1 1 phonetic and phonological research on native...
TRANSCRIPT
1
PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON NATIVE AMERICAN 1
LANGUAGES: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE1 2
3
MATTHEW K. GORDON 4
5
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 6
7
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 8
9
1. Introduction 10
2. Early research on the sound systems of Native American languages 11
3. Instrumental phonetic research on Native American Languages 12
4. Phonological research on Native American Languages 13
5. Four case studies of the phonetics and phonology of Native American Languages 14
5.1. Iambic metrical structure 15
5.1.1. Iambic lengthening in Chickasaw 16
5.1.2. High tone assignment in Creek 17
5.2. Weight-sensitive tone 18
5.3. Prosodic morphology 19
5.4. Phonetics and phonology in language endangerment and revitalization 20
6. Prospects for the future 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3
1. Introduction 30
31
The study of Native American languages has played a prominent role in the development 32
of modern phonetic and phonological description and theory. Dating back to pioneering 33
work in the early 20th century by Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Pliny Earl Goddard, 34
detailed case studies of native languages of the Western Hemisphere have been integral 35
to fleshing out the typological variation in sound systems that serves as the basis for 36
theory construction and evaluation. Many of the insights of modern phonetics and 37
phonology crucially rely on the discovery in Native American language of features not 38
found in the Indo-European and Uralic languages providing the fodder for the pioneering 39
linguistic research of the 19th century. The advancements in phonetics and phonology 40
inspired by the study of Native American languages span diverse subfields, including 41
acoustic, articulatory, and auditory phonetics and phonological description and theory. 42
The breadth of methodologies attested in research on indigenous languages of the 43
Americas is matched by the wide range of phenomena that have been investigated. The 44
combination of the phonetic and phonological diversity and, in many cases, complexity 45
of Native American languages coupled with their relatively understudied status ensures 46
their continued importance in the enhancement of our understanding of phonetics and 47
phonology. On a practical level, new avenues of research on the phonetics and phonology 48
of Native American languages have also emerged as communities engage in language 49
revitalization efforts. 50
4
This paper provides an overview of how research on Native American languages 51
has contributed to advances in the fields of phonetics and phonology, spanning the period 52
shortly before the publication of IJAL’s inaugural issue in 1917 to the present. In order 53
to operationalize the presentation, discussion will be organized around the division 54
between instrumental phonetic studies and descriptive and theoretical research in 55
phonology, even though in practice the two threads of research are closely intertwined. 56
Work on languages spoken throughout the Americas will be discussed with emphasis on 57
languages of the Southeastern United States, which serve as the basis for three presented 58
case studies attesting to the important contributions of this linguistic area to our 59
knowledge of phonetics and phonology. A fourth case study is devoted to an increasingly 60
prominent area of work: the study of phonetic and phonological characteristics of 61
speakers, semi-speakers and learners of endangered languages. 62
63
2. Early research on the sound systems of Native American languages 64
In his introduction to the inaugural issue of IJAL in 1917, Franz Boas recognized the 65
relatively impoverished state of knowledge of Native American languages (especially 66
those of Central and South America) at that time but also expressed hope that recent 67
progress in the scope of material collected and the methodologies employed in its 68
collection augured well for future research. He also was well aware of the fragile status of 69
many languages owing to the rapid encroachment of socially and culturally dominant 70
European languages, contact with which threatened to dramatically alter the indigenous 71
5
languages of the Americas, e.g. the strength of the glottalized stops in languages of the 72
Pacific coast (Boas 1917a:2). 73
At the time of IJAL’s first edition, there had already been some descriptive 74
phonetic and phonological work on Native American languages of North America that 75
was considerably more rigorous than early cursory descriptions from explorers, 76
missionaries and traders. Research at the turn of the 20th century focused on descriptions 77
of particular languages and the synthesis of material from multiple languages to establish 78
genetic relationships between languages. Boas himself had published extensively on 79
Native American languages, including chapters on Tsimshian, Chinook, and Kwakiutl in 80
his own edited volume Handbook of American Indian Languages (Boas 1911), which 81
also contained descriptions of Tlingit, Haida, Fox, Maidu, Dakota, and Inuktitut. Sapir 82
was also already a prominent figure in language documentation and historical-83
comparative linguistics by the time of IJAL’s inauguration, having published language 84
descriptions and comparative work on Chinookan, Wakashan, Uto-Aztecan, Na Dene, 85
and Takelma. 86
As portended by Boas, IJAL would play an integral role in the promotion of 87
research on Native American languages, including in the areas of phonetics and 88
phonology. Boas himself was at the vanguard of advancing IJAL’s agenda, publishing in 89
the first issue a description of the now extinct Pochutec variety of Nahuatl, including 90
several pages of phonology (Boas 1917b). 91
Boas’ paper on Pochutec would set a template for many future papers in IJAL that 92
provide language descriptions, which characteristically include a section devoted to 93
6
phonology. This traditional type of grammatical overview paper has been supplemented 94
with an increasing number of publications focused on particular phonetic or phonological 95
topics. Concomitant with the narrowing in scope of individual papers, progressively more 96
research is also showcased in non-areal journals publishing research in phonetics and/or 97
phonology. Through these publications as well as through early language descriptions 98
that still retain their importance, phonetic and phonological research on Native American 99
languages has played a prominent role in shaping the fields of phonetics and phonology. 100
The remainder of the paper summarizes these contributions from an historical 101
perspective, starting in the next section with phonetics. 102
103
3. Instrumental phonetic research on Native American Languages 104
105
In his introduction to IJAL, Boas (1917a) singles out for commendation the phonetic 106
fieldwork conducted by Pliny Earle Goddard at the turn of the 20th century on the Pacific 107
Coast Athabaskan languages Hupa and Kato (Goddard 1907; 1912). Goddard’s work was 108
ambitious in its employment of an impressive array of instrumental techniques to 109
investigate the aerodynamic and articulatory characteristics of both languages, Hupa 110
more comprehensively than Kato. His methodologies included photography to assess the 111
position of the mouth during the production of vowels, palatography to examine the 112
location of contact between the tongue and the roof of the mouth, and kymography, to 113
investigate fluctuations in air pressure during speech. The kymograph could be outfitted 114
with different fittings to analyze data produced at different sources, including the mouth, 115
7
the nose, and the larynx. In a later study, Goddard (1928) investigated pitch variation to 116
demonstrate that Hupa (like other Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages and unlike 117
Southern Athabaskan and many Northern Athabaskan languages) does not use tone to 118
mark lexical contrasts. Goddard’s use of multiple instrumental methodologies was far 119
ahead of its time, only reemerging again at the end of the 20th century albeit with far 120
more sophisticated tools (see below). 121
Figure 1 illustrates two representative palatograms from Goddard (1907). The one 122
on the left shows the contact pattern on the roof of the mouth for the denti-alveolar /t/ in 123
/taw/ ‘no’, while the one on the right shows contact for the palatalized velar in /kʲʰa/ 124
‘dress’. In both palatograms, the area depicted is the region in front of the velum; 125
palatography is thus not an effective methodology for examining contact patterns for 126
posterior articulations. The contact between the tongue and the roof of the mouth, 127
represented as the dark region, is fairly broad in the front-back domain for the denti-128
alveolar, extending from the alveolar ridge all the way forward to the back of the upper 129
teeth. For the palatalized velar stop, contact extends along both sides of the mouth 130
forward in a triangular pattern indicative of a raised tongue body associated with the 131
secondary palatalization gesture. The velar closure does not show up in the palatogram 132
since it is behind the depicted region. 133
134
8
135
Figure 1. Palatograms of the denti-alveolar stop in /t/ in /taw/ ‘no’ (on left) and the 136
palatalized velar in /kʲʰa/ ‘dress’ (on right) (Goddard 1907). 137
138
Figure 2 shows kymography traces from the mouth (the top line) and nose (the 139
bottom line) in the word /tʰaʔnaːn/ ‘water, to drink’ (Goddard 1907). 140
141
9
Nasal 142
143
144
145
Figure 2. Kymography traces for the oral (top) and nasal (bottom) air in the word 146
/tʰaʔnaːn/ ‘water, to drink’. 147
148
The general relationship between oral and nasal flow is evident in the figure: as air comes 149
out through the nose in the production of the two nasals, it ceases to vent through the 150
mouth, although there is a brief transitional period of coarticulation between the nasal and 151
adjacent vowels during which air escapes through both the nose and mouth. The glottal 152
stop is apparent from the cessation of airflow through either the nasal or oral cavities. The 153
Oral
t ʰ a ʔ n aː n
10
figure suggests venting of air through the nose during the oral stop at the beginning of the 154
word, plausibly reflecting passive breathing prior to phonation. 155
Although Goddard’s work provided insight into many characteristics of the sound 156
systems of Hupa and Kato, the limitations in both the instrumentation of the time and in 157
Goddard’s phonetic expertise yielded some descriptive inaccuracies (see Gordon 1996 for 158
a more recent phonetic study of Hupa). For example, in grappling with the description of 159
the ejective /t’/, Goddard correctly characterizes both its long lag voice-onset-time and 160
(less confidently) the glottalic nature of the airstream mechanism, but also incorrectly 161
suggests that it is produced with ingressive airflow: 162
163
“Hupa has another t formed in the same tongue position, but having quite 164
a different quality. It appears to lie between d [its voiceless unaspirated 165
counterpart] and t [its aspirated counterpart], and is at first distinguished 166
from them with great difficulty. It differs from d that there is a definite 167
period of time after the breaking of the contact before sonancy begins. It 168
differs from t in that it lacks the aspiration. In fact the breath seems to be 169
drawn in rather than forced out. This does not appear to be done from the 170
lungs but from the mouth, either by the sudden withdrawing of the tongue 171
enlarging the buccal cavity, or more probably by a closure of the glottis” 172
(Goddard 1907:14; italics mine). 173
174
11
The development of the sound spectrograph during World War II offered new 175
opportunities for the instrumental investigation of speech. In a series of four papers, 176
Hickerson (1958a; 1958b; 1959a; 1959b) employed spectography to conduct a 177
comprehensive study of both segmental and suprasegmental properties of Shawnee. 178
Hogan (1976) is a spectrographic study of quantitative and qualitative properties of Dëne 179
Sųłiné ejectives. He includes representative spectrograms illustrating the ejective 180
fricatives and afficates, which are characterized by a long lag voice-onset-time, similar to 181
those in Hupa. 182
Lindau’s (1984) cross-linguistic acoustic study of ejectives represents a 183
significant methodological advancement in that it includes data from multiple speakers of 184
the same language (including nine Navajo speakers), which allows for teasing apart 185
properties that are characteristic of the population of speakers as opposed to idiosyncratic 186
properties of someone’s idiolect. Dart’s (1991; 1993) phonetic research on the coronal 187
contrasts of Tohono O’odham is another relatively early multi-speaker study employing 188
spectral data, which Dart uses in conjunction with palatography and its inverse technique 189
linguography, in which contact patterns on the tongue are investigated. 190
A concentrated body of research on phonetic properties of Native American 191
languages emerged during the 1990s as part of the NSF Sounds of the World’s 192
Languages grant awarded to Peter Ladefoged and Ian Maddieson at UCLA (where 193
Lindau and Dart also conducted their research). Languages (from North, South, and 194
Central America) described in a series of UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics volumes 195
(and subsequently, in most cases, in other journals) include Navajo (de Jong and 196
12
McDonough 1993, McDonough and Ladefoged 1993, McDonough et al. 1993, 197
McDonough and Austin-Garrison 1994), Tlingit (Maddieson et al. 1996), Montana Salish 198
(Flemming et al. 1994) Western Apache (Potter et al. 2000), Jicarilla Apache (Tuttle 199
2000), Hupa (Gordon 1996), Aleut (Cho et al. 1997), Chickasaw (Gordon et al. 1997), 200
Jalapa Mazatec (Silverman et al. 1994), Banawá (Ladefoged and Everett 1996) and Wari’ 201
(MacEachern et al. 1996). 202
These studies are quantitative and rely on data from several speakers of both 203
genders, though the number of speakers is small in the case of some severely threatened 204
languages. The papers include descriptions of basic phonetic properties, such as vowel 205
formant frequencies, durational characteristics of consonants and vowels, and, in the case 206
of tone languages, fundamental frequency values. They also include qualitative and 207
quantitative analyses of typologically unusual properties found in the particular language 208
under investigation. Topics of interest targeted by the studies include (among many 209
others) the ejective fricatives of Tlingit, the phonation contrasts of Jalapa Mazatec, the 210
velar vs. uvular distinction in Aleut, the consonant clusters of Montana Salish, and the 211
atypical vowel system of Wari’, which contains more front rounded vowels than back 212
rounded vowels. 213
The studies employ diverse methodologies. For example, Maddieson et al. (1996) 214
use acoustic and aerodynamic data in tandem to infer the articulatory characteristics of 215
the typologically rare Tlingit ejective fricatives, which are found in only 10 of 451 (2.2%) 216
languages in the UPSID survey (Maddieson and Precoda 1990). In their study of 217
Montana Salish, Flemming et al. (1994) complement their acoustic data with several 218
13
types of aerodynamic (oral pressure and flow and nasal flow) and physiological 219
(electroglottography) data. 220
The data from the Ladefoged and Maddieson project also have been pooled and 221
employed in typological studies of phonetic properties. For example, Cho and Ladefoged 222
(1999) is a survey of voice-onset-time (VOT) in 18 languages targeted for study by the 223
grant, the majority of which (11) are Native American languages. One of the goals of 224
their study is to explore the relationship between VOT values in languages lacking a 225
contrast between unaspirated and aspirated stops and in languages possessing an 226
aspiration contrast. One working hypothesis guiding their research is that VOT values for 227
unaspirated stops are smaller in languages with an aspiration contrast due to the need to 228
maintain a perceptually salient distinction with the aspirated series. 229
Figure 3 depicts average VOT values for the velar stops (the place of articulation 230
most broadly represented in the database) in the surveyed Native American languages. 231
The languages on the left lack an aspiration contrast for voiceless stops, whereas those on 232
the right have the contrast. 233
234
14
235
Figure 3. Voice-onset-time (VOT) values (in milliseconds) for velar stops in 11 Native 236
American languages (Cho and Ladefoged 1999). 237
238
As figure 3 shows, although VOT values for the unaspirated series are generally smaller 239
(as predicted) in languages with an aspiration contrast, this pattern is not universal. VOT 240
values for the unaspirated stops in Hupa and Navajo, which both contrast aspiration, are 241
thus either equivalent to or larger than values for the unaspirated stops in Chickasaw and 242
Banawá, both of which lack an aspiration contrast. It is also striking that VOT values for 243
the two Aleut varieties, which lack an aspiration contrast, are roughly equivalent to (or 244
even larger than) VOT values for the phonemic aspirated stops in three of the five 245
languages with an aspiration contrast. The considerable cross-linguistic variability 246
observed in Cho and Ladefoged’s (1999) study underscores the extent to which the 247
phonetic realization of a phonological property may differ across languages, often in 248
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Unaspirated
Aspirated
15
ways that are not necessarily predictable from the structure of a language. Nevertheless, 249
despite the cross-linguistic variation in VOT values, the phonetic distinction between 250
unaspirated and aspirated stops is clearly maintained in all languages in Cho and 251
Ladefoged’s study with contrastive aspiration: VOT values for the aspirated series are 252
thus at least twice as long as those for unaspirated stops and, in some languages, four or 253
five times as long. Another interesting finding of the Cho and Ladefoged (1993) study is 254
that in three of the four languages surveyed with both an aspiration contrast and ejective 255
stops (Navajo, Western Apache, and Tlingit but not Hupa), VOT values for the ejectives 256
fall between those of their unaspirated and aspirated counterparts, suggesting that VOT 257
may be used as a supplemental cue to the identification of ejectives. 258
Recent work on Native American languages has built on phonetic research of the 259
20th century by employing more sophisticated techniques for directly accessing 260
articulatory data, rather than merely inferring it from acoustic and aerodynamic 261
measurements. Esling et al. (2005) use laryngoscopy in their study of Nuuchahnulth to 262
examine the production of glottal stop, glottalized sonorants, and pharyngeals. McDowell 263
(2004), Namdaran (2006), and Hudu (2008) employ ultrasound to investigate the 264
phonetic realization of vowel retraction triggered by uvulars and pharyngeal consonants 265
in Interior Salish languages. Gick et al. (2012) also use ultrasound data in their 266
examination of voiceless vowels in Oneida and Blackfoot, finding that articulatory 267
reflexes of these vowels remain even in the absence of acoustic traces. They further show 268
in a perception experiment involving Blackfoot listeners that listeners are perceptually 269
16
unable to distinguish the identity of vowels that have been acoustically but not 270
articulatorily deleted. 271
The Gick et al. (2012) study belongs to a growing area of research in Native 272
American languages, and more generally the field of phonetics, employing perception 273
experiments in tandem with production data in order to assess the mapping between 274
articulation and perception. Wright et al. (2002) complement their production study of 275
Witsuwit’en ejectives with a perception study, finding that the contrast between ejective 276
and unaspirated stops is less reliably perceived than other distinctions including the 277
contrast between aspirated and unaspirated stops. This result plausibly is tied to the 278
characteristically short VOT values for ejectives in Witsuwit’en relative to those in the 279
four languages with ejectives considered in the Cho and Ladefoged (1999) study 280
discussed earlier. 281
Because of their overall more robust status relative to their neighbors to the North 282
and South, much of the work on perception has focused on languages of Central America. 283
Gerfen and Baker (2005), for example, examine the acoustic and perceptual correlates of 284
laryngealized phonation in the Otomanguean language Coatzospan Mixtec, finding that 285
drops in amplitude or fundamental frequency alone are sufficient to cue judgments of 286
laryngealization even in the absence of differences in spectral tilt, which is typically 287
regarded as the most salient acoustic reflex of non-modal phonation (Gordon and 288
Ladefoged 2001). Clopper and Tonhauser (2013) examine the perceptual correlates of 289
focal prominence in Paraguayan Guaraní. Crowhurst and Olivares (2014) is a perception 290
17
study that explores rhythmic groupings and the psychological underpinnings of rhythmic 291
biases in Betaza Zapotec (see section 5.1 for more research on rhythmic groupings). 292
One area of research emphasized by Boas (1917a) to be of great importance, 293
studies based on narrative and discourse data, has recently gained greater prominence in 294
the phonetic literature. Because naturalistic data collected outside of the laboratory 295
introduce a number of confounding factors that can make results difficult to interpret, 296
most quantitative phonetic studies on Native American languages (and more generally in 297
the field of phonetics) are based on elicited data. Discourse data, however, are critical to 298
gain a comprehensive understanding of prosodic properties such as prominence, 299
intonation, and prosodic constituency. Hintz’s (2006) paper on South Conchucos 300
Quechua and Gordon and Rose’s (2006) work on Emerillón are two acoustic studies of 301
stress correlates in Native American languages of South America that compare words 302
uttered in isolation with narrative data. Both studies find differences in the phonetic 303
realization of prominence and in its location between the two contexts, confirming the 304
need for more discourse-based studies of prosody. Several recent studies have used 305
narrative data to explore higher level prosodic units in Native American languages, e.g. 306
Beck and Bennett (2007) on Lushootseed, Berez (2011) on Ahtna, and Lovick and Tuttle 307
(2012) on Dena’ina. Along similar lines, Russell (2008) is an acoustic study of vowel 308
coalescence across word boundaries in Plains Cree based on data from two narratives. 309
310
311
312
18
4. Phonological research on Native American Languages 313
314
Research on languages of the Americas has also played an important role in advances in 315
phonological description and theory over the last century. Already at the turn of the 20th 316
century, Sapir was churning out remarkably detailed descriptions of phonological 317
patterns in a variety of languages. Sapir’s (1912) grammar of Takelma illustrates the 318
precision and scope of his phonological analyses, which comprised a broad range of 319
topics, including phoneme inventories, phonotactic restrictions, segmental alternations 320
(e.g. assimilation, dissimilation, deletion, degemination), and prosody. Many of his 321
phonological descriptions inform phonological theory even today, and the value of his 322
work is heightened by the fact that most of the languages he described are now either 323
moribund or extinct. Sapir’s (1930) description of the phonology of Southern Paiute, for 324
example, has sparked debate about syllable integrity in stress systems (Halle and 325
Vergnaud 1987, Hayes 1995), i.e. whether foot boundaries can split syllables, and the 326
characterization of the relationship between reduplication and segmental alternations 327
(McCarthy and Prince 1995, Gurevich 2000, Raimy 2000). Even Sapir’s textual materials 328
have been consulted in corpus-based phonological studies. Gordon and Luna (2004), for 329
example, analyze the location of stress for a subset of Sapir’s Hupa texts (Sapir and Golla 330
2001), extracting a number of statistical biases in stress placement that have analogs even 331
at later stages of the language. 332
Descriptive work on the phonology of Native American languages has continued 333
unabated over the last century, much of it represented in IJAL articles and publications. 334
19
Over time, as descriptive coverage of most languages has expanded, increasingly more 335
research has employed data from Native American languages to inform topical issues in 336
phonological theory. Research on Native American languages has played a prominent 337
role in the development and elucidation of many phonological frameworks and 338
formalisms, most recently the constraint-based framework of Optimality Theory (Prince 339
and Smolensky 1993). In many cases, data from older comprehensive grammars of now 340
extinct languages continue to receive extensive treatment in the theoretical literature. The 341
importance of Sapir’s Southern Paiute data for metrical stress theory was mentioned 342
earlier. Similarly, Stanley Newman’s (1944) grammar of Yokuts provided the material 343
for Archangeli’s (1984) seminal dissertation on non-linear phonology and 344
underspecification of features. Hoijer’s (1933) description of syncope and shortening in 345
Tonkawa has likewise provided ample fodder for the study of metrical structure and 346
reduplication (e.g. Phelps 1975, Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979, Noske 1993, 347
Gouskova 2003; 2007). 348
The data from these classic works as well as from more recent studies of Native 349
American languages have been instrumental in broadening the typological coverage of a 350
wide range of phenomena, including phonemic inventories, phonotactics, syllable 351
structure, stress, tone, intonation, poetic metrics, prosodic morphology, and prosodic 352
constituency. I cite here just a few of the contributions of phonological research on 353
Native American languages to these topics. Pirahã, which has only seven consonants and 354
eight vowels (Everett 1986), possesses the smallest phoneme inventory in the world 355
(Maddieson 1984), while varieties of Eastern Chatino have perhaps the most complex 356
20
tone inventories in the world, contrasting as many as twelve tones (Cruz and Woodbury 357
2006, Villard 2009, Campbell and Woodbury 2010). On an historical level, Northern 358
Athabaskan languages, which diverge in their synchronic tonal reflexes of glottal 359
constriction, have played a pivotal role in our understanding of tonogenesis (Kingston 360
2005). The vowelless words of certain Salishan languages, e.g. Nuxalk (Bagemihl 1991), 361
present challenges to theories that assume the universality of syllables and sonority 362
sequencing principles governing phonotactics. Sibilant harmony systems of the type 363
found in Chumashan and Athabaskan have played a prominent role in the development of 364
theories of long-distance assimilation (Gafos 1999, Hansson 2001, Poser 2004, McCarthy 365
2007). Several intonation systems reported for languages of the Americas, e.g. Wari’ 366
(Everett and Kern 1997) and Chickasaw (Gordon 2005a), violate the overwhelming 367
cross-linguistic tendency for the default intonational contour in declaratives to be 368
characterized by a terminal fall. Work by Hinton (1984; 1990) on Havasupai and 369
Fitzgerald (1998) on Tohono O’odham provide much needed breadth to typological 370
knowledge of linguistic properties of sung verse. The stress system of Pirahã (Everett 371
and Everett 1984, Everett 1986) has provided the impetus for research on onset-sensitive 372
weight (Topintzi 2004; 2010, Gordon 2005b) with further reinforcement from the 373
sensitivity of the minimal word requirement to onset complexity in Yakima Sahaptin 374
(Hargus and Beavert 2006). The prosodic system of Kashaya (Oswalt 1988, Buckley 375
1994; 2013) has necessitated expansion of the theory of extrametricality to include cases 376
at the left edge of prosodic domains. The scalar weight hierarchies of Asheninca (Payne 377
1990) and Nanti (Crowhurst and Michael 2005), which are simultaneously sensitive to 378
21
vowel quality, vowel length and the presence vs. absence of a coda consonant, present 379
challenges to the most commonly adopted theory of weight, moraic theory (Hayes 1989). 380
Native American languages of the Pacific Northwest have provided virtually the entire 381
corpus of material underlying the debate about the role of phonetic factors in analyzing 382
the phasing of laryngeal and oral gestures relative to each other in glottalized sonorants 383
(e.g. Plauché et al. 1998, Steriade 1999, Howe and Pulleyblank 2001, Shaw et al. 2005, 384
Bird et al. 2008, Bird 2011). 385
386
5. Four case studies of the phonetics and phonology of Native American Languages 387
388
This section presents four case studies illustrating ways in which work on Native 389
American languages have contributed to the fields of phonetics and phonology. The first 390
three case studies focus on prosodic features, including iambic metrical structure (5.1), 391
weight-sensitive tone restrictions (5.2), and prosodic morphology (5.3). The final case 392
study (5.4) deals with an area of ever increasing importance as the number of endangered 393
languages grows: phonological and phonetic characteristics of semi-speakers and their 394
acquisition by second language learners. Focus in the case studies, particularly the first 395
three, is on languages of the Southeastern United States, which have played a prominent 396
role in furthering our understanding of phonetics and phonology over the last century. 397
398
399
400
22
5.1. Iambic metrical structure 401
402
The most widely adopted metrical stress theory, that proposed in Hayes (1987; 1995) 403
assumes an asymmetric inventory of feet consisting of three types. According to this 404
theory, trochaic feet may, on a language-specific basis, either be weight-sensitive or not, 405
whereas iambic feet are universally weight-sensitive. The three types of feet in Hayes’ 406
proposed inventory are shown schematically in (1), where the metrically strong element 407
is marked with an ‘x’. 408
409
(1) Asymmetric foot inventory (Hayes 1987; 1995) 410
411
Syllabic Trochee Moraic Trochee Iamb
x
(σ σ)
x
(µ µ)
x
(µ µ)
412
As (1) shows, canonical weight-sensitive feet, including both the moraic trochee and the 413
iamb, consist of two moras (assigned to vowels and, on a language-specific basis, coda 414
consonants), whereas weight-insensitive feet contain two syllables. Hayes grounds his 415
foot inventory in data from numerous psychological experiments in which listeners prefer 416
trochaic groupings for alternating loud and soft stimuli that are durationally balanced but 417
iambic groupings for alternating long and short stimuli that are balanced in terms of 418
loudness. Results of these experiments suggest an inherent sensitivity to duration in the 419
23
case of iambs but not trochees. Hayes finds linguistic support for this asymmetry between 420
the two foot types in his cross-linguistic survey of stress systems, showing that iambic 421
stress languages are overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) weight-sensitive, whereas 422
trochaic stress languages vary in their weight-sensitivity. 423
Virtually all of Hayes’ (1995) survey of iambic languages is based on languages 424
of the Americas (many of which are genetically diverse), including Hixkaryana, Creek, 425
Chickasaw, Choctaw, Delaware, Malecite-Passamaquoddy, Eastern Ojibwa, Menomini, 426
Potawatomi, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, Yupik, Hopi, Sierra Miwok, and Maidu. The 427
Southeastern languages Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek contribute some of the especially 428
key case studies illustrating iambic metrical structure. These are discussed in the next 429
two sections. 430
431
5.1.1. Iambic lengthening in Chickasaw 432
433
One of the pervasive features of iambic systems, exemplified by Chickasaw and 434
Choctaw, is iambic lengthening, a phenomenon whereby metrically strong phonemic 435
short vowels in open syllables lengthen to create a durationally unbalanced short-long 436
foot just like the preferred iambs in the psychological experiments discussed above. 437
Examples of iambic lengthening in Chickasaw (Munro and Ulrich 1984, Munro and 438
Willmond 1994; 2008, Gordon and Munro 2007) appear in (2), where lengthened vowels 439
are indicated by an IPA half-length symbol. As in other languages with weight-sensitive 440
iambs, feet in Chickasaw may consist of two light syllables, a single heavy syllable 441
24
(closed syllables and those with long vowels in Chickasaw), or a light followed by a 442
heavy syllable. In Chickasaw, unlike many other iambic stress language, a final light 443
syllable immediately following a strong syllable also constitutes a foot on its own. Note 444
that primary stress in the Chickasaw examples preferentially docks on a long or 445
lengthened vowel and otherwise on the final syllables in words lacking a long vowel. 446
447
(2) Iambic lengthening in Chickasaw 448
449
(aˈbiˑ)(kaˌtok) ‘s/he was sick’
(aˌsaˑ)(biˈkaˑ)(ˌtok) ‘I was sick’
(kiˈsiˑ)(liˌtok) ‘I bit it’
(ʧiˌkiˑ)(siˈliˑ)(ˌtok) ‘I bit you’
(ʧoˌkoʃ)(koˈmoˑ)(ˌtok) ‘s/he played’
(aˈsaˑ)(biˌka) ‘I am sick’
(ʧoˌkoʃ)(koˈmo) ‘s/he plays’
(aˈbiˑ)(ˌka) ‘s/he is sick’
(kiˈsiˑ)(ˌli) ‘I bite it’
450
A curious feature of languages with iambic lengthening is the apparent absence 451
(according to phonological descriptions) of lengthening in final syllables even if they are 452
open and metrically strong, e.g. (ʧoˌkoʃ)(koˈmo) not (ʧoˌkoʃ)(koˈmoˑ), (aˈsaˑ)(biˌka) not 453
(aˌsaˑ)(biˈkaˑ). The failure of lengthening to apply word-finally is particularly puzzling 454
25
given that final position is cross-linguistically a common locus of phonetic lengthening in 455
languages as diverse as Taiwanese (Peng 1997), Yoruba (Nagano-Madsen 1992), 456
Inuktitut (Nagano-Madsen 1992), English (Klatt 1975, Umeda 1975, Wightman et al. 457
1992), Hungarian (Hockey and Fagyal 1999), and Chickasaw’s Muskogean relative 458
Creek (Johnson and Martin 2001). One might thus expect final syllables to be most 459
conducive to iambic lengthening. 460
Gordon and Munro (2007) explore the puzzling absence of lengthening final 461
stressed syllables in a phonetic study of final vowel length under different metrical 462
conditions in Chickasaw. Since all final syllables in Chickasaw are metrically strong as 463
evidenced by stress patterns (Munro 1996, Gordon 2004), the relevant comparisons are 464
between final vowels that are part of a disyllabic foot consisting of two light syllables and 465
final vowels that consist of a single light (CV) syllable. Gordon and Munro (2007) also 466
compare vowels that are word-final but phrase-internal with those that are phrase-final 467
but not utterance-final and those that are utterance-final. They find that all final vowels 468
undergo lengthening regardless of the size of the foot to which they belong; thus, the final 469
vowel in (aˈbiˑ)(ˌka) ‘s/he is sick’ is equivalent in length to the final vowel in 470
(aˈsaˑ)(biˌka) ‘I am sick’ despite the fact that the rightmost foot is monosyllabic in the 471
first word but disyllabic in the second. They further discover that word-final lengthening 472
is cumulative across domains of different sizes: greatest utterance-finally, slightly smaller 473
phrase-finally but utterance-medially, and smallest in magnitude phrase-medially. Much 474
of the length (almost 40% averaged across speakers) of utterance-final vowels, however, 475
is associated with breathiness, unlike phrase-final and word-final vowels (that are not 476
26
utterance-final), which have considerably shorter breathy phases: 17% for phrase-final 477
vowels and 10% for word-final vowels. The cumulative nature of final lengthening and 478
breathiness across domains of different sizes is consistent with cross-linguistic patterns, 479
leading Gordon and Munro (2007) to suggest that the natural tendency for final 480
lengthening, which can be associated with slowing down of articulatory gestures without 481
necessarily any increase in gestural magnitude (see Edwards et al. 1991, Beckman et al. 482
1992), plausibly supersedes lengthening due to metrical prominence, which unlike final 483
lengthening is attributed to an increase in gestural magnitude. 484
Another interesting finding of Gordon and Munro’s (2007) study is that word-485
medial lengthened vowels remain durationally distinct from phonemic long vowels (at 486
least for certain speakers). The phonemic long /iː/ in (tiː)(kãːʔ)(tiʔ) ‘dirt dauber (wasp)’ 487
for you’ is thus longer than the lengthened /iˑ/ in (satiˑ)(kah)(bi) ‘I am tired’. Iambic 488
lengthening in Chickasaw thus falls in the class of near-neutralizing alternations, which 489
makes it problematic to capture using discrete units of weight like the mora. Under 490
Hayes’ (1995) account, iambic lengthening creates a heavy, i.e. bimoraic, strong syllable; 491
however, assuming that the lengthened vowel is bimoraic incorrectly implies that it is 492
equivalent in length to phonemic long vowels. It is hoped that future phonetic study of 493
iambic lengthening in other languages will determine whether it triggers near or complete 494
neutralization of underlying length distinctions. Study of other languages in which final 495
short vowels are only stressed when part of a disyllabic foot (unlike in Chickasaw) will 496
also reveal whether the final lengthening patterns in Chickasaw are potentially an artifact 497
of the final stress or are also observed in final unstressed vowels. 498
27
5.1.2. High tone assignment in Creek 499
500
Not all iambic languages manifest metrical strength through vowel lengthening. Another 501
Muskogean language, Creek, has a high tone that occurs in a location that is predictable 502
from iambic foot structure. As described by Haas (1977) and Martin (2011) and 503
instrumentally verified by Martin and Johnson (2002), the default high tone in Creek 504
words lacking a lexically specified accent spans from the leftmost to the rightmost 505
metrically strong syllable, either an initial heavy syllable containing a long vowel or a 506
coda consonant, or the second syllable if the first syllable is light. Metrical structure and 507
tonal patterns in Creek are illustrated in figure 4 for the words (atʃok)(ɬán)wa ‘daddy 508
longlegs’ and (apa)(taná) ‘bullfrog’. In the second form, the high tone span continues 509
from the second vowel all the way through most of the final vowel, which is metrically 510
strong. In the first form, in contrast, there is a precipitous fall in F0 starting at the 511
beginning of the final vowel, which is metrically unparsed. 512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
28
Time (s)0 0.6971
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
150
521 522 523 524 525 528 529 530 531
532 a tʃ o k ɬ a n w a a p a t a n a 533 534 Figure 4. Iambic high tone assignment in the Creek words (atʃok)(ɬán)wa ‘daddy 535
longlegs’ (on left) and (apa)(taná) ‘bullfrog’ (on right) 536
In a study of vowel quality and duration, Johnson and Martin (2001) find that 537
final vowels, both phonemically short and long, are centralized relative to their initial 538
counterparts despite being longer, a result that suggests that final position triggers both a 539
slowing down of articulatory gestures and a decrease in tongue displacement in Creek. 540
This combination of results is consistent with the hypothesis advanced above that final 541
lengthening in Chickasaw has a fundamentally different articulatory source from 542
lengthening associated with metrical prominence. 543
544
5.2. Weight-sensitive tone 545
546
Another phenomenon informed by research on languages of the Southeastern United 547
States is weight-sensitive tone, the restriction against contour tones on light syllables 548
observed in many languages (Clark 1983, Hyman 1988, Gordon 2001, Zhang 2002). If 549
Time (s)0 0.9756
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
175
H H
29
contour tones are viewed compositionally as combinations of low plus high tones (in 550
either order), restrictions against them can be captured in theories of weight, such as 551
moraic theory, as a one-to-one upper limit on associations between tones and units of 552
weight (Woo 1969). In languages imposing this constraint on tone-to-weight mappings, 553
the configuration in (3b) with two tones linked to a single mora is not licit, whereas the 554
same pattern is permitted in a language that does not place weight-sensitive restrictions 555
on the licensing of contour tones. One-to-one mappings between tones and moras, as in 556
(3a) and (3d), are allowed in both types of languages as are mappings of a single tone to 557
multiple moras, as in (3c). 558
559
(3) Various tone-to-mora mappings in languages with and without weight-sensitive tone 560
561
(a) σ
µ
T
(b) σ
µ
T T
(c) σ
µ µ
T
(d) σ
µ µ
T T Weight-sensitive tone √ * √ √ No weight-sensitive tone √ √ √ √ 562 Contour tone restrictions are illustrated by Koasati (Gordon et al. 2015), in which a 563
subset of nouns carry a rising tone and this rising tone is (almost exclusively) limited to 564
syllables containing a long vowel (abbreviated CVV) or syllables closed by a coda 565
sonorant (abbreviated CVR). Examples of lexical rising tone in Koasati appear in (4), 566
followed by a pitch trace of a word with rising tone in figure 5. 567
568
569
30
Time (s)0 0.8256
Pitc
h (H
z)
125
200
(4) Lexical rising tone on CVV and CVR in Koasati 570
571
hopǒːni ‘a cook’
tǎlwa ‘singer’
pokko tǒːli ‘ball player’
naːɬǐːka ‘speaker’
mobǐːla ‘car’
athǒmma ‘Indian’
572 573 574 575 576 577
578 579 580 581 582 h o p ǒː n i 583 584 585
Figure 5. Lexical rising tone on the penult of the Koasati noun hopǒːni ‘a cook’ 586
587
A similar confinement of phonological contour tones to CVV and CVR syllables 588
is also found in Caddo (Chafe 1976) and in Koasati’s linguistic relative Creek (Martin 589
2011). Caddo differs from Koasati, however, in permitting only falling and not rising 590
tones. 591
H L
31
Oklahoma Cherokee also has a restriction against contour tones, which differs 592
from the Koasati and Caddo pattern in permitting contours only on syllables containing a 593
long vowel (Wright 1996, Uchihara 2013). Oklahoma Cherokee also has a more complex 594
tone inventory than the Koasati and Caddo data discussed thus far in featuring both rising 595
and falling tones. Examples of rising and falling tone on long vowels in Cherokee appear 596
in (5) (from Uchihara 2013:172). 597
598
599
(5) Contour tones on CVV in Oklahoma Cherokee 600
601
602
603
Because it is realized along the same physical dimension of fundamental 604
frequency, intonation in many languages is subject to similar restrictions on pitch 605
excursions to those governing lexical tone. For example, imperatives in Koasati are 606
marked with a terminal high-low fall in pitch, which is realized in its canonical form on 607
final syllables that end in a sonorant coda. (Koasati lacks final long vowels.) If, however, 608
the final syllable is not CVR (which also licenses low-high lexical rises) the high-low fall 609
kʰijûːka ‘chipmunk’
kakʰâːneha ‘he is giving him a living thing’
kʰawǒːnu ‘duck’
kaleːjʌˇːska ‘A long object is falling from an
upright position’
32
H H
L
is truncated to a simple high tone. The canonical and truncated versions of the terminal 610
high-low fall in Koasati imperatives are illustrated for the words ishol ‘you all take it!’ 611
and halatk ‘grab on!’, respectively, in figure 6. Note that both words begin with a 612
lowered baseline pitch (not attributed to the imperative), which accounts for the initial 613
rise to the high tone. 614
615
616 i s h o l h a l a t k 617 618 Figure 6. Falling tone in Koasati imperative ishol ‘you all take it!’ (on left) and simple 619
high tone in Koasati imperative halatk ‘grab on!’ (on right) 620
621
The Koasati/Caddo type (CVV, CVR heavy) and Cherokee type (CVV heavy) 622
tone restrictions are typologically very common in the world and find an explanation in 623
terms of phonetic considerations. The acoustic correlate of tone is fundamental 624
frequency, which is most effectively realized on a sonorous sound, where vowels provide 625
a slightly better backdrop than sonorant consonants. Obstruents are least conducive to 626
supporting fundamental frequency information. Because contour tones involve a 627
fundamental frequency excursion, they generally require more time to implement than 628
Time (s)0 0.5972
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
250
Time (s)0 0.5456
Pitc
h (H
z)
100
275
33
level tones. For this reason, a long vowel provides the best docking site for a contour 629
tone, slightly better than a sequence of a short vowel plus sonorant consonant. Both CVV 630
and CVR are far superior in their tone-bearing capacity to either a short vowel in an open 631
syllable or one followed by an obstruent coda (see Zhang 2002 for further discussion). 632
Languages like Cherokee that restrict contour tones to CVV thus impose the most 633
stringent requirement on contour tones, whereas those like Koasati and Caddo that permit 634
contour tones on both CVV and CVR employ a slightly less strict weight criterion. 635
Predicted not to occur given phonetic grounding is a hypothetical language in which 636
syllables closed by an obstruent are able to support contour tones but those closed by a 637
sonorant are not or a hypothetical language in which CVR can carry contours but CVV 638
cannot. 639
Tonal restrictions may also be sensitive to the type of contour tone. Zhang (2002) 640
observes that rising tones are subject to more stringent restrictions than falling tones 641
cross-linguistically. Many languages thus have falling but not rising tones, while others 642
restrict rising tones more severely in terms of the contexts in which they may occur. This 643
asymmetry between the two types of contours also falls out from phonetic considerations 644
discussed in Zhang (2002): rising tones take longer to execute than falling tones. One 645
would thus predict that tolerance of rising tones in a language predicts the occurrence of 646
falling tones in that language. 647
The Caddo and Creek data discussed thus far display the predicted type of 648
asymmetry in contour tone licensing, since they possess falling but not rising tones. 649
Koasati, however, contradicts this pattern in having rising but not falling lexical tones 650
34
(though it does have falling intonational contours, as shown earlier), suggesting that the 651
distribution of contour tones is not necessarily always predictable on phonetic grounds 652
synchronically. 653
As it turns out, consideration of the tonal history of the Muskogean language 654
family to which Koasati and Creek both belong sheds some light on the apparently 655
anomalous behavior of the Koasati tone system synchronically. As Martin (2013) and 656
Gordon et al. (2015) show, rising tone in Koasati corresponds to falling tone in some 657
other Muskogean languages, including Koasati’s close relative Alabama, e.g. Koasati 658
tǎlwa vs. Alabama tậlwa ‘singer’ (Gordon et al. 2015:115). Martin (2013) and Gordon et 659
al. (2015) suggest that falling tone reflects the original pattern and that the rising tone of 660
Koasati resulted historically from the typologically common phonetic phenomenon of 661
peak delay (e.g. Silverman and Pierrehumbert 1990, Prieto et al. 1995, Xu 2001), 662
whereby the fundamental frequency peak is shifted rightward phonetically. As a result of 663
peak delay, the syllable originally associated with the falling tone became phonetically 664
associated with an F0 rise, eventually being analyzed as carrying a rising tone instead. 665
The Koasati reanalysis provides an illustration of how one phonetically natural event, in 666
this case, peak delay, can trigger a typologically uncommon (and phonetically 667
unpredicted) phonological pattern, in this case, the occurrence of a phonological rising 668
but not a falling tone. 669
670
671
672
35
5.3. Prosodic morphology 673
674
Prosodic morphology is a cover term for a cluster of phenomena sensitive to the 675
phonological shape of morphemes and formally united in a research program initiated by 676
McCarthy and Prince (1986/1996). One property falling under the purview of prosodic 677
morphology is the class of templatic morphological operations characterized by the 678
selection of a prosodically defined morpheme. The most pervasive type of templatic 679
morphology is reduplication, a process of word formation (often conveying meanings 680
such as intensification, repeated action, or plurality) associated with the copying of a 681
morpheme or part of a morpheme. The examples in (6) illustrate the marking of plurality 682
through reduplication in Tunica data appearing in an early IJAL article by Swanton 683
(1921). 684
685
(6) Reduplication in Tunica (Swanton 1921:5-6) 686
687
Base Gloss Reduplication Gloss
miːliː ‘red miːliːmiːliːta ‘many red things’
meːliː ‘black’ meːliːmeːliːta ‘many black things’
toːluː ‘round’ toːluːtoːluːta ‘many round things’
koːra ‘to drink’ koːkoːra ‘drink (pl.)’
36
As the forms from Tunica indicate, the shape of the reduplicant can vary. In these data, 688
the first three forms thus display reduplication of the entire base, while the last form 689
undergoes reduplication of the first CV sequence. 690
A salient, though not universal feature, of reduplication is that the reduplicant 691
adheres to a defined template rather than merely copying a constituent of the root. This 692
property is evident in the Creek data in (7), which illustrate reduplication in the 693
distributive of intransitive verbs (Martin 2011). 694
695
(7) CV reduplication in Creek (Martin 2011:203-204) 696
697
Base Gloss Reduplication Gloss
(a) likátʃw-iː ‘dirty’ likatʃliw-íː (two or more)
hopánk-iː ‘broken’ hopanhok-íː (two or more)
(b) apoːk-itá ‘(three or more)
to sit, live’
apoːpok-itá (in several places)
tóːsk-iː ‘mangy’ toːstok-íː (two or more)
(c) hátk-iː ‘white’ háthak-íː (two or more)
tolk-itá ‘to fall over’ toltok-íta (two or more)
698
The reduplicant is characteristically a copy of the first CV sequence of the root and falls 699
to the left of the final consonant of the root (7a). The fixed nature of the reduplicative 700
template as CV is demonstrated by the fact that a long vowel in the first syllable of the 701
37
root surfaces as short in the reduplicant (7b) and a coda consonant is not copied (7c). The 702
CV reduplicant template employed in Creek is one of many attested in languages 703
throughout the world. Others include a single heavy syllable (either CVV or CVC), a 704
long vowel (CVV), a disyllabic sequence, and an entire root. 705
A relatively rare type of reduplication involves copying of a single segment. The 706
data in (8) and (9) illustrate consonant reduplication in Jakalktek (Day 1973) and vowel 707
reduplication in Nuxalk (Nater 1984:109), respectively. 708
709
(8) Consonant reduplication in Jakaltek (Day 1973:45) 710
Base Gloss Reduplication Gloss
piʦ’-a ‘squeeze s.th.
gently’
ʧa piʦ’p-e ‘you squeeze s.th.
gently several times’
onom juk-e
‘noise and/or
motion of leaves
on shaken trees’
ʧa jukj-e ‘you shake s.th.’
711
(9) Vowel reduplication in Nuxalk (Nater 1984:109) 712
713
Base Gloss Reduplication Gloss
t’ixɬala ‘robin’ ʔit’ixɬala-j (diminutive)
k’n̩ts ‘sperm whale’ ʔn̩k’n̩ts (diminutive)
714
38
Reduplication can also involve two copies or “triplication”, as in the data in (10) 715
from Stát’imcets (Shaw 2005, van Eijk 1997) combining diminutive and 716
plural/collectivity reduplication (with accompanying glottalization of the sonorant in the 717
second set of examples). 718
719
(10) Multiple reduplication in Stát’imcets (van Eijk 1997:62, Shaw 2005:177) 720
721
s-ˈqaχaʔ Nom-Root ‘dog’
s-ˈqəә-qχaʔ Nom-DIM-Root ‘puppy’
s-qəәχ-ˈqəә-qχaʔ Nom-PL-DIM -Root ‘puppies’
s-ˈjaqʧaʔ Nom-Root ‘woman’
s-ˈjʔəә-jʔqʧaʔ Nom-DIM-Root +[CG] ‘girl’
s-ˈjəәq-jʔəә-ˈjʔqʧaʔ Nom-PL-DIM-Root +[CG] ‘girls’
722
It is also possible for reduplication to involve copying in conjunction with an 723
invariant segment. Koasati displays this variety of “fixed segmentism” reduplication in 724
the construction termed “punctual reduplication” by Kimball (1991), in which the first 725
consonant of the root plus the vowel [oː] is inserted before the final syllable of the root. 726
727
728
729
39
(11) Fixed segmentism in Koasati punctual reduplication (Kimball 1991:325-6) 730
731
tahaspin tahastoːpin ‘to be light in weight’
lapatkin lapatloːkin ‘to be narrow’
talasban talastoːban ‘to be thin’
ɬimihkon ɬimihɬoːkin ‘to be smooth’
ʧofoknan ʧofokʧoːnan ‘to be angled’
732
As stated earlier, a salient characteristic of reduplication is its adherence to a 733
template that is not dependent on the shape of the base. Although this feature is nearly 734
universal, there are rare instances of reduplication varying as a function of the shape of 735
the base. One such exceptional case involves syllable reduplication in the habitual aspect 736
in the Uto-Aztecan language Hiaki (Haugen 2003; 2014). In Hiaki, the shape of the 737
reduplicant varies between CV and CVC to match the shape of the first syllable of the 738
root (12). 739
740
(12) Syllable reduplication in Hiaki (Haugen 2014:511) 741
742
Template Base Reduplication Gloss
CV vu.sa vu.vu.sa ‘awaken’
ʧi.ke ʧi.ʧi.ke ‘comb one’s hair’
he.wi.te he.he.wi.te ‘agree’
40
CVC vamse vam.vam.se ‘hurry’
hit.ta hit.hit.ta ‘make a fire’
ʔat.bʷa ʔat.ʔat.bʷa ‘laugh at’
bʷal.ko.te bʷal.bʷal.ko.te ‘soften, smooth’
743
Reduplication is not the only type of templatic morphological operation attested 744
cross-linguistically. Another variety of templatic morphology involves truncation of 745
material from the base to adhere to a fixed shape, as in hypocoristic formation in 746
Japanese (Poser 1990), in which the abbreviated name adheres to a bimoraic template 747
consisting of two light syllables, e.g. takatɯgɯ → taka-ʨaɴ, taɺoː → taɺo-ʨaɴ, or a 748
single heavy syllable, e.g. joːko → joː-ʨaɴ. 749
Although the template in most cases of truncation is enforced on the preserved 750
material (as in Japanese), there is another type of truncation, in which the template 751
instead holds of the deleted (or subtracted) material. Subtractive morphology is illustrated 752
by the Koasati plurals in (13), which are formed by deleting the final rime of the root 753
(either a short vowel + coda consonant or a long vowel) and adding the suffixes –ka or –li 754
followed by –n (Kimball 1983; 1991, Martin 1988). 755
756
757
758
759
41
(13) Subtractive morphology in Koasati (Martin 1988:230-1) 760
761
Singular Plural Gloss
lataf-kan lat-kan ‘to kick something’
lasap-lin lap-lin ‘to lick something’
misip-lin mis-lin ‘to wink’
tipas-lin tip-lin ‘to pick something off’
atakaː-lin atak-lin ‘to hang something’
albitiː-lin albit-lin ‘to place on top of’
aʧokʧanaː-kan aʧokʧan-kan ‘to quarrel with someone’
762
In summary, Native American languages have contributed substantially to typological 763
knowledge of prosodic morphology, including the range of variation in the shape of 764
templates and the types of phenomena employing those templates. 765
766
5.4. Phonetics and phonology in language endangerment and revitalization 767
768
The decline in language usage in many Native American communities has spawned new 769
areas of engagement that transcend the traditional boundaries of scholarly research. 770
Already at the time of IJAL’s inception, Boas (1917a) had recognized the profound 771
impact that extensive contact with European languages had exerted on the phonetic 772
characteristics of Native American languages, citing as an example the reduced strength 773
42
of the glottalized consonants found in languages of the Pacific Coast. The influence of 774
language contact has become increasingly more pervasive over the last century, spurring 775
linguists and community members to investigate the ways in which languages are shaped 776
by other languages, the differences between the speech of native speakers and that of 777
semi-speakers of a language, and the mechanism of language acquisition for second 778
language speakers of Native American languages. On a practical level, understanding of 779
these issues informs methodologies for effectively teaching second language learners. An 780
important thread of this work, both theoretical and applied, is the inextricable relationship 781
it assumes between the language itself and its speakers (or learners) for whom language is 782
an essential marker of cultural identity. 783
Rankin’s (1978) paper on the phonemes of Quapaw, which had at the time of his 784
work recently lost its last native speaker, made clear the complex nature of phonological 785
change associated with language desuetude in the face of language contact (see also Cook 786
1989 on Tsuut’ina and Dëne Sųłiné, the latter of which is also the subject of a 787
longitudinal acquisition study in Cook 2006). Although certain shifts he reports likely 788
reflect the influence of English, e.g. the deglottalization of glottalized fricatives and 789
stops, the change of retroflex fricatives to palato-alveolars and ultimately clusters of 790
alveolar fricative plus /r/, other developments were not plausibly attributed to English. 791
For example, for semi-speakers whose parents had been fluent and who still could 792
produce many words (between 150 and 300) and some short sentences, the contrast 793
between aspirated and unaspirated stops was neutralized to the unaspirated series even in 794
pre-tonic contexts where English has aspiration. Rankin (1978) suggests that this shift is 795
43
attributed to the less marked status of unaspirated stops relative to aspirated stops, as 796
reflected in cross-linguistic frequency patterns and ultimately attributed to phonetic 797
factors such as ease of articulation and perceptual salience. He offers a similar 798
explanation for the sporadic preservation of glottalization in stops for the oldest 799
generation of non-fluent speakers (represented by a woman in her 70s in Rankin’s study), 800
even though they completely lost glottalization in fricatives, which is considerably rarer 801
cross-linguistically. As English continued to make inroads, Quapaw’s phonology became 802
increasingly English-like, even at the expense of increasing markedness. Thus, the 803
youngest generation of speakers in his study had completely adopted the allophonic 804
distribution of aspiration found in English. 805
Although Rankin’s study clearly demonstrates the profound nature of 806
phonological change among speakers not using a language regularly, it leaves open the 807
relative contribution of external factors such as language contact as opposed to internal 808
pressures such as markedness. Much of the uncertainty arising in the interpretation of 809
Rankin’s results stems from the inherent elusiveness of the notion of markedness, which 810
in the case of the Quapaw data could be attributed to frequency or phonetic naturalness. 811
For example, a statistical predominance of unaspirated stops in Quapaw relative to their 812
aspirated counterparts could have led to their adoption by speakers neutralizing the two 813
series. Alternatively, the preservation of the unaspirated stops might have been attributed 814
to their greater phonetic “naturalness”. Investigation of the source of the aspiration 815
patterns in Quapaw would also have been aided by a phonetic study to determine whether 816
voice-onset-time was in fact influenced on a low level by stress as in English. 817
44
Haynes (2010) attempts to tease apart the many factors, both linguistic and 818
cultural, driving language change in a detailed production and perception study of 819
phonetic characteristics of Numu (Oregon Northern Paiute) among four populations 820
living in or near the Warm Springs, Oregon tribal community. The first group included 821
fluent speakers of Numu from Warm Springs. The second group consisted of members of 822
the Warm Springs community who were not fluent but had experienced direct exposure 823
to Numu through family members or classes. The third population included Warm Spring 824
community members with only ambient exposure to Numu, though some had exposure to 825
another (genetically unrelated) Native American language spoken in the Warm Springs 826
community. The fourth group consisted of residents of the nearby town of Madras who 827
reported no exposure to Numu. 828
Haynes (2010) examines a number of phonological and phonetic characteristics of 829
Numu as reproduced by non-fluent speakers mimicking a list of words uttered by fluent 830
speakers in order to examine the extent to which populations with differing degrees of 831
exposure to Numu are able to replicate features absent from English and to determine the 832
source of discrepancies between the three groups in their performance. Her results 833
suggest a number of linguistic and social factors at work. 834
As expected, there was considerable variation among non-fluent speakers even 835
those belonging to the same broad categories adopted by Haynes. Furthermore, intertoken 836
variation was also observed even within speakers, a result that mirrors data from 837
Rankin’s (1978) study. Also in keeping with Rankin (1978), Haynes (2010) finds that 838
many sounds and contrasts that are not found in English are either replaced or 839
45
phonetically altered in a direction that is predictable from English influence. In some 840
cases, exposure to Numu confers some advantage in the ability to replicate native speaker 841
pronunciation. For example, the initial affricate /ts/ in Numu is preserved in gradient 842
fashion in proportion to a speaker’s level of exposure to Numu. Similarly, in a 843
comparison of fortis and lenis stops, which differ from each other along a number of 844
dimensions including voice-onset-time, duration, and burst intensity, Haynes (2010) finds 845
that non-fluent speakers exaggerate VOT differences but reduce durational differences 846
between the two stop series in proportion to their degree of exposure to Numu, where the 847
group with the most exposure to Numu is most accurate in its phonetic reproduction of 848
the fortis vs. lenis contrast. Only the non-fluent group with the greatest exposure to Numu 849
is able to reproduce the burst intensity distinction between the two sets of stops. 850
In other cases, there is no clear advantage associated with increased exposure to 851
Numu. For example, the uvularization of /k/ before the vowels /a/ and /ɔ/ is not reliably 852
produced by non-fluent speakers regardless of their level of experience to Numu. All 853
non-fluent groups also decrease the duration ratio between intervocalic geminate and 854
singleton nasals relative to the fluent speakers, primarily due to lengthening of the 855
singleton series, a result that Haynes (2010) speculates is due to the lack of a gemination 856
contrast in English. Similarly, influence of English likely contributes to the compacted 857
vowel space of Numu relative to that of non-fluent speakers, especially in the central and 858
back space, where Numu contrasts /ɨ/, /u/, /ɔ/, and /a/. 859
Haynes (2010) also observes evidence of hypercorrection in her data. Non-fluent 860
speakers from the two Warm Springs groups but not the Madras group thus often apply 861
46
final vowel devoicing even in contexts where fluent speakers do not, which Haynes 862
suggests is attributed to devoicing being identified as a distinguishing characteristic of 863
Numu that is being overapplied by non-native speakers. Another interesting finding is the 864
spontaneous production of ejectives by participants belonging to both Warm Springs 865
groups even though Numu lacks ejectives. Haynes (2010) hypothesizes that the ejective 866
productions are due to the occurrence of ejectives in two other Native American 867
languages spoken in Warm Springs, Kiksht and Ichishkin, which has lead non-fluent 868
Numu speakers to associates ejectives with Native American languages, even those like 869
Numu that lack them. She suggests that this type of overgeneralization potentially offers 870
an explanation for the common linguistic phenomenon of areal spreading of features, 871
including ejectives, an areal feature of Northwest Native American languages. 872
In a companion perception study in Haynes (2010), tokens produced by non-873
fluent speakers and containing non-native features of Numu were played to two native 874
speaker listeners to ascertain which properties contribute most to a perceived non-native 875
accent. There was considerable variation between the two speakers in their tolerance of 876
non-native features and their sensitivity to different features as markers of a non-native 877
accent. Some of the more robust findings, however, were that deviations from the native 878
devoicing patterns triggered relatively strong non-native judgments, as did non-native 879
productions of the fortis vs. lenis contrast. Interestingly, however, differences in VOT, on 880
which non-native speakers relied in producing the contrast, did not strongly induce non-881
native judgments in the perception task. Ejectives only exerted an effect on judgments for 882
one of the two listeners. Social factors such as the individual and the gender of the 883
47
speaker (males perceived as less native-like) also impacted perceptions of native 884
pronunciation. 885
Haynes’ (2010) results highlight the considerable complexity of the mapping 886
between speech characteristics of native speakers of Native American languages and 887
those with varying degrees of proficiency. Besides the expected influence of a socially 888
dominant language like English the cultural association of particular properties with a 889
language, whether actually part of that language or not, may exert an impact on the 890
production of non-native speakers. Her results also indicate that properties that appear to 891
be most divergent between native and non-native speakers in production may not 892
necessarily be those that listeners identify as critical to perceived linguistic proficiency on 893
the part of the listener. As Haynes (p. 128) points out, this result suggests that “Numu 894
[language] (and other endangered languages in similar social contexts) may continue to 895
be an authentic marker of Numu culture, even if it incorporates some of the features of 896
second language learner speech”. 897
898
6. Prospects for the future 899
900
The scope and volume of recent studies attest to the vitality of the research program 901
devoted to the phonetics and phonology of Native American languages. This is 902
demonstrated not only by work published in IJAL, but also by articles appearing in 903
diverse journals and by recent edited books focused on phonetic and phonological topics 904
(e.g. Hargus and Rice 2005, Goodwin Gómez and Van der Voort 2014, Avelino et al. 905
48
2016). Concomitant with the expanded range of research, there has been a geographic 906
burgeoning in the form of vastly increased work on the phonology and phonetics of 907
Central and South American languages. This trend is amply reflected in the pages of 908
IJAL over the last decade (e.g. Hintz 2006, Malone 2006; 2010, Stenzel 2007, Elías Ulloa 909
2009, Maddieson et al. 2009, Everett 2011, Dicanio 2012, Clopper and Tonhauser 2013, 910
Michael et al. 2013, Noyer 2013, Crowhurst and Trechter 2014, Caballero and Carroll 911
2015) and reflects tremendous progress from the state of affairs at the time Boas 912
(1917a:1) wrote in his introduction to the inaugural issue of IJAL “it is not saying too 913
much if we claim that for most of the native languages of Central and South America the 914
field is practically terra incognita”. 915
916
REFERENCES 917
918
ARCHANGELI, DIANA. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and 919
Morphology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT (Published in 1988 by Garland Publishing, 920
New York). 921
AVELINO, HERIBERTO, MATT COLER, AND W. LEO WETZELS (eds.). 2016. Laryngeal 922
Features in the Languages of the Americas (Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous 923
Languages of the Americas) Boston: Brill. 924
BAGEMIHL, BRUCE. 1991. Syllable structure in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry 22:589–925
646. 926
49
BECK, DAVID AND DAVID BENNETT. 2007. Extending the prosodic hierarchy: Evidence 927
from Lushootseed narrative. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 1:1–34. 928
BECKMAN, MARY, JAN EDWARDS, AND JANET FLETCHER. 1992. Prosodic structure and 929
tempo in a sonority model of articulatory dynamics, in G. Docherty and D. R. Ladd 930
(eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, pp. 68–86. 931
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 932
BEREZ, ANDREA. 2011. Prosody as a genre-distinguishing feature in Ahtna: a quantitative 933
approach. Functions of Language 18:210–236. 934
BIRD, SONYA. 2011. The nature of laryngealization in St’át’imcets laryngealized 935
resonants. International Journal of American Linguistics 77:159–184. 936
BIRD, SONYA, MARION CALDECOTT, FIONA CAMPBELL, BRYAN GICK AND PATRICIA 937
SHAW. 2008. Oral-laryngeal timing in glottalized resonants. Journal of Phonetics 938
36:492–507. 939
BOAS, FRANZ. 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages, vol. 1. Washington: 940
Smithsonian Institution. 941
BOAS, FRANZ. 1917a. Introductory. International Journal of American Linguistics 1:1–8. 942
_____. 1917b. El Dialecto Mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca. International Journal of 943
American Linguistics 1:9-44. 944
BUCKLEY, EUGENE. 1994. Persistent and cumulative extrametricality in Kashaya. Natural 945
Language and Linguistic Theory 12:423–464. 946
_____. 2013. Kashaya extrametricality and formal symmetry. Supplemental 947
50
Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. 948
CABALLERO, GABRIELA AND LUCIEN CAROLL. 2015. Tone and stress in Choguita 949
Rarámuri (Tarahumara) word prosody. International Journal of American 950
Linguistics 81:457–493. 951
CAMPBELL, ERIC AND ANTHONY WOODBURY. 2010. The comparative tonology of 952
Chatino: A prolegomenon. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of the 953
Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), winter meeting. Baltimore, 954
Maryland, January 7-10. 955
CHAFE, WALLACE. 1976. The Caddoan, Iroquoian, and Siouan Languages. The Hague: 956
Mouton. 957
CHO, TAEHONG AND PETER LADEFOGED. 1999. Variation and universals in VOT: 958
evidence from 18 languages. Journal of Phonetics 27:207–229. 959
CHO, TAEHONG, ALICE TAFF, MOSES DIRKS, AND PETER LADEFOGED. 1997. Some 960
phonetic structures of Aleut. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 95:68–90. 961
CLARK, MARY. 1983. On the distribution of contour tones. West Coast Conference on 962
Formal Linguistics 2:44–55. 963
CLOPPER, CYNTHIA G. AND JUDITH TONHAUSER. 2013. The prosody of focus in 964
Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 79:219–251. 965
COOK, EUNG-DO. 1989. Is phonology going haywire in dying languages? Phonological 966
variations in Chipewyan and Sarcee. Language in Society 18:235–55. 967
_____. 2006. The patterns of consonantal acquisition and change in Chipewyan (Dëne 968
Sųłiné). International Journal of American Linguistics 72:236–263. 969
51
CROWHURST, MEGAN J., AND LEV MICHAEL. 2005. Iterative footing and prominence-970
driven stress in Nanti (Kampa). Language 81:47–95. 971
CROWHURST, MEGAN AND SARA TRECHTER. 2014. Vowel-rhotic metathesis in Guarayu. 972
International Journal of American Linguistics 80:127–173. 973
CROWHURST, MEGAN J., AND AMADOR TEODOCIO OLIVARES. 2014. Beyond the Iambic-974
Trochaic Law: the joint influence of duration and intensity on the perception of 975
rhythmic speech. Phonology 31:51–94. 976
CRUZ, HILARIA, AND ANTHONY C. WOODBURY. 2006. La fonología y tonología 977
comparativa del Chatino: un informe de campo en Zacatepec. Proceedings of the 978
Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America II. Austin: AILLA. 979
DART, SARAH (1991). Articulatory and Acoustic Properties of Apical and Laminal 980
Articulations (UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 79). Los Angeles: UCLA 981
Department of Linguistics. 982
_____. (1993). Phonetic properties of O'odham stop and fricative contrasts. International 983
Journal of American Linguistics 59:16–37. 984
DAY, CHRISTOPHER. 1973. The Jacaltec Language. Indiana University Publications, 985
Language Science Monographs 12). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 986
DE JONG, KENNETH, AND JOYCE MCDONOUGH. 1993. Tone and tonogenesis in Navajo. 987
UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 84:165–182. 988
DICANIO, CHRISTIAN T. 2012. The phonetics of fortis and lenis consonants in Itunyoso 989
Trique. International Journal of American Linguistics 78:239–272. 990
EDWARDS, JAN, MARY BECKMAN, AND JANET FLETCHER. 1991. The articulatory 991
52
kinematics of 992
ELÍAS-ULLOA, JOSÉ. 2009. The distribution of laryngeal segments in Capanahua. 993
International Journal of American Linguistics 75:159–206. 994
ESLING, JOHN H., KATHERINE E. FRASER, AND JIMMY G. HARRIS. 2005. Glottal stop, 995
glottalized resonants, and pharyngeal: a reinterpretation with evidence from a 996
laryngscopic study of Nuuchahnulth (Nootka). Journal of Phonetics 33:383–410. 997
EVERETT, CALEB. 2011. Variable velic movement in Karitiâna. International Journal of 998
American Linguistics 77:33–58. 999
EVERETT, DANIEL. 1986. Pirahã, in Desmond Derbyshire and Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), 1000
Handbook of Amazonian Languages 1, 200–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1001
EVERETT, DANIEL, AND KEREN EVERETT. 1984. On the relevance of syllable onsets to 1002
stress placement. Linguistic Inquiry 15:705–711. 1003
FITZGERALD, COLLEEN M. 1998. The meter of Tohono O’odham songs. International 1004
Journal of American Linguistics 64:1–36. 1005
FLEMMING, EDWARD, PETER LADEFOGED, AND SARAH THOMASON. 1994. Phonetic 1006
structures of Montana Salish. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 87:1–33. 1007
GAFOS, ADAMANTIOS. 1999. The Articulatory Basis of Locality in Phonology. New York: 1008
Garland. 1009
GERFEN, CHIP, AND KIRK BAKER. 2005. The production and perception of laryngealized 1010
vowels in Coatzospan Mixtec. Journal of Phonetics 33:311–334. 1011
53
GICK, BRYAN, HEATHER BLISS, KARIN MICHELSON, AND BOSKO RADANOV. 2012. 1012
Articulation with acoustics: “Soundless” vowels in Oneida and Blackfoot. Journal of 1013
Phonetics 40:46–53. 1014
GODDARD, PLINY EARLE. 1907. The Phonology of the Hupa Language, Part I, The 1015
Individual Sounds. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 1016
_____. 1912. Elements of the Kato Language. California University of California Press. 1017
_____. 1928. Pitch Accent in Hupa. Berkeley, California: University of California 1018
Press. 1019
GÓMEZ, GALE GOODWIN AND HEIN VAN DER VOORT (eds.). 2014. Reduplication in 1020
Indigenous Languages of South America. Boston: Brill. 1021
GORDON, MATTHEW. 1996. The phonetic structures of Hupa. UCLA Working Papers in 1022
Phonetics 93:164–187. 1023
_____. 2001. A typology of contour tone restrictions. Studies in Language 25:405–444. 1024
_____. 2004. A phonetic and phonological study of word-level stress in Chickasaw, 1025
International Journal of American Linguistics 70:1–32. 1026
_____. 2005a. An autosegmental/metrical model of Chickasaw intonation, in S-A. Jun 1027
(ed.), Prosodic typology—the phonology of intonation and phrasing, pp. 301–330. 1028
Oxford University Press. 1029
_____. 2005b. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural 1030
Language and Linguistic Theory 23:595–653. 1031
54
GORDON, MATTHEW, AND PETER LADEFOGED. 2001. Phonation types: a cross-linguistic 1032
overview, Journal of Phonetics 29:383–406. 1033
GORDON, MATTHEW, AND ED LUNA. 2004. An intergenerational investigation of Hupa 1034
stress, Berkeley Linguistics Society 30:105–117. 1035
GORDON, MATTHEW, JACK MARTIN, AND LINDA LANGLEY. 2015. Some phonetic 1036
structures of Koasati. International Journal of American Linguistics 81, 83–118. 1037
GORDON, MATTHEW, AND PAMELA MUNRO. 2007. A phonetic study of final vowel 1038
lengthening in Chickasaw, International Journal of American Linguistics 73:293–1039
330. 1040
GORDON, MATTHEW, PAMELA MUNRO, AND PETER LADEFOGED. 1997. The phonetic 1041
structures of Chickasaw. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 95:41–67. 1042
GORDON, MATTHEW, AND FRANÇOISE ROSE. 2006. Émérillon stress: a phonetic and 1043
phonological study. Anthropological Linguistics 48:132–168. 1044
GOUSKOVA, MARIA. 2003. Deriving Economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. 1045
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Available online on the 1046
Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 610, http://roa.rutgers.edu) 1047
_____. 2007. The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24:367–396. 1048
GUREVICH, NAOMI. 2000. Reduplication in Southern Paiute and Correspondence Theory. 1049
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19:167–177. 1050
HAAS, MARY. 1977. Tonal accent in Creek, in Larry Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and 1051
Accent (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), pp. 195–208. Los 1052
55
Angeles: University of Southern California. [Reprinted in Sturtevant, William C. 1053
(ed.), 1987, A Creek source book. New York: Garland Publishing.] 1054
HALLE, MORRIS, AND VERGNAUD, JEAN-ROGER. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, 1055
Mass.: MIT Press. 1056
HANSSON, GUNNAR ÓLAFUR. 2001. The phonologization of production constraints: 1057
Evidence from consonant harmony. Chicago Linguistic Society 37:187–200. 1058
HARGUS, SHARON, AND VIRGINIA BEAVERT. 2006. Word-initial clusters and minimality in 1059
Yakima Sahaptin. Phonology 23:21–58. 1060
HARGUS, SHARON AND KEREN RICE (eds.). 2005. Athabaskan Prosody. Philadelphia: John 1061
Benjamins Publishing Company. 1062
HAUGEN, JASON. 2003. Allomorphy in Yaqui reduplication, in Studies in Uto-Aztecan, 1063
MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 5. Cambridge, 1064
MA: MITWPL, 75-103. 1065
_____. 2014. Hiaki (Yaqui) reduplication redux: Morphological and prosodic targets in 1066
syllabic reduplication. International Journal of American Linguistics 80:507–532. 1067
HAYES, BRUCE. 1987. A revised parametric metrical theory. Northeastern Linguistics 1068
Society 17:274–289. 1069
_____. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 1070
20:253-306. 1071
_____. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University 1072
of Chicago Press. 1073
56
HAYNES, ERIN. 2010. Phonetic and Phonological Acquisition in Endangered Languages 1074
Learned by Adults: A Case Study of Numu (Oregon Northern Paiute). Ph.D. thesis, 1075
University of California, Berkeley. 1076
HICKERSON, NANCY. 1958a. An acoustic analysis of Shawnee: I. International Journal of 1077
American Linguistics 24: 20–29. 1078
_____. 1958b. An acoustic analysis of Shawnee: II. International Journal of American 1079
Linguistics 24: 130–141. 1080
_____. 1959a. An acoustic analysis of Shawnee: III. International Journal of American 1081
Linguistics 25: 22–31. 1082
_____. 1959b. An acoustic analysis of Shawnee: IV. International Journal of American 1083
Linguistics 25: 97–104. 1084
HINTON, LEANNE. 1984. Havasupai Songs: A Linguistic Perspective. Tübingen: Gunter 1085
Narr Verlag. 1086
_____. 1990. Song metrics. Linguistics Society 16, Parasession on Native Languages. 1087
Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California. 1088
HINTZ, DIANE. 2006. Stress in South Conchucos Quechua: a phonetic and phonological 1089
study. International Journal of American Linguistics 72:477–521. 1090
HOCKEY, BETH ANN, AND ZSUZSANNA FAGYAL. 1999. Phonemic length and pre-boundary 1091
lengthening: An experimental investigation on the use of durational cues in 1092
Hungarian. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Phonetic 1093
Sciences, pp. 313–16. 1094
57
HOGAN, JOHN T. 1976. An analysis of the temporal features of ejective consonants. 1095
Phonetica 33:275–284. 1096
HOIJER, HARRY. 1933. Tonkawa: An Indian language of Texas. New York: Columbia 1097
University. 1098
HOWE, DARIN, AND DOUGLAS PULLEYBLANK. 2001. Patterns and timing of glottalisation. 1099
Phonology 18:45-80. 1100
HUDU, FUSHEINI. 2008. The low vowel and retraction in St’át’imcets: An ultrasound 1101
investigation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 21:67–81. 1102
HYMAN, LARRY. 1988. Syllable structure constraints on tonal contours. Linguistique 1103
Africaine 1:49-60. 1104
JOHNSON, KEITH, AND JACK MARTIN. 2001. Acoustic vowel reduction in Creek: Effects of 1105
distinctive length and position in the word. Phonetica 58:81–102. 1106
KENSTOWICZ, MICHAEL, AND CHARLES KISSEBERTH. 1979. Generative Phonology: 1107
Description and Theory. New York: Academic Press. 1108
KIMBALL, GEOFFREY. 1983. Verb pluralization in Koasati. 1982 Mid-America Linguistics 1109
Conference Papers: 401–411. 1110
KINGSTON, JOHN. 2005. The phonetics of Athabaskan tonogenesis, in Sharon Hargus and 1111
Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan Prosody, pp. 137–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1112
KLATT, DENNIS H. 1975. Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected 1113
discourse. Journal of Phonetics 3:129–40. 1114
LADEFOGED, PETER, AND DANIEL EVERETT. 1996. Phonetic structures of Banawá, an 1115
endangered language. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 93:47–64. 1116
58
LINDAU, MONA (1984). Phonetic differences in glottalic consonants. Journal of 1117
Phonetics, 12:147–155. 1118
LOVICK, OLGA, AND SIRI TUTTLE. 2012. The Prosody of Dena’ina narrative discourse. 1119
International Journal of American Linguistics 78:293–334. 1120
MACEACHERN, MARGARET, BARBARA KERN, AND PETER LADEFOGED. 1996. Wari’ 1121
phonetic structures. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 93:65–93. 1122
MADDIESON, IAN. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1123
MADDIESON, IAN, HERIBERTO AVELINO, AND LORETTA O’CONNOR. 2009. The phonetic 1124
structures of Oaxaca Chontal. International Journal of American Linguistics 75:69–1125
101. 1126
MADDIESON, IAN, NICOLA BESSEL, AND CAROLINE SMITH. 1996. A preliminary report on 1127
the sounds of Tlingit. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 93:125–148. 1128
MADDIESON, IAN, AND KRISTIN PRECODA. 1990. Updating UPSID. UCLA Working 1129
Papers in Phonetics 74:104–111. 1130
MALONE, TERRY. 2006. Tone and Syllable Structure in Chimila. International Journal of 1131
American Linguistics 72:1–58. 1132
_____. 2010. Nasality and nasal prosody in Chimila. International Journal of American 1133
Linguistics 76:1–41. 1134
MARTIN, JACK. 1988. Subtractive morphology as dissociation. West Coast Conference on 1135
Formal Linguistics 7:229–240. 1136
_____. 2011. A grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1137
59
_____. 2013. The geminating grade in Koasati and Muskogean. Paper presented at the 1138
annual SSILA meeting, Boston, Mass. 1139
MARTIN, JACK, AND KEITH JOHNSON. 2002. An acoustic study of "tonal accent" in Creek. 1140
International Journal of American Linguistics 68:28–50. 1141
MCCARTHY, JOHN. 2007. Consonant harmony via correspondence: evidence from 1142
Chumash. Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 31. (available at 1143
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/31) 1144
MCCARTHY, JOHN, AND PRINCE, ALAN. 1986. Prosodic Morphology. Ms. University of 1145
Massachusetts, Amherst & Rutgers University. (Published 1996. Linguistics 1146
Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 13. 1147
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/13) 1148
_____. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity, in J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk, and 1149
L. W. Dickey (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1150
18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Students 1151
Association, 249–384. (Available online on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-1152
60, www.roa.rutgers.edu) 1153
MCDONOUGH, JOYCE, AND MARTHA AUSTIN-GARRISON. 1994. Vowel enhancement and 1154
dispersion in the vowel space of Western Navajo: a study of Navajo speakers. UCLA 1155
Working Papers in Phonetics 87:93–104. 1156
MCDONOUGH, JOYCE, AND PETER LADEFOGED. 1993. Navajo stops. UCLA Working 1157
Papers in Phonetics 84:151–164. 1158
60
MCDONOUGH, JOYCE, PETER LADEFOGED, AND HELEN GEORGE. 1993. Navajo vowels and 1159
phonetic universal tendencies. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 84:143–150. 1160
MCDOWELL, RAMONA. 2004. Retraction in Montana Salish Lateral Consonants: An 1161
Ultrasonic Study. M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia. 1162
MICHAEL, LEV, STEPHANIE FARMER, GREGORY FINLEY, CHRISTINE BEIER, AND KARIAN 1163
SULLÓN ACOSTA. 2013. A sketch of Muniche segmental and prosodic phonology. 1164
International Journal of American Linguistics 79:307–347. 1165
NAMDARAN, NAHAL. 2006. Retraction in St’a ́t’imcets: An Ultrasonic Investigation. M.A. 1166
thesis, University of British Columbia. 1167
MUNRO, PAMELA. 1996. The Chickasaw sound system. Ms., University of California, Los 1168
Angeles. 1169
MUNRO, PAMELA, AND CHARLES ULRICH. 1984. Structure-preservation and Western 1170
Muskogean rhythmic lengthening. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1171
3:191-202. 1172
MUNRO, PAMELA, AND CATHERINE WILLMOND. 1994. Chickasaw: An Analytical 1173
Dictionary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1174
_____. 2008. Let’s Speak Chickasaw: Chikashshanompa’ Kilanompoli’. Norman, 1175
Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 1176
NAGANO-MADSEN, YASUKO. 1992. Mora and Prosodic Coordination: A Phonetic Study 1177
of Japanese, Eskimo, and Yoruba. Lund: Lund University Press 1178
61
NATER, H. F. 1984. The Bella Coola Language, National Museum of Man Mercury 1179
Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 92. Ottawa: National Museums of 1180
Canada. 1181
NEWMAN, STANLEY. 1944. Yokuts Language of California. New York: Viking Fund. 1182
NOSKE, ROLAND. 1993. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation.With 1183
Studies on the Phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani. Tübingen: 1184
Niemeyer. 1185
NOYER, ROLF. 2013. A generative phonology of San Mateo Huave. International Journal 1186
of American Linguistics 79:1–60. 1187
OSWALT, ROBERT L. 1988. The floating accent of Kashaya, in William Shipley (ed.), In 1188
Honor of Mary Haas, pp. 611-621. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. 1189
PAYNE, DORIS. 1990. Asheninca stress patterns. In Doris Payne (ed.), Amazonian 1190
Linguistics, pp. 185–212. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1191
PENG, SHU-HUI. 1997. Production and perception of Taiwanese tones in different tonal 1192
and phrasal contexts. Journal of Phonetics 25:371–400. 1193
PHELPS, ELAINE. 1975. Iteration and disjunctive domains in phonology. Linguistic 1194
Analysis 1:137–172. 1195
PLAUCHÉ, MADELAINE C., ROSEMARY BEAM DE AZCONA, RUNGPAT ROENGPITYA, AND 1196
WILLIAM F. WEIGEL. 1998. Glottalized sonorants: a phonetic universal? Berkeley 1197
Linguistics Society 24:381–389. 1198
POSER, WILLIAM. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66:78–105. 1199
62
_____. 2004. On the status of Chumash sibilant harmony. Ms., University of 1200
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (Available online at 1201
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featgeom/poser-chumashnew.pdf). 1202
POTTER, BRIAN, MATTHEW GORDON, JOHN DAWSON, WILLEM DE REUSE, AND PETER 1203
LADEFOGED. 2000. Phonetic structures of Western Apache. UCLA Working Papers 1204
in Phonetics 98:10–38. 1205
PRIETO, PILAR, JAN VAN SANTEN, AND JULIA HIRSCHBERG. 1995. Tonal alignment 1206
patterns in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 23:429–451. 1207
PRINCE, ALAN, AND SMOLENSKY, PAUL. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction 1208
in Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University and University of Colorado at 1209
Boulder. (Published in 2004 Blackwell Publishers, Malden Mass.) 1210
RAIMY, ERIC. 2000. The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de 1211
Gruyter. 1212
RANKIN, ROBERT. 1978. The unmarking of Quapaw: A case study in language death. 1213
Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 3:45–52. 1214
RUSSELL, KEVIN. 2008. Sandhi in Plains Cree. Journal of Phonetics 36:450–464. 1215
SAPIR, EDWARD. 1912. The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon. Washington: 1216
Government Printing Office. 1217
_____. 1930. Southern Paiute: a Shoshonean Language. Proceedings of the American 1218
Society of Arts and Sciences 65. 1219
SAPIR, EDWARD, AND VICTOR GOLLA. 2001. Hupa texts, with notes and lexicon. In Victor 1220
63
Golla and Sean O’Neill (eds.), Northwest California Linguistics [The Collected 1221
Works of Edward Sapir XIV], pp. 19–1011. New York: Mouton. 1222
SHAW, PATRICIA A. 2005. Non-adjacency in reduplication, in Bernhard Hurch (ed.), 1223
Studies on reduplication, pp. 161–210. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1224
SHAW, PATRICIA A., FIONA CAMPBELL, FLORA EHRHARDT, AND PATRICIA MCKAY. 2005. 1225
Patterns and timing of resonant glottalization in Nɬeʔkepmxcin. Proceedings of the 1226
40th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, UBC 1227
Working Papers in Linguistics 16:210–224. 1228
SILVERMAN, DANIEL, BARBARA BLANKENSHIP, PAUL KIRK, AND PETER LADEFOGED. 1229
1994. Phonetic stuctures in Jalapa Mazatec. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 1230
87:113–130. 1231
SILVERMAN, KIM, AND JANET PIERREHUMBERT. 1990. The timing of prenuclear high 1232
accents in English, in John Kingston and Mary Beckman (eds.), Papers in 1233
Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, pp. 72–106. 1234
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1235
STENZEL, KRISTINE. 2007. Glottalization and other suprasegmental features in Wanano. 1236
International Journal of American Linguistics 73:331–366. 1237
STERIADE, DONCA. 1999. Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization, in 1238
Matthew K. Gordon (ed.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 2, October 1239
1999, Papers in Phonology 3:25–146. 1240
SWANTON, JOHN. 1921. The Tunica language. International Journal of American 1241
Linguistics 2:1–39. 1242
64
TOPINTZI, NINA. 2004. Moraic onsets and WSP partition in Pirahã. CamLing 2004:211–1243
218. 1244
_____. 2010. Onsets: Suprasegmental and Prosodic Behaviour. Cambridge: 1245
Cambridge University Press. 1246
TUTTLE, SIRI. 2000. Unaspirated coronal stops in Jicarilla Apache. UCLA Working 1247
Papers in Phonetics 98:39–53. 1248
UCHIHARA, HIROTO. 2013. Tone and Accent in Oklahoma Cherokee. Ph.D. dissertation, 1249
The University at Buffalo, State University of New York. 1250
UMEDA, NORIKO. 1975. Vowel duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical 1251
Society of America 58:434–45. 1252
VAN EIJK, JAN P. 1997. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. 1253
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 1254
VILLARD, STÉPHANIE. 2009. Grammatical Sketch of Zacatepec Chatino. M.A. thesis, 1255
University. 1256
WIGHTMAN, COLIN, STEFANIE SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, MARIE OSTENDORF, AND PATTI 1257
PRICE. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. 1258
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92:1707–17. 1259
WOO, NANCY. 1969. Prosody and Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. 1260
WRIGHT, RICHARD. 1996. Tone and Accent in Oklahoma Cherokee. In Pamela Munro 1261
(ed.), Cherokee papers from UCLA. (University of California Occasional Papers in 1262
Linguistics 16). Los Angeles: U. of California, Los Angeles, pp. 11–22. 1263
WRIGHT, RICHARD, SHARON HARGUS, AND KATHARINE DAVIS. 2002. On the 1264
65
categorization of ejectives: data from Witsuwit’en. Journal of the International 1265
Phonetic Association 32:43–77. 1266
XU, YI. 2001. Fundamental frequency peak delay in Mandarin. Phonetica 58:26–52. 1267
ZHANG, JIE. 2002. The Effects of Duration and Sonority on Contour Tone Distribution: 1268
Typological Survey and Formal Analysis. New York: Routledge. 1269
1 Thank you to David Beck, Donna Gerdts, and an anonymous reviewer for their
numerous thoughtful and helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.