Morpheme with syntactic characteristics of a word but with phonological dependence on another word
Inmorphology andsyntax, aclitic (/ˈklɪtɪk/KLIT-ik,backformed fromGreekἐγκλιτικόςenklitikós "leaning" or "enclitic"[1]) is amorpheme that has syntactic characteristics of a word, but dependsphonologically on another word or phrase. In this sense, it is syntactically independent but phonologically dependent—always attached to a host.[2] A clitic is pronounced like anaffix, but plays a syntactic role at thephrase level. In other words, clitics have theform of affixes, but the distribution offunction words.
Clitics can belong to any grammatical category, although they are commonlypronouns,determiners, oradpositions. Note thatorthography is not always a good guide for distinguishing clitics from affixes: clitics may be written as separate words, but sometimes they are joined to the word they depend on (like the Latin clitic-que, meaning "and") or separated by special characters such ashyphens orapostrophes (like the English clitic's in "it's" for "it has" or "it is").
Czech:Nevím, chtělo-li by se mi si to tam však také vyzkoušet.
"However (však), I do not know (nevím),if (-li)itwould (by) want (chtělose) to try (vyzkoušetsi)it (to)to me (mi)there (tam) as well (také)." (= However, I'm not sure if I would like to try it there as well.)
Tamil:idu eṉ pū = இது என் பூ (This is my flower). With enclitic-vē, which indicates certainty, this sentence becomes
idu eṉ pūvē = இது என் பூவே (This iscertainly my flower)
Telugu:idi nā puvvu = ఇది నా పువ్వు (This is my flower). With enclitic-ē, which indicates certainty, this sentence becomes
Idi nā puvvē = ఇది నా పువ్వే (This iscertainly my flower)
Estonian:Rahagagi vaene means "Poor even having money". Enclitic-gi with thecomitative case turns "with/having something" into "even with/having something". Without the enclitic, the saying would be "rahaga vaene", which would mean that thepredicate is "poor, but has money" (compared to "poor even having money", having money won't make a difference if the predicate is poor or not).
Some authors postulate endoclitics, which split a stem and are inserted between the two elements. For example, they have been claimed to occur between the elements of bipartite verbs (equivalent to English verbs such astake part) in theUdi language.[3] Endoclitics have also been claimed forPashto[4] andDegema.[5]However, other authors treat such forms as a sequence of clitics docked to the stem.[6]
Amesoclitic is a type of clitic that occurs between thestem of a verb and its affixes. Mesoclisis is rare outside of formal standard Portuguese, where it is predominantly found. In Portuguese, mesoclitic constructions are typically formed with the infinitive form of the verb, a clitic pronoun, and a lexicalized tense affix.[7]
For example, in the sentenceconquistar-se-á ("it will be conquered"), the reflexive pronoun "se" appears between the stemconquistar and the future tense affixá. This placement of the clitic is characteristic of mesoclisis. Other examples includedá-lo-ei ("I will give it") andmatá-la-ia ("he/she/it would kill her"). These forms are typically found much more frequently in written Portuguese than in spoken varieties. Additionally, it is possible to use two clitics within a verb, as indar-no-lo-á ("he/she/it will give it to us") anddar-ta-ei (ta =te +a, "I will give it/her to you").[8]
This phenomenon is possible due to the historical evolution of the Portuguese synthetic future tense, which comes from the fusion of the infinitive form of the verb and the finite forms of the auxiliary verbhaver (from Latinhabēre). This origin explains why the clitic can appear between the verb stem and its tense marker, as the future tense was originally a separate word.[9]
ColloquialTurkish exhibits an instance of a mesoclitic where the conjunction encliticde ("also, as well") is inserted after the gerundive suffix-e connecting the verb stem to the potential suffix-(e)bilmek,[10] effectively rendering it in its original auxiliary verb formbilmek (to know). Suffixed auxiliary verbs cannot be converted into individual verbs in Standard Turkish, and the gerundive suffix is considered aninseparable part of them.
One distinction drawn by some scholars divides the broad term "clitics" into two categories, simple clitics and special clitics.[11] This distinction is, however, disputed.[12]
Simple clitics are free morphemes: can stand alone in a phrase or sentence.[example needed] They are unaccented and thus phonologically dependent upon a nearby word. They derive meaning only from that "host".[11]
Special clitics are morphemes that are bound to the word upon which they depend: they exist as a part of their host.[example needed] That form, which is unaccented, represents a variant of a free form that carries stress. Both variants carry similar meaning and phonological makeup, but the special clitic is bound to a host word and is unaccented.[11]
According to this model fromJudith Klavans, an autonomous lexical item in a particular context loses the properties of a fully independent word over time and acquires the properties of a morphological affix (prefix, suffix, infix, etc.). At any intermediate stage of this evolutionary process, the element in question can be described as a "clitic". As a result, this term ends up being applied to a highly heterogeneous class of elements, presenting different combinations of word-like and affix-like properties.[14]
Although the term "clitic" can be used descriptively to refer to any element whose grammatical status is somewhere in between a typical word and a typical affix, linguists have proposed various definitions of "clitic" as a technical term. One common approach is to treat clitics as words that are prosodically deficient: that, like affixes, they cannot appear without a host, and can only form an accentual unit in combination with their host. The termpostlexical clitic is sometimes used for this sense of the term.[15]
Given this basic definition, further criteria are needed to establish a dividing line between clitics and affixes. There is no natural, clear-cut boundary between the two categories (since from adiachronic point of view, a given form can move gradually from one to the other by morphologization). However, by identifying clusters of observable properties that are associated with core examples of clitics on the one hand, and core examples of affixes on the other, one can pick out a battery of tests that provide an empirical foundation for a clitic-affix distinction.
An affix syntactically andphonologically attaches to a basemorpheme of a limitedpart of speech, such as a verb, to form a new word. A clitic syntactically functions above the word level, on thephrase orclause level, and attaches only phonetically to the first, last, or only word in the phrase or clause, whichever part of speech the word belongs to.[16]The results of applying these criteria sometimes reveal that elements that have traditionally been called "clitics" actually have the status of affixes (e.g., the Romance pronominal clitics discussedbelow).[17]
Zwicky and Pullum postulated five characteristics that distinguish clitics from affixes:[17]
Clitics do not select their hosts. That is, they are "promiscuous", attaching to whichever word happens to be in the right place. Affixes do select their host: They only attach to the word they are connected to semantically, and generally attach to a particular part of speech.
Clitics do not exhibit arbitrary lexical gaps. Affixes, on the other hand, are often lexicalized and may simply not occur with certain words. (English plural -s, for example, does not occur with "child".)
Clitics do not exhibit morphophonological idiosyncrasies. That is, they follow the morphophonological rules of the rest of the language. Affixes may be irregular in this regard.
Clitics do not exhibit semantic idiosyncrasies. That is, the meaning of the phrase-plus-clitic is predictable from the meanings of the phrase and the clitic. Affixes may have irregular meanings.
Clitics can attach to material already containing clitics (and affixes). Affixes can attach to other affixes, but not to material containing clitics. That is, an affix may appear between a stem and a clitic, but a clitic may not occur between a stem and an affix to that stem.
An example of differing analyses by different linguists is the discussion of the possessive marker ('s) in English. Some linguists treat it as an affix, while others treat it as a clitic.[18]
Similar to the discussion above, clitics must be distinguishable from words. Linguists have proposed a number of tests to differentiate between the two categories. Some tests, specifically, are based upon the understanding that when comparing the two, clitics resemble affixes, while words resemble syntactic phrases. Clitics and words resemble different categories, in the sense that they share certain properties. Six such tests are described below. These are not the only ways to differentiate between words and clitics.[19]
If a morpheme is bound to a word and can never occur in complete isolation, then it is likely a clitic. In contrast, a word is not bound and can appear on its own.
If the addition of a morpheme to a word prevents further affixation, then it is likely a clitic.
If a morpheme combines with single words to convey a further degree of meaning, then it is likely a clitic. A word combines with a group of words or phrases to denote further meaning.[contradictory]
If a morpheme must be in a certain order with respect to other morphemes within the construction, then it is likely a clitic. Independent words enjoy free ordering with respect to other words, within the confines of the word order of the language.
If a morpheme's allowable behavior is determined by one principle, it is likely a clitic. For example, "a" precedes indefinite nouns in English. Words can rarely be described with one such description.
In general, words are more morphologically complex than clitics. Clitics are rarely composed of more than one morpheme.[19]
Clitics do not always appear next to the word or phrase that they are associated with grammatically. They may be subject to global word order constraints that act on the entire sentence. ManyIndo-European languages, for example, obeyWackernagel's law (named afterJacob Wackernagel), which requires sentential clitics to appear in "second position", after the first syntactic phrase or the first stressed word in a clause:[14][20]
Latin had three enclitics that appeared in second or third position of a clause:-enim 'indeed, for',-autem 'but, moreover',-vero 'however'. For example,quis enim (quisenim) potest negare? (fromMartial's epigram LXIV, literally "who indeed can deny [her riches]?"). Spevak (2010) reports that in her corpus ofCaesar,Cicero andSallust, these three words appear in such position in 100% of the cases.[21]
Russian has one: ли(li) which acts as a general question marker. It always appears in second position in its sentence or proposition, and if the interrogation concerns one word in particular, that word is placed before it:
Он завтра придёт(on zavtra pridyot), He'll arrive tomorrow.
Придёт ли он завтра?, Will he arrive tomorrow?
Завтра ли он придёт?, Is it tomorrow that he'll arrive?
Он ли завтра придёт?, Is it he who'll arrive tomorrow?
Я не знаю, придёт ли он завтра(Ya nye znayu, pridyot li on zavtra), I don't know if he'll arrive tomorrow.
English enclitics include the contracted versions of auxiliary verbs, as inI'm andwe've.[22] Some also regard thepossessive marker, as inThe Queen of England's crown as an enclitic, rather than a (phrasal) genitival inflection.[23]
The negative marker-n't as incouldn't etc. is typically considered a clitic that developed from the lexical itemnot. LinguistsArnold Zwicky andGeoffrey Pullum argue, however, that the form has the properties of an affix rather than a syntactically independent clitic.[25]
Old Norse: The definite article was the enclitic-inn,-in,-itt (masculine, feminine and neuter nominative singular), as inálfrinn ("the elf"),gjǫfin ("the gift"), andtréit ("the tree"), an abbreviated form of the independent pronounhinn,cognate of the German pronounjener. It was fully declined for gender, case and number. Since both the noun and enclitic were declined, this led to "double declension". The situation remains similar in modernFaroese andIcelandic, but inDanish,Norwegian andSwedish, the enclitics have becomeendings. Old Norse had also some enclitics of personal pronouns that were attached to verbs. These were-sk (fromsik),-mk (frommik),-k (fromek), and-ðu / -du / -tu (fromþú). These could even be stacked up, e.g.fásktu (Hávamál, stanza 116).
Dutch:'t definite article of neuter nouns and third person singular neuter pronoun,'k first person pronoun,je second person singular pronoun,ie third person masculine singular pronoun,ze third person plural pronoun
Plautdietsch:Deit'a't vondoag? ("Will he do it today?")
Gothic: Sentence clitics appear in 2nd position in accordance withWackernagel's Law, including-u (yes–no question),-uh ("and"),þan ("then"),ƕa ("anything"), for exampleab-u þus silbin ("of thyself?"). Multiple clitics could be stacked up, and split apreverb from its rest of the verb if the preverb comes at the beginning of the clause, e.g.diz-uh-þan-sat ijōs ("and then he seized them (fem.)"),ga-u-ƕa-sēƕi ("whether he saw anything").
Yiddish: The unspecified pronounמען can be contracted toמ'.
InCornish, the cliticsma/na are used after a noun and definite article to express "this" / "that" (singular) and "these" / "those" (plural). For example:
an lyver "the book",an lyver ma "this book",an lyver na "that book"
an lyvrow "the books",an lyvrow ma "these books",an lyvrow na "those books"
Irish Gaelic usesseo/sin as clitics in a similar way, also to express "this" / "that" and "these" / "those". For example:
an leabhar "the book",an leabhar seo "this book",an leabhar sin "that book"
na leabhair "the books",na leabhair seo "these books",na leabhair sin "those books"
lo atamos[loaˈtamos] ("it tied-1PL" = "we tied it" or "we tied him"; can only occur with the verb it is the object of)
dámelo[ˈdamelo] ("giveme it")
Portuguese allows object suffixes before the conditional and future suffixes of the verbs:[27]
Ela levá-lo-ia ("She take-it-would" – "She would take it").
Eles dar-no-lo-ão ("They give-us-it-will" – "They will give it to us").
ColloquialPortuguese allowsser to be conjugated as a verbal clitic adverbial adjunct to emphasize the importance of the phrase compared to its context, or with the meaning of "really" or "in truth":[28]
Ele estavaera gordo ("He waswas fat" – "He was very fat").
Ele ligoué para Paula ("He phonedis Paula" – "He phoned Paula (with emphasis)").
Note that this clitic form is only for the verbser and is restricted to only third-person singular conjugations. It is not used as a verb in the grammar of the sentence but introduces prepositional phrases and adds emphasis. It does not need to concord with the tense of the main verb, as in the second example, and can be usually removed from the sentence without affecting the simple meaning.
Russian:ли (yes–no question),же (emphasis), то (emphasis),не "not" (proclitic),бы (subjunctive)
Czech: special clitics: weak personal and reflexive pronouns (mu, "him"), certain auxiliary verbs (by, "would"), and various short particles and adverbs (tu, "here";ale, "though"). "Nepodařiloby se mi mu to dát" "I would not succeed in giving it to him". In addition there are various simple clitics including short prepositions.
Polish:-by (conditional mood particle),się (reflexive, also modifies meaning of certain verbs),no and-że (emphasis),-m, -ś, -śmy, -ście (personal auxiliary),mi, ci, cię, go, mu &c. (unstressed personal pronouns inoblique cases)
Serbo-Croatian: thereflexive pronoun formssi andse,li (yes–no question), unstressedpresent andaorist tense forms ofbiti ("to be";sam, si, je, smo, ste, su; andbih, bi, bi, bismo, biste, bi, for the respective tense), unstressedpersonal pronouns in genitive (me, te, ga, je, nas, vas, ih), dative (mi, ti, mu, joj, nam, vam, im) and accusative (me, te, ga (nj), je (ju), nas, vas, ih), and unstressed present tense ofhtjeti ("want/will";ću, ćeš, će, ćemo, ćete, će)
These clitics follow the first stressed word in the sentence or clause in most cases, which may have been inherited fromProto-Indo-European (seeWackernagel's Law), even though many of the modern clitics became cliticised much more recently in the language (e.g. auxiliary verbs or the accusative forms of pronouns). In subordinate clauses and questions, they follow the connector and/or the question word respectively.
Examples (clitics –sam "I am",biste "you would (pl.)",mi "to me",vam "to you (pl.)",ih "them"):
Pokažitemi ih. "Show (pl.) them to me."
Pokazaosam vam ih jučer. "I showed them to you (pl.) yesterday."
Svesam vam ih (jučer) pokazao. / Svesam vam ih pokazao (jučer). "I showed all of them to you (yesterday)." (focus on "all")
Jučersam vam ih (sve) pokazao. "I showed (all of) them to you yesterday." (focus on "yesterday")
Znam dasam vam ih već pokazao. "I know that I have already shown them to you."
Zaštosam vam ih jučer pokazao? "Why did I show them to you yesterday?"
Zarsam vam ih jučer pokazao? "Did I (really) show them to you yesterday?"
Kadbiste mi ih sada dali... "If you (pl.) gave them to me now..." (lit. If you-would to-me them now give-participle...)
Štosam god vidio... "Whatever I saw..." (lit. What I-am ever see-participle...)
In certain rural dialects this rule is (or was until recently) very strict, whereas elsewhere various exceptions occur. These include phrases containing conjunctions (e. g.Ivan i Ana "Ivan and Ana"), nouns with a genitival attribute (e. g.vrh brda "the top of the hill"), proper names and titles and the like (e. g.(gospođa) Ivana Marić "(Mrs) Ivana Marić",grad Zagreb "the city (of) Zagreb"), and in many local varieties clitics are hardly ever inserted into any phrases (e. g.moj najbolji prijatelj "my best friend",sutra ujutro "tomorrow morning"). In cases like these, clitics normally follow the initial phrase, although some Standard grammar handbooks recommend that they should be placed immediately after the verb (many native speakers find this unnatural).
Examples:
Jasmo i on otišli u grad. "He and I went to town." (lit. I are and him gone to town) – this is dialectal.
Ja i onsmo otišli u grad. – commonly heard
Ja i on otišlismo u grad. – prescribed by some standard grammars
Mojamu je starija sestra to rekla. "My elder sister told him that." (lit. my to-him is elder sister that say-participle) – standard and usual in many dialects
Moja starija sestramu je to rekla. – common in many dialects
Clitics are however never inserted after the negative particlene, which always precedes the verb in Serbo-Croatian, or after prefixes (earlier preverbs), and the interrogative particleli always immediately follows the verb. Colloquial interrogative particles such asda li,dal,jel appear in sentence-initial position and are followed by clitics (if there are any).
Examples:
Ne vidimte. "I don't (or can't) see you."
Dovediteih. "Bring them (over here)!" (a prefixed verb:do+vedite)
Vidišli me? "Do/can you see me?"
Vidišli sestru? "Do you see the sister?" (It is impossible to say, e. g. **Sestru li vidiš?, althoughSestru vidiš. "It's the sister that you see." is natural)
Jel(me) vidiš? "Do/Can you see (me)?" (colloquial)
Arabic: Suffixes standing for direct object pronouns and/or indirect object pronouns (as found in Indo-European languages) are suffixed to verbs, possessive determiners are suffixed to nouns, and pronouns are suffixed to particles.
Australian Aboriginal languages: Many Australian languages usebound pronoun enclitics to mark inanimatearguments and, in manypro-drop languages likeWarlpiri, animate arguments as well. Pronominal enclitics may also markpossession and other less common argument structures like causal and reciprocal arguments (seePintupi[29]). In some Australian languages, case markers also seem to operate like special clitics since they are distributed at the phrasal instead of word level (indeed, clitics have been referred to as "phrasalaffixes"[30]) see for example inWangkatja.[31]
Finnish: Finnish has seven clitics, which change according to thevowel harmony:-kO (-ko ~ -kö),-kA (-ka ~ -kä),-kin,-kAAn (-kaan ~ -kään),-pA (-pa ~-pä),-hAn (-han ~ -hän) and-s. One word can have multiple clitics attached to it:onkohan? "I wonderif it is?"
-kO attached to a verb makes it a question. It is used in yes/no questions:Katsot televisiota "You are watching television" →Katsotko televisiota? "Are you watching television?". It can also be added to words that are not verbs but the emphasis changes:Televisiotako katsot? "Is it television you're watching?",Sinäkö katsot televisiota? "Is it you who is watching television?"
-kA gives the host word a colloquial tone:miten ~mitenkä ("how"). When attached to anegative verb it corresponds with "and":En pidä mansikoista enkä mustikoista "I don't like strawberriesnor blueberries". It can also make a negative verb stronger:Enkä tule! "Idefinitely won't come!"
-kin is a focus particle, often used instead ofmyös ("also" / "as well"):Minäkin olin siellä "I was there, too". Depending on the context when attached to a verb it can also express that something happened according to the plan or as a surprise and not according to the plan. It can also make exclamations stronger. It can be attached to several words in the same sentence, changing the focus of the host word, but can only appear once per sentence:Minäkin olin siellä ("I, too, was there"),Minä olinkin siellä ("Surprisingly, Iwas there" or "As expected, Iwas there"),Minä olin sielläkin ("I wasthereas well")
-kAAn is also a focus particle and it corresponds with-kin in negative sentences:Minäkään en ollut siellä "I wasn't thereeither". Like-kin it can be attached to several host words in the same sentence. The only word it cannot be attached to is a negative verb. In questions it acts as a confirmation, like the wordagain in English:Missä sanoitkaan asuvasi? "Where did you say you livedagain?"
-pA is a tone particle which can either add an arguing or patronising tone, or strengthen the host word:Minäpä tiedän paremmin! "Well, I know better!",Onpa kaunis kissa! "Wow what a beautiful cat!",No, kerropa, miksi teit sen! "Well, go ahead and tell why you did it"
-hAn is also a tone particle. In interrogative sentences it can make the question more polite and not as pressing:Onkohan isäsi kotona? "(I wonder if your dad is at home?" In command phrases it makes the command softer:Tulehan tänne "Come hereyou". It can also make a sentence more explanatory, make a claim more self-evident, express that something happened according to one's expectations, or that something came as a surprise etc.Pekka tuntee minut, onhan hän minun opettajani "Pekka knows me, he is my teacherafter all",Kaikkihan niin tekevät "Everyone does thatafter all",Maijahan se siinä! "Well, if it isn't Maija!"Luulin, ettette osaisi, mutta tehän puhutte suomea hyvin "I thought you wouldn't be able to, but you speak Finnish well"
-s is a tone particle as well. It can also be used as a mitigating or softening phrase like-hAn:Annikos se on? "Oh, but isn't it Anni?",Tules tänne "Come here,you",Miksikäs ei? "Well, why not?",Paljonkos kello on? "Say, what time it is?"
Ganda:-nga attached to a verb to form theprogressive;-wo 'in' (also attached to a verb)
Georgian:-o (2nd and 3rd person speakers) and-metki (1st person speakers) is added to the end of a sentence to show reported speech. Examples:K'atsma miutxra, xval gnaxe-o = The man told me that he would see you tomorrow (Literally, "The man told me, tomorrow I see you [reported]") vs.K'atss vutxari, xval gnaxe-metki = I told the man that I would see you tomorrow (Literally, "To man I told, tomorrow I see you [first person reported]).
Hungarian: the marker of indirect questions is-e:Nem tudja még, jön-e. "He doesn't know yetif he'll come." This clitic can also mark direct questions with a falling intonation.Is ("as well") andse ("not... either") also function as clitics: although written separately, they are pronounced together with the preceding word, without stress:Ő is jön. "He'll come too."Ő sem jön. "He won't come, either."
Korean: The copula이다 (ida) and the adjectival하다 (hada), as well as some nominal and verbal particles (e.g.는,neun).[32] However, alternative analysis suggests that the nominal particles do not function as clitics, but as phrasal affixes.[33]
Somali: pronominal clitics, either subject or object clitics, are required in Somali. These exist as simple clitics postponed to the noun they apply to. Lexical arguments can be omitted from sentences, but pronominal clitics cannot be.[34]
Turkish: there are some clitics which are independent words, while others are suffixes: the cliticmI (realised asmi, mı, mu, ormü depending on vowel harmony) is used to form yes/no questions, such asiyi mi? "is it good?". It can be inflected by person:iyi misin? "are you good?". The cliticdA (realised asda orde) means "too", "as well" or "also":Sen de iyi misin? means "are you also good?". However, this word must be pronounced and written carefully, as the -dA (another clitic) suffix creates thelocative case:o da means "him too", butoda means "room";oda da means "the room too" andodada means in the room. Verbal clitics also exist, for pronouns as well as for certain meanings like "if" (-sa) or "can" (-Abil). Pronominal clitics make pronouns redundant in most situations.
^abcdCrystal, David.A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1980. Print.
^SIL International (2003). SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms: What is a clitic? "This page is an extract from the LinguaLinks Library, Version 5.0 published on CD-ROM by SIL International, 2003." Retrieved from"What is a clitic? (Grammar)".Archived from the original on 2004-05-10. Retrieved2004-04-16..
^Harris, Alice C. (2002).Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.ISBN0-19-924633-5.
^Craig A. Kopris & Anthony R. Davis (AppTek, Inc. / StreamSage, Inc.), September 18, 2005. Endoclitics in Pashto: Implications for Lexical Integrity (abstract pdf)
^Kari, Ethelbert Emmanuel (2003).Clitics in Degema: A Meeting Point of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.ISBN4-87297-850-1.
^Vigário, Marina (2011).The Prosodic Word in European Portuguese. De Gruyter. p. 270.ISBN9783110900927....according to the analysis of Duarte and Matos (2000), mesoclitic constructions are formed by the infinitive form of the verb, a clitic pronoun and a "lexicalized T-affix."
^Göksel, Aslı; Kerslake, Celia (2005).Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge. p. 101.ISBN0-203-34076-0.
^abcMiller, Philip H. "Clitics and Phrasal Affixes." Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland, 1992. N. pag. Print.
^Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & John Payne (2011). There are no special clitics. In Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds),Morphology and its interfaces (Linguistik Aktuell 178), 57–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
^Hopper, Paul J.; Elizabeth Closs Traugott (2003).Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-80421-9.
^abcKlavans, Judith L. On Clitics and Cliticization: The Interaction of Morphology, Phonology, and Syntax. New York: Garland Pub., 1995. Print.
^Klavans, Judith L. On Clitics and Cliticization: The Interaction of Morphology, Phonology, and Syntax. New York: Garland Pub., 1995. Print.
^Zwicky, Arnold (1977).On Clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
^abcAndrew Spencer and Ana Luís, "The canonical clitic". In Brown, Chumakina, & Corbett, eds.Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 123–150.
^Spencer, Andrew; Luis, Ana R. (2012).Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. pp. 292–293.ISBN9781139560313.There are two alternatives that have been explored in recent literature.
^abZwicky, Arnold M. "Clitics and Particles." Language 61.2 (1985): 283–305. Print.
^Spevak, Olga (2010).The Constituent Order of Classical Latin Prose. In series:Studies in language Amsterdam / Companion series (vol. 117).ISBN9027205841. Page 14.
^Chae, Hee-Rahk (1995)."Clitic Analyses of Korean "Little Words"".Language, Information and Computation Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Asia Conference:97–102. Archived fromthe original on 2012-02-07. Retrieved2007-03-28.
^Mereu, Lunella. "Agreement, Pronominalization, and Word Order in Pragmatically-Oriented Languages." Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1999. N. pag. Print.
