Larry M. Hyman

Word-prosodic typology

UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2005) To appear in Bert Remijsen & Vincent J. van Heuven (eds), Special Thematic Issue of Phonology, “Between Stress and Tone” (submitted July 2005, revised November 2005) Word-Prosodic Typology Larry M. Hyman University of California, Berkeley If stress is monarchic, and length oligarchic, we may say that tone is democratic. (Greenberg & Kaschube 1976:9) Introduction Over the past several decades, many linguists have made pronouncements on how prosodic systems should be typologized. While no other area of phonological typology has attracted as much attention, it is not clear how much consensus there is on where things currently stand. Linguists sometimes speak or write on the subject with great conviction, but the views that are expressed often conflict on both general and specific issues, e.g. whether all human languages must have “stress”, whether the prosodic system of Tokyo Japanese is “tonal” vs. “accentual”, and so forth. In this paper I attempt to sort out some of the complexities of word-prosodic typology. I begin in §2 with a brief discussion of problems inherent in doing typology, particularly when applied to phonology. In the next two sections I give brief definitions of tone (§3) and stress-accent (§4), followed by a longer section (§5) which addresses the more problematic notions of “accent” and “pitch-accent”. I argue that the highest-level typological cut consists of identifying two prototypes, one with stress-accent, the other with tone. While it is possible to define these prototypes and establish a set of properties that typically cooccur in each, establishing a third pitch- accent prototype is more elusive. This is, in part, because languages which have been identified as pitch- accent freely “pick and choose” between the prototypical properties of stress-accent systems vs. tone systems. In other words, there are many intermediate word-prosodic systems which are not best seen as discrete types. While most of the discussion centers around typological issues resulting from structural or systemic difference, §6 addresses the role of phonetics in typologizing prosodic systems. §7 provides a brief conclusion. * Typology Since the concern of this study is to address the typology of word-prosodic systems, it seems appropriate to begin by asking the questions: What is typology? phonological typology? word-prosodic typology? Concerning the first question, Hagege (1992:7) provides a traditional definition of typology as “... a principled way of classifying the languages of the world by the most significant properties which distinguish one from another.” Vajda (2001) answers the second question in a similar fashion: “...it is possible to classify languages according to the phonemes they contain.... typology is the study of structural features across languages. Phonological typology involves comparing languages according to the number or type of sounds they contain.” It is significant that the above definitions speak of classifying LANGUAGES rather than subsystems of languages. In any case, only certain parameters impress linguists enough to establish language types: Within phonology, there is a class of “click languages”, but not “implosive languages”, “open syllable languages”, but not “onset languages” (meaning that every syllable has to have an onset). The question is whether there is any reality in classifying languages rather than analyzing the properties of the relevant subsystems. This issue is particularly pronounced in the area of prosody, where the practice of distinguishing “stress languages” from “tone languages” is well- established and has encouraged some to propose additional types: “pitch-accent language”, “restrictive tone language”, and so forth. However, as Greenberg (1974:14) notes, “the same data can be utilized either for a typology of linguistic properties or a typology of individual languages.” A major aim of this study is to show that there is considerably more diversity in prosodic systems than such labels have thus far distinguished. Most phonologists would probably agree that there is little, if any, difference between doing phonological typology vs. phonological theory. At the very least, it is unlikely that one can do insightful This paper was first presented as an invited talk at the conference Between Stress and Tone (BeST). I would like to thank Bert Remijsen and Vincent Van Heuven for the invitation and those in attendance for their helpful comments. I have particularly profited from extended discussions with Carlos Gussenhoven and Jose Hualde on the tone vs. accent question and good Bantu exchanges with David Odden and Gerard Philippson. I also would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their very thoughtful comments on the original manuscript.

Suffix Ordering in Bantu: A Morphocentric Approach 1

In the previous sections I have presented a number of arguments in favor of the view that suffix ordering in Bantu is templatic in the default case. In almost all Bantu languages, causative and applicative suffixes must appear in a single fixed order. Where suffixes occur in two different orders, e.g. CAUS and REC, one sequence is licensed by the general CARP template, while the other is attributable to a specific MIRROR constraint referring to that sequence. The striking conclusion to drawn from this study is that there is no evidence that Bantu suffix ordering is driven by semantic compositionality or by a general Mirror Principle. Instead, these pressures are low-ranked in Bantu and, when present, have a limited effect on the overall system, as we have seen.27 That Bantu suffix ordering is largely templatic is also supported by phonological conditions which enter into the realization of suffix combinations.28 As I have also implied, the elaborated synchronic CARCP template in (28) is in part arbitrary, the product of history. This conclusion thus challenges the fundamental approach of those who have cited Bantu derivational suffixes in support of a non-arbitrary relation between morphology and syntax, or between morphology and semantics. Whether or not such relations occur elsewhere, Bantu suffixation provides strong evidence for the autonomy of morphology.

Syllables and morpheme integrity in Kinande reduplication

Within the expanding framework of non-linear morphology, no wordformation process has sparked more interest than reduplication. Once relegated to a secondary status with a few examples, reduplication has now arrived centre stage as a testing ground for alternative theories of multitiered morphology and phonology. The innovative work of McCarthy (1981) and Marantz (1982) on this subject has laid the groundwork for subsequent formal treatments of reduplication, including Levin (1983), Broselow & McCarthy (1984), Clements (1985), Odden & Odden (1985), Schlindwein (1986, 1988), McCarthy & Prince (forthcoming), Kiparsky (1986), Mester (1986) and Steriade (1988), among others. These varying accounts of reduplication have been tested against a large and growing body of data from most parts of the world. Surprising to us, however, since every Bantu language we are familiar with has one or more reduplicative processes, relatively little attention has been focused on this rather large linguistic group of several hundred languages coverin a major part of the African continent.

Theoretical aspects of Bantu tone

1. Semantic/pragmatic conditions on the tonology of the Kongo noun phrase: a diachronic hypothesis Jean Alain Blanchon 2. Optimality domains theory and Bantu tonology: a case study from Isixhosa and Shingazidja Farida Cassimjee and Charles W. Kisseberth 3. Expansion and retraction of high tone domains in Setswana Denis Creissels 4. Tonal domains and depressor consonants in Ikalanga Larry M. Hyman and Joyce T. Mathangwane 5. AUX in Bantu morphology and phonology Scott Myers 6. Principles of tone assignment in Tanzanian Yao David Odden 7. Tone reduction vs. metrical attraction in the evolution of Eastern Bantu tone systems Gerard Philippson 8. Constraints on tonal association in Olusamia: an optimality theoretic account Robert Poletto.

Universals in phonology

Abstract This article asks what is universal about phonological systems. Beginning with universals of segment inventories, a distinction is drawn between descriptive universals (where the effect of different theoretical frameworks is minimized) vs. analytic universals (which are specific-theory-dependent). Since there are few absolute universals such as “all languages have stops” and “all languages have at least two degrees of vowel height”, theory-driven or “architectural” universals concerning distinctive features and syllable structure are also considered. Although several near-universals are also mentioned, the existence of conflicting “universal tendencies” and contradictory resolutions naturally leads into questions concerning the status of markedness and synchronic explanation in phonology. While diachrony is best at accounting for typologically unusual and language-specific phonological properties, the absolute universals discussed in this study are clearly grounded in synchrony.

Directional Asymmetries in the Morphology and Phonology of Words, with Special Reference to Bantu

Abstract This article is concerned with two types of word-level asymmetries and their interaction: left-right asymmetries and stem-word asymmetries. Two left-right asymmetries are examined from a wide range of languages, one morphological (the predominance of suffixation over prefixation), one phonological (the preference for anticipatory over perseverative phonology). Since phonological processes are often triggered by features which originate in roots, a second asymmetry is also addressed: the tendency for suffixes to be more tightly bound to roots than prefixes. Asymmetries between stem- vs. word phonology are examined in Bantu, where suffixes are incorporated into a derived stem domain, from which prefixes are typically excluded. This root+suffix stem domain is shown to be the locus of phonological activity in Proto-Bantu and throughout the large Bantu family, which divides into two typological zones: (i) Northwest Bantu languages, which impose a maximal size condition and stringent consonant distribution constraints on stems; (ii) Central Bantu languages, which do not restrict the size or consonant distribution of stems, but frequently impose a minimal size condition on words. The study presents a number of generalizations concerning such asymmetries and identifies questions for future research.

Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi

Since the advent of distinctive feature theory, few issues have received as many interpretations as the phonological representation of vowel height. Vowel height features have been defined acoustically and articulatorily, have allowed three, four or five distinct heights, have been unary, binary and n-ary, and have been on a single tier, multiple tiers or in various head-dependency relationships. It is fair to say that there is no consensus on how vowel height should be represented. While many generative phonologists have been quite content working for nearly three decades with a pair of binary vowel height features, the literature of this period includes a steady flow of criticisms of this approach as well as suggestions for improvement or radical change. This literature generally addresses itself to two problems inherent in the SPE features [high] and [low] and the three vowel heights they define: First, how does one account for systems with four (five?) vowel heights? Second, how can rules that raise (lower) vowel heights by one step each be accounted for? In the first question we ask what the theory has to say about distinctive oppositions such as /i e E o/; in the second question we ask what the theory has to say about a rule such as one that would lower /i/ to [e] and /e/ to [E]. Researchers sensitive to these questions have either elaborated on the binary system (e.g. by redefining or adding to the two binary features), have built in additional structure (e.g. tiers, nodes, dependencies), or have abandoned the binary approach altogether. In this paper I propose to examine once again the phonological representation of multiple vowel heights. Rather than surveying the data and solutions of past researchers who have argued for and against the SPE account of vowel height, I shall focus the discussion on some rather unusual, but revealing, vowel height facts from a single language, Esimbi, spoken just outside the Grassfields Bantu region of Cameroon. As I shall show, the Esimbi vowel system is, even beyond the question of vowel height, of considerable theoretical interest. With respect to vowel height, the major focus of this paper, we shall see that it provides data problematic for the binary approach in both senses mentioned above. Below, I shall examine closely the implications of these properties for

Word domains and downstep in Bamileke-Dschang

The theoretical significance of the Bamileke-Dschang tone system has been evident since Tadadjeu (1974) first pointed out the unusual tonal oppositions found in this language. Whereas the majority of languages with tonal downstep permit this entity ( ! ) only between high (or, perhaps more generally, only between non-low) tones, Dschang contrasts H and ! H after both high (H) and low (L) tones and also contrasts L and ! L tones as well. The detailed account provided in Hyman & Tadadjeu (1976) has led to further comments, reactions and reanalyses, including Clark (1979), Hyman (1979), Watters Anderson (1980), Stewart (1981), Hyman (1982), Pulleyblank (1982, 1983), and an exchange of letters between M. Halle, S. C. Anderson and myself in 1981–1982.

Moraic mismatches in Bantu

Research in moraic phonology has generally assumed that a single representation is sufficient to account for all phonological rules dependent on moraic structure (Hock 1984; Hyman 1984, 1985; McCarthy & Prince 1986; Zec 1988; Hayes 1989). Thus, if a CVC syllable has the moraic structure in (1), all phonological rules will treat it as bimoraic. I term this the MORAIC UNIQUENESS HYPOTHESIS: at any given stage of a derivation, there is only one moraic projection.

Tonal and Non-Tonal Intonation in Shekgalagari

The study of intonation in a (fully) tonal language presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to see how a language which exploits F0 mainly for the purpose of lexical and grammatical contrasts succeeds in encoding the functions often expressed by means of intonation in non-tonal languages. As is well-known, word-level tonal distinctions can be quite rich and can be subject to considerable manipulation in the phrasal phonology. Particularly when tone systems are complex in these ways, the question is how there can be much room left for intonation to modify or add pitch specifications without obscuring the word-level tonal contrasts. The goal of this paper is to examine how Shekgalagari, a Bantu language of Botswana which exploits F0 mainly for the purpose of lexical and grammatical contrasts, succeeds in encoding the functions often expressed by means of intonational phonology in non-tonal languages. Whereas other languages with lexical tone adopt different strategies for incorporating intonational pitch features, we demonstrate that most of the intonational marking is non-tonal in Shekgalagari, thereby raising the question of what is a possible intonational system.