thompson (2013), notingthis phenomenon in the Upriver dialect, suggest that the determiner cliticizes to the preceding element. Inthe Island dialect, pauses before determiners are also quite common. So determiners might best be treatedas flexi-clitics, i.e. clitics that sometimes appear as enclitics and sometimes as proclitics, depending uponthe context.35We created data with added pauses in various ways: taking a recorded sentence and inserting ambientnoise of various lengths to simulate pauses and playing it to speakers, reading out data pausing in crucialplaces, and having speakers read out data trying to pause in marked spots. Speakers had clear opinionsabout what sounded natural and what seemed like performance errors.


When several second-position clitics appear in a string, it is impossible to pause be-tween them.

(112) xw@Pal@ ’m-st@xw

return-CS

(*//)<

P@

<Q

(*//)<

ce:p

<2PL.SUB

(*//)<

ceP

<FUT

(*//)<

kw@Peì

<thus

( //) tT@n@

DT.1SG.POS

sn@xw@ì?canoe

‘So will you (pl.) return my car?’

However, note that it is possible to pause between the last second-position cliticand the first pre-predicate clitic.

(113) PiPCNJ

niP<

y@xw<

c@n<

ceP<

kw@Peì

AUX<

INF<

1SG.SUB<

FUT<

thus// xwiP

<ya:ys.

MIR<

work‘And so I thought that I might next go to work.’

In sum, whether a pause may be followed by continuing without restarting allowsus to differentiate between introducer clitics, inner proclitics, and pre-predicate cliticson the one hand and inner enclitics and second-position clitics on the other. Basically,pauses are not accepted between a host and a following clitic. Otherwise, pauses areallowed both before and after clitics.

This difference may correlate with performative and cognitive aspects of the leftedge versus right edge of a prosodic unit. When there is a pause after the initialelement of a phrase, it signals to the listener that additional information is immi-nent. This is an excellent way to signal that the speaker’s turn is not finished, asHul’q’umi’num’ speakers prefer silence rather than a filler (umm, etc.) during apause.36

3.3 Summary

When clitics are examined with respect to their phonological integration, we find that,overall, clitics are less bound than affixes but less free than independent words. Theorientation of the clitic is a crucial factor. Inner enclitics and second-position cliticsshow phonological integration in that they syllabify with their host, and a pause be-tween the clitic and its host is impossible. Nevertheless, enclitics are not subject toword-internal phonology, such as resonant glottalization, showing that they are lessintegrated than suffixes. Inner proclitics and pre-predicate clitics, since it is possibleto pause between them and their hosts, are less integrated than affixes. Neverthelesssyllabification gives evidence that inner proclitics show a certain degree of phono-logical integration. This leads us to conclude that Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics show threedegrees of phonological integration, with inner enclitics and second-position cliticsbeing the most bound, pre-predicate clitics being the most free, and inner procliticsbeing somewhere in between.

36Hul’q’umi’num’ differs in this respect from the closely-related Sliammon (Watanabe 2010), where ahesitation filler can be used as evidence for clitichood.


4 Hul’q’umi’num’ clitic prosody

Our discussion of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics has focused on four types: inner enclitics,inner proclitics, second-position clitics, and pre-predicate clitics. In Sect. 2, we clas-sified these into two main types, inner and outer, according to their syntactic proper-ties. In Sect. 3, we enumerated the phonological properties of several individual cli-tics, further classifying them in terms of orientation (preceding versus following theirhost). Based on these facts, and our understanding of the clitic system as a whole, wenow address how these clitics are represented in prosodic structure. That is, how areclitics parsed by phonological units like syllables, prosodic words, and phonologicalphrases?

We begin by adopting some of the principles of Prosodic Clitic Theory, whichserve as a framework for describing and explaining prosodic differences amongclitic types. We then apply this framework to an analysis of Hul’q’umi’num’ cliticas prosody, claiming that clitics in the language are parsed in three different ways,namely internal enclitics, adjoined proclitics, and free clitics.

4.1 Prosodic Clitic Theory

In order to speak more concretely about the prosodic representations of clitics, we re-quire a framework. For this purpose, we adopt the outlines of Prosodic Clitic Theory(Selkirk 1995, 2005; Truckenbrodt 1995; Parker 1999; Werle 2009).37

Prosodic Clitic Theory is based, in turn, on the theory of Prosodic Phonology(Selkirk 1978, 1981, 1984, 1986; Nespor and Vogel 1982, 1983, 2007; Hayes 1989).Among the principles of Prosodic Phonology are, first, that phonological representa-tions are organized into prosodic constituents, such as syllables and prosodic words.Second, prosodic constituents are based on, but do not perfectly reflect, syntactic con-stituents such as words and phrases. Third, prosodic constituents, and not syntacticconstituents, are the domains of phonological processes.

For our purposes, the most important prosodic constituents are the syllable, theprosodic word (p-word), and the phonological phrase (p-phrase). We will ignore feet,for which there is little evidence in Hul’q’umi’num’, as well as other levels aboveand below these.38

Prosodic Clitic Theory (PCT) extends Prosodic Phonology to account for the em-pirical complexities of prosodic clisis. In particular, PCT posits the Lexical CategoryCondition, which states that prosodic structure is built around lexical categories (e.g.

37Selkirk (1995, 1996, 2004) proposes the basis of the PCT framework in a study of function word parsing.Truckenbrodt (1995, 1999) extends the coverage of the theory to the phrase level, and Selkirk (2005) to alllevels of syntactic and prosodic structure. Parker (1999) applies the theory to clitic articles in Chamicuro,calling it “Prosodic Clitic Theory”. Werle (2009) applies PCT to clitic, word, and phrasal prosody inBosnian, Serbian, and Croatian.38We assume a full Prosodic Hierarchy that comprises the units utterance > intonational phrase > phono-logical phrase > prosodic word > foot > syllable > mora. Some studies also suppose a distinctionbetween two kinds of p-phrases, namely major phrase and minor phrase, and some a clitic group be-tween p-phrase and p-word. See Nespor and Vogel (2007), Selkirk (2005), and van van Gijn and Zúñiga(this issue).


nouns, verbs, adjectives) and ignores functional categories (e.g. conjunctions, pro-nouns, auxiliaries) as much as possible. Since this might otherwise leave functionwords with no parse at all, PCT also posits non-strict layering, which allows thecanonical parsing of larger prosodic constituents into smaller ones to be relaxed inways that accommodate the parsing of function words.39

To see the interaction of the Lexical Category Condition and non-strict layering,let us look ahead and consider our eventual analyses of the inner enclitic =@ì, theinner proclitic xw@=, and the pre-predicate clitic w@ì. We will claim that these areparsed prosodically as an internal enclitic, an adjoined proclitic, and a free clitic,respectively. The following diagrams illustrate the analysis, showing that an internalclitic is parsed by a simple p-word (a) and an adjoined clitic by a recursive p-word (b),while a free clitic is not parsed by a p-word at all, but directly by a p-phrase (c):

(114) (a) internal enclitic (b) adjoined proclitic

p-phrases {. . . . . . }. . . (híT=@ì) . . .

{. . . . . . }. . . (xw@=( ’qá ’qiP)) . . .p-words

‘long.time=PST’ ‘INC=sick’

(c) free clitic (d) promoted function word

p-phrases {. . . . . . }. . . w@ì

<(sT@TíP) . . .

{. . . . . . }. . . (ìním@ì) . . .p-words

‘PERF<

ready’ ‘we’

Example (d) illustrates a fourth possibility, where a function word is promoted—thatis, parsed as an independent p-word, in which case it is not a clitic.40

These parses violate canonical parsing in different ways. Internal clisis and pro-motion prevent the perfect alignment of p-words to lexical words. Adjoined clisisinvolves a recursive p-word, which is a marked structure. Free clisis involves parsinga syllable directly by a p-phrase, without the usual intervening level of p-word.41

At this point, we should clarify a distinction in our terminology betweensyntactically- and phonologically-defined clitic types. Our syntactic types are partic-ular to Hul’q’umi’num’, differing in their ordering with respect to hosts, and place-ment within their phrase (see Sect. 2). By contrast, the prosodic clitic types of PCT

39The Lexical Category Condition is so called by Truckenbrodt (1999), but is proposed in general termsby Selkirk and Shen (1990) and Selkirk (1995). Selkirk (2005) incorporates the condition into the broaderGrounding Hypothesis, which associates every prosodic constituent from the p-word to the intonationalphrase with a particular syntactic constituent. Non-strict layering is proposed in a number of studies, butis codified in the present sense by Selkirk (1995).40We have renamed Selkirk’s (1995) term affixal clitic to adjoined clitic, as there is nothing necessarilyaffixal about adjoined clitics, whereas adjoined more aptly describes their prosody. Werle (2004, 2009)introduces the terms promote and promotion.41Beck (1999), in his analysis of Lushootseed, analyzes clitics that precede their hosts as “unincorporated”,which is similar to our free clitic analysis of some Hu’q’umi’num’ clitics. However, we see a four-wayprosodic distinction amongst affixes, internal clitics, adjoined clitics, and free clitics, which is supportedby their different phonological behavior. By contrast, Beck proposes a two-way distinction between unin-corporated and incorporated clitics, of which the latter are phonologically identical to affixes.


differ only in how they are parsed by p-words and p-phrases. For reference, we listboth kinds here, in order from most to least integrated (see Sect. 1):

(115) a. syntactic clitic types: inner clitic > second-position clitic > pre-predicate clitic

b. prosodic clitic types: internal clitic > adjoined clitic > free clitic

We also clarify that in our terminology, orientation (proclisis versus enclisis) isprosodic, not syntactic. These terminological subtleties are potentially confusing, butunavoidable. This is a result both of the complexities of clitic behavior and of howclitics are typically described in the phonological and syntactic literature.

The analytical framework of PCT is useful to our analysis because it allows for avariety of function word parses. In particular, by allowing for the possibility of freeclisis, PCT can accommodate the range of empirical data in Hul’q’umi’num’. Further,the framework does so in terms of independently needed structural units, namely thegrammatical word, prosodic word, and phonological phrase.

Evidence for clitic parsing comes from aspects of phonological behavior, whichmight indicate, for example, whether a clitic is parsed inside or outside of a p-word.More specifically, internal and adjoined clitics are expected to undergo p-word-internal phonology, whereas free clitics are not. Moreover, an adjoined clitic liesbetween two p-word edges, and may reveal this through its phonology.

4.2 Hul’q’umi’num’ prosodic clitic types

Now let us consider the evidence for the phonological representations ofHul’q’umi’num’ clitics in light of the PCT framework presented above. Or to putit another way, how are clitics parsed by syllables, p-words, and p-phrases?

In order to answer this question, we will rely on a general analysis of these con-stituents in Hul’q’umi’num’. We assume that syllables consist of at least an onsetconsonant and a vowel nucleus, but can also contain consonant clusters in the onsetand coda. We assume that p-words bear word-level prominence (stress), and are pro-nounceable in isolation. We have nothing to say here about the shape or phonologicalproperties of p-phrases, except that every p-phrase contains one or more p-words.

We will look in turn at the four clitic types identified in Sects. 2 and 3, roughly inorder from those most closely integrated with their host to those least integrated. Webegin with the inner enclitics.

4.2.1 Inner clitic prosody

We propose that the (syntactically defined) inner enclitics are consistently parsed as(phonologically defined) internal enclitics. There are two key pieces of evidence forthis, namely syllabification and contraction, discussed in Sect. 3.1 above. To beginwith syllabification, several of the inner clitics are vowel-initial, such as =@l@p and=@ì. By the assumption that all syllables have onsets, vowel-initial enclitics must besyllabified with their host:

(116) ([email protected]@[email protected]@p.) *[email protected]@[email protected]@p. ‘net=2PL’(.hi.T=@ì.) *.hiT.@ì. ‘long.time=PST’


Onsets are obligatory in this language: there are no vowel-initial words, no diph-thongs, and no hiatus between syllables (although vowel-final words are common).That is, sequences of vowels are not tolerated, and this is achieved by the universalpresence of onsets.42

Another argument that inner enclitics are p-word-internal comes from contraction,which is observed between some enclitics and their hosts. As contraction is not ob-served between two clearly independent p-words, we surmise that it does not occuracross p-word edges. Therefore, contracting enclitics are p-word-internal:43

(117) P@w@=@l@p → P@w@l@p not=2PL ‘you (pl.) are not’si’l@=@ì → si’le:ì grandparent=PST ‘my late grandparent’

On the other hand, the evidence in favor of internal clisis is opposed to that fromresonant glottalization, which indicates that enclitics are less integrated than affixes(see Sect. 3.2.1). Nevertheless, we do not take this to show that inner enclitics are notp-word-internal. Rather, since glottalization marks imperfective aspect, we take it asapplying to the lexical word at the point in the derivation where aspect is expressed,which presumably precedes post-lexical processes like cliticization.

The above points are illustrated best by the inner enclitics. The inner proclitics(y@=, xw@=, xw@ ’n=) are somewhat less integrated to their hosts than the enclitics are,to the extent that we analyze them as adjoined clitics—that is, parsed by a recursive p-word. As with enclitics, syllabification provides a key argument. To our ears, the firstconsonant of a cluster-initial host typically syllabifies with the vowel-final proclitics,showing that they belong to the same p-word. On the other hand, in slow speech, it isnot uncommon for the proclitic to be pronounced as its own syllable. It can even beseparated from its host by a pause. Thus we analyze these cases as adjoined proclisis:

(118) (.y@=s.(.ce.kw@’l.)) ∼ (.y@.= // (.sce.kw@’l.)) ‘SER=how’(.xw@=s.(. ’qwi. ’qw@l.)) ∼ (.xw@.= // (.s ’qwi. ’qw@l.)) ‘INC=cooked’(.xw@ ’n.(.s ’ňiP ’ň.q@ì.)) ∼ (.xw@ ’n.= // (.s ’ňiP ’ň.q@ì.)) ‘PRST=child’

Our analysis depends on a couple of premises. First, we assume that a consonantcan syllabify across a p-word edge in order to improve syllable structure. This is sim-ilar to French liaison, which syllabifies word-final consonants with following vowel-initial words, and to Greek vowel degemination, which deletes a word-final vowelbefore a following vowel-initial word. But whereas these external sandhi phenomenaapply between p-words, we posit a less drastic sandhi, between a clitic and its host.We should clarify that such resyllabification—when it occurs, as in the first alternantsin (118)—crosses, but does not destroy, the intervening p-word edge. Moreover, thevariable syllabifications of inner proclitics, which we analyze as adjoined clitics, areintermediate between the behavior of vowel-initial inner enclitics, which necessarily

42One does find vowel-glide sequences, as in P@ ’y ‘good’, but we interpret these as vowel-consonant se-quences, not as diphthongs.43Contraction also regularly occurs between two free clitics, such as between a second-position clitic anda preceding, unstressed introducer. For this reason, it is more accurate to say that contraction does notoccur across a p-word edge than to say that it is a p-word-internal phenomenon.


syllabify with their hosts, and that of pre-predicate clitics, which never syllabify withtheir hosts. Our adjoined clisis analysis of the inner proclitics accounts for this inter-mediate behavior, and maintains our general claim that syllabification with a host isevidence that a clitic is p-word-internal.

Second, our proclitic analysis depends on an interpretation of pausability. Wefollow the general view that pauses are usually tolerated more at natural prosodicboundaries—like syllable, p-word, and p-phrase edges—but are less tolerated else-where. The relevance of this for proclisis is that Hul’q’umi’num’ shows a differencein pausability after proclitics, as compared to affixes and enclitics. As discussed inSect. 3.2.2, Hul’q’umi’num’ does not allow pauses to separate prefixes and suffixesfrom their stems, nor enclitics from their hosts. In other words, the pausability testindicates that proclitics are less integrated than affixes and enclitics. We ascribe thisto adjoined clisis. That is, the possibility of a pause between proclitic and host corre-sponds to the presence of a p-word edge there.

In summary, the two types of inner clitics behave differently with respect to phono-logical criteria, with enclitics being more integrated than proclitics. This differenceis captured in our analysis by assigning them different parses. Inner enclitics are con-sistently parsed as internal clitics, while inner proclitics are parsed as adjoined clitics,represented as follows:

(119) (a) internal enclitic (b) adjoined proclitic

p-phrases {. . . . . . }. . . (híT=@ì) . . .

{. . . . . . }. . . (xw@=( ’qá ’qiP)) . . .p-words

‘long.time=PST’ ‘INC=sick’

4.2.2 Outer clitic prosody

Having discussed the prosody of inner clitics, we proceed to outer clitics, beginningwith second-position clitics. Interestingly, despite the syntactic differences betweensecond-position clitics and inner enclitics, we claim that they are prosodically identi-cal, internal enclitics.

The evidence that second-position clitics are p-word-internal is the same as for theinner enclitics, coming from syllabification, contraction, and pausability, as discussedin Sect. 3 above. First, some second-position clitics cannot form syllables on theirown, because they consist only of consonants (e.g. =c, =ct). The simplest analysis ofsuch clitics is that they are necessarily syllabified with their host:44

(120) Ti<

c big<

2SG.SUB [.Tic.]xw@m

<ct can

<1PL.SUB [.xw@mct.]

Second, like inner enclitics, second-position clitics contract, both with each other andwith some hosts:

44An alternative analysis is that such consonant-only clitics can be parsed as stray consonants—that is, notsyllabified, but parsed directly by p-word or p-phrase. However, lacking independent evidence for strayconsonants, we assume that they syllabify.


(121) ’c@<

’peP → ’cpeP QUOT<

CERT ‘it was said to be so’Pi

<y@xw → Pi:xw AUX

<INF ‘it must be’

Third, second-position clitics are very resistant to separation from their hosts bypauses.

(122) ’ti ’wiP@ì

pray(*//)

<c@n

<1SG.SUB

(*//)<

ceP.

<FUT

‘I will pray.’

We therefore analyze the second-position clitics prosodically as internal enclitics.The fourth clitic type we have undertaken to describe is the pre-predicate clitics

(e.g. xwiP, w@ì, t@ ’w). Of the clitics discussed here, pre-predicate clitics are both theleast syntactically constrained and the least phonologically integrated to their hosts,to the extent that we analyze them as free clitics—that is, syllables that are parseddirectly by p-phrases:

(123) free clitic

p-phrases {. . . . . . }. . . w@ì

<(sT@TíP) . . .p-words

‘PERF<

ready’

To review the evidence for the syntactic freedom of pre-predicate clitics, they arefreer than second-position clitics in that they can be sentence-initial, do not form astrictly ordered clitic string, but allow some reordering, and can appear either beforea main verb or before an auxiliary. In short, for clitics, pre-predicate clitics show anunusual flexibility in their placement. On the other hand, pre-predicate clitics are lessflexible than true adverbs, in that they must precede the main verb and cannot hostsecond-position clitics (Sect. 2.2.2).

On the phonological side, we find that pre-predicate clitics never contract, andare easily separated from their host by a pause. Unlike inner proclitics, they neversyllabify with their host. Unlike other clitic types, then, there is no reason to supposethat pre-predicate clitics are parsed with adjacent p-words. At the same time, pre-predicate clitics never bear word-level prominence. The best analysis seems to bethat they are free clitics.

In summary, the two types of outer clitics behave differently with respect tophonological criteria, with the second-position clitics being more integrated than pre-predicate clitics, which exhibit no phonological effects suggestive of integration. Wethus posit that second-position clitics are internal enclitics, while pre-predicate cliticsare free clitics, represented as follows.

(124) internal enclitic free clitic

p-phrases {. . . . . . }. . . (ne ’m

<kw@Peì) . . .

{. . . . . . }. . . w@ì

<(sT@TíP) . . .p-words

‘go<

thus’ ‘PERF<

ready’


Table 4 A descriptive classification of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics

Syntactic types Syllabification Pausability Contraction Prosodic types Representation

inner enclitic integrated internal not adjoined internal enclitic (HOST=CL)

second-position clitic integrated internal not adjoined internal enclitic (HOST<

CL)

inner proclitic integrated not internal not internal adjoined proclitic (CL=(HOST))

pre-predicate clitic free not internal not internal free clitic CL<

(HOST)

4.3 A summary of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitic types

In Sect. 4, we have proposed a prosodic analysis of the four syntactic clitic typesthat we identified in Sect. 2. The result is three prosodic clitic types that correspondroughly, but not one-to-one, with the syntactic types. Table 4 summarizes the corre-spondence of syntactic to prosodic clitic types, and what we see as the key evidencefor their prosodic representations.

The middle columns of the table represent the tests of syllabification, pausability,and contraction, and what they indicate for each type. First, inner clitics and second-position clitics syllabify with their hosts, while pre-predicate clitics do not, indicatingthat only the former are integrated into p-words. Second, pauses are tolerated follow-ing inner proclitics and pre-predicate clitics, but not preceding inner enclitics andsecond-position clitics, indicating that only the former are separated from their hostsby a p-word edge. Third, this is confirmed by contraction, which inner enclitics andsecond-position clitics undergo, but other clitics do not.

Despite their very different syntax, inner enclitics and second-position clitics havethe same phonological connection to their host, namely internal enclisis. Conversely,inner enclitics and inner proclitics are syntactically very similar, apart from theirorientation, yet we found that proclitics are less integrated with their hosts, and thuswe posit that they are adjoined clitics. However, this result is not surprising in light ofthe cross-linguistic preference for suffixes and enclitics over prefixes and proclitics.In this respect, then, Hul’q’umi’num’ is not unusual.

The terms enclitic and proclitic are often made use of in grammars of Sal-ish languages, and we have found these to be useful notions in the description ofHul’q’umi’num’, but our evidence suggests that one class of clitics is neither encliticnor proclictic in the narrow sense of these terms. The pre-predicate clitics should beanalyzed as free clitics, that is, they are not parsed by a p-word at all, but directly bya p-phrase. The distinction between proclisis and free clisis is a subtle but useful onefor the description of Hul’q’umi’num’.45

5 Conclusion

We began this study by surmising that many of the numerous so-called particlesof Hul’q’umi’num’ are in fact clitics—that is to say, neither affixes nor fully inde-

45We should clarify that our claims are only for Hul’q’umi’num’, the Island dialect of Halkomelem. Asclitics can be parsed differently in different dialects, as shown for example by Revithiadou’s (2008) studyof Greek, we make no claims about other dialects without detailed study.


pendent words, but grammatical words that do not themselves determine prosodicwords. For the purposes of this paper, we chose a subset of Hul’q’umi’num’ cliticsto study in detail. First, based on their patterns of syntactic placement, we classifiedHul’q’umi’num’ clitics into two general types, inner and outer. Inner clitics are moreconstrained in their placement than outer clitics. When they co-occur, inner cliticsare closer to the host than outer clitics are. Second, we examined Hul’q’umi’num’clitics in terms of phonological integration. Clitics that undergo phonological pro-cesses with their hosts, share the stress domain of their hosts, and so on are said to beintegrated.

Our analysis allows us to say more precisely where Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics liealong the continuum of wordhood. We can distinguish our various clitic types bothby their degree of syntactic freedom and by their degree of phonological integration.

(125) Syntactic freedom:full word > pre-predicate clitic > second-position clitic > inner enclitic >

inner proclitic > affix

(126) Phonological integration:affix > inner enclitic > second-position clitic > inner proclitic >

pre-predicate clitic > full word

Syntactic freedom corresponds inversely to integration. In general, we find thatouter clitics have more syntactic freedom and less phonological integration than theirinner clitic counterparts. For example, of the various clitic types, (outer) pre-predicateclitics are both the most free and least integrated and thus most closely resemble freewords. Inner proclitics conversely are less free syntactically and are more integratedphonologically than pre-predicate clitics. Similarly, (outer) second-position clitics ex-hibit more syntactic freedom than inner enclitics in that they allow for a wider rangeof hosts. Inner enclitics and second-position clitics are affix-like in their phonologicalintegration, though some second-position clitics, especially bisyllabic ones followingseveral other second-position clitics, exhibit a lower degree of phonological inte-gration than do inner enclitics. Thus, one contribution of this paper is to propose adistinction between inner and outer clitics for Hul’q’umi’num’.

When we consider all four types of clitics, the inverse correlation between syn-tactic freedom and integration is not a perfect one. In Hul’q’umi’num’, clitics thatfollow their hosts are more integrated than those that precede their hosts. In fact,some (outer) second-position clitics are almost as integrated as affixes, yet they havemore syntactic freedom than inner proclitics. This led us to the conclusion in Sect. 4that our four syntactic clitic types are parsed in only three different ways:

(127) Syntactic clitic types Prosodic clitic types

inner encliticsinternal enclitics

second-position clitics

inner proclitics adjoined proclitics

pre-predicate clitics free clitics

Presenting an analysis within Prosodic Clitic Theory allowed us to capture the phono-logical differences amongst our three prosodic clitic types in terms of internal, ad-


joined, and free clisis. That is, clitics can be parsed at the right edge of a prosodicword, at the left edge of a recursive prosodic word, or directly by a phonologicalphrase. The framework used here defines different clitic parses not as elementarytypes, but in terms of the more general units of grammatical word and prosodic word.Thus, a more thorough study of Hul’q’umi’num’ phonological and prosodic structuremay well provide insight into clitic types.

The correspondence of syntactic to prosodic types bears out the Prosodic CliticTheoretic claim that syntax partly determines prosody. Roughly speaking, the moreconstrained clitics are syntactically, the more integrated they are prosodically. Thisresult is not at all surprising when the study of clitics is placed into the larger per-spective of wordhood. Cliticization is often viewed in terms of grammaticalization:a word becomes syntactically dependent on an adjacent word, leading to the gradualdevelopment from word to clitic to affix. Such a viewpoint may explain in part ourresult that Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics are heterogeneous with respect to syntactic andphonological criteria. Each clitic (or class of clitics) may be at a different stage ofdevelopment. Comparison of clitics across Halkomelem dialects and across Salishlanguages may prove insightful to the study of the paths of development of clitics.However, comparative study may also reveal that some clitic types are in fact quitestable over time. After all, clitics are a useful means of encoding functional as op-posed to lexical elements.

That a single language such as Halkomelem should have a diversity of clitic typesis unsurprising, given the range of clitics found in languages of the world (see vanGijn and Zúñiga, and other papers in this issue). Such diversity opens a Pandora’sbox of issues concerning best practices for the representation of types of clitics. Inparticular, fine-grained marking of degrees of syntactic freedom or phonological in-tegration with different edge symbols may allow for the cross-linguistic comparisonof various affix, clitic, and word types. The use of various edge symbols (e.g. hyphen,equals sign, and ligature mark) has proven useful for the presentation of our analysis.However, they may fail to encode native speakers’ intuitions about what constitutesa word and may also confound the production of language documentation materi-als such as grammars, dictionaries, and texts. We thus end with a cautionary note thatour representations encode our current state of understanding, serving as placeholdersuntil we have a fuller treatment of Hul’q’umi’num’ clitics and until more extensivetypological and theoretical analysis can be undertaken of clitic types in the world’slanguages. We hope this paper contributes to that enterprise.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Hul’q’umi’num’ speakers who provided data used inthis paper, especially Arnold Guerin, Delores Louie, Ruby Peter, Theresa Thorne, and Ellen White. Thanksto our Salishanist colleagues, David Beck, Mercedes Hinkson, Tom Hukari, Tim Montler, and Ruby Peter,for sharing insights on this issue. Thanks to Kevin Bätscher, Rik van Gijn, Fernando Zúñiga, an anonymousreviewer, and especially Charles Ulrich for comments and corrections. Funding was provided by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council.

References

Anderson, S. R. (2005). Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Bar-el, L., Gillon, C., Jacobs, P., Watt, L. T., & Wiltschko, M. (2004). Subject clitics and their effect ontemporal interpretation: a case study of Sk

¯wx

¯wú7mesh and Stó:lo Halq’eméylem. In D. B. Gerdts

& L. Matthewson (Eds.), University of Montana occasional papers in linguistics: Vol. 10. Studies inSalish linguistics in honor of M. Dale Kinkade (pp. 8–29). Missoula: University of Montana.

Bätscher, K. (2014). Interclausal and intraclausal linking elements in Hul’q’umi’num’ Salish. M.A. thesis,Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.

Beck, D. (1999). Words and prosodic phrasing in Lushootseed narrative. In T. A. Hall & U. Kleinhenz(Eds.), Studies on the phonological word (pp. 23–46). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Brown, J., & Thompson, J. J. (2013). The emergence of determiner clisis in Upriver Halkomelem. North-west Journal of Linguistics, 7, 1–13.

Brown, D., Chumakina, M., & Corbett, G. (Eds.) (2012). Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Davidson, M. (2002). Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof New York at Buffalo.

Davis, H. (1995). On the clitic-affix distinction in radical head-marking languages. In Papers from theparasession on clitics (pp. 64–78). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Gerdts, D. B. (1977). A dialect survey of Halkomelem Salish. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Gerdts, D. B. (1988). Semantic linking and relational structure in desideratives. Linguistics, 26, 843–872.Gerdts, D. B. (2003). The morphosyntax of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. International Journal of Ameri-

can Linguistics, 69, 345–356.Gerdts, D. B. (2011). Expected and unexpected: ponderative particles in Halkomelem. In Annual Meeting

of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Boulder, Colorado.Gerdts, D. B. (2012). Recycling suffixes: an investigation into Halkomelem complex morphology. In An-

nual Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Portland,Oregon.

Gerdts, D. B., & Hukari, T. E. (to appear). Halkomelem. Munich: Lincom Europa.Gerdts, D. B., & Kiyosawa, K. (2007). Combinatorial properties of Salish applicatives. In UBCWPL:

Vol. 20. Papers for the 42nd international conference on Salish and neighboring languages (pp. 176–219). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

van Gijn, R., & Zúñiga, F. (this issue). Word and the Americanist perspective. MorphologyHayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In P. Kiparsky & G. Youmans (Eds.), Rhythm and meter

(pp. 201–260). Orlando: Academic Press.Hukari, T. E. (1977). Resonant devoicing in Cowichan. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 47–61.Hukari, T. E. (1981). Glottalization in Cowichan. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University

of Victoria, 1, 233–250.Jelinek, E. (1996). Definiteness and second position clitics in Straits Salish. In A. Halpern & A. Zwicky

(Eds.), CSLI lecture notes: Vol. 61. Approaching second: second position clitics and related phenom-ena (pp. 271–297). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Kinkade, M. D. (1981). Interior Salish particles. Anthropological Linguistics, 23, 262–270.Koch, K. (2008). Intonation and focus in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Ph.D. dissertation,

University of British Columbia.Kroeber, P. D. (1992). Notes on the position of conjunctive enclitics in Thompson Salish. In Papers for

the 27th international conference on Salish and neighboring languages (pp. 44–48). Kamloops:Secwépemc Cultural Education Society/Simon Fraser University.

Matthewson, L. (2005). On the absence of tense on determiners. Lingua, 115, 1697–1735.Mulder, J., & Sellers, H. (2010). Classifying clitics in Sm’algyax: approaching theory from the field. In A.

L. Berez, J. Mulder, & D. Rosenblum (Eds.), Language documentation & conservation special pub-lication no. 2 (May 2010): fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the Americas(pp. 33–56). http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/, http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4450.

Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules. In H. van der Hulst & N.Smith (Eds.), Linguistic models: the structure of phonological representations (Part I) (pp. 225–255).Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1983). Prosodic structure above the word. In A. Cutler & D. R. Ladd (Eds.),Springer series in language and communication: Vol. 14. Prosody: models and measurements (pp.123–140). Berlin: Springer.

Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (2007). Prosodic phonology. Studies in generative grammar: Vol. 28. Dordrecht:Foris Publications.

Parker, S. (1999). On the behavior of definite articles in Chamicuro. Language, 75, 552–562.

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/

http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4450


Revithiadou, A. (2008). A cross-dialectal study of cliticization in Greek. Lingua, 118, 1393–1415.Selkirk, E. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (Ed.), Nordic

prosody II (pp. 111–140). Trondheim: TAPIR.Selkirk, E. (1981). On the nature of phonological representation. In J. Anderson, J. Laver, & T. Meyers

(Eds.), The cognitive representation of speech (pp. 379–388). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge: MIT

Press.Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–405.Selkirk, E. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. N. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, & S. Ur-

banczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers: Vol. 18. Papers in optimality theory(pp. 439–469). Amherst: GLSA.

Selkirk, E. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Sig-nal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 187–213). Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Selkirk, E. (2004). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. McCarthy (Ed.), Optimality theory inphonology: a reader (pp. 464–482). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Selkirk, E. (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In S. Frota, M. Vigario, & M.-J. Freitas(Eds.), Prosodies (pp. 11–58). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Selkirk, E., & Shen, T. (1990). Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In S. Inkelas & D. Zec (Eds.), Thephonology-syntax connection (pp. 313–337). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Spencer, A., & Luís, A. (2012). The canonical clitic. In D. Brown, M. Chumakina, & G. Corbett (Eds.),Canonical morphology and syntax (pp. 123–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suttles, W. (2004). Musqueam reference grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press.Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Ph.D.

dissertation, MIT.Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic

Inquiry, 30, 219–256.Watanabe, H. (2010). Fillers and their relevance in describing Sliammon Salish. In N. Amiridze, B. H.

Davis, & M. Maclagan (Eds.), Fillers, pauses and placeholders (pp. 173–187). Amsterdam: Ben-jamins.

Werle, A. (2004). Enclisis and proclisis in Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian. In V. Chand, A. Kelleher, A. Ro-driguez, & B. Schmeiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West coast conference on formal linguistics(pp. 801–814). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

Werle, A. (2009). Word, phrase, and clitic prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Wiltschko, M. (2003). On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory. Lingua,113, 659–696.

Zwicky, A. M. (1977). On clitics. Bloomington: IULC.

Halkomelem clitic types - Web hostingweb.uvic.ca/~werle/files/GERDTS_WERLE_2014.pdf246 D.B. Gerdts,...

Documents

Transcript of Halkomelem clitic types - Web hostingweb.uvic.ca/~werle/files/GERDTS_WERLE_2014.pdf246 D.B. Gerdts,...