The tone system of Ikema Ryukyuan Yuka Hayashi (Kyoto University / JSPS) Thomas Pellard (EHESS-CRLAO) Yukinori Takubo (Kyoto University) Tomoyuki Kubo (Kyushu University) Yosuke Igarashi (Hiroshima University) International Workshop on The History & Reconstruction of Japanese Accent 3-4 September 2009
1
Introduction • Previous studies on the tone system of Ikema, a dialect of Miyako Ryukyuan, have been based on incomplete and problematic data • We will propose a better analysis of Ikema tone based on newly collected data, and show its consequences for the reconstruction of the proto-Japonic accent/tone system
2
3
4
Amami
Okinawa
Miyako Yaeyama
5
Ikema Ryukyuan • Spoken in Ikema island, Sarahama in Irabu island and Nishihara/Nishibe in Miyako island
• Our data is mainly from Nishihara
• Ikema
• Sarahama
• Nishihara
6
Genetic relationship Southern Ryukyuan Yaeyama
Miyako Common Miyako Irabu-Ikema Ikema
Tarama
Ikema Sarahama
Central Miyako
Nishihara 7
Data collection • Our description is firmly based on instrumental analysis • Our data comes not only from the elicitation but also from the natural discourse of several speakers
8
Claims • Hirayama et al. (1967, 1983), the most influential studies on the tone system of Ikema, should be corrected from both synchronic and historical points of view Our analysis on Ikema tone (contra Hirayama) • The tone system of Ikema can only be described by two factors: • a two-way lexical tonal distinction (α vs. β) • a basic H(igh)-L(ow) alternating melody • The distribution of words between tone classes in Ikema supports Hattori’s theory about proto-Ryukyuan 9
Hirayama et al. (1967, 1983) • Ikema has a two-pattern accent • The distinction is that of presence vs. absence of an “accent” realized as a pitch fall • Accented words have the pitch fall between the second and the third mora
10
Hirayama et al. (1983) Mora Phonological analysis
Phonetic realization
2
/oo˥/
○●, ●○
/oo/
○○
/oo˥o/
○●○, ●●○
/ooo/
○○○
/oo˥oo/
○●○○, (●●○○)*
/oooo/
○○○○
3 4
o = mora
* Only for nouns
○=L, ●=H
11
Problems • Hirayama’s analysis cannot fully explain the tone system of Ikema • There are discrepancies between their and our data regarding the phonetic pitch shapes • Their analysis is only valid for two- to three-mora words with one bimoraic particle • Their analysis cannot account for words with more than three morae
12
Two- to three mora words ● α: mayu ‘cat’ x β: nabi ‘pan’
170
140 F0 (Hz)
Hiyayama Phonological Phonetic analysis realization
110
80
ma na
α
/oo˥/
○●, ●○
β
/oo/
○○
yu bi
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Normalized time (sec)
13
Two- to three mora words Citation forms + particles
● α: mayu=mai ‘cat=also’ x β: nabi=mai ‘pan=also’
170
140 F0 (Hz)
Hiyayama
110
80
ma na
yu bi
m m
a a
Phonological analysis
Phonetic realization
α
/oo˥/
○●, ●○
β
/oo/
○○
i i
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Normalized time (sec)
14
Two- to three mora words ● α: yabizi ‘Yabiji coral reef’ x β: yumunu ‘mouse’
170
Hiyayama
F0(Hz)
140
110 ya yu
bi mu
Phonological analysis
Phonetic realization
α
/oo˥o/
○●○, ●●○
β
/ooo/
○○○
zi nu
80 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Normalized time (sec)
15
Two- to three mora words Citation forms + particles 170
● α : yabizi=mai ‘Yabiji, too’ x β: yumunu=mai ‘mouse, too’ Hirayama
F0(Hz)
140
110 ya yu
bi mu
zi nu
m m
a a
Phonological analysis
Phonetic realization
α
/oo˥o/
○●○, ●●○
β
/ooo/
○○○
i i
80 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Normalized time (sec)
16
Four-mora words ● α: bakamunu ‘youngster’ x β: sarahama ‘Sarahama (place name)’
170
Hirayama
F0(Hz)
140
110 ba sa
ka ra
mu ha
Phonological analysis
Phonetic realization
α
/oo˥oo/
○●○○, ●●○○
β
/oooo/
○○○○
nu ma
80 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Normalized time (sec)
17
Hirayama’s distinction in four-mora words class membership Squares of solid line: Hirayama’s distinction Squares of dotted line: our distinction
kannai ‘thunder’, sakazïki ‘sake cup’, bikidun ‘guy’, kanamai ‘head’
α
kyaudai ‘brother/sister’, katauta ‘one’s side’ sinsii ‘teacher’, nukuzïï ‘saw’ sinbun ‘news paper’, gakkoo ‘school’
β 18
Our analysis of the lexical tone of Ikema • Two-tone system (word tone) • Tonal distinction appears at the rightmost position of a word • Citation forms do not always exhibit the tonal distinction • The tone classes can be identified easily when followed by another element (e.g. particle)
19
Tonal distinction • Type α words have an underlying low tone at the right edge of the lexical word • Type β words have an underlying high tone at the right edge of the lexical word -> The edge tone will be linked to the rightadjacent element if there is any
20
HL alternation • Trochaic rhythm pattern realized as iteration of HL tone • The TBU of each tone is a foot consisting of two to three morae: tonal foot cf) The HL alternation in Irabu No lexical tone in Irabu but the HL alternation can be observed ex: (kjav)(dai)=(kara)=(mai) ‘from siblings, too’ (μμ)(μμ)=(μμ)=(μμ) H L H L (Shimoji and Hayashi 2008: 1(1a)) 21
Lexical tones with HL alternation • The lexical tonal distinction is not the only factor determining the pitch realization of words in Ikema • A HL alternating melody interacts with the tonal distinctioin • The tone system can be properly described only if we take these two factors into consideration 22
Four-mora words with a particle ● α: bakamunu=mai ‘youngster=too’ x β: sarahama=mai ‘Sarahama=too’
170
F0(Hz)
140
110 ba sa
ka ra
mu ha
nu ma
m m
a a
i i
80 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0 Normalized time (sec)
23 23
Verbs Two-mora words nii vs. mii
α: nii ‘cook’
200
β: mii ‘look’
F0(Hz)
160
120
80 0.0
SENTENCE
ni i mi i 0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. nii B. mii
24
Verbs Two-mora words + particles nii hazï vs. mii hazï nii hazI vs. mii hazI
α: nii=hazї ‘cook=must’
200
β: mii=hazї ‘look’ ‘look=must’
F0(Hz)
160
120
80 0.0
ni i mi i 0.2
ha ha
SENTENCE
zї zї
0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. nii B. mii 25
Verbs Three-mora words budui vs. tabai 200
α: budui ‘dance’ β: tabai ‘cling’
F0(Hz)
160
120 SENTENCE
bu du i ta ba i 80 0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. budui B. tabai 26
Verbs Three-mora words budui vs. tabai hazI budui hazï vs.hazI tabai hazï
α: budui=hazї ‘dance=must’ β: tabai=hazї ‘cling=must’
200
F0(Hz)
160
120
bu du i ta ba i
80 0.0
0.2
SENTENCE
ha zї ha zї 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. budui B. tabai 27
Verbs Four-mora words cImmui vs. kammui cïmmui vs. kammui
α: cïmmui ‘pinch’
200
β: kammui ‘bite’
F0(Hz)
160
120 SENTENCE
cï m mu i 80 ka m mu i 0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. cImmui B. kammui 28
Verbs Four-mora words + particles cïmmui hazï vs.hazI kammuivs. hazï kammui hazI cImmui
α: cïmmui=hazї ‘pinch=must’ β: kammui=hazї ‘bite=must’
200
F0(Hz)
160
120
cï m mu i ka m mu i
80 0.0
0.2
SENTENCE
ha zї ha zї
0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. cImmui B. kammui 29
Lexical tones with HL alternation • Some derivational and inflectional suffixes of verbs and adjectives are part of the leftadjacent word. PW (prosodic word): word that has the lexical tone on its right edge [{Root}+{derivational suffixes}+{inflectional suffixes}]
30
Verbs with multi-foot PW ‘cook-cause-passive-past=must’
200 F0 (Hz)
α: nii-ssa-hai-tai=hazï
L nii
ssa
hai
tai
hazI
75 0.5 Time (sec)
1
β: mii-ssa-hai-tai=hazï F0 (Hz)
‘see-cause-passive-past=must’
200
H mii
ssa
hai
tai
hazI
75 0.5 Time (sec)
1
31
Adjectives • Adjective as one PW • Adjective with a particle The lexical tonal distinction clearly exists in adjectives contra Hirayama et al. (1983), who say that the two tonal distinctions are on the way to decay
Note: Stems of Ikema adjectives usually cannot stand alone and must appear with suffixes
32
Adjectives Two-mora stem + suffix garukai vs. imikai
α: garu-kai ‘light-SUF’ β: imi-kai ‘small-SUF’
200
F0(Hz)
160
120 SENTENCE
ga ru 80 im i 0.0
ka ka
0.2
i i 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. garu B. imi 33
Adjectives Two-mora stem + suffix garukai hazï vs. hazI imikai hazïvs. imikai hazI garukai
α: garu-kai=hazї ‘light-SUF=must’ β: imi-kai=hazї ‘small-SUF=must’
200
F0(Hz)
160
120 SENTENCE
ga ru 80 im i 0.0
ka ka
0.2
i ha zï i ha zï 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (msec)
1.0
A. garu B. imi 34
Hirayama et al. (1983) Phonological analysis and phonetic realization of words with four morae for adjectives
Mora Phonological analysis
Phonetic realization
4
/oo˥oo/
○●○○
/oooo/
○●○●, ●●○●
-> Again, like the case of four-mora nouns, Hirayama can not specify how the lexical distinction appears 35
Nouns followed by two particles HL alternation in the sequence of particles ● α: mayu=kara=mai ‘cat=from=also’ HLH
x β: nabi=kara=mai ‘pan=from=also’ HHL
ma yu na bi
ka ka
ra ra
ma ma
i i 36
● α: mayu=kara=mai ‘cat=from=also’ x β: nabi=kara=mai ‘pan=from=also’
HLH HHL
Lexically specified tone
H
L
H
H
H
L
ma yu na bi
ka ka
ra ra
ma ma
Alternating tone (different tones from the leftadjacent foot)
i i
The place of the Ikema tone system in the history of Japonic • Hirayama’s theory: Ryukyuan tone/accent system is derived from a Kyushu-like dialect
• Hattori’s theory: Ryukyuan tonal classes differ from the Japanese ones (Hattori 1932, Hattori 1958) cf) Matsumori (1998, 2000b)
-> Many scholars have dismissed Hattori’s argument, but Ikema data supports it 38
Terminology ProtoJaponic ProtoJapanese 1 2 3 4 5
ProtoRyukyuan A B C Ikema α
β 39
Hirayama’s historical analysis (for disyllabic words) Ryukyuan varieties of three tonal distinctions:
Ruiju Myōgishō:
Ikema:
A
B
C
1 2 3 4 5 α
β
40
Hattori’s historical analysis (for disyllabic words)
Ruiju Myōgishō:
1 2 3 4 5
Proto-Ryukyuan Ryukyuan varieties of three tonal distinctions:
Ikema:
A
B
α
C
β
41
The wordlists for our historical research • Uwano wordlist (based on Japanese dialects) cf) Uwano (1985)
• Matsumori wordlist (based on Northern Ryukyuan dialects) cf) Matsumori (2000a)
42
Results -Uwano list • Monosyllabic words
1.1 1.2 1.3
α 3 4 9
β 0 0 2
α: 16 (89%) β: 2 (11%) 木 ‘tree’, 田 ‘rice field’ 43
Results -Uwano list • Disyllabic words
α
β
2.1
31 (82%)
7 (18%)
2.2
9 (82%)
2 (18%)
2.3
28 (85%)
5 (15%)
2.4
12 (60%)
8 (40%)
2.5
5 (45%)
6 (55%) 44
Results -Uwano list • Trisyllabic words α
β
3.1
20 (95%)
1 (5%)
3.4
7 (41%)
10 (59%)
3.5
2 (33%)
4 (67%)
3.7
1(50%)
1(50%) 45
Results -Matsumori list
A B C
α β 18 (78%) 5 (22 %) 17 (70 %) 7 (30 %) 7 (14%) 43 (86%)
• Clear trend for AB-α C-β relationship 46
Exceptional cases for both Hirayama and Hattori’s theory (disyllabic words) • β in words of class 1 and class 2 2.1 -β: 姉 ‘sister’, 箱 ‘box’, 底 ‘bottom’, 横 ‘side’, 効 ‘reward’, 釜 ‘pot’, 道 ‘road’ 2.2 -β: 橋 ‘bridge’, 為 ‘sake’ 47
Discussion • Basically the data from Ikema supports the hypothesis of Hattori • Exceptional words might be loan words
48
Reconstruction Reconstruction of proto-Miyako “accent”: Shimabukuro (2007) and Bentley (2008) • All the data comes from Hirayama et al. (1967, 1983) • They do not incorporate Matsumori (2001)’s important finding: there are more tonal distinctions in the Tarama dialect than previously thought 49
Reconstruction • Shimabukuro (2007) and Bentley (2008) reconstruct a fixed-position “accent” (=pitch fall) and distinctive initial tone *HH-L > Ik. α (L) *LH-L > Ik. α (L) *LLL-L > Ik. β (H)
*HHH-L *LHH-L *LLL-L
> Ik. α (L) > Ik. α (L) > Ik. β (H)
50
Reconstruction • Shimabukuro (2007) and Bentley (2008) ignore the HL alternation • They miss some distinctions like “sea” vs. “dog” →Their reconstruction cannot be accepted
51
Conclusions • Hirayama’s analysis is unable to account for the pitch shape of words and contains factual errors • The data of Ikema Ryukyuan basically confirm Hattori’s and Matsumori’s hypotheses on protoRyukyuan • A historical reconstruction cannot be done on the basis of wrong and misanalyzed data • We need first to do more (field)work in order to collect accurate data and produce reliable analyses on the synchronic system 52
References BENTLEY, John R. 2008. A Linguistic History of the Forgotten Islands: A Reconstruction of the Proto-Language of the Southern Ryukyus. Folkestone: Global Oriental. HATTORI, Shirō. 1932. Ryūkyū to kokugo no on’in hōsoku. Hōgen, 2–7, 8, 9, 10, 12. HATTORI, Shirō. 1958. Amami guntō no shohōgen ni tsuite – Okinawa/Sakishima shohōgen to no hikaku. Jinrui kagaku, IX. HIRAYAMA, Teruo, ŌSHIMA, Ichirō, & NAKAMOTO, Masachie. 1967. Ryūkyū Sakishima Hōgen no Sōgōteki Kenkyū. Tokyo: Meiji shoin. HIRAYAMA, Teruo (ed.) 1983. Ryūkyū Miyako Shotō Hōgen Kiso Goi no Sōgōteki Kenkyū. Tokyo: Ōfūsha. MATSUMORI, Akiko. 1998. Ryūkyū akusento no rekishiteki keisei katei – ruibetsu goi 2-hakugo no tokui na gōryū no shikata o tegakari ni. Gengo kenkyū, 114 : 85–114. MATSUMORI, Akiko. 2000a. Ryūkyū akusento chōsa no tame no ruibetsu goi no kaihatsu – Okinoerabu-jima no chōsa kara. Onsei kenkyū, 4(1) : 61–71. MATSUMORI, Akiko. 2000b. Ryūkyū no takei akusento taikei ni tsuite no ichi kōsatsu – ryūkyū sogo ni okeru ruibetsu goi 3-paku go no gōryū no shikata. Kokugogaku, 51(1) , 93–108. MATSUMORI, Akiko. 2001. Historical tonology of Japanese dialects. In KAJI, Shigeki (ed.) Cross-linguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena, Tokyo: ILCAA, 93–122. SHIMOJI, Michinori, & HAYASHI, Yuka. 2008. Tonal Alternation and Rhythmic Structure in Irabu Ryukyuan. Paper read at Phonology Festa, 3rd Joint Meeting of PAIK and TCP (Atami, Japan). SHIMABUKURO, Moriyo. 2007. A Reconstruction of the Accentual History of the Japanese and Ryukyuan Languages. Folkstone: Global Oriental. UWANO, Zendō. 1985. Murakami hogen no akusento shiryo – one- to three-mora words. Tokyo daigaku gengo ronshu ’85, 25-60. 53