Keywords:

This chapter briefly presents the key institutions involved in EU governance (Commission, European Parliament, Council, European Council) and the way they interact in policy-making. It underlines the fundamental originality of the 'Community method' invented in the 1950s. It describes the main evolutions of the EU institutional system, taking into account both the formal changes that occurred and the development of informal practices. It focuses on and underlines the complex relations that have emerged with the institutionalisation of the European Council and the progressive empowerment of the European Parliament. Overall, the chapter highlights the three main logics that are at play in the EU institutional governance. First, it shows that the 'Community method' is not dead yet: the Commission still has a central role in the EU policymaking system, and various supranational competences have been reinforced by the treaty of Lisbon and since its entry into force (2009). However, the EU has also undergone a reinforcement of the intergovernmental logic that emerged in the 1960s, and that has been vivified by the various crises which hit the EU since the mid-2000. Those repeated crises have strengthened the intergovernmental bodies and have given birth to a new approach of the EU governance, that largely relies -at least for key-decisions -on the decisions taken within the member states capitals. Paradoxically, there is a third trend, that takes the form of a deep process of parliamentarization of EU governance. It has emerged as a consequence of the reinforcement of the EP, of the revised appointment procedure of the Commission, and the increasing importance of European elections. EU institutional governance is thus complex and ambiguous, but also efficient and resilient.

INTRODUCTION

The institutional system of the European Union (EU) is the result of original choices made in the 1950s, tempered by 70 years of reforms and evolutions. The treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) have created a unique institutional set-up that is difficult to analyse and theorize, and that allows for various political and theoretical interpretations [START_REF] Saurugger | Theoretical approaches to European integration[END_REF]; see Saurugger's and Bulmer's chapters in this volume). Overall, the objective of the Founding Fathers was to establish an institutional system that would be efficient, i.e., capable to propose functional solutions to concrete challenges, and to avoid political and national divisions. The treaties were thus driven by pragmatism: the system was called to pursue economic goals via legal tools, in other words, to propose technical solutions without normative impact. Hence, most of the competences (drafting and implementation of norms and the budget; relations with the stakeholders and member states; day-to-day management of European policies; international negotiations…) were devoted to the High Authority/Commission. The Council was created only at the request of the smaller member states (Benelux countries), that were concerned about a possible domination of the High Authority/Commission by the bigger ones.

There was also a parliamentary assembly, but it was mainly symbolic and had very limited competences. Finally, a Court was instituted, in order to solve the potential conflicts between the member states and/or the Community institutions. The European institutional system was thus not intended to be democratic and to ensure citizens' participation, and politics had no place at supranational level [START_REF] Wallace | Democracy or technocracy? European integration and the problem of popular consent[END_REF]. The legitimation of the Communities was to be essentially legal and rational: legal, as a result of the implementation of treaties, negotiated and ratified at unanimity by the member states; and rational, as the outcome of a process giving much room to experts and stakeholders. This choice was not a surprise, as the drafter of the Paris and Rome treaties were not themselves politicians and were determined to avoid political and national divisions [START_REF] Featherstone | Jean Monnet and the democratic deficit in the European Union[END_REF].

The European Communities (EC) institutional system faced several evolutions -but was never fundamentally challenged or reformed. In 2022, the main original institutions are still in place and the Commission is still at the heart of the system. It has nevertheless undergone a double process of 'inter-governmentalisation' and 'parliamentarization', in order to answer the expectations of national leaders and citizens, and to face the challenges of legitimation. On the one hand, the member States' leaders have claimed to better control the initiatives of the Commission (Hoffmann 1966). On the other hand, the EC have addressed the issue of the 'democratic deficit' [START_REF] Robinson | The Political Implications of the Vedel Report[END_REF], leading to the direct election of the EP (1979) and its progressive empowerment in the 1990s [START_REF] Corbett | The European Parliament's role in closer EU integration[END_REF]. The Commission and its supporters have however avoided the complete transformation of the European political system in a strictly intergovernmental organization -in which the Commission would have become a simple general secretariat -or in a parliamentary regime -through which it would have become a government. The institutional governance of the EU thus remains very specific, and subject to various theoretical and political interpretations.

We will first present the logic and design of the institutional system instituted by the treaties of Paris and Rome that created the Communities. We will briefly describe the main EU institutions and the way they operate. We will then underline the duality that has always structured decisionmaking at European level, with the coexistence of an integrated, supranational approach and of a more intergovernmental one. The third section will turn to the centrality and resilience of the Community method, and to its difficult theorization. Next, we will discuss the two evolutions that have shaped the EU governance since the 1970, namely the inter-governmentalisation and the parliamentarization. To end, we will see that the EU institutional governance is animated by three distinct logics, which proves to be functional, but which is not very favourable to the intelligibility of the system, and therefore to its legitimization.

AN INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM BASED ON A SUI GENERIS DESIGN

The EU institutional system derives from the one instituted in 1951 by the treaty of Paris, for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It has often been qualified of 'sui generis', as it was (and still is) the only of its kind, and was not inspired by a pre-existing organization [START_REF] Klabbers | Sui generis? The European Union as an international organization[END_REF]. It is, today, a very crowded system, with a large set of institutions and organs.

According to article 13 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the institutional framework comprises seven institutions: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the EU, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the EU (see Avril's chapter), the European Central Bank (see Piroska's chapter), and the Court of Auditors. The European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions are organs with an advisory function. We can also mention the existence of the European Ombudsman, the OLAF -the European Anti-fraud Office -and no less than 45 European Agencies.

The definition of the overall action of the EU and the development and management of its policies involve four main institutions.

The European Commission is the executive branch of the EU. It is composed of 27 members, including the President, who are appointed by the member states, with the approval of the European Parliament (EP) [START_REF] Nugent | The European Commission[END_REF]. It has an administration of around 35000 people. The Commission is supposed to act in the EU's 'general interest' and to be totally independent from the member states, but it is accountable to the EP. It has the right to draft most of EU norms and may be given the right to adopt delegated and implementing acts. The Commission also drafts and runs the EU's budget and oversees the good application of EU law.

Finally, it represents the EU during international negotiations linked to the European policies, on the basis of a mandate from the Council.

The EP is composed of 705 members, who are directly elected by the EU's 450 million citizens every 5 years (Corbett, Jacobs and Shackleton 2019). Each state elects a number of members determined by its population -from 6 for Malta to 96 for Germany. Members of the EP (MEPs) are currently sitting in 7 political groups, and not in national delegations. The EP, that was originally deprived of competences, has today several key functions. It shares, for most legal acts, the legislative power with the Council through the 'ordinary legislative procedure'. It votes the budget, also together with the Council, and approves a wide range of EU international agreements. It has the power of control over the Commission and can ask questions to the Council. It can express its views on any topic related to the EU. It 'elects' the President of the Commission, approves the other members, and participates in the appointment of several EU organs.

The Council of the EU is composed by ministers from the 27 member states [START_REF] Puetter | The European Council and the Council. New intergovernmentalism and institutional change[END_REF]. Its sessions are convened and chaired by the six-monthly presidency exerted by one member state.

It meets in 10 thematic configurations; the 'General Affairs' one is responsible for the overall coordination. The work of the ministers is prepared by the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States (COREPER) and by working parties and committees composed of national civil servants and diplomats. The Council carries out, together with the EP, legislative and budgetary functions and is lead decision-maker for the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Depending on the subject, it takes its decisions by simple majority, unanimity or qualified majority -which has become the voting rule by default.

The European Council is composed by the heads of state or government of the member states [START_REF] Werts | The European Council[END_REF][START_REF] Wessels | The European Council[END_REF]. It started to meet informally in 1974 and was fully institutionalized in 2009 only. It now has a full-time president, elected by its peers. Today, the European Council consists in the 27 heads of state or government, together with its President and the President of the Commission. It gathers at least 4 times a year, and whenever needed.

It provides the general political directions for the EU, but it also has a specific role regarding CFSP and the area of freedom, security and justice. It takes its decisions by consensus, and, exceptionally, by qualified majority -for instance to appoint its own President or the Presidentdesignate of the Commission.

One cannot understand the dynamics of decision-making in the EU without considering also the role of 'non-institutional' actors (Coen & Richardson 2009). Thousands of experts of various kinds -independent consultants, member states' officials, researchers, academics, representatives of think tanks, etc. -participate in the development and implementation of EU policies. In Brussels, there are also over 10,000 lobbies, which employ around 30,000 people who develop contacts with EU actors [START_REF] Sonia | Interest groups and EU policy-making: Organisational logic and venue shopping[END_REF]Dialer and Richter 2018).

They were part of the original 'Community method', that aimed at finding a consensus between the Commission (representing the Community general interest), the Council (expressing member states' views), and the stakeholders (as the main recipients of European policies, and experts de facto). Non-institutional actors play a crucial role in the European decision-making, thanks to various peculiarities of the EU political system: polycentrism and absence of hierarchy; technicality of norms; weakness of European political parties; absence of a European public sphere; limitations of the logic of representation; governance by committees; importance of expertise, as a tool to overcome national and political conflicts. They take advantage of the openness of the Commission and EP, which are in search of expertise, feedback, and legitimation. Non-institutional actors form a European elite that follows closely the EU's activities, understands them, and undertakes a whole range of lobbying practices. They also make a proficient use of the possibilities for action offered to citizens by the treaties [START_REF] Alemanno | Lobbying for change: find your voice to create a better society[END_REF]. Paradoxically, the more EU institutions try to be opened to the civil society, in order to ensure some pluralism in interest representation, the more they offer channels of influence for lobbyists.

THE DUALITY OF EU DECISION-MAKING

The initial EEC treaty (1957) already held a dual logic of decision-making at Community level.

Based on a Commission proposal, decisions could be taken by the Council either unanimously or (after a ten-year transition period and only in certain domains) by a qualified majority. In both cases, the EP had no real influence. The rationale was that the second option, called the 'Community method', would gradually become more widespread. The French President Charles De Gaulle however protested this method in 1965 by holding his country's participation in the Council. The 'Luxembourg compromise', which was adopted in 1966 to put an end to that situation, provoked a suspension of the use of the qualified majority rule until the late 1980s. As consequences, the Council became a central decision-making actor, where proposals were carefully reviewed and amended, and the Commission gradually favoured bland texts.

The Community method was still applied to routine decisions and to the management of core policies (the so-called 'low politics'), but the inter-governmental decision-making was relied upon for key decisions and less integrated policies ('high politics').

This duality was formalized by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Its objective was to transform the European Communities -created to conduct a limited number of market policies in partnership with the economic, political and administrative elites -into a European Union -i.e. a policy organization expected to develop activities in all areas and to establish direct relations with its citizens. In order to ease a consensus on the new treaty, negotiators proposed the creation, alongside the Community 'pillar', of a second and third pillar with a more intergovernmental form of cooperation. It was largely based on Council and European Council actions, with a very limited involvement of the Commission, the EP and the Court. In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon has merged the three pillars, made co-decision the 'ordinary legislative procedure' applying to most texts, and extended the use of qualified majority voting in the Council. However, the EU still blends the Community method and the intergovernmental approach for the most sensitive issues.

The duality of decision-making logics at EU level is not fortuitous or insignificant: it reflects the enduring reluctance of national officials regarding the initial "Community" approach which they perceived to be too federal (see Bartenstein and Wessels' chapter). Formally, the intergovernmental style seems to be limited to exceptions, but the management of the various recent crises (sovereign debt, refugees, tensions with Russia, Brexit, "illiberal" trends in some member states, Covid-19…) has shown that it can be very preponderant, and that the European Council has become the leadership organ in the EU -replacing the Commission [START_REF] Schimmelfennig | Liberal intergovernmentalism and the crises of the European Union[END_REF]).

To sum up, the turbulent history of European integration has led to the crystallisation of two main approaches of decision-making. When member states agree on clear priorities (the single market and the policies related to it), decision is governed by qualified majority voting at the Council and involves the supranational institutions (Commission, Parliament), as well as the stakeholders. When there is no strong consensus on the objectives and the urgency of action (foreign policy, cooperation in criminal matters, fiscal policy…), the EU uses intergovernmental mechanisms, leaving little influence to the main EU institutions and noninstitutional actors.

The dynamics of decision-making in the EU are very different from what they are in a classic international organisation or in a parliamentary regime. They are closer to the later, but there is no systematic political support to the Commission emanating from the Parliament and the Council: each proposal is the subject of intense negotiations between the three institutions, that promote their own views. In short, there is no situation of 'fusion', like at national level, where the party or the coalition that won the general elections holds the executive power and enjoys a stable majority in the low chamber. The EU has nevertheless experienced a process of gradual pacification of the relations between the institutions. It takes the form of inter-institutional negotiations on the budget [START_REF] Hagemann | Negotiations of the European Union budget: How decision processes constrain policy ambitions[END_REF]) and on legislative matters -via the so-called 'trilogue' negotiations, that involve a limited number of representatives of the Council, the Commission, and the EP [START_REF] Héritier | Institutional Change in Europe: Co-Decision and Comitology transformed[END_REF]. This approach of policy-making has led to a spectacular reduction of conflictuality; during the 8 th EP term (2014-2019), the EP and the Council were able to adopt 99% of the legislative texts subjected to the ordinary legislative procedure at an early stage: 90% during the first reading, and 9% during the early second reading [START_REF] Marié | European Parliament: Is the grand coalition really a thing of the past?[END_REF]). However, this is not the result of a partisan logic, but of the capacity of the three institutions to negotiate in a constructive way. There is a tendency of pro-European political parties and parliamentary groups (Christian-democrats, socialists, liberals and, to some extent, the Greens) to work together, especially to limit the influence of their Eurosceptic counterparts, but there is no stable coalition.

THE COMMUNITY METHOD: STILL ALIVE, BUT DIFFICULT TO LEGITIMIZE

Today the EU decision-making is mainly governed by the Ordinary legislative procedure, that applies to 80% of the legislation; the EU budget is adopted through a procedure that is quite similar. The Community method is thus very much at play. It was originally focussed on the relationship between the Commission and the Council; the Parliament only gradually came into the frame in the late 1980s. This scheme resulted in the neo-functionalist interpretations of the Community experience (see Saurugger's chapter) that emphasized the autonomy of the Commission and described European integration as a process beyond the reach of member states, gradually depriving them of their sovereignty [START_REF] Ernst | The Uniting of Europe, political, social and economic forces, 1950-1957[END_REF][START_REF] Leon | The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration[END_REF].

As said, the legitimacy of the Community method resulted primarily from duly negotiated treaties ratified by the member states. The Council could also rely on the legitimacy of its members, and the Commission became gained confidence from the political, administrative, and economic elites as it was capable to design and implemented effective policies meeting their interests. In breaking down the barriers of the Luxembourg Compromise (1966), and therefore of the systematic search for unanimity, the Single European Act (1987) expanded the scope of the Community method. The following treaties (Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon) have generalized the Ordinary legislative procedure and qualified majority voting in the Council: today, the Community method is the EU's principal method of decision-making [START_REF] Renaud | The Community Method: Chronicle of a Death too Early Foretold[END_REF][START_REF] Renaud | The Community Method: Obstinate or Obsolete?[END_REF]. This approach of decision-making has nevertheless been impacted by a double evolution: the emergence of an intergovernmental leadership and the parliamentarization of the EU regime.

The Commission has thus mobilized itself to preserve the centrality of the Community method.

It has, for instance, taken advantage of the Single European Act (1987) to rebuild a supranational network of stakeholders able to support its action, by developing a strategy of 'co-option' (Wallace et al. 2005;[START_REF] Vandermeersch | The single European act and the environmental policy of the European Economic Community[END_REF]). In the context of negotiations on a possible institutional reform, the Commission has also adopted a 'White Paper on European Governance' (July 2001) (Georgakakis and de Lassalle 2012). Implicitly, this document was advocating for the preservation of the existing system and of the Community method. The communication was also an attempt to theorize the functioning of the EEC: by calling it a system of 'European governance' [START_REF] Shore | European Governance' or Governmentality? The European Commission and the Future of Democratic Government[END_REF], the objective was to account for several of its peculiarities (institutional complexity; absence of hierarchy and centrality; role of expertise…), and to assume them. In short, the European 'governance' -a concept borrowed from social sciences -was supposed to be more efficient and more adapted to the challenges of the time than the traditional 'government' [START_REF] Liesbet | The European Commission and the Integration of Governance[END_REF][START_REF] Foellesdal | The Political Theory of the White Paper on Governance: Hidden and Fascinating[END_REF][START_REF] Beate | The Transformation of Governance[END_REF]Smith 2001). The Commission considered that this approach to public action was desirable and searched to improve it by promoting various internal reforms and defining norms of 'good governance'. The Commission also claimed the concept of 'multilevel governance' used by social scientists to describe the emergence of a system adopting and implementing policies as the result of the interaction of multiple actors belonging to public institutions, private companies and civil society organizations, positioned at different levels (local, regional, national, European, global) and structured in informal networks of negotiations (Marks and Hooghe 2001).

The concept of European governance failed to clarify the functioning of the EU and to legitimize it among citizens; it has even acquired a negative connotation [START_REF] Ritleng | Institutionalizing Representative Democracy in the European Union: The Case of the European Parliament[END_REF]).

However, it certainly help to save the Community method. Despite the many crises experienced by the EU and its constant treaty reforms, the Commission has remained in a central position in the European political regime, and has even expanded its scope of activities and competences [START_REF] Bauer | The Unexpected Winner of the Crisis: The European Commission's Strengthened Role in Economic Governance[END_REF][START_REF] Fabbrini | Intergovernmentalism and its limits: assessing the European Union's answer to the Euro crisis[END_REF]. The Community method is, nevertheless, questioned by a double and somehow contradictory evolution : inter-governmentalisation and parliamentarization.

THE RELENTLESS PROCESS OF INTER-GOVERNMENTALISATION

Very early, the Community method was challenged by a more intergovernmental approach of European integration, initiated by the de facto suspension of qualified majority voting after the Empty chair crisis (1965-1966) and, in 1974, by the creation of the European Council. After its institutionalization ( 2009), the European Council has played a key role in the management of multiple crises that have hit the EU. It has developed the habit to give precise instructions to the Commission regarding decision-making, not only in intergovernmental matters. The institutional triangle has thus become a square (Costa and Brack 2017), and the Commission appears now as a kind of government placed under the authority of the European Council [START_REF] Bressanelli | The shadow of the European Council. Understanding legislation on economic governance[END_REF]. This evolution has challenged the EU institutional governance, and has led to complaints, for instance by Martin Schulz, then President of the EP (2014): 'The Community institutions are increasingly being marginalized as a result of this trend towards 'summitization', the fixation with meetings at which the heads of state and government, in a clear breach of the spirit of the treaties, take more and more decisions themselves and seek to put their stamp even on the fine print of legislation.' 1 Those developments have also lead to a new theorization of the EU and its functioning, with the emergence of the concept of 'liberal intergovernmentalism' in the 1990s [START_REF] Andrew | The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht[END_REF] and 'new-intergovernmentalism' in the 2010s (Bickerton, Hodson, and Puetter 2015; see Saurugger's chapter in this volume). The proponents of new-intergovernmentalism consider that, despite its centrality in the decision-making process, the Community method has been called into question, especially with the economic and financial crisis (2008). Because it was touching sensitive issues, national leaders have favoured intergovernmental decision-making methods, giving a central role to the European Council and the Eurogroup -an informal body gathering the 19 ministers of the Eurozone. Many decisions have also been decentralized within the member states capitals. In sum, there has been a form of integration without 'supranationalisation', relying on an intergovernmental approach, at the expense of the Community method. This applies to EU's areas of intervention in which legislative and non-legislative mechanisms are mixed, such as foreign policy, energy, economic regulation, internal affairs [START_REF] Fabbrini | Integration without supranationalisation: studying the lead roles of the European Council and the Council in post-Lisbon EU politics[END_REF] and, today, public health [START_REF] Wolff | European Union Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic: adaptability in times of permanent emergency[END_REF]. The rise of Euroscepticism within EU institutions [START_REF] Brack | Euroscepticism within the EU Institutions[END_REF] and in most member states (De Vries 2018) has made it difficult to develop new initiatives within the EU frame, thus leading to a reduction in the number and scope of EU legislative activities, and to the development of other forms of cooperation. Some researchers have hence argued that the crisis is not about European integration itself, but about the Community method [START_REF] Majone | The general crisis of the European Union. A genetic approach[END_REF]Fossum and Menendez 2014).

PARLIAMENTARIZATION, AT LAST

The parliamentarization of the EC/EU regime is the second trend that has impacted the Community method. European institutions and member states' leaders were indeed constrained to take into account the needs for more legitimation and the growing criticisms about the EC democratic deficit. This led them to agree, in 1976, on the direct election of the EP. Once elected, MEPs have claimed for more power, and obtained it through evolutions of the day-today operations of EC institutions and more ambitious treaty reforms. Those were not intended to overhaul the EC regime, but to answer to the denunciations of the democratic deficit, by streamlining the institutional system and clarifying its objectives and values (Magnette 2005).

Nevertheless, there was a cumulative evolution over time: today, after 45 years of constant developments, there is obviously a process of deep 'parliamentarization' [START_REF] Héritier | Elements of democratic legitimation in Europe: an alternative perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Berthold | Building Europe's Constitution. The parliamentarization and institutionalization of human rights[END_REF].

There has been a shift towards a more political functioning of the EU, with the increased powers for the EP, the institution of a European citizenship, the strengthening of European political parties, and the 'governmentalisation' of the Commission (mode of appointment, composition, style of governance). The parliamentary model has been an implicit reference for treaty reforms -even if not the only one. In 2009, the treaty of Lisbon has confirmed this trend by devoting a title to 'democratic principles': article 10 TEU now provides that 'the functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy' and establishes the concept of the dual representation of citizens within the EP, on the one hand, and the Council and European Council, on the other. Article 10 TEU has allowed the leaders of the five main European political parties to impose the logic of 'Spitzenkandidaten' in 2014 [START_REF] Hobolt | A vote for the President? The role of Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament elections[END_REF], and thus to favour a parliamentary interpretation of the EU political system. Two meta-theories can account for this evolution. The first one is post-functionalism, a theory that aims at integrating the recent developments of European integration and the rise of Euroscepticism [START_REF] Hooghe | Re-engaging grand theory: European integration in the 21st century[END_REF]. It underlines the growing tensions that exist between the functional needs for integration expressed by European leaders and the concerns that EU raises among citizens (Hobolt and De Vries 2013 ;[START_REF] Liesbet | A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus[END_REF], especially as a result of austerity (Streek and Schafer 2013). Post-functionalists observe that European integration now includes sensitive issues such as defence, justice, migration, and taxation, and that debates on the Union refer to issues as fundamental as religion, culture, sovereignty and identity. EU affairs generate strong political divisions and national tensions, both at domestic and European levels. European elections are becoming more successful -with a massive rise of participation in 2019 -thus increasing the legitimacy and influence of the EP. Federalism is a second theory accounting for the parliamentarization of the EU (see Foret's chapter ;[START_REF] Sbragia | The European Community: a balancing act[END_REF][START_REF] Beaud | Federation and empire: About a conceptual distinction of political forms[END_REF]. It predicts the emergence of a European-level public and political arena, its growing interconnections with national spaces, and the deepening of European citizenship (Borriello and Crespy 2015; Navari 2019). The parliamentarization of the EU can be seen as the result of those combined tendencies.

CONCLUSION

EU's institutional governance is characterised by a triple neo-functional, intergovernmental and parliamentary logic. It is still guided, to a large extent, by the original pursuit of efficiency, and the balance of multiple interests through decentralized decision-making and intense contacts of supranational institutions with stakeholders and civil society representatives. Nevertheless, it is more and more governed by the key decisions taken within the European Council and in national capitals in a strictly intergovernmental logic. At the same time, it is also driven by a parliamentary rationale: today, the EU is a political system based on citizens' participation and parties interactions, and the EP is a powerful and independent legislature. The Commission can no longer be described as an autonomous body or an agency: it looks like a government, appointed and controlled by the EP, and instructed by the European Council.

The double-trend of governmentalisation and parliamentarization, combined with the persistence of the Community method, does not make the EU political system very readable for citizens. Its ambiguities and ambivalences lead to misunderstandings and an often negative assessment of its functioning, and to the questioning of its legitimacy. The EU is reputed to be obscure and distant, disconnected from the concerns of citizens and hermetic to the principles that underpin democratic systems. However, it is functional and resilient, has proven its capacity to surmount crises and tensions, and allows for the conciliation of various conceptions of the European integration -neo-functional, federal and intergovernmental. Thus, it is unlikely that major institutional reform will occur in a foreseeable future. By default, the relative consensus that exists about its current architecture is an obstacle to change.

Adaptations will be made at the margins, in an incremental and selective manner, while respecting the current complexity of the system. This is undoubtedly the price to be paid for the political integration of 27 nation states, which are considered sovereign, very jealous of their prerogatives and not ready for the Union to become the main political arena.

1

  M. Schulz, President of the EP, Speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 30.01.2014.


Alexander Andrason

Pius W Akumbu

Towards a linguistic analysis of conative animal calls in Babanki and Bum (Grassfields languages of Cameroon)

Keywords: Grassfields, Babanki, Bum, conative animal calls, human-to-animal communication 1

This article offers a systematic analysis of conative animal calls (CACs) in Babanki and Bumtwo Central Ring Grassfields Bantu languages of North-West Cameroon. The authors analyze the semantics, phonetics, morphology, ecolinguistics, and cognancy of 39 Babanki and 20 Bum CACs and conclude the following: (a) in both languages CACs largely instantiate the prototype of a CAC with regard to semantics, phonetics, and morphology; (b) several linguistic properties exhibited by CACs have their source in the ecosystems inhabited by the respective communities of speakers; (c) the similarity of the CACs in Babanki and Bum is low and their cognancy minimal despite the two languages being closely related.

Introduction

The present article is dedicated to the study of conative animal calls in two Central Ring languages of the Cameroonian Grassfields, namely, Babanki (ISO 639-3 bbk, Glottocode baba1266) and Bum (ISO 639-3 bmv, Glottocode bumm1238). Both varieties are spoken in the North-West Region of Cameroon, some 113-142 kilometers apart from each other, by relatively small communities of native speakers (Eberhard, Simons, and Fennig 2023;[START_REF] Hammarström | Glottolog 4.8[END_REF]).1 To be exact, Babanki is spoken in two principal settlements, Kejom Ketinguh (Babanki Tungoh) and Kejom Keku (Big Babanki), by less than 40.000 speakers, perhaps even no more than 25.000 (Faytak and Akumbu 2021: 333; see also Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 3). Bum is spoken north of Fundong by some 15.000 speakers (Lamberty 2002: 4-5;cf. 21.000 reported in Eberhard, Simons, and Fennig (2023)). Although Babanki and Bum are vigorous languages, they already exhibit signs of language shift: education and health services are predominantly in English; Cameroun Pidgin English is widely used as an alternative communicative tool in trade; and both English and Cameroun Pidgin English often feature in church and are increasingly more present in interactions at home (Lamberty 2002: 12;Akumbu and Wuchu 2015;Fatyak and Akumbu 2021; see also [START_REF] Ayafor | Cameroon Pidgin English: A Comprehensive Grammar[END_REF].

As most Grassfields languages, Babanki and Bum have traditionally been severely underresearched. Recently, due to the work of one of the authors of the present article, this dire situation has greatly improved (see [START_REF] Akumbu | Kejom (Babanki) Orthography Statement[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | Bum Noun Class System[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | Tone in Kejom (Babanki) Associative Construction[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | Babanki Verb Tone[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | Babanki Coda Consonant Deletion and Vowel Raising: A Case of Allomorphy[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | A Featural Analysis of Mid and Downstepped High Tone in Babanki[END_REF]2023;[START_REF] Akumbu | Ononomatopoeia in Babanki[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | A Pedagogic Grammar of Babanki[END_REF]Akumbu and Wuchu 2015;[START_REF] Akumbu | The Segmental and Tonal Structure of Verb Inflection in Babanki[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | Literal and Metaphorical Usages of Babanki Eat and Drink Verbs[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF]Fatyak and Akumbu 2021). Bum, in contrast, still lacks systematic studies. The only works that we are aware of comprise of brief discussions of the nominal system [START_REF] Hyman | Babanki and the Ring Group[END_REF][START_REF] Akumbu | Bum Noun Class System[END_REF], a preliminary study of the verb phrase (Bangsi 2016; see also Noumbi 1981), and a dictionary of some 1800 entries [START_REF] Ndokobaï | Bum Living Dictionary[END_REF]. Within the various language domains and grammatical and lexical categories, one class of constructions has particularly been overlooked in Babanki, Bum, and the entire Grassfields family. This concerns conative animal calls (CACs) or, according to an operationalized definition, word-like directive constructions that are used by humans in their communication with other animal species [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF].2 CACs are briefly mentioned by Akumbu and Lionnet's (in preparation) study of Babanki interjections and liminal signs, but, to the best of our knowledge, have not featured in any discussion of Bum.

The present study responds to the above-mentioned epistemic lacuna and offers a systematic description of CACs in Babanki and Bum -the first of this type not only in these two languages but also in the Grassfields and Bantoid language groups. 3 In doing so, we follow a prototype approach to linguistic categorization and CACs specifically [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF] and couch our grammatical description within nonformal theories of language (see [START_REF] Goldberg | Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language[END_REF][START_REF] Dryer | Descriptive Theories, Explanatory Theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory[END_REF][START_REF] Dixon | Basic Linguistic Theory[END_REF].

The article is structured in the following manner: in Section 2, we expose our conceptual framework and explain data collection methods. In Section 3, we present Babanki and Bum data, which we evaluate in Section 4. In Section 5, we conclude the study and propose future lines of research.

Theory and methods

As mentioned in the previous section, our analysis of CACs is developed within a prototype approach to linguistic categorization (see [START_REF] Evans | Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction[END_REF]. Accordingly, we follow the conceptual framework that has widely been espoused in research on CACs (e.g., in Maasai, Xhosa, Tjwao, and several other (mostly African) languages; see [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF], [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF]2023), and [START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF]) and that also underlies the most relevant study of all interactive word classes to which CACs belong (see Heine 2023). 4 This means that we understand the CAC category as a cloud of members that radiate from the categorial center to the periphery proportionally to the decrease of their compliance with the protype, which demarcates the conceptual and topological nucleus of the category. Members that fully comply with the prototype are canonical and occupy a central position in the category('s model). In contrast, members that comply with the prototype only minimally are non-canonical and populate the category's peripheries. As a result, the belonging to the CAC category is not a binary relation of an 'either-or' type but instead a gradient function of degree. Crucially, entities that fail to instantiate the prototype -including those that violate most of its characteristics -are not a priori denied their categorial membership and thus a CAC status.

As is evident from the above, the critical element in the CAC category is the prototype. Although the category is much more than its prototype, the prototype structures the category by constituting the reference point against which the canonicity and the extent of belonging of all the members is measured. The prototype itself is defined cumulatively as a collection of properties referred to as prototypical features. Elaborate discussions of the various features proposed as prototypical are available in recent works on CACs and we invite the reader to consult these publications (see [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF]2023;[START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF]. Below we offer a concise summary of those prototypical features that will be relevant for the present study and guide our account of CACs in Babanki and Bum.

-Semantically, a prototypical CAC expresses the idea of motion (summonses call animals, dispersals chase them away, and directionals modify their movement in terms of inception/termination, direction, speed, and manner), is addressed to domestic rather than wild species, and its semantic potential is relatively limited. -Phonetically, a prototypical CAC is monosyllabic, makes extensive use of consonantal (rather than vocalic) material, tolerates extra-systematic phones and phonotactics, potentially hosting non-IPA sounds (e.g., kisses and whistles), and largely exploits suprasegmental features such as length and various types of marked phonations. -Morphologically, a prototypical CACs is opaque, being a monomorphemic root with no inflectional and derivational markers and no other elements incorporated through compounding. 5 -Recently, drawing on Dogon data, it has been proposed that a prototypical CAC and the CAC category in its totality are heavily "depende[nt] on their natural and socioon Tamazight, [START_REF] Siatkowska | Zachodniosłowiańskie zawołania na zwierzęta: stan obecny, funkcje historyczne, stosunek do systemu językowego[END_REF] and [START_REF] Daković | Interiekcje w języku polskim, serbskim, chorwackim i rosyjskim. Opis i konfrontacja[END_REF] on several Slavonic languages, Amha (2013) on Zargulla, and Jääskeläinen (2021) on Finnish. Less comprehensive treatments of CACs have been offered inter alia by [START_REF] Grochowski | Wprowadzenie do analizy syntaktycznej wykrzykników[END_REF], [START_REF] Ameka | The Meaning of Phatic and Conative Interjections[END_REF], [START_REF] Poyatos | Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and Sounds[END_REF]2002[START_REF] Fleck | A Grammar of Matses[END_REF], [START_REF] Wierzbicka | Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction[END_REF], [START_REF] Ambrazas | Lithuanian Grammar[END_REF], [START_REF] Abdulla | The Meanings of Interjections in English and Arabic[END_REF], [START_REF] Aikhenvald | Imperatives and Commands[END_REF], and [START_REF] Denisova | О некоторых особенностях верхового диалекта в говорах чувашской диаспоры Ульяновской области[END_REF]. Most of these studies are dedicated to other categories or linguistic phenomena, e.g., interjections, imperatives, and "para-language", or are conceived as general grammatical deceptions of a respective language. For a more detailed account of the history of research on CACs (including the review of much older sources from 19 th c. and the beginning of the 20 th c.) consult [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF] and [START_REF] Andrason | The Non-arbitrariness of Some Conative Calls Used to Chase Animals[END_REF]. 5 The different semantic types of CACs, i.e., summonses, dispersals, and directionals, are also correlated with determined phonetic and morphological features. This means that their prototypical formal make-up may differ (see [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF].

cultural environment" (Andrason and Sagara under review; see also [START_REF] Amha | Directives to Humans and to Domestic Animals: The Imperative and Some Interjections in Zargulla[END_REF]. This link between the structure of (a) language or its parts on the one hand and the ecosystem (both a physical/natural habitat and a socio-cultural context) on the other hand -and in particular, the dependency of the former on the latter -is referred to as 'ecolinguistics' [START_REF] Steffensen | Ecolinguistics: The State of the Art and Future Horizons[END_REF][START_REF] Fill | Introduction[END_REF][START_REF] Li | Rethinking Ecolinguistics from a Distributed Language Perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Penz | Ecolinguistics: History, Today, and Tomorrow[END_REF]). -Additionally, from a phylogenetic perspective, the evidence provided by three dialects of Akan, i.e., Asante, Bobo, and Fante, suggests that the cognancy level of CACs in closely related languages is (significantly) lower than is the case of general lexicon (Andrason, Antwi, and Given the difficulties inherent to collecting data from any language used in rural areas that are remote from urban and administrative centers, our data-collection activities were necessarily heterogenous and consisted of introspection, semi-structured interviews, and focus-group discussions. First, half of the Babanki CACs described in this study have been provided by the second author, drawing on his native-speaker competence. These lexemes were subsequently contrasted with five other Babanki native speakers (Vivian Ba-ah, Regina Phubong, Cornelius Wuchu, Victor Vishi, and Benjamin Nkwenti) during sessions conducted through WhatsApp between January and March 2023. The remaining half of the CACs were produced spontaneously by the above-mentioned team during a number of WhatsApp group-discussion sessions that lasted approximately 3 hours. CACs in Bum were elicited from a native speaker (Julius Ntang) through semi-structured interviews conducted via WhatsApp in November 2022 and April 2023. These sessions lasted about an hour each. All CACs in Babanki and Bum were recorded with smart phones as .ogg or .acc audio files and stored online on a safe repository platform facilitated by the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages.

The CACs have been collected by means of the operationalized definition introduced at the beginning of the article. While simplified and less precise than the definition of the prototype of CAC (see Andrason and Karani 2021: 33-36), this definition has turned highly useful in our previous fieldwork activities dedicated to collecting CACs in several languages across Africa: Xhosa in South Africa [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF], Tjwao in Zimbabwe [START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF], Oromo in Ethiopia (Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimelis Mazengia, forthcoming), and Dogon in Mali (Andrason and Sagara, under review). Furthermore, in interviews and focus discussions, we made use of written guidelines that had been developed during the same previous fieldwork activities, which we adapted to the reality of Babanki and Bum. These guidelines listed actions typically conveyed by CACs and animals that tend to be their referents, as well as suggested the most common lexico-grammatical forms with which a directive-to-animal function could be encoded in the languages of the world.

Data presentation

In course of the heterogenous fieldwork activities described above, we were able to collect 39 CACs in Babanki and 20 in Bum. Table 1 below captures all these constructions and provides their IPA transcriptions as well as the meaning, i.e., the action that a CACs is supposed to trigger and the animal(s) to which it is addressed. The exact realizations of kisses, snaps, spanks, whistles, and CACs produced with objects will be explained in section 3.2.7

The data from Babanki may be regarded as roughly comprehensive given that the usual size of CAC categories in a language ascends to around 40 or 50 constructions: 39 in Tjwao [START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF], 40 in Xhosa [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF], 45 in Arusa Maasai [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF], 52 in Macha Oromo (Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimelis Mazengia, forthcoming), and 57 in Togo-Teŋu-Kan Dogon of Dourou (Andrason and Sagara, under review). In contrast, the data from Bum may be less complete. They do, however, capture the most stabilized and entrenched CACs that are found in this language and, therefore, in our view, warrant their inclusion in the present study and a comparison with Babanki.

Semantics

The typical action expressed by CACs in Babanki and Bum -i.e., the action that any given CAC is expected to trigger on the part of the animal -concerns motion. Indeed, all 39 CACs attested in Babanki (100%) convey some motion nuances. The semantic potential of 32 of these CACs (82%) is in fact limited to the idea of motion. In Bum, 19 out of the 20 CACs (94%) are compatible with motion -for all of them motion constitutes the only semantic component attested. Inversely, CACs that express actions unrelated to motion are rare. In Babanki, there are 7 such constructions (18%).

No CAC is restricted to a motion-unrelated meaning. In Bum, there is 1 such CAC (2%), which is exclusively used to silence animals (tʃíná). There are no significant differences between motion and non-motion CACs as far as their origin is concerned (i.e., being primary, secondary, or borrowed). 9 That is, in Babanki, 3 out of 7 non-motion CACs are primary (hə ́ə́í ʔ, ʃ ̩ ː, and tʃáááìʔ), while the remaining 4 are either secondary (ɣáʔ and kúʔ) or borrowed (see háréì and hə ́rə ́ə̀ adopted from Fulfulde). For motion CACs, this ratio is similar: out of 39 motion CACs, 21 are primary, 15 are secondary, and 3 are borrowed. 10 With regard to the main semantic types of motions conveyed by CACs, no coherent hierarchies can be discerned although in both languages the particular frequency of summonses seems evident. In Babanki, summonses are the most common types of CACs: 20 CACs can be used to call animals with 17 exclusively being associated with this function. Directionals are second most common. There are 14 CACs that are employed to modify the motion of animals of which 8 are limited to this usage. Dispersals are the least common being instantiated by 9 CACs. 3 of them function exclusively as dispersals. In Bum, summonses are again the most common (9 CACs), followed by dispersals (6 CACs) and directionals (3 CACs). In Bum, all such CACs are only used in one action-related function. As far as motion-unrelated CACs are concerned, three meanings are attested: encouraging cattle to eat grass during the day (4 CACs), inciting to mate (2 CACs), and silencing (2 CACs). Of these, one silencing CAC is found in Bum while the remaining meanings are limited to Babanki.

With regard to the animal addressees of CACs, domestic species clearly predominate over wild species. All CACs in Bum (20x) and all but one in Babanki (38x) can be directed to domestic animals. In contrast, only 2 CACs are in principle compatible with wild animals (see wàà that is used with birds and ʃ ̩ ː that is applicable to all animals). As far as the specific domestic species are concerned, the following picture emerges. In Babanki, dogs, cats, and cattle have the largest number of CACs. 21 CACs are used with dogs, with 3 constructions being exclusively associated with these animals; cats -21 / 3 exclusive; and cattle 21 / 1 exclusive. For the remaining species the frequencies are as follows: goats and sheep 18 / 1 exclusive; poultry -11 / 2 exclusive; pigs 9 Primary CACs are forms that have been used as CACs since the beginning of their grammatical life as well as those that, although limited to their use as CACs, have acquired this status due to the profound extent of CAC-ization (i.e., grammaticalization/lexicalization into CACs). Secondary CACs are CACs that draw on other lexical classes (e.g., nouns and verbs) and entire phrases and clauses, and this diachronic relationship remains patent. 10 The very low number of non-motion CACs makes an equivalent comparison in Bum unreliable. 10 / 2 exclusive; horses 6 non-exclusive; and birds 2 / 1 exclusive. In Bum, dogs also have the largest number of CACs, i.e., 11 of which 4 are exclusively used with these animals; goats and sheep -9 / 2 exclusive; cows 9 / 1 exclusive; poultry 9 / 1 exclusive; cats 6 / 1 exclusive; horses 3 / 1 exclusive; and pigs 1 non-exclusive. Many of the CACs that are limited to a particular species are summons exhibiting an onomatopoeic foundation, e.g., mɔ ̀ɔ́ʔ and mɛ ̀ɛ́ʔ in Babanki and kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ́ɔ́k ɔ ́k in Bum.

The semantic potential of CACs in Babanki may range from (virtually) monosemous to largely polysemous. The increase in polysemy stems from two main factors: the animal referent may be more general and/or the action expressed by a CAC may be of more than one semantic type. In Babanki, bùús and mùús are exemplary cases of monosemy -they are directed to a specific species (cats) and convey a specific meaning (summoning). The same may be observed with mɔ ̀ní and ɲàm used to call pigs, as well as kə ̀tsàf and kwê used to incite dogs to chase a prey. In contrast, ʃ ̩ ː is compatible with all animals and can be employed to both repel and silence them. It should be noted that goats and sheep always share their CACs. This is also, to some extent, the case of household birds (poultry), which have a number of CACs applicable to them all. Nevertheless, such CACs tend to select one specific type of poultry as their preferred (yet not exclusive) referent, i.e., either roosters, hens, chicks, or ducks. Similarly, horses always share their CACs with cattle (although this relation is not reciprocal and there are CACs that are compatible with cattle but not horses). Overall, the vast majority of Babanki CACs are not limited to a single species but may be used with several species whether phylogenetically related or phenotypically similar, as well as those that entertain comparable roles in the local community and economy. In Bum, the semantic potential of CACs is somewhat more limited. This stems from the fact that CACs in Bum invariably express a single specific action. Their referents may, however, range from a single species (e.g., dogs: fû, tʃàlà, lɔ̂, lɔ ́tʃâ; pigs: {object-1}, horses: {spank-1}) to two species, whether related (e.g., |ʷ used with goats and sheep) or unrelated (e.g., ǁ̠ used with cows and ducks), or even a more diverse set of animals (e.g., ʃ ̩ used with goats, sheep, dogs, and poultry and káhí used with goats, sheep, dogs, cats, poultry, and cows). Nevertheless, we suspect that this exclusivity of Bum CACs with regard to their actions may, to some degree, be due to the limitation in our data. It is probable that several of the Bum CACs covey a somewhat broader scope of action and thus exhibit at least minimally larger polysemy.

Phonetics

CACs exhibit a series of phonetic tendencies which become particularly manifest if primary and secondary CACs are studied separately. These tendencies concern the robustness (or shortness) of the phonetic form of a CAC, its consonantal (or vocalic) character, and extra-systematicity (or systematicity).

To begin with, CACs tend to be short. This is relatively evident in Babanki where 22 CACs are monosyllabic or consist of monosyllabic segments replicated in a series (see section 3.3), while only 13 CACs are disyllabic. Disyllabicity is somewhat correlated with the secondary status of a CAC (e.g., bwìnə ́ and dzK mə ́) or its borrowing (háréì and hə ́rə ́ə̀) -in total, there are 8 such CACs. In contrast, five disyllabic CACs are primary (e.g., hə ́ə́í ʔ, kK ŕK , and mya᷇ wúʔ). Overall, disyllabic lexemes constitute 24% of the 21 primary CACs. For the 18 secondary and borrowed CACs, disyllabic forms ascend to 44%. In Bum, the prevalence of monosyllabic forms over disyllabic forms is comparable to what we observed in Babanki: 10 CACs contain one syllable or are built of such monosyllabic segments, while 6 consist of two syllables. Similarly, the above-motioned correlation between mono-syllabicity and primary CACs on the one hand, and disyllabicity and secondary/borrowed CACs on the other hand, is palpable in Bum although perhaps being slightly less evident than in Babanki. Trisyllabic CACs or longer constructions are unattested in both languages. It should however be noted that the phonetic shortness of CACs in Babanki and Bum is not particularly remarkable as monosyllabic roots, including verbal and nominal, are the most common root types in Babanki (Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 24-26) and, as far as we know, Bum.

While CACs may draw on both consonants and vowels in Babanki and Bum, consonantal material seems more visible and is, in our opinion, more fundamental in CACs. This stems from two reasons. First, while purely vocalic CACs are unattested (the closest equivalent of such forms are CACs that in Babanki consist of an approximant and a vowel, e.g., wàà and yééè), a number of CACs are exclusively built around consonants. Such consonantal CACs are ʔʃ ̩ in Babanki and ʃ ̩ ː, |ʷ, and ǁ̠ in Babanki and Bum. Second, no CAC begins with a pure vowel and is thus onset-less. Inversely, all CACs have consonantal onsets with only a few exhibiting an approximant (see the above-mentioned wàà and yééè, as well as hə ́ə́í ʔ). 11Although the majority of CACs make use of systematic sounds, i.e., phones that are found in the standard phonetic repertoire of Babanki and Bum, CACs may also contain extra-systematic phonetic elements or be entirely made up of such extra-systematic material. The first type of extrasystematicity comprises of phones that, although absent in the general word stock in Babanki and Bum, can be found in standard sound systems in the languages of the world and are, therefore, included in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Four such extra-systematic IPA sounds are attested in CACs in Babanki and Bum. All of them are consonants. Contrary to the phonetic repertoire of the prosodic system (or sentence-grammar in Heine's (2023) terminology), CACs make use of clicks. The first click is a dental click often coarticulated with strongly u-shaped lips and thus labialized, i.e., [|ʷ]. This click may sometimes be produced with the closure made more closely to the palatal zone than dental, thus approximating [ ǂ]. In all such cases, the click is bright and high pitched (cf. Sands 2022). The other click is a retracted (alveolar) lateral click [ǁ̠ ]. This click is lauder and more "intense" than [|] (cf. Sands 2022: 21). The remaining extra-systematic sounds found in CACs in Babanki are the glottal fricative or approximant [h] (e.g., hə ́ə́í ʔ) and the trill [r] (e.g., kK ŕK ). However, [h] is not restricted to CACs but also present in onomatopoeias and ideophones (Akumbu 2022). In contrast, [r] is only attested in the CAC kK ŕK ́ used to summon chickens. Interestingly, no extra-systematic vowels are found in our data.

The class of extra-systematic sounds that is larger comprises of sounds that extend beyond the International Phonetic Alphabet. These include sounds made orally (i.e., whistles, kisses, and what we refer to as a tune) and non-orally (i.e., snaps and spanks, and sounds made with objects). {whistle-1}, attested in Babanki, is a series of short high-tone high-pitch whistles produced with strongly protruded lips. Following [START_REF] Poyatos | Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and Sounds[END_REF]2002), this type of whistle may be codified with the symbol {S H -S H -S H (…)] or [S˦-S˦-S˦ (…)]. {kiss-1}, found in Babanki and Bum, is a crosslinguistically common kissing sound that, in the literature dedicated to CACs, has been noted as [↓B']. This kiss consists of two closures: one is dorsovelar being made with the tongue while the other is labial and made with (strongly) protruded lips. Decreased air pressure in the air pocket created by this double closure produces air suction into the mouth (ingressive airstream) when the front/bilabial closure is released [START_REF] Poyatos | Paralanguage: A Linguistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to Interactive Speech and Sounds[END_REF]2002;[START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF]Andrason and Sagara, under review). The [↓B'] segment itself is often replicated in a series. The remaining oral non-IPA sound (only present in Babanki) is an uninterrupted melodic vocalization to which we refer as {tune-1}. This tune is a holistic song-like pattern hummed to tend cattle. The class of nonoral sounds is less robust. Babanki and Bum contain {snap-1} or a short finger snap that can be repeated in a series with relatively short intervals. Additionally, Bum speakers make a common use of a spank in their interactions with horses. This sound, referred to as {spank-1}, combines an auditory feature (i.e., a relatively loud but dull bang similar to claps often used in CACs in the languages of the world; see Andrason, Antwi, and Duah 2023) with a gestural and tactile component. Lastly, one of the CACs employed in Bum to communicate with pigs (see {object-1}) is made by means of a receptacle, usually a dish that is used to give food to pigs. The speaker hits the dish against a wall or the ground and alerts the animals to come to eat. 12As far as phonotactics are concerned, CACs may exhibit syllable structures that are unattested in the general word stock of Babanki and Bum. That is, apart from the standard syllable structures such as V, C(G)V, C(G)VC, and N (Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 24-25), CACs allow for C and CC syllables and thus consonantal nuclei other than nasals. These extra-systematic syllables are found in ʔʃ ̩ in Babanki and in ʃ ̩ ː, |ʷ, and ǁ̠ in Babanki and Bum. The same CACs demonstrate that, contrary to the standard system, CACs tolerate entirely consonantal word structures. It should also be noted that, in the general word stock, the glottal stop ʔ does not appear in an onset position (Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 19). In CACs, ʔ may appear in syllable onsets as illustrated by ʔʃ ̩ often found in the replicated series ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ. 13A clearly recognizable feature of CACs is length. In Babanki and, to the best of our knowledge, Bum, vowel length is not contrastive. Importantly, long vowels seem to be absent in the general word stock in both languages, being limited to ideophones where lengthening expresses duration and intensification (Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 22, 204). In CACs, long vowels are common and need not convey any type of intensity of emphasis: hə ́ə́í ʔ, hə ́rə ́ə̀, wàà. In fact, several CACs regularly exhibit extra-long realizations of their vowels. See, for example, tʃáááìʔ, tʃḛ ̋ḛ ̀ḛ ̀ìʔ, and yééè in Babanki. Babanki and Bum also tolerate long consonants in CACs as illustrated by ʃ ̩ ː which can be lengthened to ʃ ̩ ːː or exhibit even more exaggerated duration.

Another peculiarity of CACs is the use of contour tones and diphthongs in forms such as bùús, mùús, and tʃááìʔ in Babanki or tʃáì, mɛ ̀ɛ́ʔ , and mɔ ̀ɔ́ʔ in Bum. While being extremely rare in the prosaic systems of both languages, contour tones and diphthongs are relatively frequent in CACs, whether primary or secondary. At least as far as Babanki is concerned, contour tones and diphthongs have also been reported in ideophones and onomatopoeia (Akumbu 2022).14 At this stage of our research, we are uncertain of any functional motivation of the presence of contour tones in CACs as well as in ideophones and onomatopoeia.

CACs distinguish themselves from the many other lexical classes in Babanki and Bum by the so-called modulations, i.e., loudness, marked intensity, articulatory speed, intonation, and phonation (cf. Andrason and Karani 2021: 34). Indeed, Babanki/Bum CACs are often shouted, pronounced with particular intensity, speed, and excessive high pitch, sung following a determined melody pattern, or uttered with strongly modified voice, being hummed, murmured, and/or whispered. One CAC, i.e., tʃḛ ̋ḛ ̀ḛ ̀ìʔ, is regularly pronounced with heavy laryngealization or creaky voice.

Some of the semantic types of CACs are correlated with determined phonetic features. Summonses tend in Babanki and Bum to be realized with the so-called "friendly intonation" (cf. Andrason and Karani 2021: 36;[START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF]) and thus uttered with a gentle voice, higher pitch, and melodically (cf. [START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF]. They also draw more extensively on extrasystematic sounds than any other semantic types. To be exact, in Bum, only 1 summons out of the 6 attested is phonetically systematic (i.e., ŋɲíwū). In Babanki, out of 16 summonses, 6 are phonetically extra-systematic (e.g., ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ, |ʷ, and ǁ̠ ). In contrast, dispersals tend to be realized with hostile pronunciation: loudly, quickly, and harshly (cf. [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF]. They also exploit sibilants to a larger extent than the other types of CACs (cf. [START_REF] Andrason | The Non-arbitrariness of Some Conative Calls Used to Chase Animals[END_REF]. Out of 9 dispersals in Babanki and 7 in Bum, 4 draw on a sibilant (see [ʃ] attested in ʃ ̩ ː in Babanki and Bum) or an affricate sibilant (see [t ͡ ʃ] in tʃáááìʔ, tʃḛ ̋ḛ ̀ḛ ̀ìʔ, tʃòó in Babanki and tʃáì, tʃàlà, and lɔ ́tʃâ in Bum).15

Morphology

CACs tend to be morphologically simple in Babanki and Bum, and this simplicity is recognizable in primary and, albeit less so, secondary CACs.

not make use of derivational marking and compounding strategies. Additionally, two CACs are derived in Babanki from nouns, i.e., ɲàm 'animal, cattle' and kə ̀tsàf 'booty'. These nouns are monomorphemic with no inflections, derivations, or compounded elements. In Bum, the four secondary CACs attested in our database derive from imperatives: fû 'exit!', lɔ̂ 'leave!', lɔ ́tʃâ 'get out!', and tʃàlà 'pass!'.

In addition to primary and secondary CACs, 3 lexemes are loanwords. In Babanki, mɔ ̀ní derives from the English word money, while háréì and hə ́rə ́ə̀ are identical to the Fulfulde CACs used with cows and horses. Similar to primary and some secondary CACs, these forms lack any type of morphological complexity.

As is the case of phonetics, the morphological structures of summonses and dispersals are subject to certain (more specific) tendencies. As mentioned above, summonses are correlated with replications. In contrast, dispersals generally have punctual forms, avoiding replicated patterns.17

When considered holistically, the categories of CACs in Babanki and Bum are opaque. This means that no morphological pattern is exclusively associated with CACs and a directive-toanimal function. Inversely, CACs may exhibit any type of form, ranging from shorter to more robust. This not only holds true of the CAC category envisaged jointly (compare the primary ʃ ̩ ː and ǁ̠ with the secondary kə ̀tsàf and mɔ ̀ní, borrowed from English) but is also evident in the subset of primary CACs. Compare |ʷ, ʔʃ ̩ , kK ŕK ́ (both typically found in the replicated series kK ŕK -kK ŕK -kK ŕK ́ and ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ ), bùús, and tʃááːìʔ.

Ecolinguistics

The members of the Babanki and Bum ethnic group live in very similar environmental conditions and ecosystems. Both communities are located in the Western High Plateau in Cameroon. The Western High Plateau is a high relief of mountains and massifs that is characterized by an equatorial climate of the Cameroon type. This means generally cool temperatures, relatively heavy rainfall, and predominantly Sudan savanna-like vegetation, i.e., short bushes and shrubs as well as trees. Although this plateau used to be densely covered by forest, such forest areas are currently limited to zones adjacent to rivers, being replaced elsewhere by grassland -a process that is mostly due to human activities and agriculture-related deforestation [START_REF] Gwanfogbe | Geography of Cameroon[END_REF].

Given the shared ecosystem, the Babanki and Bum are exposed to and own identical animals. These primarily include goats and sheep, dogs and cats, poultry (mostly chickens and ducks), cattle (typically, cows), and pigs. Expectedly, all these animals are reflected in CACs in both languages. In contrast, Babanki and Bum people do not keep horses. Horses that are found in the areas inhabited by these two communities are rather owned by the cattle-herding Fulani. The Bum seem to have interacted with the Fulani more intensively than the Babanki. As a result, they have developed a horse-specific CAC (a non-oral, semi-auditory and semi-gestural spank; see section 3.2) and a few additional 'horse CACs' that can also be employed with other animals. All these CACs are well known among the Bum speakers and stabilized in the community. With regard to the Babanki, only a small group of them lives in areas that are adjacent to Fulani settlements and has had contact with the Fulani and thus horses. Therefore, only those Babanki people who interact directly with the Fulani are familiar with expressions directed towards horses, the remaining community members being generally unaware of these CACs. Furthermore, contrary to what can be observed in many languages in Western and Central Africa where donkey are common referents of CACs [START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF]Andrason and Sagara, under review), there are no expressions directed towards donkeys among the CACs collected by us. Although North-West Cameroon lies beyond the area associated with the (common) presence of donkeys in farming systems [START_REF] Blench | A History of Donkeys, and Mules in Africa[END_REF][START_REF] Blench | The history and spread of donkeys in Africa[END_REF], donkeys used to be found in the Babanki and Bum communities in the past according to the native speakers. Since the 1980s, donkey have gradually become rare and ultimately ceased to be part of the livestock. Accordingly, the CACs directed to donkeys which must have existed in the 20 th century, are now lost without a trace. Lastly, dogs and cats are not pets sensu stricto (contrary to their role in Western households) but rather entertain an important function: hunting (still commonly practiced) and defense in the case of dogs and protection from small rodents, reptiles, and arthropods (bugs and insects) in the case of cats. Overall, despite certain language-specific idiosyncrasies and differences, the similar fauna to which Babanki and Bum speakers are exposed manifests itself through highly similar hierarchies of addresses in both languages: dogs > cats > cattle > goats/sheep > poultry > pigs > horses > birds in Babanki and dogs > goats/sheep > cattle > poultry > cats > horses > pigs in Bum (see section 3.1).

The ecosystem shared by the two communities and the resultant common socio-cultural foundation of CACs are also evident through the personal names used for certain animals. According to our data, dogs are virtually the only animals that are given proper names in Babanki and Bum. Their names reflect the knowledge and worldview of the speakers and the stereotypes propagated in the respective communities -which once again coincide to an extent. For example, the perception of Japan's technological prowess, shared by both Babanki and Bum, is reflected in the dog names dʒàpān (Babanki) and dʒàpân (Bum). According to native speakers, this name manifests the wish that the dog would become as efficient in hunting as the effectiveness associated with Japanese products. Other canine names that draw on nationalities reflect similar folk generalizations associated with certain countries and their citizens. That is, in Bum, dʒámân 'German' has its roots in the conviction of Germany's political and financial hegemony, tʃáínà 'China' in China's rising economic power, and zàyî 'Zaire' in Congo's musical reputation. Other proper names of dogs draw on English personal names (e.g., dʒìmí < Jimmy and ràmbō < Rambo), colors (e.g., blāk < black), and common names (e.g., lɔ ́kì < lucky and wískì < whisky). Given a greater exposure to the Fulani, Bum speakers also give proper names to horses. These names tend to be of Fulfulde origin: wát < Fulfulde wárt 'come back'.

Cognancy

CACs that exhibit the same form in Babanki and Bum and exploit non-IPA sounds or are non-oral, i.e., {kiss-1} and {snap-1}, also largely coincide in function. That is, although the scope of their animal referents varies slightly, these CACs are summonses in both languages. Although this formal and functional similarity could be analyzed in terms of cognancy, this again need not be the case, and the two pairs of CACs may have emerged independently in Babanki and Bum due to crosslinguistic pressures. This especially holds true of {kiss-1} given that similar kisses are commonly used to summon animals in many languages, e.g., Arusa Maasai [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF], Xhosa [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF], Akan [START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF], Oromo (Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimeli Mazengia, forthcoming), and Dogon (Andrason and Sagara, under review).

Additionally, the CAC fʉ ̀ʉ́ used to chase away many types of animals in Babanki exhibits formal similarity with fû employed to chase away dogs in Bum. Both CACs are secondary and derive from verbal roots inflected in its imperative form, i.e., fʉ ̀ʉ́ and fû 'go out! exit!'. While the above may suggest that these CACs are cognate -they certainly exploit cognate verbal forms that derive from a shared form that existed in the proto language (cf. Heiman n.d., 94) -the very process of harnessing this root for a directive-to-animal function may have occurred independently in Babanki and Bum and again stemmed from iconic pressures. That is, although [f] is not a common consonant in dispersals (Andrason 2023: 95-96), it may be iconically related to an intense blow of air which is sometimes used to repel insects and smaller animals.

Overall, the cognancy of the CACs attested in Babanki and Bum is remarkably low. As explained above, at the most, it ascends to 23% in Babanki and 45% in Bum. If we discount forms that could have emerged independently due to universal and/or iconic pressures rather than descending from a shared ancestor, Babanki and Bum do not have undeniable cognates, with the exception of fʉ ̀ʉ́ and fû. This low degree of cognancy in CACs in Babanki and Bum is clearly visible in the primary CACs used to summon cats. Babanki and Bum exploit three main strategies attested across languages to form these types of CAC: {miau}-type (found in Akan, Kihunde, and Oromo), {niau}-type (found in Maasai and Xhosa), and {b/mVs}-type (found in Bono and Arabic). While Babanki makes use of the first and the third of these strategies, Bum opts of the second one.

The low cognancy level of CACs demonstrated above starkly contrasts with the cognancy extent attested in the general lexicon. After reviewing the comparative list of 436 words (Hyman n.d.), we concluded that around 85% of lexemes are cognate in Babanki and Bum and derive from forms that existed in the proto language. This high lexico statistical similarity attested in the general vocabulary is consistent with the general close phylogenetic relatedness of these two languages [START_REF] Grollemund | Bantu Expansion Shows that Habitat Alters the Route and Pace of Human Dispersals[END_REF]; see also [START_REF] Hammarström | Glottolog 4.8[END_REF].

Summary and discussion

The data presented in section 3 reveal the following profile of the CAC categories in Babanki and Bum:

-Semantically, CACs mainly express actions related to motion, have domestic species as their referents, and can be (nearly) monosemous as well as polysemous. -Phonetically, CACs, especially their primary subclass, tend to be monosyllabic. They exploit consonantal material more extensively than vocalic material, exhibit extrasystematic sounds (both IPA or non-IPA) and sound combinations, and are marked by a series of suprasegmental features such as length and various types of modulations. -Morphologically, CACs are often roots with no inflections, derivations, and compounding -a property that makes the entire category opaque. (Additionally, summonses and dispersals are correlated with a series of more specific phonetic and morphological properties in agreement with what has been observed in other languages.) -Ecolinguistic-ally, the organization of the CAC category is considerably conditioned by the fauna and flora found in the territories where the Babanki and Bum live and the economy the two communities practice. -Phylogenetically, the categories of CACs in Babanki and Bum contain much fewer cognates than is the case of other lexical classes. Most CACs that coincide formally and functionally may owe their similarity not to cognancy, but rather iconic and universal strategies exploited in the two languages separately. The above demonstrates that Babanki and Bum CACs tend to match the features associated with the prototype of a CAC and, as a result, the CAC categories in these two languages may be viewed as canonical. The most pervasive violation of the prototypical features is polysemy. That is, although as predicted by the prototype, monosemy is attested, polysemous CACs seem to be equally common. However, since similar extents of polysemy of CACs have been observed in several other languages [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Talking to Animals in a Moribund Language: Pragma-semantics, Phonetics, and Morphology of Conative Animal Calls in Tjwao[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF]Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimeli Mazengia, forthcoming), "the polysemy of CACs may be […] greater than assumed thus far" (Andrason 2022: 49). Our results seem to support this revision to the prototype. Overall, the most significant divergences from the prototype with regard to phonetics and morphology are found in secondary CACs -a phenomenon that is also well documented in literature [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF].

As a result, our study overwhelmingly corroborates the soundness of the prototype of CACs with regard to semantics, phonetics, and morphology as has been posited in scholarly literature and verified in several other language systems. More importantly, however, it provides evidence supporting the ecolinguistic and phylogenetic features which have been included in the prototype model only recently and, contrary to the semantic, phonetic, and morphological properties, have not been substantiated by a large and diversified spectrum of languages. Indeed, our findings strongly confirm the hypothesis that, to a much larger extent than is typical of many other lexical classes, CACs depend on the natural habitat and socio-cultural context (cf. Andrason and Sagara, under review) and are resistant to be inherited throughout the history of a language or a language branch (cf. Andrason, Antwi, and Duan 2023; see also Daković 2006 and Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimeli Mazengia, forthcoming).

The present research has some additional bearings for the general typology of CACs. First, our data corroborates a semantic and formal relationship between CACs and imperative verbs. Both classes are directive and draw on short or even monomorphemic forms. Given this semantic and morphological similarity, it is unsurprising that most secondary CACs derive from imperative verbs across languages (cf. [START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF]; see also [START_REF] Aikhenvald | Imperatives and Commands[END_REF]. Second, apart from allowing for the presence of clicks in non-click languages, CACs may exhibit some tendency to exploit the trill [r] in non-trill languages. This phenomenon is attested not only in Babanki but also Akan [START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF] and Dogon (Andrason and Sagara, under review)). Third, primary summonses tend to have an iconic foundation, imitating the sounds made by the respective animals that are being called and formally overlap with onomatopoeias.

Lastly, we also hope that with this research we have meaningfully contributed to Babanki and Bum scholarship, especially as far as the phonetics and phonology of these two languages are concerned. CACs demonstrate that radical contour tones and diphthongs (i.e., those found in roots) are not foreign to Babanki and Bum speakers. Nor are the Babanki and Bum unfamiliar with clicks, trills, and glottal fricative/approximants. Similarly, length(ening) and replications do not always carry intensifying functions in Babanki and Bum; While the intensifying function of length(ening) and replications may indeed apply to onomatopoeias and ideophones, they are not inherent to CACs.

Conclusion

In this article we offered a systematic analysis of conative animal calls in Babanki and Bum -two under-researched Central-Ring Grassfields languages of Cameroon. The data presented demonstrates that, in both languages, the categories of CACs instantiate the prototype of a CAC to a large extent with regard to both semantics, phonetics, and morphology; that several linguistic properties of CACs have their source in the ecosystems inhabited by the respective communities of speakers; and that the similarity between the CACs in Babanki and Bum is low and their cognancy minimal.

Of course, our study has not addressed all the questions related to CACs in Babanki and Bum and Grassfields languages more generally. Given the scarcity of corpora capturing spontaneous language use, we did not analyze the syntax of Babanki and Bum CACs. Without doubt, such an analysis is necessary to design a (more) complete picture of the CAC category in these two languages. Furthermore, while reluctance to a phylogenetic transmission is evident in the Central-Ring Grassfields languages studied in the present article, the phylogenetics of CACs in the other members of this family remain unknown. To ensure that the low inheritance ratio of CACs is indeed a characteristic of the entire branch of languages, a study of CACs in Kuk, Kung, Mmen, Oku, and especially, Kom -which separates Babanki in south from Bum in the north -is needed. Our intention is to conduct all such studies in the near future.

Table 1 :

 1 Conative animal calls in Babanki and Bum

	Babanki

kɔ kɔ kɔ . summon poultry (chickens) tʃáì chase away goats, sheep, dogs, cats, poultry (ducks), and cattle (cows) kúʔ make goats, sheep, dogs, cats, and cattle go up and climb; incite

113 km separate Bum from the Babanki of Kejom Keku, while 142 km separate Bum from the Babanki of Kejom Ketinguh.

Properly speaking, CACs are conative calls addressed to non-human animals since homo sapience is also an animal species.

We understand Bantoid in its narrow sense, i.e., without Bantu languages. CACs have been analysed in some Bantu languages, e.g., Xhosa[START_REF] Andrason | Conative Animal Calls in Xhosa: Testing the Prototype[END_REF].

Systematic analyses dedicated specifically to CACs are scarce not only in the Grassfields family but also in other language phyla (seePoyatos 2002: 178; Andrason and Karani 2021: 4). Taking apart the recent articles published by Andrason alone and in collaboration with other linguists, the most important contributions include:Bynon (1976)

Prototypical features also concern syntax (seeAndrason and Karani 2021: 26-33, 35-36). Due to the scarcity of corpora demonstrating spontaneous speech, we do not analyze the syntax of CACs in this article. Given the prototype approach which we have espoused, the above features can be and, in some cases, often are violated. Importantly, such violations are motivated and, as the prototype itself, essential for an accurate understanding of the entire category.

We have decided to introduce our data at the beginning of the present section rather than in an appendix at the end of the article. This allows us to avoid translating every Babanki/Bum CAC quoted in the text (or explaining its meaning) as this information is already available to the reader.

We do not use the IPA length symbol ː with vowels because each vowel can bear a different tone. In the only example containing a long consonant, we make use of ː to avoid spellings such as ʃ ̩ ʃ ̩ (which may suggest two syllables) or ʃ ̩ ʃ (which arbitrarily ascribes a nucleic role to one of the ʃ symbols). We thus choose the lack of coherence over the lack of precision.

As far as codas are concerned, CACs may exabit any type of form. They can end in a pure vowel, a diphthong, or a consonant.

Of course, this is not the only situation when Bum and also Babanki speakers make use of objects to interact with animals. For instance, a Bum person may use a carved wood where salt is served to goats and cows can also be hit to invite the animals to consume salt before going to eat grass in the fields. It seems, however, that the CAC used with pigs is the most regularized and entrenched.

In coda, CACs behaves as the general word stock. They do not exhibit more codas than what is tolerated in other lexical classes, i.e., /m/, /n/, /ŋ/, /f/, /s/, /b/, and /ʔ/(Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 19). See, for instance, kə ̀tsàf, ɲàm, kwɛ ́n, tʃə ́ŋ, bùús, and ɣáʔ in Babanki.

The lesser frequency of contour tones and diphthongs in Bum is most likely due to the limited number of CACs collected so far.

Some of these dispersals are secondary CACs, e.g., Babanki tʃòó, and Bum tʃàlà and lɔ ́tʃâ.

Following Andrason and Karani (2021), we use the term 'replication' to refer to word-like patterns. The term 'repetition' is, in turn, employed to refer to words appearing in a series. For the characteristics differentiating replications and repetitions in CACs consult[START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF].

These punctual forms may of course be repeated. In such instances, each CACs is separated by a pause and the sequence constitutes an analytical syntactic pattern.

It is also possible that this similarity constitutes an areal feature.

All primary CACs (21 in Babanki and 19 in Bum) are monomorphemic. They contain neither inflectional nor derivational affixes. They also fail to make use of compounding mechanisms. The only exceptions to morphological simplicity are replications, which are particularly common in summonses. 16 Indeed, several summonses tend to occur in series, as illustrated by kK ŕK -kK ŕK -kK ŕK , mɔ ̀ní-mɔ ̀ní-mɔ ̀ní, ɲàm-ɲàm-ɲàm, ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ , |ʷ-|ʷ-|ʷ, and ǁ̠ -ǁ̠ -ǁ̠ in Babanki. For these CACs, the use of singletons is rare, dispreferred, or disallowed. The clearest examples of this are kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀ kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀ in Babanki and kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ́ɔ́k ɔ ́k in Bum. This replicative structure is also patent in {whistle-1}, {kiss-1}, and {snap-1} found in Babanki and Bum, which must be envisioned as holistic replicative patterns. Importantly, the addition of another segment to the above-mentioned CACs does not trigger a change in meaning: the CAC expresses the same action and is addressed to the same animal. Furthermore, the replication found in CACs does not have an intensifying force contrary to the replication present in ideophones (Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 22, 204). Indeed, the forms ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ -ʔʃ ̩ , |ʷ-|ʷ-|ʷ, and ǁ̠ -ǁ̠ -ǁ̠ are not more 'emphatic' than several other summonses that are not replicated. Therefore, as is typical of replications found in CACs across languages, the replication attested in CACs in Babanki and Bum constitutes an expressive phonetic strategy rather than an (exclusively) derivative and thus morphological device. Overall, like ideophones, replicated CACs would violate the constraints that regulate the general word structure in Babanki and Bum (see Akumbu and Chibaka 2012: 26) allowing for reduplicated and triplicated structures.

Secondary CACs -which are 15 in Babanki and 4 in Bum -exhibit a slightly greater extent of morphological complexity. When it is present, this complexity is however the property of the sources of CACs rather than CACs themselves.

To begin with, nearly all secondary CACs draw on imperative verbs. In Babanki, 13 secondary CACs derive from imperatives with which they are still fully homophonous: bwìnə ́ 'return!', dzK mə ́ 'chase!', dʒʉ ̀ʉ́ 'go!', fʉ ̀ʉ́ 'go out!', ɣáʔ 'grip!', kúʔ 'climb!', kwɛ ́n 'enter!', lùú 'leave!', ɲK ŋ 'run!', ɲʉ ́ʔmə ́ 'sit (down)!', tK ḿə ́ 'stand (up)!, tʃə ́ŋ 'turn!', and tʃòó 'pass!'. It should be noted that in Babanki, imperative CACs are marked by a final high tone. This final high tone surfaces as an epenthetic schwa when the imperative is formed with low tone roots -a strategy that allows these roots to avoid a contour tone, which is generally dispreferred in the phonetic system of this language (Akumbu, Kießling, and Hyman 2020). This may be observed in CACs such as bwìnə ́, dzK mə ́, and ɲʉ ́ʔmə ́. In low-tone roots that end in a vowel, the schwa assimilates to the radical vowel as illustrated by the forms such as fø ̀ǿ, dʒʉ ̀ʉ́, lùú, and tʃòó. Alternatively, lengthening stems from the need to accommodate the contour tone -a phenomenon which is typologically frequent. In contrast, the imperative form of high-tone roots coincides with their respective roots: ɣáʔ, kúʔ, kwɛ ́n, ɲK ŋ, and tʃə ́ŋ. From the onset, this last class of deverbal CAC would morphologically agree with CACs by exhibiting a radical form with no inflectional markers. While de-imperative CACs may host inflections (inherited from the original imperatives), they do According to our data, out of the 59 CACs collected (i.e., 39 in Babanki and 20 in Bum), at the most 18 (30%) are 'shared', i.e., they coincide formally, at least to some extent, in the two languages. In other words, there are 9 pairs of CACs that could be cognate and derive from a shared ancestor. Babanki shares 23% of CACs with Bum, while Bum shares 45% of CACs with Babanki. 16 of the shared CACs (i.e., 8 pairs) are primary CACs: 12 (i.e., 6 pairs) are built around IPA phones while 4 (i.e., 2 pairs) exploit non-IPA sounds. 2 shared CACs (i.e., 1 pair) are secondary.

The shared CACs that draw on IPA phones -i.e., kɔ ̀ (found in kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀ kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀ and kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ̀kɔ ́ɔ́k ɔ ́k), mɛ ̀:ɛ ́ʔ, mɔ ̀:ɔ ́ʔ, ʃ ̩ ː, |ʷ, and ǁ̠ -not only coincide formally but also express the same meaning (see however that the exact animal referents may sometimes differ slightly in Babanki and Bum). Specifically, kɔ ̀-, mɛ ̀:ɛ ́ʔ, mɔ ̀:ɔ ́ʔ, |ʷ and ǁ̠ are all used to summon animals, while ʃ ̩ ː is used to chase them away. Although in light of this formal and functional similarity, these CACs could be interpreted as true cognates, for the reason specified below, this resemblance may have a noncognate foundation as well. First, as far as ʃ ̩ ː, |ʷ, and ǁ̠ are concerned, the use of sibilant-and clickdriven CACs in dispersals and summonses respectively is highly common from a crosslinguistic perspective. Indeed, sibilants are extensively exploited to chase away animals, being the most recognizable exponent of a prototypical dispersal [START_REF] Andrason | The Non-arbitrariness of Some Conative Calls Used to Chase Animals[END_REF]. Similarly, even in non-click languages, clicks, including dental and lateral, tend to be used to call animals; see, for instance, Arusa Maasai [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF], Akan [START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF], Oromo (Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimelis Mazengia, forthcoming), and Dogon (Andrason and Sagara, under review). Consequently, the presence of ʃ ̩ ː, |ʷ, and ǁ̠ in both Babanki and Bum need not derive from a shared ancestor but could be attributed to the exploitation of universal crosslinguistic principles. Second, the CACs kɔ ̀-, mɛ ̀:ɛ ́ʔ, and mɔ ̀:ɔ ́ʔ have an onomatopoeic foundation and imitate the sounds made by the animals that are being summoned, i.e., poultry (chickens), goats/sheep, and cattle (caws) respectively. As a result, their similarity with regard to both form and function in Babanki and Bum need not derive an ancestor CAC that existed the proto language. Equally likely is that this similarity has emerged independently in both languages by exploiting iconic, i.e., imitative strategies. Indeed, as in Babanki and Bum, KO-, ME-and MOtype CACs are widely used in the languages of the world to summon poultry, goats/sheep, and cattle. This is attested, for instance, in Arusa, Akan dialects, Dogon, Kihunde, Konso, Macha Oromo, Mokpe, Polish, Slovak, and Syrian Arabic [START_REF] Andrason | Conative Calls to Animals: From Arusa Maasai to a Cross-linguistic Prototype[END_REF][START_REF] Andrason | Phylogenetics of Conative Animal Calls: Asante, Bono, and Fante[END_REF]Andrason, Onsho Mulugeta, and Shimelis Mazengia, forthcoming;Andrason and Sagara, under review). 18 Third, the mere fact that the CACs discussed in this paragraph are identical in the two Central Ring Grassfields languages renders their cognancy unlikely. While Babanki and Bum exhibit a high ratio of cognates (see further below), the comparative list of 436 lexemes compiled by Hyman in the 70s (Hyman n.d.) does not include a single word that would be strictly identical in these two languages. On the contrary, changes affecting vowels, consonants, tonal patterns, or word structure are ubiquitous (this is evident in the forms fʉ ̀ʉ́ and fû discussed below).

Abbreviations

C -consonant; CAC -conative animal call; G -glide; N -nasal; V -vowel.