1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Asia-Pacific Language Variation
  4. Volume 10, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1354
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1362
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this study, we investigate an apparent discourse-based alternation between monosyllabic and disyllabic word-forms in Moklen, an Austronesian language spoken in Thailand. We explore whether factors of information structure condition the variable elision of the first syllable of certain disyllabic lexemes. Data was obtained through the implementation of a picture-based field stimulus to elicit a range of lexical material within narrow discourse contexts. Our results reveal that no single information status category (e.g., “given” or “new”) accounted for use of monosyllabic alternants overall. Applying a “bottom-up” approach to the study of information structure (Matić, 2022; Ozerov, 2018), we propose a shift to “topics” — information conveyed as mutual knowledge (Masia, 2022) — as one possible account for the observed changes in Moklen word-form. More generally, our study shows how information structure processes have the potential to contribute to contextual alternation between monosyllabic and disyllabic word-forms, a matter with implications for broader historical changes in word-form.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.23008.los
2025-03-04
2026-02-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aplv.23008.los
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adamou, Evangelia, Haude, Katharina, & Vanhove, Martine
    (Eds.) (2018) Information structure in lesser-described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.199
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.199 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alieva, Natalia
    (1994) The progress of monosyllabization in Cham as testified by field materials. InCeclia Ode & Wim Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on Austronesian linguistics (ICAL) (pp.541–549). Leiden: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, Jennifer E., Kaiser, Elsi, Kahn, Jason M., & Kim, Lucy Kyoungsook
    (2013) Information structure: Linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4(4), 403–413. 10.1002/wcs.1234
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1234 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arunotai, Narumon
    (2017) “Hopeless at sea, landless on shore”: Contextualising the sea nomads’ dilemma in Thailand. AAS Working Papers in Social Anthropology, 311, 1–27. https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/0xc1aa5576_0x0036cd03.pdf. 10.1553/wpsa31s1
     https://doi.org/10.1553/wpsa31s1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aylett, Matthew, & Turk, Alice
    (2004) The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. 10.1177/00238309040470010201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
    (2016) Intonation units revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.29
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.29 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumann, Stefan, & Cangemi, Francesco
    (2020) Integrating phonetics and phonology in the study of linguistic prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 811, 1–6. 10.1016/j.wocn.2020.100993
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2020.100993 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baumann, Stefan, & Riester, Arndt
    (2012) Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. InGorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (pp.119–162). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261790.119
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261790.119 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brunelle, Marc
    (2009) Diglossia and monosyllabization in Eastern Cham: A sociolinguistic study. InJames Stanford & Dennis Preston (Eds.), Variation in indigenous minority languages (pp.49–75). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.25.04bru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.25.04bru [Google Scholar]
  10. (2020) The loss of affixation in Cham: Contact, internal drift and the limits of linguistic history. InDavid Gil & Antoinette Schapper (Eds.), Austronesian undressed: How and why languages become isolating (pp.97–118). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.129.02bru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.129.02bru [Google Scholar]
  11. Brunelle, Marc, & Pittayaporn, Pittayawat
    (2012) Phonologically constrained change: The role of the foot in monosyllabization and rhythmic shifts in Mainland Southeast Asia. Diachronica, 29(4), 411–433. 10.1075/dia.29.4.01bru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.29.4.01bru [Google Scholar]
  12. Butler, Becky
    (2015) Approaching a phonological understanding of the sesquisyllable with phonetic evidence from Khmer and Bunong. InNick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (Eds.), The languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art (pp.443–499). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501501685‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501685-010 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, Wallace
    (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Court, Christopher
    (1971) A fleeting encounter with the Moken (the sea gypsies) in Southern Thailand: Some linguistic and general notes. Journal of the Siam Society, 59(1), 83–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cresti, Emanuela
    (2018) The illocution-prosody relationship and the information pattern in spontaneous speech according to the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). Linguistik Online, 88(1), 33–62. 10.13092/lo.88.4189
     https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.88.4189 [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, William
    (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Enfield, N. J.
    (2021) The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108605618
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605618 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307. 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    (2004) The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616983
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616983 [Google Scholar]
  20. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    (1998) Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 361, 161–195. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161 [Google Scholar]
  21. Izre’el, Shlomo, Mello, Heliana, Panunzi, Alessandro, & Raso, Tommaso
    (2020) Introduction: In search of a basic unit of spoken language: Segmenting speech. InShlomo Izre’el, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi, & Tommaso Raso (Eds.), In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach (pp.1–32). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.94.int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94.int [Google Scholar]
  22. Jaeger, T. Florian, & Buz, Esteban
    (2017) Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. InEva M. Fernández & Helen Smith Cairns (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.38–81). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118829516.ch3
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaland, Constantijn, & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    (2020) Repetition reduction revisited: The prosody of repeated words in Papuan Malay. Language and Speech, 63(1), 31–55. 10.1177/0023830918820044
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918820044 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kanwal, Jasmeen, Smith, Kenny, Culbertson, Jennifer, & Kirby, Simon
    (2017) Zipf’s law of abbreviation and the principle of least effort: Language users optimise a miniature lexicon for efficient communication. Cognition, 1651, 45–52. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Klamer, Marian, & Moro, Francesca R.
    (2020) What is “natural” speech? Comparing free narratives and frog stories in Indonesia. Language Documentation & Conservation, 141, 238–313.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Krifka, Manfred, & Musan, Renate
    (2012) Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. InManfred Krifka & Renate Musan (Eds.), The expression of information structure (pp.1–44). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261608.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261608.1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lambrecht, Knud
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topics, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  28. Larish, Michael
    (1997) Moklen-Moken phonology: Mainland or insular Southeast Asian typology?InCecilia Ode & Wim Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (pp.125–150). Leiden: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004643253_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004643253_008 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1999) The position of Moken and Moklen within the Austronesian language family [doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Moken and Moklen. InAlexander Adellar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (pp.513–533). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lewis, Martha Blanche
    (1960) Moken texts and word-list: A provisional interpretation. Museums Department, Federation of Malaya.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Linders, Guido M., & Louwerse, Max M.
    (2022) Zipf’s law revisited: Spoken dialog, linguistic units, parameters, and the principle of least effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 301, 77–101. 10.3758/s13423‑022‑02142‑9
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02142-9 [Google Scholar]
  33. Loss, Daniel
    (2023) Information structure in Moklen [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Chulalongkorn University.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mahowald, Kyle, Fedorenko, Evelina, Piantadosi, Steven T., & Gibson, Edward
    (2013) Info/Information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313–18. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Masia, Viviana
    (2022) Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries: The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances. InDavide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (Eds.), When data challenges theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure (pp.57–90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.273.02mas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.02mas [Google Scholar]
  36. Maspong, Sireemas, Burroni, Francesco, Sukanchanon, Teerawee, & Pittayaporn, Pittayawat
    (2024) Leveraging deep learning to shed light on tones of an endangered language: A case study of Moklen. InOleg Serikov, Ekaterina Voloshina, Anna Postnikova, Saliha Muradoglu, Eric Le Ferrand, Elena Klyachko, Ekaterina Vylomova, Tatiana Shavrina, & Francis Tyers (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on NLP Applications to Field Linguistics (Field Matters 2024) (pp.37–42). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2024.fieldmatters‑1.5
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.fieldmatters-1.5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Matić, Dejan
    (2015) Information structure in Linguistics. InJames D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., pp.95–99). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.53013‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53013-X [Google Scholar]
  38. (2022) Alternatives to information structure. InDavide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (Eds.), When data challenges theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure (pp.91–112). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.273.03mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.03mat [Google Scholar]
  39. Matić, Dejan, & Wedgwood, Daniel
    (2013) The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics, 49(1), 127–163. 10.1017/S0022226712000345
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000345 [Google Scholar]
  40. Matisoff, James A.
    (1990) Bulging monosyllables: Areal tendencies in Southeast Asian Diachrony. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 543–559. 10.3765/bls.v16i0.1680
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i0.1680 [Google Scholar]
  41. Michaud, Alexis
    (2012) Monosyllabization: Patterns of evolution in Asian languages. InNicole Nau, Thomals Stolz, & Cornelia Stroh (Eds.), Monosyllables: From phonology to typology (pp.115–130). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050060354.115
     https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050060354.115 [Google Scholar]
  42. Nespor, Marina, & Vogel, Irene
    (2012) Prosodic Phonology. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ozerov, Pavel
    (2018) Tracing the sources of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics, 1381, 77–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2021) Multifactorial information management (MIM): Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(1), 20200039. 10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat
    (2005) Moken as a mainland Southeast Asian language. InAnthony Grant & Paul Sidwell (Eds.), Chamic and Beyond: Studies in Mainland Austronesian languages (pp.189–209). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. (2015) Typologizing sesquisyllabicity: The role of structural analysis in the study of linguistic diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. InNick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (Eds.), The languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art (pp.500–528). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501501685‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501501685-011 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2024) On becoming mainland: Unravelling Malay influence on Moklenic languages. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 39(1), 62–89. 10.1355/sj39‑1d
     https://doi.org/10.1355/sj39-1d [Google Scholar]
  48. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat, & Choemprayong, Songphan
    (2024) A proposal for a Thai-based orthography of Moklen. Language Documentation and Conservation, 181, 194–215.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat, Pornpottanamas, Warunsiri, & Loss, Daniel
    (2022) Moklen-Thai-English Dictionary: A pilot version. Academic Work Dissemination Project, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pornpottanamas, Warunsiri, Maspong, Sireemas, & Pittayaporn, Pittayawat
    (2023) A preliminary investigation of the phonetic characteristics of Moklen tones. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Tone and Intonation (pp.59–63). Singapore: ISCA. 10.21437/TAI.2023‑13
     https://doi.org/10.21437/TAI.2023-13 [Google Scholar]
  51. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  52. Riester, Arndt, & Baumann, Stefan
    (2017) The RefLex scheme — Annotation guidelines (pp.1–27). Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart, SFB. 10.18419/opus‑9011
     https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-9011 [Google Scholar]
  53. Röhr, Christine Tanja
    (2016) The information status of nominal and verbal expressions: Intonational evidence from production and perception in German [doctoral dissertation, Universitäts zu Köln]. https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/9146/
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Schütze, Carson T.
    (2016) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603356
     https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603356 [Google Scholar]
  55. Simard, Candide, & Schultze-Berndt, Eva
    (2011) Documentary linguistics and prosodic evidence for the syntax of spoken language. InGeoffrey Haig, Nicole Nau, Stefan Schnell, & Claudia Wegner (Eds.), Documenting endangered languages (pp.151–176). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110260021.151
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260021.151 [Google Scholar]
  56. Skopeteas, Stavros, & Fanselow, Gisbert
    (2009) Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. InMalte Zimmermann & Caroline Fery (Eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives (pp.307–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sloetjes, Han, & Wittenburg, Peter
    (2008) Annotation by category — ELAN and ISO DCR. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008). Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Solntsev, Vadim
    (1996) Some remarks on the Ruc language. Mon-Khmer Studies, 261, 29–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Swastham, Pensiri
    (1982) A description of Moklen: A Malayo-Polynesian language. [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Mahidol University.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Thach, Ngoc Minh
    (1999) Monosyllabization in Kieng Khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies, 291, 81–95. sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf8/thach1999monosyllabization.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Thurgood, Graham
    (1999) From ancient Cham to modern dialects: Two thousand years of language contact and change. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Vallduví, Enric
    (2016) Information structure. InMaria Aloni & Paul Dekker (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp.728–755). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139236157.024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.024 [Google Scholar]
  63. Vallduví, Enric, & Engdahl, Elisabet
    (2013) The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 51(1), 19–20. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0041 [Google Scholar]
  64. von Heusinger, Klaus, & Schumacher, Petra B.
    (2019) Discourse prominence: Definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics, 1541, 117–127. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.025
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.025 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wolff, John U.
    (2010) Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary (1–2). Ithaca, New York: Southeast Asia Program Publications. 10.7591/9781501735981
     https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501735981 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.23008.los
Loading
Information structure and changes in Moklen word-form
Asia-Pacific Language Variation 10, 140 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.23008.los
/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.23008.los
/content/journals/10.1075/aplv.23008.los
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): clipping; information structure; Moklen; monosyllabization; word-form

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error