Abstract
The current dimensions in the typology of tone are not insightful for understanding the properties of tone in Cushitic languages. Some Cushitic languages are characterised as “pitch-accent” and these cannot be considered stress languages because the criterion of obligatoriness of every word having a stressed unit is not valid for them. In Hyman’s (2006) typology these languages are (restricted) tone languages. Pitch as prominence marker does show stress-like tendencies of culminativity and demarcation in these languages which is why a label pitch-accent has been suggested. The tone properties are better explained by another dimension, namely the fact that the distinctive function of tone hardly plays a role at the lexical level but does play a role at the grammatical level
Highlights
The issueThe aim of this article is to suggest that some properties of prominence of some Cushitic languages are better understood if one takes into account whether tone in a language functions only grammatically and not lexically against the more common situation that tone serves both functions
The aim of this article is to suggest that some properties of prominence of some Cushitic languages are better understood if one takes into account whether tone in a language functions only grammatically and not lexically against the more common situation that tone serves both functions. This is not a proposal to revise prosodic typology, which is by necessity phonological in nature; rather, I wish to emphasise how morphological typology, such as predominantly suffixing, in combination with the situation of tone being distinctive in grammatical morphemes only can result in properties of preponderance of culminativity and demarcation without the property of obligatoriness
These restricted tone languages show some stress-like features because their restriction lies in tone in grammatical morphemes, but not in lexical morphemes, while they remain fundamentally non-stress, since lexical items are without stress
Summary
The aim of this article is to suggest that some properties of prominence of some Cushitic languages are better understood if one takes into account whether tone in a language functions only grammatically and not lexically against the more common situation that tone serves both functions This is not a proposal to revise prosodic typology, which is by necessity phonological in nature; rather, I wish to emphasise how morphological typology, such as predominantly suffixing, in combination with the situation of tone being distinctive in grammatical morphemes only (or mainly) can result in properties of preponderance of culminativity and demarcation without the property of obligatoriness. This is coupled with the fact that the languages concerned are strictly suffixing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 call
