Copies versus Cognates in Bound

Morphology 1st Edition Johanson Lars

Martine Robbeets
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/copies-versus-cognates-in-bound-morphology-1st-edit
ion-johanson-lars-martine-robbeets/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Evolution and Development of Fishes 1st Edition Zerina

Johanson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/evolution-and-development-of-
fishes-1st-edition-zerina-johanson/

Fodor s Essential Chile 8th Edition Mark Johanson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/fodor-s-essential-chile-8th-
edition-mark-johanson/

Clinical Cases in Augmentative and Alternative

Communication Martine M. Smith

https://ebookmeta.com/product/clinical-cases-in-augmentative-and-
alternative-communication-martine-m-smith/

Bound In Cabo 1st Edition Dana Isaly

https://ebookmeta.com/product/bound-in-cabo-1st-edition-dana-
isaly/
Microsoft Azure in Action (MEAP V06) Lars Klint

https://ebookmeta.com/product/microsoft-azure-in-action-
meap-v06-lars-klint/

Introducing Morphology 3rd Edition Rochelle Lieber

https://ebookmeta.com/product/introducing-morphology-3rd-edition-
rochelle-lieber/

Everyday Life In The Culture Of Surveillance 1st

Edition Lars Samuelsson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/everyday-life-in-the-culture-of-
surveillance-1st-edition-lars-samuelsson/

What is This 1st Edition Martine Batchelor Stephen

Batchelor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/what-is-this-1st-edition-martine-
batchelor-stephen-batchelor/

Justice Versus Judiciary Justice Enthroned or Entangled

in India Sudhanshu Ranjan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/justice-versus-judiciary-justice-
enthroned-or-entangled-in-india-sudhanshu-ranjan/
Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology
 Brill’s Studies in
Language, Cognition
and Culture
Series Editors
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
Cairns Institute, James Cook University

R. M. W. Dixon
Cairns Institute, James Cook University

N. J. Enfield
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen

VOLUME 2

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/bslc

Copies versus Cognates in
Bound Morphology

Edited By
Lars Johanson
University of Mainz

Martine Robbeets
University of Mainz

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2012
Cover illustration: Marc Vervoort.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copies versus cognates in bound morphology / edited by Lars Johanson, Martine Robbeets.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-22407-0 (alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-23047-7 (e-book : alk. paper)
1. Comparative linguistics. 2. Cognate words. 3. Areal linguistics. 4. Linguistic universals.
5. Languages in contact. 6. Language spread. 7. Grammar, Comparative and general—Suffixes and
prefixes. 8. Grammar, Comparative and general—Morphology. I. Johanson, Lars, 1936– II. Robbeets,
Martine Irma.

P143.C665 2012
410—dc23
2012018952

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.nl/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1897-5412
ISBN 978 90 04 22407 0 (hardback)
ISBN 978 90 04 23047 7 (e-book)

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

 contents

Preface . ............................................................................................................... ix
About the Contributors ................................................................................. xi

Part One
Theoretical and typological issues

1. Bound morphology in common: copy or cognate? ........................ 3

Lars Johanson and Martine Robbeets

2. Non-borrowed non-cognate parallels in bound morphology:

Aspects of the phenomenon of shared drift with Eurasian
examples ...................................................................................................... 23
Juha Janhunen

3. Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia . ..................................... 47

Johanna Nichols

4. Plural across inflection and derivation, fusion and

agglutination ............................................................................................... 71
Francesco Gardani

5. Bound morphology in English (and beyond): copy or

cognate? ....................................................................................................... 99
Anthony Grant

6. Copiability of (bound) morphology . ................................................... 123

Ad Backus and Anna Verschik

7. A variationist solution to apparent copying across related

languages . .................................................................................................... 151
Brian D. Joseph
vi contents

Part Two
Case Studies: America

8. ‘Invisible’ loans: How to borrow a bound form . ............................. 167

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

9. Constraints on morphological borrowing: Evidence from Latin

America . ...................................................................................................... 187
Dik Bakker and Ewald Hekking

10. Morphological borrowing in Sierra Popoluca ................................. 221

Salomé Gutiérrez-Morales

11. Cognates versus copies in North America: New light on the

old discussion on diffusion versus inheritance ............................... 233
Peter Bakker

Eurasia

12. On the degree of copiability of derivational and inflectional

morphology: Evidence from Basque . ................................................. 259
Stig Eliasson

13. Between copy and cognate: the origin of absolutes in Old

and Middle English .................................................................................. 297
Nikki van de Pol

14. Copying and cognates in the Balkan Sprachbund ......................... 323

Victor A. Friedman

15. Transfer of morphemes and grammatical structure in Ancient

Anatolia ....................................................................................................... 337
Folke Josephson

16. The historical background of the transfer of a Kurdish bound

morpheme to Neo-Aramaic .................................................................. 355
Judith Josephson
 contents vii

17. On the sustainability of inflectional morphology .......................... 371

Éva Á. Csató

18. Foreign and indigenous properties in the vocabulary of Eynu,

a secret language spoken in the south of Taklamakan ................ 381
Tooru Hayasi

19. Deriving insights about Tungusic classification from

derivational morphology . ...................................................................... 395
Lindsay Whaley

20. The likelihood of morphological borrowing: The case of

Korean and Japanese . ............................................................................. 411
J. Marshall Unger

21. Shared verb morphology in the Transeurasian languages: copy

or cognate? ................................................................................................ 427
Martine Robbeets

Language Index ................................................................................................ 447

Subject Index .................................................................................................... 453
 PREFACE

This volume deals with copies and cognates in bound morphology. Start-
ing from the observation of two or more languages that have bound mor-
phology in common, it searches for the historical causes that have given
rise to these shared properties. Among the historical causes are either
inheritance, which creates a residue of morphological similarities in
daughter languages after their separation from an ancestral language, or
contact, which leads to the copying of a bound morpheme from a model
language into a basic language. Cognates are morphemes that are related
by reason of inheritance from a common ancestral form, whereas copies
are replicated foreign morphemes.
As a result of the difference in the ease of linguistic borrowing between
grammar and lexicon and between bound and free morphemes, bound
morphology is held to be one of the most fruitful parts of language struc-
ture when it comes to the distinction between copies and cognates.
Unfortunately, however, it is also a much abused part of language struc-
ture. Current views range from the extreme, on the one hand, that nearly
all correlations in bound morphology are the result of inheritance, to the
overstatement on the other, that all otherwise unexplained morphological
correspondences are due to foreign influence.
The goal of this volume is to put internal and external explanation
for shared morphology in a balanced perspective and to work out crite-
ria to distinguish between morphological cognates and copies. In search
of solutions for the copy-cognate question, attention will be paid to the
constraints, the manifestation and the motivation of code-copying as
opposed to inheritance. The approaches taken by the contributors are
either theoretical, comparing borrowing patterns with genealogical pat-
terns in a cross-linguistic sample of languages, or experimental, illustrat-
ing the copy-cognate distinction in a particular group of languages.
The inspiration to create this volume came from a three-day workshop
titled “Bound morphology in common: copy or cognate?” convened by the
editors within the framework of the 43rd meeting of The Societas Linguis-
tica Europaea in Vilnius from September 2 to 5, 2010. This meeting built
on the marriage of contact linguistics and genealogical linguistics, the edi-
tors’ areas of interest which are largely complementary: Johanson’s work
on code-copying takes a ‘critical diffusionist’ approach, stressing that not
every look-alike is necessarily a copy, whereas Robbeets, in her research
x preface

on genealogical relationship, starts from a ‘critical retentionist’ position,

careful not to attribute every look-alike to inheritance. As historical lin-
guists, the editors do not only share a common interest, that is to search
for an explanation of shared properties across language areas and fami-
lies, but also a common obstacle, namely the distinction between copies
and cognates.
We thank Ad Backus, Dik Bakker, Peter Bakker, Walter Bisang, Bernard
Comrie, Éva Á. Csató, Lourens de Vries, Stig Eliasson, Victor A. Friedman,
Francesco Gardani, Anthony Grant, Salomé Gutiérrez-Morales, Tooru
Hayasi, Juha Janhunen, Brian Joseph, Judith Josephson, Folke Josephson,
Javier Martín Arista, Brigitte Pakendorf, Frank Seifart, Marko Simonovic,
Nikki van de Pol, Lindsay Whaley and Ruth Wester, the participants who
contributed their ideas to the workshop in Vilnius. We also thank the
authors of this volume for submitting and revising their papers and for
respecting our strict time schedule in spite of their busy agendas. Special
thanks go to Aysha Kolmer from the Seminar für Orientkunde at the Uni-
versity of Mainz for her dedicated work as an Assistant Editor. The realiza-
tion of this volume was supported by the project “Die transeurasiatischen
Sprachen: Kontakt in der Familie”, granted by the DFG (Deutsche Forsc-
hungsgemeinschaft) to support the editors’ collaborative research at the
University of Mainz and by a Return Grant from the Belgian Federal Gov-
ernment supporting Robbeets’ research at the research unit for Linguistics
at the University of Leuven.
 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald is Distinguished Professor and Research

Leader, People and Societies of the Tropics, in the Cairns Institute of
James Cook University. She is an authority on languages of the Arawak
family, from northern Amazonia, on Ndu languages of New Guinea, and
has written grammars of Bare, Warekena and Tariana. She has extensively
published on language contact and typology including evidentiality and
imperatives.
E-mail: Alexandra.Aikhenvald@jcu.edu.au

Ad Backus is Associate Professor at Tilburg University. His research

interests include Turkish, contact-induced change, codeswitching, and
Cognitive Linguistics. He has published work in which these interests are
combined. In the past he has held research fellowships from the Neth-
erlands Science Foundation and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sci-
ences.
E-mail: A.M.Backus@uvt.nl

Dik Bakker is affiliated with the linguistic research institute ACLC of the
University of Amsterdam, and with the Linguistics department of Lan-
caster University. He has worked on functional grammar, language typol-
ogy, including sampling and classification, and on language contact in the
Americas. He has a special interest in computational applications in these
fields. On each of these topics he has contributed a number of articles and
edited volumes.
E-mail: d.bakker@uva.nl

Peter Bakker holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Amster-

dam. Since 1997 he is Associate Professor at the University of Aarhus,
Denmark. His publications cover a wide range of subjects: from languages
created by twins, Romani, Basque-Amerindian contacts, the genesis of
the Michif language, mixed languages, the typology of creole languages to
deep connections between the Salish and Algonquian language families.
E-mail: linpb@hum.au.dk
xii about the contributors

Éva Á. Csató is Professor of Turkic languages at the Department of Lin-

guistics and Philology, Uppsala University, Sweden. She has published on
Turkic linguistics with special focus on peripheral and endangered lan-
guages such as Karaim and Kashkay. She is on the editorial board of sev-
eral international journals as for instance Turkic Languages and Orientalia
Suecana.
E-mail: eva.csato@lingfil.uu.se

Stig Eliasson is Professor emeritus of Northern European and Baltic Lan-

guages in the Department of English and Linguistics at the University of
Mainz, Germany. His publications fall into the areas of phonology, cog-
nition and phonology, code-switching theory, contrastive linguistics, sec-
ond-language acquisition, historical linguistics, and runology. He founded
the Nordic Association of Linguists and built up the program of Northern
European and Baltic Languages in Mainz.
E-mail: eliasson@uni-mainz.de

Victor A. Friedman is Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Slavic Depart-

ment and the Linguistics Department at the University of Chicago. He
holds an associate appointment in the Anthropology Department and
is Director of Chicago’s Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian
Studies. His interests center on all aspects of the languages of the Balkans
and the Caucasus, on which he has over three hundred publications in
more than a dozen countries. He is a member of the Macedonian, Alba-
nian, and Kosova Academies of Arts and Sciences and holds the “1300
Years of Bulgaria” medal.
E-mail: vfriedm@uchicago.edu

Francesco Gardani holds a Ph.D. in Theoretical Linguistics from the Uni-

versity of Vienna. Currently, he is appointed as a Postdoctoral researcher at
Vienna University of Economics and Business. His areas of interest include
morphology, historical linguistics, typology and contact linguistics.
E-mail: francesco.gardani@wu.ac.at

Anthony Grant is Professor of Historical Linguistics and Language Con-

tact at Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK. He has published on Romani,
creolistics, Austronesian languages, especially the Chamic languages of
southeast Asia, Native North American languages and lexicostatistics, and
is co-director of the World Loanwords Series.
E-mail: granta@edgehill.ac.uk
 about the contributors xiii

Salomé Gutiérrez-Morales holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the Uni-

versity of California at Santa Barbara. Currently, he is a Teacher-researcher
at the Center of Research and Advanced Studies in Social Anthropology,
Gulf branch. He is active in the documentation and study of Sierra Popo-
luca, Náhuatl and some other Mixe-Zoquean languages of Mexico and has
published several articles in this area.
E-mail: salogumo@gmail.com

Tooru Hayasi is Professor of linguistics at the Faculty of Letters of the

University of Tokyo, Japan. He has conducted fieldwork in Turkey, Azer-
baijan, China and Germany, collecting data on Eynu, Uyghur, Sarygh
Yughur, and Azerbaijani, as well as a few local varieties of Turkish includ-
ing those spoken by immigrants in Berlin. His publications are mainly in
Japanese, though there are some in English and Turkish.
E-mail: hayasi@l.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Ewald Hekking is Professor of Otomi and Linguistics at the Faculty of

Humanities of the Autonomous University of Querétaro, where he coor-
dinates a Revitalization Program of the Otomi Language. Together with
native speakers of Otomi he has developed a writing system, and pub-
lished a dictionary, a grammar, a compilation of tales and an introductory
course of the language. He has collected an extensive corpus of spoken
Otomi, and published on borrowings in Otomi, and on the Spanish eth-
nolect of the Otomis.
E-mail: ewaldhekking@prodigy.net.mx

Juha Janhunen is Professor of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the

University of Helsinki, Finland. Educated in Uralic and Altaic Studies, he
has worked on various aspects of comparative linguistics in the Ural-Altaic
zone. His recent focus is on ethnic history and the expansion of language
families in Eurasia. He is the editor of The Mongolic Languages (2003).
E-mail: asiemajeure@yahoo.com

Lars Johanson is Professor of Turcology at the Institute of Oriental Stud-

ies of the University of Mainz, Germany, and affiliated with the Depart-
ment of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University, Sweden. He has
published extensively on synchronic and diachronic linguistics, especially
in the domains of aspect-mood-tense, language contact, and language
typology. Most of his publications focus on the Turkic language family.
xiv about the contributors

He is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Turkic Languages and the book

series Turcologica.
E-mail: johanson@uni-mainz.de

Brian Joseph is Distinguished University Professor of Linguistics and The

Kenneth E. Naylor Professor of South Slavic Linguistics at The Ohio State
University. A specialist in historical linguistics with a particular focus on
Greek and Albanian, he has written extensively on the history of these
languages and on their interactions with the languages of the Balkan
“Sprachbund”. He served as editor of Language, Journal of the Linguistic
Society of America from 2002–2009.
E-mail: bjoseph@ling.ohio-state.edu

Folke Josephson is Professor emeritus of Comparative Linguistics and

Sanskrit at the University of Gothenburg, where he was acting professor
until the end of 2001. He also worked as a Professor of Indology at Stock-
holm University at intermittent periods. He has published extensively on
Anatolian, Germanic and Celtic actionality, clitics, preverbs, and word for-
mation and has edited books on diachrony and synchrony and on Celtic.
E-mail: folke.josephson@hum.gu.se

Judith Josephson earned her Ph.D. in 1997 with a dissertation on the

Pahlavi translation technique as illustrated by Hōm Yašt. She has pub-
lished extensively on Middle Persian. She has taught Persian and Middle
Persian at Uppsala University and history of the Middle East at the Depart-
ment of Arabic at the University of Göteborg from 1986 until retirement.
E-mail: judith.josephson@gu.se

Johanna Nichols is soon-to-be Professor Emerita at the University of

California, Berkeley. She has published extensively on typology, languages
of the Caucasus, Slavic languages, linguistic geography, and linguistic pre-
history and has ongoing projects on Ingush and Chechen documentation,
language spread in the Caucasus, Slavic corpus linguistics, and language
complexity.
E-mail: johanna@berkeley.edu

Martine Robbeets holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Linguistics from the

University of Leiden. Currently, she combines a research position in Lin-
guistics at the University of Leuven, Belgium with a research fellowship
 about the contributors xv

at the University of Mainz, Germany. Her research is on morphological

reconstruction and on the genealogical relationship of Japanese with the
Transeurasian languages, areas in which she has several publications.
E-mail: martine_robbeets@hotmail.com

J. Marshall Unger is Professor of Japanese at the Ohio State Univer-

sity. He writes about script reform, literacy, and computerization in East
Asia as well as historical linguistics. His latest book is on the role of con-
tact in the origins of the Japanese and Korean languages. He chaired
departments of Asian languages and literatures in Hawai’i, Maryland, and
Ohio 1988–2004.
E-mail: unger.26@osu.edu

Nikki Van De Pol studied Literature and Linguistics (Latin and English)
at the University of Leuven, where she is currently employed as a research
assistant on the IAP6/44 project on ‘Grammaticalization and (Inter)
subjectification’.
E-mail: nikki.vandepol@arts.kuleuven.be

Anna Verschik is Professor of General Linguistics at Tallinn University.

Her research interests are in contact-induced language change, code-
switching, code-copying, ethnolects, Baltic sociolinguistics and Yiddish.
She has published research on emergent contact-induced change in Esto-
nia‘s Russian, Jewish ethnolects (Jewish Russian, Jewish Lithuanian) and
on contacts of Yiddish in Baltic countries.
E-mail: anna.verschik@tlu.ee

Lindsay Whaley holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the State University

of New York, Buffalo. He is now Professor of Classics and Linguistics and
serves as the Associate Dean for International and Interdisciplinary Stud-
ies at Dartmouth College. His research interests are in typology, language
death and language revitalization. Most of his publications focus on the
Tungusic languages of northern China.
E-mail: lindsay.whaley@dartmouth.edu
 PART one

THEORETICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL ISSUES

 chapter one

BOUND MORPHOLOGY IN COMMON: COPY OR COGNATE?

Lars Johanson and Martine Robbeets

1 Why Do Languages Have Bound Morphology in Common?

Two or more languages have bound morphology in common when their

affixes share certain properties, either globally, including form and func-
tion, or selectively, restricted to certain structural—material, semantic,
combinational or frequential—properties only. What holds for linguistic
similarities in general, irrespective of whether they involve lexical, pho-
nological or grammatical correspondences, also holds for bound mor-
phology shared between languages, namely that there are four different
ways of accounting for correspondences: chance, universals, inheritance,
or code-copying. Chance has caused the formal and functional resem-
blance between Proto-Eastern Miwok and Late Common Indo-European
pronominal affixes, as was pointed out by Callaghan (1980, 337) and
Campbell & Poser (2008, 188), and between the future tense marker θa
in Modern Greek and in the Bantu language Etsako, as was pointed out
by Joseph (this volume, 153–154). Some shared structural properties may
have developed “naturally” and thus independently in each of the lan-
guages. Universal implicational relations are known to underlie the cor-
relation between adpositions and verb position, for instance. Inheritance
refers to the residue of morphological similarities retained in the daugh-
ter languages after separation from their ancestral language, such as, for
instance, the global congruence of the indicative personal endings among
Indo-European languages. Code-copying is the contact-induced replica-
tion of a bound morpheme from a model language into a basic language,
a relatively uncommon phenomenon that gets ample illustration through-
out this volume.
The term “cognate” in the title of this chapter refers to a morpheme
which is related to a morpheme in another language by virtue of inheri-
tance from a common ancestral morpheme, whereas a “copy” is a so-called
“borrowed” morpheme. The categorization of a set of morphological simi-
larities holding across languages as reflecting either a cognate or a copy
4 lars johanson and martine robbeets

follows a negative argumentation, i.e. an argumentation by elimination: All

but one of the four logically possible accounts are ruled out, so that either
inheritance or code-copying remains. When dealing with shared bound
morphology, chance and universal principles can be ruled out rather eas-
ily. Indeed, since the overall body of bound morphemes in a language is
relatively small vis-à-vis, for instance, the number of free lexemes, it will
only take a relatively small number of resembling morphemes to signifi-
cantly exceed what would be expected by chance. Furthermore, chance
explanations can be ruled out rather easily by regularity and paradigma-
ticity and universal principles in linguistic structuring can be recognized
because they are often restricted to selective correspondences only. It is,
however, much more difficult to distinguish between copies and cognates
in bound morphology. A major obstacle, then, for the establishment of
language families and the reconstruction of proto-languages is the fact
that copies are often mistaken for cognates.
A second motivation to focus on the distinction between copies and
cognates, and pay only peripheral attention to the other determinants of
morphological similarity, is the observation that whereas chance and lin-
guistic universals lead to the independent development of shared features
in each of the languages, inheritance and code-copying involve a depen-
dent development. Inheritance and code-copying generate similarities
that reflect a certain historical interrelationship between the languages
concerned, either through common ancestorship or through language con-
tact. Therefore, the distinction between copies and cognates is of particu-
lar interest to the comparative historical linguist, who studies languages
with connected histories. As Friedman (this volume, 323) points out in
reference to Hamp (1977), genealogical linguistics and areal linguistics are
twin faces of diachronic linguistics. Given the fact that contact linguistics
and genealogical linguistics complement each other, the marriage of both
areas serves as a starting point to this volume.
The terminology of “code-copying” used in this volume is part of a
descriptive model for contact-induced change, proposed by Lars Johanson.
Terms such as “copy”, “global copy”, “selective copy”, “model” language (or
code), “basic” language (or code) are preferred to more traditional notions
such as “borrowing”, “direct transfer”, “indirect transfer”, “donor” language
and “recipient” language, respectively. Metaphorically, the term “copy” is
obviously more correct than the term “borrowing” because the model lan-
guage does not give anything up, and the copying language does not give
a borrowed item back. The main point, however, is that a copy is never
identical with the model. The new terminology highlights code-copying as
 bound morphology in common: copy or cognate? 5

an essentially creative act: speakers under external influence shape their

language in novel ways. The majority of contributors to this volume adopt
the code-copying terminology, while others have chosen to maintain the
“borrowing” terms because they are more anchored in terminological
tradition. The relative consistency in terminology does not prevent the
authors from taking and weighing a range of different approaches to the
topic, including the views of Thomason & Kaufman (1988) and Matras
(2009) on matter vs. pattern replication and naturalness.

2 Approaches Taken in this Volume

The discussion of the possibility of distinguishing inherited similarities

from contact-induced similarities is known in the linguistic literature as
“the Boas-Sapir controversy”. In their efforts to work out genealogical rela-
tionships among Native American Languages, Boas and Sapir took differ-
ent positions about the question whether some core parts of linguistic
structure, morphology in particular, were impervious to copying. Sapir
(1921, 206) claimed that there were “no really convincing examples of mor-
phological influence by diffusion”, while Boas (1938, 139) took the opposite
view that for many languages it was impossible to tell whether shared
forms resulted from common ancestorship or from external influence.
Sapir’s constraint on morphological copying influenced a generation of
scholars, such as Meillet and Swadesh, but there was a growing awareness
that the constraint should be reformulated in terms of relative tenden-
cies. Weinreich (1953, 31, 43–44) claimed that the transfer of bound mor-
phemes could occur, although it was extremely rare, but he maintained an
absolute constraint on the copiability of paradigmatic bound morphology.
The continuing popularity of Weinreich’s constraint can be established
by considering more recent literature. Aikhenvald, for instance, (2007, 18)
notes that “There are no instances of one language borrowing a complete
paradigm, say, of pronominal forms, or verbal inflection.” Gardani (2008,
84) confirms that to his knowledge “no cases of genuine borrowing of
entire inflectional paradigms have been attested”. Nevertheless, there is
counter evidence even for this minimal constraint on copying paradig-
matic morphology, as can be seen from cases of heavy inflectional copying
such as Bantu influence in Ma’a, European languages in contact with vari-
ous Romani dialects, Turkicized Greek in Asia Minor and Yakut influence
in northern Tungusic languages. Thomason & Kaufman (1988, 19–20) free
historical comparative linguistics from its last constraints, by stressing
6 lars johanson and martine robbeets

that contact-induced morphological changes affect even complete inflec-

tional paradigms. Seifart (2010) adds that paradigmatic copying is even
favored over copying individual grammatical morphemes.
On the one hand, then, contact linguists point out that anything,
including paradigmatic inflectional morphology, can be copied. Seifart
(2010), for instance, predicts that “if various grammatical morphemes are
borrowed in one language, the borrowed morphemes are more likely to be
related by paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations than not”. On the other
hand, genealogical linguists stress the importance of shared paradigmatic
morphology in identifying genealogical connections between languages.
As Nichols (1996, 41) puts it, the “evidence [for a genealogical relation-
ship] is primarily grammatical and includes morphological material with
complex paradigmatic and syntagmatic organization”.
Taken at face value, the pervasiveness of contact-induced change con-
stitutes a serious threat to the possibility of distinguishing inherited simi-
larities from contact-induced similarities. If shared bound morphology,
including paradigms, can be the result of code-copying, does this imply
that we can no longer distinguish between copies and cognates in this
domain of language structure? As diachronic linguists, who try to unravel
the complex network of relationships between the languages of the past,
we are hopeful that the answer to this question should be “no”.
In search of a way out to this puzzle, the contributors to this volume
have compared concrete instances of morphological copying with inher-
ited cases, paying attention to the constraints, the manifestation and the
motivation of code-copying as opposed to inheritance. First, a number
of authors have dealt with tendencies of copiability: What is likely to be
inherited; what is likely to be copied? Second, some authors have studied
the manifestation of code-copying as opposed to inheritance: What do
cognates look like; what do copies look like? And others, finally, exam-
ined the motivation: Why is a bound morpheme copied; why does it not
undergo attrition?

2.1 What is Likely to be Inherited; What is Likely to be Copied?

Stability refers to the likelihood of an item to be inherited; it is the tendency
to resist both internally and externally motivated change rather success-
fully. Copiability has to do with externally motivated change only; it refers
to the likelihood of an item to be affected by copying. The assumption is
that a word class, a category or a part of language structure is more likely
to be copied, if it is copied more frequently in cross-linguistic sampling.
 bound morphology in common: copy or cognate? 7

A number of contributions to this volume confirm the traditional bor-

rowing hierarchies, proposed by Weinreich (1953, 35), Moravcsik (1978),
Thomason & Kaufman (1988, 74–75), Wilkins (1996) and Matras (2009,
153–165) and others, but refine our notions about the copiability of certain
specific parts of bound morphology. Eliasson finds that Basque morphol-
ogy adheres neatly to the notion that it is easier to copy nominal than
verbal, non-finite than finite and derivational than inflectional morphol-
ogy, but he points out a remarkable difference in the copiability of suffixal
vs. prefixal morphology, which is difficult to explain within the framework
of the classical hierarchies and which lacks a straightforward structural
explanation. While Grant, in comparing copying patterns of bound mor-
phological items in English with those of thirteen other heavy copying
languages from around the world, lends further support to the traditional
derivation-inflection hierarchy, Gardani refines this hierarchy, arguing
that some types of inflection, in particular nominal plural, are predictably
more accessible to borrowing than other types. His proposal that inherent
inflection such as number and gender on nouns is copied more easily than
contextual inflection such as case gets empirical support in this volume,
for instance from Eliasson’s observation about the copying of the Basque
past participle ending from Latin or from Janhunen’s discussion of exter-
nal influence on the nominal plural in some languages in the Altaic and
Sinitic-Altaic contact zone.
Other authors have reservations about traditional borrowing hier-
archies. Friedman finds that in dialects of Romani in Bulgaria, Turkish
inflectional morphology is more readily copied than Turkish derivational
morphology. Using Johanson’s (2002) observations about the stability of
suffixes closest to the primary verb stem as a starting point, Whaley turns
to actionality suffixes as potential evidence for the genetic structure of the
Tungusic family. Since positions closest to the verb stem, such as action-
ality and diathesis are those of derivational morphology, it would seem
that, contrary to the expected hierarchy, some types of derivational mor-
phology, are more resistant to code-copying than inflectional morphology.
A possible way out of this paradox could be that stability obtains when
there is both a low probability of attrition and a low probability of copy-
ing. Although the copiability of actionality may be somewhat higher than
that of inflectional categories, it is more resistant to loss. This follows from
the expectation that derivational categories with high semantic content
and relevance will lexicalize more easily than inflectional markers that
do not affect the meaning of the stem (Bybee 1985). With sufficient lapse
of time, replacement will lead to the entire loss of inflectional markers,
8 lars johanson and martine robbeets

but it will leave lexicalized evidence from derivational morphology unaf-

fected. In this sense, derivation is less resistant to copying, but more resis-
tant to replacement and loss, which can explain why it is genealogically
more stable.
This volume further draws attention to the weak correlation between
proportions of copied lexicon and proportions of copied morphology.
Grant shows that some heavily copying languages such as Yapese have
borrowed much of their basic lexicon, while they have copied no bound
morphology at all. Bakker and Hekking make similar observations with
regard to the American-Indian languages Quechua, Guarani and Otomi.
All three languages borrow lexical material from Spanish on a rather
large scale, but there seems to be no systematic application of Spanish
morphology to native stems. Csató points out that although Karaim has
extensively copied lexicon along with some derivational morphology from
Balto-Slavic, there is no evidence of global copying of bound inflectional
morphology. If Eynu is genealogically related to Uyghur, as Hayasi holds,
it will have massively copied lexicon, including basic vocabulary, probably
mostly from Persian, while the morphology will have been left completely
unaffected. In particular unusual sociolinguistic conditions, languages
may also behave the other way around, in that they copy bound morphol-
ogy, but leave the lexicon unaffected. As such, Aikhenvald finds a strong
societal inhibition in the Vaupés area against recognizable copies, which
leads to a seemingly unusual situation in which bound morphemes are
copied whereas free lexemes are not.
Rather than addressing global form-function matches between bound
morphemes, some contributors to this volume survey selective structural
correlations and their relative propensity for inheritance and code-copying.
Bakker examines the relative stability of certain morphological features
between the Salish and Algonquian language families in North America.
Some shared features such as order of affixes and hierarchical alignment
are taken as indicative of a genealogical connection. Since ergativity is a
feature that easily undergoes attrition in the daughter languages and is not
readily copied in contact situations (Nichols 2003, 295), it is more likely to
be the result of inheritance rather than copying when it is shared between
two or more languages. Josephson, however, argues that the development
of split ergativity in Hittite is an independent internal development, nei-
ther influenced by nor inherited from the ergativity patterns typical of
Hurrian or Hattic. Nichols warns against over-reliance on structural cor-
relations between pronominal paradigms when establishing genealogical
relationships. Her observation that pronominal paradigms with first per-
 bound morphology in common: copy or cognate? 9

son m and second person T are much more common in northern Eurasia
than elsewhere in the world is explained by a combination of phonotactic
pressure and diffusion, rather than by inheritance. The perceptually opti-
mal opposition between m and T represents an attractor state which eas-
ily diffused across the dialect communities in northern Eurasia.

2.2 What do Cognates Look Like; What do Copies Look Like?

During the workshop that inspired this volume Friedman suggested that
“rather than pursuing constraints on borrowability, we need to look at
what does in fact get copied”. This brings us to question how copies mani-
fest themselves as opposed to cognates. By comparing copying patterns
with genealogical patterns in a cross-linguistic sample of languages, sev-
eral guidelines on how to identify the effects of contact vs. inheritance in
shared morphology are developed in this volume.
First, it appears that globally shared morphemes are more likely to be
accounted for by inheritance than by code-copying. Backus and Verschik
argue that global copying of bound morphemes is rare, while selective
copying of the meanings and functions that are often encoded by bound
morphemes is fairly common. Their observation finds empirical support
in a number of contributions. Folke Josephson, for instance, examines
code-copying and inheritance of grammatical elements in the linguis-
tic area of Ancient Anatolia, and observes that grammatical borrowing
is mainly restricted to selective combinational copying. Similarly, on the
basis of her study of Karaim, a high copying Turkic language in a long-
lasting asymmetric contact situation with Slavic, Csató finds no evidence
of global copies in bound inflectional morphology, but does observe that
selective copying in morphosyntax is very frequent. As far as Latin influ-
ence on the Old English absolute construction is concerned, van de Pol
argues that language contact has triggered only selective frequential copy-
ing, while the construction in itself is inherited from Germanic.
Second, when shared bound morphemes are restricted to shared roots
only, this is an indication that they are copied rather than inherited. In his
discussion of the spread of Turkish inflection into certain Romani dialects,
Friedman observes that all copied morphemes are hosted by verbs cop-
ied from Turkish. Bakker and Hekking find that contact with Spanish has
substantially affected the morphology of Quechua, Guarani and Otomi,
but in only very few cases is the copied material found on native lexical
entities. As far as contact between Hittite and Luvian, the Indo-European
languages of Anatolia, is concerned, Folke Josephson remarks that the
10 lars johanson and martine robbeets

evidence for copied bound morphology is restricted to some case end-

ings and nominal derivational suffixes that were copied into Hittite only
when attached to Luvian host lexemes. These observations also provide
the basis for Robbeets’ requirement that shared morphemes must also
attach to unrelatable stems before they can be considered as genealogical
evidence.
A third indication of the distinction between morpheme copies and
cognates can be found in their semantics. As such, Backus and Verschik
argue that semantic specificity stimulates global copying. Gardani finds
that monofunctionality, instantiating to the principle of ‘one function—
one form’, facilitates code-copying of bound morphemes. Based upon his
findings, then, Robbeets considers shared cumulative meaning, i.e. the
simultaneous expression of several distinct functions in one affix, and
shared categorial opacity whereby the function of a morpheme cannot
be understood outside its morphosyntactic context, to be indicative of
genealogical relatedness. A further requirement of genealogical evidence,
she suggests, is that it should not to be restricted to a correspondence of
secondary semantics only.
Fourth, inherited and copied morphemes tend to display different
pecularities in form. Gardani points out that morphotactic transparency,
i.e sharpness of boundaries, enhances inflectional copying. As a conse-
quence, a good indication of genealogical continuity is shared stem alter-
nation, such as the common use of suppletive stems of the ego / me type
for the first person pronoun in Indo-European. The same is true for shared
affix alternation. Another indication of genealogical relatedness, Robbeets
proposes, is shared variant allomorphy without reduction of phonologi-
cally conditioned alternants such as, for instance, the reduction of the
Russian third plural ending to a single allomorph in Mednyi Aleut. Wha-
ley and Janhunen further draw our attention to the typical shortness of
morphemes, which could enhance chance similarity.
Fifth, indicative of copying as well is the limited distribution of mor-
phemes within a particular contact zone. For example, the Albanian
admirative present -ka, discussed by Friedman, is copied into Romanian,
but restricted to the Frasheriote Aromanian dialect of Gorna Belica, with-
out spreading to other dialects spoken in that same village. Unger warns
against over-reliance on negative evidence, whereby the absence of evi-
dence for a morpheme is taken as evidence of absence of the morpheme.
He rejects Vovin’s recent proposal that any morpheme shared by Japanese
and Korean that fails to occur in Ryukyuan languages and Eastern Old Jap-
anese texts ought to be explained as borrowing from Korean into Western
 bound morphology in common: copy or cognate? 11

Old Japanese. In his counter-argumentation, Unger prefers to explain the

apparent gap in the distribution of these morphemes by the fragmentary
nature of textual evidence.
Sixth, the distinction between copies and cognates in bound morphol-
ogy can be further helped by their comparative setting. The majority of
copied morphemes discussed in this volume have a binary setting in com-
mon, whereby morphological copying typically goes from a model lan-
guage into a basic language. Occasionally, however, it may progress into a
third language as in the cases discussed by Judith Josephson and Gutiér-
rez-Morales. Josephson’s study involves the Classical Persian subjunctive
and imperative prefix be- copied into Kurdish and from there into North-
eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects, whereas Gutiérrez-Morales discusses the
Spanish nominalizer -ero copied into Nahuatl and from there in Sierra
Popoluca. Copying processes in three stages, such as these, are relatively
rare. Bound morphemes that are globally shared in a multiple setting are
therefore more easily explained by inheritance than by code-copying.
Seventh, some authors reflect upon the question whether it is possible
to distinguish inherited grammaticalization from contact grammatical-
ization. Robbeets takes the extreme infrequency of global contact gram-
maticalization as a criterion to distinguish between copies and cognates.
Joseph addresses the phenomenon of “Sapirian drift”, a specific type of
recurring changes, including processes of grammaticalization, in genea-
logical units, whereby the same change occurs independently at different
points in time in each of the sister languages. He tries to explain the phe-
nomenon by proto-language variation, positing that each language inher-
ited that variation and that the grammaticalized form emerged after being
sociolinguistically suppressed.
What is known as “Sapirian drift” is not to be confused with a different
phenomenon, which Janhunen labels “shared drift”, and for which Aikhen-
vald prefers the term “grammatical accommodation”. It concerns a special
type of convergence by which languages in contact adjust to make their
bound morphemes and other grammatical elements more similar in form
and function. Janhunen examines this strategy of indirect copying on the
basis of examples from Indo-European languages in contact, Altaic lan-
guages in contact, languages in the Sinitic-Altaic contact zone and in the
Finnish-Swedish contact zone; Aikhenvald deals with advancing empirical
evidence from contact languages in the Vaupés area. Judith Josephson as
well puts forward grammatical accommodation as a strategy: she suggests
that if Kurdish did not copy the Classical Persian subjunctive and imper-
ative prefix be- globally in form and function, it may alternatively have
12 lars johanson and martine robbeets

grammatically accommodated the function of Persian be in an already

existing Kurdish cognate adverb bē. Referring to morphemes shared by
“drift” as non-borrowed non-cognate parallels, Janhunen warns against
the illusion of genealogical relationship they may create. A cautionary
note also lies in Friedman’s discussion of cases in which the bound mor-
phology shared between two or more languages of the Balkan Sprachbund
display similarities, but where it is difficult to make a strict distinction
between internal and external explanations for the similarities observed.
Although the similarity between the Meglenoromanian and Macedonian
person endings, for instance, is usually attributed to code-copying, Fried-
man points out that there are potential internal sources which are subject
to processes of analogy.
Eighth, it is commonplace in linguistic practice to take shared paradig-
matic morphology as diagnostic of genealogical continuity. However, the
examples of copied morphology discussed in this volume seem to suggest
that if bound morphemes are copied at all, it is often the case that more
than one form is copied. Friedman’s research on the Turkish inflection
copied into Romani demonstrates that entire paradigms can be borrowed.
In the workshop that inspired the publication of this volume Bernard
Comrie, Brigitte Pakendorf and Frank Seifart discussed similar cases of
paradigmatic copying between Russian and Mednyi Aleut, Yakut and
Northern Tungusic, and Spanish and Resígaro respectively. Nichols shows
that our faith in the genealogical stability of pronominal paradigms is mis-
placed, arguing that the pronominal paradigms with first person m and
second person T in northern Eurasia have converged by a combination
of phonotactic pressure and diffusion. This leads to the question whether
shared paradigms display certain overall characteristics that enable us to
make a distinction between inherited and copied paradigms. Based on
Seifart’s observation that paradigmatic copying is restricted to specific
morphosyntactic subsystems, Robbeets takes shared paradigmatic mor-
phology that is restricted to specific morphosyntactic subsystems as an
indication against inheritance.
Unger further puts the importance of paradigmatic evidence in the
establishment of genealogical relatedness into perspective, pointing out
that slots in a paradigm may be subject to internal replacement; the
Proto-Indo-European sources of English am, be, was, and are, for instance,
do not belong to a single paradigm. Csató finds that selective copying of
morphosyntax may result in the loss of inherited semantic or combina-
tional characteristics and in the addition of foreign ones. The resulting
remodeling of paradigms under foreign influence may weaken the role of
paradigmatic evidence in comparative research.
 bound morphology in common: copy or cognate? 13

Finally, sociolinguistic indications may play a role in the distinction

between copies and cognates in morphology. While Friedman admits that
structural parameters are definitely a factor in the analysis of the copy vs.
cognate question in the Balkans, he stresses that taking dialectological
and social factors into account is crucial. As far as the vocative in Mace-
donian is concerned, he distinguishes between a cognate inflectional -o,
inherited from Common Slavic, and a preposed particle o, recently copied
from Albanian. A complicating observation is that Macedonian also inher-
ited a preposed Slavic o, which disappeared in the mid twentieth century.
Sociolinguistic indications such as the observation that the preposed par-
ticle occurs precisely in Skopje, where Macedonian and Albanian are in
intensive contact and where Albanian enjoys political prestige, help to
disentangle cognates and copies in this case.

2.3 Why is a Bound Morpheme Copied?

As far as the motivation for copying a bound morpheme is concerned, this
volume suggests an interplay of structural and social factors. When the
structural motivation is strong enough, bound morphemes may be copied
even in the absence of strong social pressure; conversely the presence of
a strong social motivation can ultimately foster morphological copying
even in case of low structural attractiveness; cf. Bernard Comrie’s intro-
duction to Johanson (2002).
Among the structural motivations discussed in this volume, we find
equivalence, morphotactic, morphosyntactic and mapping transparency
and semantic specificity. With regard to equivalence, Grant shows that
structural dissimilarity does not affect the copying of lexicon, but that it
may impede extensive transfer of morphemes. According to Folke Joseph-
son, structural dissimilarity can account for the lack of morphological
copying from Hattic and Hurrian into the Indo-European languages of
Anatolia. Likewise, Bakker and Hekking attribute the rarity of morpho-
logical copies from Spanish in Quechua, Guarani and Otomi, among other
reasons, to the incompatibility of their grammars. Lack of equivalence can
also explain why Basque, contrary to Gardani’s findings about the high
copiability of nominal plural in particular, avoids Latin plurals, although
it does borrow other types of Latin inherent inflection. In this respect,
Eliasson points out that there is no single structural slot in Basque where
the foreign plural endings can fit in and combine with other endings.
Judith Josephson further suggests that the structural equivalence between
Kurdish and Persian has made it easy for Kurdish to copy Persian bound
morphology.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Fidel (am dignitat) Quin concepte en tenen vostès dels meus
protectors?

Don Albert Molt bo.

Fidel I, doncs, per què’ls ofereixen diners?

Don Albert Pera premiar les seves virtuts.

Fidel (amb ironia fina) Que no pot oferir res més la meva mare?

Don Albert (am to persuasiu) Deixi-s de filosofies. Vostè se’n va amb

ella. Un cop hi sigui, tots dos, ben feliços, se n’aniran a viure a
l’extranger.

Fidel (amb estupefacció) A l’extranger!

Don Albert Sí.

Fidel Encara no s’atreveix a presentar-me en la seva societat? M’ha

de dur lluny, ben lluny, allà on no’ns coneguin! Aixís entén
l’estimació?

Don Albert Més endavant, passats uns quants anys… comprèn?…

podran instalar-se a Barcelona.

Fidel (aixecant-se, am dignitat) Prou!

Don Albert (també aixecant-se) Pensi que desprecía una gran

fortuna. Aprop de donya Lluisa mai li faltaria res.

Fidel Me faltaria l’amor.

Don Albert (somrient amb ironia) Oh! Les seves idees…

Fidel (serenament i am dignitat) Són generoses i enlairades…

Don Albert Les idees… el benestar les suavisa.

Fidel (ofès) Per qui m’ha pres?

Don Albert (fent una rialleta) Jo tinc més experiencia de la vida.

Fidel Més edat, vol dir.

Don Albert Tinc més món, cregui-m.

Fidel I, am tot i això, encara no ha vist mai un home que no vulgui

vendre ni trair els seus sentiments?

Don Albert Tot-hom procura pel seu benestar.

Fidel (amb energia) Bé: acabem.

Don Albert Acabem. Què determina? Què li dic a la seva mare?

Fidel (convençut i serè) Que ja estic content am la que tinc, que no’n
vui d’altra.

Don Albert Això és crudel!

Fidel Es just! Lo crudel seria abandonar an aquests pobres vells.

Don Albert No’m dóna ni una esperança?

Fidel Ni una.
Don Albert Mediti-ho am més calma.

Fidel Es inutil. Am vinticinc anys, m’ha donat temps de sobres pera

arrapar-me an el cor dels humils. Avui ja hi estic arrelat del tot. Tinc
els seus anhels i les seves esperances. No puc trasplantar-me: sóc
massa fet.

Don Albert (movent el cap) No va bé, no va bé.

Fidel Per què ha vingut a pertorbar la pau d’aquesta casa, la

tranquilitat d’aquests pobres vells?

Don Albert He vingut, com li he dit abans, complint una missió

sagrada.

Fidel I tant sagrada!

Don Albert Els precs d’una mare ho són sempre pera mi.

Fidel No totes les dònes que posen sers al món són dignes de ser
mares.

Don Albert Ara sí que veig…

Fidel Que? Digui! No s’ho calli.

Don Albert (molt subratllat) Veig clarament que l’ausencia de la

mare endureix el cor.

Fidel (indignat) Què sap vostè, si no’n té?

Don Albert Fidel!

Fidel No’l trec jo mateix de casa perquè hi han els meus pares, ho
sent bé?, els meus pares, i vui que ells el treguin.

Don Albert (en veu baixa) M’he ben equivocat!

Fidel (cridant) Mare! Pare! Veniu: feu el favor.

Don Albert (sofocat) Que no’s basta per sí sol?

Fidel Veniu! (Compareixen precipitadament per la segona porta de

l’esquerra la Madrona, el Passarell i en Boira.)
Escena X
(Els mateixos, més la Madrona, el Passarell i en Boira)

Passarell Què hi ha, Fidel?

Fidel Treieu de casa an aquest senyor, que m’està insultant!

Don Albert Jo no l’insulto.

Fidel Fa més: ve a profanar la nostra pobresa. Treieu-lo, pare!

Don Albert No n’hi ha necessitat: ja m’en vaig.

Passarell (concentrat) Marxi!

Don Albert Jo que’m creia enraonar amb un jove educat!

Fidel Mare: que no ho sentiu?

Madrona Verge del cel!

Fidel Que no’l sentiu?

Don Albert (amb ironia fina) Senyora, la felicito: en Fidel és més

digne fill de vostè que de donya Lluisa.

Fidel Miserable!

Madrona (a don Albert) I la seva mare què hi dirà?

Don Albert No hi pensi més en ella. Passin-ho bé. (Desapareix.)
Escena ultima
(Els mateixos, menys Don Albert)

Madrona (després d’un curt silenci) Quin home! (En Boira tanca la
porta d’una revolada.)

Fidel (acostant-s’hi) Mare: encara ho creieu que jo haig de deixar-

vos?

Madrona (abraçant-lo) No, Fidel!

Passarell (plorant d’alegria) Ho veus, Madrona?

Madrona (an en Fidel) Diga-m mare, sempre mare!

Fidel Sempre us ho diré.

Boira (amb esclat de joia) Aixís m’agradeu!

Fidel Us oferien diners a cambi d’un gran sacrifici.

Madrona Quina repugnancia!

Fidel Jo no vui que us sacrifiqueu.

Passarell (abraçant-lo, plorant) Fidel!

Fidel No consento que a les vostres velleses se profani aquesta
blancor, que jo corono am petons. (Els besa a tots dos en el cap.)

Passarell Fill meu!

Madrona (besant-lo) Fill del meu cor!

Boira (plorant i rient) Apa, aquí!

Fidel Si ja esteu cançats o no podeu treballar, reposeu.

Passarell No, no, Fidel!

Fidel Sí, reposeu. Jo sóc jove, i a mi’m pertoca afanyar-me pera

vosaltres.

Passarell (anant-se’n, sanglotant, a seure a l’esquerra, al costat de la

taula) Gracies, gracies.

Fidel M’heu donat vinticinc anys de vida. Treballaré, amb amor, pera
donar-vos-en el doble!

Passarell Quina alegria que tinc!

Fidel (a la Madrona, senyalant l’escudeller) Mireu, mireu: encara hi

ha’l meu clavell en fresc.

Madrona Me’l dones?

Fidel Sí. Am l’ànima i tot.

Madrona Doncs, me’l quedo pera mi.

Fidel (desprenent-se dels braços de la Madrona) Mare!

Boira (am molta fruició) Apa, apa, a riure tot-hom i a dinar

desseguida. (Treient les estovalles d’un calaix de la taula). Això no ha
sigut res. (Extenent enlaire les estovalles). Mireu: la bandera de la
pau i de la manduca. (Para la taula tot taratlejant, en veu baixa, “Les
flors de Maig” d’en Clavé. La Madrona muda l’aigua de la copa en
que hi ha’l clavell, i després rega les clavellines de la finestra.)

Passarell Fill, fill meu!

Fidel (abraçant an el Passarell) Pare! (El Passarell, abraçat an en

Fidel, esclata en plor. En Boira, tot atrafegat i alegroi, extén les
estovalles damunt de la taula, estirant tant aviat d’un cap com de
l’altre, seguint taratlejant “Les flors de Maig”.)

Madrona (de la finestra estant) Que ploreu?

Fidel És d’alegria, mare!

Teló rapid
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EL COR DEL
POBLE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the

Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
 away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
 discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.