Tone inventories and tune-text alignments Mary E. Beckman (Ohio State University)

1. Tone inventories and tune-text alignments Mary E. Beckman (Ohio State University) • Problem: How can we develop descriptions of prosodic systems of less well-studied languages, such as the Caribbean Creoles or regional Chinese languages such as Taiwanese or Shanghainese? • 1. Adopt a common theoretical “language” so that researchers can communicate with each other: the autosegmental-metrical (AM) framework (Ladd, 1996), an “elegant means of expressing the relationships between tones and their tone-bearing units so far devised” (Frota, 2004 [ESF “Tone and Intonation in Europe”]). • 2. Build on typological work — both “macro-typological” studies comparing different languages and “micro-typological” studies of very closely related languages (Frota, 2004). • Outline: • Review macro-typological work that led to AM framework. • Suggest applications in micro-typological study of Chinese.

2. Theme: • Older typology of pitch classified languages by two dichotomies: • distinctive function of pitch: tone languages (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) vs. intonation languages (e.g., English). • phonetic content of culminative function: pitch accent (e.g., Swedish, Japanese) vs. stress accent (e.g., English). • Sometimes cast as three points on a continuum (e.g., by • MacCawley, 1978) rather than as two independent dimensions. • The Autosegmental-Metrical (AM, Ladd, 1996) framework allows • us to recast the classification in terms of inventory and alignment: • inventory: What are the “notes” (tones) that make up the “tune” of an utterance, and where do they come from? (A) • alignment: How is the “tune” anchored to the “text”? (M) • Once recast in this way, ... • all languages have tones; all languages are intonation languages; • accent typology becomes much more multi-dimensional

3. /ma/ or /ma55/ /ma/ or /ma35/ /ma/ or /ma21(3)/ /ma/ or /ma51/ syllable-level analysis after Chao (1930) ‘A system of tone letters.’ Function of pitch: In tone languages, differentiates morphemes, whereas in intonation languages, it differentiates utterances...

4. Kingdon (1939) ‘Tonetic stress markers..’: rise / vs. fall-rise \/

5. [child + PLURAL ][ will NEG will ][ come ] • Word and higher-level effects (identified by Chao 1933, 1968, ...) • ‘neutral tone’:inherently on morphemes /dz/ and /mn/ of /hai.dz.mn/ ‘children’; alternating with ‘lexically specified’ tone on NEG morpheme in V-not-V question construction • also, half-fall (tone 4 sandhi) on first /jao/ in this sequence: /jao/+/pu/+/jao/  /jao.pu.jao/

6. [ they ][ NEG sell ][ umbrella ][ QUEST ]

7. Word and higher-level effects (cont.) • tone 3 sandhi: /ju/+/san/  /yu.san/ • ‘neutral tone’: also on sentence particles such as /ma/ • tone alternations: /pu/+/mai/  /pu.mai/ • /jao/+/pu/+/jao/  /jao.pu.jao/ • ‘intonation’ proper • ta-men bu-mai yu-san ma. + • ta-men bu-mai yu-san ma. + • Global shapes (Chao, 1933)? or local BPM (Chao, 1968)? • [Lee’s (2000) results suggest both manipulations are involved.]

8. Who does intonation? What does Mary do?  Mary does intonation? This analysis differs to Gussenhoven’s: L* L* H- H% This analysis defers to Gussenhoven’s: %L L*H H%

9. Kingdon (1939) and others notate the first contrast, by moving the ‘toneticstress marker’ from first word to last: /Mary does intonation? Mary does /intonation? Such conventions could be modified to notate the second contrast also, by letting marker be used as a diacritic within the word: This analysis \differs to Gussenhoven’s. This analysis de\fers to Gussenhoven’s. However, the conventions cannot account for the way in which a particular ‘tonetic’ pattern is realized on texts of different lengths. Mary does intonation? Abernathy? Mary does intonation? Jane?

10. By representing the rises and falls of contrasting intonation contours in “intonation languages” such as English as sequences of targets (like the contrasting lexical tone targets in “tone languages” such as Mandarin Chinese or Chichewa), intonational phonologists could invoke other devices of AutosegmentalPhonology: Mary does intonation? Abernathy? Jane? analyzed as L H H sequence with second H spread or copied over interval between stressed syllable (where accent L* anchored) and phrase end (where second H% is anchored as a ‘boundarytone’). Difference between Pierrehumbert’s and Gussenhoven’s analyses then is a matter of MetricalPhonology: structural affiliation of the middle tone... Pierrehumbert: H- phrase accent affiliated with phrase end Gussenhoven: trailing tone of bitonal L*Hpitch accent

11. For dual affiliation of phrase-leveltones, see also: • Grice, Ladd, & Arvaniti (2000) for phrase accents in German, Hungarian, Greek, and several other ‘stress accent languages’. • Bruce (1977) for phrase accent accounting for second peak in Accent 2 type word accents in Swedish (original source) ... • and Gussenhoven (2000) for OT treatment of boundary tone interleaved with word accents in ‘tonal’ dialects of Dutch. • Phonetic content of culminative function: pitch peak vs. stress peak. • Traditional dichotomy grouped Swedish together with Japanese in contrast to English and (non-tonal dialects of) Dutch, but ... • “English as a pitch accent language” (Bolinger, 1965). • The AM framework decomposes intonation contours into tones aligned to culminative syllables and tones aligned to edges, allows us to make a multi-dimensional typology in terms of (1) lexicon vs. pragmatics as source of culminative tonal contrasts, (2) deletion/interpolation vs. interleaving of higher level tones, ....

12. Accent vs.アクセント in Japanese: • Lexical contrast in Japanese includes “no accent” as a possible value, so disyllabic words have three possible patterns, trisyllabic words have four, etc.; so utterances with no culminative syllable. • Kawakami (1967) analyzed initial rise as phrase-level pattern as opposed to ‘nuclear’ fall at lexical accent; Pierrehumbert & Beckman (1988) for AM treatment of Japanese %L H- sequence.

13. Phonetic content of prosodeme does not capture differences: • unlike word accents of Swedish (or pitch accents of English), accents in Tokyo (and Osaka) Japanese do not anchor to stress • “accentuation” in sense of highlighting/making prominent is accomplished instead by phrasing and pitch range manipulation • [ triangular ][roof-GEN ][ smackcenter-LOC] [put ] • downstep on /jane/ (triggered by accent on /saNkaku/) vs. pitch range reset at intonational phrase boundary in /maNnaka/

14. [Yuu-and ][Miniyori-GEN ][brother-DAT][met ]

15. [ really ][ Nara-GEN ][COP][sent Prt ]

16. Recasting accent typology to refer tostructure where anchored (1): • Standard Dutch pitch accents are a variety of shapes (H*+L vs. L*+H vs.L*H+L, etc.) anchored to metrically strong syllables; potential location of accent lexically distinctive, but accent shape specified in the pragmatics (as are boundary tones) • Swedish word accents are a HL shape anchored to a heavy syllable; location of accent and early vs. late peak alignment details (H*+L vs. H+L*)are lexically distinctive • Tokyo Japanese accents are a fixed H*L shape anchored to any syllable nucleus in accentual phrase, long or short (or even ‘deleted’); presence of accent and location lexically distinctive • French ‘word-final accents’ dock to final syllable in accentual phrase, different from alignment of early rise (Welby, 2003) • Question: Why is shape variable in English and Dutch, but fixed in Japanese and French?

17. Fixed pitch accent shape in Tokyo Japanese, KS Korean, etc. • Perhaps because syllable where pitch accent is anchored is • neither fixed relative to a phrase edge nor metrically strong, • pitch accent is fixed tone shape: always H*+L • Contrast: • Dutch H*; L*, H*+L, L*+H, L*H+L (ToDI system) • Swedish H*L, HL* (Bruce 1991) • Neapolitan Italian H*L, HL*, L*H, LH*, etc. (D’Imperio, 2002) • English H*, L*, L+H*, L*+H, H+!H* (ToBI system) • Note that many of these contrast in details of alignment and not • just in choice of tone sequence, as in English L+H* vs. L*+H • (compare two rising boundary tones in Tokyo Japanese).

19. Methods used to confirm alignment contrasts • Analyze corpus of serendipitously overheard examples — e.g., Ward & Hirschberg (1985) for English L+H* vs. L*+H • Ask listeners to choose between interpretations in canned dialogues — e.g., Beckman (2000) for English L+H* vs. L*+H; Caspers (1999, 2000) for Dutch H*+L vs. L*H+L • Ask listeners to choose between interpretations of synthetic stimuli along a continuum — e.g., D’Imperio (2000) for Neapolitan Italian L+H* vs. L*+H • Ask speakers to imitate stimuli along a continuum — e.g., Pierrehumbert & Steele (1989) for English L+H* vs. L*+H; Dilley [Redi] (2003) for English H+L* (ToBI H+!H*) vs. H* L- • Question of methodology: • When tone target is an inflection point rather than a clear peak or clear valley, how can we reliably measure produced alignment?

20. Where exactly is the first H tone in English L* H H%? • Answer: Analyze productions using intersections of fitted slopes • Arvaniti, Ladd, & Mennen (1998) for Greek L*+H vs. L+H*, etc. • D’Imperio (2000) for Neapolitan Italian L+H* vs. L*+H • Dilley (2003) for English H+L* vs. H* L- • Willis (2003) for focused vs. neutral prenuclear accents in Dominican Spanish • Welby (2003) for Hexagonal French early vs. late rise

21. Recasting accent typology to refer tostructure where anchored (2): • Standard Dutch pitch accents are a variety of shapes (H*+L vs. L*+H vs.L*H+L, etc.) anchored to metrically strong syllables; potential location of accent lexically distinctive, but accent shape specified in the pragmatics (as are boundary tones) • Swedish word accents are a HL shape anchored to a heavy syllable; location of accent and early vs. late peak alignment details (H*+L vs. H+L*)are lexically distinctive • Mandarin Chinese neutral tone syllables often are reduced (e.g., neutral tone on 2nd V /jao.pu.jao/  [jao.bjao] in Rugao-accented Putonghua); tones specified only for stressed syllables • Summary: The metrical anchoring to stressed syllables and not just to phrase edges is independent of the specification of contrasting tone shapes and whether these shapes are specified in the lexicon or in the pragmatics. • Question: (micro-typology) What about other varieties of Chinese?

22. half-fall pattern reinterpreted as downstep (Shih, 1987) interpolation to L% vs. tone spread neutral tone on 2nd V  [jao.bjao]

23. Contrast Cantonese, where every syllable has a lexical tone, and a boundarytone (e.g., H%) is added after the last lexical tone in intonation phrase (Wong, Chan, & Beckman, 2004)

24. Syllable fusion (Wong, 2004): Segmental lenition and deletion marks a lower level of grouping in Cantonese, and vowel deletion can occur without tone loss

25. Segmental allophony and loss of tone specification (“tone sandhi”) marks an intermediate level of grouping in Shanghainese (Jin, 1986)

26. [ they ][ NEG sell ][ umbrella ][ QUEST ] n.b. Shanghai different from Mandarin in that tone sandhi involves loss of tone specification on all but one syllable within metrical domain (‘tone sandhi group’ or ‘accentual phrase’), and spreading of sole remaining tone, whereas Mandarin tone 3 sandhi involves replacement of one tone specification by another (tone 3  tone 2) in a given tonal context within the domain (Peng, 1996; Shih, 1997; etc.)

27. Compare “Min tone cycle” of Taiwanese, where every tone replaced when not domain final in tone sandhi group.

28. Taiwanese tone sandhi group(Chen, 1987; Peng, 2003) • distribution of base tone versus sandhi tone for syllables with tone specification— e.g., /sã55/ ‘3’ vs. [sã33kak53hiN24] /hun51 aN24 a51 sik21 sã55 kak21 hiN24 e/ [hun55 aN33 sik21 # sã33kak53hiN24 e ] pink triangle PRT ‘It’s a pink triangle.’

29. sandhi tonesnot just word-medially— e.g., (in both utterances) • /ũã33/ ‘switch’  [ũã21], (in jtr5) /gua51/ ‘switch’  [gua55] • emergence of sandhitone in later case marks edge of focus domain (i.e., “accentuation” device, cf. Shanghai and Japanese) /ũã33gua51 mN33 li51 a / [ũã21gua51 mN33 li33 a ] switch I ask you PragPrt ‘Now, it’s MY turn to ask you.’ /ũã33gua51 mN33 li51 a / [ũã21gua55mN33 li33 a ] switch I ask you PP ‘Now it’s my turn to ask you.’

30. The Shapes Game (design by Y. J. Fon) spontaneous speech: • Two participants communicate over headphones and mic and are recorded onto separate tracks of a DAT recorder. • Dialogues transcribed and participants asked to read list of transcripts of randomized selected sentences.

31. Taiwanese ‘neutral tone’ at lower level, with resyllabification: /l/=“/d/”/het.e/[he.le] /a bun33 te24 si33 gũã51 bo24 het21 e ne / [ a . b u n . t e . s i . gũã . b o . h e . l e . n e ] PP problem is I not that one PragPrt ‘Well, the problem is that I don’t have that one.’

32. Other (phonetic) correlates of Tone Sandhi Grouping: • Peng (1997) shows a small amount of final lengthening and • a somewhat expanded pitch range on the final (base tone) • less than atintonational phrase edge, marked by boundarytone /u33 h?33/ /u33 h?21 / [u33 h?33] [u33 h?21] have PP have PP ‘You have it, right?’ /tan51e 24|| tshe55sik21 e 21/ [tan51e 24|| tshe33sik21 e 21] wait PP % green PRT PP ‘Wait! You said a green one?’

33. Once specification of (Autosegmental) tone sequence separated • from specification of (Metrical) structure where tones anchored: • Is the lowest level of structure that defines tone anchoring something like the “accentual phrase” (e.g., Kumamoto, Seoul Korean, French?, Shanghai?), or is it a smaller unit such as the syllable (e.g., Tokyo Japanese, Dutch, Mandarin Chinese) • Is melody anchored to AP edges variable (e.g., Shanghai, Osaka Japanese) or fixed (e.g., Chonnam Korean, French?) • if melody is variable, is it specified in the lexicon (e.g., Osaka) or in the pragmatics (e.g., Seoul Korean?) • For tones anchored to syllables, does melody vary (e.g., Swedish, Dutch) or just anchoring site (e.g., Japanese)? • and if melody contrasts, are tones specified in the lexicon (e.g., Swedish) or in the pragmatics (e.g., English) • Also, is anchoring site constrained by syllable weight/strength?