There’s no tone in Cologne: against tone-segment interactions in Franconian

Restricting the Power of Cophonologies: A Representational Solution to Stem Allomorphy in Uspanteko

“…Second, our foot-based analysis of the tonal patterns in Uspanteko builds on recent work on the phonological representation of tonal accent that calls into question the mainstream view that tonal contrasts within syllables have to follow from lexical tone (see, e.g., Hyman 2009). In doing so, it continues recent metrical work on, e.g., tonal accent in North Germanic (Morén-Duolljá 2013, Iosad 2016), West Germanic (Köhnlein 2011, Hermans 2012, Kehrein 2017, or Scottish Gaelic (Morison 2018). Third, by assuming that underlying representations can contain metrical templates, we contribute to the current reemergence of templatic morphology, which has not only been employed for the analysis of tonal accent (as in Köhnlein 2011, Morén-Duolljá 2013, Iosad 2016, but is also used in, e.g., Saba Kirchner (2010, 2013 to analyze reduplication.…”

Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features

“…Given this blurring of the lines between 'subsegmental' and 'suprasegmental' features, the analysis brings out the close relationship between stød and 'tonal accents'. This similarity is even more pronounced if we accept recent analyses of North and West Germanic 'tonal accent' systems in terms of lexically specific metrical structure coupled with general mechanisms for the assignment of tone (Morén-Duolljá 2013;Kehrein 2016;Hermans 2009Hermans , 2012Köhnlein 2011Köhnlein , 2016van Oostendorp 2016) rather than the traditional view of lexical tones.…”

“…Under this alternative 'metrical' analysis tonal accent contrasts are formalized without reference to lexical tone: the tonal differences arise from contrasts in metrical structure and a single phonological grammar that assigns the same tonal melody to different metrical structures in the several accentual classes. This approach has previously been applied to other North Germanic languages by Morén (2003) and Morén-Duolljá (2013), to Franconian tone accents (Köhnlein 2011(Köhnlein , 2016Kehrein 2016;Hermans 2009Hermans , 2012van Oostendorp 2016) and to Scottish Gaelic (Ladefoged 2003;Iosad 2015). In all of these cases, the pitch differences are, at least in some contexts, seen as a matter not so much of the presence or absence of certain tones but rather of the alignment of a single tonal melody across different domains, and indeed this 'metrical' approach is consistent with the suggestion by Ladd (2004Ladd ( , 2005) that (phonetic) differences in the alignment of pitch peaks are the diachronic source of both 'tonal-accent' systems (as in Swedish and Norwegian, Hebridean Gaelic, or most of Franconian) and prosodic contrasts involving glottalization (as in Danish, Argyll Gaelic, and Cologne Franconian).…”

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

“…Three analyses involving a metrical contrast underlying the surface tone contrast have been put forward, (i) Hermans & Hinskens (2010) and Hermans (2012), (ii) Köhnlein (2016) and (iii) Kehrein (2018). Of these, (ii) is the most explicit and comprehensive.…”

“…As for the theoretical issues, autosegmental phonology as applied to tone and intonation (Pierrehumbert & Beckman 1988, Yip 2002, Gussenhoven 2004, Ladd 2008) has proved to be perfectly suitable for analysing the Franconian dialects, with no additional machinery being required. Perhaps the reason for adopting a metrical approach to the Franconian data (Köhnlein 2011, Hermans 2012, Kehrein 2018) is the way in which Franconian differs from the bestknown tone languages, Chinese, Thai and Vietnamese, as well as from West African languages like Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa. Franconian differs from these in being otherwise prosodically close to genetically related non-tonal varieties with complex intonation systems.…”