Phonologically-constrained change

Abstract

Changes in word shapes in Mainland Southeast Asia are usually attributed to contact-induced typological convergence. However, little attention has been paid to the role of structural constraints in defining paths of change. In this paper, we describe two distributional gaps in paths of word shape shifts: (1) there are no attested cases of direct shift between trochaic and iambic rhythm and (2) monosyllabization does not occur in trochaic languages. We argue that universal phonetic tendencies and structural constraints on their phonologization that derive from the Iambic-Trochaic Law are sufficient to explain these gaps and seem to account for at least part of the typological convergence usually attributed to contact.

Re-assessing tonal diversity and geographical convergence in Mainland Southeast Asia

“…More generally, while it is possible to imagine scenarios in which speakers of an atonal language become familiar with tone in their second language and then phonologize pre-existing pitch variations in their native language, it is not obvious why fluency in a monosyllabic L2 would prompt speakers to drop syllables in their native language. Complex scenarios involving simultaneous monosyllabization in two languages are possible (with the possible involvement of stress-shifts: Donegan and Stampe 2004;Brunelle and Pittayaporn 2012), but they do not explain why a polysyllabic/sesquisyllabic language would become monosyllabic after coming in contact with an already monosyllabic language. There are obviously interesting questions and possible answers here, but they are beyond the scope of this paper.…”

Lenition alternation in West Gyalrongic and its implications for Southeast Asian panchronic phonology

“…The first is through prosodic structures. Brunelle & Pittayaporn (2012) find that monosyllabicisation, as a phonological process, never occurs in trochaic foot structures. It is only attested in iambic feet.…”

Southeast Asian Tone in Areal Perspective

“…This could have the effect of encouraging further loss of segmental material, driving the language towards a canonically monosyllabic template and increasing the likelihood of phonologizing prosodic properties such as pitch, length, or voice quality. Such a trend would be even more likely if preexisting structural factors favor monosyllabization (Brunelle and Pittayaporn 2012).…”