Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous ... - ScholarSpace

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gemination and Tonal Feet in Weledeh Dogrib 209 nor as high to encroach on a lexically High tone, in accordance with contrast and dispersion (Flemming 1996, 2001). Future instrumental studies will be necessary to show if this is correct. Now, given that something like the constraint-ranking shown in Tables 3 and 4 can successfully parse all of the words shown in Table 2, why should the metrical phonology of Dogrib make any reference to tone at all? What is tonal about tonal feet? Table 5 presents five different inputs, and contrasts the result we would expect with standard right-to-left moraic trochees (Hayes 1995) versus the actual result, derived from tonal feet. In (a), there is no difference between simple moraic trochees and tonal feet, because the input string happens to already conform to the restriction that feet be level. In (b), however, we see that the stem-initial consonant geminates, so that (whet) is made to form a High-toned foot by itself, while (bòkà) forms a Low-toned foot to its left. In (c), (bò.kà)(whe.ne)t’e is one of the attested possibilities in Weledeh Dogrib, but so are the forms (bò.kà)(whęę)t’e and (bò.kà)(whįį)t’e, which have undergone a process which I call nasal coalescence, the latter of these having also undergone nasal raising. While these processes do not make direct reference to tone, they are sensitive to feet, in that they occur only within but not across foot boundaries. In (d), we see vowel syncope, perhaps the most dramatic process conditioned by tonal feet. In (d), the vowel of the prefix /whe/, which has underlying High tone, is deleted, since there is no way to parse it into a level foot. Based on examples such as these, I will use the constraint nocontour-ft (Pearce 2006) to formally characterize the way non-level feet are penalized in Dogrib. Finally, (e) represents a prima facie counterexample to the existence of tonal feet, since the actual form, bò.(kàį) t’è, contains the non-level foot (kàį), while the form which we would expect based on standard moraic trochees does not. In this case, it is necessary to say that the constraint nocontour-ft is dominated by other constraints, in particular align-r(ft, Prwd), which seeks to reduce the overall number of feet in a Prosodic Word, even if some of the resulting feet are non-level. table 5. Footing with a-tonal and tonal feet Input Expected Result (standard moraic trochees) Actual Result (with tonal feet) a. /bò-kà-ge-e-t’è/ (bò.kà)(gee)t’è (bò.kà)(gee)t’è b. /bò-kà-whe-t’e/ bò.(kà.whe)t’e (bò.kà)(whet)t’e c. /bò-kà-whe-ne-t’e/ (bò.kà)(whe.ne)t’e (bò.kà)(whe.ne)t’e or (bò.kà)(whęę)t’e or (bò.kà)(whįį)t’e d. /bò-kà-whe-wìd-t’e/ (bò.kà)(whewì)t’e bò.(kàwhì)t’e e. /bò-kà-e-ne-t’è/ (bò.kà)(e.ne)t’è bò.(kàį)t’è fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the americas
Gemination and Tonal Feet in Weledeh Dogrib 210 4. GEMINATION. While the existence of phonetically long consonants in some Athabaskan languages has been previously noted in the literature (McDonough & Ladefoged 1993, Tuttle 2005), previous works on Dogrib (Coleman 1976, Ackroyd 1982, Marinakis 2004) make no mention of geminates. In arguing for phonological geminates in Weledeh Dogrib, I will present both phonetic evidence for a categorical distinction between singleton and geminate consonants, as well as a phonological account of their distribution. Phonetically, it seems that geminate consonants in Dogrib are 1.7-2.0 times the length of their singleton counterparts on average. This is consistent with what is known about the phonetic realization of geminates cross-linguistically (Keer 1999). The durations for singleton and geminate /t’/, /n/, and /l/ are shown in Figure 1 below. 250 200 150 100 86 174 Duration (milliseconds) ) 50 0 128 212 /t'/ /n/ /l/ figure 1. Singleton and geminate durations for /t’/, /n/, and /l/ fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the americas 99 180 Singleton Geminate The data in Figure 1 are based on a relatively small number of tokens: approximately 40 tokens each for /n/ and /l/, and only 12 tokens for /t’/. Nevertheless, in all cases, the difference between singleton and geminate consonants was categorical and highly significant, p
Page 2 and 3:
Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis i
Page 5:
Contents Foreword iii Marianne Mith
Page 8 and 9:
Another fading boundary is that bet
Page 10 and 11:
languages: Akawaio (Kapóng), Akuri
Page 12:
Acknowledgments The editors are dee
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction 2 COMMUNITY COLLABORAT
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction 4 confined themselves
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction 6 Often, what turns ou
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction 8 references boas, fra
Page 23 and 24:
The Discourse Marker vet in Ixil Ma
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
fieldwork and linguistic analysis i
Page 47 and 48:
Classifying Clitics in Sm’algyax
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Noun Class and Number in Kiowa-Tano
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
fieldwork and linguistic analysis i
Page 105 and 106:
The Story of *ȏ in the Cariban Fam
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
124 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 139 and 140:
Zapotec Determiners 126 System of O
Page 141 and 142:
Zapotec Determiners 128 and most at
Page 143 and 144:
Zapotec Determiners 130 do often oc
Page 145 and 146:
Zapotec Determiners 132 The minimal
Page 147 and 148:
Zapotec Determiners 134 (14) (MMC,
Page 149 and 150:
Zapotec Determiners 136 In the text
Page 151 and 152:
Zapotec Determiners 138 b. bɛn gun
Page 153 and 154:
Zapotec Determiners 140 rɛ’ɛbi-
Page 155 and 156:
Zapotec Determiners 142 (29) (LGL,
Page 157 and 158:
Zapotec Determiners 144 APPENDIX: T
Page 159 and 160:
146 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 161 and 162:
Middles and Reflexives in Yucatec M
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172: Middles and Reflexives in Yucatec M
Page 185 and 186: 172 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 187 and 188: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 174 On
Page 189 and 190: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 176 (4
Page 191 and 192: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 178
Page 193 and 194: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 180 5
Page 203 and 204: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 190 Th
Page 207 and 208: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 194 Q
Page 211 and 212: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 198 co
Page 213 and 214: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 200 RE
Page 215 and 216: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 202 Pe
Page 217 and 218: Gemination and Tonal Feet in Welede
Page 221: Gemination and Tonal Feet in Welede
Page 237 and 238: Dependent Verbs in Sierra Popoluca
Page 273 and 274:
Dependent Verbs in Sierra Popoluca
show all

Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous ... - ScholarSpace

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?