[Lingtyp] papers on non-uniqueness in tone and stress
Daniel Ross
djross3 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 16:17:12 UTC 2021
An older but interesting and relevant paper for this discussion, about
morphosyntax from a metatheoretical perspective, is:
Hankamer, Jorge. 1977. Multiple Analyses. In Charles N. Li (ed.), *Mechanisms
of syntactic change*, 583–607. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Daniel Ross
Webmaster, ALT
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:57 AM Hiroto Uchihara <uchihara at buffalo.edu> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> In my dissertation I discussed this issue in Oklahoma Cherokee (Uchihara
> 2016). The word-prosody of Oklahoma Cherokee had been described either as
> tonal, accentual or both (see for instance Lindsey 1985; ms; Wright 1996),
> and I argued that some classes of high tone are indeed tones, while others
> (such as what had been analyzed to be a floating tone associated with
> certain prefixes) are more accentual. In the last chapter I tried to
> characterize Cherokee word-prosody applying Larry Hyman's word-prosody
> (canonical) typology, and the system does indeed appear to be a mixture of
> tone and accent.
>
> Lindsey, Geoffrey. 1985. Intonation and interrogation: tonal structure and
> the expression of a pragmatic function in English and other languages.
> Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
> Lindsey, Geoffrey. ms. Cherokee Pitch Phonology. Ms., University College,
> London.
> Uchihara, Hiroto. 2016. Tone & Accent in Oklahoma Cherokee. Oxford Studies
> of Endangered Languages. Oxford University Press.
> Wright, Richard. 1996. Tone and Accent in Oklahoma Cherokee. In: Munro
> (ed.), 11-22
>
> Best,
> Hiroto
>
> El jue, 4 de feb. de 2021 a la(s) 07:52, Adam James Ross Tallman (
> ajrtallman at utexas.edu) escribió:
>
>> Thanks Martin, Grev and Erich!
>>
>> I'll take a look at these papers / dissertations / blog posts, some of
>> which I hadn't catched yet.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> p.s. in case someone understood my email as an attack on a specific tribe
>> called "formal phonologists", I only evoked a hypothetical "phonologist"
>> manifested in various reviewers and conference goers who has insisted in
>> having a (pointless) debate with me regarding whether some particular
>> system is "really" ("prototypically") tonal or "really" ("prototypical")
>> stress. Following the multivariate distinction advocated by the responsees,
>> we should of course, reject such a distinction at the onset and break down
>> the relevant categories into measurable typological variables. I'm excited
>> to see people drop the term "stress" completely and just refer to
>> prominence marks with values corresponding to their phonetic realization.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:32 PM Martin Haspelmath <
>> martin_haspelmath at eva.mpg.de> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that there are at least three different issues here:
>>>
>>> (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 *Phonological Data and Analysis*
>>> (see Matthew Gordon's earlier message):
>>>
>>> Bennett, W. G., & Braver, A. (2020). Different speakers, different
>>> grammars: Productivity and representation of Xhosa labial palatalization. *Phonological
>>> Data and Analysis*, *2*(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v2art6.9
>>>
>>> (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).
>>>
>>> (iii) how one links language-particular phenomena to comparative
>>> concepts; Erich Round's paper on “Australian Phonemic Inventories
>>> Contributed to PHOIBLE 2.0” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333 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.
>>>
>>> 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: https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1817.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Am 04.02.21 um 13:28 schrieb Erich Round:
>>>
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve enjoyed the conversations you’ve sparked here on the list recently,
>>> please keep them coming!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Erich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Corbett, Greville G. 2005. “The Canonical Approach in Typology.” In *Linguistic
>>> Diversity and Language Theories*, edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam
>>> Hodges, and David S Rood, 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
>>>
>>> Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. *The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology*.
>>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>>
>>> Gordon, Matthew K. 2016. *Phonological Typology*. Oxford University
>>> Press.
>>>
>>> Hockett, Charles F. 1963. “The Problem of Universals in Language.” In *Universals
>>> of Language*, edited by Joseph Greenberg, 1–29.
>>>
>>> Hyman, Larry. 2006. “Word-Prosodic Typology.” *Phonology* 23: 225–57.
>>>
>>> Hyman, Larry M. 2007. “Where’s Phonology in Typology?” *Linguistic
>>> Typology* 11: 265–71.
>>>
>>> Hyman, Larry M. 2008. “Universals in Phonology.” *The Linguistic Review*
>>> 25: 83–137.
>>>
>>> Hyman, Larry M. 2017. “What (Else) Depends on Phonology?” In *Dependencies
>>> in Language*, edited by Nicholas Enfield, 141–58.
>>>
>>> Kiparsky, Paul. 2018. “Formal and Empirical Issues in Phonological
>>> Typology.” In *Phonological Typology*, edited by Larry M. Hyman and
>>> Frans Plank, 54–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Kwon, Nahyun, and Erich R. Round. 2015. “Phonaesthemes in Morphological
>>> Theory.” *Morphology* 25 (1): 1–27.
>>>
>>> Lass, Roger. 1984. “Vowel System Universals and Typology: Prologue to
>>> Theory.” *Phonology Yearbook* 1: 75–111.
>>>
>>> Parncutt, Amy. 2015. “Towards a Phonological Typology of Reduplication
>>> in Australian Languages.” Honours Thesis, University of Queensland.
>>>
>>> Round, Erich R. 2017. “Review of Gordon, Matthew K. Phonological
>>> Typology, OUP 2016.” *Folia Linguistica* 51 (3): 745–55.
>>>
>>> Round, Erich R. 2019. “Australian Phonemic Inventories Contributed to
>>> PHOIBLE 2.0: Essential Explanatory Notes.”
>>> https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3464333.
>>>
>>> Round, Erich R. forthcoming 2021. “Phonotactics.” In *Oxford Guide to
>>> Australian Languages*, edited by Claire Bowern. Oxford: Oxford
>>> University Press. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23022.13120
>>>
>>> Round, Erich R., and Greville G. Corbett. 2020. “Comparability and
>>> Measurement in Typological Science: The Bright Future for Linguistics.” *Linguistic
>>> Typology* 24 (3): 489–525.
>>>
>>> Simpson, Adrian P. 1999. “Fundamental Problems in Comparative Phonetics
>>> and Phonology: Does UPSID Help to Solve Them.” In *Proceedings of the
>>> 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences*, 1:349–52. Berkeley:
>>> University of California.
>>>
>>> Van der Hulst, Harry. 2017. “Phonological Typology.” In *The Cambridge
>>> Handbook of Linguistic Typology*, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and
>>> Robert MW Dixon, 39–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of TALLMAN Adam
>>> <Adam.TALLMAN at cnrs.fr> <Adam.TALLMAN at cnrs.fr>
>>> *Date: *Thursday, 4 February 2021 at 9:20 pm
>>> *To: *VAN DE VELDE Mark <Mark.VANDEVELDE at cnrs.fr>
>>> <Mark.VANDEVELDE at cnrs.fr>, "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
>>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] papers on non-uniqueness in tone and stress
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, yes, I've read this paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam James Ross Tallman (PhD, UT Austin)
>>>
>>> ELDP-SOAS -- Postdoctorant
>>> CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596)
>>> Bureau 207, 14 av. Berthelot, Lyon (07)
>>>
>>> Numero celular en bolivia: +59163116867
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *De :* Lingtyp [lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] de la part
>>> de Mark Van de Velde [mark.vandevelde at cnrs.fr]
>>> *Envoyé :* jeudi 4 février 2021 11:57
>>> *À :* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> *Objet :* Re: [Lingtyp] papers on non-uniqueness in tone and stress
>>>
>>> Dear Adam:
>>>
>>> I can recommend Hyman (2012).
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> Hyman, Larry M. 2012. In defense of prosodic typology: A response to
>>> Beckman and Venditti. *Linguistic Typology*. De Gruyter Mouton 16(3).
>>> 341–385. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0014.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2021 11:12, TALLMAN Adam wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's also the related issue of *when* 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @Article{chao:1934:phonemes,
>>> title = {The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic
>>> systems},
>>> author = {Yuen Ren Chao},
>>> journal = {Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology,
>>> Academia Sinica},
>>> year = {1934},
>>> volume = {4},
>>> number = {},
>>> pages = {363-397},
>>> %doi = {},
>>> %urldate = {},
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @incollection{hockett:1963:universals,
>>> Author = {Charles F. Hockett},
>>> Booktitle = {Universals of language (Volume 2)},
>>> Editor = {Joseph H. Greenberg},
>>> Pages = {1-29},
>>> Publisher = {MIT Press},
>>> Address = {Cambridge, MA},
>>> Title = {The problem of universals in language},
>>> Year = {1963},
>>> Edition = {}}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @Article{schane:1968:nonuniqueness,
>>> title = {On the non-uniqueness of phonological representations},
>>> author = {Sanford A. Schane},
>>> journal = {Language},
>>> year = {1968},
>>> volume = {44},
>>> number = {4},
>>> pages = {363-397},
>>> %doi = {},
>>> %urldate = {},
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @Article{tallman:eliasulloa:2020:acoustics,
>>> title = {The acoustic correlates of stress and tone in Chácobo
>>> (Pano)},
>>> author = {Adam J.R. Tallman},
>>> journal = {The acoustic correlates of stress and tone in Chácobo
>>> (Pano): A production study},
>>> editor = {Adam J.R. Tallman and José Élias-Ulloa},
>>> year = {2020},
>>> volume = {147},
>>> number = {4},
>>> pages = {3028},
>>> doi = {https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001014},
>>> %urldate = {2019-07-04},
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam James Ross Tallman (PhD, UT Austin)
>>>
>>> ELDP-SOAS -- Postdoctorant
>>> CNRS -- Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596)
>>> Bureau 207, 14 av. Berthelot, Lyon (07)
>>>
>>> Numero celular en bolivia: +59163116867
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> [image: Image removed by sender. LLACAN]
>>>
>>> Mark Van de Velde
>>> Directeur du LLACAN (CNRS-INaLCO)
>>> mark.vandevelde.cnrs.fr
>>> bantu.cnrs.fr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing listLingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orghttp://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Haspelmath
>>> Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
>>> Deutscher Platz 6
>>> D-04103 Leipzighttps://www.shh.mpg.de/employees/42385/25522
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Hiroto Uchihara
> https://sites.google.com/view/hiroto-uchihara/home?authuser=0
> Investigador, Titular A, Tiempo Completo, Definitivo
> Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas
> Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
> Circuito Mario de la Cueva
> Ciudad Universitaria, 04510, Ciudad de México.
> Tel. Seminario:(+52)-(55)-5622-7489
> Office: (+52)-(55)-5622-7250, Ext. 49223
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210204/1b975d83/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list