Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Founded by Plank, Frans

Editor-in-Chief: Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.304

CiteScore 2017: 0.45

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.285
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.810

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 16, Issue 3

Issues

In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman and Venditti

Larry M. Hyman
Published Online: 2012-12-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0014

Abstract

In two recent handbook articles, Beckman & Venditti (2010, 2011) present overviews of tone and intonation which take issue with both traditional typology and recent attempts to bring clarity to the study of prosodic typology. In the course of their coverage Beckman & Venditti question the “usefulness” of distinguishing prosodic systems by “tonemic function alone” (e.g., lexical tone, stress, intonation) and raise the question “Is typology needed?” Within this context I once again argue for a “property-driven” approach to prosodic typology whose goal is not to classify languages into prosodic types, rather to accurately characterize the same vs. different ways in which prosodic properties are exploited. We thus ask (i) whether a given language has word-level contrastive pitch (“tone”), word-level metrical structure (“stress”), both, or neither; (ii) if yes, what does the prosodic system do with the tones and/or stress, both at the word level and postlexically? Given the level-ordered nature of phonological systems, only after the first two questions are dealt with can we move on to the the question with which Beckman & Venditti are most concerned: (iii) how are the surface or output word-prosodic properties integrated with phrase- and utterance-level intonation? While Beckman & Venditti question the usefulness of “broad-stroke typologies” which have traditionally distinguished tone, stress, and intonation, their disposition to minimize systemic differences in favor of surface comparisons of phonetic realizations raises important questions concerning levels of representation and the nature of phonological typology itself.

About the article


Published Online: 2012-12-30

Published in Print: 2012-11-27


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 341–385, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0014.

Export Citation

© 2012 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
José I. Hualde and Pilar Prieto
Laboratory Phonology, 2016, Volume 7, Number 1, Page 5
[2]
Sónia Frota
Laboratory Phonology, 2016, Volume 7, Number 1, Page 7

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in