38
the Americas can be found which seem to have attributes of both types of languages, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate linguistic thinking of tonal typology and remove the artificial binary distinction.
1.7 Dissertation Overview
In Chapter 2, the literature that specifically refers to Soyaltepec Mazatec is reviewed. In Chapter 3, the general segmental phonology of Soyaltepec Mazatec is described. Chapter 4 addresses the surface tones
that occur. Chapter 5 explores tonal processes of Soyaltepec Mazatec. Finally, Chapter 6 presents discussions, conclusions and recommendations for future research.
39
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview
In this chapter, I discuss the specific linguistic literature about Soyaltepec Mazatec with the intention that the reader will understand what literature is available that describes Soyaltepec Mazatec and
the basic contribution that each item has made. In 1956, Eunice Pike published “Tonally differentiated allomorphs in Soyaltepec Mazatec” which is a description of Soyaltepec’s tonal system in which she details
complex phenomena that occur. It is the only article written specifically about Soyaltepec Mazatec tone using original data. This article has been referred to by two distinct groups of people. The first group
involves those interested in comparative Oto-Manguean phonology. This group was interested in overall reconstruction, not the tone system specifically. They published several works which included extensive
word cognate lists with data beyond Pike’s, but they did not seek to further analyze the system. The data they offer is in the form of word lists, so it does not contribute to an understanding of the tonal interactions
involved. The second group involves those interested in advancing phonological theory, specifically in the areas of tone studies and autosegmental analysis. This group relied on Pike’s data but offered fresh
analysis. Gudschinsky 1959, Kirk 1966 and Rensch 1966, were interested in Proto-Oto-Manguean
reconstruction. Gudschinsky collaborated with Pike to collect data throughout the Mazatec area, including Soyaltepec, which she used in her research on Proto-Mazatec, Proto-Popolocan and Proto-Popotecan
25
which was published in different levels of detail in 1953, 1956 and 1959. Kirk made use of data sets from both Pike and Gudschinsky’s published works, as well as their field notes, in his dissertation, Proto-
25
Mazatec is part of the sub-family of languages known as Popolocan. Gudschinsky hypothesized another level of reconstruction which combined Popolocan languages with Mixtecan languages and named this
subgroup Proto-Popotecan, a term that has not endured the test of time. For a listing of the currently accepted sub-classification of Oto-Manguean languages, refer to Appendix A.
40
Mazatec Phonology 1966. Rensch 1966 also investigated comparative Oto-Manguean phonology, making use primarily of data from Gudschinsky 1959. While each work on Proto-Mazatec gives a
summary of the phonology of the individual languages like Soyaltepec, Pike’s work is the only in-depth investigation of the tone system, and the other researchers each defer to it. Because there is no new tonal
information other than increased numbers of examples of individual lexical items, I will not discuss the reconstructionist’s work further at this time.
In addition to the American linguistic interest in Soyaltepec Mazatec, a comparative dialect dictionary entitled Alfabeto Mazateco was published in 1993 by Juan Gregorio Regino, a Mazatec linguist.
This work includes word lists with glosses from four lowland Mazatec dialects Soyaltepec, San Jose Independencia, Jalapa, and Ixcatlan, with some explanatory notes about the sound systems of each. This
work is descriptive and informative, but not analytical. It demonstrates the orthography that is currently in use in the area, but it does not address issues relating to tone or tone sandhi. Furthermore, it only identifies
three levels of tone and fails to describe most of the rising and falling tones that exist. Because I am interested in tonal analysis, the Regino work is not detailed enough to be incorporated here.
Pike’s Soyaltepec Mazatec data has also been used by theoretical linguists e.g., Biber 1981, Goldsmith 1990 and Pizer 1994 to illustrate how specific theories handle a complex tonal language.
Biber used Soyaltepec Mazatec data in his investigation of the proper representation of contour tones. Although the exact type of distinctive feature charts used by Biber are no longer in common usage, his
conclusion that Soyaltepec Mazatec “demonstrates the necessity of the level-sequence analysis [of tone contours] for certain languages,” Biber 1981:273 is still relevant today. Goldsmith also demonstrates
theoretical arguments
26
based on Soyaltepec Mazatec contour tone phenomena as described by Pike. He illustrates that contour tones can best be understood as concatenations of level tones on a separate tier from
the segmental information of the syllables. Building on Goldsmith’s analysis, Pizer reanalyzed Pike’s data. She noted that the contour tones in Mazatec “behave like units with respect to some processes and like
series of level tones with respect to others,” Pizer 1994: 97. In her article, she proposes that linguists may
26
Soyaltepec Mazatec data appears only in Goldsmith’s 1990 work, not in his earlier 1976 description of Autosegmental Phonology. The data he uses illustrate the theory but are not foundational to it.
41
need to rethink tonal geometry and typology by adding a class of languages of the Mazatec or possibly Mesoamerican type. Because the theory that Biber uses in his article is antiquated, I will not go into depth
about it here. In the sections that follow, first I will detail the information provided in Pike’s article. Then I will discuss Goldsmith 1990 and Pizer 1994.
2.2 Pike 1956
