This linguistics seminar titled "Tonal Variation in Bantu Language Varieties: The Case of Ikoma-Nata-Isenye" was given by Dr Lotta Aunio, University of Helsinki at SOAS, University on 19 November 2013 (http://bit.ly/11ougca). Find out more about studying Linguistics at SOAS at http://www.soas.ac.uk/linguistics Abstract: The dialects of Ikoma, Nata, and Isenye are classified as a single language E(J)45 in the updated Guthrie’s list (Maho 2003). These varieties are spoken in the Mara Region (Western Tanzania) by approximately 30,000 speakers. The speakers of these three varieties use these names as ethnonyms and identify themselves with these names. All three varieties seem to be mutually intelligible, if only with minor difficulties and adaptation. However, the nominal tone systems in these varieties vary considerably. All three varieties have two level tones, which are analysed as H and Ø (nothing), since only the H tones interact with each other. L tone is assigned as a default to any syllable that is not associated with a H after the tonal rules. On surface level, many nouns in all three varieties have the same tonal realizations, which leads to the first assumption that these varieties have the same underlying organization of the tones. When comparing the nominal tone systems we will see that, despite similar surface forms, the underlying tonal systems in these three varieties are typologically different. Hyman (2009) presents two criteria for stress languages: a. OBLIGATORINESS: every lexical word has AT LEAST one syllable marked for the highest degree of metrical prominence (primary stress) b. CULMINATIVITY: every lexical word has AT MOST one syllable marked for the highest degree of metrical prominence. I will show that Nata meets both criteria for stress languages and can thus be analyzed as a stress system in which a H tone represents the highest prominence in a word (Anghelescu 2013). In Isenye, only the criterion for obligatoriness is satisfied, whereas Ikoma has to be analyzed as a tonal language since it fulfills neither of the criteria. Anghelescu, A. 2013. Morphophonology and tone in Nata. Paper presented at the Bantu 5 conference, Paris, 12­–15 June 2013. Hyman, L.M. 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: the case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31:213–238. Maho, J. 2003. A classification of the Bantu languages: an update of Guthrie’s referential system. In Nurse & Philippson (eds), The Bantu Languages, 639–651.

• published: 18 Nov 2014
• views: 4