Markedness, Faithfulness, and the Typology of Two-Height Tone Systems

In this paper, I explore the possibility of typologizing two-height tone systems based on markedness. Drawing from a current database of 650 tone systems (of which over 400 are twoheight), I will first confirm that two-height systems may be “equipollent” /H, L/, “privative” /H/ or /L/ vs. Ø — or both, /H, L/ vs. Ø. I demonstrate that “markedness as faithfulness” (Pulleyblank 2004) and “faithfulness to the marked” (de Lacy 2002b, 2006) establish that H or L can be “marked” in both privative AND equipollent two-height tone systems. Tonal evidence presented from the Tibeto-Burman languages Kuki-Thaadow and Hakha Lai thus complements recent proposals of languagespecific markedness in segmental phonology (Hume 2003, Rice 2007). However, I show that these criteria for markedness do not necessarily line up, with Haspelmath’s (2006:64-5) 12 senses of the term “markedness”, specifically “markedness as complexity”. I conclude that typology should not be guided by markedness, rather by phonological representation and activation (Clements 2001, 2003): Which tone is activated (H, L, both), where in the phonology, and how?