Resharing one of our papers that I am super proud of (together with the fantastic Márton Sóskuthy):
"When the tune shapes morphology: The origins of vocatives"
https://academic.oup.com/jole/article/5/2/140/5899950
A small 🧵
We know that many languages show phonetic variability due to a conflict between pitch modulation to express communicative functions (the tune) and the inherent phonetic properties of consonants and vowels to express propositional content 1/
🧵2/
When pitch is required, for example to express the distinction between a Q and A, languages tend to insert non-lexical vowels, lengthen existing vowels and block otherwise regular vowel deletion. In other words the segments are optimized for the tune.
Usually, vocative constructions have the function of controlling someone’s attention or simply calling somebody. Many languages mark vocative constructions grammatically by using a dedicated morpheme or particle.
Abstract In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the vital role of intonation in speech communication. While contemporary models represent intonation—the tune—and the text that bears it on separate autonomous tiers, this paper distils previously unconnected findings across diverse languages that point to important interactions between these two tiers. These interactions often involve vowels, which, given their rich harmonic structure, lend themselves particularly well to the transmission of pitch. Existing vowels can be lengthened, new vowels can be inserted and loss of their voicing can be blocked. The negotiation between tune and text ensures that pragmatic information is accurately transmitted and possibly plays a role in the typology of phonological systems.
🧵 3/
Vocative constructions also often come with a specific tune known as the vocative chant. This tune usually consists of a rising element followed by a sustained mid to high plateau in pitch.
This type of pitch modulation needs a pitch-friendly environment. Due to their inherent high periodic energy and rich harmonic structures, vowels are ideal carriers of pitch. Consonants, however, are not
🧵 /4
We predicted that vocatives should be particularly tune-friendly. We collected a corpus of 100+ languages, extracted the phonological form of vocatives and compared them to structural case markers, a control for which we have no reason to assume pitch-friendliness.
The data suggests that vocatives occur are substantially less likely to contain consonants. We speculate that tune-driven phonetic variation has been grammaticalized as vocative markers in many languages.
Timo Roettger