Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie
linguistlist.org>
Wannemacher, Mark W. 1998 Aspects of Zaiwa Prosody: an Autosegmental Account. Summer Institute of Linguistics/University of Texas at Arlington, viii,160 pp. $29 International Academic Bookstore (SIL) 972-708-7404 / academic_booksMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesil.org reviewed by Jakob Dempsey, Yuan-ze University Modern linguistics is a collection of many disciplines, but it still owes much to its origins in comparative and descriptive studies centered on the great Indo-European language-family. The only other language-group of comparable size, both in number of speakers and certainly in number of languages, is the Sino-Tibetan group, but modern linguistic studies are still in the beginning stages for many of the hundreds of languages in this group. Zaiwa is a rather typical representative of the Tibeto-Burman(TB) super- group, belonging within the relatively well-studied Yipo-Burmic group to the Northern Burmish sub-group, thus with close affinities to Burmese. Although Zaiwa is the best-documented among the known members of its sub-group (including Maru [=Longwo/Langsu], Bola, Letsi and the Achang dialects), Wannemacher's volume is its first detailed phonological study. Of added interest to many readers is the autosegmental analysis and feature-geometry which W. (Wannemacher) uses to explain the data he has gathered. The book starts with an introduction to Tibeto- Burman languages and Zaiwa's position in that large group, with family-tree diagrams from 4 different authorities; I find it strange that our author relies most on the oldest version (Shafer) constructed with the least data available. Among the general features of TB languages, he mentions phonemic tones and voice quality contrast, "two phonological traits that apparently developed independently." I wish he had explained this more, since I have often seen a close relationship between the two in both the Sinitic and TB side of Sino-Tibetan. After an outline of W's methodology and focus of the research in the following chapters, we come to chapter 2, devoted to previous studies of Zaiwa phonology. Syllable structure, segment inventory, tones, voice-quality and the distributions of all the above are compared from Burling 1967, Xu and Xu 1984, Yabu 1988 and Dai Qing-xia 1988, 1990. Since W's material, like Yabu's, is based on speakers from Burma, I think it would have been advisable to also consult Yabu's much larger dictionary of Zaiwa (1982). Also, a great deal of comparative material, not altogether irrelevant to W's tasks, can be found in the massive Huang 1992. This chapter naturally includes some discussion about choices made by the various researchers on how to phonemicise Zaiwa's sounds and includes some interesting details on allophonic variants. W. distinguishes himself from some earlier analysts by positing a single derived tone for checked syllables (stop-final) with tone height depending on features of the initial consonant and voice quality. He treats the latter as a suprasegmental feature, which is quite a point of contention among analysts. The issue here is a marked type of voice quality, sometimes described as "creaky" or "tense", described in chapter 3 onward as [+stiff vocal folds], which has been attributed to "glottalised initials" (Burling) or simply to the presence of a glottalised/tense vowel (others). In a more up-to-date analysis, W. assigns the tense voice quality to the initial consonant as an autosegment which spreads to the following vowel. As more of a comparative/historical linguist, the question for this reviewer remains, "Where did this marked feature come from?" The answer seems to be: not from "glottalised initials" which was just an early theory of Burling's with little evidence to back it up, but from earlier clusters of /s/ + stop that are no longer acceptable in the syllabic canon. A similar development is confirmed by older spellings of "s+C" in syllables that now start with such "tense" stops in Korean. In his well-ordered "Allophonic statements" tables (p.142-4), we can see many examples of this three-way distinction with stop-initial words. In generalised symbols, we have, by W's analysis: ga - kha - gA , representing respectively non-aspirated and aspirated with modal (unmarked) voicing, and tense voicing (always unaspirated). The apparently voiced stops are also favored for syllable-final position, thus: gag - khag -gAg . It may appear petty to quarrel about symbols used, but this is after all an important part of phonemic analysis as well as the very shape of the language as we see it presented to the world, so I offer here some suggestions: Looking at the trio ga - kha - gA (capital letter = tense voicing; W. uses a tiny "+" appended under the affected vowel), it is obvious that the aspiration-mark of the second member is non-contrastive. Since the "native script" for Zaiwa (such as seen in its large Chinese-to-Zaiwa dictionary) represents W's "kha" by "ka" , let us do that here. I do not quarrel with the /g/ itself; although the initial in /ga/ is only marginally voiced, it has served this contrastive role in many analyses, including Mandarin Chinese's Pinyin, where the initials are even less voiced. The Chinese and Japanese analysts listed above would disagree, using ka - kha - kA instead. As for the tense-voiced member, the choice is to associate the extra marked feature with g- or with k- . W. chose the former, and we will examine his reasoning when discussing chapter five. I would suggest: ga - ka - xka , where the /x/ is not so vital, simply being my historical bias in using a segment ( = W's /h/ ) to mark what W. rightly calls a suprasegmental feature in present-day Zaiwa. His use of /-g/ etc. for final stops is less pardonable since this gives us forms which are typolo- gically quite out of place in East Asia; there is not the least bit of voicing in final position, so why not use the traditional -k etc. since everybody knows this does not imply any aspiration finally? Chapter 3 "Phonological Prerequisites to the Analysis and Representation of Zaiwa Phonology" includes brief but well-focused discussions of autosegmental phonology, feature geometry and underspecification theory, with a focus on the laryngeal node as well as a detailed look at the anatomy of the larynx and its relationship to the two most important suprasegmentals in Zaiwa: contrastive pitch and voice quality. Drawing on the work of previous TB scholars as well as Laver and Ladefoged, W. brings out such points as: "...Zaiwa checked syllables in which the glottal constriction of the final stop and the [+/- spread vf ] and [+/- const vf ] features of the initial consonant work together to determine tone," and that creaky voice [+ const vf ] [- stiff vf ] has the lowest tone, with modal voiced segments [- const vf ] [- stiff vf ] tone is determined by surrounding segments and independent laryngeal controls, and tense voice segments [+ stiff vf ] have a tendency toward higher tone. Chapter 4 "An Autosegmental Framework for the Analysis and Representation of Tone and Voice Quality in Zaiwa" early on points out that "In Zaiwa unchecked syllables, tone is assigned by associating lexically specified tone from an autosegmental tier to a TBU as expected. In checked syllables, however, tone is derived by spreading previously associated glottal features to the vowel from the surrounding segments." Three lexical tones (high-falling, high- mid level, mid-low falling) are contrastive in non-checked syllables irrespective of initial voicing and voice quality, but tone in checked syllables is derived and predictable from initial (C1) voicing and [+/- stiff vf ]. The laryngeal feature systems of Halle and Stevens, Duanmu, Ladefoged and Yip are compared, whereupon W. suggests an analysis using [ +/- spread ], [+/- stiff ], [+/- const ], and [+/- voice ] which can be simplified through underspecification. There follow a number of feature-geometry diagrams which were quite helpful to a reader like me with a better background in Zaiwa than in modern theory. Chapter 5, "Aspects of Zaiwa Segmental Phonology", opens with a list of five different phonological levels (paragraph, breath-group, word, syllable, phoneme) each with its own features; the syllable is taken as the basic frame of reference. Nuclear words may be from 1 to 4 syllables, but verbs are as a rule monosyllabic (a common feature in TB), whereas nouns are commonly of either one or two syllables. Syllable structure is: C1(C2)V(X) [numerals should be subscripts] where X is optional vowel length or the second member of a diphthong or a final consonant. Oddly, I feel, W. considers the initial consonant to be obligatory, there- fore he must write a non- contrastive glottal-stop before all otherwise initial vowels. His reasons (p.68-69) as I understand them are: 1) /?/ (glottal stop) is already a recognised segment (it can occupy the X-position) , 2) the sound [?] can be heard before syllable-initial V in cases such as V(C) and CV-V , 3) "glottal stop patterns with other stops syllable finally and is contrastive with its absence syllable finally," but nothing in any of these three statements convinces this reviewer that the [?] heard initially is therefore a phoneme. W. further argues that excluding /?/ initially would increase the number of syllable-types, thereby making analysis more complex. Yet on the same page, in a discussion of unstressed final syllables, he has to add a special extra rule to account for cases where the syllable begins with his /?/. So, his (I feel) superfluous initial /?/ can itself "make the analysis more complex", and in any case a linguist usually hopes that the transcription he/she has devised might by worthy of use by many other people, who in this case would all have to add this extra letter whether they had any interest in W's analyses or not. That said, we move on to note W's use of a moraic approach to syllable structure. W. connects stress with heavy syllables ( -VV or -VC) and nonstress with light syllables (-V), thus a Zaiwa syllable has at most two moras. The first mora must be of equal or greater sonority than the second. W. presents some insights gained from the traditional Chinese method of syllable-analysis, and then discusses reduced syllables. In the next section on consonants, W. first states that it is not obvious whether to assign the tense-voice- associated initial stops to his "voiced plosive" or to his "voicless aspirated plosive" category, but then decides on the voiced series, but with reasons I find both curious and inadequate. Curious is that he first, rather inexplicitly, decides that tense voicing is an inherent quality of such syllables, with no need to search for any explanation of how this marked suprasegmental came about; W. earlier (p.33) quoted other scholars voicing this opinion (although Burling calls it in origin "preglottalised" rather than "tense") without really taking a stance, but here he has. This marked voice quality then would influence the underlyingly voiced initial and render it audibly voiceless. He then refers to some causative/non-causative verbal pairs such as / bup / 'rotten' vs. / bUp / 'make rot' to demonstrate that the causative member is basically a derivative of the other voiced-initial member. He has found no evidence of such variance with the voiceless aspirated series, but he may have overlooked a most pertinent article (Dai 1981) which specifically discusses causative verbs in Zaiwa. Dai divides the mechanisms into two major categories, analytical (adding the prefix / lO? / ) and inflexional . The latter he divides into three types: ( non-caus. vs. caus., using W's notation): a) ga - gA , na - nA [ g = any voiced stop, n = any resonant] b) ga - Kha c) special. The last type involves changes such as wun (carry on the back) - hun (caus.) ; the former is from *run, the latter from *hrun (=*xrun), cf. Dempsey 1995 p.284. This third type is the least common, and the first type is the most comon. Now, in other languages within the "Zaiwa-group", e.g. Maru, we see quite similar mechanisms, but in the other North Burmish sub-type, Achang, and in Brumese, we see something very interesting: for the Zaiwa type ga - gA we often see ga - kha (e.g. 'ascend, fill, fry, adhere, fear) , and for the Zaiwa type na - nA we often see na - hna (e.g. red, be at, roll, weep, release, sink). If we assume the Zaiwa tense syllable earlier had an / s / prefix, since s + C is well-known as a means for deaspirating C, it would hardly do to maintain that *sC led to Ch (aspirated C). For the resonant initials, it looks very simple: *sna > hna ( > nA ). For the stops, it is not clear whether the tense type in Zaiwa corresponding to the aspirated type in Achang/Burmese is due to an extra /s-/ having been added on to an already causative aspirated type, or simply added to devoice the original voiced non- causative. The former possibility is strengthened by looking at some cognate sets in North Burmish, which show the same relationship, tense voicing in Zaiwa but aspiration in another closely related language. For example, 'star' has tense voicing in Zaiwa, Maru, Bola and Letsi, but aspiration in Achang. 'Gall-bladder', 'cheek', 'frog' and 'mosquito' are other examples. In these cases, we can hardly suppose that the aspirated forms in Achang (and sometimes Burmese) are some type of morphologicall alteration like we saw with the causative verbs. It is simpler to assume that the Zaiwa-group forms show evidence of having added the typical TB body-parts /s-/ prefix or the common /s-/ animal prefix, cf. Benedict 1972 p.106. 'Frog' for example shows random aspiration throughout the Yipo-Burmic super-group; some languages kept or added the /s-/, some didn't. W. also argues a little for associating tenseness with the voiceless aspirated series, but with little force too since the correspon- dences in Hani/Akha he alludes to are allophonic. He concludes "the deaspiration of a plosive...is not supported by the feature geometry proposed for Zaiwa" in which aspirated consonants are [ +spread vf ], incompatible with tense voice's [ -spread vf ] , but the role of *s- is unclear to me, because on p.86 he lumps voiceless fricatives in with voiceless aspirates as both being [ +spread vf ] but in his important chart on p. 51 and in his appendix the fricatives /s/ and /$/ (English "sh") are listed as [ -spread vf ]. I would conclude the same way I did for final stops: if initial tense stops sound voiceless, why not write them voiceless? Chapter 6 "Zaiwa Suprasegmental Phonology" starts with details about tonal allo- phony, with an interesting distinction between nonproductive vs. productive reduced syllables, the former completely losing their underlying tone. The section on tone sandhi, complete with CECIL tracings, is one of the most thorough I have seen for a TB language. W. then reviews arguments for considering the high and low checked-syllables as basically one or two tone types; he opts for the former, but it is a pity he did not give some examples of the evidence from Maru and Lashi (= Letsi) which is involved. Sections on stress vs. tone and voice quality conclude the chapter. The book has lengthy appendices which list further details of Zaiwa's phonological processes as well as distinctive feature charts, and references. One last detail bothers me: There are some central vowels (mid or close-mid in the Chinese sources, although W. hears one of them as higher) in Zaiwa which Chinese sources consider as allophones of /e/ and /i/ in various environments; W. does not hear the variant for /e/, thus /se/ (level-tone) 'know' is a front vowel for him, but a central vowel in the Chinese sources. Be that as it may, W. argues that the higher central vowel should be an allophone of /u/, not of /i/. I disagree with both: the Chinese publications seem to be based on analogous allophony in Jingpo, and W. takes his inspiration from Matisoff's analysis of Lahu. I instead look at cognates: 'Shoot', for example, which W. writes /bug/ and Xu&Xu write /pik/, I write as /bek/, because: a) the cognates in Zaiwa-group languages all have mid or low central vowels, and closely related Nusu has /beq/. No TB cognate I know of has /u/ here. b) the two different central vowels of the Chinese sources are, according to my investigations, actually in complementary distribution, so, since they are both described as mid, and since cognates frequently have /e,a,
/ (
as in RP "love"), the mid vowel /e/ is a sensible home for them. c) final /-k/ (W's -g) is associated with front vowels in Zaiwa; *-k with back vowels has changed to a glottal stop. Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: a conspectus. Cambridge: University Press. Burling, Robbins. 1967. Proto-Lolo Burmese. International Journal of American Linguistics 33(2):part 2. Bloomington: Indiana University. Dai, Qing-xia. 1981. "Zai-wa-yu shi-dong fan-chou di xing-tai bian- hua" (Morphological changes in the Zaiwa causative-verb category), in Min-zu yu-wen 1981.4:36-41. ---------- 1986. Zaiwa-yu (the Atsi language). Zhong-guo da-bai-ke quan-shu: Min-zu. (Magna Encyclopedia Sinica: Ethnology Volume). - -------- 1993. A genetic classification for Tibeto-Burman languages in China. in: Recent contributions to Tibeto-Burman studies. Beijing: CUN Press. Dempsey, Jakob. 1995. A reconsideration of some phonological issues involved in reconstructing Sino-Tibetan numerals. diss., U.Washington, Seattle. Huang, Bufan (ed.). 1992. Zang-mian yu-zu yu-yan ci-hui ( a Tibeto- Burman Lexicon). Beijing: Zhong-yang min-zu xue-yuan. Xu Xi-jian & Xu Gui-zhen. 1984. Jing-po-zu yu-yan jian-zhi (Zai-wa yu). (Outline of the Zaiwa language of the Kachin nationality). Outline of China's Minority Language Series. Beijing: Nationalities Publishing House. Yabu, Shiro. 1982. A Classified dictionary of the Atsi or Zaiwa language (Sadon dialect) with Atsi, Japanese and English indexes. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Gaikokugo Daigaku. - -------- 1988. A preliminary report on the study of the Maru, Lashi and Atsi languages of Burma. In Yoshiaki Ishizawa (ed.), Historical and cultural studies in Burma, 65-132. Tokyo: Institute of Asian Studies, Sophia University. Jakob Dempsey was a medical technologist for many years, but now is Assistant Professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at Yuan- ze University in Taiwan, where he specializes in introduction to phonology and German courses. His focus of research is Old Chinese phonological reconstruction and Tibeto-Burman compar- ative and historical phonology, with occasional forays into Germanics and other Indo-European groups. He lived for three years in Afghanistan and Korea and has an M.A. in Tibetan, Ph.D. in Asian Linguistics (both U.Washington). He is currently finishing a paper on the phonological history of the North Burmish group.