Abstract
This paper proposes that Northern Tepehuan is a tonal language with just one lexical tone 'low tone' and is therefore a privative tonal system. L tone is sufficient to explain the pitch contrasts in the language and also necessary to explain the "inconsistencies" of stress assignment. Stress is normally predictable from the size of the word, from syllable-weight, and is cued by a H* intonational tone. Nonetheless, in words that do not obey the Stress-to-Weight constraint, it could be argued that stress is displaced from the heavy syllable by virtue of a high-ranked *Align(Head/Low) constraint that prohibits the placement of stress on a syllable with a lexical L. The L tone also explains why the H* intonational tone can be displaced from stressed syllables.
Highlights
A small set of languages have been properly characterized as privative tone systems, i.e., a language where the tonal contrast is better characterized as presence vs. absence of a tonal specification (Hyman 2000)1, instead of the opposition of two different tone specifications
This paper argues for an analysis of Northern Tepehuan (Uto-Aztecan, Mexico) as just that; a language with a tonal system of one single low (L) tone, providing evidence which is different from Hyman’s proposal –constraints on morpho-phonological distribution, surface distribution, tonal processes [spreading, deletion, such as word stress assignment and placement of intonational peak
Arguments for a Privative L Tone in Northern Tepehuan (NTep) problems posed by this phenomenon; section 6 provides a solution for the problem of stress assignment that implies the interaction of stress and tone, and the characterization of the tonal system as L privative; section 7 introduces the inadequacies of proposing an alternative H privative system; section 8 presents the conclusions
Summary
A small set of languages have been properly characterized as privative tone systems, i.e., a language where the tonal contrast is better characterized as presence vs. absence of a tonal specification (Hyman 2000), instead of the opposition of two different tone specifications. Woo (1970) developed Bascom’s equipollent (H, L) proposal into a complex rule-based model which, fails to answer basic questions like do these tones indubitably contrast?, what “tonal” patterns are possible?, are the different patterns in words really tonal patterns or they can be better understood as a combination of other factors, such as stress or vowel length? After providing some basic data for the language and definitions in sections 3 and 4, the structure of the argumentation is as follows: section 4 presents arguments for NTep as a tonal system based on classification and contrast of disyllabic words; section 5 reviews the assignment of stress in different word classes and the. Arguments for a Privative L Tone in NTep problems posed by this phenomenon; section 6 provides a solution for the problem of stress assignment that implies the interaction of stress and tone, and the characterization of the tonal system as L privative; section 7 introduces the inadequacies of proposing an alternative H privative system; section 8 presents the conclusions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
