<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Martin,</p>
<p>I am not familiar with this distinction/generalization. As far as
I know, there is a difference between "stress-neutral" and
"stress-shifting" suffixes in Germanic languages (we discuss that
in König/Gast 2018, Ch. 3). Some suffixes are just added to their
bases and form a phonological domain of their own, e.g.
"likeli-hood", "partner-ship", "Wahrscheinlich-keit",
"Ungereimt-heit". They are sometimes just analysed as phonological
words (and they are typically of Germanic origin). Other suffixes
either attract stress ("defizit-är", "Stabil-ität") or are
integrated into the phonological domain of the host ("solid-ify",
"solid-ity"), leading to "regular" stress assignment (to the
extent that this exists in English). They typically seem to be of
Latinate origin.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There may be a certain correlation between the segmental form of
a suffix and its phonological behaviour; all the German
stress-shifting suffixes that we list in our chapter start with a
vowel. But English also has "-s", for instance ("semantics"; well,
perhaps that was originally a plural). Stress-neutral suffixes
often, but not necessarily, start with a consonant
("Ungereimt-heit", "likeli-hood" but also "Lobpreis-ung",
"apprais-al"). There is probably a connection between the presence
of a vowel, which facilitates integration/resyllabification, and
phonological integration; but I don't think that the rule can be
formulated in terms of the opposition between vowels and
consonants. (And I'm not aware of a different treatment for '-ig'
and '-lich'). But perhaps you have a different notion of
integration in mind? (Btw I think Nanna Fuhrhop has worked on
this.)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best,<br>
Volker<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27.08.2020 11:44, Martin Haspelmath
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:04189af4-6084-5700-1e02-486bdcf76d06@shh.mpg.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Interestingly, the phenomenon described by Hiroto Uchihara occurs
in German: vowel-initial suffixes (e.g. -ig) are typically
described as "integrated in the prosodic word", while
consonant-initial suffixes are described as "non-integrated". For
example:<br>
<br>
<i>Farbe</i> 'colour'<br>
<i>farb-ig</i> 'colourful' (resyllabified)<br>
<i>farb-lich</i> 'colour-related' (with devoicing: [farp-lɪɕ])<br>
<br>
If by "integration" we mean syllabification, then this makes very
good sense, of course. But by "prosodic word", many authors mean a
more important domain – one that is potentially relevant to a
range of different phenomena (e.g. stress, assimilation, ...).<br>
<br>
The trouble is that different prosodic word criteria do not always
give the same results (see Schiering et al. 2010: "The prosodic
word is not universal, but emergent"). So testing such claims is
very difficult.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that in addition to the prosodic structure, it is
simple length (in terms of number of segments) that plays a role:
Longer forms have a greater tendency to remain independent, while
shorter forms have a greater tendency to "attach" to a host in
some way.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.08.20 um 04:13 schrieb Tim
Zingler:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CY4PR07MB35766906118CC3F427EF58C0C7550@CY4PR07MB3576.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica">Hi,</p>
<p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica;
min-height: 22px"><br>
</p>
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica">my
dissertation looks at wordhood (or rather, the problems with
it) cross-linguistically, and the facts you report are among
the kind of phenomena that I was looking for in grammars. My
sample contains 60 unrelated languages, but I do not recall
a single grammar discussing such an issue at any length. So,
I would venture to say that they are not commonly reported,
although I should also highlight that theoretical approaches
to prosodic wordhood will cite sporadic examples of this
kind. (The dissertation should be done later this fall. I
would be happy to send out the final version).</p>
<p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica;
min-height: 22px"><br>
</p>
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica">More
generally, to the extent that the situation you describe
falls within the domain of syllabification, that is a
phenomenon that gets surprisingly little attention as an
indicator of wordhood, both in grammars and in theoretical
works.</p>
<p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica;
min-height: 22px"><br>
</p>
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica">Best,</p>
<p class="p2" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica;
min-height: 22px"><br>
</p>
<p class="p1" style="margin: 0px; font: 18px Helvetica">Tim</p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;
font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)"> <br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
Lingtyp <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a>
on behalf of Hiroto Uchihara <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:uchihara@buffalo.edu"
moz-do-not-send="true"><uchihara@buffalo.edu></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 26, 2020 6:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Linguistic Typology <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Lingtyp] Integration of postposed
vowel-initial vs consonant-initial morphemes</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="line-height:12.0pt;
background:#FF6666"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
color:white"> [EXTERNAL]</span></b></p>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm aware of the asymmetry between the preposed
and postposed morphemes in terms of their
integration into the prosodic constituent with the
stem (Himmelman 2014; Asao 2015), but is anyone
aware of the difference in the level of integration
between the vowel-initial vs consonant-initial
postposed morphemes (suffixes or enclitics)? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have been observing that this might be the case
in a couple of languages, including Teotitlán
Zapotec and Alcozauca Mixtec. For instance in
Teotitlán Zapotec, vowel-initial enclitics are
clearly within the domain of syllabification, while
consonant-initial enclitics are not. In Alcozauca
Mixtec, it might be the case that vowel-initial
enclitics are incorporated into the prosodic word,
while consonant-initial enclitics are not. Is this
something commonly reported in the literature?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would appreciate any insights.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Hiroto</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:rgb(0,112,192)">Asao, Yoshihiko. 2015. <i>Left-Right
Asymmetries in Words: A Processing-Based Account</i>.
Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY Buffalo</span> </div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192);
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-size:10.5pt">Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2014.
Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function
words: Another look at the suffixing preference. </span><i
style="color:rgb(0,112,192);
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-size:10.5pt">Language</i><span
style="color:rgb(0,112,192);
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-size:10.5pt"> 90(4). 927–960.</span> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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 Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
&
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>
</body>
</html>