<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Thanks, Erich! Yes, it's true that comparative concepts "do not
address the issue of non-unique analysis", because they are not
about analysis, but about classification.<br>
<br>
Linguists often conflate these two things – they say things like "I
<i>analyze</i> phenomenon X as Y", where "Y" is a category known
from some other language. But this works only if Y is assumed to be
an innate building block.<br>
<br>
So if one invokes phenomena that are also found in other languages,
one should say "I <i>classify</i> X as Y". And I think that
classification can and should be unique (unlike analysis), because
the classificatory categories are defined in such a way that they
apply equally everywhere. (They are "cookie-cutters" whose shape and
size is not dependent on the dough, to use Erich's apt metaphor.)<br>
<br>
What Round (2019) apparently attempts to do is to have it both ways:
"carve languages at their joints", but in a way that still allows
comparison, by "choosing judiciously" among different (equally
possible) analyses. I fear that such "judicious choices" may
introduce too much subjectiveness (criteria selection bias, as
Tallman 2021 calls it: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005720">https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005720</a>).<br>
<br>
Erich is absolutely right that by choosing "cookie-cutter"-type
comparative concepts (e.g. WALS-type category-like concepts, or
parallel text passages, or Nijmegen-style visual stimuli), one
incurs "the cost of losing sight of the systems being characterised"
– except that "losing sight" suggests that one could do both things
simultaneously.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure whether there is a "growing consensus", though. I
replied to Himmelmann's 2019 paper here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2447">https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2447</a>, and I will reply to the critical
comments on my "General linguistics" paper (mostly by generative
linguists such as David Adger: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005691">https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005691</a>)
next month. It still seems to me that the main lack of consensus is
between advocates of innate building blocks and everyone else.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.02.21 um 08:37 schrieb Erich
Round:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SYCPR01MB3662BC7F7D7E230F2B98CF74A1B29@SYCPR01MB3662.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}p.MsoBibliography, li.MsoBibliography, div.MsoBibliography
{mso-style-priority:37;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Martin Haspelmath writes,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">different issues
here: … (iii) how one links language-particular phenomena to
comparative concepts; Erich Round's paper on “Australian
Phonemic Inventories Contributed to PHOIBLE 2.0” <a
href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333</a> is
a clear example of this last type. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This misconstrues what the study does
altogether, but it also raises a point worth delving into, so
thanks to Martin in the spirit of zigzagging towards the
light:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Round (2019) considers the
language-internal analyses of a large sample of Australian
languages. Relevant to Adam’s topic, phonemic analysis is
famously non-unique, and a given language typically allows
multiple possible analyses. To put it another way, there are
multiple ways to carve a sound system at its joints. Round
(2019) chooses among these multiple, possible,
language-internal analyses, endeavouring to ensure that the
principles of the analysis are comparable across languages.
Thus, when languages in the dataset do differ, those
differences are more likely to reflect empirical differences
in the languages themselves, rather than artifactual
differences due to linguists doing phonemicisation
differently. As Larry Hyman (2017:144) puts it so well, “we
aim to typologize the linguistic properties, not the
linguists”. Discussion of this kind of typological data
preparation is relatively prominent within phonology: see
Hyman (2017), van der Hulst (2017), Kiparksy (2018), and of
course Ian Maddieson’s (1984) classic study which treats the
issue with great care.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In contrast, Comparative Concepts (CC’s) do
not seem to me to address the issue of non-unique analysis,
because they don’t seek to characterise languages in their own
terms. CC’s, in Haspelmath’s sense, are like cookie-cutters
that slice through languages, picking out a predetermined
shape chosen by the analyst (so that we can ask what we find
within it); they deliberately don’t carve languages at their
joints. Round (2019) does carve languages at their joints,
only it admits that there are many ways to do so, and attempts
to choose judiciously among them, given the aim of
constructing a dataset that aids insightful comparison and
typologising.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why is this important to many typologists?
Because we regard languages as organised systems, and want to
understand them as such. A challenge, though, is that complex
systems admit of multiple different characterisations.
Typological methods which attend to this challenge of multiple
analysis / non-uniqueness seek to ameliorate the distractions
and illusions that can be thrown up by different choices of
analysis, while still remaining committed to studying the
system. CC’s in Haspelmath’s sense offer the promise of
reducing variation in analysis, but at the cost of losing
sight of the systems being characterised. Whether that is a
cost worth bearing is evidently still a matter of contention
in current-day typology.*
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Erich<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Though the growing consensus is, it’s
perfectly possible to do good typology without paying it.
Bickel 2021, Round & Corbett 2020, Spike 2020 and
Himmelmann 2019 all make this point from separate angles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New references (other references are in my
earlier post, below):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Bickel,
Balthasar. 2021. “Beyond Universals and Particulars in
Language: A Reply to Haspelmath (2021).”
<u><span style="color:blue"><a
href="https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005707"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005707</a></span></u>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Himmelmann,
Nikolaus P. 2019. Against trivializing language description
(and comparison). Under review.
<br>
<a
href="https://ifl.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/prof-himmelmann/publikationen"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://ifl.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/prof-himmelmann/publikationen</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Maddieson, Ian. 1984. <i>Patterns of
Sounds</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Spike, Matthew.
2020. “Fifty Shades of Grue: Indeterminate Categories and
Induction in and out of the Language Sciences.”
<i>Linguistic Typology</i> 24(3):465-488. <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2061"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2061</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Lingtyp
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a> on
behalf of Martin Haspelmath
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de"><martin_haspelmath@eva.mpg.de></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, 4 February 2021 at 11:32 pm<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">"lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] papers on non-uniqueness in
tone and stress<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">It seems that
there are at least three different issues here:<br>
<br>
(i) whether all speakers of a language have the same system
even when their conventional behaviour is identical; there
happens to be an example of indeterminacy in the latest issue
of
<i>Phonological Data and Analysis</i> (see Matthew Gordon's
earlier message):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:black;background:white">Bennett, W. G., &
Braver, A. (2020). Different speakers, different grammars:
Productivity and representation of Xhosa labial
palatalization. <i>Phonological Data and Analysis</i>, <i>2</i>(6),
1–29. </span><a href="https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v2art6.9"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#0563C1;background:white">https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v2art6.9</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
(ii) on what basis one decides between different analyses of
a language-particular system; e.g. Schane's (1968) example
of English [spin], which can be phonemicized as /sbin/ (with
phonetic devoicing of /b/ after sibilant) or /spʰin/ (with
phonetic deaspiration in the same environment).<br>
<br>
(iii) how one links language-particular phenomena to
comparative concepts; Erich Round's paper on “Australian
Phonemic Inventories Contributed to PHOIBLE 2.0”
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333</a>
is a clear example of this last type. It seems that the
issue in Chácobo that Adam Tallman mentioned ("tone" vs.
"stress") also falls in this category.<br>
<br>
Phonologists do not always distinguish between (ii) and
(iii) (particular description vs. general comparison), as
pointed out prominently by Lass (1984) and Simpson (1999)
(cited by Erich). But Kiparsky (2018) (also cited by Erich)
explicitly rejects the distinction – I have argued against
Kiparsky here: <a href="https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1817"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1817</a>.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
Am 04.02.21 um 13:28 schrieb Erich Round:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Adam,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve enjoyed the conversations you’ve
sparked here on the list recently, please keep them
coming!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for raising an important topic.
I have some paper suggestions below. I’d start by saying,
though, that you might be getting formal phonologists
wrong. Generative theorists from the start were well
aware of the non-uniqueness problem, and that’s one reason
why they were so keen on metrics to evaluate multiple
candidate grammars. Now, that’s not to say it proved to
be plain sailing, but there’s a deep appreciation of the
problem buried in the theory, even if for practical
purposes much theoretical work (just like much typological
work) assumes only one analysis in order to get some other
task completed in a finite amount of time. In optimality
theory, the notion of Richness of the base is one new-ish
incarnation of attempts to deal with the matter.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Canonical Typology (Corbett 2005, Round
and Corbett 2020) provides the conceptual tools for asking
not just whether ‘the best analysis’ is A, B or C, but to
what extent, in multiple different regards, A, B and C
differ and therefore can be considered (dis)advantageous
in different ways. This helps us clarify why and how
multiple analyses arise in the first place. My forthcoming
chapter (2021) on phonotactics in Australian languages
discusses this with respect to complex segments; Kwon
& Round (2015) discuss it with respect to
phonaesthemes; my review (2017) of Gordon’s Phonological
Typology (2016) discusses the idea of doing typology over
a distribution of possible analyses (which I term
‘factorial analysis’) and points out some places where
Gordon’s own work covertly does this when confronted with
non-uniqueness. Parncutt (2015) applies the idea to
reduplication, and a current PhD student of mine, Ruihua
Yin presented some of her fascinating results regarding
sonority sequencing at the Australian Linguistics Society
conference in December; her thesis should be finished
early this year, and will be a major undertaking in this
kind of typology. Round (2019) discusses how I addressed
the issue of non-uniqueness when compiling a typologically
nuanced set of 400 Australia phoneme inventories for
Phoible. Natalia Kuznetsova’s work (2019) is relevant to
prosody and responds to Hyman’s (2006) classic paper.
Other serious discussions of the issue from various
angles, typically very thoughtful and some quite in-depth
are: Hockett 1963, Lass 1984, Simpson 1999, Hyman 2007,
2008, 2017, Dresher 2009, van der Hulst 2017, Kiparksy
2018.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Erich<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Corbett,
Greville G. 2005. “The Canonical Approach in Typology.” In
<i>Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories</i>, edited
by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, and David S Rood,
25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Dresher, B.
Elan. 2009.
<i>The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology</i>. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Gordon,
Matthew K. 2016.
<i>Phonological Typology</i>. Oxford University Press.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Hockett,
Charles F. 1963. “The Problem of Universals in Language.”
In
<i>Universals of Language</i>, edited by Joseph Greenberg,
1–29.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Hyman,
Larry. 2006. “Word-Prosodic Typology.”
<i>Phonology</i> 23: 225–57.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Hyman,
Larry M. 2007. “Where’s Phonology in Typology?”
<i>Linguistic Typology</i> 11: 265–71.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hyman, Larry M. 2008. “Universals in
Phonology.” <i>The Linguistic Review</i> 25: 83–137.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Hyman,
Larry M. 2017. “What (Else) Depends on Phonology?” In
<i>Dependencies in Language</i>, edited by Nicholas
Enfield, 141–58.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Kiparsky,
Paul. 2018. “Formal and Empirical Issues in Phonological
Typology.” In
<i>Phonological Typology</i>, edited by Larry M. Hyman and
Frans Plank, 54–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Kuznetsova,
Natalia. 2019. What Danish and Estonian can show to a
modern word-prosodic typology. In Goedemans, R., Heinz,
J., & van der Hulst, H. (Eds.). The study of word
stress and accent: Theories, methods and data. CUP.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Kwon,
Nahyun, and Erich R. Round. 2015. “Phonaesthemes in
Morphological Theory.”
<i>Morphology</i> 25 (1): 1–27.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Lass,
Roger. 1984. “Vowel System Universals and Typology:
Prologue to Theory.”
<i>Phonology Yearbook</i> 1: 75–111.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Parncutt,
Amy. 2015. “Towards a Phonological Typology of
Reduplication in Australian Languages.” Honours Thesis,
University of Queensland.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Round,
Erich R. 2017. “Review of Gordon, Matthew K. Phonological
Typology, OUP 2016.”
<i>Folia Linguistica</i> 51 (3): 745–55.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Round,
Erich R. 2019. “Australian Phonemic Inventories
Contributed to PHOIBLE 2.0: Essential Explanatory Notes.”
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Round,
Erich R. forthcoming 2021. “Phonotactics.” In
<i>Oxford Guide to Australian Languages</i>, edited by
Claire Bowern. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.23022.13120<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Round,
Erich R., and Greville G. Corbett. 2020. “Comparability
and Measurement in Typological Science: The Bright Future
for Linguistics.”
<i>Linguistic Typology</i> 24 (3): 489–525.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Simpson,
Adrian P. 1999. “Fundamental Problems in Comparative
Phonetics and Phonology: Does UPSID Help to Solve Them.”
In
<i>Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of
Phonetic Sciences</i>, 1:349–52. Berkeley: University of
California.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:24.0pt;text-indent:-24.0pt">Van der
Hulst, Harry. 2017. “Phonological Typology.” In
<i>The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology</i>,
edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert MW Dixon,
39–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Lingtyp
<a
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a>
on behalf of TALLMAN Adam
<a href="mailto:Adam.TALLMAN@cnrs.fr"
moz-do-not-send="true"><Adam.TALLMAN@cnrs.fr></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, 4 February 2021 at 9:20 pm<br>
<b>To: </b>VAN DE VELDE Mark <a
href="mailto:Mark.VANDEVELDE@cnrs.fr"
moz-do-not-send="true"><Mark.VANDEVELDE@cnrs.fr></a>,
<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">"lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] papers on
non-uniqueness in tone and stress</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks,
yes, I've read this paper.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Adam</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Adam
James Ross Tallman (PhD, UT Austin)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">ELDP-SOAS
-- Postdoctorant<br>
CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596)<br>
Bureau 207, 14 av. Berthelot, Lyon (07)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">Numero
celular en bolivia: +59163116867</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="0" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRpF862855">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">De
:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
Lingtyp [<a
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>]
de la part de Mark Van de Velde [<a
href="mailto:mark.vandevelde@cnrs.fr"
moz-do-not-send="true">mark.vandevelde@cnrs.fr</a>]<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> jeudi 4 février 2021 11:57<br>
<b>À :</b> <a
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [Lingtyp] papers on
non-uniqueness in tone and stress</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Dear Adam:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I can recommend Hyman (2012).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>All the best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Mark<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoBibliography">Hyman, Larry M. 2012. In
defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman
and Venditti.
<i>Linguistic Typology</i>. De Gruyter Mouton 16(3).
341–385. <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0014"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0014</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 04/02/2021 11:12, TALLMAN
Adam wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Hello
all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I'm
looking for papers on the notion of
non-uniqueness in phonology (or morphosyntax
if applicable). I have three so far (Chao,
Hockett, and Schane).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I'm
particularly interesting in non-uniqueness
in the domain of the description of
suprasegmentals - like when we have a system
that seems to mix tone and (other types of)
prominence whether the system should be
described as tonal with a stress mapped to
it or vice versa. Phonologists discuss the
issue as if there is an obvious unique best
way of describing such relations in all
cases. But I think that's probably false and
it choosing one over the other just amounts
to an expositional decision - some of the
discussion in Tallman and Elias-Ulloa (2020)
point in this direction in Chácobo.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">There's
also the related issue of
<b><i>when</i></b> the acoustic correlates
of some phonological category are organized
in such a way as to genuinely merit the
designation "tone". Phonologists seem to
assume that this issue is trivial or obvious
- again, I think this is probably false (the
notion is more open ended than is
recognized) regardless of the phonological
evidence that can be rallied in support of
one position or another.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">@Article{chao:1934:phonemes,<br>
title = {The non-uniqueness of phonemic
solutions of phonetic systems},<br>
author = {Yuen Ren Chao},<br>
journal = {Bulletin of the Institute of
History and Philology, Academia Sinica},<br>
year = {1934},<br>
volume = {4},<br>
number = {},<br>
pages = {363-397},<br>
%doi = {},<br>
%urldate = {},<br>
}</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">@incollection{hockett:1963:universals,<br>
Author = {Charles F. Hockett},<br>
Booktitle = {Universals of language
(Volume 2)}, <br>
Editor = {Joseph H. Greenberg},<br>
Pages = {1-29},<br>
Publisher = {MIT Press},<br>
Address = {Cambridge, MA},<br>
Title = {The problem of universals in
language},<br>
Year = {1963},<br>
Edition = {}}</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">@Article{schane:1968:nonuniqueness,<br>
title = {On the non-uniqueness of
phonological representations},<br>
author = {Sanford A. Schane},<br>
journal = {Language},<br>
year = {1968},<br>
volume = {44},<br>
number = {4},<br>
pages = {363-397},<br>
%doi = {},<br>
%urldate = {},<br>
}</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">@Article{tallman:eliasulloa:2020:acoustics,<br>
title = {The acoustic correlates of
stress and tone in Chácobo (Pano)},<br>
author = {Adam J.R. Tallman},<br>
journal = {The acoustic correlates of
stress and tone in Chácobo (Pano): A
production study},<br>
editor = {Adam J.R. Tallman and José
Élias-Ulloa},<br>
year = {2020},<br>
volume = {147},<br>
number = {4},<br>
pages = {3028},<br>
doi = {<a
href="https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001014"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001014</a>},<br>
%urldate = {2019-07-04},<br>
}</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Adam</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Adam
James Ross Tallman (PhD, UT Austin)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">ELDP-SOAS
-- Postdoctorant<br>
CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR
5596)<br>
Bureau 207, 14 av. Berthelot, Lyon
(07)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">Numero
celular en bolivia: +59163116867</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">Lingtyp mailing list</span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></span><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" cellpadding="0"
border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="border:solid windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0cm"><img
style="width:1.9791in;height:.9687in"
id="_x0000_i1025" alt="Image removed
by sender. LLACAN"
data-outlook-trace="F:0|T:1"
src="cid:~WRD0000.jpg"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="190"
height="93" border="0"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:7.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="10"><br>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Mark Van de
Velde<br>
Directeur du LLACAN (CNRS-INaLCO) <br>
<a
href="https://mark.vandevelde.cnrs.fr"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#990000;text-decoration:none">mark.vandevelde.cnrs.fr</span></a>
<br>
<a href="https://bantu.cnrs.fr"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:black;text-decoration:none">bantu.cnrs.fr</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:white"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Lingtyp mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Martin Haspelmath<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Deutscher Platz 6<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>D-04103 Leipzig<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Martin Haspelmath
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Deutscher Platz 6
D-04103 Leipzig
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522">https://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522</a></pre>
</body>
</html>