Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This is the author accepted manuscript to Diachronica. The final version is available in https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.33.2.03uch. The manuscript is under copyright and that the
publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form.
Tone and registrogenesis in Quiaviní Zapotec1
Hiroto Uchihara
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[Abstract]
Tone and phonation type are known to show complex interactions.
I argue that the breathy vowel in one Central Zapotec variety,
Quiaviní Zapotec (Otomanguean, Mexico), has resulted from an
original tonal contrast between the low and rising tones
(REGISTROGENESIS), based both on language-internal and
comparative evidence with other closely-related Central Zapotec
varieties. The case of Central Zapotec is peculiar in that the
direction of the sound change is from a tonal contrast to a
phonation contrast, while in other cases the direction is usually the
opposite.
[keywords: Tone, phonation type, registrogenesis, Zapotec]
1. Introduction
Two Central Zapotec varieties, San Pablo Güilá Zapotec and San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec, spoken
in the Central Valley of Oaxaca, manifest some intriguing vowel correspondences, as the following pairs
show. A modal vowel with a rising tone in Güilá Zapotec (1a) corresponds to a modal vowel with a low
1 The previous versions of this paper were presented at the Workshop on the Sound Systems of Mexico
and Central America at Yale University in April 2014; at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic
Society of America in January 2015; and at the Latin American & Iberian Institute talk series, University
of New Mexico in November 2015. I would like to thank the audience for their invaluable comments. I
am also indebted to my colleagues and professors at the department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo;
the department of Linguistics, Georgetown University; the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures
of Asia and Africa (Tokyo); and the Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México. Especially, I would like to thank Gabriela Perez Baez, Mark Sicoli, Francisco
Arellanes, and Carolyn O’Meara. This project was funded by the Smithsonian Institution, and the
Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Lastly, I am grateful
to the speakers of various Central Zapotec varieties.
2
tone in Quiaviní Zapotec (1b), while a modal vowel with a low tone in Güilá Zapotec (2a) corresponds to
a breathy vowel with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec (2b):2
GLOSS GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
(1) “person” a. bɨny (ALC1997: 60) b. buny (PHL2011)
(2) “blood” a. riny (ALC1997: 61) b. reny (PHL2011, AML2011)
In this paper, I argue that Quiaviní Zapotec has replaced the overt tonal contrast between low and
rising tones, as preserved in Güilá Zapotec in the (a) forms, with the phonation and covert tonal contrasts,
as shown in the (b) forms above. In this respect, Quiaviní Zapotec represents a rare case of the emergence
of a register (or phonation type) from a tonal contrast, which I call ‘registrogenesis’ after Diffloth (1982).
§1.1 reviews previous studies on registrogenesis and interaction between tone and phonation type
in general, and §1.2 introduces basic facts of the two Central Zapotec varieties which will be the focus of
this paper. §2 discusses a historical change from a tonal contrast between the low and the rising tone to a
phonation contrast between breathy and modal vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec. §3 discusses the change from
an overt tonal contrast between the low and the rising tones to a covert tonal contrast between
underspecified and [+L] tones. §4 summarizes and shows that the analysis presented in the preceding
sections is also supported by comparative evidence. This section also looks at a possible motivation of the
emergence of the breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec. §5 concludes with further implications, including
the discussion on how this apparently unnatural sound change resulted through accumulation of natural
sound changes.
1.1. Tone, phonation and registrogenesis
Previous studies have shown that tone and phonation (or register)3 interact in a complex manner in
the languages of the world, especially in the languages of Southeast Asia. The most noteworthy are the
2 The conventions for representing tones and phonation types are as follows: low (a), high (á), (low-high)
rising (ǎ), (high-low) falling (â); modal (a), creaky (a), interrupted (a’a), breathy (a). See §1.2.1 for a
more detailed discussion on the tone and phonation inventories of these Zapotec varieties. 3 In this paper, the term “register” is used interchangeably with “phonation type”, with preference for
“phonation type”. This is partly because this term is more prevalent in the Otomanguean literature, and
3
cases of tonogenesis from the original phonation contrast (which ultimately goes back to the original
Voice Onset Time contrast in the preceding consonant)4, as is observed in Vietnamese, Kammu (Mon-
Khmer) or in Cham (Austronesian) (Haudricourt 1954, Hombert et al. 1979, Thurgood 1996, Kingston
2011). Tone and register also manifest complex interactions in the synchronic system. Thus, phonation
type is a crucial cue in identifying tones in White-Hmong (Hmong-Mien), Tamang (TIbeto-Burman), and
in certain dialects of Vietnamese (Mazaudon & Michaud 2008, Brunelle 2009, Garellek et al. 2013).
Otomanguean languages, the family to which Zapotec belongs, have attracted attention from
phoneticians, since many of the Otomanguean languages, including Zapotec, Mazatec and Triqui, are
peculiar in having a phonation contrast independently of the tonal contrast (Silverman 1997, Blankenship
2002, Avelino 2004, Arellanes 2009, Esposito 2010, Chávez Peón 2010, Garellek and Keating 2011,
DiCanio 2012, among others). Despite their independence, tone and phonation expectedly do interact with
each other in these languages. The prominence of pitch varies with the realization of phonation type, and
in the laryngeally complex vowels, tone and non-modal phonation are sequenced with respect to each
other, so that tone may be realized in modal voice, in order to maximize the perceptual distinctness
among their contrastive values (Silverman 1997).
Therefore, the diachronic and synchronic interaction between tone and phonation type in Quiaviní,
is by no means surprising. However, the case of Quiaviní Zapotec is intriguing and provides new insights
in several respects. First, in most of the cases of diachronic interaction between tone and phonation type,
the usual direction appears to be from the original phonation contrast to a tonal contrast, as in the cases of
Vietnamese;5 in Quiaviní Zapotec, on the other hand, the direction is from the original tonal contrast to
because the term “register” can be ambiguous, ranging from the sociolinguistic use to the use as pitch
ranges (Wayland & Jongman 2002, Ratliff 2015). 4 More precisely, a common development is as follows (Thurgood 1996, Kingston 2011, etc.): initial
voiced consonant (ba) > initial breathy consonant (pha) > voiceless consonant followed by a breathy
vowel (pa) > voiceless consonant followed by a low tone vowel (pà). 5 A notable exception could be the Central Vietnamese dialect of Nghe An province, where most of the
tones are differentiated by a very slight F0 difference and a phonation contrast between modal voice and
breathy voice (Pham 2005, Ratliff 2015). However, these authors disagree as to whether Nghe An
represents a case of the first stages of tonogenesis (Pham 2005) or the first stages of tonoexodus (Ratliff
2015).
4
the phonation contrast. Secondly, the phonation type, or register, is known to result from other types of
contrast (‘registrogenesis’) in some languages. Thus, in Khmer the phonation types emerged from the
original Voice Onset Time difference in the preceding vowel (Wayland & Jongman 2002).6 Quiaviní
Zapotec is peculiar in that the register difference (between modal and breathy phonation) comes from the
original tonal contrast. Thirdly, the Southeast Asian languages, on which many of the studies on the
interaction of tone and phonation type have focused, have very little tonal morphophonology; this has
resulted in focusing more on the phonetic aspect of their interaction. Quiaviní Zapotec (and the
Otomanguean languages in general), on the other hand, is particularly rich in tonal morphophonology,
which allows us to explore the phonological and morphophonological side of the interaction of tone and
phonation type. This also allows us to internally reconstruct the original situation so that we can tell if the
direction of the change was from tone to phonation or from phonation to tone. Lastly, the Central Zapotec
varieties are known for their diversity, and each hypothesized stage of the development of the Quiaviní
system is represented by various Central Zapotec varieties. This allows us to establish the possible path
Quiaviní Zapotec has gone through, based on what is observed in the modern varieties.
Crosslinguistically, there are several patterns of interaction between tone and phonation (Andruski
& Ratliff 2000). First, there are some languages, such as Western A-Hmao (Miao-Yao), where phonation
is a property of consonants and it has no relationship with tone. Second, there are languages like Jingpho
(Tibeto-Burman), where phonation and tone are cross-cutting categories, and all of the possible
combinations of tone and phonation are attested. Thirdly, a phonation type can be inconsistently
associated with a certain tone, as in the case of the Mandarin third tone. Lastly, there are languages such
as Vietnamese or Green Mong, where individual tones are consistently produced with non-modal
phonation. The Central Zapotec varieties appear to be of the second type, where tone and phonation exist
as independent systems (§1.2.2). This is particularly the case in Guilá Zapotec, where all the possible
combinations of tone and phonation are attested. However, as is shown below, Quiaviní Zapotec seems to
6 Again, a rare exception is the case of Pacoh, a Mon-Khmer language, where the register contrast appears
to come from vowel quality/height contrast (Diffloth 1982, Ratliff 2015).
5
have undergone the third (phonation type is inconsistently associated with a certain tone) and the last
(tones are consistently produced with non-modal phonation) patterns, and has followed the path even
further to the point where breathy phonation is now phonologized and has replaced the original tonal
contrast.
1.2. Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec
The focus of this paper is on the two Central Zapotec varieties (Zapotecan, Otomanguean language
family) spoken in the communities of San Lucas Quiaviní and San Pablo Güilá.7 According to López
Cruz (1997: 10), a native speaker linguist of Güilá Zapotec, Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec are
mutually intelligible. Both towns are located in the Tlacolula Valley region in the Central Valley of
Oaxaca, in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico. Both varieties belong to the Western Valley Zapotec sub-branch8
within Central Zapotec (Smith-Stark 2007), which in turn belongs to the Zapotec language family. The
Zapotec language family constitutes the Zapotecan language group along with the Chatino languages.
Zapotecan language group in turn belongs to the Otomanguean language stock. FIGURE 1 shows the
position of Western Valley Zapotec within Zapotecan, based on Smith-Stark (2007).
7 All the data for San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec was collected in the field, both in San Lucas Quiaviní,
Oaxaca, Mexico and in its immigrant community in Los Angeles, CA by the author and by Gabriela Pérez
Báez from the Smithsonian Institution in 2011, 2012, and 2015. AML, a female speaker, was born and
raised and has always lived in the municipality of San Lucas Quiaviní; JC is a male speaker, and PHL is a
female speaker, and were born and raised in San Lucas Quiaviní and have resided in Los Angeles,
California during adulthood and at the time of elicitation. All the data for San Pablo Güilá Zapotec are
from López Cruz (1997), a study on phonology and verb phonology by a native speaker linguist. Some of
the data were checked with data from the Zapotec and Chatino Survey collected under the direction of
Mark Sicoli and Terrence Kaufman between 2007 - 2010. 8 Smith-Stark (2007) uses the term “zapoteco del valle occidental”, which translates as Western Valley
Zapotec. This terminology is somewhat confusing, since “Western Zapotec” is a completely different sub-
branch, and the Valley of Tlacolula is no way “Western” (presumably Smith-Stark employed this term
because the varieties in this region are “western” compared to varieties spoken to the east, such as
Isthmus Zapotec). However, this terminology is widely accepted (cf. Broadwell 2015) and I follow this
tradition.
6
Zapotecan
Zapotec
Core
Chatino Western Papabuco Southern Northern Central
Mazaltepec Tejalapan Northcentral
Zimatlán
Western
Ejutla
Antequera Western
Valley
Mitla Quiatoni Albarradas Trans-
yautepecan
FIGURE 1. POSITION OF WESTERN VALLEY ZAPOTEC WITHIN ZAPOTECAN.
In §1.2.1, I overview the sound systems of Quiaviní and Güilá Zapotec and look at the distribution
and realization of the tones and phonation types of each Zapotec variety in detail in §1.2.2.
1.2.1. Sound systems of Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec
Proto-Zapotec roots were canonically either disyllabic (CVCV) or monosyllabic (CV), preceded or
followed by monosyllabic affixes or clitics (as preserved in Juchitán Zapotec, a Central Zapotec variety
which also belongs to the Western Valley sub-branch). However, roots in both Quiaviní Zapotec and
Güilá Zapotec are mainly monosyllabic, as a result of loss of pre- and post-tonic vowels. For instance, ri-
'gu’unyě “HAB-scratch” in Juchitán Zapotec is cognate with r-gu’uny in Quiaviní Zapotec. The syllable
structure in the Quiaviní native lexicon is C(C(y))V(C(y)) (cf. Munro & Lopez 1999: 3, Chávez Peón
2010: 12ff.), while that of Güilá Zapotec is (((C)C)C)V(C(C)) (López Cruz 1997: 48, Arellanes 2009:
Ch.5). Onset consonant clusters are common but coda consonant clusters are limited both in Quiaviní
Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec (López Cruz 1997: 66, Arellanes 2009: 329). Stress is assigned to the root
syllable (López Cruz 1997: 49, Munro & Lopez 1999: 3, Chávez Peón 2010: Ch.3). Vowel length is not
contrastive in either variety, but vowels are lengthened before a lenis coda or in the absence of a coda
consonant on the stressed syllable, to satisfy the requirement that the stressed syllable be bimoraic (Munro
& Lopez 1999: 3; Chávez Peón 2010: Ch.2, Arellanes 2009: §5.3).
7
The vowel systems of Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec are as follows. Both Quiaviní Zapotec
and Güilá Zapotec have six monophthongs, a, e, i, o, u, ɨ. Quiaviní in addition has three diphthongs, ia, ie,
and ua, although other phonetic vowel sequences occur as a result of combinations of a vowel plus a glide.
As in other varieties of Zapotec, both Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec are ‘laryngeally-complex’
(Silverman 1997), in that they both have tone and phonation contrasts on the vowels. Both have vowel
types that differ based on phonation (Munro and Lopez 1999, Arellanes 2009: Ch.3, Chávez Peón 2010):
modal (a), creaky (a), and interrupted (a’a).9 Quiaviní Zapotec additionally has breathy (a), which is
lacking in Güilá Zapotec. Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec have four contrastive tones10 (López Cruz
1997: 49, Arellanes 2009: 154, Chávez Peón 2010): low (a), high (á), rising (ǎ), and (high to low) falling
tone (â). TABLE 1 summarizes the vowel systems of both Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec:
TABLE 1. VOWEL SYSTEMS OF QUIAVINÍ AND GÜILÁ ZAPOOTEC
QUIAVINÍ GÜILÁ
MONOPHTHONGS a, e, i, o, u, ɨ a, e, i, o, u, ɨ
DIPHTHONGS ia, ie, ua -
PHONATION Modal (a)
Breathy (a)
Creaky (a)
Interrupted (a’a)
Modal
-
Creaky
Interrupted
TONE Low (a)
High (á)
Rising (ǎ)
Falling (â)
Low
High
Rising
Falling
9 The creaky vowel corresponds to Arellanes’ (2009) ‘laringización débil’ and to ‘laringizada’ used by the
local linguists. The interrupted vowel corresponds to Arellanes’ (2009) ‘laringización fuerte’ and to
‘glotalizada’ used by the local linguists. 10 I agree with Chávez Peón’s (2010) analysis that tone is contrastive in Quiaviní Zapotec, independent of
phonation type, rather than the proposal that tone is predictable from the combinations of the phonation
types as claimed in Munro & Lopez (1999). The argument for contrastive tone is supported by the fact
that the minimal pairs contrasting only in tones are found in Quiaviní Zapotec. For instance, [ndāà] /nda/
“sensitive” (ndàa in Munro & Lopez (1999)) and [ndáā] /ndá/ “bitter” (ndaa) both have modal vowels,
but with different tones; [ndāà:ˀ] /nda/ “loose” (ndàa') and [ndáˀ] /ndá/ “hot” (ndaàa') both have creaky
vowels, but with different tones. The former analysis is also comparatively supported, as will be shown in
this paper. Since Munro & Lopez (1999) do not mark the tone in their orthography (except for modal
vowels, where the tonal difference is marked as the phonation difference), the data on Quiaviní Zapotec in
this paper is exclusively based on my own database.
8
For consonants, both Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec exhibit a contrast between the lenis
series of consonants (the left phoneme in each cell in TABLE 2) and the fortis series (right
phoneme in each cell), as in other Zapotec varieties (Nellis & Hollenbach 1980, Jaeger 1983, and
Avelino 2004). This does not apply to affricates and glides, nor to f (which only occurs in
loanwords), all of which do not come in pairs and behave as fortis consonants (Arellanes 2008:
Ch.4, Chávez Peón 2010: Ch.2). Fortis obstruents are voiceless, never fricated if they are stops,
and relatively long. Lenis obstruents are often voiced (but devoiced in the word final position),
variably fricated, and relatively short. For sonorants, the main difference between fortis and lenis
is duration. TABLE 2 shows the consonant phonemes in Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec
partly based on Munro & Lopez (1999) and Chávez Peón (2010: 6) for Quiaviní Zapotec and for
López Cruz (1997: 52) and Arellanes (2009: 47) on Güilá Zapotec. The phonemes in TABLE 2
are given in my orthographic representation. The phonemes in parentheses (f and j) only occur in
loans, and the phonemes in [] only occur in Quiaviní Zapotec.
TABLE 2. CONSONANT PHONEMES IN QUIAVINÍ AND GÜILÁ ZAPOTEC
LABIAL DENTAL/
ALVEOLAR
PALATO-
ALVEOLAR
PALATAL VELAR LABIO-
VELAR
PLOSIVE b/p d/t g/k gw/kw
NASAL [m]/mm n/nn [ng
/nng]
TAP/FLAP r/rr
FRICATIVE (f) z/s zh/x (j)
LATERAL l/ll
AFFRICAT
E
ts ch
GLIDES y w
1.2.2. Realization and distribution of tone and phonation
This subsection looks at the realization and distribution of the two Zapotec varieties in detail. In
sum, the crucial differences between Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec are (i) the lack of the breathy
vowel in Güilá Zapotec, and (ii) the broader distribution of the rising tone in Güilá Zapotec.
1.2.2.1. Quiaviní Zapotec
9
In Quiaviní Zapotec, low and high tones can occur with vowels of any type, while the falling tone
is not contrastive with the high tone on a breathy vowel. The rising tone can only occur with modal
vowels. The high and falling tones are rare in the native lexicon (e.g. gwí “guava”, lía “girl”), and are
mainly found in loanwords. The high and falling tones also occur as floating tones associated with certain
grammatical morphemes, such as the potential and progressive markers as well as the first person plural
pronominal enclitic =an which brings about the assignment of a high or falling (or rising) tone on the
stem (§2.2.3, §3.2). Rising tone is also rare as compared with the low tone, and is found only in closed
syllables (e.g. mǎny “animal”, zhǔb “dried corn kernel”), except for a few interrogative markers such as xǐ
“what”. Low tone (and high tone, in certain environments) falls towards the end of the vowel unless the
vowel is followed by a fortis obstruent (Chávez Peón 2010: 109). Both tone and phonation are realized
over the rime (the nucleus vowel + the coda consonant) when the coda is a resonant or a glide.
The realization of the phonation type is dependent on the tone to some extent, and whether a coda
is present or not, and if present, on the type of coda. In Quiaviní Zapotec, a creaky vowel is realized as a
creaky vowel followed by a glottal stop before fortis obstruents (bekw [βēʔkw] “dog”). In the absence of a
coda consonant, a creaky vowel is followed by a weak glottal stop; with a low tone, the vowel is creaky
and lengthened (bdo [βðōòˀ] “baby”), while with a high tone, the vowel is not lengthened (ndá [ndáˀ]
“hot”). The creaky vowel is realized without a glottal stop when followed by a resonant or lenis obstruent
(bell [βēl:] “snake”) (Chávez Peón 2010: §6.4). An interrupted vowel is realized with a creaky vowel
followed by a full glottal closure, often accompanied by an echo vowel (ru’u [ɾūʔù] “mouth”) (Chávez
Peón 2010: §6.5). Interrupted vowels do not occur before plosives or fortis resonants (Chávez Peón 2010:
213). A breathy vowel is realized as a modal portion followed by h when followed by a fortis obstruent
(get [ɣēht] “tortilla”), while it is followed by a breathy portion when followed by a lenis coda or in the
absence of the coda (ru [ɾūù] “cough”) (Chávez Peón 2010: §6.3). A breathy vowel can also be breathy
throughout, especially when followed by a fortis resonant (bell [βēl:] “fish”) or in unstressed syllables.
My analysis coincides with Chávez Peón (2010) in showing that monosyllabic vowels have one (and only
10
one) phonation type that is contrastive, as in other Zapotec varieties. This differs from Munro & Lopez
(1999) who propose that different phonation types can occur in a sequence within a syllable.
TABLE 3 summarizes the realization and distribution of vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec. In TABLE 3,
C represents any consonant, T is an obstruent and R is a resonant.
TABLE 3. REALIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF VOWELS IN QUIAVINÍ ZAPOTEC
PHONATION REALIZATION TONES DISTRIBUTION
MODAL (V) [āà] LOW Not before T[fortis]
[áā] HIGH
[áà] FALLING
[āá] RISING Mostly in closed
syllables
CREAKY (V) [āʔ] /_T[fortis]
[āàˀ] /_#
[ā] /_T[lenis], _R
LOW Any environment
[áʔ] /_T[fortis]
[áˀ] /_#
[á] /_T[lenis], _R
HIGH
[áà] FALLING
INTERRUPTED (V’V) [āʔà], [àʔa] LOW Not before stops nor
R[fortis] [áʔa] HIGH
[áʔà]
FALLING
BREATHY (V) [āh] /_ T[fortis]
[āà] /_#, C[lenis]
[ā] /_R[fortis]
LOW Any environment
[áh] /_ T[fortis]
[áā] /_#, C[lenis]
[á] /_R[fortis]
HIGH
1.2.2.2. Güilá Zapotec
In Güilá Zapotec, all four tones can occur with vowels of any phonation type (López Cruz 1997:
§2.3.1, §2.4.2.5, Arellanes 2009: 154). Both low and rising tones are common (as opposed to Quiaviní
Zapotec, where the rising tone is rare), while the falling and high tones are rare (tê “grey”, réll “stupid”).
The falling tone, however, is the default tone for loanwords (Arellanes 2009: 154). A low tone falls
toward the end when not followed by a fortis obstruent, as in Quiaviní Zapotec (Arellanes 2009: 188). A
falling tone has a slight rising portion at the beginning, followed by a high to low falling portion
11
(Arellanes 2009: 193-196). A high tone is realized with an initial slight rising portion followed by a high
portion (Arellanes 2009: 186). A rising tone is a low to high rising tone.
The realization of the phonation types crucially depends on the tone, the presence/absence of the
coda and the type of coda, as well as the carefulness of the speech (López Cruz 1997, Arellanes 2009:
§3.3.4).11 The description below follows Arellanes (2009). Generally speaking, the glottalization is
stronger with low and falling tones than with high and rising tones, both for creaky and interrupted
vowels (Arellanes 2009: 225). A creaky vowel with a low or falling tone is realized as a semi-long vowel
followed by a weak glottal stop (mna [mnàˑˀ] “woman”; ndê [ndêˑˀ] “this”) or as a long creaky vowel (da
[daà] “come!”; ndê [ndeê] “this”). A creaky vowel with a high or rising tone is realized with a stiff voice12
(bchá [ʧaáˬ] “witch”: bel [beeˬěːl] “meat”). An interrupted vowel with a low or falling tone is realized as
a short vowel followed by a strong glottal stop (da’a [dàʔ] “mat”; pê’e [pěʔ]13 “droppings”). An
interrupted vowel with a high or rising tone is realized as an interrupted vowel with a weak glottal stop
(ndá’a [ndǎˀá] “break”; blě’e [blèˀě] “take it!”) or as a strongly laryngealized vowel flanked by modal
vowels (ndá’a [ndaaáː] “break”; blě’e [bleeěː] “take it!”). Interrupted vowels do not occur before plosives
or fortis resonants (Arellanes 2009: 224), as in Quiaviní Zapotec.14 TABLE 4 summarizes the realization
and distribution of the tones and phonation types in Güilá Zapotec.
11 López Cruz (1997) attributes the difference between the two levels of laryngealization (creaky vs.
interrupted) to the vowel length contrast, which she assumes is contrastive in Güilá Zapotec. However,
Arellanes (2009:204, 212) argues that the contrast is that of the level of laryngealization, and that the
vowel length is predictable from the presence/absence and the type of the coda. Here I follow the latter
analysis. 12 In the production of a stiff voice, the vocal folds vibrate but more stiffly than in modal voice, and the
airflow is of slightly lower rate than in modal voice (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 48). 13 A (phonological) falling tone on an interrupted vowel is realized as a rising tone, but since a
phonological rising tone on an interrupted vowel is realized with a rearticulation, the contrast between the
falling and the rising tone is maintained (Arellanes 2009:213). 14 Since there is no contrast between the creaky and interrupted vowels in this context either in Quiaviní
Zapotec or Güilá Zapotec, it may well be that the contrast between these two levels of laryngealization is
neutralized in this context (Arellanes 2009:224 fn.56). The assumption that the laryngealized vowel in
this context is a creaky vowel is somewhat arbitrary, and in fact López Cruz (1997) categorizes the
laryngealized vowel in this context as the same as the interrupted vowel (her ‘vocales laringizadas
breves’).
12
TABLE 4. REALIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF VOWELS IN GÜILÁ ZAPOTEC
PHONATION REALIZATION TONES DISTRIBUTION
MODAL (V) [àː] LOW Any environment
[âː] FALLING
[áː] HIGH
[ǎː] RISING
CREAKY (V) [àˑˀ] ~ [aàː] LOW Any environment
[âˑˀ] ~ [aâ] FALLING
[aáˬː] HIGH
[aǎˬː] ~ [aaˬǎ] RISING
INTERRUPTED (V’V) [àʔ] LOW Not before plosives/
fortis resonants [ǎʔ] FALLING
[ǎˀá] ~ [aaá] HIGH
[àˀǎ] ~ [aaǎ] RISING
2. Modal and breathy vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec
As TABLE 1 shows, Güilá Zapotec is lacking the breathy vowel, which is present in Quiaviní
Zapotec. In this section, I will first show that a modal vowel with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec
corresponds to a modal vowel with a rising tone in Güilá Zapotec, while a breathy vowel (with a low
tone) in Quiaviní Zapotec corresponds to a modal vowel with a low tone in Güilá Zapotec (§2.1).
Secondly, in §2.2, by justifying that Güilá Zapotec preserves the original situation based on language-
internal evidence, I argue that the phonation contrast between the modal and breathy vowel in Quiaviní
Zapotec comes from the original tonal contrast between the rising and low tones, which is preserved in
Güilá Zapotec.
2.1. Correspondences
First, the following correspondence set shows that a modal vowel with a rising tone in Güilá
Zapotec corresponds to a modal vowel with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec. In the following, r- is the
habitual aspect prefix and =bǐ is a third person singular enclitic:15
15 In Munro & Lopez (1999), modal vowels with a low tone are in most cases transcribed as àa (e.g. (5b)
as bùunny). Their notation suggests the presence of a creaky portion, but this is not present, as Chávez
Peón (2010:§4.2) has demonstrated.
13
GLOSS GÜILÁ16 QUIAVINÍ
(3) “insult” a. -gě (ALC1997: 227) b. r-ge (AML2015)
(4) “cloud” a. xkǎy (ALC1997: 63) b. xkay (AML2015)
(5) “person” a. bɨny (ALC1997: 60) b. buny (PHL2011)
(6) “mountain” a. dǎny “hill” (ALC1997: 202) b. dany (PHL2011, JC2011)
(7) “thick (of liquid)” a. nǎn (ALC1997: 73) b. nan (AML2012)
(8) “meet” a. -chěl (ALC1997: 310) b. r-zhiel (AML2012)
(9) “sister (of a woman)” a. běld=bǐ (ALC1997: 50) b. bell (AML2012, PHL2011)
(10) “twenty” a. gǎld (ALC1997: 66) b. gally (AML2012)
(11) “wait for” a. -běz (ALC1997: 226) b. r-bez (JC2011, AML2015)
(12) “maguey” a. dǒb (ALC1997: 56) b. dub (PHL2011, AML2015)
FIGUREs 2 and 3 show pitch traces of (6a) and (6b), respectively. FIGURE 2 demonstrates that
there is a rise in pitch in Güilá Zapotec, while its cognate in Quiaviní Zapotec in FIGURE 3 has a steady
low tone, falling a little towards the end:
16 The data from López Cruz (1997) on Güilá Zapotec is transcribed to conform to the orthographic
system employed in this paper to facilitate the comparison between Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec.
First, the tonal notations in López Cruz (1997) are transcribed as follows, following Arellanes (2009): à
(low) in López Cruz (1997) as a, a (high) as á, and á (rising) as ǎ. The notation for the falling tone is the
same (â). López Cruz (1997) distinguishes the vowel length in her orthography (as in góp /gǒp/”deaf” vs.
šóob /xǒb/), but as Arellanes (2009:Ch.2) demonstrates, the vowel length is predictable from the
presence/absence and the type of coda consonant (fortis or lenis) and thus the vowel length difference is
not noted. In the case of the coda fricatives, López Cruz (1997) attributes the contrast to the vowel length,
rather than the fortis/lenis contrast of the coda fricative (as in gès /ges/ “pot” vs. gèes /gez/ “cigarette”);
again, I follow Arellanes (2009) in analyzing the contrast to be in the fortis/lenis distinction of the coda
fricative and transcribe them accordingly. Lastly, López Cruz (1997) writes the creaky vowel as a long
laryngealized vowel and the interrupted vowel as a short laryngealized vowel (as in gyè’ /gye’e/ “plaza”
vs. gyèe’ /gye/ “flower”). I follow Arellanes (2009:204, 212) in analyzing the contrast to be that of the
level of laryngealization, and not of the vowel length and transcribe them accordingly. For consonants, I
transcribe her ȼ (alveolar affricate) as ts, č (palatoalveolar affricate) as ch, and š (palatoalveolar fricative)
as x. When citing the examples, López Cruz (1997) is abbreviated as ALC (1997).
14
FIGURE 2. dǎny [ðāáɲ] “hill” FIGURE 3. dany [ðā:ɲ] “mountain”
Güilá Zapotec Quiaviní Zapotec
(Sicoli & Kaufman 2010, male) (PHL 2011, female)
Second, the following correspondence set shows that a Güilá modal vowel with a low tone
corresponds to a Quiaviní breathy vowel with a low tone:17
GLOSS GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
(13) “cough” a. ru (ALC1997: 61) b. ru (AML2011)
(14) “land” a. gyu (ALC1997: 57) b. yu (AML2012)
(15) “blood” a. riny (ALC1997: 61) b. reny (PHL2011, AML2011)
(16) “fish” a. beld (ALC1997: 50) b. bell (PHL2011, AML2011)
(17) “cold” a. nald (ALC1997: 79) b. nall (AML2015)
(18) “tejate” a. kob (ALC1997: 56) b. kub (AML2011)
(19) “fall” a. -yab (ALC1997: 231) b. r-yab (AML2015)
(20) “tortilla” a. get (ALC1997: 51) b. get (PHL2011, AML2011)
(21) “back” a. dets (ALC1997: 123) b. dets (AML2012)
(22) “get off” a. -yet (ALC1997: 231) b. r-yet (AML2015)
From these correspondence sets, we can summarize the correspondences of the breathy and modal
vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec as in TABLE 5; the modal vowel with the rising tone in
17 In Munro & Lopez (1999), a breathy vowel is transcribed in various ways: ah (zah /za/ “grease”;
notations in Munro & Lopez (1999) are in italics, followed by my notations), ahah (bihih /bi/ “air”),
a’ahC (ku’uhb /kub/ “tejate”), a’ahah (gui’ihihzh /gizh /”sickness”), and aa’ahC (guee’ihzh /gezh/
“town”) (cf. Chávez Peón 2010:§6.3.4). The number of vowels in their orthography is partly accounted
for by the presence/absence or the type of coda consonant (Chávez Peón 2010), and the glottal stop that
they write is simply not present (Chávez Peón 2010:185). Unlike Chávez Peón’s (2010) claim, I find no
correlation between the variations in their orthography and the tone.
15
Güilá Zapotec corresponds to the modal vowel with low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec, while the modal vowel
with the low tone in Güilá Zapotec corresponds to the breathy vowel with low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec:
TABLE 5. CORRESPONDENCES OF MODAL AND BREATHY VOWELS
GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
Modal R
bǔny “person”
Modal L
buny
Modal L
get “tortilla”
Breathy L
get
The following subsection looks at language-internal evidence within Quiaviní Zapotec which
points to the conclusion that Güilá Zapotec indeed preserves the situation closer to the original, and that
Quiaviní Zapotec has replaced the tonal contrast between the low and rising tone with a phonation
contrast between the modal and breathy vowels.
2.2. Justification for the direction of the change
In §2.1, we looked at the correspondences of breathy and modal vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec and
Güilá Zapotec, but the justification for reconstructing a situation closer to that in Güilá Zapotec has yet to
be provided. There has been at least one attempt to reconstruct the breathy vowel for Proto-Central
Zapotec (Benton 2003, who reconstructs the breathy vowel as a ‘high-intensity’ vowel), which is closer to
the situation in Quiaviní Zapotec. Therefore, it is important to justify my position that Güilá Zapotec
preserves the original contrast, and that the breathy vowel is not to be reconstructed for Proto-Western
Valley Zapotec, which is the ancestor of both Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec. In this subsection, we
will look at three pieces of language-internal evidence which suggest that Güilá Zapotec does preserve the
original contrast.
2.2.1. Distribution of breathy and modal vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec
In Quiaviní Zapotec, breathy vowels are more frequent than modal vowels. For instance, in my
database, there are 62 native monosyllabic verb roots with a breathy vowel (with a low tone) in Quiaviní
Zapotec, while there are only 29 native monosyllabic verb roots featuring a modal vowel with a low tone.
16
Speakers are also aware of the abundance of breathy vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec. Moreover, the modal
vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec has a more restricted distribution than the breathy vowel. Thus, breathy
vowels can occur with any type of coda consonant (lenis or fortis, obstruent or resonant), while there are
no instances of a modal vowel followed by a fortis plosive coda (except for in inflected forms).18
This distribution is unexpected, since we would expect the modal vowel to be the ‘default’ and the
less marked member of the phonation types, compared with the breathy vowel. However, this is explained
if the contrast between the modal vowel and the breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec comes from the
original contrast between the rising tone and the low tone (on a modal vowel), as is preserved in Güilá
Zapotec: between the low tone and the rising tone, the low tone is the less marked tone, since the rising
tone is a contour tone (Zhang 2004).
2.2.2. Behavior of tones in Quiaviní Zapotec
The second piece of evidence for reconstructing a situation closer to Güilá Zapotec for proto-
Western Valley Zapotec comes from the behavior of the tones. In Quiaviní Zapotec, a morpheme that has
a modal vowel and a low tone always assigns a floating high tone to the following morpheme. Thus, in
(23) and (24), the verb roots with a modal vowel, itself with a low tone, assign a floating high tone to the
following pronominal clitics (that the lexical tone of these pronominal clitics is low is evident in
examples (25) and (26) below):
MODAL 2SG =u’ 3SG.PROX =anng
(23) a. r-eby b. r-eby=ú’ c. r-eby=ánng
HAB-swallow HAB-swallow=2SG HAB-swallow=3SG.PROX
“swallows” (AML2015) “you swallow” (AML2012) “he swallows” (AML2012)
(24) a. b-dyedy b. r-dyedy=ú’ c. r-dyedy=ánng
CMP-peel HAB-peel=2SG HAB-peel=3SG.PROX
“peels” (AML2012) “you peel” (AML2012) “he peels” (AML2012)
18 In fact, there are instances of a modal vowel with a rising tone followed by a fortis plosive coda in
Güilá Zapotec (e.g. -tǒp “gather”, -ǎch “break”) (Francisco Arellanes, p.c.), which should correspond to a
modal vowel with a low tone followed by a fortis plosive coda in Quiaviní Zapotec. All of the cognates of
such morphemes have a creaky vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec (-top and -ach).
17
On the other hand, (25) and (26) show that the stems that have a breathy vowel with a low tone
never assign a floating high tone to the following pronominal clitics:
BREATHY 2SG =u’ 3SG.PROX =anng
(25) a. r-yel=i b. r-yely=u’19 c. r-yely=anng
HAB-belch=3SG.DIST HAB-belch=2SG HAB-belch=3SG.PROX
“he belches” (AML2012) “you belch” (AML2012) “he belches” (AML2012)
(26) a. r-syall b. r-syall=u’ c. r-syall=anng
HAB-cool.off HAB-cool.off=2SG HAB-cool.off=3SG.PROX
“it cools off” (AML2012) “you cool off” (AML2012) “he cools off” (AML2012)
FIGURES 4 and 5 show the pitch traces of (23c) and (25c) respectively. We can see that the tone
on the enclitic =anng is higher than the stem in FIGURE 4, while it is not the case in FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 4. rebyánng [a ɾēːbjáŋː] “he swallows” FIGURE 5. ryelyanng [ɾiēèljàŋː] “he belches”
(AML2015) (AML2012)
This tonal effect is pervasive, and observed not only with the pronominal clitics, but also with other
morphemes. Thus, in (27), a floating high tone is assigned to the diminutive suffix -e’e after a noun root
with a modal vowel (a), while a floating high tone is not assigned to this suffix after a noun root with a
breathy vowel (b); in (28), a floating high tone is assigned (which surfaces as a falling tone due to the
19 The breathy vowel alternates with a creaky vowel when the stem is followed by the second person
singular clitic =u’. A similar alternation is also found in Juchitán Zapotec (Gabriela Pérez Báez, p.c.) and
in Teotitlán del Valle Zapotec.
18
laryngealization) to the incorporated root laz “heart” after the verb root with a modal vowel (a), while a
floating high tone is not assigned when the verb root has a breathy vowel (b). This tonal effect is observed
even across the word boundary, as in (29), where the noun get “tortilla” following the verb with a modal
vowel gets assigned a floating high tone (a), while the floating high tone is not found after a verb with a
breathy vowel (b):
MODAL BREATHY
(27) a. bell-é’e b. get-e’e
sister-DIM tortilla-DIM
“little sister” (AML2012) “little tortilla” (AML2012)
(28) a. r-kay-lâz b. r-bix-laz
HAB-be.dark-heart HAB-turn.over-heart
“feels faint” (AML2015) “feels nauseated” (AML2015)
(29) a. r-eby gét b. r-aw get
HAB-swallow tortilla HAB-eat tortilla
“(Gaby) swallows a tortilla” (AML2015) “(Gaby) eats a tortilla” (AML2015)
This tonal effect, that the modal vowel with a low tone assigns a floating high tone to the following
morpheme, while the breathy (low) vowel does not, is synchronically an arbitrary fact and finds no
account within the synchronic grammar of Quiaviní Zapotec. However, this idiosyncratic behavior of
tones can be explained if we assume that the modal (low) vowel in Quiaviní comes from an original rising
tone, as is preserved in Güilá Zapotec. That is, the original rising tone on a monosyllable (30a) splits into
a low tone and a high tone in Quiaviní, and the high tone is realized on the following morpheme (30b).
The original modal vowel with a low tone (which has become a breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec) did
not have the high portion and thus a morpheme with such a vowel does not have any tonal effect on the
following morpheme (31):
PROTO-WESTERN VALLEY (= GÜILÁ) QUIAVINÍ
(30) a. *r-ěby=anng > b. r-eby=ánng
LH L H
(31) a. *r-yely=anng > b. r-ely=anng
2.2.3. Phonation alternation
19
The third piece of evidence to argue that Güilá Zapotec preserves the original situation is the
alternation of the breathy vowel with a modal vowel in certain grammatical constructions in Quiaviní
Zapotec. The breathy vowel always alternates with a modal vowel in words that contain the potential
aspect prefix (b) or the first person plural clitic =an (c):20
POTENTIAL 1PL =an
(32) a. r-aty b. g-ǎty c. r-ǎty=an
HAB-die POT-die HAB-die-1PL
“dies” (AML2015) “will die” (AML2015) “we die” (AML2011)
(33) a. r-yak b. g-yǎk c. r-yǎk=an
HAB-heal POT-heal HAB-heal=1PL
“heals”(AML2012) “will heal” (AML2015) “we heal” (AML2011)
The environments where the breathy vowel alternates with the modal vowel are exactly where a
breathy vowel cannot occur in Quiaviní Zapotec. As we saw in §1.2, the rising tone can only occur on a
modal vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec; since a breathy vowel cannot carry a rising tone, the original modal
vowel with a low tone did not change to a breathy vowel when the vowel was assigned a rising tone due
to the potential prefix or the first person plural enclitic. Such a diachronic account is only possible when
we assume that Güilá preserves the original situation, rather than Quiaviní, thus the breathy vowel was
not present in the proto-language.
2.3. Summary
In this section, I have shown that a modal vowel with a rising tone in Güilá Zapotec corresponds to
a modal vowel with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec, while a modal vowel with a low tone in Güilá
Zapotec corresponds to a breathy vowel with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec (§2.1). I have further shown
that Güilá preserves the original situation and that Quiaviní Zapotec has been replacing the overt tonal
contrast between the low and the rising tones with a phonation contrast between the modal and breathy
vowels (§2.2).
20 In Munro & Lopez (1999), and Munro et al. (2008), this phonation alternation is noted as the
alternation of Vh and V’ (which actually lacks the laryngealization, as Chávez Peón (2010) shows); thus,
(32a) is transcribed as rahty, while (32b) as ga’ty. This phonation alternation is also found with the first
person singular clitic =a’, which assigns a [+L] tone on the stem, to be discussed in §3.2.
20
TABLE 6 summarizes the correspondences of the modal and breathy vowels between Quiaviní
Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec, as well as the proposed reconstructed forms for Proto-Western Valley
Zapotec, which are the same as the Güilá forms:
TABLE 6. CORRESPONDENCES OF MODAL AND BREATHY VOWELS
PROTO-WESTERN
VALLEY
GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
Modal R
*bǔny “person”
Modal R
bǔny
Modal L
buny
Modal L
*get “tortilla”
Modal L
get
Breathy L
get
3. Laryngealized vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec
The previous section discussed the correspondences of the modal and breathy vowels between
Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec, and the origin of the breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec. This
section looks at the correspondences of the laryngealized (i.e. creaky and interrupted) vowels in Quiaviní
Zapotec and Güilá Zapotec. I will show that, in the case of laryngealized vowels, the overt tonal contrast
between the low and rising tones as is found in Güilá Zapotec has been replaced by a covert tonal contrast
in Quiaviní Zapotec, which only emerges when these morphemes are inflected.
3.1. Apparent neutralization of tonal contrast in Quiaviní Zapotec
In general, laryngealized vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec correspond to laryngealized vowels in Güilá
Zapotec, but there are two different sets of correspondences with regard to the tones. First, the following
correspondence set shows that laryngealized vowels in Güilá Zapotec with a low tone correspond to
laryngealized vowels with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec;21 that is, both the phonation type and the tone
21 In Munro & Lopez (1999), creaky vowels are typically represented as àa’ (rcàa’z /rka’z/ “HAB-want”),
but also as ààa’ (mnààa’ /mna’ / “woman”), a’àa’ (zhi’ìi’zh /zhí’zh/ “pineapple”), or aàa’ (beèe’l /be’l/
“meat”), the last two being used to represent a creaky vowel with a high tone in some cases but not
always consistently (cf. Chávez Peón 2010:§6.4.5). Interrupted vowels are typically represented in Munro
& Lopez (1999) as àa’ah (dàa’a /da’a/ “petate”) or àa’a (zhìi’iny /zhi’iny/ “son”), but also as aa’ah
(baa’ah /bá’a/ “earlier today”) or a’ah (bca’ah /bká’a/ “crow”), the last two in some cases being
employed to represent an interrupted vowel with a high tone (cf. Chávez Peón 2010:§6.5.5).
21
are the same in these two varieties. (34) – (40) are correspondences of the creaky vowels, while (41) –
(44) are correspondences of interrupted vowels:
GLOSS GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
(34) “tomb” a. ba (ALC1997: 50) b. ba (AML2015)
(35) “yesterday” a. nay (ALC1997: 92) b. nay (AML2011, PHL2011)
(36) “ice” a. gɨy (ALC1997: 61) b. gey (AML2012)
(37) “steal” a. -ban (ALC1997: 225) b. r-ban (JC2011)
(38) “snake” a. beld (ALC1997: 79) b. bell (AML2011, PHL2011)
(39) “dog” a. bekw (ALC1997: 57) b. bekw (PHL2011)
(40) “put on pants” a. -bɨky (ALC1997: 225) b. r-beky (AML2012)
(41) “house” a. gyu’u (ALC1997: 92) b. yu’u (AML2012)
(42) “sell” a. -to’o (ALC1997: 318) b. r-to’o (AML2015)
(43) “stomach, inside” a. la’any (ALC1997: 60) b. la’any (AML2012)
(44) “borrow” a. -gi’iny (ALC1997: 227) b. r-gi’iny (AML2015)
However, the following correspondence set shows that laryngealized vowels in Güilá Zapotec with
a rising tone also correspond to the same phonation types with a low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec. (45) – (50)
are correspondences of the creaky vowels, while (51) – (54) are correspondences of the interrupted
vowels. In the following, r- is the habitual aspect prefix and =u’ is a second person singular clitic:
GLOSS GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
(45) “cactus pad” a. byǎ (ALC1997: 77) b. bya (AML2012)
(46) “meat” a. běl (ALC1997: 55) b. bel (AML2011)
(47) “get scolded” a. -dǐld (ALC1997: 226) b. r-dilly (JC2011, AML2012)
(48) “cut up” a. -xǔzh22 (ALC1997: 230) b. r-zhuazh (AML2012)
(49) “spill” a. -tɨch (ALC1997: 252) b. r-tech (AML2015)
(50) “make angry” a. -chǐch (ALC1997: 226) b. r-chich (JC2011)
(51) “break” a. -ndǎ’a (ALC1997: 315) b. r-da’a (AML2015)
(52) “warm up” a. -chǎ’a (ALC1997: 226) b. r-cha’a (AML2015)
(53) “give (to 1/2nd person)” a. -nǐ’zh (ALC1997: 228) b. r-ni’izh=ú’ (AML2011)
(54) “cactus fruit” a. brǔ’un (ALC1997: 75) b. bru’uny (AML2011, PHL2011)
Thus, from these two sets of correspondences, it appears as if Quiaviní Zapotec has neutralized the
tonal contrast between the low and rising tones which are present in Güilá Zapotec. However, when these
22 López Cruz does not distinguish the lenis and fortis series of the fricatives in onset position (Arellanes
& Morales 2013), which explains the irregular correspondence of the initial consonant.
22
morphemes are inflected in Quiaviní Zapotec, the difference between the two classes of low tone emerges
in Quiaviní Zapotec, to which I turn in the following section.
3.2. Underspecified tonal contrast in Quiaviní Zapotec
As in other Zapotec varieties (Briggs 1961, López Cruz 1997, Sicoli 2007, among others), certain
affixes assign a high, falling or a rising tone to the stem in Quiaviní Zapotec; among such affixes are the
potential prefix (various forms, such as fortition of the initial consonant), progressive prefix ka(y)-, and
the first person plural enclitic =an. The progressive prefix assigns a high tone to the stem. The potential
and subjunctive prefixes and the first person plural enclitic assign a rising tone when the stem has a
breathy vowel followed by a fortis plosive coda (as shown in §2.2.3); otherwise, these morphemes assign
a high or falling tone to the stem. Forms in (55) - (57) demonstrate the tonal effect of these affixes. The
(a) forms show that these stems lexically have a low tone (with or without the affixes which have no tonal
effect), while the (b) and (c) forms show that a high or falling tone is assigned with the progressive prefix
and the first person plural suffix:
PROGRESSIVE ka(y)- 1PL =an
(55) a. r-beky b. ka-béky c. r-béky=an
HAB-put.on.pants PROG-put.on.pants HAB-put.on.pants=1PL
“puts on pants” (AML2012) “is putting on pants” (ibid.) “we put on pants” (ibid.)
(56) a. r-duazh b. ka-ndúàzh c. r-dúàzh=an
HAB-finish PROG-finish HAB-finish=1PL
“finishes” (AML2012) “is finishing” (ibid.) “we finish” (ibid.)
(57) a. r-gi’iny b. ka-gí’ìny=anng c. r-gí’ìny=an
HAB-borrow PROG-borrow-3SG.PROX HAB-borrow=1PL
“borrows” (AML2015) “he is borrowing” (AML2011) “we borrow” (ibid.)
However, this tonal effect is not observed with certain other stems. Thus, in (58) - (60), which
again are stems with a lexical low tone (a), the stems are not assigned the high tone due to the progressive
prefix ka- (b) or the first person plural enclitic =an (c). With this class of low tone, the progressive prefix,
instead of the verb stem, carries the high tone. This could be because the high tone which this prefix
23
assigns to the stem is kicked back to the prefix. The high tone on the enclitic in (60a, b) is due to the
floating high tone associated with the stems, a topic to be discussed in §3.3:
PROGRESSIVE ka(y)- 1PL =an
(58) a. r-chich b. ká-chich c. r-chich=an
HAB-make.angry PROG-make.angry HAB-make.angry-1PL
“makes angry” (AML2012) “they are making angry” (JC2011) “we make angry” (ibid.)
(59) a. r-ach b. káy-ach c. r-ach=an
HAB-LG.break PROG- LG.break HAB- LG.break -1PL
“(LG) breaks” (AML2012) “it (LG) is breaking” (ibid.) “we break” (ibid.)
(60) a. m-ni’izh=ánng b. ká-ni’izh=ánng c. r-ni’izh=an
CMP-give=3SG.PROX PROG-give=3SG.PROX HAB-give-1PL
“he gives” (AML2011) “he is giving” (ibid.) “we give” (ibid.)
FIGURES 6 and 7 show the pitch traces of (57b) and (60b). We can see that the tone on the stem
in FIGURE 6 is higher than the tone on the prefix or the enclitic, while in FIGURE 7 the tone on the stem
is lower than the tone on the prefix or the enclitic:
FIGURE 6. ka-gí’iny=anng [kāɣíʔìɲàŋː] FIGURE 7. ká-ni’izh=ánng [kánīʔìʒáŋː]
“He is borrowing” “He is giving”
(AML2011, female) (AML2011, female)
Thus, Quiaviní has two classes of low tone, one which can be assigned a high tone, as in (55) - (57),
which we term the underspecified tone [Ø], while the other cannot be, as in (58) - (60), which we term the
specified low tone [+L]. Such cases are known as the underspecified, overt/covert or abstract tonal
24
contrast (Hyman 2009) and have also been reported in other Zapotec varieties (E. Pike. 1948, Bickmore
& Broadwell 1997, and Sicoli 2007).
Crucially, when we look at the cognates of these two classes of low tone roots in Quiaviní Zapotec,
we find that the underspecified low ([Ø]) in Quiaviní Zapotec corresponds to a low tone in Güilá Zapotec,
while [+L] corresponds to a rising tone in Güilá Zapotec:
GLOSS GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
(61) “put on pants” a. -bɨky b. -beky [Ø]
(62) “finish” a. -nduzh b. -duazh [Ø]
(63) “borrow” a. -gi’iny b. -gi’iny [Ø]
(64) “make angry” a. -chǐch b. -chich [+L]
(65) “warm up” a. -chǎ’a b. -cha’a [+L]
(66) “give (to 1/2nd person)” a. -nǐzh b. -ni’iz [+L]
The correspondences are extremely regular, and there are only 4 forms out of 140 verb stems with
laryngealized vowels, and 5 forms out of 135 noun stems with laryngealized vowels, which do not fall
into this pattern in my database. TABLE 7 summarizes the correspondence of the laryngealized vowels
between Güilá Zapotec and Quiaviní Zapotec:
TABLE 7. CORRESPONDENCES OF LARYNGEALIZED VOWELS
GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
Laryngealized R
-chǐch “make angry”
Laryngealized L [+L]
-chich
Laryngealized L
-ban “steal”
Laryngealized L [Ø]
-ban
In §2, we saw the correspondences of modal and breathy vowels in Quiaviní Zapotec and Güilá
Zapotec. It turns out that this abstract tonal contrast is also observed with breathy and modal vowels in
Quiaviní Zapotec. A breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec is always underspecified [Ø] ((67), (68)), and
thus the morphemes with a breathy vowel can always be assigned a high or rising tone due to the
progressive prefix (b) or the first person plural enclitic =an (c). A modal vowel with a low tone, on the
25
other hand, is always [+L] ((69), (70)), and thus the morphemes with a modal low vowel can never be
assigned the high or rising tone:23
BREATHY PROGRESSIVE ka(y)- 1PL =an
(67) a. r-aty b. kay-áty c. r-ǎty=en
HAB-die PROG-die HAB-die-1PL
“dies” (JC2011) “is dying” (PHL2011) “we die” (AML2011)
(68) a. r-as b. kay-ás c. r-dǎs=an24
HAB-chew PROG-chew HAB-chew-1PL
“chews” (JC2011) “is chewing” (PHL2011) “we chew” (AML2011)
MODAL PROGRESSIVE ka(y)- 1PL =an
(69) a. r-zhiez b. ká-zhiez c. r-zhiez=an
HAB-laugh PROG-laugh HAB-laugh-1PL
“laughs” (JC2011) “is laughing” (PHL2011) “we laugh” (AML2011)
(70) a. r-gieb b. ká-gieb c. r-gieb=an
HAB-sew PROG-sew HAB-sew-1PL
“sews” (AML2012) “is sewing” (PHL2011) “we sew” (AML2012)
This is in line with the analysis given in §2, that the breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec comes from
the original modal vowel with a low tone, and the modal low vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec comes from the
modal vowel with a rising tone, as is preserved in Güilá Zapotec. In Quiaviní Zapotec, the original low
tone has become [Ø], and the original rising tone has become [+L], irrespective of the phonation type.
3.3. Justification of the direction of the change
Again, the evidence for reconstructing a situation closer to Güilá Zapotec for Proto-Western Valley
Zapotec is the tonal behavior. That is, [+L] vowels always assign a high tone to the following morpheme
in Quiaviní Zapotec (when the following morpheme is not [+L]).
23 The cognates of the verb stems in (67) - (70) in Güilá Zapotec are as follows: (67) -aty, (68) -as, (69) -
sǐz, and (70) -gǐby (ALC1997). The irregular correspondence of the creaky vowel in Güilá Zapotec and
the breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec in (68) is unexplained. 24 Some verb stems alternate according the person, especially in the first person plural form (Munro et al.
2008:VI-2).
26
[+L] 2SG =u’ 3SG.PROX =anng
(71) a. r-ach b. r-ach=ú’ c. r-ach=ánng
HAB-LG.break HAB-LG.break=2SG HAB-LG.break=3SG.PROX
“LG breaks” (AML2012) “you break” (AML2012) “he breaks” (AML2012)
(72) a. r-dilly b. r-dilly=ú’ c. r-dilly=ánng
HAB-fight HAB-fight=2SG HAB-fight=3SG.PROX
“fights” (AML2012) “you fight” (AML2012) “he fights” (AML2012)
On the other hand, the stems with the underspecified tone [Ø] do not assign a high tone on the
following morpheme:
[Ø] 2SG =u’ 3SG.PROX =anng
(73) a. r-beky b. r-beky=u’ c. r-beky=anng
HAB-put.on.pants HAB-put.on.pants=2SG HAB-put.on.pants=3SG.PROX
“puts on pants” (AML2012) “you put on pants” (ibid.) “he puts on pants” (ibid.)
(74) a. r-dub b. r-dub=u’ c. r-dub=anng
HAB-sweep HAB-sweep=2SG HAB-sweep=3SG.PROX
“sweeps” (AML2012) “you sweep” (ibid.) “he sweeps” (ibid.)
As was discussed in §2.2.2, this is synchronically an arbitrary fact, but it is motivated if one
assumes that the [+L] comes from the original rising tone. That is, the original rising tone on a
monosyllable has been split into two portions: the low portion on this vowel, and the high portion which
is assigned to the following morpheme.
3.4. Summary
In this section, we have looked at the correspondences of laryngealized vowels in Güilá Zapotec
and Quiaviní Zapotec. I have shown that the overt tonal contrast between the low and rising tones in
Güilá Zapotec is neutralized in Quiaviní Zapotec, where both of these tones correspond to a phonetic low
tone (§3.1). However, when the morphemes with a laryngealized vowel are inflected, it turns out that
there are two classes of low tone in Quiaviní Zapotec, underspecified [Ø] and specified low [+L]. The
underspecified vowel corresponds to the low tone in Güilá Zapotec, while [+L] corresponds to the rising
tone in Güilá Zapotec (§3.2). I have further shown that Guilá Zapotec indeed preserves the original
27
situation, and that Quiaviní Zapotec has replaced the overt tonal contrast between the low and rising tones
with a covert tonal contrast between underspecified and [+L] tones (§3.3). This result confirms that an
underspecified tonal contrast can come from an overt tonal contrast, supporting claims of Hyman (2009:
117).
TABLE 9 summarizes the correspondences of laryngealized vowels between Güilá Zapotec and
Quiaviní Zapotec, along with the proposed proto-forms for Western Valley Zapotec:
TABLE 9. CORRESPONDENCES OF LARYNGEALIZED VOWELS
PROTO-WESTERN
VALLEY
GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
Laryngealized R
*-chǐch “make angry”
Laryngealized R
-chǐch
Laryngealized L [+L]
-chich
Laryngealized L
*-ban “steal”
Laryngealized L
-ban
Laryngealized L [Ø]
-ban
4. Discussion
TABLE 10 summarizes the discussions so far. For non-laryngealized vowels, Güilá modal rising
corresponds to the Quiaviní modal low, while Güilá modal low corresponds to Quiaviní breathy low. For
laryngealized vowels, Güilá rising tone corresponds to Quiaviní [+L], while Güilá low tone corresponds
to Quiaviní underspecified tone. In all of the cases I have argued that Güilá Zapotec preserves the
situation closer to that of the proto-language, and that Quiaviní Zapotec has replaced the overt tonal
contrast between the low and rising tones with a phonation contrast between the breathy and modal
vowels, and with a covert tonal contrast between the underspecified and [+L] tones. As such, Quiaviní
Zapotec represents a rare case of registrogenesis from an original tonal contrast.
28
TABLE 10. CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN GÜILÁ AND QUIAVINÍ ZAPOTEC
PROTO-WESTERN
VALLEY
GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
Modal R
*bǔny “person”
Modal R
bǔny
Modal L [+L]
buny
Modal L
*get “tortilla”
Modal L
get
Breathy L [Ø]
get
Laryngealized R
*-chǐch “make angry”
Laryngealized R
-chǐch
Laryngealized L [+L]
-chich
Laryngealized L
*-ban “steal”
Laryngealized L
-ban
Laryngealized L [Ø]
-ban
I have shown that Güilá Zapotec preserves the situation closer to the original, and that Quiaviní
Zapotec has undergone the change, by looking at the language-internal evidence within Quiaviní Zapotec,
such as the distribution of the phonation types (§2.2.1), the behavior of the tones (§2.2.2, §3.3), and the
phonation alternation (§2.2.3). Such a conclusion is also supported by comparative evidence. Within
Central Zapotec, two Zapotec varieties, Juchitán Zapotec and San Baltazar Chichicapan Zapotec, are
considered to be conservative, since they preserve the original C1V1C2V2 root template, while many other
Zapotec varieties have lost the unstressed V2 from this template. The cognates of the roots with the
underspecified [Ø] in Quiaviní Zapotec, which corresponds to a low tone in Güilá Zapotec, have a low
tone on both of the root syllables (CaCa) in Juchitán and Chichicapan Zapotec ((75), (76)). On the other
hand, the cognates of the roots with the [+L] tone in Quiaviní Zapotec, which correspond to a rising tone
in Güilá Zapotec, have a low tone on the first syllable and a rising tone on the second syllable of the root
(CaCǎ) in these conservative varieties ((77), (78)):25
25 The data for San Baltazar Chichicapan Zapotec is from Smith-Stark (2001, 2002), abbreviated here as
TSS; the data for Juchitán Zapotec is from Pickett et al. (2007), abbreviated here as VP. The data on
Juchitán and Chichicapan Zapotec is transcribed to conform to the notational conventions employed in
this paper, in order to facilitate the comparison.
29
JUCHITÁN CHICHICAPAN GÜILÁ QUIAVINÍ
(75) a. geta b. geta c. get d. get
“tortilla” “tortilla” “tortilla” “tortilla”
(VP2007: 13) (TSS2002: 47) (ALC1997: 51) (PHL2011)
(76) a. yaga b. yaga c. gyag d. gyag
“wood” “wood” “tree” “wood”
(VP2007: 44) (TSS2002: 27) (ALC1997: 57) (PHL2011)
(77) a. binnǐ b. bwɨnn26 c. bɨny d. buny
“person” “person” “person” “person”
(VP2007: 7) (TSS2002: 23) (ALC1997: 60) (PHL2011)
(78) a. ludzhǐ b. ludzǐ c. lǔzh=ba d. luzh
“tongue” “tongue” “tongue=3SG” “tongue”
(VP2007: 18) (TSS2002: 28) (SK2010) (AML2012)
TABLE 11 summarizes the correspondences among these varieties:
TABLE 11. CORRESPONDENCES OF JUCHITÁN, CHICHICAPAN, GÜILÁ AND QUIAVINÍ.
JUCHITÁN, CHICHICAPAN GUILÁ QUIAVINÍ
CaCa CaC CaC [Ø]
CaCǎ CǎC CaC [+L]
Comparison with Juchitán and Chichicapan Zapotec further supports the direction of the change
from the system closer to that in Güilá Zapotec to the system in Quiaviní Zapotec; both of these
conservative varieties have the tonal contrast between low and rising tones, as is observed in Güilá
Zapotec. The only difference from Güilá Zapotec is that the tonal contrast is realized on the V2 in these
varieties, while in Güilá Zapotec the contrast is realized on the only vowel of the stem. We can assume
that the tones on V2 have migrated to V1, when the unstressed V2 disappeared in Güilá Zapotec.
What, then, motivated the emergence of the breathy voice in Quiaviní Zapotec? A clue is found in
the variety spoken in Teotitlán del Valle, spoken just 20 km west of San Lucas Quiaviní. The tone and
phonation system of this variety is almost identical to that of San Lucas Quiaviní. However, Teotitlán
Zapotec is lacking the breathy vowel, and instead has a modal lowfall tone, which starts at the same pitch
26 In Chichicapan Zapotec, the V2 of the original C1V1C2V2 root template is dropped when the C2 was n
(Smith-Stark 2002).
30
level as the low level tone, but falls even lower (cf. Mendoza Bautista 2014). Thus, here the contrast
between the original low and rising tones in Güilá Zapotec is replaced by the contrast between the lowfall
((79), (80)) and low level tones ((81), (82)). In the following the lowfall tone in Teotitlán Zapotec is
represented by the grave accent mark à, and the low level tone is unmarked:
JUCHITÁN GÜILÁ TEOTITLÁN QUIAVINÍ
(79) a. geta b. get c. gɛt27 d. get
“tortilla” “tortilla” “tortilla” “tortilla”
(VP2007: 13) (ALC1997: 51) (MDS, AGL2015) (PHL2011)
(80) a. benda b. beld c. bɛll d. bell
“fish” “fish” “fish” “fish”
(VP2007: 4) (ALC1997: 50) (MDS, AGL2015) (AML, PHL2011)
(81) a. bendǎ b. běld c. bɛll d. bell
“woman’s sister’ “woman’s sister” “woman’s sister” “woman’s sister”
(VP2007: 4) (ALC1997: 23) (MDS, AGL2015) (AML2012)
(82) a. danǐ b. dǎny c. dany d. dany
“hill” “hill” “hill” “hill, mountain”
(VP2007: 10) (ALC1997: 202) (MDS, AGL2015) (PHL, JC2011)
Here I suggest that the emergence of the breathy vowel in Quiaviní Zapotec serves to enhance the
(subtle) tonal contrast between the lowfall and low level tones as is observed in Teotitlán Zapotec. In
Teotitlán Zapotec, a speaker (AGL) reported that the tonal contrast between the lowfall and low level
tones is difficult to hear in certain phonological environments, especially before a fortis plosive. The
breathiness helps to identify the tonal contrast in such environments. In fact, even in Teotitlán Zapotec, a
modal vowel with a lowfall tone, as in (79) or (80) above, have a slight breathiness depending on the
speaker and the context, although it is not as remarkable as in Quiaviní Zapotec. We could suppose that
Quiaviní Zapotec has gone through the Teotitlán stage, where the contrast was still tonal (between lowfall
and low level), and developed the breathy vowel to enhance the subtle tonal contrast between the two. An
experimental study examining whether the breathiness, and not the fundamental frequency, is indeed the
27 The data on Teotitlán Zapotec was collected in Teotitlán del Valle in July 2015, from two speakers,
MDS, a female speaker over the age of 40, and Ambrocio Gutiérrez Lorenzo (AGL), a speaker-linguist at
University of Texas at Austin (male, 32 years old).
31
primary cue in Quiaviní Zapotec, would confirm the phonologization of the breathiness in Quiaviní
Zapotec.
The lowfall tone could have accompanied creakiness, which is crosslinguistically a common
correlate of a falling tone (Hombert et al. 1979), but this option was not available in the case of the
Zapotec varieties under discussion, since the creakiness was already contrastive in these varieties. It could
be the case that the breathy vowel is due to contact with the neighboring Mixe-Zoquean languages, which
are genetically unrelated but has a breathy vowel (Romero-Méndez 2008).
5. Conclusion
I have argued that Quiaviní Zapotec has replaced an original overt tonal contrast between the low
and rising tones, as is preserved in Güilá Zapotec, with a phonation contrast between the breathy and
modal vowels (§2), and with a covert tonal contrast between the underspecified [Ø] and [+L] tones (§3).
This can be viewed as a rare instance of registrogenesis from a tonal contrast.
Even though the emergence of a phonation contrast from an original tonal contrast, as is observed
in Quiaviní Zapotec, is not widely reported, all of the phonological changes Quiaviní Zapotec has gone
through are phonetically natural. Fortunately, each stage of such phonological changes is represented by
various modern Central Zapotec varieties. In Proto-Central Zapotec, the majority of the disyllabic roots
had the low-low pattern (CaCa), as in *geta “tortilla” or the low-rising pattern (CaCǎ), as in *danǐ “hill”
although rising-low (CǎCa)28 and rising-rising (CǎCǎ) patterns were also found, albeit more rarely. This
is the pattern faithfully preserved in Juchitán or San Baltazar Chichicapan Zapotec (Stage 1, (83a), (84a)).
At this stage, the high tone did not participate much in the tonal system, and the rising tone was already
commoner than the high tone. It could be the case that the rising tone came from the original high tone in
Pre-Proto Central Zapotec, which resulted from the delay of the pitch rise of the original high tone. This
could possibly be due to the requirement that tone and non-modal phonation be sequenced with respect to
one another, in order to maximize the contrast of both (Silverman 1997). In the next step, the unaccented
28 This is the source of the rising tone in Quiaviní Zapotec. For instance, zhǔb ‘dried corn kernel’
(PHL2011) in Quiaviní Zapotec corresponds to zhǒba (TSS2002: 28) in Chichicapan Zapotec.
32
V2 of the original disyllabic root was lost, as in many other Zapotec varieties, and the tones on the
original V2 migrated to the V1, to preserve the original tonal contrast (*geta > get “tortilla”vs. *danǐ >
dǎny “hill”). This migration of tone is also natural, due to the ‘stability’ of the tones (Goldsmith 1990).
This stage is what we find in modern Güilá Zapotec (Stage 2, (83b), (84b)). Subsequently, the pitch rise
of the rising tone started to delay further, to the point where the high portion is not realized until the next
syllable. The low tone in Stage 2 may already have had a pitch fall towards the end, which was
phonologized as a lowfall tone to preserve the contrast with the original rising tone, which resulted in the
low (level) tone. In this way, the tonal contrast between the low and rising tone was replaced by the
contrast between the lowfall and low level tones (*geta > get > gèt “tortilla”vs. *danǐ > dǎny > dany-V
“hill”). This is the pattern observed in modern Teotitlán Zapotec (Stage 3, (83c), (84c)). Lastly, the tonal
contrast between the lowfall and low level tones were felt to be too subtle by the speakers, at least in
certain environments, and the lowfall tone started to be accompanied by breathiness, to enhance the
contrast with the low level tone. This breathiness was later phonologized and completely replaced the
tonal contrast (*geta > get > gèt > get “tortilla”vs. *danǐ > dǎny > dany-V “hill”). This is the current
situation in Quiaviní Zapotec ((83d), (84d)).
STAGE1 STAGE2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4
JUCHITÁN GÜILÁ TEOTITLÁN QUIAVINÍ
(83) a. CaCa > b. CaC > c. CàC > d. CahC
geta “tortilla” get gɛt get
(84) a. CaCǎ > b. CǎC > c. CaC(-á) > d. CaC(-á)
danǐ “hill” dǎny dany dany
The case of Quiaviní Zapotec is not a simple case of ‘tonoexodus’, where the tonal contrast is
simply lost, as in some Chinese varieties or Swahili (Ratliff 2015), since the original tonal contrast is
maintained in other types of contrast, that is the phonation contrast as well as the abstract tonal contrast.
In fact, to the contrary, we have seen throughout this paper that Quiaviní Zapotec manifests strong
tonality, despite its abstract nature. If one just looks at the surface lexical tone in isolation in Quiaviní
Zapotec, the tone does not appear to have a high functional load (cf. K. Pike 1948: 7, Munro & Lopez
33
1999), since most of the roots have a phonetic low tone. However, the tonal contrast emerges when these
roots are inflected, or when another word is placed after them. This fact confirms the deep tonal character
of Quiaviní Zapotec: this abstract tonal contrast cannot be predicted from other features (such as
phonation type) and thus the information about pitch needs to be in the lexical realization of the
morphemes, which is the definition of tone (Hyman 1996).
ABBREVIATIONS
CMP: completive
HAB: habitual
LG: long
PL: plural
PROG: progressive
PROX: proximate
SG: singular
REFERENCES
Andruski, Jean & Martha Ratliff. 2000. Phonation types in production of phonological tone: the case of
Green Mong. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30. 37-61.
Arellanes, Francisco. 2009. El sistema fonológico y las propiedades fonéticas del Zapoteco de San Pablo
Güilá. Ph.D. dissertation, El Colegio de México.
Arellanes, Francisco & Sofía Gabriela Morales Camacho. 2013. Posesión nominal en el zapoteco de
Tierra Blanca. ms.
Avelino, Heriberto. 2004. Topics in Yalálag Zapotec, with particular reference to its phonetic structures.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Benton, Joe. 2003. A reconstruction of the tone system of Proto Central Zapotec. ms.
Bickmore, Lee & George A. Broadwell. 1998. High tone docking in Sierra Juarez Zapotec. International
Journal of American Linguistics 64: 37-67.
Blankenship, Barbara. 2002. The timing of nonmodal phonation in vowels. Journal of Phonetics 30. 163-
191.
34
Briggs, Elinor. 1961. Mitla Zapotec Grammar. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano and Centro
de Investigaciones Antropológicas de México.
Broadwell, Aaron. 2015. The historical development of the progressive aspect in Central Zapotec.
International Journal of American Linguistics 81.151-85.
Brunelle, Marc. 2009. Tone perception in Northern and Southern Vietnamese. Journal of Phonetics 37.
79–96.
Chávez Peón, Mario E. 2010. The interaction of metrical structure, tone and phonation types in Quiaviní
Zapotec. Ph.D. dissertation, the University of British Columbia.
DiCanio, Christian. 2012. Coarticulation between tone and glottal consonants in Itunyoso Trique. Journal
of Phonetics 40. 162-176.
Diffloth, Gérard. 1982. Registres, dévoisement, timbre vocalique: leur histoire en katouique. The Mon-
Khmer Studies Journal 11. 47-82.
Esposito, Christina. 2010. Variation in contrastive phonation in Santa Ana del Valle Zapotec. Journal of
the International Phonetic Association, 40.2:181-198.
Garellek, Marc, & Patricia Keating. 2011. The acoustic consequences of phonation and tone interactions
in Jalapa Mazatec. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41. 185–205.
Garellek, Marc, Patricia Keating, Christina Esposito & Jody Kreiman. 2013. Voice quality and tone
identification in White Hmong. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133. 1078–1089.
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Haudricourt, André-George. 1954. De lórigine des tons en vietnamien. Journal Asiatique 242. 69-82.
Hombert , Jean-Marie, John J. Ohala & William G. Ewan. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the
development of tones. Language 55. 37-58.
Hyman, Larry. 1996. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23. 225-257.
Hyman, L. 2009. The representation of tone. In UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2009), 108-
132
Jaeger, Jeri. 1983. The Fortis/Lenis Question: Evidence from Zapotec and Jawoñ. Journal of Phonetics 11.
177-89.
Kingston, John. 2011. Tonogenesis. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice eds.
Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2304-2334. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.
López Cruz, Ausencia. 1997. Morfología verbal del zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá. Tesis de licenciatura,
Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
35
Mazaudon, Martine & Alexis Michaud. 2008. Tonal contrasts and initial consonants: a case study of
Tamang, a “missing link” in tonogenesis. Phonetica 65. 231–256.
Mendoza Bautista, Zeferino C. 2014. Resultados del 3er Curso-Taller de tonos sobre Lenguas
Otomangues, Teotitlán del Valle. Paper presented at the 3er Curso-Taller de tonos sobre Lenguas
Otomangues.
Munro, Pamela & Felipe H. Lopez, with Olivia V. Méndez [Martínez], Rodrigo Garcia, & Michael R.
Galant. 1999. Di'csyonaary X:tèe'n Dìi'zh Sah Sann Lu'uc (San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec Dictionary /
Diccionario Zapoteco de San Lucas Quiaviní). Los Angeles: (UCLA) Chicano Studies Research Center
Publications.
Nellis, Donald G. & Barbara E. Hollenbach. 1980. Fortis versus Lenis in Cajonos Zapotec Phonology.
International Journal of American Linguistics 46. 92-105.
Pham, Andrea Hoa. 2005. Vietnamese tonal system in Nghi Loc: A preliminary report. Toronto Working
Papers in Linguistics 24. 183-201.
Pickett, Velma et al. 2007. Vocabulario zapoteco del Istmo. Español-zapoteco y zapoteco-español. Quinta
Edición. México, D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, A.C.
Pike, Eunice. 1948. Problems in Zapotec tone analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics 14.
161-170.
Pike, Kenneth. 1948. Tone Languages: A Technique for Determining the Number and Type of Pitch
Contrasts in a Langugage, with Studies in Tonemic Substitution and Fusion. University of Michigan
Publications in Linguistics, No.4. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ratliff, Martha. 2015. Tonoexodus, Tonogenesis, and Tone Change. In Patrick Honeybone and Joseph
Salmons eds., The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, 245-261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Romero-Méndez, Rodrigo. 2009. A reference grammar of Ayutla-Mixe. Ph.D. dissertation, University at
Buffalo.
Sicoli, Mark. 2007. Tono: A linguistics ethnography of tone and voice in a Zapotec region. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan.
Sicoli, Mark & Terrence Kaufman. 2010. The Zapotec & Chatino Language Archive.
Silverman, Daniel. 1997. Laryngeal complexity in Otomanguean vowels. Phonology 14. 235-61.
Smith-Stark, Thomas. 2001. Las clases verbales del zapoteco de Chichicapan. In Las actas del VI
Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, t. II, 165-212. Memorias, Hermosillo,
Universidad de Sonora.
Smith-Stark, Thomas. 2002. Tipos prosódicos de sílabas en el zapoteco de San Baltasar Chichicapan. ms.
36
Smith-Stark, Thomas. 2007. Algunas isoglosas zapotecas. In Cristina Buenrostro et al. eds., Clasificación
de las lenguas indígenas de México: Memorias del III Coloquio Internacional De Lingüística Mauricio
Swadesh, 69-133. México, D.F.: UNAM-INALI.
Thurgood, G. 1996. Language contact and the directionality of internal drift: the development of tones
and registers in Chamic. Language 72. 1-31.
Wayland, Ratree & Allard Jongman. Registrogenesis in Khmer: A phonetic account. Mon-Khmer Studies
32. 101-115.
Zhang, Jie. 2004. The role of contrast-specific and language-specific phonetics in contour tone
distribution. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade eds., Phonetically Based Phonology,
157-190. New York: Cambridge University Press..
Hiroto Uchihara
Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas
Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Circuito Mario de la Cueva
Ciudad Universitaria, 04510, México, D.F.
e-mail: [email protected]
