[Lingtyp] languages with just lexical contour tones / bitonal units?

[Larry M. HYMAN]

Thanks, Martin. I am sensitive to what you wrote. In fact, in creating my
"catalogue", which I don't call a database since I prepared it more as an
"index" to the 665 tone systems so that I could find things, I actually
classified the tone systems both by the language particular analysis AND by
my attempted normalization.This is what allowed me to find the examples so
quickly (whichi of course would need to be further scrutinized, as the
descriptions also vary in quality). For example, if a language was analyzed
with H, L, LH, and HL tones, I have a field that tells me there are two
tone heights and another that tells me that the author considered the
system to have 4 tones--whereas as an Africanist I would call it 2 tones,
since LH and HL are combinations. I also have a separate field for contour
tones where I can find which languages have how many rising or falling
tones (up to five each!), according to the author again. I did have to
"translate" the descriptions that use numbers to Hs, Ls and Ms. For example
a system such as Blang [BLR] reported as 55 31 51 13 would be listed in one
field as such, but in my general inventory field as H L HL LH,  with 2
heights in my tone height field, 4 tones in my # of tones field, and 1F and
1R in the # of contour tones field. Best, Larry

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:46 AM Haspelmath, Martin <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
wrote:

> On 22.03.20 17:50, Larry M. HYMAN wrote:
>
> Adam - In my "catalogue" of 664 tone systems, I have 398 that have only
> two levels. Of these 85 have a LH tone. Of these 11 have been analyzed as
> having a contrast between LH and something else. A warning though: This is
> really an interpretation—for example, Fasu has been analyzed as having a
> /H/ vs. /L/ on its stressed syllable, but it could have been set up as /HL/
> vs. /LH/ (probably other possibilities). The fewer tonal contrasts, the
> more room for interpretation. I'm skeptical that you *have to* analyze the
> language that way.
>
>
> I think that this case is really instructive, because this apparent
> difficulty arises all the time in comparative grammar research:
>
> Different "interpretations" (or "descriptions", or "analyses") are
> possible, which makes comparisons questionable. My own expertise is in
> morphosyntax rather than phonology, but I see it all the time. Many people
> think that databases like WALS are not reliable, because the "analyses" may
> not be the right ones.
>
> Fortunately, there is a solution, I think:
>
> The solution consists in distinguishing between (A) language-particular
> analyses/descriptions, and (B) uniform yardsticks for assessing
> ("measuring") similarities and differences between languages.
>
> So what we'd need is a catalogue of tone systems that classifies tone
> languages not by "interpretations", but by uniform yardsticks. By
> "uniform", I mean "defined in the same way in all languages" – just like
> other measurement devices must be uniform across measured instances (e.g.
> measurement of global inflation rates, which must be based on a uniform
> basket of goods and services that works for all countries).
>
> (Alternatively, if one ants to distinguish the twoone might suggest that
> languages are different from other social systems and should be compared in
> the manner of chemical elements – by first finding the common building
> blocks of all languages (= the innate features and architectures of UG),
> and then comparing languages on the basis of these building blocks. This
> has sometimes been attempted in generative grammar, but I have not seen any
> successes of this research programme.)
>
> See this blogpost for more discussion of the two approaches:
> https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2305
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Adam James Ross Tallman <
> ajrtallman at utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> It's been suggested to me that the language I'm working on really makes a
>> distinction between 0 vs. LH lexical marking, rather than 0 vs. H as I had
>> previously thought. Looking at connected speech the evidence for this seems
>> very strong and I'm starting to overcome my initial resilience to the
>> proposal.
>>
>> Has this been proposed for any other language? (i.e. a language that just
>> has 0, LH or 0, HL and no corresponding lexical Ls and Hs). I want to know
>> what the evidence looks like for other language? In my case it's primarily
>> phonetic and I'm not really sure what strictly phonological evidence would
>> look like.
>>
>> Notice I'm not asking about pitch accents or intonational marking etc.
>> But cases where it can be shown that the categories are really lexically
>> specified.
>>
>> Help would be appreciated, I hope everyone is well and healthy.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> --
>> Adam J.R. Tallman
>> PhD, University of Texas at Austin
>> Investigador del Museo de Etnografía y Folklore, la Paz
>> ELDP -- Postdoctorante
>> CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>
>
> --
> Larry M. Hyman, Professor of Linguistics & Executive Director,
> France-Berkeley Fund
> Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
> http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=19
>
>
> --
> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de)
> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> Kahlaische Strasse 10	
> D-07745 Jena
> &
> Leipzig University
> Institut fuer Anglistik
> IPF 141199
> D-04081 Leipzig
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>


-- 
Larry M. Hyman, Professor of Linguistics & Executive Director,
France-Berkeley Fund
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley
http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/people/person_detail.php?person=19
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200323/40091fe3/attachment.htm>