Abstract
Tonosyntax in the Dogon languages of Mali is characterized by word-level tone overlays that apply in specific morphosyntactic contexts. This paper focuses on the resolution of competitions that arise when a word is targeted by more than one tone overlay. For example, in Poss N Adj the possessor and the adjective compete to impose their respective tone overlays on (at least) the noun, and Dogon languages show different outcomes. We argue that overlays are tonal morphemes associated with particular syntactic positions and propose a series of phrasal Optimality Theoretic constraints, grounded in syntactic structure, that control the association of these morphemes. The relative ranking of constraints determines the outcome of tonosyntactic competitions in a given language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Here and elsewhere, tonal overlays are indicated both by tone marking on the word (using acute accent for H and grave accent for L) and by a superscript of the melody, located on the right side of the target if it is controlled from the right and on the left side of the target if it is controlled from the left. For example, the superscript L in (b) indicates a {L} tone overlay from the adjective on the right. The segmental transcription system is roughly IPA, with the following differences: <j> stands for IPA [
], <y> stands for IPA [j], <r> stands for IPA [
]; nasalization is marked with a superscript n (vn); vowel and consonant length is marked by doubling the letter.Verbal tone patterns in Tommo So, as in most Dogon languages, display only a /H/ vs. /LH/ contrast, which is largely predictable based on the initial segment.
The following abbreviations pertain to possessors: Poss = possessor, P = pronominal, I = inalienable, A = alienable. Thus, PossIP is an inalienable pronominal possessor, while PossNonP is a nonpronominal possessor (with undetermined alienability).
In phrase-final position, toneless elements interpolate between the preceding specified tone and a phrase-final L boundary tone, producing a linearly falling F0. While this phonetic realization on a single syllable resembles a specified L tone (which is subject to some carryover from a preceding H), the difference emerges with two or more syllables: underspecified syllables show linear interpolation across the whole sequence, while L-toned syllables reach the L target (typically) by the end of the first syllable. See McPherson (2011) for further discussion. We know that {L} overlays are specified for L tone since the word carrying the overlay is realized as a stretch of level L rather than displaying the interpolation characteristic of underspecification.
Again, domains could be defined in terms of the semantic scope of reference restricters rather than syntactic structure. Assuming that semantics is compositional, these arguments are equivalent. We present a syntactic analysis in this paper for the sake of concreteness.
Tommo So has an optional suffix -go on numerals that we gloss here as an adverbial suffix, since it is found in pairs like
‘big’ vs. 
‘a lot’. Consultants report no difference in meaning when it is added to a numeral.The placement of adjectives and numerals in functional projections (ModP and #P, respectively), rather than adjoining them to the NP or placing them on the spine is meant to capture their potentially phrasal nature (“very skinny”, “only three”, etc.). This move is not crucial, and the same results would hold in a model with spinal AdjP and NumP.
A reviewer asks whether any purely syntactic arguments support the proposed structural positions. The most common syntactic argument stems from word order; unfortunately, the DP structure of Dogon languages is such that no differences can be found: possessors are the only modifiers to precede the noun, so both are noun-adjacent. Given the consistent parallel between syntactic structure and domains of tonal overlays across the languages, we take the domains of tone control in the case of possessors to be strong evidence for the positions proposed.
For further evidence of this structural account, we might look to cases of coordination, for example [[N and N] Adj] or [[[N] Adj and Adj] Dem], to see if a controller is capable of imposing its overlay on all words in a c-commanded constituent. Unfortunately, Dogon languages avoid these structures, coordinating DPs rather than NPs (e.g. ‘[N Adj] and [N Adj]’) and stacking rather than coordinating adjectives. To pursue this issue, it will be necessary to consider relative clauses with conjoined subject NPs that cannot be separated, as in ‘the men and women who quarreled’, but this would take us too far afield to consider here.
Here, it is clear why binary branching is crucial: if modifiers like adjectives and numerals were sisters to the noun and ternary branching were allowed, then the adjective would symmetrically c-command the noun, but also symmetrically c-command the numeral, yet a following numeral is never subject to adjectival tone overlays in any Dogon language.
In all likelihood, this syntactic position (DP in the specifier of PossP) is always associated with tone control and the alienable pronominal possessor falls in a different projection like an appositive phrase (AppP). We do not explore the syntax of alienable pronominal possessors further here.
The Jamsay example in (17b) contains an idiosyncratic segmental change on the possessed noun, with final /e/ changing to [u] when possessed. A construction-based account, along the lines of that proposed in McPherson (2014), is able to handle cases of lexical idiosyncrasies by using sub-schemas that specify a particular lexical item instead of a syntactic category like N. Note that
in Tommo So refers to a paternal uncle (younger than the father), while 
and 
refer to a maternal uncle (cf. Tommo So cognate 
).While we analyze the overlays as tonal morphemes, with the phenomenon under the heading of morphology, the analysis does not hinge crucially on these definitions. An alternative approach would be to treat the overlays as only tones whose distribution is determined by syntactic information, i.e. tonosyntax proper. This is a larger debate about how to characterize phrasal phonological alternations with little perceived meaning that goes beyond the scope of this paper.
An alternative analysis, following Heath and McPherson (2013), would be to propose a unifying feature [RR] for “reference restriction”. Different syntactic categories would trigger different allomorphs of this feature ({L} from an adjective, {H} from a pronominal possessor, etc.). Such a morphosemantic feature has not, to our knowledge, been proposed in the literature, but Dogon could give evidence for it. The problem with using a single feature like [RR] is that there would be no competitions; while different controllers may impose different allomorphs of the [RR] morpheme, any allomorph would satisfy the need to realize the morpheme. This is not what we find.
Importantly, the same is true even if a controller has taken its own overlay in a process we call “self-control”; see Sect. 6.2 for discussion.
Additionally, the grammar would contain a c-command constraint for a relative clause, XL Rel, but in the interest of space, we do not consider such forms in this paper.
It may be that these constraints can be decomposed into a constraint defining the domain of application and another phonological constraint like Align determining how the tonal morpheme is mapped to TBUs. As the issue of mapping is somewhat orthogonal to our main point (application of and competition between overlays), we do not address it further here.
Thank you to Byron Ahn for bringing this syntactic vs. phonological distinction to our attention.
Following the usual conventions, {L} superscripted on the left is the instantiation of [+Poss], while {L} superscripted on the right is the instantiation of [+Mod].
Possession here is inalienable, but the same bracketing holds of alienable possessors, which are also c-commanded by the demonstrative. If the competing controller is an adjective, however, then this configuration only applies to an inalienable possessor, i.e. [[PossI N] Adj] but [PossA [N Adj]].
Ben Tey has very complicated rules of tonal allomorphy for the possessive overlay, relying on details of both syntactic structure of the possessor and on its final tone. For the sake of simplicity, we demonstrate just one case, where the overlay is {HL}. For description of the other allomorphs, see Heath and McPherson (2013: exs. 13–16).
The possibility for the animate singular suffix on the noun is left out for the sake of illustration.
In these examples, it is clear that a {HL} overlay is realized across a stretch of words rather than iteratively on each word.
The adjacency requirement must be applied to domains and not individual words, since in a multi-word domain such as Poss T{N Adj}, the adjective is non-adjacent but the form is not penalized, because the overlay domain is adjacent to the possessor.
Surface linearity is sufficient for the data set explored here. Relative clauses may necessitate structural locality or a movement analysis rather than strict linear order.
Alternatively, we could posit a {L} overlay from the demonstrative on the already L-toned classifier
, but this would mean that the demonstrative has controlled only part of the possessive DP, violating not only phase-based faithfulness but also the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2000), by which the spelled out material loses internal syntactic structure.Only inalienable possessors can receive overlays. This is arguably due to Linearity, since nonpronominal alienable possessors are all followed by a possessive particle mà, making them non-adjacent. A counterexample to this is that Jamsay alienable pronominal possessors are not followed by mà, yet they too cannot receive overlays from other controllers, nor do they impose overlays themselves. 1sg alienable possessor má could possibly have resulted from fusion of an original H-toned pronominal morpheme with possessive ∗mà, in which case this combination would have been consistent with a Linearity-based explanation. However, the broader history of Dogon possessive pronominals is not yet clear, and we leave the behavior of Jamsay alienable possessors as an outstanding problem.
The tableaux for Yorno So contain one extra constraint, X L Num/Poss, which accounts for a data pattern in which a numeral gains the ability to impose {L} on c-commanded words when a possessor is present. This pattern is unique to Yorno So in the set of languages considered here, but the data pattern is mirrored in other Dogon languages. For maximum comparability, we use the entire proposed constraint set for each language even if one or more the constraints may be unnecessary for that particular language. Section 3 of the OTSoft output lists whether constraints are necessary or unnecessary in the grammar.
For a possible diachronic explanation for such “spreading” and “non-spreading” languages, see McPherson (2014).
Thank you to Abbie Hantgan for collecting this example, from the Kindige dialect of Najamba-Kindige.
], <y> stands for IPA [j], <r> stands for IPA [
]; nasalization is marked with a superscript n (vn); vowel and consonant length is marked by doubling the letter.
‘big’ vs. 
‘a lot’. Consultants report no difference in meaning when it is added to a numeral.
in Tommo So refers to a paternal uncle (younger than the father), while 
and 
refer to a maternal uncle (cf. Tommo So cognate 
).
, but this would mean that the demonstrative has controlled only part of the possessive DP, violating not only phase-based faithfulness but also the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky References
Agren, John. 1973. Etude sur quelques liaisons facultatives dans le francais de conversation radiophonique: frequence et facteurs. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Ahn, Byron, and Laura McPherson. 2015, in preparation. It’s just a phase: A model of phonological adjustments to spelled-out material. Ms. BU and Dartmouth College.
Alderete, John D. 2001. Dominance effects as trans-derivational faithfulness. Phonology 18: 201–253.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors. In From NP to DP: The expression of possession in noun phrases, eds. Martine Coene and Yves D’Hulst, 167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. In Variation, change, and phonological theory, eds. Frans Hinskens, Roeland van Hout, and W. Leo Wetzels, 35–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 1–42.
Anttila, Arto, and Young-mee Yu Cho. 1998. Variation and change in optimality theory. Lingua 104: 31–56.
Aronoff, Mark, and Zheng Xu. 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to affix ordering. Morphology 20: 381–411.
Beam de Azcona, Rosemary. 2004. Introducing San Agustín Mixtepec Zapotec. In Proceedings of the 7th workshop on American indigenous languages, ed. Jany Carmen.
Bee, Darlene, and Kathleen Barker Glasgow. 1973. Usarufa tone and segmental phonemes. In The languages of the eastern family of the East Highland New Guinea stock, ed. Howard McKaughan. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Blench, Roger. 2005. A survey of Dogon languages in Mali: An overview. OGMIOS: Newsletter of the Foundation for Endangered Languages 3: 14–15.
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. London: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert, and Dann de Jong. 1987. The domain of liaison: Theories and data. Linguistics 25: 1005–1025.
Borsley, Robert D., and Maggie Tallerman. 1996. Phrases and soft mutation in Welsh. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 5: 1–49.
Bybee, Joan. 1995. La liaison: Effets de fréquence et constructions. Langages 158: 24–37.
Caballero, Gabriela, and Sharon Inkelas. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23: 103–143.
Cassimjee, Farida, and Charles Kisseberth. 1998. Optimal Domains Theory and Bantu tonology: A case study from Isixhosa and Shingazidja 33–132. CSLI Publications.
Chen, Matthew Y. 2000. Tone sandhi: Patterns across Chinese dialects. Vol. 92 of Cambridge studies in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Chomsky, Noam, Morris Halle, and Fred Lukoff. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. In For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, eds. Morris Halle, Horace Lunta, and Hugh McLean, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2011. On double-headed relative clauses. Linguistica 6: 67–91.
Cole-Beuchat, Phyllis Doris. 1961. The qualificative and the pronoun in Tsonga. African Studies 20: 175–193.
Culy, Christopher. 1990. The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.
Dobler, Eva. 2008. The morpho-phonology of (in)alienable possession. In Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA).
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Espanol-Echevarría, Manuel. 1997. Inalienable possession in copulative contexts and the DP-structure. Lingua 101: 211–244.
Golston, Chris. 1990. Floating H (and L*) tones in Ancient Greek. In Arizona phonology conference III, eds. James Myers and Patricia E. Pérez, 66–82. Tucson: University of Arizona Linguistics Department.
Gouskova, Maria. 2007. The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24: 367–396.
Green, Antony D. 2006. The independence of phonology and morphology: The Celtic mutations. Lingua 116: 1946–1985.
Green, John N., and Marie-Anne Hintze. 1988. A reconsideration of liaison and enchainement. In Occasional papers, 136–168. University of Essex: Department of Languages and Linguistics.
Halle, Morris, and Michael Kenstowicz. 1991. The free element condition and cyclic the free element condition and cyclic vs. non-cyclic stress. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 457–501.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chap. 3.
Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4: 3–9.
Harry, Otelemate, and Larry Hyman. 2014. Phrasal construction tonology: The case of Kalabari. Studies in Language 38(4): 649–689.
Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw. 2013. Otsoft 2.3.2 (software package). http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2008. Grammar of Jamsay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2011a. A Grammar of Najamba. Unpublished grammar ms., December 2011 version, available on www.dogonlanguages.org.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2011b. A Grammar of Yorno So. Unpublished grammar ms., May 2011 version, available on www.dogonlanguages.org.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2012a. A Grammar of Bunoge. Unpublished grammar ms., April 2012 version, available on www.dogonlanguages.org.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2012b. A Grammar of Tiranige. Unpublished grammar ms.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2013. A Grammar of Nanga. Unpublished grammar ms., June 2013 version, available on www.dogonlanguages.org.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2015a. A Grammar of Ben Tey. Language Description Heritage Library. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0028-1AEF-7.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2015b. A Grammar of Togo Kan. Language Description Heritage Library. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0028-1B41-5.
Heath, Jeffrey. 2015c. A Grammar of Toro Tegu. Language Description Heritage Library. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0027-7643-7.
Heath, Jeffrey, and Laura McPherson. 2013. Tonosyntax and reference restriction in Dogon NPs. Language 89: 265–296.
Hetzron, R. 1980. Hungarian tonosyntax. Nyelvtudom anyi Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 104: 389.
Holmberg, Anders, and David Odden. 2008. The noun phrase in Hawrami. In Aspects of Iranian linguistics, eds. Simin Karimi, S. Vida Samiian, and Donald Stilo, 129–152. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study of dominance effects. In Yearbook of morphology, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle. Vol. 1997, 121–155. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jurgec, Peter. 2010. Disjunctive lexical stratification. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 45: 149–161.
Kathol, Andreas. 2003. Cooperating constructions in Lai “lexical insertion”. In Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG03), ed. Stefan Müller. Michigan State University, East Lansing: CSLI Publications.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. Lexical phonology of Sanskrit word accent. In Amrtādhāra: R.N. Dandekar felicitation volume, ed. S.D. Joshi, 201–210. Delhi: Ajanta Publications.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2: 83–138.
Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata, and Paul Smolensky. 1990. Harmonic grammar—A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations, Technical report, University of Boulder, CO.
Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249.
Loving, Richard. 1973. Awa phonemes, tonemes and tonally differentiated allomorphs. In The languages of the eastern family of the East Highland New Guinea stock, ed. Howard McKaughan, 10–18. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2010. Derivational affixes as roots (phasal spellout meets English stress shift). Ms., Université Paris-Diderot and CNRS.
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McCarthy, John, and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 24, ed. Merce Gonzalez, 333–379. Amherst: GLSA.
McHugh, Brian. 1990. Cyclicity in the phrasal phonology of Kivunjo Chaga, Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.
McPherson, Laura. 2011. Tonal underspecification and interpolation in Tommo So, Master’s thesis, UCLA.
McPherson, Laura. 2013a. A grammar of Tommo So. In MGL 62, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
McPherson, Laura. 2013b. The structural origins of tonal overlays in Tommo So (Dogon) compounds. Journal of West African Languages 40.
McPherson, Laura. 2014. Replacive grammatical tone in the Dogon languages, Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.
Michaels, Jennifer. 2013. To alternate or not to alternate: What is the boundary? In North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 40, eds. Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, and Robert Staubs.
Morin, Yves-Charles, and Jonathan D. Kaye. 1982. The syntactic bases for French liaison. Journal of Linguistics 18: 291–330.
Myers, Scott, and Troi Carleton. 1996. Tonal transfer in Chichewa. Phonology 13: 39–72.
Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Newman, Paul. 1986. Tone and affixation in Hausa. Studies in African Linguistics 17: 249–267.
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ní Chiosaín, Máire. 1991. Topics in the phonology of Irish, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Odden, David. 1990. C-command or edges in Makonde. Phonology 7: 163–169.
Odden, David. 1993. Interaction between modules in lexical phonology. In Phonetics and phonology 4: Studies in lexical phonology, eds. Ellen Kaisse and Sharon Hargus. San Diego: Academic Press.
Orgun, Cemil Orhan, and Sharon Inkelas. 2002. Reconsidering bracket erasure. In Yearbook of morphology 2001.
Pak, Marjorie. 2008. The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 237–274.
Pater, Joe. 2007. The locus of exceptionality: Morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In University of Massachusetts occasional working papers in linguistics 32: Papers in optimality theory III, eds. Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly, and Adam Werle, 259–296. Amherst: GLSA.
Pater, Joe. 2010. Morpheme-specific phonology: Constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, eds. John McCarthy and Joe Pater, 123–154. London: Equinox Publishing.
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Piggott, Glyne, and Heather Newell. 2006. Syllabification, stress and derivation by phase in ojibwa. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20.
Prince, Alan. 1975. The phonology and morphology of Tiberian Hebrew, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Colorado: Rutgers University and the University of Boulder.
Riehemann, Susanne. 2001. A constructional approach to words and idioms, Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011, to appear. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory. doi:10.1002/9781444343069.ch14.
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the structure of constraint component con of ug. Talk given at UCLA [ROA-86].
Smolensky, Paul. 2006. Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, eds. Paul Smolensky and Géraldine Legendre. Vol. 2, 27–160. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Smolensky, Paul, and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Steriade, Donca. 1988. Greek accent: A case for preserving structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 271–314.
Suzuki, Takeru. 1997. A theory of lexical functors: Light heads in the lexicon and the syntax, Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Colombia.
Šurkalović, Dragana. 2013. Modularity, phase-phase faithfulness, and prosodification of function words in English. In A festschrift on the occasion of x years of CASTL phonology and Curt Rice’s Lth birthday, eds. Sylvia Blaho, Martin Krämer, and Bruce Morén-Duolljá. Vol. 40 of Nordlyd, 301–322. University of Tromsø.
Tesar, Bruce, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. The learnability of Optimality Theory: An algorithm and some basic complexity results. ROA.
Trommer, Jochen. 2011. Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology, Doctoral Dissertation, Unversität Leipzig.
Trommer, Jochen, and Eva Zimmermann. 2011. Overwriting as optimization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 561–580.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell out. In Working minimalism, eds. Samual Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wolf, Matthew. 2007. For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In University of Massachusetts occasional working papers in linguistics 32: Papers in optimality theory III, eds. Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly, and Adam Werle, 315–404. GLSA.
Xu, Zheng. 2011. Optimality theory and morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 466–484.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Bruce Hayes, Russell Schuh, Kie Zuraw, Larry Hyman, Anoop Mahajan, Laura Kalin, Byron Ahn, Hilda Koopman, and audiences at UCLA, UC Berkeley, ACAL 44, OCP 10, and AIMM 2 for helpful comments and feedback in the development of this topic. This paper has also benefited immensely from the thoughtful comments of the editor and three anonymous reviewers; any errors that remain are strictly our own. We gratefully acknowledge the funding of NSF grants BCS-0537435 (2006-09), BCS-0853364 (2009-13), and BCS-1263150 (2013-16) that made this research possible, as well as the Fulbright Foundation and the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (first author). Finally, we would like to thank our many Dogon consultants for sharing their languages with us.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below are the links to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McPherson, L., Heath, J. Phrasal grammatical tone in the Dogon languages. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 34, 593–639 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9309-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9309-5