<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear colleagues,</p>
<p>The tone system of the Cameroonian Bantu language Eton may be
useful for illustrating the usefulness of distinguishing between
what Martin calls "bound" versus "welded" (if I understood it
correctly), and to show that the definition of welded form should
better not be restricted to *segmental* phonological interaction.</p>
<p>Eton has a rule that copies high tones. The copied high tone
subsequently attaches to its right according to a set of rules
that take into account the type of morphological boundary the tone
has to cross. (The prosodic status of the syllable to which it
attaches plays a role as well, which is not relevant here.) <br>
</p>
<p>Three types of boundary have to be distinguished: a strong (word)
boundary, a weak (affix) boundary and an intermediate boundary
that I called "clitic" due to its intermediate status. A high tone
that crosses a weak or intermediate boundary deletes any following
low tone, and then further spreads (if it crossed an affix
boundary) or stays put (if it crossed a clitic boundary). A high
tone that crosses a strong boundary delinks a following low, which
becomes floating. Therefore, we need three degrees of "welding" in
an analysis of Eton tonology. <br>
</p>
<p>These three degrees are defined by tone rules, but they
correspond to typical morphological distinctions. The
identification of the strong boundary as a word boundary and that
of the weak boundary as an affix boundary are unproblematic. The
intermediate boundary is found between a genitive marker and a
noun. Genitive markers are generally phrasal affixes with an
intermediate degree of welding in the Bantu languages, so "clitic"
seems right here too.<br>
</p>
<p>Crucially, high tone forms - linguistic forms that lack a
segmental shape and consist of a high tone only - come in three
types according to the way in which they attach to the right. By
analogy and for descriptive ease, I called them tonal affix, tonal
clitic and tonal word. Clearly, all of these are clear examples of
bound forms, but they show three different degrees of welding. In
the following examples H stands for a floating high tone, # is a
word boundary, = a clitic boundary and - an affix boundary, ꜜ
downstep (caused by a floating low tone in between high tones).<br>
</p>
<p>ɛ̀-ʤɔ̀ŋ 'clan', ɛ̀-ʤɔ́ŋ 'hole', H# LOCATIVE, H= GENITIVE, H-
CONSTRUCT FORM</p>
<p>H# ɛ̀-ʤɔ̀ŋ --> ɛ́ʤɔ̀ŋ 'in the clan', H# ɛ̀-ʤɔ́ŋ -->
ɛ́ꜜʤɔ́ŋ 'in the hole'<br>
</p>
<p>H= ɛ̀-ʤɔ̀ŋ --> ɛ́ʤɔ̀ŋ 'of the clan', H= ɛ̀-ʤɔ́ŋ --> ɛ́ʤɔ́ŋ
'of the hole'</p>
<p>H-ɛ̀-ʤɔ̀ŋ di̋ --> ɛ́ʤɔ̂ŋ dí 'this clan', H= ɛ̀-ʤɔ́ŋ di̋
--> ɛ́ʤɔ́ŋ dî 'this hole'</p>
<p>(For more details: Van de Velde, Mark (2008) <i>A Grammar of
Eton.</i> Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p 52-59)<br>
</p>
<p>If I understood Martin right, welding is relative, gradual, and
language/construction/domain specific, whereas bounding is
discreet and crosslinguistically definable.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Mark</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/01/2019 11:56, Martin Haspelmath
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:5C4AEB4C.70607@shh.mpg.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
On 25.01.19 11:29, Sebastian Nordhoff wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07babd3d-f886-a256-6ae3-61292b9af633@glottotopia.de"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 1/25/19 10:27 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">*a welded form is one that shows segmental phonological interaction *with its neighbour.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I can't help wondering whether "phonologically conditioned allomorphy"
would not be an existing concept which has identical properties to the
concept of "welding":
- there are two or more forms to choose from
- the choice of form depends on the shape of the "neighbour"
Best wishes
Sebastian</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, a welded bound form would always exhibit "phonologically
conditioned allomorphy", but the latter notion is much broader and
not well-defined. For one thing, the "allomorph" concept depends
on the "morpheme" concept, on which there is no agreement, and
much confusion. For example, are German <i>-er</i> and <i>-en</i>
allomorphs of a single {PL} morpheme? Are English <i>-ness</i>
and <i>-ity</i> allomorphs of a single {ABSTR.NOUN} morpheme? Are
French <i>tomb(-er)</i> 'fall' and <i>chute</i> 'fall'
allomorphs of a single {FALL} morpheme?<br>
<br>
If one includes such suppletive alternants under "allomorphy" (as
almost everyone does), then one also has phonologically
conditioned allomorphs that are not welded forms according to the
proposed definition (because these must be variants of the same
form) (cf. Carstairs 1988 on "phonologically conditioned
suppletion").<br>
<br>
For example, Dutch has the plural forms <i>-s</i> and <i>-en</i>,
which are distributed according to phonological conditions, and
the division of labour between the English suffixes <i>-ize</i>
and <i>-ify</i> (<i>computer-ize, French-ify</i>) is also more
phonological than anything else, it seems. There is no weldedness
in Dutch <i>-s</i> or English <i>-ize</i>.<br>
<br>
I find the notions of "form" and "form variant" (= a form with a
somewhat different shape due to a phonetically natural sound
alternation) much more viable than the traditional "morpheme" and
"allomorph" notions (the confusion of "morpheme" has not improved
since Mugdan's (1986) paper, where he traced the diverse uses of
this term since the 1880s).<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07babd3d-f886-a256-6ae3-61292b9af633@glottotopia.de"
type="cite"> </blockquote>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:haspelmath@shh.mpg.de" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Van de Velde
director of LLACAN (CNRS - Inalco), Paris
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/pers/vandevelde/">http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/pers/vandevelde/</a>
Please note my new address: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.vandevelde@cnrs.fr">mark.vandevelde@cnrs.fr</a></pre>
</body>
</html>