You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N'T
Arnold M. Zwicky and Geoffrey K. Pullum
Vol. 59, No. 3 (Sep., 1983), pp. 502-513
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413900
Page Count: 12
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Two types of bound morphemes-clitics and inflectional affixes-are found attached to (free) words in many languages. At least six lines of evidence separate the clear cases on each side: the degree of selection between the dependent morpheme and the word to which it is attached; arbitrary lexical gaps; phonological idiosyncrasies; semantic idiosyncrasies; syntactic operations affecting the combinations; and restrictions on the combinability of clitics with inflectional affixes. These criteria all indicate that English contracted auxiliaries (She's gone) are clitics, but that the English contracted negative (She hasn't gone) is an inflectional affix-a rather surprising conclusion that turns out to have satisfying consequences.
Language © 1983 Linguistic Society of America