Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 40:2 (2017) ► pp.161–178

Phonetic distance and dialect clustering on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau

| Yunnan Normal University
| University of Oslo

The goal of this paper is to use string edit distance to describe the synchronic relationship between the Tibetan speech varieties located on the Northeastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. String edit distance provides a statistical way to compare a large number of linguistic features, in essence producing a statistical bundle of isoglosses. In this way, it can be used as a tool in dialect mapping and synchronic clustering. In this paper, the aggregate distance matrix produced by string edit distance reveals that the great degree of phonetic continuity on the grasslands of the northeastern edge of the plateau is matched by an equal degree of phonetic discontinuity in the mountains forming the eastern border of the plateau. While the dialects located on the grasslands can be grouped together into one cluster, the dialects in the mountains can be grouped together into six clusters.

Keywords: String edit distance, Tibetic languages, clustering, speech varieties
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous clustering in Aba and Gannan Prefectures
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Geographic location and historical background
  • 6.The results
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 5 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17004.pow
References

References

Chamberlain, Brad
2015 Linguistic watersheds: A model for understanding variation among the Tibetic languages. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 81: 71–96.Google Scholar
Colen, Rinke, Charlotte Gooskens, Peter Kleiweg, Therese Leinonen & John Nerbonne
Gabmap. A web application for dialectology. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition, University of Groningen.
Google Inc
2012 Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.7.2606) [CP]. [URL] (3 January 2017).
Heeringa, Wilbert
2004 Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences Using Levenshtein Distance. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Hua, Kan
2002 Zangyu Anduo Fangyan Cihui (The vocabulary of Amdo Tibetan). Lanzhou: Gansu Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Jiang, Di
2002 Zangyu yuyinshi yanjiu (A study on Tibetan historical phonology). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Jin Peng
(ed.) 1983 Zangyu jianzhi (Outline of Tibetan). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett
1995 Computational dialectology in Irish Gaeilic. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 60–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Paul M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig
2016 Ethnologue: Languages of Asia, 19th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. [URL]
Lin, You-Jing
2002 Phonological profile of Thewo Tibetan. Paper presented at the 8th Himalayan Languages Symposium, University of Berne, 18–22 September 2002.
Nagano, Yasuhiko
1980 Amdo Sherpa Dialect: Material for Tibetan dialectology. Tokyo: Research Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Rinke Colen, Charlotte Gooskens, Peter Kleiweg & Therese Leinonen
2011 Gabmap. A web application for dialectology. Dialectologia Special Issue II1: 65–89.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John & Peter Kleiweg
2007 Toward a dialectological yardstick. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 14(2): 148–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renzeng, Wangmu (Rig-’dzin dBang-mo)
2013 Diebu Zangyu Yanjiu (Research on Diebu Tibetan). Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Stanford, James N.
2012 One size fits all? Dialectometry in a small clan-based indigenous society. Language Variation and Change 24(2): 247–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S.
2003a Phonological profile of Zhongu: A new Tibetan dialect of Northern Sichuan. Language and Linguistics 4(4): 769–836.Google Scholar
2003b Qiuji zangyu de yuyin tezheng (Phonological characteristics of Chosrje Tibetan). Minzu Yuwen 61: 1–6.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Hiroyuki
2008 Nouveau regard sur les dialectes tibétains à l’est d’Aba: Phonétique et classification du dialecte de Sharkhog [Songpan-Jiuzhaigou]. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(1): 85–108.Google Scholar
2009 Tibetan dialects spoken in Shar khog and Khod po khog. EAST and WEST 59(1–4): 273–283.Google Scholar
2014 Issues in the lexical complexity in Eastern Tibetic languages: From a cat’s eye. Papers from the Second International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics, 116–125.Google Scholar
2015 Gannan-syuu Zhuoni Diebu Zhouqu 3 ken no tibetto-kei syogengo to sono kaibunrui siron (Tibetic languages in three counties Cone, Thewo, and mBrugchu in Gannan Prefecture and an essay on their subclassification). Nidaba 441: 1–9.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas
2014 The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith & Nathan W. Hill (eds), Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yang, Cathryn
2010 Lalo Regional Varieties: Hylogeny, Dialectometry, and Socio-linguistics. PhD dissertation, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Yang, Cathryn & Andy Castro
2008 Representing tone in Levenshtein distance. International Journal of Humanities and Computing 2(1–2): 205–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Jichuan
1996 A sketch of Tibetan dialectology in China: Classifications of Tibetan dialects. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale 25(1): 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhoumaocao (’Brug-mo-mtsho)
2003 Maqu Zangyu Yanjiu (Research on Maqu Tibetan). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zhouta (’Brug-thar)
1996 Gansu Zangzu Buluo de Shehui yu Lishi Yanjiu (Historical and sociological research on Gansu’s Tibetan tribes). Lanzhou: Gansu Minzu Chubanshe.Google Scholar