Tonal Morphology: Is it Different?

Tone is like segmental phonology in every way—only more so! a. QUANTITATIVELY more so: tone does certain things more frequently, to a greater extent, or more obviously (i.e. in a more straightforward fashion) than segmental phonology. b. QUALITATIVELY more so: tone can do everything segments and non-tonal prosodies can do, but segments and non-tonal prosodies cannot do everything tone can do. (2) Ex.: Tones of one word may be realized on another; Giryama [Kenya] (Philippson 1998:321) a. ku-tsol-a ki-revu ‘to choose a beard ’ /-tsol- / ‘choose ’ (all L tone) b, ku-on-a ki-révu ‘to see a beard ’ /-ón- / ‘see ’ (shift of H to penult) H N.B. No other phonological feature or property has this ability to “wander ” across words! “... anyone who is interested in the outer limits of what is possible in phonology would thus be well-served to understand how tone systems work. ” (Hyman 2007:2) (3) The questions I would like to address here are a. Is tonal morphology like segmental morphology in every way? b. If tonal morphology can do everything that segmental morphology can do, can it do more? c. What counts as tonal morphology? morphology? d. Can tonal morphology help determine “the outer limits of what is possible in morphology”? (4) Dispelling three misconceptions about tone a. Tone cannot be studied the same way as other phonological phenomena b. Tone is expendable c. Tone cannot mark certain things Past presidential address at the LSA: “No language uses tone to mark case.