Volume 45, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper provides a detailed description of the results of 24 constituency diagnostics, both morphosyntactic and phonological, to Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. While it is often assumed that misalignments across the domains that emerge from constituency diagnostics can be resolved by reference to a distinction between phonological and morphosyntactic words, I argue that this is not true of Chácobo. Divergence is at least as high within phonological domains and morphosyntactic domains as it is across them. While it is often assumed that domains tend to converge overall on a single wordhood candidate or that domain divergence is marginal, I argue that this is not true of Chácobo. I present a cluster of methodologies that assess the motivation for a word constituent as an empirical hypothesis, rather than treating it as an a priori assumption. No strong evidence for a word constituent emerges from the Chácobo data. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ackerman, Farrell, Robert Malouf & James P. Blevins
    2016 Patterns and discriminability in language analysis. Word Structure9(2). 132–156. 10.3366/word.2016.0091
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2016.0091 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Gregory D.
    2005Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279906.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280315.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280315.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronoff, Mark & Kristen Fudeman
    2005What is morphology?Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Artstein, Ron
    2005 Coordination of parts of words. Lingua115(4). 359–393. 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bickel, Balthasar & Fernando Zúñiga
    2017 The ‘word’ in polysynthetic languages: Phonological and syntactic challenges. InMichael Fortascue, Marianne Mithun & Nichols Evans (eds.), The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis, 158–186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenzsle, Elena Lieven, Netra Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel Kishor Rai & Sabine Stoll
    2007 Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language83. 43–73. 10.1353/lan.2007.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bickel, Balthasar, Kristine A. Hildebrandt & René Schiering
    2009 The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. InJanet Grijzenhout & Kabak Baris (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 47–75. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219234.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219234.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bickel, Balthasar
    2010 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. InIsabelle Bril (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy, 51–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.121.03bic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.121.03bic [Google Scholar]
  10. Blevins, James P.
    2016Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Booij, Geertz E.
    1996 Cliticization as prosodic integration: The case of Dutch. Linguistic Review13. 219–242. 10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3‑4.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.219 [Google Scholar]
  13. Córdoba, Lorena Isabel
    2008 Parentesco en Femenino: Género, Alianza y Organización Social entre los Chacobo de la Amazonía Boliviana. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos AiresPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Córdoba, Lorena, Pilar M. Valenzuela & Diego Villar
    2012 Pano meridional. InMily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.) Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol. 2, Amazonía, 27–69. La Paz: Plurales Editores.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2005Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282005.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282005.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, William
    2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010 Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation. InKasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 313–350. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff
    2005Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
    2002 Word: A typological framework. InRobert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    2010Basic linguistic theory, vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Elordieta, Gorka
    2011 An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface. Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology42. 209–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2014 The word in phonology. InIraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Jose’Luis Mendívil-Giro (eds.), To be or not to be a word: New reflections on the definition of word, 6–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Geertzen, Jeroen, James Blevins & Peter Milin
    2016 Informativeness of linguistic unit boundaries. Italian Journal of Linguistics28(1). 25–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Good, Jeff
    2010 Topic and focus fields in Naki. InInes Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.91.02goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.91.02goo [Google Scholar]
  25. 2016The linguistic typology of templates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057479 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodall, Grant
    2017 Coordination in syntax. InOxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford. Available at: oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-36 (last access: 30 June 2020). 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.36
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.36 [Google Scholar]
  27. Haspelmath, Martin
    2011 The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica45(1). 31–80. 10.1515/flin.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hockett, Charles
    1958A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1958.tb00870.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.tb00870.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyman, Larry M.
    2006 Word-prosodic typology. Phonology23. 225–257. 10.1017/S0952675706000893
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675706000893 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2009 How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences31. 213–238. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  31. Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll
    2005Reduplication. Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627712
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627712 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kathol, Andreas
    2000Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mansfield, John
    2015 Morphotactic variation, prosodic domains and the changing structure of the Murrinhpatha verb. Asia-Pacific Language Variation1(2). 163–189. 10.1075/aplv.1.2.03man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.1.2.03man [Google Scholar]
  34. . In review. The word as a unit of internal predictability.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Matthews, P. H.
    1991Morphology, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166485
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166485 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2002 What can we conclude?InRobert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 266–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mattissen, Johanna
    2004 A structural typology of polysynthesis. Word55(2). 189–216. 10.1080/00437956.2004.11432546
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2004.11432546 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mugdan, Joachim
    1993 Morphological units. InRobert E. Asher & James M. Y. Simpson (eds.) (ed.) The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2543–2553. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Osborne, Timothy
    2015 Diagnostics for constituents: Dependency, constituency, and the status of function words. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics, Uppsala, SwedenAugust24–26 2005 251–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2018 Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure. Language Under Discussion5(1). 1–41. 10.31885/lud.5.1.223
    https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.5.1.223 [Google Scholar]
  41. Peperkamp, Sharon
    1996 On the prosodic representation of clitics. InUrsula Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in linguistic theory, 104–128. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Post, Mark W.
    2009 The phonology and grammar of Galo “words”: A case study of benign disunity. Studies in Language34(4). 931–971. 10.1075/sl.33.4.05pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.4.05pos [Google Scholar]
  43. Prost, Gilbert
    1960Fonemas de la lengua chacobo (Notas Notas lingüísticas de Bolivia; no. 2). La Paz, Bolivia: Publicaciones del Instituto Lingüístico de Verano en colaboración con el Ministerio de Asuntos Campesinos.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1962 Signaling of transitive and intransitive in Chacobo (Pano). International Journal of American Linguistics28. 108–118. 10.1086/464678
    https://doi.org/10.1086/464678 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1967 Chacobo. InEsther Matteson (ed.), Bolivian Indian Grammars, vol.1, 285–359. Summer Institute of Linguistics International Publications in Linguistics 16.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rice, Karen
    2011 Principles of affix ordering: An overview. Word Structure4(2). 169–200. 10.3366/word.2011.0009
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2011.0009 [Google Scholar]
  47. Scheer, Tobias
    2011A guide to morphosyntax-Phonology interface theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel & Kristine A. Hildebrandt
    2010 The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics46(03). 657–709. 10.1017/S0022226710000216
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226710000216 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel, & Kristine Hildebrandt
    2012 Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in Prosodic Typology. STUF65. 157–168. 10.1524/stuf.2012.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2012.0010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tallman, Adam J. R. & Tammi Stout
    2018 Tense and temporal remoteness in Chácobo (Pano). Megan Keough, Natalie Weber, Andrei Anghelescu, Sihwei Chen, Erin Guntly, Khia Johnson, Daniel Reisinger & Oksana Tkachman (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas21, 210–224. Montreal: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics 46.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tallman, Adam J. R. & Sandra Auderset
    . Submitted. Measuring and assessing indeterminacy and variation in the morphology-syntax distinction. Rik van Gijn & Roberto Zariquiey eds. For a special volume inLinguistic Typologyon morphosyntactic misfits.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tallman, Adam J. R.
    2017 A metrical analysis of nouns in Chácobo (Pano). Amerindia: Estudios sincrónicos y diacrónicos sobre lenguas Pano y Takana39(1). 105–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2018a A grammar of Chácobo, a southern Pano language of the northern Bolivian Amazon. Austin: University of Texas at AustinPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2018b There are no special clitics in Chácobo (Pano). Natalie Webber (ed.), Workshop on the Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas21, 194–209. Vancouver: University of British ColombiaWorking Papers in Linguistics 26.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2018c Documentaiton of Chácobo-Pacahuara, southern Panoan languages of the northern Bolivian Amazon. Endangered Languages Archive at SOAS University of London, available at: https://elar.soas.ac.uk/Collection/MPI485795 (last access27 June 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2020 Beyond grammatical and phonological words. Language and Linguistics Compass, available at: doi:  10.1111/lnc3.12364 (last access30 June 2020).
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12364 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tallman, Adam J. R. & Elias-Ulloa, José Alberto
    2020 The acoustic correlates of stress and tone in Chácobo (Pano): A production study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America147. 3028–3042. 10.1121/10.0001014
    https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001014 [Google Scholar]
  58. Tallman, Adam J. R. & Patience Epps
    2020 Morphological complexity, autonomy, and areality in Amazonia. InGardani Francesco & Peter Arkadiev (eds.), Morphological complexities, 230–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198861287.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198861287.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tallman, Adam J. R. & Tammi Stout
    2016 The perfect in Chácobo in cross-linguistic perspective. InThuy Bui & Rudmila-Rodica Ivan (eds.), SULA 9: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas, 197–212. Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tallman, Adam J. R., Eric W. Campbell, Hiroto Uchihara, Ambrocio Guttierrez, Dennis Wylie, Eric Adell, Natalia Bermudez, Gladys Camacho-Rios, Javier Carol, Patience Epps, Michael Everdell, Cristian R. Juárez, Willem de Reuse, Kelsey Neely, Andrés Pablo Salanova, Anthony C. Woodbury, Magdalena Lemus, Denis Bertet
    . A new typology of constituency and convergence. 13th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology. Pavia (Italy), 4–6 September 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Valenzuela, Pilar M.
    2005 Participant agreement in Panoan. InNikolaus P. Himmelmann & Eva F. Schultze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification, 259–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  62. Valenzuela, Pilar M. & Oliver Iggesen
    2007 El desarrollo de un marcador suprasegmental en chácobo (pano). InRomero-Figueroa, Andres and Fernández-Garay, Ana and Ángel Corbera Mori (eds.), Lenguas indígenas de América del Sur: Estudios descriptivo-tipológicos y sus contribuciones para la lingüística teórica, 187–199. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andres Bello.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Woodbury, Anthony C.
    2002 “The word in Cup'ik." In Word: A cross-linguistic typology, edited byR. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 79–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2011 Atkan Aleut “unclitic” pronouns and definiteness: A multimodular analysis. InEstuyo Yuasa, Titsa Bagchi & Katharine Beals (eds.), Pragmatics and autolexical grammar. In honor ofJerry Sadock. 125–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.176.08woo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.176.08woo [Google Scholar]
  65. Zingg, Philippe
    1998Diccionario chácobo-castellano, castellano-chácobo con bosquejo de la gramática chacobo y con apuntes culturales. La Paz: Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificación Viceministro de Asuntos Indígenas y Pueblos Originarios.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constituency; morphosyntax; phonology; simulations; syntax; wordhood
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error