Vowel spaces and systems*
Doug Hitch Whitehorse, Yukon
Human language uses two kinds of vowel space: acoustic defined by the F1 vs. F2 quadrilateral, and psychological defined by spatial features (high, low, back, front) which themselves are derived in relation to an often extralinguistic neutral vowel. Lip rounding is not a primary feature of vowel systems. Phonetically front rounded and back unrounded vowels may serve in the psychological space as central vowels. Spatial features define vocalic planes with between two and nine vowels. The interplay between the asymmetrical acoustic space and the symmetrical psychological space produces the known variety in size and shape of vowel systems among the world’s languages.
1 Introduction
A vowel may be described in several ways, through the physiology of articulation (articulatory phonetics), through acoustic properties (acoustic phonetics), and through psychologically distinctive traits (phonemics). In my view, for the description of vowel systems, only acoustics and psychology are relevant. Beyond the facts that vowels have to be humanly produceable and hearable, physiology is not relevant to the description of phonemic vowel systems. In spite of this, certain descriptive terms that are historically based on articulation, high (close), low (open), back, front, and round are retained for consistency with tradition and to simplify the presentation. As is well-known, the number of possible shapes of vowel systems in the world’s languages is relatively limited. Twenty-one shapes are presented here and, depending on the analysis, the number will be a little lower or higher. The number and shape of distinct configurations is limited by the interplay of two sets of parameters, acoustic and psychological.
1.1 Purpose
The analytical system presented here has both theoretical and descriptive applications. It helps us to better understand how vowel systems work. It makes reference only to acoustic phonetics and not at all to articulatory phonetics. Because of the strict reliance on acoustics, it bears directly on the debate concerning the definition of distinctive features. If one component of the phonology, the vowels, can be successfully defined using only acoustic parameters, this supports the view that all distinctive features are acoustic. Several theoretical claims should be testable. For instance, it is claimed that no vocalic plane will feature more than three degrees of phonemic height or depth. Language descriptions where four or more phonemic contrasts on one axis have been claimed should be subject to reanalysis. Several such cases have been addressed below. An unorthodox claim is that languages can have a vocalic plane containing front rounded vowels like /y ø œ/. Some support is given here, but ideally one would like to find a range of languages where vowels on such a plane behave as a natural class.
* This is a study I have been intending to write for a long time. The idea was originally inspired about 40 years ago by “Typology and universals in vowel systems” by John Crothers (1978). In the intervening years I have not been a student of phonological theory and the first draft was written in ignorance of some relevant scholarship. An anonymous TWPL reviewer has greatly helped make this paper look less like it was written on a desert island. The TWPL editor, Ruth Maddeaux, made significant contributions to the organization and presentation.
Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), Volume 38 ©2017 Doug Hitch DOUG HITCH
This theory simplifies the analysis and description of particular languages. It enables a principle- based typology of possible vowel systems. Every vowel system will conform to one of these patterns. Currently, a typical description of a language contains an IPA-style vocalic trapezoid with the vowels arranged according to acoustic phonetic properties. Alongside this, there should now be one or more square vocalic planes representing psychological properties. Currently descriptions are both phonetic and phonemic, but the use of planes may be a useful improvement.
2 Vowel system acoustics
The acoustic analysis of vowels and vowel systems depends on the intersection of the formants F1 and F2. Low vowels have a higher frequency F1 while high vowels have a lower F1. Back vowels have a lower F2 frequency, while front vowels have higher F2 frequency. Figure 1 plots IPA front unrounded vowels, back rounded vowels, and most low unrounded vowels, as pronounced by Bruce Hayes of UCLA.
Figure 1: F1 and F2 of some IPA vowels.1
The acoustic analysis of vowels seen in Figure 1 is now usually schematized as a quadrilateral (also called trapezoid or trapezium). In Figure 2 a quadrilateral is superimposed on the chart of Figure 1.
1 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/103/Charts/VChart/, accessed 10 Jan 2017.
2 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Figure 2: Acoustic quadrilateral
The two-dimensional space defined by the quadrilateral is not abstract but physically real. It defines the physical limits of vowel production for a particular speaker. Bruce Hayes will not normally pronounce a vowel with F1 lower than [i] or [u], that is, above the top of the quadrilateral. Similarly, he will not in normal speech produce a vowel with an F1 higher than those along the bottom of the quadrilateral. The sides of the shape require reference to both formants. For instance, there will not be a vowel with the F1 of [e] and a higher F2, or with the F1 of [o] and a lower F2. All vowels produced by this speaker will fall within the acoustic space defined by the quadrilateral. It is standard practice to use a quadrilateral with a right angle at the bottom right corner in the presentation of vowel qualities as in the well known IPA trapezium of Figure 3.
Figure 3: IPA vowel trapezium2
While the shape of the quadrilateral may vary by presenter, every presentation shares similar aspects. The left or front line is always longer than the right or back line, and the top or high line is always longer than the bottom or low line which is the shortest of the four. The acoustic quadrilateral is asymmetrical.
2 https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-vowels, accessed 10 Jan 2017.
3 DOUG HITCH
2.1 Vowel system psychology
In addition to describing the vowel space in terms of acoustic properties, F1 vs. F2, within individual languages it is useful to describe the space in terms of psychologically distinctive properties. These properties do ultimately rest on acoustics but they are distinguished by the mind and organized by the mind into binary oppositions according to certain principles. The first principle is that of the phonetically neutral vowel. It is assumed that all speakers can produce and recognize a neutral vowel. This is a vowel made when the articulatory apparatus is at rest except for the vibration of the glottis. It is the vowel heard when a speaker, uncertain of what to say, says uh [ə], sometimes in a long, drawn-out fashion, or um [əm]. It is common in extra-linguistic expressions, often with a non-spatial phonetic feature added, like nasalization in English unh-unh ‘no’ or creaky voice in ugh ‘that’s disgusting’. Speakers of languages with no phonemic /ə/ may still produce phonetic [ə] and recognize it in extra-linguistic situations. A second principle is that all phonemic vowels are distinguished in relation to the phonetically neutral vowel. A prototypically low vowel will have a higher F1 than the neutral vowel; a high vowel will have a lower F1. Similarly, a front vowel will have a higher F2 and a back vowel a lower F2. A useful and appropriate way to visualize the psychological or psycho-acoustic space created by these principles is by comparing the geometry of geographic directions as illustrated in the map in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Directions from the starting point
NW N NE
W here E
SW S SE
By convention, the direction north is at the top of the map. The entire top edge of the map represents its northern region. Similarly, there are eastern, western and southern regions. All regions are defined in relation to the neutral starting point which is given as ‘here’ in Figure 4. Two directions overlap at each of the four corners, giving northwest (NW), northeast (NE), southwest (SW), and southeast (SE) regions or corners. The regions along the edges of the map and between the corners are defined by a single direction, north (N), south (S), east (E) and west (W). This arrangement creates nine regions; one neutral region and eight regions defined in relation to the neutral region. The psychological vowel geography is essentially identical, as illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5: The nine vowel regions high high high front back
front ə back
low low low front back
This principle-derived vowel space geometry has useful implications. One is that no language will exhibit more than three degrees of height or depth as defined purely in spatial terms. It implies that descriptions of languages which assume more than three degrees of phonemic height or backness are somehow defective. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 289) mention Danish as a candidate for exhibiting four degrees of height. But other analyses of this language are possible. For instance, Grønnum (1998: 101)
4 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS lists ten vowel phonemes, “/i e ɛ a y ø œ u o ɔ/”. If the front rounded vowels /y ø œ/ occupy a secondary plane (see §2.4 below), then there are seven vowels defined purely with spatial features on the primary plane as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Danish phonemic vowel space i u e o ɛ a ɔ
Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 289–290) also mention that the dialect of Bavarian spoken in Amstetten, Austria may have five vowel heights. It is perhaps surprising that this typologically unusual vowel system has not attracted more attention. The phonemic complexity may be reduced with a close reading of Traunmüller’s (1983) description. For instance, the four front rounded vowels [y ø œ ɶ] arise through l-vocalization and do not occur in underlying forms (Traunmüller, 1983: 16). He also notes that the dialect area features a kind of “dynamic diglossia” in which there are several socially stratified forms of language in use and speakers are not rigidly attached to any particular one. For instance, “Loans from higher or lower ranked sociolects fulfill the function of expressing respect or disdain towards somebody or something” (Traunmüller, 1983: 15–16). It is plausible that the extensive code-switching would make it difficult to establish a phonemic inventory for a particular lect. Descriptions of languages with more than three heights are not uncommon, but the position here is that alternative analyses are possible with a maximum of three phonemic heights on a single plane. Similarly, there will be no languages with four or more phonemic degrees of depth in a single plane. Liljencrants and Lindblom (1972: 846–852) refer to a number of languages which had been reported to feature more than three degrees of phonemic depth. Many of these are from the Turkic, Mongolian and Uralic families which, probably areally, feature front-back or palatal-velar vowel harmony which here involves parallel harmonic planes. A few feature a plane for front rounded vowels like Danish (see above and §2.4 below), and the rest do not have four or more depths in more recent analyses. Specifically, by the Liljencrants and Lindblom vowel system number: 1. (5d) Chacobo (Chakobo~Chácobo-Pakawara; Panoan, Bolivia) has /i ɨ o a/ (Prost, 1967: 285). 2. (6f) Mandarin (Modern Standard Chinese) has a vowel system which is debated but no scholar currently argues for four depths (cf. §3.1 below). 3. (7h) “central Chinese Siang-tang dialect” refers to a presumably outdated 1938 study (Trubetzkoy, 1939: 11 fn. 4). 4. (8a) Turkish, Balkar, Chuvash, Tatar, Kirghiz (all Turkic). 5. (8c) Cheremis (now Mari, Uralic, Russia), Khalka (Mongolian). 6. (9h) Akha (Loloish, Laos-Burma-Thailand-China) has a 9-vowel primary plane /i ɯ u e ɤ o ɛ a ɔ/ and a secondary plane with /y œ/ (Lewis, 1968: 10; Hayashi, 2016: 75 with /ø/ for /œ/). 7. (9i) Swedish long vowels constitute a seven-vowel primary plane /iː ʉː uː eː oː ɛː ɒː/ and a secondary /yː øː/ plane (Bruce & Engstrand, 2006: 20; see §2.4 below). 8. (10a) Koibal (Khakas Turkic), Karagin (if Koryak then /i u e̞ o̞ a̟ / U2709); Korean Seoul /i ɨ u e~ɛ o a ʌ/, Kyungsang /i ɨ u e o a/ (Lee & Jongman, 2016: 158–160). 9. (11c) Selkup (Samoyedic, Siberia) has contrasts of length and tenseness; the short tense vowels feature primary /i ɨ u e ə o æ a/ and secondary /y ø/ (Helimski, 1998: 552–553). 10. (12a) Tibetan, dialect unspecified but Central Tibetan has /i y u e ø o ɑ/ (R2125).
5 DOUG HITCH
11. (12b) Akha (see 9h).
I notice only one proposal for a four-way depth contrast that does not have an obvious alternative analysis. Kato analyzes two Pwo Karen dialects from Burma as having four high vowels /i ɨ ɯ u/: Kyonbyaw (Kato 1995: 69) and Tavoy (Kato 1995: 84). Kyonbyaw has a three-way contrast among the mid and low vowels /e ɣ o ɛ a ɔ/ while Tavoy has a three-way mid contrast and one low vowel /e ɣ o a/. Phonetically back /ɤ/ is the only vowel which occurs in atonic syllables (73, 88) which suggests it functions like schwa, that is, it is phonemically non-back. These three-way contrasts make a four-way high contrast look suspicious. Kato’s descriptions are thorough and I see no way to reduce the contrast to the three-way theoretical maximum for one plane. The idea that human language maximally distinguishes nine vowels has been presaged by previous scholarship on differing grounds. Crothers (1978: 113) notes that “Languages with more than nine basic vowel qualities are quite uncommon”. The study by Schwartz et al. (1997: 251) “focuses on ‘structural’ trends of the occupation of the acoustic space by vowels” and they observe that “primary systems mainly consist of three to nine vowels”.3
2.2 Psycho-acoustic planes
Latin is often described as having five short /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ and five long /iː uː eː oː aː/ vowels. The two sets are precisely parallel from a phonemic point of view and are sometimes described as /i u e o a/ and /iː uː eː oː aː/, using the same five symbols with one set marked for length. Both units of the pair /i iː/ occupy the same position in the phonemic square relative to the neutral vowel. They differ in a non-spatial feature, in this case length. Latin may be described as having two vocalic planes, one for short vowels and one for long. Within a plane vowels are defined only by spatial features based on F1 and F2. Visualizing vowel systems as a series of planes is not a new idea. For instance, Crothers (1978) refers to a “basic” set which is essentially a primary plane. Schwartz et al. (1997: 237–238) refer to a “basis” or “primary” system and “parallel” or “secondary” subsystems distinguished by quantity or nasality. A simple but effective three-dimensional chart is presented by Mukherjee et al. (2008: 373 Fig. 1). This features a primary plane P with plain /i u a/, a secondary plane P′ with nasalized /ĩ ũ ã/, and a tertiary plane P″ with long nasalized /ĩː ũː ãː/. A fourth plane for implied long /iː uː aː/ is not included, presumably because it would complicate the diagram. A wide array of features can distinguish the secondary spatial vocalic planes. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 98 and Table 9.8) list a dozen non-spatial vocalic features: nasalization, advanced tongue root (ATR), pharyngealization, stridency, rhotacization, fricativity, voicelessness, breathy voice, slack vocal cords, stiff vocal cords, creaky voice, and length. Other scholars might add distinctions to the list, perhaps most notably, tense/lax. Ahi (Tibeto-Burman, Yunnan) is described as having constricted and unconstricted /i ɯ u e o ɛ ɑ/ (TB4:8). The secondary vocalic plane may exactly parallel the primary one, or feature a different number of vowels in a different array. Tonkawa (isolate, Oklahoma-Texas-New Mexico) has short /i u e o a/ and long /iː uː eː oː aː/ (U6752). In the Khoisan languages only the back vowels /u o a/ have pharyngealized counterparts (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996: 308). These will constitute a secondary plane /uˁ oˁ aˁ/ forming a vertical three-vowel system congruent to Danish /y ø œ/. Jalapa Mazatec may have six parallel planes. Alongside primary /i u æ o a/ there are spatially identical planes with breathy voice, creaky voice, nasalization, breathy voice with nasalization, and creaky voice with nasalization (Silverman et al., 1995: 72–73).
3 In this connection Schwartz et al. (1997: 242) mention an earlier work which I have not seen: “We have ourselves suggested (Vallée, 1994) that the highest limit for a viable primary system is nine”. [Vallée, N. (1994) Systèmes vocaliques: de la typologie aux prédictions. Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences du language, Université Stendhal, Grenoble.] 4 Bibliographic abbreviation (TB=Namkung 1996, R=Ruhlen 2004, U=UPSID, W=Wikipedia) are defined in §3 below.
6 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
2.3 Harmonic planes
The processes subsumed under the heading of vowel harmony seem to be of two types. The simplest is a kind of assimilation among vowels on one plane. One assimilatory example is /a/ > /i/ in Jingulu (NC Australia), a three-vowel /i u a/ language. A suffix with /i/ or /u/ will raise preceding /a/ vowels in the root to /i/ unless a high vowel intervenes, for example, bardarda ‘younger brother’ + -rni > birdirdirni ‘younger sister’, ngamurla ‘big’ + -rni > ngamurlirni ‘big (fem)’ (Pensalfini, 2002: 562–563). Another assimilatory example showing a contrasting process, a root vowel influencing a suffix vowel, may be seen in Wikchamni where a suffixal /i/ will assimilate to stem /u/ or /ü/: tan- + -ši > tanši ‘made’, hud- + -ši > hudšu ‘knew’, düʔs- + -ši > düʔüšü ‘made’ (Archangeli, 1985: 354). A last example, Chamorro (Malayo-Polynesian, Guam) with /i u e o æ a/ features fronting harmony in which stressed /u>i/, /o>e/ and /a>æ/ in a root when preceded by a prefix or bound morpheme containing a front vowel: sæn- ‘direction of’ + hulo’ ‘up’ > sæn- hilo’ ‘in the direction up’; mi- ‘lots of’ + otdot ‘ant’ > mi-etdot ‘lots of ants’; si definite, focus-marking personal article + nana ‘mother’ > si næna ‘Mother’ (Topping, 1968: 68–69). The second type of vowel harmony involves two harmonic planes. In these languages, the vowels in a particular word will all be from one plane or the other. It seems that the choice of plane is determined at the lexical level. In the lexicon, the words contain archiphonemes spanning both planes, and each word is marked with a feature indicating plane membership. There appear to be two distinct sub-types with regard to the phonetic vowel space; one vertical and one horizontal. The vertical type is associated with the articulatory feature ATR while the horizontal type is often described as palatal-velar or front-back. The vertical type has separate +ATR and -ATR planes while the horizontal has separate front and back vocalic planes. Ideally, the articulatory terms here would be replaced by acoustic definitions. ATR harmony is most common in Africa. Ogbia (Atlantic-Congo, Nigeria) has ten vowels, five +ATR /i e u o ɐ/ and five -ATR /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ (U4124). Lugbara (Central Sudanic, Uganda-DR Congo) similarly has +ATR /i u e o ɜ/ and -ATR /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ sets (U4215). Both languages could be more abstractly described as having a five-vowel /I U E O A/ archiphonemic set with phonemic realization dependent on the ATR marking of the word. Nez Perce (Sahaptian, NW USA), has the surface vowels /i u o æ ɑ/. A word may contain vowels from either /i u æ/ or /i o ɑ/. Hall and Hall (1980: 212–217) show that this is ATR vowel harmony and assume an underlying -ATR vowel which merges with /i/ on the surface. Following Mackenzie and Dresher (2003: 285), the underlying vowel is here characterized as /ɛ/, and there are two three-vowel harmonic planes, +ATR /i u æ/ and -ATR /ɛ o ɑ/. Again, archiphonemic /I U A/ is realized according to the ATR marking of the root. Horizontal vocalic harmony seems to mostly occur in languages which also feature rounding harmony which involves a more complicated planar structure. But several Finnic languages feature just front and back planes. Because of historical change and the rise of ‘neutral’ vowels, the planar structure has been somewhat obscured. Finnish has three harmonic classes: front /y ø æ/, back /u o ɑ/ and neutral /i e/. A word (uncompounded) contains vowels which are either front and neutral or back and neutral. Back and front cannot co-occur (Suomi et al., 2008: 51). Karelian (Finnic, Russia-Finland) has exactly the same inventory and harmonic pattern with neutral /i e/ (Harrison, 2001). Võro (S Estonia) harmony is similar but because it has unrounded back mid /ɤ/, front /e/ is not neutral. The classes are front /y e ø æ/, back /u ɤ o ɑ/, and neutral /i/ (W). Votic (Russia) has the identical harmonic pattern and neutral vowel, orthographically <ü e ö ä>, and (Chernjavskij, 2005: 10). The neutral vowels are reminiscent of Nez Perce /i/ (above) and here we may also assume underlying back vowels that merge into the front correspondents on the surface. Also, like Nez Perce, the underlying vowel(s) may have existed historically. Figure 7 compares the Proto-Finnic5 harmonic planes with those in Võro, Votic, Finnish and Karelian. The underlying vowels are in curly brackets {}.
5 The Proto-Finnic inventory appears to be traditionally constructed as identical to modern Finnish with ‘neutral’ /i e/ (cf. Laakso, 2001: 182–183). However, Proto-Ugric may have had two high unrounded vowels /i/ and /ɨ/ (symbolized as i̮ ) and back unrounded mid /ɤ/ (e̮ ) is thought of as appearing in the southern Finnic languages after
7 DOUG HITCH
Figure 7: Some Finnic harmonic planes Proto-Finnic Võro and Votic Finnish and Karelian front back front back front back i y ɨ u i y {ɨ} u i y {ɨ} u e ø ɤ o e ø ɤ o e ø {ɤ} o æ ɑ æ ɑ æ ɑ
Like the African ATR languages Ogbia and Lugbara discussed above, these four Finnic languages could have their vowels described archiphonemically as /I U E O A/, but in these cases the words would be marked for frontness or backness rather than for ATR. Turkish and many other Turkic languages also feature front-back harmony. Turkish harmonically contrasts the set /ɪ ʏ ɛ œ/ with the set /ɯ u ɑ o/ (R1935, W), orthographically and <ı u a o>. Native Turkish words have vowels only from one set or the other. Within a stem, the vowels may be described archiphonemically as /I U A O/, with frontness or backness indicated at the lexical level. In addition, Turkish has two types of harmony in suffixes. The two-fold type involves suffixes with the archiphoneme /A/ which manifests on the surface as ‘e’ /ɛ/ or ‘a’ /ɑ/ according to the harmonic plane of the stem. For example, the plural suffix -lAr appears as either -ler or -lar: kediler ‘cats’, köpekler ‘dogs’, kapılar ‘doors’, odalar ‘rooms’, koyunlar ‘sheep (pl.)’, köyler ‘villages’. To this point in the description the harmony is congruent with that of the Finnic languages discussed above. The second type of harmony involving suffixes, the four-fold, appears to be of the assimilatory type. An archiphoneme /I/ appears on the surface as /ɪ~ɯ~ʏ~u/
2.4 Rounding and psycho-acoustic planes
The articulatory feature of lip rounding is often listed as a primary feature of vowel systems, along with height and depth (cf. Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996: 282). In the analysis presented here, rounding is not relevant to the description of the primary vocalic plane of a language. For example, in the extremely common five-vowel system of the type /i u e o a/, the segments /u o/ are phonetically but not phonemically round. The vowels are psychologically defined by the spatial criteria illustrated above. As is well known, the rounding in /u o/ serves to improve the perceptual distinctiveness of these vowels (cf. Hall, 2001: 16– 21). In a perceptual sense, it increases their distance from the neutral vowel. It phonetically enhances a phonemic contrast. It is not necessary to include rounding as a distinctive feature in the phonemic description of an /i u e o a/ system. Alekano (Goroka, Papua New Guinea) has a five-vowel system /i ɯ e ɤ ɑ/ with no rounded vowels (Deibler, 1992: 2) but which may be defined by the same distinctive features as the common /i u e o a/. Similarly, Alawa (Arnhem (?), N Australia) has a four-vowel system /ɪ ɯ̞ e a/
Proto-Finnic (ibid. 183). The inventory used here offers a simpler, more systematic explanation for the development of the later systems and the harmonically neutral surface vowels. 6 Also previously pointed out by the unnamed scholar responsible for http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Spring_1998/ling202/atr.html.
8 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
(U8354) with no rounding but may have the same distinctive features as /i u̞ e a/. The Tillamook (Salish, NW Oregon) system /i ə æ ɑ/ also has no rounded vowels (Thompson & Thompson, 1966: 318; and see §3.5.1 below). The presence of phonetic rounding among vowels does not imply the presence of phonemic rounding. Rounding can have a second phonetic enhancement function. This appears to be related to the first. Some languages feature phonetically front rounded vowels as phonemically central vowels. Most commonly, /y ø/ correspond to what in most languages would be /ɨ ə/. Three examples of this phenomenon, Mbiywom from Australia, Albanian from central Europe, and Chechen from the Caucasus, are given in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Rounding as perceptual centering of front vowels Mbiywom Albanian Chechen i y u i y u i y u e o ɛ ə ɔ e ø o a a æ a
In congruent fashion, phonetically back unrounded vowels can function as central vowels. The examples in Figure 9 are Mbabaram from Australia, Fe’fe’ from Cameroon, and Lao from SE Asia.
Figure 9: Unrounding as perceptual centering of back vowels Mbabaram Fe’fe’ Lao i ɯ u i ɯ u i ɯ u e ɤ o e ɤ o a a̘ ɑ ɛ a ɔ
Whether one finds rounded /y ø/ or unrounded /ɯ ɤ/ functioning as central vowels in the psychological space of those languages just discussed, it is not necessary to include rounding as a distinctive feature in their descriptions. This claim may be surprising in the case of Chechen, which has more phonetically rounded vowels than unrounded ones. Rounding does appear to be phonemically necessary in a couple of circumstances. It may be necessary in languages with front-back harmonic planes such as the Finnic languages and Turkish discussed above. There it would appear that the backness of a vowel is defined by the plane at the lexical level. That is, the distinctive features related to F2 are attached to the word. As backness is a feature of plane membership, it likely cannot be used to distinguish vowels within a plane. Within a plane the distinctive features are those related to F1, height, and to the acoustic correlate of rounding. The four-fold harmony of Turkish suffixes
9 DOUG HITCH
(1978: 96–97) puts it, “Lip rounding lowers all formants, primarily F3 for palatal vowels, F2 for velar vowels”. Languages with front round vowels often have an acoustic vowel space which is much more crowded in the front area. Grønnum (1998: 100), in her ‘Illustration of the IPA’ for Danish, has ten allophones in the front area of the acoustic chart and five in the back. All varieties of Swedish crowd at least four distinctive vowels into the acoustic high front region /iː ɪ yː ʏ/ and two at high back /uː ʊ/ (Bruce & Engstrand, 2006: 20). The view here is that the front acoustic crowding in these languages reflects the intersection of four planes: short, long, front-round-short and front-round-long. Central Standard Swedish and some other varieties actually crowd five vowels in this space, as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10: The vowel phonemes of Central Standard Swedish7
The fifth vowel, /ʉ̟ ː/, has puzzled describers since, like /yː/ it is phonetically front, round, and high. It is well known that these vowels feature different kinds of rounding and here may lie key evidence. /yː/ has outrounding or protrusion while /ʉ̟ ː/ has inrounding or compression (Bruce & Engstrom, 2006: 22). Acoustically then, there must be some quality which distinguishes these vowels, and phonemically there must be something at play other than front, high and round. There is further phonological evidence. /ʉ̟ ː/ patterns with other non-front vowels in some processes. It does not turn a preceding velar stop into a fricative, for example, kyla [ˈɕyːla] ‘cold’ and kula [ˈkʉ̟ ːla] ‘ball; bullet’, and it takes part in umlaut, for example, hus [hʉ̟ ːs] ‘house’ vs. hysa [ˈhyːsa] ‘accommodate’ (ibid.). Bruce & Engstrom (2006: 20) treat /ʉ̟ ː/ phonologically as a central vowel in the same way that the languages in Figure 8 above have phonetically front rounded vowels as phonemically central vowels. Swedish may be described as having four planes as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: The four vowel planes of Swedish short long ɪ ʊ ʏ iː ʉ̟ ː uː yː ɛ ɵ ɔ œ eː oː øː a ɛː ɑː
7 Chart redrawn from Engstrand (1999: 140).
10 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
The concept of front rounded vocalic planes may offer a principled way of explaining the typological observations made by Rice:
Within the front vowels, contrasts may exist between an unrounded and a rounded vowel in the language. Within the central and back vowels, no single language makes a contrast between unrounded and rounded vowels. (1995: 89)
More research may be needed to conclusively prove that front-roundedness has the potential to be orthogonal to a primary plane. Articulatory and acoustic phonetic research can be useful, but decisive evidence would be offered by languages in which front-rounded vowels behave phonologically as a natural class.
2.5 Symmetry and asymmetry
As mentioned above, the number of distinct configurations of vowel systems among the world’s languages is limited by the interplay of two sets of parameters; acoustic and psychological. These parameters give rise to two distinct vowel spaces; an acoustic quadrilateral and a psychological square. The acoustic space is asymmetrical with the least area in the low region. When the acoustic space is dominant, the vowels tend to distribute evenly in the acoustic quadrilateral, and a downward-pointing triangular configuration results. Figure 12 provides examples of triangular shapes containing from three to seven vowels. Two-vowel systems are always rectangular (see below).
Figure 12: Triangular systems from three to seven vowels 3 4 5 6 7 Aleut Kerek Mongsen Ao Lemoro Romanian i u i u i ʉ u i u i ɨ u ə ə e ə o e ə o a a a a a
In contrast, the psychological space is symmetrical and when this space is dominant, the vowels distribute in a symmetrical, rectangular fashion. Figure 13 exemplifies symmetrical systems involving four to nine vowels. Three-vowel systems are always triangular (see below).
Figure 13: Rectangular systems from four to nine vowels 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tuscarora Wadjiginy Anuak Wantoat Cayuvava Cham ɪ ʊ i u i u i u i ɨ u i ɨ u ø e o e ə o ɛ o e ə o ɛ ɑ e a æ ɔ æ ɑ æ a ɔ ɛ a ɔ
All of the examples in Figure 13 are symmetrical in two dimensions. There may be a third category. There are seven- and eight-vowel systems with triangular acoustic but square phonemic shapes. This occurs when there are three low vowels and the central vowel is lower than the front and back ones. In Figure 14 are the seven-vowel system of Yoruba adapted from Bamgboṣe (1969: 166) and the eight-vowel system of
11 DOUG HITCH
Standard Eastern Catalan adapted from Carbonell & Llisterri (1999: 62) together with their phonemic squares.
Figure 14: Triangular acoustic and square phonemic systems Yoruba Standard Eastern Catalan i u i u e o e ə o ɛ a ɔ ɛ a ɔ
Any seven-, eight-, or nine-vowel system with three low vowels could be regarded as being acoustically triangular. This acoustic shape often leads to the assumption of four vowel heights, which is correct acoustically but not phonemically. The triangular shapes as in Figure 12 reflect the dominance of the acoustic space while the rectangular shapes in Figure 13 reflect the dominance of the psychological space. This provides an explanation for Trubetskoy’s observation that vowel systems have linear (see below), quadrilateral, and triangular structures (Trubetskoy, 1939: 87, 1971: 97). The contrast in shape between the asymmetrical acoustic space and the symmetrical psychological space can be used to explain other phenomena related to vowel systems such as typological patterns and the relationship between systems in historical or geographic dialects (see §4.0 below). For instance, the universal that no language has more back vowels than front is due to the fact that the area in the front of the acoustic space is larger than the area in the back. Congruently, languages often have equal numbers of front and back vowels because of the symmetry of the psychological space.
2.6 Transcribing the psychological space
Transcription of the vowels according to their position in the acoustic space is reasonably straightforward. Most scholarship today employs the vowel symbols of the IPA as shown in Figure 3. This involves 28 symbols, but still greater phonetic precision may be achieved through the use of diacritics. Transcription of the segments as they occur in the psychological space involves different principles. The focus is on a psychologically real segment rather than on phonetic reality. Generally speaking, to represent a phoneme, scientists try to select the phonetic symbol representing the most frequent phonetic allophone. But it often happens that two reports on a vowel system will agree on the number of vowel phonemes and their general phonetic behaviour, but disagree on the symbols used to represent them. Additionally, a particular phonetic segment may receive differing phonological treatment in different languages. An example is /y/, as discussed above, which either appears on a secondary plane, or fills the role of a high central vowel on a primary plane. In theory, to represent the occupants of the psychological space one could use a symbology unrelated to phonetics. For instance, one could use the directions as in Figure 4. Instead of /i/ there could be NW, instead of /ɨ/ N, or instead of /u/ NE, etc. Another method would be to use numerals, and number the nine possible slots in the space as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Numbering the psychological space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Each of the numbered slots can feature a range of phonemic symbols, and some comment is useful. Slot 1 probably has the least variety of symbology. It is most often /i/, less often /ɪ/. Slot 2 can have true phonetic high central symbols /ɨ ʉ/, but also may feature phonetically front round /y/ or phonetically back unround /ɯ/ symbols if the phonological system treats them as non-front or non- back, respectively (see §2.4 above). Slot 3 is prototypically /u/, less often /ʊ/ and occasionally /ɯ/. Systems that do not distinguish /u/ and /o/, and have one segment that can vary between [u] and [o] in pronunciation, are often described as if /o/ is the highest back vowel. For instance, three-vowel systems /i u a/ are often given as /i o a/. Slot 4 is prototypically /e/. Often /ɛ/ is given as the mid vowel. In cases where the describer gives both /e/ and /ɛ/, the former fills slot 4 and the latter fills slot 7. Slot 5 is prototypically /ə/. IPA recognizes four heights, distinguishing close-mid and open-mid. In this slot among the central vowels I have also noticed close-mid round /ɵ/, open-mid unround /ɜ/ and open- mid round /ɞ/, but not close-mid unround /ɘ/. In addition, this slot may feature phonetically front round close-mid /ø/ or open-mid /œ/ symbols, if the language treats such a segment as central, and, conversely, we may find the back unrounded close-mid /ɤ/ or open-mid /ʌ/ here if the language treats the segment as central (see §2.4 above). Slot 6 is prototypically /o/ although as described above under slot 3, that symbol may be used where slots 3 and 6 form an /o~u/ unit. An /ɔ/ may be found here in some descriptions, but elsewhere /ɔ/ clearly denotes a low vowel and belongs in slot 9. Occasionally unround back close-mid /ɤ/ can be found here, but I have not noticed unround back open-mid /ʌ/ in this slot. Slot 7 is perhaps prototypically /æ/ but often /ɛ/ is found here and sometimes /a/. The symbol /a/ may appear for any unround low vowel. Sometimes this symbol may be used out of convenience without any phonological implication other than low. Slot 8 is perhaps most often filled by /a/, even though the IPA confusingly considers the symbol to mark a front, not a central vowel. In these pages, /a/ is essentially prototypically central. Frequently /ɐ/ is found here, but I suspect it is by scholars wishing to use an IPA symbol for a clearly central vowel, even though IPA places the vowel above the low (open) line in its quadrilateral (Figure 3). Very rarely one finds the open-mid central unrounded /ɜ/ or open-mid unrounded back /ʌ/ here. Slot 9 should be prototypically unround /ɑ/ or round /ɒ/ but we often find /ɔ/ here, and even /a/. The numbering of the slots also provides a convenient standard for a linear listing of a vowel system where a chart is inconvenient. For example, for a prototypical five-vowel system the listing is /i u e o a/ or /1 3 4 6 8/. In other words, the phonemes are given as they occur in the psychological space from left to right and top to bottom.
3 Systems by number of vowels
Below are described and listed the known spatial systems for vowels, organized in sections according to the number of vowels in the system. Each section begins with a discussion of the proposed types. Starting with the triangular three-vowel systems, there is also a list of examples for each type in Appendix A. Each example begins with one or more language names. Where there are two or more commonly used names they are separated with a tilde. Next, in parentheses, there is an indication of language family, and of geographic location(s) of speakers. These indications are intended to aid in understanding the genetic and geographic relationships of a system and may not be consistent. Multiple locations are separated by hyphen. The next item is a linear list of phonemes in slashes following the numbering of slots given above. Sometimes there are indications of secondary planes where this would be useful. The final item is a second set of parentheses containing the reference(s) and any comment. Three major lists of phonological systems consulted here are given abbreviations. An item from Merritt Ruhlen’s (2004) “Global Typological Database” is referred to as R+the database number; the first item is R1 Hadza and the last is R5736 Interlingua. An item from the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID; Maddieson & Precoda ongoing; Brasington 2013; Reetz undated) is referred to as U+the UPSID number; for instance, Klamath is U6707. UPSID /ɷ/ is replaced by current IPA /ʊ/. Language information from the “Phonological
13 DOUG HITCH
Inventories of Tibeto-Burman Languages” (Namkung, 1996) uses TB:+the page number from that list, so that Amdo Tibetan is TB:390. On occasion it has been useful to refer to Wikipedia (W) either where the language is well known, or where the information is credible but it has not been possible to find published sources. I have not consulted Ruhlen (2004) past central Mexico and did not encounter the aid at phoible.org until late in the process. Undoubtedly many useful examples of inventories could be added. Orthographic representations are in angle brackets < >.
3.1 Zero-vowel systems
Aert Kuipers first proposed in 1960 that Kabardian, a Northwest Caucasian language, could be regarded as vowelless. Morris Halle refuted the possibility in 1970 but Kuipers maintained it again in 1976. Edwin G. Pulleyblank in 1984 accepted the logical possibility of a vowelless Kabardian and further proposed that Modern Standard Chinese as well as Middle Chinese could be analyzed as vowelless (Pulleyblank, 1984a, 1984b: 21–22). He treated Pekingese schwa as epenthetic, and the other vowels as syllabic forms of glides with which those vowels alternate morphophonemically (Pulleyblank, 1984b: 57). John Colarusso (2014: 293–454) in a specialized work on NW Caucasian phonology shows with extensive evidence that those languages all feature two-vowel systems /a ə/ with some featuring also long /aː/ with phonological charts of 30 dialects all with /ə a/. Daniel Barreteau (1983: 387–388) proposes an analysis of Mofu-Gudur (Chadic, Cameroon) as a vowelless language. His more conservative treatment offers three short /e ə a/ and two long /eː aː/ vowels (Barreteau 1983: 250 ff.). Such a three-vowel system would be typologically unique. Mofu-Gudur apparently exhibits front-back vowel harmony with words containing either /ə e eː/ or /ə a aː/. The allophones of /ə/ are [i ɨ ʉ u ə], of /e/ are [ε ø œ], and of /a/ are [o ɔ a] (Barreteau 1983: 364). Barreteau calls the harmony a prosodic trait and suggests using a superscript y (ʸ) to show words containing /e/ rather than /a/, for example, ɗVɗVwV = ɗaɗawa ‘heart’ vs. ʸɗVɗVwV = ɗeɗewe ‘Leptadenia hastata’. /ə/ appears to be harmonically neutral, for example, wápə́ rá ‘fall badly’ (Barreteau 1983: 384), mévərkétéleŋ ‘dragonfly’ (Barreteau 1983: 385). Conceivably, the language has a system of two, two-vowel harmonic planes: a back /ə a/ and a front (‘palatalized’) /ə e/. A zero-vowel language would insert vowels according to rules of epenthesis, then colour the vowels according to phonetic context. It sounds theoretically possible, but no completely convincing cases have yet been identified.
3.2 One-vowel systems
There seem to be no indisputable examples of one-vowel systems on a primary plane. A system with one vowel would not require distinctive features reflecting F1 and F2. The single vowel would only need to be marked [+syllabic]. Comrie (1991: 396) suggests that Harui~Waibuk (Piawi, Papua New Guinea) “can be analysed, with some degree of plausibility, as having only a single vowel, the mid central vowel ö”. This involves several abstractions from the seven-vowel system he begins with (using IPA ɵ for his ö) /i ɨ u e ɵ o a/. One abstraction is striking: “Haruai consonants have syllabic allophones, e.g., /p/ has, in addition to its basic nonsyllabic allophone [p], a syllabic allophone [pi]” (Comrie 1991: 394). This is a device I have not seen before and would likely be subject to dispute. There are languages that have a secondary plane with one vowel. It appears that if a language has only one long vowel, it will be /aː/. The UPSID database search for languages with only one long vowel produces four languages, and all four have only long /aː/: Angaatiha (Angan, Papua New Guinea) U8627; Lai~Li (Li-Kam-Tai, Guangxi) U2432; Mien (Hmong-Mien, China- Viet Nam-Laos-Thailand) U2517; Yay (Li-Kam-Tai, NW Vietnam-S Yunnan) U2402. Several of the NW Caucasian languages have a two-vowel system /ə a/ with long /aː/ Ubykh R1601; Adyghe R1605; Kabardian R1606. I did not systematically search for this feature in R or TB (they do not have electronic database versions) but also noticed Chepang TB:78 (Sino-Tibetan, Nepal) with just long /aː/.
14 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
I suspect that a language with one pharyngealized or laryngealized vowel will base it on /a/. Dargwa (NE Caucasian, SW Russia) has one pharyngealized vowel /aˤ/ (R1626). Mongsen Ao (Tibeto-Burman, NE India) has one creaky voiced vowel /a̰ / (Coupe 2008:2). There appear to be no restrictions concerning a single nasalized vowel. Cherokee (Iroquoian, N Carolina-Oklahoma) has just /ə/̃ (U6781; although this does not contrast with a non-nasal */ə/ and the nasalization could be regarded as phonetic enhancement in /i u e ə̃ o a/); Gwari (Volta-Niger, Nigeria) has just ĩ (U4140).
3.3 Two-vowel systems
Systems with two phonemic vowels defined by space are attested from the Northwest Caucasus, Nigeria, Australia, and possibly Kansas. There are South Arabian languages with two vertical vowels in a possibly secondary short vowel plane. Front-rounded planes with /y ø/ have been mentioned above and appear in the lists below. As mentioned above in §3.1, all of the Northwest Caucasian languages, have /ə a/. They feature extensive allophony. For instance, according to the environment, Kabardian /ə/ may appear as [i ɨ u ə ʉ ü] and /a/ as [e ɑ o a æ ø ɒ] (Kuipers, 1960: 23). Margi (Chadic, NE Nigeria) has been shown to have a two-vowel system /ɨ a/ (Maddieson, 1987). Recent loanwords also distinguish [e o] (ibid.: 328). At least two languages from Australia are still described as featuring a two-vowel system, while there is doubt about others. Enindhilyagwa~Anindilyakwa (Arnhem (?), N Australia) has high and low central /ɨ a/ with rich allophony (Leeding, 1989: 38–62). Kaytetye~Kaititj (Arandic, C Australia) has /ə a/ (R4588 and still implied in Harvey et al., 2015). Upper Arrernte (Arandic, C Australia) was once described as having /ə a/ (and still is on Wikipedia: “Upper Arrernte language”) but current scholarship assigns more vowels. For Eastern/Central Arrernte Henderson (2002: 102) claims that all dialects have /i ə a/ and less conservative lects also have /u/. Breen & Dobson (2005: 251) maintain /i u ə a/ for Central Arrernte. As discussed below in §3.4.1, Wichita may uniquely have an /i a/ system. Some dialects of Mehri (South Arabian, Oman-Yemen) have short /ə a/ and long /iː uː eː oː ɛː aː/ (Simeone-Senelle, 1997: 84). Harsusi (South Arabian, Yemen) has /ə a/ and /iː uː eː oː aː/ (R1580). In these languages the long vowels may constitute the primary plane which may mean that the language has full and reduced vowels, rather than long and short. A noteworthy two-vowel system is offered by Marshallese. It was originally reported by Bender (1968: 20) as having a vertical four-vowel system, that is, four phonemes distinguished by four degrees of height. More recent work recognizes that these four fall into +ATR and -ATR classes (cf. Wilson, 2003: 2– 3). +ATR /ɨ/ has the allophones [i ɯ u], -ATR /ə/ has the allophones [ɪ ɤ ʊ], +ATR /ɜ/ has [e ʌ o], and -ATR /a/ has [ɛ a ɔ]. Here the system may be analyzed as having two two-vowel vocalic planes: +ATR /ɨ ɜ/ and - ATR /ə a/. Crothers (1978) was only aware of the NW Caucasian languages, particularly Kabardian, as having two-vowel systems. He was suspicious of the analyses and thought the type, “though interesting as an extreme, has little bearing on the general picture of vowel system typology” (Crothers 1978: 109). But this type reveals something fundamental about vowels: that [low] is the most basic of the four spatial features.
3.4 Three-vowel systems
3.4.1 Vertical three-vowel systems
The idea of systems with three vertical vowels was perhaps given most currency by Nikolai Trubetzkoy. In his posthumously published monument, Grundzüge der phonologie, he repeated the idea of
15 DOUG HITCH
Jakovlev from the 1920s8 that Adyghe, Abkhaz and Ubykh had such a system (Trubetzkoy 1939: 87). As mentioned above in §3.1, all NW Caucasian languages have a two-vowel system. In his most recent description of Wichita (Caddoan, Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas), David Rood (1996:1.1) assumes a system of three vertical vowels /i e a/. But he also notes that the short version of his /e/ “very rarely occurs” and the overlong version “is by far the most frequent overlong vowel” (Rood 1996: 1.1.2). He suggests that overlong [e∙] could be treated as the sequence /ayi/ or /iya/ parallel to overlong [o∙] = /VwV/, but because the choice between /iya/ and /ayi/ is often not clear he prefers to retain phonemic /e/ (Rood 1996: 1.1.2). However, Rood also notes that only /i a/ occur in final position, never /e/ (Rood 1996: 1.1.6), which is another parallel with [o∙]. It seems to me that Wichita is either two vowel /i a/ or four vowel /i o e a/. The neighbouring and plausibly related Papuan language families Sepik and Ramu are sometimes suggested as exhibiting three vertical vowel phonemes /ɨ ə a/9, but more recent research seems to negate this. For instance, Staalsen (1966: 1) at first proposed three vertical vowels for Iatmul (Sepik) /ɨ ə a/ but later revised this to a seven-vowel system /i ɨ u e o ɐ ɑ/ (Staalsen 1992: 3). Most recently, Jendraschek (2012: 36) also argues for seven “vowel positions” for Iatmul which may correspond to /i ɨ u e o a ɑ/. As mentioned in §3.3 above, for Eastern/Central Arrernte (Arandic, C Australia) Henderson (2002: 102) claims that all dialects have /i ə a/ and less conservative lects also have /u/, while Breen & Dobson (2005: 251) maintain /i u ə a/ for Central Arrernte. I have not been able to find completely convincing evidence that any language operates with a vertical three-vowel system on a primary plane. Ideally there should be multiple languages from different families and locations clearly described with a vertical three-vowel system for this type to be recognized. Parisian French has a vertical three-vowel configuration /y ø œ/ on a front-rounded plane (primary /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ W). While vertical three-vowel systems may not exist, primary plane triangular three-vowel systems are exceedingly common.
3.4.2 Triangular three-vowel systems
The prototypical triangular three-vowel system is /i u a/. The phonetics may vary with each language, and may vary with the researcher. Corresponding to /i/, an /e/ may be reported, and corresponding to /u/, an /o/ may be reported. Some descriptions may use mid vowel symbols as in /e o a/, /i o a/, or even /e u a/. This variety has caused challenges to other approaches (cf. Disner, 1984: 140–144) but poses no difficulty to the analytical system used here. In Figure 16, the borders between slots 1 and 4 and between 3 and 6 are not drawn, to suggest the /i~e/ and /u~o/ variations. In the list of examples in Appendix A, just a small selection of the many languages with /i u a/ is given. An effort was made to demonstrate the geographic and genetic range.
Figure 16: The three-vowel system i u
a
8 Colarusso (2014: 294), when discussing the analysis of a vertical vowel system by attributing phonetic vocalic difference to the surrounding consonants, writes, “This denuding of the vowels, so to speak, in favor of the consonants was first proposed by Jakovlev (1923) for Kabardian in one of the earliest phonemic analyses ever performed on a language. All subsequent workers on these languages have followed the basic principles of Jakovlev’s analysis.” 9 Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepik_languages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndu_languages.
16 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
3.5 Four-vowel systems
There appear to be between two and four types of four-vowel systems. Type 4a is a prototypical triangular four-vowel system with the addition of a phonemic neutral vowel. Type 4b is similarly a three- vowel system but with what may be a high central vowel like /ɨ ʉ/ added. Some descriptions of 4a /ə/ and 4b /ɨ/ show the allophonic range overlapping, which is suggested in the figure by the border missing between slots 2 and 5. Maranao, arbitrarily included below as 4b, is given with /ə/ in one description and as /ɨ/ in another. Type 4c is a rectangular structure with the phonemes clearly in the corners. Type 4d may be considered to have the same rectangular structure as 4c, but as many systems are reported with mid vowel symbols like /e o/, it may be useful to give a separate list for this (sub)variety at this stage. Many descriptions of 4d systems describe the allophonic range of /e/ as going as low as [æ] and of /o/ as going as high as [u], as suggested by undrawn borders. I suspect /a/ tends to be more back than central. While 4a and 4b require three features and 4c two, it is not clear if 4d requires two or three features, or if the analysis is language dependent. Crothers (1978: 109) notes two four-vowel systems, 4:0 /i ɛ a u/ which here would be 4b, and 4:1 /i ɨ a u/ which is here 4c. He also thought they were subtypes of a single proto-type /i ə a u/ which is attested and is here listed as 4a. Examples of each type are given in Appendix A.
Figure 17: Four-vowel systems 4a 4b 4c 4d
i u i ɨ u i u i ə e o a a æ ɒ a
3.5.1 North Straits Salish
Three dialects of North Straits Salish have four-vowel systems that are typologically of interest. The Saanich~SENĆOŦEN (Vancouver Island) dialect is described by Montler as having “an unusual symmetrical four vowel system” Montler (1986: §1.2). He places /i ə/ above /e a/ in a chart (ibid.), but the system cannot straightforwardly be assigned to 4c. It also has no rounded vowels but there is [u] in loans (ibid.). The Tillamook (Salish, NW Oregon) system /i ə æ ɑ/ also has no rounded vowels (Thompson & Thompson, 1966: 318). The Lummi (NW Washington) dialect of North Straits Salish /i e ə o/ (R4741) appears to have no low vowels. It is possible that what is given as /ə/ may be closer to [ɤ] than [ə], and then these systems may classed as 4c.
3.6 Five-vowel systems
The extremely common classic five-vowel system is given here as type 5a. The next most common type appears to be 5b, a symmetrical rectangle like 4c with a neutral vowel added. The types 5c–e are relatively rare. 5c is a symmetrical triangle which in a way combines 4a and 4b, having both /ə/ and /ɨ/. Type 5d is like 4c with a front mid vowel /e/ added. It is asymmetrical because the acoustic space is dominant. Type 5e is also like 4c but with a high central vowel added. As for features, 5a, 5c and 5d must feature both high and low, to distinguish three heights. Types 5c and 5e must feature both back and front to distinguish three depths. Three features are sufficient to distinguish 5a, 5b, 5d and 5e, while 5c requires all four features. Crothers (1978) identified two five-vowel systems. Besides the obvious 5a which he labelled 5:0, he identified a shape *5:1 which he found in five languages. Island-Carib /i u e ɤ a/ and Ocaina /i ɯ ɛ o a/ are here both 5a. Tolowa /i u ə e a/ and Maranungku /i ʊ ɵ æ a/ are here both 5b. The fifth language, Nez Perce, was shown by Hall and Hall (1980) to feature ATR vowel harmony, and here is
17 DOUG HITCH regarded as having two three-vowel planes: +ATR /i u æ/ and -ATR /i o ɑ/ (see §2.3 above). Crothers, (1978: 140) also noted one **5:1 language, Evenki, which is apparently no longer in UPSID but the qualities he listed, “/i æ ə u O/”, would be 5b. His one ***5:1 language, Papago, now Tohono O'odham, is discussed below. Examples of each type are given in Appendix A.
Figure 18: Five-vowel systems 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e i u i u i ɨ u i u i ɨ e o ə ə e o a æ ɔ a æ ɑ ɛ ɔ
3.6.1 Tohono O’odham
Tohono O'odham (formerly Papago, Uto-Aztecan, Mexico-Arizona) appears to not fit the pattern of any other language and to violate a universal by having more back than front vowels with /i ɨ u o a/ (Miyashita, 2011: 323).
3.7 Six-vowel systems
The triangular systems 6a and 6b essentially reflect the classic five-vowel system 5a /i u e o a/ with the addition of a central vowel. The salient difference is likely in the number of features required by each. Type 6a requires all four spatial features while type 6b needs both front and back but just one of high or low. Rectangular type 6c, in a fashion converse to 6b, requires both high and low but just one of front or back. There are three six-vowel systems in Crothers (1978). His 6:0 is 6c, his 6:1 is here divided into 6a and 6b. He also noted a *6:2 with two languages. Hopi is included below as 6a. Chuvash, a Turkic language, does have six full vowels but these are distributed in front /i y ɛ/ and back /ɯ u ɑ/ three-vowel harmonic planes (Róna-Tas, 1997: 2, with symbols /i ü e/ and /ï u ɑ/). Examples of each type are given in Appendix A.
Figure 19: Six-vowel systems 6a 6b 6c i u i ɨ u i u e ə o e o e o a a æ ɑ
3.8 Seven-vowel systems
Any seven-vowel system will require all four spatial features. Of the four seven-vowel systems identified, just 7a could be called triangular in the psychological space, as it has just one low vowel. Type 7d is phonetically triangular. Phonemically rectangular 7b, 7c and 7d all feature one central vowel, which is neutral, high or low, respectively. Crothers’s (1978) 7:0 is here 7d and his 7:2 is 7a. His three members of *7:1 are Sentani~Buyaka 7b, Kwoma~Wahkuk 7c, and Wolof, which, according to Unseth (2010: 1), has +ATR /i u e ə o/ and -ATR /ɛ ɔ a/ harmonic planes. Examples of each type are given in Appendix A.
18 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Figure 20: Seven-vowel systems 7a 7b 7c 7d i ɨ u i u i ɨ u i u e ə o e ə o e o e o a æ ɑ æ ɑ æ a ɑ
3.9 Eight-vowel systems
There may be only three configurations for eight-vowel systems. Although mathematically there could be a gap in any position, the gaps seem to be restricted to the central column. Type 8a seems to be the most common type. It has a gap clearly at the high central position. Type 8b is next most common. In Figure 21 it is represented with a gap at low central. However, some descriptions would seem to place the gap at low front, and others at low back. It may be that three types are subsumed here, according to where the low gap is, but that is not clear. Often, when two descriptions of a dialect differ, it is in the characterization of the two low vowels. The symbol /a/ often seems to function for any low vowel. Type 8c is lacking the neutral vowel. It appears to be rather uncommon. Only two examples have been collected. If the /ɨ/ in these languages allophonically varies [ɨ~ə] then they might reflect 8a. Crothers (1978: 112) reported that, “None of the eight vowel systems is common enough to be important typologically.” His 8:1 languages are mostly 8a (Ewondo, Javanese, Mianka~Minyanka). His 8:2 Icelandic looks like 6c /i u ɪ ɔ ɛ a/ with front vocalic /ʏ ø/ (cf. Gussmann, 2011), and Central Tibetan is here 7a. His 8:3 examples Turkish, Kirghiz (Turkic) and Cheremis (Uralic) all feature vowel harmony with smaller planes. Examples of each type are given in Appendix A.
Figure 21: Eight-vowel systems 8a 8b 8c i u i ɨ u i ɨ u e ə o e ə o e o æ a ɑ æ ɑ æ a ɑ
3.10 Nine-vowel systems
The maximum number of segments on a vowel plane as defined by spatial features is nine. In other words, there is only one type of nine-vowel system; that which has all slots filled, as in Figure 22. Not surprisingly, Crothers (1978: 112) also identifies essentially one type: “9:2 is the only common type with more than seven vowels.” His 9:2" examples, Akan, Grebo, and Luo, all feature ATR harmony, and of his four 9:3' examples, Azerbaijani (Turkic) features front-back vowel harmony, Norwegian has a front rounded plane, Korean inventories are now apparently differently analysed with Seoul /i ɨ u e~ɛ o a ʌ/ and Kyungsang /i ɨ u e o a/ (Lee & Jongman, 2016: 158–160), and Ostyak (now Khanty, Uralic) also now has differing inventories (cf. Abondolo, 1998: 360). Examples are given in Appendix A.
19 DOUG HITCH
Figure 22: Nine-vowel system i ɨ u e ə o æ a ɑ
3.11 Crothers’s 10- to 12-vowel systems
Crothers (1978: 143) listed seven languages with more than nine “basic” vowels. All have different analyses here. Hanoi Vietnamese and Pacoh have nine vowels. Three languages have front-round planes: Iaai is 8a /i u e ɤ o æ a ɔ/ with /y ø/; Akha is 9 /i ɯ u e ɤ o ɛ a ɔ/ with /y ø/; Parisian French is 8a /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ with /y ø œ/. Panjabi has seven long vowels in shape 7d /i u e o ɛ a ɔ/ and three short /ɪ ʊ ə/ (Karamat, 2002: 182). Lugbara has +ATR /i u e o ɜ/ and -ATR /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ planes (U4215).
4 Final observations
With regard to the primary plane, two-vowel systems are vertical, probably prototypically /ə a/. There is plausibly just one type of three-vowel structure, triangular /i u a/, which reflects acoustic space dominance, and there is just one nine-vowel structure which has all of the possible psychological slots filled. The two- to eight-vowel structures show a range of three to five types with the variation reflecting the interplay between the acoustic and psychological spaces. The concept of vocalic planes as implemented here can simplify phonological descriptions, can provide analyses for vowel systems which have challenged analysts, and can help identify descriptions that are defective and suggest where to look for improvements. This study may have implications in other areas of theoretical phonology. For instance, all principles in operation here are based strictly on acoustic phonetics (even though articulatory terminology is often used). If the descriptions of vowel systems here are judged to be effective, this opens the possibility that consonants too may be effectively described strictly in acoustic terms. With regard to typology and universals, the system here can explain at least some observations in a principled way. For instance, consider the vowel hierarchy set up by Crothers (1978: 114) based on implicational statements of the form: “if a language has a vowel phoneme of type z, it also has one of type w”. The first part of his Figure 10 (ibid.) is adapted here as Figure 23.
Figure 23: Crothers’ hierarchy a i u ↙ ↘ ɨ ɛ ↓ ↓ ɛ ɔ ↓ ↓ ɔ e ↓ ↓ ə o
The explanation for this implicational hierarchy may be most easily understood if it is read in a different way. The chart may also be read as a hierarchy defining certain historical relationships between systems. Implicationally, /ɔ/ implies /ɛ/ while historically a language will not add /ɔ/ to its inventory if it does not have /ɛ/. A three-vowel system may evolve to a four-vowel system by adding either an ɨ-like or an
20 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
ɛ-like vowel. The ɨ-like addition in the left column does not change the basic phonetic shape of the system or substantially change the phonetic values of the segments, but it does increase the psychological load by increasing the distinctive features needed from two to three. In contrast, the ɛ-like addition in the right column might change the phonetics by causing the /a/ to shift toward the back of the acoustic space perhaps becoming /ɑ/, but it does not affect the number of distinctive features or psychological load. With the next tier on the chart, the situation reverses. The addition of an ɛ-like vowel on the left side taxes the acoustics but does not change the features. And on the right side the addition of an ɔ-like vowel creates the acoustically desirable classic five-vowel system but now increases the number of distinctive features to three. With each tier the addition processes alternate, in a sense, reflecting the interplay between the acoustic and psychological spaces. Languages may also evolve to have fewer vowels along the same hierarchy. The implicational hierarchy parallels the evolutionary. It too reflects the interplay between acoustics and phonemics.
References
Abenaki-Penobscot pronunciation guide, alphabet and phonology. (n.d.). Retrieved March 8, 2017, from http://www.native-languages.org/abna_guide.htm. Abondolo, D. (1998). Khanty. In D. Abondolo (Ed.), The Uralic languages (358–386). London and New York: Taylor & Francis. Alves, M. J. (2000). A Pacoh analytic grammar (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI. Archangeli, D. (1985). Yokuts harmony: Evidence for coplanar representation in nonlinear phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3), 335–372. Axelrod, M. (1990). Incorporation in Koyukon Athapaskan. International Journal of American Linguistics 56(2), 179–195. Bamgboṣe, A. (1969). Yoruba. In E. Dunstan (Ed.), Twelve Nigerian languages (166). New York: Africana Publishing Corp. Barreteau, D. (1983). Description du Mofu-Gudur (langue de la famille tchadique parlée au Cameroun) (Doctoral Dissertation). Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris III, Paris, France. Bender, B. W. (1968). Marshallese phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 7(1), 16–35. Bielenberg, B., & Zhalie, N. (2001). Chokri (Phek dialect) phonetics and phonology. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 24(2), 85–122. Boraas, A. (2010). An Introduction to Dena’ina grammar: The Kenai (outer inlet) dialect. ms, Soldotna, AK. http://web.kpc.alaska.edu/denaina/documents/denaina_grammar.pdf. Brasington, R. (2012). A NetLogo interface to updated UPSID. Retrieved from http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~llsling1/upsid.netlogo/UPSID.updated.interface.html. Breen, G., & Dobson, V. (2005). Central Arrernte. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(2), 249–254. Bruce, G., & Engstrand, O. (2006). The phonetic profile of Swedish. Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung 59(1), 12–35. Carbonell, J. F., & Llisteri, J. (1999). Catalan. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the usage of the International Phonetic Alphabet (61–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Language of the People) ׳Chafe, W. (2014). A Grammar of the Seneca Language. Onöndowa’ga:’ Gawë:nö of the Great Hills) website: Seneca Nation of Indians. Retrieved from http://senecalanguage.com/wp- content/uploads/Chafe-Seneca-grammar-PDF-final.pdf. Chelliah, S. L. (1997). A Grammar of Meithei. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chen, C.-M. (2006). A comparative study on Formosan phonology: Paiwan and Budai Rukai (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
21 DOUG HITCH
Chernjavskij, V. [Чернявский, В.]. (2005). Vaďďa tšeeli (Izeõpõttaja). Водский язык (Самоучитель) [Votic Language (Self-study)]. Памяти академика П. Аристэ [To the Memory of Academician P. Ariste]. Retrieved from http://www.lingvisto.org/files/votic.pdf. Chitoran, I. (2002). A perception-production study of Romanian diphthongs and glide-vowel sequences. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32(2), 203–222. Colarusso, J. (2014). The Northwest Caucasian languages. A phonological survey. (online edition of the 1988 original edition). Oxon and New York: Routledge. Comrie, B. (1991). On Harui vowels. In A. Pawley (Ed.), Man and a half: Essays in Pacific anthropology in honour of Ralph Bulmer (393–397). Auckland: The Polynesian Society. Coupe, A. R. (2008). A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Cowan, H. K. J. (1965). Grammar of the Sentani language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Crawford, J. M. (1973). Yuchi phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 39(3), 173–179. Crothers, J. (1978). Typology and universals in vowel systems. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language. Volume 2: Phonology (93–152). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Davis, D. (2004, printed from data checked 1994). Organised phonology data. Wantoat (Wandoat) language [WNC]. SIL document. Retrieved from http://www- 01.sil.org/pacific/png/pubs/928474542364/Wantoat.pdf. Deibler, E. (1992, data checked). Organised phonology data: Alekano (Gahuku) language. SIL document. Retrieved from http://www-01.sil.org/pacific/png/pubs/928474542307/Alekano.pdf. Disner, S. F. (1984). Insights on vowel spacing. In I. Maddieson (Auth.), Patterns of sounds (136–155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Donohue, M. (2007). A Grammar of the Skou language of New Guinea. ms. Monash University, Clayton, Australia. http://papuan.linguistics.anu.edu.au/Skoufiles/Skounopiccies1.pdf Ellis, J. S. (2012). Saipan Carolinian, one Chuukic language blended from many (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI. Elson, B. F. (1992). Reconstructing Mixe-Zoque. In Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre (577–592). Arlington, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington. Engstrand, O. (1999). Swedish. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the usage of the International Phonetic Alphabet (140–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ford, L. J. (1990). The phonology and morphology of Bachamal (Wogait). ms. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. https://openresearch- repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/10815/8/Ford_L_Master_1990.pdf Godddard, I. (1974). An outline of the historical phonology of Arapaho and Atsina. International Journal of American Linguistics 40(2), 102–116. Grønnum, N. (1998). Illustrations of the IPA: Danish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 28(1–2), 99–105. Grune, D. (1997). Hopi. Survey of an Uto-Aztecan Language. online pdf. Retrieved from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dick/Summaries/Languages/Hopi.pdf. Gussmann, E. (2011). Getting your head around the vowel system of modern Icelandic. Folia Scandinavica 12, 71–90. Hall, B. L., & Hall, R. M. R. (1980). Nez Perce vowel harmony: An Africanist explanation and some theoretical consequences. In R. M. Vago (Ed.), Issues in vowel harmony (201–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hall, D. C. (2001). Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1), 1–54. Halle, M. (1970). Is Kabardian a vowel-less language? Foundations of Language 6(1), 95–103. Harrison, K. D. (2001). Vowel Harmony. In P. Strazny (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
22 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Harvey, M., Lin, S., Turpin, M., Davies, B., & Demuth, K. (2015). Contrastive and non-contrastive pre- stopping in Kaytetye. Australian Journal of Linguistics 35(2), 232–250. Hayashi, N. (2016). A phonological sketch of Akha Buli — A Lolo-Burmese language of Muang Sing, Laos. Research Institute of Foreign Studies, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, Researches in Asian Languages Vol. 10, Annals of Foreign Studies Vol. 92 67–84. Helimski, E. (1998). Selkup. In D. Abondolo (Ed.), Uralic languages (548–579). London and New York: Routledge. Henderson, J. (2002). The word in Eastern/Central Arrernte. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Word, A cross-linguistic typology (100–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jakobson, R., & Waugh, L. R. (2002). The Sound Shape of Language (3rd ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jany, C. (2007). Phonemic versus phonetic correlates of vowel length in Chuxnabán Mixe. Berkeley Linguistics Society 33(2), 66–76. Jendraschek, G. (2012). A grammar of Iatmul (Habilitationsschrift). Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1247243/A_grammar_of_Iatmul. Karamat, N. (2002). Phonemic inventory of Punjabi. In CRULP Annual Student Report, 2001-2002 (179– 188). Lahore: Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing. Retrieved from http://www.cle.org.pk/Publication/Crulp_report/CR02_21E.pdf. Kato, A. (1995). The phonological systems of three Pwo Karen dialects. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 18(1), 63–103. Kim, D. (2015). The Sarikoli reflexive pronoun. Open Linguistics 2015(1), 788–799. Kinkade, M. D. (1963). Phonology and morphology of Upper Chehalis: I. International Journal of American Linguistics 28(3), 181–195. Kinkade, M. D. (1966). Vowel alternation in Upper Chehalis. International Journal of American Linguistics 32(4), 343–349. Kirby, J. (2011). Vietnamese (Hanoi Vietnamese). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41(3), 381–392. Kossmann, M. G., & Stroomer, H. J. (1997). Berber phonology. In A. S. Kaye (Ed.), Phonologies of Africa and Asia (461–475). Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Kuipers, A. H. (1960). Phoneme and morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe). The Hague: Mouton and Co. Kuipers, A. H. (1976). Typologically salient features of some North-West Caucasian languages. Lisse: Peter De Ridder Press. Kumar, P. (2012). Descriptive and typological study of Jarawa (Doctoral Dissertation). Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. Laakso, J. (2001). The Finnic languages. In Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages Vol. 1: Past and Present (179–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The Sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lee, H., & Jongman, A. (2016). A diachronic investigation of the vowels and fricatives in Korean: An acoustic comparison of the Seoul and South Kyungsang dialects. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 46(2), 157–184. Leeding, V. J. (1989). Anindilyakwa Phonology and morphology (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Lewis, P. (1968). Akha phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 10(2), 8–18. Liljencrants, J., & Lindblom, B. (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48(4), 839–862. Lindskoog, J. N., & Brend, R. M. (1962). Cayapa Phonemics. In B. F. Elson (Ed.), Studies in Ecuadorian Indian languages: I (31–44). Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Lobel, J. W., & Riwarung, L. H. S. (2011). Maranao: A preliminary phonological sketch with supporting audio. Language Documentation & Conservation 5, 31–59.
23 DOUG HITCH
MacKenzie, S., & Dresher, E. (2003). Contrast and phonological activity in the Nez Perce vowel system. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 29(1), 283–294. Maddieson, I. (1987). The Margi vowel system and labiocoronals. Studies in African Linguistics 18(3), 327–355. Maddieson, I. (2009). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge University Press. Maddieson, I., & Anderson, V. (1994). Phonetic structures of Iaai. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 87, 163–182. (Fieldwork Studies of Targeted Languages II.) Maddieson, I., & Precoda, K. (ongoing). The UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/sales/software.htm#upsid. Matisoff, J. A. (2003). Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. Retrieved from http://stedt.berkeley.edu/pdf/JAM/ASLIAN.pdf. Miyashita, M. (2011). Diphthongs in Tohono O’odham. Anthropological Linguistics 53(4), 323–342. Montler, T. (1986). An outline of the morphology and phonology of Saanich, North Straits Salish. (Hypertext edition 1999). ms. Missoula, MT: University of Montana Linguistics Laboratory. http://www.cas.unt.edu/~montler/Saanich/Outline/index.htm. Mortenson, D., & Keogh, J. (2011). Sorbung, an undocumented language of Manipur: Its phonology and place in Tibeto-Burman. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 4(1), 64–114. Mukherjee, A., Choudhury, M., Basu, A., Ganguly, N., & Chowdhury, S. R. (2008). Rediscovering the co- occurence principles of vowel inventories: A complex network approach. Advances in Complex Systems 11(3), 371–392. Namkung, J. (1996). Phonological inventories of Tibeto-Burman Languages. Berkeley: University of California. Osumi, M. (1995). Tinrin Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pensalfini, R. (2002). Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua 112, 561–586. Prost, A. (1964). Contributrion à l’étude des langues Voltaiques. Dakar: Institut Francophone de l’Afrique Noire. Retrieved from Senoufo, Mamara Phonology: https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_myk_phon-1 Prost, G. R. (1967). Chacobo. In E. Matteson (Ed.), Bolivian Indian Grammar 1 (285–359). Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Pulleyblank, E. G. (1984a). Middle Chinese: A study in historical phonology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Pulleyblank, E. G. (1984b). Vowelless Chinese? An application of the three-tiered theory of syllable structure. In M. K. Chan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Sino- Tibetan Languages and Linguistics: September 16-18, 1983, University of Washington (568–619). Seattle: University of Washington. Reetz, H. (undated). Simple interface to the UPSID database. http://web.phonetik.uni- frankfurt.de/upsid.html: Last accessed 16 March 2016. Reid, L., A. (1973). Diachronic typology of Philippine vowel systems. In T.A. Sebeok (Ed.), Diachronic, areal, and typological linguistics (485–506). The Hague and Paris: Mouton and Co. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/32977/1/A13.1973.pdf Rice, K. (1995). On vowel place features. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 14(1), 73–116. Roddy, K. (2007). A sketch grammar of Satawalese, the language of Satawal Island, Yap State, Micronesia (MA). University of Hawai’i. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/20678/M.A.CB5.H3_3421_r.pdf?se quence=2 Róna-Tas, A. (1997). Nutshell Chuvash. Erasmus Mundus Intensive Program, Turkic languages and cultures in Europe (TLCE), Szeged, Hungary. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20110807192758/http://www2.lingfil.uu.se/afro/turkiskasprak/IP2007/ NUTSHELLCHUVASH.pdf Rood, D. S. (1975). The Implications of Wichita Phonology. Language 51(2), 315–337.
24 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Rood, D. S. (1996). Sketch of Wichita, a Caddoan Language. In I. Godddard (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 17 (580–608). Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Rosario, Jr., F. C. (2012). The Vowel Space of Pangasinan. Frontiers of Language and Teaching 3, 264– 270. Ruhlen, M. (2004). Global Typological Database: A Description. ms. Retrieved from http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/typology.pdf Saint, R., & Pike, K. (1962). Auca Phonemics. In B. F. Elson (Ed.), Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages: I. Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma. Salminen, T. (2007). Notes on Forest Nenets phonology. Mémoires de La Société Finno-Ougrienne 253, 349–372. Retrieved from http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust253/sust253_salminen.pdf Schuh, R., G., & Yalwa, L. D. (1993). Illustrations of the IPA: Hausa. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 23(2), 77–82. Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L.-J., Valée, N., & Abry, C. (1997). Major trends in vowel system inventories. Journal of Phonetics 25, 233–253. Silverman, D., Blankenship, B., Kirk, P., & Ladefoged, P. (1995). Phonetic Structures in Jalapa Mazatec. Anthropological Linguistics 27(1), 70–88. Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. (1997). The Modern South Arabian Languages. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic Languages (pp. 378–423). London: Routledge. Staalsen, P. (1966). The Phonemes of Iatmul. In C. I. Frantz, M. E. Frantz, D. Oatridge, R. E. Loving, J. Swick, A. Pence, P. Staalsen, H. Boxwell, & M. Boxwell (Eds.), Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 5 (69–76). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University. Staalsen, P. (1992). Iatmul Organised Phonology Data. Retrieved from http://www- 01.sil.org/pacific/png/pubs/928474542478/Iatmul.pdf. Street, C. S., & Mollinjin, G. P. (1981). The phonology of Murinbata. Working Papers of SIL-AAB 5, 183– 244. Suomi, K., Toivanen, J., & Ylitalo, R. (2008). Finnish sound structure: Phonetics, phonology, phonotactics and prosody. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu. Takashi, N. (2009). The structure of the Ponapean language. Nagoya University of Foreign Studies Foreign Language Department Bulletin (名古屋外国語大学外国語学部紀要) 37, 101–118. Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1966). A Fresh Look at Tillamook Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 32(4), 313–319. Thompson, L. C., Thompson, M. T., & Efrat, B. S. (1974). Phonological Developments in Straits Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 40(3), 182–196. Tłı̨ chǫ Community Services Agency. (2007). Reading and Writing in Tłı̨ chǫ Yatıì. Behchokǫ̀, Northwest Territories, Canada: Tłı̨ chǫ Community Services Agency. Topping, D. M. (1968). Chamorro Vowel Harmony. Oceanic Linguistics 7(1), 67–79. Topping, D. M. (1973). Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Traunmüller, H. (1983). On vowels. Perception of spectral features, related aspects of production and sociophonetic dimensions (Doctoral dissertation). University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. Trubetskoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: [Jednota Československých Matematiků a Fysiků]. Unseth, C. (2010). Vowel Harmony in Wolof. Dallas: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.gial.edu/documents/opal/No-7-Unseth-Wolof-Vowel-Harmony.pdf. Ward, M., Sánchez, E. Z., & Marlett, S. A. (2008). Zapoteco de Santa Catarina Quioquitani. In S. A. Marlett (Ed.), Ilustraciones fonéticas de lenguas amerindias (preliminary edition). Lima: SIL International y Universidad Ricardo Palma. Retrieved from http://lengamer.org/publicaciones/trabajos/zapoteco_de_Quioquitani_afi.pdf. Wilson, H. (2003). A brief introduction to Marshallese phonology. ms. UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/hwills1/ABriefIntroductiontoMarshallesePhonology.pdf.
25 DOUG HITCH
Appendix A: Examples of languages in each vowel system
Triangular three-vowel systems
Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Jukun Niger-Congo, NE Nigeria /i u a/ R491 Ngizim Chadic, Nigeria short /i u a/ & U4369 long /eː oː aː/ Central Atlas Berber, Morocco /i u a/ Kossmann & Stroomer, Tamazight 1997: 463 Eastern Arabic Arabic, Saudi Arabia /i u a/ R1564 Tunisian Arabic Arabic, Tunisia short /ɪ ʊ ə/ & R1573 long /iː uː æː/ Moroccan Arabic Arabic, Morocco short /e o ɐ/ & R1575 long /iː uː aː/ Lak NE Caucasian, Russia /i u a/ R1625 Aleut Eskimo-Aleut, Russia-USA /i u a/ R2008 Brahui Dravidian, Pakistan-Afghanistan /i u a/ R2021 Thao Formosan, Taiwan /i u a/ R2608 Pirahā Mura, Brazil /i o a/ U6802 Gadsup Kainantu, Papua New Guinea short /i u ɜ/ & U8608 long /eː oː aː/ Chukchi Chukotko-Kamchatkan, E Russian /i u e₁/10 Jakobson & Waugh, 2002: 149–150 Nunggubuyu Arnhem, NE Australia /i u ɐ/ R4372 Gadang ~ Worimi Pama-Nyungan, New S Wales short /ɪ ʊ ə/ & R4538 long /iː uː aː/ Coast Tsimshian Tsimshianic, British Columbia /i u a/ U6774 Blackfoot Algonquian, Alberta-Montana /i o a/ R4689 Cheyenne Algonquian, Montana /e o a/ R4690 Miccosukee ~ Muskogean, Florida /i o a/ R4848 Mikasuki Sierra Totonac Totonacan, Puebla~Veracruz /i u a/ R4853 Alabama Muskogean, Texas /e o a/; U6759; /i o a/ W Amuesha ~ Yanesha’ Arawakan, Peru /e o a/ U6824 Jaqaru Aymaran, Peru /i ɯ a/ U6820 Yanyuwa Pama-Nyungan, N Australia /ɪ ʊ a/ U8347 Yolngu Pama-Nyungan, N Australia /ɪ ʊ ɐ/ U8375
10 “Recessive” vowels harmonically alternate with /e₂ o a/ “dominant” vowels; (/ə/ is also dominant).
26 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Four-vowel systems
Type 4a Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Hassaniya Arabic Arabic, Mauritania short /ɪ ʊ ə ɐ/ & R1576 long /iː uː aː/ Kerek Chukotko-Kamchatkan, E Russia /i u ə a/ R2004 Central Yupik Eskimo-Aleut, Alaska /i u ə a/ R2014 Budai Rukai Formosan, Taiwan /i u ə a/ Chen, 2006: 231 Paiwan Formosan, Taiwan /i u ə a/ Chen, 2006: 69 Pangasinan Malayo-Polynesian, N /i ʊ ə a/ Rosario, 2012: 269 Philippines Dena’ina ~ Tanaina Athabaskan, Alaska /i u ə a/ Boraas, 2010: 5, with
Type 4b Language family / Language name(s) Phonemes Reference geographic location Kitja ~ Kija Jarrakan, NW Australia /i ɨ u a/ R4421 Arritinngithigh Paman, N Australia /i ʉ u æ a/ R4460 Maranao Malayo-Polynesian, S /i ɨ o a/; U2445; Philippines /i o ə a/ Lobel & Riwarung, 2011: 35–36 Chacobo ~ Chakobo ~ Panoan, Bolivia /i ɨ o a/ Prost, 1967: 285 Chácobo-Pakawara
27 DOUG HITCH
Type 4c Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Ancient Egyptian Egyptian, Egypt /i u e a/ R1317 Dargwa Russia, NE Caucasian /i u e a/ R1626 Turkish Turkic, Turkey front /i y e ø/; R1935; W back /ɯ u a o/11 Mzieme Kamarupan Tibeto-Burman, NE India /i u e a/ TB:272 Alawa Arnhem (?), N Australia /i ɯ ɛ a/ R4397 Lardil Pama-Nungan, N Australia /i u e a/ R4448 Koyukon Athabaskan, Alaska /i u æ ɔ/ Axelrod, 1990: 180 Tsuut’ina ~ Sarsi Athabaskan, Alberta /ɪ ʊ a ɒ/ R4678 Arapaho Algonquian, Wyoming-Oklahoma /i u e o/ Goddard, 1979: 115 Pawnee Caddoan, Oklahoma /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɐ/ R4785 Tuscarora Iroquoian, Ontario-New York- /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɑ/ R4795 North Carolina Cayapa ~ Cha’palaa Barbacoan, Ecuador /i ʊ ɛ a/ Lindskoog & Brand, 1962: 32, 38 Alawa Arnhem (?), N Australia /ɪ ɯ̞ e a/ U8354; or 4d Bandjalang Pama-Nyungan, New S Wales /i u e a/ U8368 Moxo Arawakan, Bolivia /i u ɛ a/ U6827 Murrinh-patha S Daly (?), N Australia /i ʊ ɛ a/12 U8349 Quileute Chimakuan, Washington State /i u æ a/; U6732; short /e o a/ & W long /eː oː æː aː/ Shasta Hokan, California-Oregon /i u e a/ U6746 Tiwi Isolate, N Australia /i u a ɔ/; U8351; /ɪ ʊ a ɑ/; R4373; /i u a o/ W
11 Turkish harmonically contrasts front /i y e ø/ with back /ɯ u a o/. 12 Street & Mollinjin (1981: 199-200) state /ɛ/ also has allophones [æ, e].
28 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Type 4d Language Language family / geographic Phonemes Reference name(s) location Bontok Malayo-Polynesian, N /i e o a/ R2653 Phillipines Malagasy Malayo-Polynesian, Madagascar /i e o a/ U2410 Klamath Plateau Penutian, Oregon- /ɪ ɛ o ɐ/ R4808 California Seneca Iroquoian, NY State-Ontario- /i e o a/ with [u] in vowel Chafe, 2014: 8 Oklahoma symbolism, & nasal /e o a/ Dogrib Athabaskan, N Canada /i ɛ o a/ Tłı̨ chǫ Community Services Agency, 2007: 10–14 Navajo Athabaskan, SW USA /ɪ ɛ ɔ a/ R4683 Fox Algonquian, C USA-N Mexico /i ε o a/ R4700 Mohawk Iroquoian, Ontario-Quebec-NY /i ɛ o a/ R4790 Nahuatl Uto-Aztecan, Mexico /i ɛ o a/ U6762 Machiguenga Arawakan, Peru /i e o a/ U6825 Campa Tacana Tacanan, Bolivia /i e o a/ U6812
29 DOUG HITCH
Five-vowel systems
Type 5a Language family / Language name(s) Phonemes Reference geographic location Hadza Khoisan, N Tanzania /i u e o a/ R1 Soninke Mande, Mali /i u ɛ o a/ R77 Mandinka Mande, Gambia /i u ɛ ɔ a/ R86 Swahili ~ Kiswahili Bantu, E Africa /i u ɛ ɔ ɑ/ W Hausa Chadic, Niger-Nigeria-Chad /i u e o a/ Schuh & Yalwa, 1993: 78 Musey Chadic, N Cameroon /i u e o a/ R1358 Kafa Omotic, SW Ethiopia /i u e o a/ R1490 Hadiyya Cushitic, C Ethiopia /i u e o a/ R1524 Basque Isolate, N Spain-S France /i u e o a/ R1600 Ingush NE Caucasian, SW Russia /i u e o a/ R1609 Burushaski Isolate, N Pakistan /i u e o a/ R1640 Dari Iranian, N Afghanistan long /iː uː eː oː aː/ & R1780 short /i u a/ Castillian Spanish Romance, Spain /i u e o a/ R1823 Lithuanian Baltic, Lithuania short /ɪ ʊ ɛ o a/ & R1874 long /iː uː eː oː æː aː/ Tamil Dravidian, S India /ɪ ʊ e ɔ ɐ/ R2048 Baining East Papuan, Papua New /i u ɛ o a/ U8631 Guinea Batak Palawan, Phillipines /i u ɛ o a/ U2413 Even Tungusic, E Russia /ɪ u ɛ o ɑ/ U2167 Hamer Omotic, Ethiopia /i u e o ɑ/ & pharyngealized U4365 /ɪˤ ʊˤ eˤ ɔˤ ɐˤ/ Hawaiian Polynesian, Hawaii /i u ɛ o a/ U2424 Kharia Munda, Bihar India /i u e o a/ U2301 Yucuna Arawakan, Colombia /i u ɛ o a/ U6843 Gunwinygu ~ Arnhem, N Australia /i u ɛ ɔ a/ R4389 Kunwinjku Santiam Kalapuya Kalapuyan, Oregon /i u e o a/ R4802 Patwin Wintuan, California /i u e o a/ R4815 Zuni Isolate, New Mexico /i u ɛ ɔ a/ R4838 Tonkawa Isolate, Oklahoma-Texas- short /i u e o a/ & U6752 New Mexico long /iː uː eː oː aː/ Resigaro Arawakan, Peru /i ɯ ɛ ɔ a/ U6838 Island-Carib Arawakan, Lesser Antilles /i u e ɤ a/ U6823 Ocaina Bora-Huitoto, Peru- i ɯ ɛ o a/ U6805 Columbia
30 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Type 5b Language family / Language name(s) Phonemes Reference geographic location Forest Nenets Samoyedic, N Russia unstressed syllables /i u ə æ ɑ/ Salminen, 2007: 366 (stressed is 6c /i u e o æ ɑ/ Wadjiginy ~ Patjtjamalh Wagaydyic, N /i u ɵ e ɑ/; R4411; ~ Bachamal Australia /i u ø e a/ Ford, 1990: 35 Maranungku ~ Marranj Western Daly, N /i ʊ ɵ æ a/ R4412 Australia Matngele ~ Madngele Eastern Daly, N /i u ɵ e ɑ/ R4413 Australia Tolowa Athabaskan, Oregon /i u ə e a/; R4658; allophony [u~o], [a~ɔ], [ə~ɨ~ʉ] W Potawotami Algonquian, Michigan- /i o ə ɛ a/; R4697; Kansas with [u~o] allophony W Diegueño Yuman, California short /ɪ ʊ ə a ɔ/ & U6743 long (4c) /eː oː aː ɔː/
Type 5c Language name(s) Language family / geographic location Phonemes Reference Mongsen Ao NE India, Tibeto-Burman /i ʉ u ə a/13 Coupe, 2008: 2 Sarangani Manobo Malayo-Polynesian, S Philippines /i ɨ o ʌ a/ Reid, 1973: 13
Type 5d Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Latvian Baltic, Latvia /ɪ ʊ e æ a/; R1872; [ɔ] in loans W Waorani ~ Auka Isolate, E Ecuador /i e o æ a/ Saint & Pike, 1962: 4
Type 5e Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Cofan Isolate, Ecuador-Columbia /i ɨ ɛ o a/ U6836 Hixkaryana Carib, Brazil /e ɯ u æ ɔ/ U6842 MalakMalak Isolate, N Australia /i ɨ u ɛ ɐ/ Dorothea Hoffmann, p.c. 27Feb2017
13 Other Ao varieties are type 4a; all creaky voice /a̰ /
31 DOUG HITCH
Six-vowel systems
Type 6a Language name(s) Language family / geographic location Phonemes Reference Moro Heiban, Sudan /i u e ə o a/ Guest, 1997: 1 Rashad Niger-Congo, Sudan /i u e ə o a/ R71 Badyara Senegambian, Guinea /i u e ə o a/ R132 Lemoro Kainji, Nigeria /i u e ə o a/ R557 Meidob Nubian, NW Sudan /ɪ u ɛ ə ɔ a/ R1188 Gaam E Sudanic, Sudan /i u e ə o a/ R1205 Coptic Egyptian, Egypt /i u e ə o a/ R1318 Ga’anda Chadic, NE Nigeria /i u e ə o a/ R1389 East Gurage Ethiopic, EC Ethiopia /i u e ə o a/ R1587 Svan Kartvelian, NW Georgia /i u e ə o a/ R1597 E Armenian Armenian, Armenia /i u e ə o a/ R1654 Yidgha Iranian, NE Afghanistan /i u e ə o a/ R1743 Bulgarian Slavic, Bulgaria /i u ɛ ə ɔ a/ U2009 Tundra Yukaghir Uralic, NE Russia /i u e ø o a/ R1890 Magar Tibetic, Nepal /i u e ə o a/ R2132 Meithei ~ Manipuri Sino-Tibetan, NE India /i u e ə o a/ Chelliah, 1997: 21 Gaddang Cagayan Valley, N Phillipines /i u e ə o a/ R2626 Asmat Trans-New Guinea, W Papua /i u e ə ɔ a/ U8601 Bodo Sino-Tibetan, NE India /i u e ə o a/ U2515 Kera Chadic, Chad /i u ɛ ə ɔ a/ U4371 Kwak’wala Wakashan, British Columbia /i u ɛ ə ɔ a/ U6731 Tobo-Kube Finisterre-Huon, E Papua New Guinea /i u e ə o a/ R3632 Yir Yoront Paman, NE Australia /i u e ə o a/ R4471 Mi’kmaq ~ Micmac Algonquian, E Canada-E USA /i u e ə o a/ R4703 Lebanese Arabic Arabic, Lebanon /i u e ə o a/ R1568 Hopi Uto-Aztecan, Arizona /i ɯ e ø o a/ Grune, 1997: 3
32 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Type 6b Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Tera Chadic, NE Nigeria /i ɨ u e o a/ R1387 Gude Chadic, NE Nigeria /ɪ ɨ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ R1420 Khwarshi / Xvarshi NE Caucasian, Russia /i ɨ u e o a/ R1619 Hinukh / Hinux NE Caucasian, Russia /i y u e o a/ 1621 Sorbung Tibeto-Burman, NE India /i ʉ u e o a/ Mortenson & Keogh, 2011: 87 Chokri Tibeto-Burman, NE India /i ɨ u e o a/ Bielenberg & Nienu, 2001: 98 Muinane Bora-Witoto, Colombia /i ɨ u ɛ o a/ U6806 Ngalkbon ~ Dalabon Arnhem, N Australia /i ɨ u ɛ ɔ a/ R4390 Mbiywom Paman, NE Australia /i y u e o a/ R4462 Mbabaram Paman, NE Australia /i ɨ u ɛ ɔ a/; W; /i ɯ u a/ (4b); R4493; /i u ɛ ɤ ɔ a/ (6a) U8373 Maidu Maiduan, California / i ɨ u ɛ ɔ a/ R4818 Southern Sierra Utian, California /ɪ ɨ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ R4835 Miwok Huave Isolate, Oaxaca /i ɨ u e o a/ R4852 Sierra Popoluca Mixe-Zoquean, S Veracruz /i ɨ u e o a/ Elson, 1992: 586 Sarikoli Shughni Iranian, W Xinjiang /i y u e o a/ R1747 Kyungsang Korean Korean, Korea /i ɨ u e o a/ Lee & Jongman 2016: 158–160
33 DOUG HITCH
Type 6c Language family / Language name(s) Phonemes Reference geographic location Kxoe Khoisan, NE Namibia /i u e o ɛ a/ R26 Higi, Nkafa dialect Chadic, NE Nigeria /i u e o ɛ a/ R1397 Murle Didinga East Sudanic, Sudan /i u e o ɛ a/ R1193 Anuak E Sudanic, SW Ethiopia /i u ɛ o a ɔ/ R1225 Dameli Dardic, Pakistan /ɪ u ɛ ɔ æ ɑ/ R1674 Tehrani Persian Persian, Iran /i u e o æ ɒ/ W Slovak Slavic, Slovakia /i u e o æ a/ R1884 Uzbek Turkic, C Asia /i u e o a ɑ/ R1942 Telugu Dravidian, SE India long /iː uː eː oː æː aː/ & R2035 short (5a) Hakka Chinese, S China-Taiwan /i u ɛ ɔ æ a/ U2502 Chamorro Malayo-Polynesian, Guam /i u e o æ ɑ/ Topping, 1973: 16–24 Kate Finisterre-Huon, Papua New /i u e o a ɔ/ R3616 Guinea Chipewyan ~ Athabaskan, N Canada /i u e o ɛ a/ W Dënesųłiné Menominee Algonquian, Wisconsin /i u e o ɛ a/ R4698 Yuchi Isolate, Tennessee-Oklahoma /i u e o æ a/14 Crawford, 1973: 174– 175 Ashuslay ~ Nivaclé Matacoan, Argentina /i u e o a ɑ/ U6814 Zapoteco de Santa Zapotec, Oaxaca /i u e o ɛ a/ Ward et al., 2008: 4 Catarina Quioquitani
14 Crawford’s /ω/ is a product of contraction and is non-phonemic (Crawford 1973: 175).
34 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Seven-vowel systems
Type 7a Language family / geographic Language name(s) Phonemes Reference location Kanuri Nilo-Saharan, NE Nigeria /i ɨ u e ə o a/ R1175 Tigrinya Ethiopic, N Ethiopia /i ɨ u e ə o a/ R1583 Ket Yeniseian, C Russia /i ɨ u ɛ ə ɔ a/ W Wakhi Iranian, Afghanistan /i ɨ u e ə o a/ R1741 Sarikoli Iranian, W Xinjiang /i ɯ u ɛ ə o a/ system implied in Kim 2015 Albanian Albanian, Albania /i y u ɛ ə ɔ a/ R1789 Romanian Romance, Romania /i ɨ u e ə o a/ Chitoran, 2002: 204 Welsh Celtic, Wales short /ɪ ɨ ʊ ɛ ə ɔ a/ R1847 & long (6b) Udmurt Finno-Ugric, NW Russia /i ɨ u ɛ ə o a/ R1904 Komi-Zyrian Finno-Ugric, NW Russia /i ɨ u e ə o a/ R1905 Nishi Tibeto-Burman, N India- /i ɨ u e ə o a/ R2111 Assam Central Tibetan Tibetic, C Tibet /i y u e ø o ɑ/ R2125 Apatani Tibeto-Burman, NE India /i ɯ u e ə o a/ TB:24 Sa’ban North Sarawakan, Borneo /i ɨ u ɛ ə ɔ a/ U2415 Skou Skou, W Papua /i ʉ u ɛ ø ɔ a/ Donohue, 2004: 46 Jarawa Ongan, Andaman Islands /i ɨ u e ə o a/ Kumar, 2012: 40 Seoul Korean Korean, Korea /i ɨ u e~ɛ ʌ o a/ Lee & Jongman, 2016: 158–160
Type 7b Language name(s) Language family / geographic location Phonemes Reference Tamahaq Tuareg, S Algeria /i u e ə o æ ɐ/ R1326 Tigre Ethiopic, Ethiopia /i u e ə o æ a/ R1582 Eastern Pashto Iranian, Afghanistan-Pakistan /i u e ə o æ ɑ/ R1740 Moksha Mordvin Finnic, W Russia /i u e ə o æ a/ R1910 Amdo Zeku Tibetic, Qinghai /i u e ə o a ɔ/ TB:390 Tibetan Konyagi ~ Wamey Senegambian, Senegal-Gambia /i u ɛ ə ɔ æ a/ U4145 Wantoat Finisterre-Huon, E Papua New Guinea /i u e ə o æ ɑ/ Davis, 2004: 2 Drehu ~ Lifu Oceanic, New Caledonia /i u e ø o æ ɑ/ R3424 Sentani~Buyaka Sentani, W Papua /i u e ə o ɛ a/ Cowan, 1965: 4
35 DOUG HITCH
Type 7c Language Language family / Phonemes Reference name(s) geographic location Swedish North Germanic, long /iː ʉ: u: e: o: ɛ: ɑ:/ with /yː øː/ on a See above §2.4; Sweden separate plane, & short (6a) /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɵ ɔ a/ Bruce & Engstrand, with /ʏ œ/ on a separate plane 2006: 20 Eastern Saami Finnic, NW Russia /i ɨ u ɛ o a ɑ/ R1912 Tulu Dravidian, SW India short /i ɯ u e o ɛ a/ & long (6c) R2037 Kwoma Sepik, Papua New /i ɨ u e o ε a/ U8602 Guinea Chuxnabán Mixe Mixe-Zoque, Oaxaca /i ɨ u e o æ a/ Jany, 2007: 67 Ahi Tibeto-Burman, Yunnan constricted & unconstricted TB:8 /i ɯ u e o ɛ ɑ/ Norwegian North Germanic, long /iː ʉː uː eː oː æː ɑː/ & U2006 Norway short (8b) Kwoma ~ Middle Sepik, Papua /i ɨ u e o ɛ a/ R4253 Wahkuk New Guinea
Type 7d Language family / Language name(s) Phonemes Reference geographic location Hindi Indic, Uttar Pradesh long /iː uː eː oː æː aː ɔː/ & R1704 short /ɪ ʊ ə/ Calcutta Bengali Indic, NE India /i u e o æ a ɔ/ R1721 Italian Romance, Italy /i u e o ɛ a ɔ/ R1809 Galician Romance, Spain /i u e o ɛ a ɔ/ R1832 Yoruba Volta-Niger, SW Nigeria /i u e o ɛ a ɔ/ R447 Newari Tibeto-Burman, Nepal /i u e oæ a ɔ/ TB:294 Tunica Isolate, Louisiana /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ R4840 Ponapean Oceanic, F S Micronesia /i u e o ɛ a ɔ/ Takashi, 2009: 104 Dangla Chadic, SC Chad /i u e o ɛ a ɔ/ R1373 Vai Mande, NW Liberia /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ R83 Kikuyu Bantoid, Kenya /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ R933
36 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Eight-vowel systems
Type 8a Language Language family / geographic Phonemes Reference name(s) location Murle E Sudanic, Ethiopia /ɪ ʋ e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R1195 Dinik E Sudanic, Sudan /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R1210 Kenga Central Sudanic, SC Chad /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R1291 Zenaga Berber, SW Mauritania /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R1329 Jibbāli ~ Shehri South Arabian, Oman /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ Simeone-Senelle, 1997: 384 Catalan Romance, Spain-Andorra- /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R1822 France-Italy Orok Tungusic, SE Russia long /iː uː eː əː oː ɛː aː ɔː/ R1992 & short (7b) Thado Kukish, India-Burma /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R2231 Amwi Mon-Khmer, NE India /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R2386 Yapese Oceanic, Yap Island /i u e ɵ o ɛ a ɑ/ R2618 Javanese Sunda-Sulawesi, Indonesia /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ U2409 Koma ~ Komo Nilo-Saharan, Ethiopia-Sudan /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ U4220 Morwap ~ Elseng Isolate, W Papua /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R3609 Abau Sepik, Papua New Guinea /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R4236 Ulithian Oceanic, Federated States of /i u e ə o æ ɐ a/ W Micronesia Konkani Indic, Mysore /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R1689 Vanimo Skou, W Papua New Guinea /i u e ɵ o ɛ a ɔ/ U8640 Iaai Austronesian, New Caledonia /i u e ɤ o æ a ɔ/ & front Maddieson & Anderson, rounded /y ø/ 1994: 164 Ewondo Bantu, Cameroon /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ U4141 Minyanka ~ Senufo, Mali /i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ & front Prost, 1964: 125 Mamara ~ rounded /y œ/ Mianka
37 DOUG HITCH
Type 8b Language Language family / Phonemes Reference name(s) geographic location Chechen NE Caucasian, Russia /i y u e ø o æ a/ R1608 Bezhta NE Caucasian, Russia /i y u e ø o æ ɑ/ R1622 Norwegian Germanic, Norway short /ɪ ʉ ʊ e ə ɒ̝ æ a/ & long (7c); U2006; short /ɨ ʉ ʊ ɛ ə ɔ æ ɑ/ W Fe’Fe’ Bantoid, Cameroon /i ɯ u e ɤ o a̘ ɑ/ U4148 Finnish Finno-Ugric, Finland- /i y u ɛ ø o æ a/; U2153; Sweden-Norway-Russia /i y u ɛ ø o æ ɑ/ W Selkup Samoyedic, Siberia short tense /i ɨ u e ə o æ a/ & Helimski, 1998: 552–553 secondary /y ø/ Kashmiri Dardic, India-Pakistan /i ɨ u e ə o a ɔ/ R1685 Woleaian Oceanic, Federated States long /iː ʉː uː ɛː ɵː oː ɐː ɒː/ & Ellis, 2012: 146–147 of Micronesia short (5a) Khmer Austroasiatic, Cambodia short vowels /ɪ ɯ ʋ ɛ ɤ ɔ a̘ ɑ/15 U2306
Type 8c Language family / Language name(s) Phonemes Reference geographic location Tinrin Oceanic, S New Caledonia /i ɯ u e o ɛ a ɔ/16 Osumi 1995: 13–15 Cayuvava Isolate, Bolivia short & long /i ɨ u ɛ o æ a ɔ/ U6840
15 Current descriptions give four heights for the long vowels. 16 The phonemic status of /ɛ/ is described as doubtful.
38 VOWEL SPACES AND SYSTEMS
Nine-vowel systems
Language name(s) Language family / geographic Phonemes Reference location Bagirmi Central Sudanic, SW Chad /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ R1286 Kurumba Dravidian, SW India /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ R2043 Sgaw Karen, SE Myanmar /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ R2095 Phlong ~ Northern Karen, NW Thailand /i ɨ u e ə o æ a ɔ/ R2085 Pwo Bisu Southern Loloish; N Thailand /i ɯ u e ɤ o ɛ a ɔ/ TB:49 Biyue Hani Southern Loloish, Yunnan /i y u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ TB:132 Lahu Central Loloish, Thailand- /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ TB:192 Burma-Yunnan Lawa Mon-Khmer, NW Thailand /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ R2403 Mal ~ Thin Mon-Khmer, N Thailand /i ɨ u e ə o æ a ɔ/ R2419 Hanoi Vietnamese Vietic, N Vietnam /i ɯ u e ɤ o ɛ a ɔ/ Kirby, 2011: 384 Pacoh Katuic, Vietnam-Laos /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/, with +RTR Alves, 2001: 31 mid vowel plane /e̙ ə̙ o̙ / Northern Temiar Aslian, Malaysia /i ʉ u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ Matisoff, 2003: 14 Lao Tai, Laos /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ R2573 Satawalese Micronesian, Caroline Islands short /i ʉ u ɛ ɞ o æ a ɒ/ Roddy, 2007: 28–29 & long (5a) Saipan Carolinian Micronesian, Caroline Islands long & short /i ʉ u e ɵ o æ ɐ ɒ/ Ellis, 2012: 152–153 Polowat Micronesian, Caroline Islands long & short /i ɨ u e ɵ o æ ɐ ɒ/ Ellis, 2012: 150–151 Cham Chamic, Cambodia-Vietnam /i ɨ u e ə o ε a ɔ/ U2411 Andoke ~ Andoque Isolate, Columbia /i ɨ u e ə o æ ɜ ɒ/; U6851; /i ɨ u e ə o a ʌ ɒ/ W Totonpec Mixe Mixe-Zoque, Oaxaca /i ɨ u e ə o æ a ɔ/17 Elson 1992: 589 Po-ai Tai, SE Yunnan long vowels /i ɨ u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R2554 Gullah ~ Sea Island English Creole, Georgia /i ɨ u e ə o ɛ a ɔ/ R5689 Creole Akha Loloish, Laos-Burma- /i ɯ u e ɤ o ɛ a ɔ/ & a Lewis, 1968: 10 Thailand-China secondary plane with /y œ/18
17 R4859 has /ʊ/ for /o/. 18 Hayashi, 2016: 75 with /ø/ for /œ/.
39