Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-zddkp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-07T00:00:15.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tone Sandhi in Comaltepec Chinantec

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Daniel Silverman
Daniel Silverman*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
*
Department of Linguistics, 4088 Foreign Languages Bldg., University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 [daniel@cogsci.uiuc.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comaltepec Chinantec tone sandhi normally consists of rightward high tone spreading from syllables with a low-high tone pattern, and almost all sandhi outputs are non-neutralizing. This sound pattern may be understood by considering articulatory, aerodynamic, acoustic, and auditory principles, in necessary combination with phonetically rooted historical forces, and the principles of contrast maintenance, economy of effort, and what is termed pattern coherence.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 73 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 473 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Judi L. 1989. Comaltepec Chinantec syntax. (Studies in Chinantec languages, vol. 3) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Anderson, Judi L, Martinez, Isaac H.; and Pace, Wanda. 1990. Comaltepec Chinantec tone. In Merrifield and Rensch, 3–20.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 493–539.Google Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain, and Halle, Morris. 1989. Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 51–70.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 219–52.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1989. Articulator gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6. 201–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1990a. Gestural specification using dynamically defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics 18. 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1990b. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the grammar and the physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary E., 341–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Response to commentaries. Phonetica 49. 222–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin. 1996. Self-organisation and language change. Diachronica 13. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1970. Phonetic analyses of breathy (murmured) vowels in Gujarati. Indian Linguistics 28. 71–140.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan. 1996a. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Chicago: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan. 1996b. Temporally organized lexical representations as phonological units. Chicago: Northwestern University, ms.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria (ed.) 1978. Tone: A linguistic survey. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, Richard, and Merrifield, William R. 1990. Quiotepec Chinantec tone. In Merrifield and Rensch, 91–106.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1979. Autosegmental phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gradin, Dwight. 1966. Consonantal tone in Jeh phonemics. Mon-Khmer Studies 2. 41–53.Google Scholar
Haken, Hermann. 1981. Synergetics: Is self-organization governed by universal principles? In Jantsch, 15–23.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in a generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1954. De l'origine des tons en vietnamien. Journal Asiatique 242. 69–82.Google Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie. 1978. Consonant types, vowel quality, and tone. In Fromkin, 77–111.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M., and Schuh, Russell G. 1974. Universals of tone rules: Evidence from West Africa. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 81–115.Google Scholar
Jantsch, Erich. (ed.) 1981. The evolutionary vision: toward a unifying paradigm of physical, biological, and sociocultural evolution. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An optimality theoretic approach. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. 1967. Functional load and sound change. Language 43. 831–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. Explanation in phonology. Goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, Stanley, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. How abstract is phonology? Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu, 5–56. Tokyo: TEC Corporation.Google Scholar
Kluender, Keith. 1994. Speech perception as a tractable problem. Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gernsbacher, Morton A., 173–217. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. 1991. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50:93–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, William, Cohen, P., Robins, C.; and Lewis, J. 1968. A study of the nonstandard English of the Negro and Puerto Rican speakers of New York City. Cooperative Research Report no. 3288, vol. 1. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1968. Linguistic aspects of respiratory phenomena. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 155, article 1. 141–51.Google Scholar
Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1979.]Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan, and Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48. 839–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1983. Economy of speech gestures. The production of speech, ed. by MacNeilage, Peter F., 217–45. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1984. Can the models of evolutionary theory be applied to phonetic problems? Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, ed. by Van den Broecke, M. P. R. and Cohen, Antonie, 67–81. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. Experimental phonology, ed. by Ohala, John J. and Jaeger, Jeri J., 13–44. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1989. Phonetic invariance and the adaptive nature of speech. Working models of human perception, ed. by Elsendoorn, Ben A. G. and Bouma, Herman, 139–73. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990a. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the h&h theory. Speech production and speech modeling, ed. by Hardcastle, William H. and Marchai, Alain, 403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990b. Phonetic content in phonology. Phonetic Experimental Research, Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm 101–18.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, MacNeilage, Peter; and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. Explanations for language universals, ed. by Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard, and Dahl, Östen, 181–203. Berlin: deGruyter.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, and Sundberg, Johan. 1969. A quantitative model of vowel production and the distinctive features of Swedish vowels. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Report, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm 1. 14–30.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, and Sundberg, Johan. 1971. Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw, and larynx movement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50. 1166–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinet, André. 1952. Function, structure, and sound change. Word 8. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. Consonant types and tone, ed. by Hyman, Larry M., 71–96. (Southern California occasional papers in linguistics, 1). Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S. 1993. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Technical report 3, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory, ed. by Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura W., and Urbanczyk, Susan, 249–384. (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Students Association.Google Scholar
Mei, Tsu-lin. 1970. Tones and prosody in Middle Chinese and the origin of the rising tone. Journal of Asiatic Studies 30. 86–110.Google Scholar
Merrifield, William R., and Rensch, Calvin R. (eds.) 1990. Syllables, tone, and verb paradigms. (Studies in Chinantec languages, vol. 4) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 1996. Functionalism and its difficulties in biology and linguistics. London: University College, ms.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1991. Tone and stress in the San Mateo dialect of Huave. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 8. 277–88.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1978. Production of tone. In Fromkin, 5–39.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistics Society 17 (2). 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics. Journal of Phonetics 18. 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1992. What's cognitive, what's not, in sound change. Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition, ed. by Kellermann, Guenter and Morrissey, Michael D., 309–55. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J, and Ewan, William G. 1973. Speed of pitch change (Abstract). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 53.345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pace, Wanda J. 1990. Comaltepec Chinantec verb inflection. In Merrifield and Rensch, 21–62.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilja. 1976. Order through fluctuation: Self-organization and social systems. Evolution and consciousness, ed. by Jantsch, Erich and Waddington, Conrad, 93–126. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilja and Stengers, Isabelle. 1984. Order out of chaos. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ and Boulder, CO: Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder, ms.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. The consonantal system of Old Chinese, part 2. Asia Major 9. 206–65.Google Scholar
Rensch, Calvin R. 1968. Proto Chinantec phonology. Papeles de la Chinantla 6. Seria Cientifica 10. Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico.Google Scholar
Rensch, Calvin R. 1976. Comparative Otomanguean phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Rensch, Calvin R. 1989. An etymological dictionary of the Chinantec languages. (Studies in Chinantec languages, vol. 1.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Robbins, Frank E. 1961. Quiotepec Chinantec syllable patterning. International Journal of American Linguistics 27. 237–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Frank E. 1968. Quiotepec Chinantec grammar. Papeles de la Chinantla 4. Seria Cientifica 8. Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1994. A case study in acoustic transparency: [spread glottis] and tone in Chinantec. North Eastern Linguistics Society 24. 559–72.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1997a. Phasing and recoverability. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1997b. Laryngeal complexity in Otomanguean vowels. Phonology 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampe, David. 1972. How I spent my summer vacation. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1973. On chapter 9. Issues in phonological theory, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael and Kisselberth, Charles, 44–52. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Neutralization and the expression of contrast. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Sundberg, Johan. 1973. Data on maximum speed of pitch changes. Quarterly Progress and Status Reports, Speech Transmission Laboratory (Stockholm) 4. 39–47.Google Scholar
Sundberg, Johan. 1979. Maximum speed of pitch changes in singers and untrained subjects. Journal of Phonetics 7. 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1971. Natural generative phonology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, St. Louis.Google Scholar