Showing posts with label tonogenesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tonogenesis. Show all posts

24 Jun 2011

The imaginary tonal language

Having read John Well's Phonetic Blog on Norwegian and Swedish pitch accent the other day, I see still that not everyone has the same ideas on how to convey a tonal language in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). I suspect many haven't meditated on what they mean exactly when they describe a language as a "tonal language" or "stressed language". Being a native speaker of English, growing up with a Swedish-speaking grandmother, having learned French in school, and studying Mandarin in my adult years, my linguistic adventurism has driven me to a cheeky conclusion about this whole issue: There's no such thing as a tonal language at all.

Now, I realize that everyone can see that French leaves both native and non-native speakers the impression of a musical language that differs perceptibly from the stress accent that impregnates the sounds of English. And if anything else, Mandarin with four distinct tones may appear to logically conflict with my radical stance. Yet, my faith in the existence of a distinction began to erode when I'd speak with several native Chinese speakers who, in separate occasions, had informed me that Mandarin syllables are not to be pronounced with equal weight, a habit I picked up from French. Words like māma 'mother' (with "high level" tone) and bàba 'father' (with "high falling" tone) are easy examples of this uneven weight. The first syllable of each of these words, for all intents and purposes, may be described as... accented!


Imagine it: A tone-deaf world

Now, let's think about this for a moment. Mandarin has four tones and demonstrates an accent pattern overlaid on top of that. Accent and tone together?? Yes!! When I realized that tone and accent could co-exist, I found myself free-floating through an exciting, new linguistic landscape that I'd never noticed before. A sea of novel possibilities and combinations, beyond a simplistic contrast of tonal and non-tonal, beyond the us versus them. A world where either every language on our planet is a "tonal language" or none at all. All tongues become more familiar, less alien.

Taking from my lessons in Mandarin, I began to examine my English differently. No longer believing in the common lie that it was a non-tonal language, I started to see that English had both accent and tone too. Its one and only default tone could be described as a falling tone, equivalent to the "fourth tone" of Mandarin. I could now perceive in a word like happy that both of its syllables inherently contained a falling tone, but I also came to notice that the so-called "stress accent" (as well as the overall phrasal intonation) habitually distorts this monotonal equality by causing us to pronounce each syllable with unequal weight. In fact, I began to realize that the only reason why any language is said to have "stress accent" as opposed to "tonal accent" depends on what the default tone happens to be in the given language. So if we can describe English alternatively as a one-tone language with default "falling tone" (ie. a "stress language"), then we might similarly describe French as a one-tone language with default "level tone" (ie. a "tonal language"). To complicate further, I've noticed some varieties of French here in Manitoba and elsewhere in Quebec using a falling tone like in English (ie. some French dialects seem to employ "stress" as in English). I find it intuitive to perceive these dialect differences as a simple mutation of the default tone from "level" to "falling", a change identical to that having occurred in polytonal Cantonese, in fact. The imaginary barrier between languages of tone and those of stress begin to evaporate.


Tackling Swedish tone

Returning to John Well's examination of Swedish tone, he mentions a commonly cited minimal pair in Swedish that I'm familiar with. He represents the pair with special tonal marking as follows: /ˈandən/ 'the duck' versus /ˇandən/ 'the spirit'. He then goes on to write:
"Not only is the pitch accent difference often hard to describe succinctly, its notation is controversial. Although it is pretty standard to write the simple tone with a simple stress mark, the IPA has no firm guidance on how to notate the compound tone."
But as per my observations above, it may be misleading to represent this ultimately imaginary "compound tone" in IPA. Instead, there is, as usual, both accent on the one hand and tone on the other in Swedish. Since Swedish has a default "high" tone ("falling") with a second "low" tone in stressed syllables, it seems to me that representing the pair simply as /ˈàndən/ 'the duck' versus /ˈándən/ 'the spirit' is enough for most occasions. If speaking about many dialects at once with differing tonal patterns, one may want to codify a common set of tones with superscript numbers. One may further opt for more detail by marking every syllable with its inherent tone, but only if the need arises. Finally, I find alternative tonal notations like /ˈan˥˧dɛn˩/ far too unreadable and unaesthetic to encourage.

8 Apr 2007

Mommy, where do tones come from?

I've been ranting too much about European linguistics. I've been shamelessly unfair to the other continents who have patiently been reading my rants and feeling unrepresented. This is a big world so let's get cracking on... [Glen swiftly spins a globe and then stops it suddenly with his finger]... ah, yes, Sino-Tibetan.

Don't know what Sino-Tibetan is? Then check out this explanation from Berkeley University in California. Learn it because this is where the most popular language in the world comes from. No, no, not English, silly. Mandarin!

When I was a wee lad, there was this nagging question in the back of my quirky mind: Why does Chinese have tones? No matter how educated one happens to be, most people honestly haven't the foggiest clue about how to answer that question. Afterall they don't teach language origins in high school for some crazy reason. I guess if they started that programme, people would feel more united and have one less reason to start wars with other countries. Surely global comradery would cause a collapse of civilization. (Okay, that was a terribly bitter thing to say, but I just finished watching George Orwell's 1984 on YouTube and it just makes ya think, y'know?)

Anyways, it was only in my twenties when I finally discovered the juicy answer. The keyword here is called tonogenesis. Tonogenesis is the development of tonal contrasts in a language that previously didn't have any. Apparently, this happens all the time. It probably happened in languages before the Ice Age. It's certainly happened into the modern day, and if we live long enough and haven't evolved into waddling fish-people, there will be new languages with tones, perhaps derived from English, in the future.

Asian languages aren't the only tongues with tones. Did you know that Swedish has two tones? See The Tone-bearing Unit in Swedish and Norwegian [pdf]. And have you ever heard of a Nilo-Saharan language called Nobiin? Where have you been? Read this article entitled A sketch of Nobiin tone [pdf] from the University of Leiden. And we can't forget our Native American brothers and sisters, some of whom speak Navajo.

Tonogenesis in Sino-Tibetan is pretty interesting. Surprisingly linguists have reconstructed Proto-Sino-Tibetan with tongue-twisting consonant clusters and no tones. Frankly, it sounds more like Russian than anything we'd recognize in China today. All the tonal contrasts that Chinese languages now use (four tones in Mandarin; six or more in Cantonese) came after Proto-Sino-Tibetan. I have to chuckle every time I think about that crazy thought. It's a mind-bender. The word "eight", for example, is pronounced ba with high tone in Mandarin and as baat in Cantonese with middle tone. The two words, including their tone are related, of course. Sometimes you can even guess what the tone will be in Cantonese if you know the Mandarin word but, trust me, be careful with that because I personally have miscalculated a few times and had egg on my face. Both Mandarin ba and Cantonese baat go back to Proto-Sino-Tibetan *bʀyat but this word is without any reconstructable tone. Yep, just like Russian. So where did these tones come from then? Thin air? How does that work?

It turns out that voiceless and voiced sounds that we make unconsciously when we speak a language have an inherent acoustic frequency or "tone". In the word *bʀyat the initial consonant cluster is voiced and therefore gives off a low frequency but the letter at the end, *t, is voiceless and has high frequency. In other words, the surrounding sounds of the vowel were the seeds for later tone and they eventually determined the tonal shape of the word, whether the tone was low or high, whether it rose to a high pitch or fell sharply, etc. I suppose we could say that the vowel assimilated the unconscious frequencies of consonants and this evolved into more conscious tones, now intrinsic to the meaning of that word. Different Chinese languages have different kinds and numbers of "tonemes", just as all spoken languages have different kinds and numbers of phonemes.

Similar tonogenesis happened in Navajo, a language which derives from Proto-Athabaskan. Proto-Athabaskan also doesn't appear to have had tonal contrasts. This article Vietnamese and Tonogenesis: revising the model is also interesting for those who want to really get their hands dirty.