<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Nobody has reported an authoritative source for "phonologically
bound", so I will continue to assume that "bound" is best restricted
to the Bloomfield-Zwicky sense.<br>
<br>
Adam Tallman is quite right to point out that the idea of
phonological attachment is often linked to the idea of rule domains,
specifically prosodic rules.<br>
<br>
To give a concrete example, English "-ity" can be said to be
attached (e.g. in "normal-ity") in the sense that it affects the
stress placement – it is part of the same stress domain.<br>
<br>
By contrast, English "ness" (e.g. in "normal-ness") does not affect
stress, but it also doesn't have its own stress, and hence needs to
be attached to a non-deficient element.<br>
<br>
If one thinks like this, then only forms that do not share any
phonological domains with neighbouring forms would be phonologically
unattached – and if one includes intonational domains, then hardly
anything will be left that is not attached. And as Adam notes, there
are often multiple domains that overlap at most partially, so it is
not possible to define a single coherent "prosodic word" (or
"phonological word/phrase") for each language.<br>
<br>
This is why my new term "welded" does not make reference to prosodic
domains, but only considers segmental variability and local
conditioning. (Of course, there will be multiple subtypes.)<br>
<br>
It seems to me that this notion of weldedness goes at least some way
toward capturing the old vague idea that some affixes are more
"fused" than others. English and Turkish affixes are clearly more
welded overall than Chinese affixes.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23.01.19 14:15, Adam James Ross
Tallman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK0T6Oj4XqEVkQ_ay-VaTLviwaYFg-+bi1PJO8VQkDA83O0LnQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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”:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(1) <span> </span>a.<span>
</span>The dog went through the fence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span>
</span>The dog went through.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>c.<span>
</span>The cat jumped from the table.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>d.<span>
</span>*The cat jumped from.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(2)<span> </span>a.<span>
</span>I saw Kim’s bike.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span>
</span>I saw Kim’s.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>c.<span>
</span>She found my umbrella.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>d.<span>
</span>*She found my.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(3)<span> </span>a.<span>
</span>We like those caps.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span>
</span>We like those.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>c.<span>
</span>He bought the cap.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>d.<span>
</span>*He bought the. (‘He bought it.’)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(4)<span> </span>a.<span>
</span>my pear / my apple</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span>
</span>a pear / an apple</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(5)<span> </span>a.<span>
</span>German<span> </span>film-te<span> </span>/
golf-te</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span>
</span>English<span> </span>film-ed [-d] /
golf-ed [-t]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(6)<span> </span>a.<span>
</span>good / good-ness</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span>b.<span>
</span>mortal [-əl] / mortal-ity [-æl-iti]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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]).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-1626646572945340159moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de">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>
</body>
</html>