Videos by Jesse P Gates
This is an overview of the Stau language, highlighting some interesting and unique facts of the l... more This is an overview of the Stau language, highlighting some interesting and unique facts of the language. This presentation was part of my PhD dissertation defense, given on May 26, 2021. 154 views
Journal articles (peer reviewed) by Jesse P Gates
Himalayan Linguistics, 2025
This study presents a pan-dialectal synchronic survey and documentation of preinitials in the Hor... more This study presents a pan-dialectal synchronic survey and documentation of preinitials in the Horpa cluster (West Gyalrongic). Based on fieldwork and analysis of earlier Horpa scholarship, the study describes the preinitial systems of ten Horpa varieties covering all proposed branches of the Horpa cluster. It also identifies four critical parameters of variation in the preinitial systems: the presence or absence of 1. guttural, 2. sigmatic, and 3. liquid contrasts in addition to the presence and absence of 4. weakened semivowel preinitials. The study contributes to the ongoing documentation and analysis of Horpa varieties, many of which are now endangered. Given the phonological conservatism of the Gyalrongic languages, the Horpa preinitialed consonant clusters offer insights and new perspectives for investigating Sino-Tibetan diachronic phonology.
Language and Linguistics, 2024
Voicing alternation and the function of Tibetan verbal prefixes are two problems that have attrac... more Voicing alternation and the function of Tibetan verbal prefixes are two problems that have attracted scholars of Tibetan and Sino-Tibetan linguistics for over a century. This article presents a voicing rule in Thebo Tibetan and systematically analyzes the verb paradigm to explain the constraints for this rule and its apparent exceptions. The latter part of this article analyzes the evolution of the verbal paradigm from Old Tibetan to Thebo, using a model based on exceptions, sound laws, and analogy, and proposes the derived direction of the irregular verbal alternations in Thebo. The main contribution of this study is to provide additional evidence in solving the enigma of directionality for voicing alternation in Tibetan.
Studies in Language, 2024
This article presents a comprehensive survey of anticausativization within Gyalrongic languages, ... more This article presents a comprehensive survey of anticausativization within Gyalrongic languages, a group of Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Sichuan, China, contributing significantly to our understanding of this phenomenon’s theoretical and diachronic underpinnings. The research affirms that anticausative alternation is predominantly associated with verbs that exhibit a change of state semantics. This categorization includes decausative and autocausative verbs, further subdivided in Gyalrongic languages into specific semantic groups such as Separation, Removal, Physical Transformation, etc. Certain verbs with agent-oriented meanings also undergo anticausative alternation, calling for a revision of previous claims. Gyalrongic languages demonstrate a unique trend in their use of anticausative marking, deviating from global patterns by avoiding the polyfunctional employment of these markers. The article traces the origins of anticausative marking to a spontaneous / non-volitional action prefix and identifies the emergence of a new non-volitional prefix that has overtones of anticausative marking, descending from an orientational / TAME prefix.
Journal of Language Relationship, 2023
This study reviews four competing explanations for the origins of uvular preinitials in Tibetic l... more This study reviews four competing explanations for the origins of uvular preinitials in Tibetic lects, making a specific case study of modern uvular preinitial reflexes from Old Tibetan g-/d-. The first explanation is from Huang (2012), who claims that uvular preinitials were phonologically present in Pre-Tibetan, and thus at least some of the uvular preinitials in modern Tibetic lects descend from this Pre-Tibetan strata. Her argument is predicated on the hypothesis that Tibetic lects broke up into different languages before Old Tibetan was reduced to writing in the 7th century AD. The second explanation is from Hill (2010), who argues that all uvular preinitials are not inherited from Pre-Tibetan but are the result of language contact with Qiangic and/or Mongolic languages. Differing from Huang’s explanation, Hill’s explanation rests on the theory that all modern Tibetic lects descend from Old Tibetan. The third explanation assumes that Hill is correct in the claim that there were no uvular pre- initials in Old Tibetan, and claims that there is a regular sound change from g-/d- to ve- lar/postvelar/uvular fricatives (except before velar initials, where the change is to r-) in Amdo lects and to uvular fricatives in Gyalrongic lects. For WAT lects, g- regularly changes to velar/postvelar/uvular fricatives, but d- changes to velar/postvelar/uvular or ʂ-/r-. The fourth explanation is that in Old Tibetan ḫ and g-/d- were in velar and uvular free variation, and thus uvular preinitials do come from Old Tibetan, but originate from phones and not phonemes. The first three explanations are scientific hypotheses; i.e., they can be tested through evidence and are falsifiable. The final explanation (appealing to free variation) is not a falsifiable. After examining the evidence on the timing of the breakup of the Tibetic lects, Huang’s hypothesis is eliminated, leaving only Hill’s explanation and ‘Explanation 3’ standing. How- ever, Explanation 3 is the only explanation that proposes a set of regular sound changes to summarize the uvularization of g-/d-.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2023
Note: This version is a draft, but has highlights and notes with corrections that you can read if... more Note: This version is a draft, but has highlights and notes with corrections that you can read if you download the article. Go to https://benjamins.com/catalog/ltba.23006.gat to download the published and final version of this article.
This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic study of Stau kinship terms, offering a detailed analysis of their classifications and characteristics. Stau kinship terms are categorized into vocative and referential/possessive forms. Vocative kinship terms follow the intonation pattern of other vocative phrases, particularly barytonesis, which involves stress and intonation shifting from the second syllable to the first. The paper explores the distinctions within younger sibling relationships, dividing kinship terms into male Ego and female Ego categories based on the sex of the connecting relative. The kinship prefix æ-, commonly found in Qiangic languages, is exclusively used in vocative and referential/possessive kinship terms referring to older kin (both male and female). The study also identifies specific vocative and referential kinship terms that describe dyads of kinship relationships, similar to Tibetic languages like the Amdo dialects spoken in Stau-speaking areas. Stau maintains a sex-based distinction for kinship terms across all generations. Referential/possessive kinship terms in Gen−1 and Gen−2 differentiate between lineal and collateral relationships, while in vocative terms, only Gen−1 distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives. Gen+1 consanguineal vocative kinship terms exhibit distinctions for lineal/collateral and matrilateral/patrilateral relationships. However, the matrilateral/patrilateral distinction is neutralized in Gen+1 affinal vocative kinship terms. Gen+1 affinal referential/possessive kinship terms differentiate matrilateral and patrilateral relationships when using a possessive phrase, but not when using the simple base term. Age relative to Ego plays a distinct role in Gen0 kinship terms, both vocative and referential/possessive. Sibling terms are differentiated from cousin terms in Gen0 referential/possessive terms using the thɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə) ‘is a relative’ copula phrase. Regarding cousin kinship typology, Stau aligns with the Hawaiian type in the vocative and the Eskimo type in the referential. The Hawaiian type serves as the foundational basis due to shared roots in both vocative and referential contexts. For Gen+1 terms, Stau follows the Sudanese system, each consanguineal kin with their own term. Gen−1 terms follow the Eskimo system.
Language and Linguistics, Mar 29, 2022
Errata: I no longer believe that the uvular initial is voiced in /ɢo/ 'be peeled', and it should ... more Errata: I no longer believe that the uvular initial is voiced in /ɢo/ 'be peeled', and it should rather be transcribed with the voiceless uvular stop /q/, i.e., /qo/. This is also true for /ɢre/ 'collapse (vi)', which now should be transcribed as /qre/. Thus, these verb stems should be removed from the evidence in favor of voiceless to voiced directionality. However, this does not have a bearing on the main evidence and conclusion of this paper, which still are a voiceless to voiced and transitive to intransitive directionality.
This paper offers new evidence from Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs to address the question of directionality in valency-changing derivations in Sino-Tibetan. Examining Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs causative and anticausative verb stem pairs adds to the evidence that in Proto-Sino-Tibetan a number of intransitive stems are derived from transitive stems, in some cases as the result of *N-prefixation, and in other cases from voicing alternation independent of *N-prefixation. In addition, the proto-sigmatic prefix (*s-) does not cause devoicing in Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs, but rather often undergoes voicing assimilation, and has more than just a causativization function. Furthermore, by looking at Gyalrong, Minyag, Tangut, Middle Chinese, and Old Chinese we emphasize that there is no synchronic evidence to support devoicing induced by *s-, nor is there historical evidence to support the claim that *s-caused devoicing in Proto-Gyalrongic, and even genetically deeper stages.
Folia Linguistica Historica, 2020
This paper proposes that Tangut should be classified as a West Gyalrongic language in the Sino-Ti... more This paper proposes that Tangut should be classified as a West Gyalrongic language in the Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan family. We examine lexical commonalities, case marking, partial reduplication, and verbal morphology in Tangut and in modern West Gyalrongic languages, and point out nontrivial shared innovations between Tangut and modern West Gyalrongic languages. The analysis suggests a closer genetic relationship between Tangut and Modern West Gyalrongic than between Tangut and Modern East Gyalrongic.This paper is the first study that tackles the exact linguistic affiliation of the Tangut language based on the comparative method.
Himalayan Linguistics, 2019
The primary objective of this article is to provide a transcription, glossing, and translation of... more The primary objective of this article is to provide a transcription, glossing, and translation of a recent oral presentation which can be translated as “Stau Tub.bstan.nyi.ma's Detailed Commentary on Dining Etiquette," made over social media in the Stau language (ZML henceforth). ZML provides an example of the role of social media in language use among a language with relatively few speakers in the Sichuan Ethnic Corridor of China and provides data for studying the influence of Tibetic languages on Stau from the standpoint of loanwords. ZML is also a source of anthropological and sociolinguistic data; giving insight into a prescriptive approach to behavior, normative discourse, and identity formation. In addition, a preliminary representation of Stau using the Tibetan (Sambhota) script is given in this paper.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2019
Guiqiong, like most Tibeto-Burman languages, presents a rich array of relativization construction... more Guiqiong, like most Tibeto-Burman languages, presents a rich array of relativization constructions. Based on both natural oral texts and elicited material, the present paper describes all attested types of relatives in Guiqiong, including prenominal, head-internal, headless, and double-headed relative clauses, as well as nominalized and non-nominalized relative clauses. It provides a case by case account of the possible constructions for all syntactic roles including various types of obliques. This paper will also discuss different relativization strategies used in Guiqiong. To conclude this paper will discuss the importance and the relevance of this study to Sino-Tibetan linguistics.
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 2018
Please only cite the published version. If you want a copy please write to me.
In this paper, w... more Please only cite the published version. If you want a copy please write to me.
In this paper, we propose that in Stau (>Rgyalrongic >Sino-Tibetan) there is a system of four vowel pairs (i/ə, e/ɛ, æ/ɑ, u/o) that undergo regressive fronting-backing/height vowel harmony. Like prototypical examples of vowel harmony across the world’s languages, there is evidence for vowel harmony from two sources: “within morphemes and by alternations in vowels when morphemes are combined into complex words” (van der Hulst 2016). Specifically in Stau, the following combinations of VCV are disallowed: iCə, əCi, eCɛ, ɛCe, uCo, oCu, æCɑ, ɑCɑ.2 When combining morphemes to create complex words, the vowel of the first morpheme assimilates to the vowel of the second (e.g., æCɑ --> ɑCɑ), if the vowels of the two morphemes belong to the same vowel pair set (e.g., æ/ɑ). The regressive vowel harmony system allows for the following assimilatory changes, displayed in (1) and (2) below.
(1) Raising/Fronting:
əCi-->iCi, ɛCe-->eCe, oCu-->uCu, ɑCɑ-->æCæ
(2) Lowering/Backing:
iCə-->əCə, eCɛ-->ɛCɛ, uCo-->oCo, æCɑ-->ɑCɑ
There are, however, several systematic exceptions where vowel harmony does not occur.
This is the first full-length paper on vowel harmony in any Rgyalrongic language, and it is the first time vowel harmony has been systematically analyzed in Stau.
Transactions of the Philological Society, Mar 2017
This paper presents the first documentation and analysis of a typologically remarkable process of... more This paper presents the first documentation and analysis of a typologically remarkable process of verbal triplication in the Stau language (Sino-Tibetan). Moreover, Stau’s triplication of verbs to index multiple agents (S/A) is also used pragmatically to highlight those agents. Stau’s verbal triplication, although unique in many regards, falls into a broader typological linguistic pattern of iconicity, demonstrating that there is often a strong tie between form and function.
Monographs by Jesse P Gates
Paris, EHESS, May 26, 2021
The language varieties classified under the official ISO heading Jiarong [ISO 639-3: jya], a.k.a.... more The language varieties classified under the official ISO heading Jiarong [ISO 639-3: jya], a.k.a. rGyalrong, spoken in parts of the mountainous north-western Sìchuān province of China, have been generally accepted as a single, distinct, synchronic language belonging to the rGyalrongic subgroup within Tibeto-Burman. The research provided in this thesis casts doubt on the hypothesis that rGyalrong is a single synchronic language and reveals some of the previously undocumented variation within rGyalrongic. The research in this study provides evidence that intelligibility of a representative lect from the east-central rGyalrongic region is low among speakers of many lects in the southern rGyalrongic region. In addition, ethnic identity at the lowest embedded layer is not cohesive throughout the rGyalrongic regions. Language attitudes, contact, ethnohistory, perceptual dialectology, core lexical comparisons, and structural comparisons are also examined. As a result rGyalrong emerges as five distinct languages—Situ, South-central, Japhug, Tshobdun, Zbu—with Situ and Japhug having the most robust evidence. This study integrates the field research of the author—including the first rigorous intelligibility testing among rGyalrongic language varieties—as well as previous research by external sources.
Conference Presentations by Jesse P Gates
International The 56th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics (ICSTLL56), 2023
As the title of this paper suggests, we discuss an attempt to create writing systems for three We... more As the title of this paper suggests, we discuss an attempt to create writing systems for three West Gyalrongic lects spoken in Northwestern Sichuan. Two of these lects belong to the Horpa clade (Mazur Stau and Bragmda' rTa'u); Khroskyabs is the third lect. We have based the orthographies of these lects on the Tibetan (Sambhota) segmental (abugida) script. We will discuss the challenges and successes of adapting the Tibetan syllabary to these lects, including specific phonological and sociolinguistic issues and how we have attempted to address them.
Since these lects are part of the same historical subgroup and share many phonological features, we have aimed to harmonize the orthographies as much as possible. Another goal has been to respect and preserve the Tibetan writing tradition to the extent possible. However, we have often faced difficulties in achieving the latter goal, as the phonologies of these three lects differ from Tibetan, and the needs of phonology sometimes outweigh the desire to maintain tradition.
We first discuss the initial consonant phonemes for each lect. Next, we discuss consonant clusters in the onset. Finally, we discuss the rime phonemes in each lect, starting with simple vowels and moving to rimes with consonant codas. The section on the rimes also covers Khroskyabs tone (tone is not phonemic in the other two lects). In each section, we include the choices of Tibetan script segments for each phoneme, consonant cluster, and rime and discuss the reasoning behind our decisions.
Himalayan Languages Symposium 26, 2023
This paper surveys anticausativization in Gyalrongic languages and makes some synchronic and diac... more This paper surveys anticausativization in Gyalrongic languages and makes some synchronic and diachronic observations and generalizations about this phenomenon. Although anticausativization has been discussed for individual Gyalrongic languages at length, this is the first paper to synthesize all current information on anticausativization in Gyalrongic, bringing all this knowledge under one roof. This paper will also utilize newly collected Stosde fieldwork data with anticausative verbs and interact with the recent typological research on anticausativization, e.g., Inglese (2022). I will begin with the form and function of anticausative verbs for each Gyalrongic language. Gyalrongic anticausative derivation is accomplished through voicing the onset. In East Gyalrongic languages, the voicing of the onset for the anticausative stem is triggered by a nasal preinitial, but in West Gyalrongic languages (except for some Bragmda' rTa'u examples) the nasal preinitial has been lost, but the voicing of the onset remains. Next, I will investigate the semantic range of anticausative verbs. There are four broad semantic categories that Gyalrongic anticausative verbs generally fall into, increasing in negative outcomes: Separation (‘split’, ‘separate’, ‘tear’), Removal (‘take away’, ‘wipe’, ‘eliminate’), Altering Physical Structure (‘burn’, ‘bend’, ‘melt’), and Destruction (‘burst’, ‘disassemble’, ‘collapse’). Furthermore, I will look into issues concerning animate vs. inanimate subject compatibility, subject volitionality, and compatibility with other derivations (e.g., causatives). Finally, I will discuss the diachrony of anticausativization in Gyalrongic, identifying all known anticausative verb cognates across the languages. The issue of directionality of derivation (from transitive to intransitive) has already been well demonstrated (see Jacques 2021: 918-920; Gates et al. 2022), but I will provide more evidence to support this argument, for example, Bragmda ' rTa'u pkɯk/kɯ ‘to bend’ → ⁿɡɯk ‘be bent’ compared with Japhug kɤɣ ‘bend’ → ŋgɤɣ ‘be bent’. Jacques (2021: 918-919) states three lines of evidence in support of a transitive to intransitive directionality for Gyalrong languages (aspiration neutralization, recent productivity of nasal prefixation for loanwords, and the sigmatic prefix’s inability to cause devoicing); and this evidence will be examined and built upon for the rest of Gyalrongic.
Himalayan Languages Symposium (HLS) 26, Paris, September 6, 2023
This paper surveys anticausativization in Gyalrongic languages and makes some synchronic and diac... more This paper surveys anticausativization in Gyalrongic languages and makes some synchronic and diachronic observations and generalizations about this phenomenon. Although anticausativization has been discussed for individual Gyalrongic languages at length, this is the first paper to synthesize all current information on anticausativization in Gyalrongic, bringing all this knowledge under one roof. This paper will also utilize newly collected Stosde fieldwork data with anticausative verbs and interact with the recent typological research on anticausativization, e.g., Inglese (2022). I will begin with the form and function of anticausative verbs for each Gyalrongic language. Gyalrongic anticausative derivation is accomplished through voicing the onset. In East Gyalrongic languages, the voicing of the onset for the anticausative stem is triggered by a nasal preinitial, but in West Gyalrongic languages (except for some Bragmda' rTa'u examples) the nasal preinitial has been lost, but the voicing of the onset remains. Next, I will investigate the semantic range of anticausative verbs. There are four broad semantic categories that Gyalrongic anticausative verbs generally fall into, increasing in negative outcomes: Separation (‘split’, ‘separate’, ‘tear’), Removal (‘take away’, ‘wipe’, ‘eliminate’), Altering Physical Structure (‘burn’, ‘bend’, ‘melt’), and Destruction (‘burst’, ‘disassemble’, ‘collapse’). Furthermore, I will look into issues concerning animate vs. inanimate subject compatibility, subject volitionality, and compatibility with other derivations (e.g., causatives). Finally, I will discuss the diachrony of anticausativization in Gyalrongic, identifying all known anticausative verb cognates across the languages. The issue of directionality of derivation (from transitive to intransitive) has already been well demonstrated (see Jacques 2021: 918-920; Gates et al. 2022), but I will provide more evidence to support this argument, for example, Bragmda ' rTa'u pkɯk/kɯ ‘to bend’ → ⁿɡɯk ‘be bent’ compared with Japhug kɤɣ ‘bend’ →ŋgɤɣ ‘be bent’. Jacques (2021: 918-919) states three lines of evidence in support of a transitive to intransitive directionality for Gyalrong languages (aspiration neutralization, recent productivity of nasal prefixation for loanwords, and the sigmatic prefix’s inability to cause devoicing); and this evidence will be examined and built upon for the rest of Gyalrongic.
![Research paper thumbnail of When /ʁjə/ becomes [a̯ jə] and /sni/ becomes [i̯ ni]: Preinitial vocalization in Horpa consonant clusters](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/105352048/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SLE 56, 2023
The Horpa languages (Gyalrongic branch of Sino-Tibetan) are known for their extensive use of word... more The Horpa languages (Gyalrongic branch of Sino-Tibetan) are known for their extensive use of word- initial consonant clusters, as in Geshiza ʁjə ‘fish’, sni ‘nose’, and rŋa ‘face’. The auditory impression, however, often fails to match with the expectations of a fully consonantally articulated cluster. For instance, the word ‘fish’ frequently surfaces with a more vowel-like quality as [aj̯ ə]. The present talk addresses the nature of this phenomenon and aims to assess its prevalence among the Horpa languages. It is argued that the preinitial consonants (i.e., consonants placed before the ‘core’ of a cluster) undergo vocalization, defined here as the development of semivowel and vowel-like qualities while maintaining the phonotactic status as non-syllabic units bound into a consonant cluster. This reflects Operstein’s (2010) earlier findings of vocalization: consonant-sized units are intrasegmentally bigestural by including an underlying vocalic gesture in addition to the consonantal one. The balance between the two may change as a result of retiming, and the consonantal gesture may ultimately erode at the expensive of the vocalic one.
The study uses a database of approximately 170 cognate words and reconstructs the preinitial system of Proto-Horpa as the basis of comparison. The historical-comparative approach reveals that different Horpa languages manifest vocalization to different extents and vocalization may be either allophonic or a full sound change. For instance, the reconstructed proto-form *rŋV ‘face’ shows frequent allophonic prevocalization in many Horpa languages, such as Bawang: [ərŋa] (data from Nagano and Prins 2019). Niega (Jiaju Sancun) takes this a step further with occasional full vocalization of the preinitial: [ə̯ŋa] (own fieldwork) alternating with the consonantal pronunciation. Nyagrong Minyag (Jialaxi) stands at the furthest point of development with the full phonemic erosion of the preinitial:
̄ŋo (Suzuki 2009).
The study covers all Horpa varieties with sufficient documentation. The source materials originate from the authors’ own fieldwork, supplemented by audio recordings of the rGyalrongic Languages Database (Nagano and Prins 2019) and earlier descriptions of Horpa varieties. Preinitial vocalization also exists in other Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Khroskyabs (Lai 2017: 54) and Amdo Tibetan (own fieldwork). We propose that vocalization may be one factor in explaining the disappearance of preinitialed consonant clusters in some languages of the Sino-Tibetan language family where many languages have undergone extensive consonant cluster simplification in their history. The same phenomenon has likely even wider cross-linguistic applicability, and it may have contributed to the disappearance of the Proto-Indo-European ‘laryngeals’, as in *h2stḗr ‘star’ > astḗr ‘star’ (Greek) and astł ‘star’ (Armenian) (see Tichy 2004: 33).
![Research paper thumbnail of [in English] Five fun facts about the Stau language](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/83260706/thumbnails/1.jpg)
International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics 54 (ICSTLL 54), 2021
Stau is a Gyalrongic (Sino-Tibetan) language spoken by approximately 27,000 people living primari... more Stau is a Gyalrongic (Sino-Tibetan) language spoken by approximately 27,000 people living primarily in Daofu County of Ganzi Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China (Tunzhi 2017, Tunzhi et al. 2019, Gates et al. 2019, Gates 2021). This presentation intends to give the audience a taste of Stau grammar; primarily looking at five 'fun facts' of the language. These fun facts are the vowel harmony system, plural number indexing reduplication, the Stau language's deep connection to Stau homeland geography, its pigeonhole resisting grammatical relations, and its switch reference system. Firstly, regarding vowel harmony, I will review how Stau vowels can be divided into four pairs of vowels that readily harmonize when found in adjacent morphemes within the same word (Gates & Kim 2018). Secondly, regarding plural number indexing reduplication, I will review how different reduplication and triplication strategies are used to index plural number for both the S and the O (Gates 2017). Thirdly, regarding the Stau language's deep connection to Stau homeland geography, I will demonstrate how only an experiential knowledge of the terrain where the Stau primarily live helps the language learner arrive at a correct understanding of the orientational prefix system. Fourthly, Stau resists being classified into one of the tidy grammatical relations systems that are trending in linguistic analysis (see for example Dixon 2010). On the contrary, Stau grammatical relations can be divided into three systems which include and mix and mash of nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, direct, tripartite, and hierarchical alignment. Finally, I will discuss Stau's switch-reference system that utilizes the medial verb suffixes-də (for same subject) and-ɡɛ (for different subject).
References
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. vol. 1, Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gates, Jesse P. 2017. Verbal triplication morphology in Stau (Mazi dialect). Transactions of the
Philological Society 115(1). 14–26.
Gates, Jesse P. 2021. A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
dissertation.
Gates, Jesse P & Kim, Won Ho. 2018. Vowel harmony in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2). 263–293.
Gates, Jesse P. & Nyi.ma, Thub.bstan & Rgyal.mtsan, Tshe.ring. 2019. Tibetan dining etiquette: A sociolinguistic analysis of a normative discourse text in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 18(2). 73–81.
Tunzhi. 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the Ethnic Corridor: The rTa’u language. Interna- tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 2017(245). 147–168. URL https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2017-0006.
Tunzhi & Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Roche, Gerald. 2019. Language contact and the politics of recognition amongst Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China: The rTa’u speaking ‘Horpa’ of Khams. In Sonntag, Selma K. & Turin, Mark (eds.), The Politics of Language Contact in the Himalaya. 17– 48. Open Book Publishers.
Uploads
Videos by Jesse P Gates
Journal articles (peer reviewed) by Jesse P Gates
This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic study of Stau kinship terms, offering a detailed analysis of their classifications and characteristics. Stau kinship terms are categorized into vocative and referential/possessive forms. Vocative kinship terms follow the intonation pattern of other vocative phrases, particularly barytonesis, which involves stress and intonation shifting from the second syllable to the first. The paper explores the distinctions within younger sibling relationships, dividing kinship terms into male Ego and female Ego categories based on the sex of the connecting relative. The kinship prefix æ-, commonly found in Qiangic languages, is exclusively used in vocative and referential/possessive kinship terms referring to older kin (both male and female). The study also identifies specific vocative and referential kinship terms that describe dyads of kinship relationships, similar to Tibetic languages like the Amdo dialects spoken in Stau-speaking areas. Stau maintains a sex-based distinction for kinship terms across all generations. Referential/possessive kinship terms in Gen−1 and Gen−2 differentiate between lineal and collateral relationships, while in vocative terms, only Gen−1 distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives. Gen+1 consanguineal vocative kinship terms exhibit distinctions for lineal/collateral and matrilateral/patrilateral relationships. However, the matrilateral/patrilateral distinction is neutralized in Gen+1 affinal vocative kinship terms. Gen+1 affinal referential/possessive kinship terms differentiate matrilateral and patrilateral relationships when using a possessive phrase, but not when using the simple base term. Age relative to Ego plays a distinct role in Gen0 kinship terms, both vocative and referential/possessive. Sibling terms are differentiated from cousin terms in Gen0 referential/possessive terms using the thɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə) ‘is a relative’ copula phrase. Regarding cousin kinship typology, Stau aligns with the Hawaiian type in the vocative and the Eskimo type in the referential. The Hawaiian type serves as the foundational basis due to shared roots in both vocative and referential contexts. For Gen+1 terms, Stau follows the Sudanese system, each consanguineal kin with their own term. Gen−1 terms follow the Eskimo system.
This paper offers new evidence from Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs to address the question of directionality in valency-changing derivations in Sino-Tibetan. Examining Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs causative and anticausative verb stem pairs adds to the evidence that in Proto-Sino-Tibetan a number of intransitive stems are derived from transitive stems, in some cases as the result of *N-prefixation, and in other cases from voicing alternation independent of *N-prefixation. In addition, the proto-sigmatic prefix (*s-) does not cause devoicing in Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs, but rather often undergoes voicing assimilation, and has more than just a causativization function. Furthermore, by looking at Gyalrong, Minyag, Tangut, Middle Chinese, and Old Chinese we emphasize that there is no synchronic evidence to support devoicing induced by *s-, nor is there historical evidence to support the claim that *s-caused devoicing in Proto-Gyalrongic, and even genetically deeper stages.
In this paper, we propose that in Stau (>Rgyalrongic >Sino-Tibetan) there is a system of four vowel pairs (i/ə, e/ɛ, æ/ɑ, u/o) that undergo regressive fronting-backing/height vowel harmony. Like prototypical examples of vowel harmony across the world’s languages, there is evidence for vowel harmony from two sources: “within morphemes and by alternations in vowels when morphemes are combined into complex words” (van der Hulst 2016). Specifically in Stau, the following combinations of VCV are disallowed: iCə, əCi, eCɛ, ɛCe, uCo, oCu, æCɑ, ɑCɑ.2 When combining morphemes to create complex words, the vowel of the first morpheme assimilates to the vowel of the second (e.g., æCɑ --> ɑCɑ), if the vowels of the two morphemes belong to the same vowel pair set (e.g., æ/ɑ). The regressive vowel harmony system allows for the following assimilatory changes, displayed in (1) and (2) below.
(1) Raising/Fronting:
əCi-->iCi, ɛCe-->eCe, oCu-->uCu, ɑCɑ-->æCæ
(2) Lowering/Backing:
iCə-->əCə, eCɛ-->ɛCɛ, uCo-->oCo, æCɑ-->ɑCɑ
There are, however, several systematic exceptions where vowel harmony does not occur.
This is the first full-length paper on vowel harmony in any Rgyalrongic language, and it is the first time vowel harmony has been systematically analyzed in Stau.
Monographs by Jesse P Gates
Conference Presentations by Jesse P Gates
Since these lects are part of the same historical subgroup and share many phonological features, we have aimed to harmonize the orthographies as much as possible. Another goal has been to respect and preserve the Tibetan writing tradition to the extent possible. However, we have often faced difficulties in achieving the latter goal, as the phonologies of these three lects differ from Tibetan, and the needs of phonology sometimes outweigh the desire to maintain tradition.
We first discuss the initial consonant phonemes for each lect. Next, we discuss consonant clusters in the onset. Finally, we discuss the rime phonemes in each lect, starting with simple vowels and moving to rimes with consonant codas. The section on the rimes also covers Khroskyabs tone (tone is not phonemic in the other two lects). In each section, we include the choices of Tibetan script segments for each phoneme, consonant cluster, and rime and discuss the reasoning behind our decisions.
The study uses a database of approximately 170 cognate words and reconstructs the preinitial system of Proto-Horpa as the basis of comparison. The historical-comparative approach reveals that different Horpa languages manifest vocalization to different extents and vocalization may be either allophonic or a full sound change. For instance, the reconstructed proto-form *rŋV ‘face’ shows frequent allophonic prevocalization in many Horpa languages, such as Bawang: [ərŋa] (data from Nagano and Prins 2019). Niega (Jiaju Sancun) takes this a step further with occasional full vocalization of the preinitial: [ə̯ŋa] (own fieldwork) alternating with the consonantal pronunciation. Nyagrong Minyag (Jialaxi) stands at the furthest point of development with the full phonemic erosion of the preinitial:
̄ŋo (Suzuki 2009).
The study covers all Horpa varieties with sufficient documentation. The source materials originate from the authors’ own fieldwork, supplemented by audio recordings of the rGyalrongic Languages Database (Nagano and Prins 2019) and earlier descriptions of Horpa varieties. Preinitial vocalization also exists in other Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Khroskyabs (Lai 2017: 54) and Amdo Tibetan (own fieldwork). We propose that vocalization may be one factor in explaining the disappearance of preinitialed consonant clusters in some languages of the Sino-Tibetan language family where many languages have undergone extensive consonant cluster simplification in their history. The same phenomenon has likely even wider cross-linguistic applicability, and it may have contributed to the disappearance of the Proto-Indo-European ‘laryngeals’, as in *h2stḗr ‘star’ > astḗr ‘star’ (Greek) and astł ‘star’ (Armenian) (see Tichy 2004: 33).
References
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. vol. 1, Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gates, Jesse P. 2017. Verbal triplication morphology in Stau (Mazi dialect). Transactions of the
Philological Society 115(1). 14–26.
Gates, Jesse P. 2021. A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
dissertation.
Gates, Jesse P & Kim, Won Ho. 2018. Vowel harmony in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2). 263–293.
Gates, Jesse P. & Nyi.ma, Thub.bstan & Rgyal.mtsan, Tshe.ring. 2019. Tibetan dining etiquette: A sociolinguistic analysis of a normative discourse text in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 18(2). 73–81.
Tunzhi. 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the Ethnic Corridor: The rTa’u language. Interna- tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 2017(245). 147–168. URL https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2017-0006.
Tunzhi & Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Roche, Gerald. 2019. Language contact and the politics of recognition amongst Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China: The rTa’u speaking ‘Horpa’ of Khams. In Sonntag, Selma K. & Turin, Mark (eds.), The Politics of Language Contact in the Himalaya. 17– 48. Open Book Publishers.
This paper presents a comprehensive synchronic study of Stau kinship terms, offering a detailed analysis of their classifications and characteristics. Stau kinship terms are categorized into vocative and referential/possessive forms. Vocative kinship terms follow the intonation pattern of other vocative phrases, particularly barytonesis, which involves stress and intonation shifting from the second syllable to the first. The paper explores the distinctions within younger sibling relationships, dividing kinship terms into male Ego and female Ego categories based on the sex of the connecting relative. The kinship prefix æ-, commonly found in Qiangic languages, is exclusively used in vocative and referential/possessive kinship terms referring to older kin (both male and female). The study also identifies specific vocative and referential kinship terms that describe dyads of kinship relationships, similar to Tibetic languages like the Amdo dialects spoken in Stau-speaking areas. Stau maintains a sex-based distinction for kinship terms across all generations. Referential/possessive kinship terms in Gen−1 and Gen−2 differentiate between lineal and collateral relationships, while in vocative terms, only Gen−1 distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives. Gen+1 consanguineal vocative kinship terms exhibit distinctions for lineal/collateral and matrilateral/patrilateral relationships. However, the matrilateral/patrilateral distinction is neutralized in Gen+1 affinal vocative kinship terms. Gen+1 affinal referential/possessive kinship terms differentiate matrilateral and patrilateral relationships when using a possessive phrase, but not when using the simple base term. Age relative to Ego plays a distinct role in Gen0 kinship terms, both vocative and referential/possessive. Sibling terms are differentiated from cousin terms in Gen0 referential/possessive terms using the thɛv(=ɡə ŋə-rə) ‘is a relative’ copula phrase. Regarding cousin kinship typology, Stau aligns with the Hawaiian type in the vocative and the Eskimo type in the referential. The Hawaiian type serves as the foundational basis due to shared roots in both vocative and referential contexts. For Gen+1 terms, Stau follows the Sudanese system, each consanguineal kin with their own term. Gen−1 terms follow the Eskimo system.
This paper offers new evidence from Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs to address the question of directionality in valency-changing derivations in Sino-Tibetan. Examining Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs causative and anticausative verb stem pairs adds to the evidence that in Proto-Sino-Tibetan a number of intransitive stems are derived from transitive stems, in some cases as the result of *N-prefixation, and in other cases from voicing alternation independent of *N-prefixation. In addition, the proto-sigmatic prefix (*s-) does not cause devoicing in Stau, Geshiza, and Khroskyabs, but rather often undergoes voicing assimilation, and has more than just a causativization function. Furthermore, by looking at Gyalrong, Minyag, Tangut, Middle Chinese, and Old Chinese we emphasize that there is no synchronic evidence to support devoicing induced by *s-, nor is there historical evidence to support the claim that *s-caused devoicing in Proto-Gyalrongic, and even genetically deeper stages.
In this paper, we propose that in Stau (>Rgyalrongic >Sino-Tibetan) there is a system of four vowel pairs (i/ə, e/ɛ, æ/ɑ, u/o) that undergo regressive fronting-backing/height vowel harmony. Like prototypical examples of vowel harmony across the world’s languages, there is evidence for vowel harmony from two sources: “within morphemes and by alternations in vowels when morphemes are combined into complex words” (van der Hulst 2016). Specifically in Stau, the following combinations of VCV are disallowed: iCə, əCi, eCɛ, ɛCe, uCo, oCu, æCɑ, ɑCɑ.2 When combining morphemes to create complex words, the vowel of the first morpheme assimilates to the vowel of the second (e.g., æCɑ --> ɑCɑ), if the vowels of the two morphemes belong to the same vowel pair set (e.g., æ/ɑ). The regressive vowel harmony system allows for the following assimilatory changes, displayed in (1) and (2) below.
(1) Raising/Fronting:
əCi-->iCi, ɛCe-->eCe, oCu-->uCu, ɑCɑ-->æCæ
(2) Lowering/Backing:
iCə-->əCə, eCɛ-->ɛCɛ, uCo-->oCo, æCɑ-->ɑCɑ
There are, however, several systematic exceptions where vowel harmony does not occur.
This is the first full-length paper on vowel harmony in any Rgyalrongic language, and it is the first time vowel harmony has been systematically analyzed in Stau.
Since these lects are part of the same historical subgroup and share many phonological features, we have aimed to harmonize the orthographies as much as possible. Another goal has been to respect and preserve the Tibetan writing tradition to the extent possible. However, we have often faced difficulties in achieving the latter goal, as the phonologies of these three lects differ from Tibetan, and the needs of phonology sometimes outweigh the desire to maintain tradition.
We first discuss the initial consonant phonemes for each lect. Next, we discuss consonant clusters in the onset. Finally, we discuss the rime phonemes in each lect, starting with simple vowels and moving to rimes with consonant codas. The section on the rimes also covers Khroskyabs tone (tone is not phonemic in the other two lects). In each section, we include the choices of Tibetan script segments for each phoneme, consonant cluster, and rime and discuss the reasoning behind our decisions.
The study uses a database of approximately 170 cognate words and reconstructs the preinitial system of Proto-Horpa as the basis of comparison. The historical-comparative approach reveals that different Horpa languages manifest vocalization to different extents and vocalization may be either allophonic or a full sound change. For instance, the reconstructed proto-form *rŋV ‘face’ shows frequent allophonic prevocalization in many Horpa languages, such as Bawang: [ərŋa] (data from Nagano and Prins 2019). Niega (Jiaju Sancun) takes this a step further with occasional full vocalization of the preinitial: [ə̯ŋa] (own fieldwork) alternating with the consonantal pronunciation. Nyagrong Minyag (Jialaxi) stands at the furthest point of development with the full phonemic erosion of the preinitial:
̄ŋo (Suzuki 2009).
The study covers all Horpa varieties with sufficient documentation. The source materials originate from the authors’ own fieldwork, supplemented by audio recordings of the rGyalrongic Languages Database (Nagano and Prins 2019) and earlier descriptions of Horpa varieties. Preinitial vocalization also exists in other Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Khroskyabs (Lai 2017: 54) and Amdo Tibetan (own fieldwork). We propose that vocalization may be one factor in explaining the disappearance of preinitialed consonant clusters in some languages of the Sino-Tibetan language family where many languages have undergone extensive consonant cluster simplification in their history. The same phenomenon has likely even wider cross-linguistic applicability, and it may have contributed to the disappearance of the Proto-Indo-European ‘laryngeals’, as in *h2stḗr ‘star’ > astḗr ‘star’ (Greek) and astł ‘star’ (Armenian) (see Tichy 2004: 33).
References
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. vol. 1, Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gates, Jesse P. 2017. Verbal triplication morphology in Stau (Mazi dialect). Transactions of the
Philological Society 115(1). 14–26.
Gates, Jesse P. 2021. A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
dissertation.
Gates, Jesse P & Kim, Won Ho. 2018. Vowel harmony in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2). 263–293.
Gates, Jesse P. & Nyi.ma, Thub.bstan & Rgyal.mtsan, Tshe.ring. 2019. Tibetan dining etiquette: A sociolinguistic analysis of a normative discourse text in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 18(2). 73–81.
Tunzhi. 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the Ethnic Corridor: The rTa’u language. Interna- tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 2017(245). 147–168. URL https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2017-0006.
Tunzhi & Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Roche, Gerald. 2019. Language contact and the politics of recognition amongst Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China: The rTa’u speaking ‘Horpa’ of Khams. In Sonntag, Selma K. & Turin, Mark (eds.), The Politics of Language Contact in the Himalaya. 17– 48. Open Book Publishers.
Firstly, regarding vowel harmony, I will review how Stau vowels can be divided into four pairs of vowels that readily harmonize when found in adjacent morphemes within the same word (Gates & Kim 2018). Secondly, regarding plural number indexing reduplication, I will review how different reduplication and triplication strategies are used to index plural number for both the S and the O (Gates 2017). Thirdly, regarding the Stau language’s deep connection to Stau homeland geography, I will demonstrate how only an experiential knowledge of the terrain where the Stau primarily live helps the language learner arrive at a correct understanding of the orientational prefix system. Fourthly, Stau resists being classified into one of the tidy grammatical relations systems that are trending in linguistic analysis (see for example Dixon 2010). On the contrary, Stau grammatical relations can be divided into three systems which include and mix and mash of nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, direct, tripartite, and hierarchical alignment. Finally, I will discuss Stau’s switch-reference system that utilizes the medial verb suffixes -də (for same subject) and -ɡɛ (for different subject).
References
Dixon, R.M.W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. vol. 1, Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gates, Jesse P. 2017. Verbal triplication morphology in Stau (Mazi dialect). Transactions of the
Philological Society 115(1). 14–26.
Gates, Jesse P. 2021. A grammar of Mazur Stau. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
dissertation.
Gates, Jesse P & Kim, Won Ho. 2018. Vowel harmony in Stau. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 41(2). 263–293.
Gates, Jesse P. & Nyi.ma, Thub.bstan & Rgyal.mtsan, Tshe.ring. 2019. Tibetan dining etiquette: A sociolinguistic analysis of a normative discourse text in Stau. Himalayan Linguistics 18(2). 73–81.
Tunzhi. 2017. Language vitality and glottonyms in the Ethnic Corridor: The rTa’u language. Interna- tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 2017(245). 147–168. URL https://doi.org/10. 1515/ijsl-2017-0006.
Tunzhi & Suzuki, Hiroyuki & Roche, Gerald. 2019. Language contact and the politics of recognition amongst Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China: The rTa’u speaking ‘Horpa’ of Khams. In Sonntag, Selma K. & Turin, Mark (eds.), The Politics of Language Contact in the Himalaya. 17– 48. Open Book Publishers.
(1) Raising/Fronting:
əCi iCi, ɛCe eCe, oCu uCu, ɑCæ æCæ
(2) Lowering/Backing:
iCə əCə, eCɛ ɛCɛ, uCo oCo, æCɑ ɑCɑ
There are two natural classes that determine vowel harmony in Mazi Stau: [±front] (i~ə and æ~ɑ) or [±high] (e~ɛ and u~o). Even though the contrast in e~ɛ and u~o is not typically thought of as [±front], acoustic analysis reveals that ɛ and o have lower F2 and higher F1 than e and u, respectively, corresponding to the relative distance between æ~ɑ and i~ə (Vanderveen 2015). This vowel harmony system may be evidence for uvularization or velarization; but the use of instrumental phonetics (e.g., ultrasound) would be necessary before conclusions are made (e.g., Evans, Sun, Chiu, Liou 2015). A thorough analysis is given that accounts for all of the data predicting when vowel harmony should be expected to occur and when it is blocked. This is the first paper to focus entirely on a vowel harmony system in a Rgyalrongic language.
References
Evans, Jonathan P.; Sun, Jackson T.-S.; Chiu, Chenhao; Liou, Michelle. 2015.
Uvularization as a vowel feature. Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
Vanderveen, Chantel. 2015. A phonology of Stau. Langley: Trinity Western University MA thesis.