04.03.2013 Views

the university of chicago the phonology and ... - SIL International

the university of chicago the phonology and ... - SIL International

the university of chicago the phonology and ... - SIL International

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

syllable structure which results from a reduplicative process in B<strong>and</strong>a, <strong>and</strong> provides<br />

cognate percentages for each pair <strong>of</strong> languages.<br />

His analysis leads him to reject <strong>the</strong> Peripheral B<strong>and</strong>a node, since each grouping<br />

underneath <strong>the</strong> node is as distant phonologically <strong>and</strong> lexicostatistically from each o<strong>the</strong>r as<br />

from Central B<strong>and</strong>a. Thus, he elevates South Central, Sou<strong>the</strong>rn, Southwestern, <strong>and</strong> West<br />

Central to <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> immediate constituents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> B<strong>and</strong>a node. In addition, he notes<br />

that Yangere is more closely related to <strong>the</strong> Central Core than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r peripheral groups,<br />

<strong>and</strong> so he posits an intermediate node to account for that level <strong>of</strong> relatedness.<br />

On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, Cloarec-Heiss (1997) argues for <strong>the</strong> Peripheral B<strong>and</strong>a node, on<br />

<strong>the</strong> grounds that morphological rates <strong>of</strong> similarity between <strong>the</strong>se speech varieties is high,<br />

in fact, higher than lexical rates <strong>of</strong> similarity. However, she bases this on rates <strong>of</strong><br />

similarity ra<strong>the</strong>r than on a reconstructed morphology or definable shared morphological<br />

innovations. Fur<strong>the</strong>r research is necessary to substantiate her claim.<br />

The internal classification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Central Core <strong>of</strong> B<strong>and</strong>a as shown in Table 1.1 is<br />

from Cloarec-Heiss (1986, 1988). However, as mentioned before, she does not explicitly<br />

lay out her analysis, so it remains unclear exactly how she arrives at this internal<br />

classification. Also, Olson (1996) does not make any claims regarding <strong>the</strong> internal<br />

classification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Central Core.<br />

Cloarec-Heiss (1978), Fultz & Morgan (1986), <strong>and</strong> Olson (1996) each provide<br />

lexicostatistical data comparing some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Central Core languages. Unfortunately, none<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se studies contain languages from all six subgroups. Olson (p. 275) compares<br />

languages within four <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subgroups: B<strong>and</strong>a-Bambari, B<strong>and</strong>a-Ndélé, Mid-Sou<strong>the</strong>rn,<br />

<strong>and</strong> Togbo-Vara. For his data, <strong>the</strong> pairs <strong>of</strong> languages which are putatively part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

same subgroup consistently (with one exception) score higher than 90%. However, this is<br />

not exclusively so, so his results are inconclusive. A comprehensive lexicostatistical<br />

9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!