Tones and segments sometimes behave in a similar way. Consider for example the influence of word stress on the distribution of tone and vowel quality. The interaction between vowel quality and stress is a driving factor in phonology. For...
moreTones and segments sometimes behave in a similar way. Consider for example the influence of word stress on the distribution of tone and vowel quality. The interaction between vowel quality and stress is a driving factor in phonology. For instance, it has been repeatedly observed that vowels in stressed syllables tend to be more sonorous than those in unstressed syllables. In a nutshell, this means that the lower a (peripheral) vowel is, the likelier it is that this vowel will be stressed (Kenstowicz 1997, 2004; de Lacy 2006, 2007). One example of sonority-driven stress can be found in Takia, a North New Guinea language: in the language, word stress falls on the syllable that contains the most sonorous vowel (Ross 2002, de Lacy 2007):1 (1) Sonority-driven stress in Takia a. [ŋi-ˈsaŋes] 'hawk' [ˈŋa-sol] '1sg-flee' b. [kirˈŋen] 'her/his finger, toe' [ŋi-ˈemi] 'your (pl.) legs/feet' c. [ifuˈno] 's/he hit you' [mulˈmol] 'a kind of a tree' (1a) demonstrates that in words containing a low and mid vowel, the low vowel will receive stress, as it is of higher sonority. Likewise, in (1b, c), the mid vowels are preferred over the high vowels. These facts can be expressed in a sonority scale; for purposes of illustration, the sonority scale for tense vowels is provided in (2). The higher a vowel is ranked in the sonority, the likelier it is that this vowel will be a potential stress-bearing unit. (2) Sonority scale for tense vowels in descending order a > e, o > i, u Crucially, interactions between prominence and stress are not restricted to segments but can also be found in the relation between tone and metrical structure. As de Lacy (2002) argues, the interaction between tone and stress is governed by a tonal prominence scale, comparable to that for vowels: high tones (H) and metrically strong positions attract each other, as do low tones (L) 1 If vowels are of equal sonority, the rightmost one will be stressed. Pronounced in isolation, the first vowel of the first word is realized with a high level pitch; this tone, which we write here as "Hː", has traditionally been called Schleifton, sleeptoon, circumflex, dragging tone or Accent 2. The first vowel of the second leuter is realized with a sharply falling pitch; this tone, which we write as "HL", is traditionally called Schärfung, stoottoon, acute, falling tone, or Accent 1. The tonal dialects are divided into two main groups (Frings 1916): SouthEast Low Franconian (Belgian Limburg, Dutch Limburg, Dülken region), and Central Franconian, which is divided into Ripuarian (Aachen and Cologne; Kerkrade region), and Moselle Franconian (a large area with Trier in the centre). From a typological point of view they can be classified as 'restricted tone languages' (Yip 2002): tone can only occur on long vowels, on diphthongs, and on short vowels followed by a sonorant consonant (i.e. [n], [m], [ŋ], [l], or [r]) within the same syllable. Restricted tone languages are attested on all continents. In Europe, other examples are for instance Čakavian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Štokavian and Swedish. We can say, then, that in some respects the Franconian dialects fit nicely into the typology of tone languages. In this sense they are well understood. In many other respects, however, tonal Franconian does not fit with what is known about tone languages. The tonal dialects even contradict the two universals we have seen above and which we repeat here for convenience: (10) Alleged universals of tone systems a. Vowels and tones cannot determine each other's quality (Hombert 1977, 1978; Hombert, Ohala & Ewan 1979). b. A consonant's laryngeal features cannot determine the tone of a segment on its left (Maddieson 1978, 1997). Both universals seem to be contradicted by dialects of the Franconian area. Consider first the universal in (10a). In Sittard (Dutch Limburg), earlier long mid vowels became closing diphthongs, but only if they have a falling tone (Dols 1953); 4 This volume All contributions in this volume describe and discuss data that indicate some kind of relationship between tone and consonants or vowels, from a synchronic and/or from a diachronic perspective. The papers in this book incorporate data from various types of languages where tonal information plays a lexically distinctive role, from "pure" tone languages to so-called tone accent systems, where the occurrence of contrastive tonal melodies is restricted to stressed syllables. Some contributions present evidence for direct synchronic interactions between tones and segments, also for typologically unusual interactions: relevant data are analyzed in the contributions of Michael Becker and Peter Jurgec as well as in Laura Downing's paper. Becker and Jurgec argue that the Slovenian language displays a direct interaction between vowel quality and tone, thereby arguing against the alleged universal in (5): Slovenian avoids high tones on lax vowels, for which the authors present evidence from the native phonology as well as from the loanword phonology. Downing discusses the effects of depressor consonants in Nguni languages, which lower the pitch of high tones on following vowels. While some scholars have claimed that this interaction can be captured by assuming that consonant voicing and low tone derive from the same phonological feature, Downing argues that these analyses are too simplistic: instead, she proposes that the effects can best be analyzed in a model that treats low tone and consonant voicing as separate features but includes interactions between different phonological domains. Other contributors argue that some seemingly direct interactions between tone and segments may rather be indirect. This viewpoint is taken by Wolfgang Kehrein, Björn Köhnlein and Marc van Oostendorp, who all discuss the Franconian tone accent opposition. Kehrein discusses various types of data surrounding the Franconian accent system. He shows that these sources of evidence can be given a unified explanation under the assumption that the contrast between the two accents is metrical: according to Kehrein, Accent 1 and Accent 2 differ in their foot structure. Köhnlein discusses vowel splits between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian dialects (cf. the Sittard data given in 11