The Clitic-Affix Distinction, Historical Change, and Scandinavian Bound Definiteness Marking

Abstract

In the literature on grammaticalization, it is generally assumed that there are two categories of bound elements, clitics and affixes, and that a development from the former to the latter is an example of grammaticalization. Frequently, this development in form is assumed to be associated with a change in function. In this paper, we argue that a simple dichotomy between clitic and affix does not do justice to the variation found between bound elements, nor to the changes they undergo over time. We also argue that changes in form are not always accompanied by a change in function. We illustrate our discussion with the history and current distribution of definiteness marking in Scandinavian.

The Diachrony of Definiteness in North Germanic

“…The formal development from a free lexeme to an enclitic and later to a suffix (for a debate on the status of -IN in modern North Germanic languages see Faarlund 2007, Stark et al 2007, Börjars and Harries 2008 required the postposition of the demonstrative pronoun with respect to the noun. Two hypotheses have been put forward concerning the exact circumstances.…”

Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features

“…The syntactic analysis of postposed definite articles is contested: authors such asFaarlund (2009) have argued that the definiteness markers have become affixes, but others point out that their status does not necessarily preclude clitic-like phonological behaviour (e.g.,Lahiri et al 2005b;Börjars and Harries 2008). It might be worth noting that many of the arguments for affixhood hinge on so-called 'double definiteness' (the concurrent presence of a preposed definiteness marker and the bound article in certain constructions), which is not generally characteristic of Danish.…”