Article In:
Asia-Pacific Language Variation: Online-First Articles

Information structure and changes in Moklen word-form

ORCID logo | Chulalongkorn University
 | Chulalongkorn University
 | The University of Sydney
ORCID logo | Chulalongkorn University
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 (Matić, 2022; Ozerov, 2018) to the study of information structure, 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.
Keywords: Moklen, information structure, word-form, clipping, monosyllabization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Intonation units
    • 2.2Information status
    • 2.3Topic-focus distinction
    • 2.4Moklen clausal syntax
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Materials and task
    • 3.2Participants and procedure
    • 3.3Information-status tagging
    • 3.4Scope
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Nouns
    • 4.2Verbs
    • 4.3Closed-class items
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (64)
References
Adamou, Evangelia, Haude, Katharina, & Vanhove, Martine (Eds.). (2018). Information structure in lesser-described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alieva, Natalia (1994). The progress of monosyllabization in Cham as testified by field materials. In Ceclia Ode & Wim Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on Austronesian linguistics (ICAL) (pp. 541–549). Leiden: Rodopi.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arunotai, Narumon (2017). “Hopeless at sea, landless on shore”: Contextualising the sea nomads’ dilemma in Thailand. AAS Working Papers in Social Anthropology, 31 1, 1–27. [URL]. DOI logo
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, 41 (1), 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar (2016). Intonation units revisited: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan, & Cangemi, Francesco (2020). Integrating phonetics and phonology in the study of linguistic prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 81 1, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Stefan, & Riester, Arndt (2012). Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (pp. 119–162). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunelle, Marc (2009). Diglossia and monosyllabization in Eastern Cham: A sociolinguistic study. In James Stanford & Dennis Preston (Eds.), Variation in indigenous minority languages (pp. 49–75). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The loss of affixation in Cham: Contact, internal drift and the limits of linguistic history. In David Gil & Antoinette Schapper (Eds.), Austronesian undressed: How and why languages become isolating (pp. 97–118). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Becky (2015). Approaching a phonological understanding of the sesquisyllable with phonetic evidence from Khmer and Bunong. In Nick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (Eds.), The languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art (pp. 443–499). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2021). The Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69 (2), 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (1998). Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36 1, 161–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo, Mello, Heliana, Panunzi, Alessandro, & Raso, Tommaso (2020). Introduction: In search of a basic unit of spoken language: Segmenting speech. In Shlomo 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Buz, Esteban (2017). Signal Reduction and Linguistic Encoding. In Eva M. Fernández & Helen Smith Cairns (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 38–81). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn, & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2020). Repetition reduction revisited: The prosody of repeated words in Papuan Malay. Language and Speech, 63 (1), 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 165 1, 45–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian, & Moro, Francesca R. (2020). What is “natural” speech? Comparing free narratives and frog stories in Indonesia. Language Documentation & Conservation, 14 1, 238–313.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, & Musan, Renate (2012). Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (Eds.), The expression of information structure (pp. 1–44). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topics, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larish, Michael (1997). Moklen-Moken phonology: Mainland or insular Southeast Asian typology? In Cecilia Ode & Wim Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (pp. 125–150). Leiden: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). The position of Moken and Moklen within the Austronesian language family. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa.
(2005). Moken and Moklen. In Alexander Adellar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (pp. 513–533). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewis, Martha Blanche (1960). Moken texts and word-list: A provisional interpretation. Museums Department, Federation of Malaya.Google Scholar
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, 30 1, 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loss, Daniel (2023). Information structure in Moklen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masia, Viviana (2022). Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries: The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances. In Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (Eds.), When data challenges theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure (pp. 57–90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. In Oleg 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan (2015). Information structure in Linguistics. In James D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 95–99). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Alternatives to information structure. In Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (Eds.), When data challenges theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaud, Alexis (2012). Monosyllabization: Patterns of evolution in Asian languages. In Nicole Nau, Thomals Stolz, & Cornelia Stroh (Eds.), Monosyllables: From phonology to typology (pp. 115–130). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, & Vogel, Irene (2012). Prosodic Phonology. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel (2018). Tracing the sources of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics, 138 1, 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Multifactorial information management (MIM): Summing up the emerging alternative to information structure. Linguistics Vanguard, 7 (1), 20200039. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittayaporn, Pittayawat (2005). Moken as a mainland Southeast Asian language. In Anthony Grant & Paul Sidwell (Eds.), Chamic and Beyond: Studies in Mainland Austronesian languages (pp. 189–209). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2015). Typologizing sesquisyllabicity: The role of structural analysis in the study of linguistic diversity in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Nick J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (Eds.), The languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The state of the art (pp. 500–528). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). On becoming mainland: Unravelling Malay influence on Moklenic languages. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 39 (1), 62–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Riester, Arndt, & Baumann, Stefan (2017). The RefLex scheme — Annotation guidelines (pp. 1–27). Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart, SFB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röhr, Christine Tanja (2016). The information status of nominal and verbal expressions: intonational evidence from production and perception in German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universitäts zu Köln.
Schütze, Carson T. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simard, Candide, & Schultze-Berndt, Eva (2011). Documentary linguistics and prosodic evidence for the syntax of spoken language. In Geoffrey Haig, Nicole Nau, Stefan Schnell, & Claudia Wegner (Eds.), Documenting endangered languages (pp. 151–176). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, & Fanselow, Gisbert (2009). Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Fery (Eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives (pp. 307–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). [URL]
Solntsev, Vadim (1996). Some remarks on the Ruc language. Mon-Khmer Studies, 26 1, 29–32.Google Scholar
Swastham, Pensiri (1982). A description of Moklen: A Malayo-Polynesian language. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Mahidol University.
Minh, Thach Ngoc (1999). Monosyllabization in Kieng Khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies, 29 1, 81–95. [URL]
Thurgood, Graham (1999). From ancient Cham to modern dialects: Two thousand years of language contact and change. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric (2016). Information structure. In Maria Aloni & Paul Dekker (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp. 728–755). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric, & Engdahl, Elisabet (2013). The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 51 (1), 19–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, & Schumacher, Petra B. (2019). Discourse prominence: Definition and application. Journal of Pragmatics, 154 1, 117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, John U. (2010). Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary (1–2). Ithaca, New York: Southeast Asia Program Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar