Franconian tones fare better as tones than as feet: a reply to Köhnlein (2016)

Abstract

Köhnlein (2016) proposes to represent the Franconian tone contrast as a difference in foot structure, whereby Accent 1 appears in lexically marked syllabic trochees and Accent 2 in default moraic trochees, as an alternative to analyses with an underlying privative tone for Accent 2. After sketching the two approaches, we argue against three arguments Köhnlein advances in favour of the metrical analysis. We then show that one of the disadvantages incurred by the metrically derived tonal representations is the introduction of a novel and otherwise unsupported concept of a single tone that incorporates two morphologically different but phonologically identical tones. We also evaluate Köhnlein's (2018) more recent proposal to use the syllabic trochee to account for subtractive plurals in tonal dialects. Finally, we compare the predictive powers of the metrical and tonal analyses of the Arzbach dialect.

Why metrical approaches to tonal accent are worth pursuing

“…By the logic of this statement, differences by accent class in the same prosodic context of the same prosodic system should not exist. Gussenhoven (2017: 191) and Gussenhoven & Peters (2019) present this as a trivial aspect of their tonal analysis of the Arzbach data: ‘nothing in the present paper hinges on this issue’ (Gussenhoven & Peters 2019: n. 12); however, it seems to me that this is an illustrative example of the unlimited power of phonetic implementation in the tonal approach.…”

“…The second case I will consider is Gussenhoven's (2013, 2017) tonal analysis of my fieldwork data from Arzbach, which Gussenhoven & Peters (2019) discuss in some detail. Several aspects of this analysis merit discussion, but I concentrate only on a specific tonal pattern that Gussenhoven (2017) addresses in a corrigendum to Gussenhoven (2013), viz.…”

“…Predictable segmental and durational correlates are typically referred to as phonetic enhancement of the tonal contrast, possibly followed by phonologisation (e.g. Gussenhoven & Peters 2019: 507). While this reasoning might be applicable from a functional or diachronic perspective, there is no attempt in the tonal approach to explicitly formalise how the synchronic grammar treats phonologically predictable interactions of tonal accent and segmental structure.…”

“…While my metrical analysis explicitly formalises such alternations, morphological evidence has always been disregarded in the synchronic tonal approach. In their reply, Gussenhoven & Peters (2019: §3.1) dismiss singular–plural minimal pairs as ‘exceptional’. In this context, it is notable that morphology, particularly the number distinction, is the most central ingredient of Gussenhoven's own diachronic approach to the genesis of tonal accent – it is so crucial that Gussenhoven (2018) refers to this as the ‘morphological origin’ of tonal accent.…”

“…I thank the editors for allowing me to respond briefly to Gussenhoven & Peters (2019). Gussenhoven & Peters’ long-term contribution to our understanding of Franconian tonal accent can hardly be overstated; in particular, their detail-oriented method of data collection has set new standards for the documentation of tone-accent systems.…”