The discussion on the phonetics of contour tones in Chapter 2 has enabled us to lay out specific empirical predictions of the competing approaches to contour tone distribution. Given that the these approaches all make different predictions, we can test them against actual data. The following two chapters of the dissertation aim to evaluate the predictions of the competing approaches in the face both typological and phonetic data. Chapter 4 documents a survey of contour tone distribution in 187 languages, which serves as a direct test for which positions are privileged contour tone carriers. Chapter 5 documents phonetic studies of duration in languages with multiple lengthening factors, which serve as a direct test for the comparability of different privileged positions for contour tones. To preview the results, I show that contour tone distribution is indeed sensitive to the duration and sonority of the rime, and in languages that have competing durational factors, the one that induces the greater lengthening, or has the greater vowel components when the lengthening is comparable, is always the one that licenses contour tones more readily. This illustrates the necessity for a phonetically informed theory of phonology in line with the direct approach, as it makes more restrictive, yet more accurate predictions.
The Role of Contrast-Specific Phonetics in Contour Tone Distribution: A Survey
Overview of the Survey
This chapter documents the results of a typological survey of the positional prominence effects regarding contour tones. Specially, I examine the contexts in which contour tones are more likely to occur cross-linguistically, and through this examination, I aim to test the hypothesis that the distribution of contour tones reflects the phonetic correlation between the duration and sonority of the rime on the one hand, and the contour tones the syllable is able to carry on the other, and see whether the direct approach to contour tone distribution is superior to the representational and the traditional positional faithfulness approaches. As I have mentioned in §1.4.2, this is also a test case for the contrast-specificity hypothesis of positional prominence in general, since the phonetic properties that are crucial for contour tones might not be crucial for other phonological contrasts. Then if the occurrence of contour tones is sensitive to these phonetic properties per se, we know that positional prominence is not a generic phenomenon that applies in the same fashion to all contrasts, in other words, it is contrast-specific. The data will also bear on the relevance of the phonetically-based, fine-grained concept Canonical Durational Category in phonological patterning, since only through such a concept can the distribution of contour tones be captured in a uniform fashion and at the same time be distinguished from the distribution of other phonological features in a principled way.
The survey is composed of 187 genetically diverse tone languages with contour tones. The Ethnologue (Grimes 1996) was used as the basis for the language classification. The data sources for the typology include grammars, dictionaries, and articles published in linguistic journals. Two considerations underlie the choice of languages—genetic balance and representation of contour tones. To ensure the genetic balance of the languages surveyed, two factors were controlled. For every language phylum that has tone languages, at least one language from that phylum was included. Also, more languages were included for language phyla that have a richer internal structure according to Grimes (1996). To ensure that the typology is representative of contour tone languages, the selection was skewed towards language phyla in which contour tones are common, e.g., Sino-Tibetan languages. The piechart in (0) outlines the genetic composition of the survey. The languages included in the survey, grouped according to their genetic classification, are given in the table in (0). Aliases to a language are given in parentheses following the language. For Chinese languages in the Sino-Tibetan phylum, Grimes (1996) only lists the dialect groups as the smallest unit. In the survey, I include multiple dialects for most of the dialect groups. In this case, the names of the dialect groups are given in italics, followed by the names of the dialects. The sources consulted for each language are listed in Appendix.
(0) Genetic composition of the survey (187 languages):
(0) Genetic classification of languages included in the typology:
Language phylum
|
Number of
languages
|
Languages
|
Afro-Asiatic
|
14
|
Agaw (Awiya), Beja (Bedawi), Bolanci (Bole), Elmolo, Galla (Booran Oromo), Hausa, Kanakuru, Margi, Moc#a (Shakicho), Musey, Ngizim, Rendille, Sayanci, Somali
|
Austro-Asiatic
|
6
|
Brao, Bugan, Muong, So (Thavung), Sre, Vietnamese
|
Caddoan
|
2
|
Caddo, Kitsai
|
Creole
|
1
|
Nubi
|
Daic
|
10
|
Southern Dong, Gelao, Khamti, Lao, Maonan, Saek, Ron Phibun Thai, Songkhla Thai, Southern Thai, Yong
|
Indo-European
|
1
|
Lithuanian
|
Iroquoian
|
1
|
Oklahoma Cherokee
|
Keres
|
1
|
Acoma (Western Keres)
|
Khoisan
|
8
|
!Xóõ, !Xu) (Kung-Ekoka), Ju|’hoasi (Kung-Tsumkwe), Korana, Nama, Naro, ¯Khomani Ng’huki, Sandawe
|
Kiowa Tanoan
|
2
|
Jemez (Towa), Kiowa
|
Miao-Yao
|
4
|
Tananshan Hmong, Lakkja, Mjen, Punu
|
Mura
|
1
|
Pirahã (Mura-Pirahã)
|
Na-Dene
|
5
|
Western Apache, Chilcotin, Navajo, Sarcee, Sekani
|
Niger-Congo
|
48
|
Abidji, Aghem, Babungo (Vengo), Bamileke, Bandi, Kivunjo Chaga, Chicewa, Ciyao, Etung, Gã, Haya, Igbo, Kambari, Kenyang, Kikuyu, Kimbundu, Kinande, Kinyarwanda, Kisi, KOnni, Kpele, Nana Kru, Wobe Kru, Kukuya (Southern Teke), Lama, Lamba, Lokele, Luganda, Machame Chaga, Chimahuta Makonde, Chimaraba Makonde, Mbum, Mende, Zing Mumuye, Ngamambo, Ngazija, Ngie, Ngumbi (Kombe), Nupe, Ólusamia, Runyankore, Sechuana, Shi, Tiv, Venda, Xhosa, Yoruba, Zulu
|
Nilo-Saharan
|
15
|
Bari, Camus, Datooga, Dholuo, Didinga, Lango, Logo, Lulubo, Maasai, Meidob, Nandi (Kalenjin), Päkot, Chamus Samburu, Toposa, Turkana
|
Oto-Manguean
|
13
|
Comaltepec Chinantec, Lalama Chinantec, Lealao Chinantec, Quiotepec Chinantec, Chiquihuitlan Mazatec, Jicaltepec Mixtec, Tlacoyalco Popoloca, San Andrés Chichahuaxtla Trique, San Juan Copala Trique, Isthmus Zapotec, Macuitianguis Zapotec, Mitla Zapotec, Sierra Juarez Zapotec
|
Sino-Tibetan
|
51
|
Gan: Nanchang; Hakka: Yudu;,Huizhou: Shexian, Tunxi; Jin: Changzhi, Pingyao, Shuozhou, Xinzhou, Yangqu; Mandarin: Beijing, Chengdu, Guiyang, Hefei, Huojia, Kunming, Lanzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi’an, Xining, Yanggu, Yinchuan, Zhenjiang; Min Dong: Fuzhou;,Min Nan: Chaoyang, Haikou, Shantou, Zhangping; Wu: Changzhou, Chongming, Lüsi, Ningbo, Pingyang, Shanghai, Suzhou, Wenling, Wuyi; Xiang: Anren, Xiangtan; Yue: Cantonese, Taishan, Zengcheng; Apatani, Tiddim Chin, Lahu, Lisu, Lushai, Chang Naga, Rongmei Naga, Lhasa Tibetan, Rgyalthang Tibetan
|
Siouan
|
1
|
Crow
|
Trans-New Guinea
|
2
|
Mianmin, Siane
|
Witotoan
|
1
|
Ocaina (Huitoto)
|
To briefly preview the results of the typology, it clearly demonstrates that only durational factors identified in (0) (§3.2)—segmental composition, stress, proximity to prosodic boundaries, and the number of syllables in the word—influence the distribution of contour tones in principled ways. The longer the Canonical Durational Category a syllable belongs to, the more likely it can carry tones with higher tonal complexity. Being in the prosodic final position and being in shorter words do contribute positively to contour bearing, while being in root-initial position does not. In other words, the predictions of the direct approach are borne out. In the 187 languages, 159 languages only have contour tone restrictions that observe the implicational hierarchies predicted by the direct approach, as in (0); five languages have both restrictions that observe and restrictions that do not observe the implicational hierarchies; and 22 languages have no restrictions on contour tone distribution.
In the following sections, I discuss the influence of these durational factors on the distribution of contour tones one by one and illustrate with examples.
Share with your friends: |