<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Hey Martin,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">The problem is that the term "phonologically bound" is used in at least two senses often without clarification (although one can tell when data are provided).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">i. An element that does not have a stress (or is impoverished in some other phonological way)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">ii. An element that is inside a domain where some syntagmatically circumscribed (defined over a subspan of the syntactic positions of the whole sentence) phonological process (or change of form in general) applies.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">The problem is that there are often *multiple* (non-overlapping) domains where phonological processes occur and it is sometimes not clear which one the descriptive linguist means (this is why I always read the morphophonology section multiple times when I read a grammar). </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">What's worse, notice that (i) and (ii) can refer to almost opposite facts depending on how stress operates in a language. A "clitic" that *never* receives stress can be called phonologically bound according to (i), and a clitic that might, sometimes, typically or even always receive stress because it integrates into a stress domain can be phonologically bound according to (ii). And then what do we make of these clitics that *sometimes* project their own stress domains and sometimes not (see Daniel Valle's grammar of Kakataibo for instance and Aikhenvald 2002). And then of course, we are only talking about stress here. What happens when the clitic integrates with one domain and not another (e.g. stress domain but not a tone sandhi domain or vice versa)? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">How/why has this terminological versatility (or "confusion", if you want) arisen? I am not in a position to provide a detailed history of the problem, but my *hunch* is that it relates to the way "simple clitics" started to be understood in prosodic phonology (I'd be interested to know if the problem goes back further as usual!?). In theories of prosodic phonology that discuss the postlexical integration of clitics a number of different types of prosodic integration are posited (see Peperkamp 1997, inter alia) (incorporation to a PwD, adjunction to a PWd, incorporation/adjunction to PPh, etc...). Morphemes need to integrate into prosodic structure to be realized, but essentially anything that is <b><i>not understood as projecting its own prosodic domain</i></b> can be understood as phonologically bound if it is pronounced at all (at least in Anderson's 2005 formulation as I understand it). Often descriptive linguists (through citation) pay homage to the generative literature with their use of the term "phonologically bound", without realizing the empirical consequences of how it is defined in the models (which can make it seem like a waste basket term to me). That's my impression, but the field of syntax-phonology interfacing or morphology-phonology interaction is so incredibly vast (see Scheer's 2010 epic 847 page book on the topic), I can only call it a hunch.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">I like your term "welded" to be honest (integrated into domain X might be more in line with current usage). BUT I think your going to have to recognize a huge number of subtypes of welding depending on *which* segmental process the morpheme or whatever is subject to. I'm worried this problem might end up making the term obsolete eventually, even if its somewhat more clear than "phonologically bound".</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">best,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130">Adam </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:#4c1130"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:43 PM Martin Haspelmath <<a href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear typologists,<br>
<br>
In the discussion of words, affixes, and polysynthesis, the notion
of forms being "bound" occurs again and again, and in the discussion
of agglutination, people often talk about complex words being
"fused" (or not fused). In order to make headway, I feel that we as
linguists should make clear how we use terms like "attached",
"bound", and "fused".<br>
<br>
In my own work, I have been using the term "bound" in the
well-established Bloomfield-Zwicky sense (= unable to occur in
isolation), but some people have relied on a notion of
"phonologically bound" in discussions of wordhood. I think it's
better not to use "bound" in two different senses, so I would like
to propose the new term "welded" for the phonological sense. In the
short text below, I define (and discuss the relation between) the
terms "bound" and "welded".<br>
<br>
Since I don't know the literature on phonological wordhood (since
Roussel 1922) as well as some others on this list evidently know it,
my specific question is: Is there a prominent place in the
literature where the notion "phonologically bound" has been
introduced or defined? (If so, I may rethink my terminological
proposals.) <br>
<br>
The general question is: Are there better alternatives to what I am
proposing?<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
************************************<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Bound
forms and welded forms: Two basic concepts of grammar<br>
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(possible future blogpost)</b><br>
<b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Linguists often try to
characterize affixes
in terms of a notion of “<b>boundness</b>”,
as
in this passage of the Wikipedia article “affix”:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:21.3pt"><i><span lang="EN-US">Lexical
affixes</span></i><span lang="EN-US">
are bound elements that appear as
affixes, but function as </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporated_noun" title="Incorporated noun" target="_blank"><span>incorporated
nouns</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US">
within verbs</span><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">But what exactly is meant by
“bound”? Is it
just a synonym of “attached” (as in Wikipedia’s definition of
affix: </span><span lang="EN-US">“an <span>affix</span> is
a </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme" title="Morpheme" target="_blank"><span>morpheme</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"> that is attached to a
word </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_%28linguistics%29" title="Stem (linguistics)" target="_blank"><span>stem</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US">
to form a new word or word form”), and are both terms just
informal ways of
saying that an affix <b>occurs
together</b>
with a stem?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">But
if so, what is the difference
between an affix occurring together with a stem, and <b>a verb occurring together with an object nominal</b>?
Linguists don’t
normally say that objects are bound to their verbs, but in what
sense is an
affix bound but an object nominal is not bound?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This
seems like a very basic question,
but linguists do not have consistent answers to this question.
The first answer
they give often involves the notion of <b>“word”</b>,
but linguists have not found a general way of identifying words
across
languages (as I noted in a 2011 article). If at all, words can
be characterized
in terms of a more basic concept such as “bound”, it seems, not
the other way
round.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So
here I would like to make a proposal
how to use the term <b>“bound”,</b>
which
also involves the introduction of a new term <b>“welded”</b>. Basically, I propose that <b>a bound form is one that cannot occur in isolation, </b>while
<b>a welded form is one that
shows segmental
phonological interaction </b>with its neighbour.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For
example, the English preposition <i>from</i>, the possessive
pronoun <i>my</i>, and the
definite article <i>the</i>
are bound forms. Consider the
following contrasts:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(1)
<span> </span>a.<span> </span>The dog went through
the fence.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span> </span>The dog went through.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>c.<span> </span>The cat jumped from
the table.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>d.<span> </span>*The cat jumped from.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(2)<span> </span>a.<span> </span>I saw Kim’s bike.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span> </span>I saw Kim’s.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>c.<span> </span>She found my
umbrella.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>d.<span> </span>*She found my.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(3)<span> </span>a.<span> </span>We like those caps.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span> </span>We like those.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>c.<span> </span>He bought the cap.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>d.<span> </span>*He bought the. (‘He
bought it.’)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Of
course, most forms that are written
as affixes are also bound, but as the examples (1)-(3) show, not
all forms that
are written separately are <b>free</b> in
the sense that they can occur on their own.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This
meaning of the term <i>bound</i>
goes back to Bloomfield (1933),
and it has become particularly well-known through Arnold
Zwicky’s work on
clitics. Zwicky’s famous (1977) paper distinguishes three
classes of elements:
simple clitics, special clitics, and <b>bound
words</b>. The most widely cited paper that proposes criteria
for
distinguishing between clitics and affxes, Zwicky & Pullum
(1983), begins
as follows:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">“Two
types of bound morphemes are found attached to (free) words in
many languages:
clitics and affixes”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Affixes
are always thought of as parts of words, while clitics are
generally thought of
as words. Thus, the notion of boundness cross-cuts the
distinction between
words and parts of words. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In the
discussions about wordhood that I often have with fellow
grammarians, they
often mention <b>phonological
interaction</b>:
Some elements interact phonologically with their neighbours,
while others
don’t. Some contrasts are given in (4)-(6). I propose to say
that the forms in
(b) are <b>welded</b>,
while those in (a)
are not.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(4)<span> </span>a.<span> </span>my
pear / my apple<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span> </span>a
pear / an apple<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(5)<span> </span>a.<span> </span>German<span> </span>film-te<span> </span>/ golf-te<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span> </span>English<span> </span>film-ed [-d] /
golf-ed [-t]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(6)<span> </span>a.<span> </span>good
/ good-ness<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span> </span>mortal
[-əl] / mortal-ity [-æl-iti]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In
(4)-(5), we see that some (but not all) of the bound forms have
different
phonological variants depending on phonological properties of
their host, and
in (6b), we see that the host can have different phonological
variants depending
on whether it combines with a bound form or not. A bound form is
<b>welded</b> to its host if it shows different variants
depending on the shape of the host or if the host shows
different variants depending on the shape of the bound form.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So
clearly, <b>boundness</b>
and <b>weldedness</b> are
different properties of
linguistic form: A form may be bound but not welded (e.g.
English <i>my</i>, -<i>ness</i>,
German -<i>te</i>), or a form
may be both
bound and welded (e.g. English <i>a/an</i>,
-<i>ed</i> [-t/-d]).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Can a
form be <b>welded but not
bound</b>? No,
this is excluded by definition: If a form can be used both on
its own and in combination
with a bound form, and if it has a different shape when combined
with the bound
form, then we do not say that the form as such is welded. For
example, the
English verb <i>write</i>
can be used on its
own (e.g. as an imperative), and when the agent noun suffix <i>-er</i> is added, it may
have a different
shape (with flapped <i>r</i>):
<i>wri</i>[ɾ]-<i>er</i>. Thus, -<i>er</i>
is a welded
form, but we would not want to say that <i>write</i>
is a welded form.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Some
linguists use a different term for what I am calling “welded”
here:
“phonologically bound”. This seems to occur fairly frequently,
but unlike the
use of “bound” in the sense “free-standing”, it does not seem to
have a clear
pedigree.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-1626646572945340159moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="gmail-m_-1626646572945340159moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@shh.mpg.de</a>)
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10
D-07745 Jena
&
Leipzig University
Institut fuer Anglistik
IPF 141199
D-04081 Leipzig
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="monospace, monospace">Adam J.R. Tallman</font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Investigador del Museo de Etnografía y Folklore, la Paz<br></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">PhD, UT Austin</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>