Key research themes
1. How do autosegmental-metrical frameworks model suprasegmental phonology, and what are the limitations of current pitch accent and edge tone concepts?
Research in autosegmental-metrical (AM) phonology has sought to provide multi-linear, hierarchical representations of suprasegmental phenomena such as intonation, stress, and tone. AM phonology models tones as autosegments linked to segments or higher prosodic nodes, distinguishing pitch accents that mark prominence and edge tones that mark phrase boundaries. This theme is critical because suprasegmental cues play multifaceted roles in signaling prosodic structure, and accurate phonological description and cross-linguistic comparison require precise definitions of tonal associations and functions. However, reliance on 'prepackaged' complex units such as pitch accents and edge tones may oversimplify the tonal inventory and associations in some languages, limiting the explanatory power of the AM framework.
2. How do phonetic and articulatory cues systematically encode prosodic focus, and what phonetic variables are most crucial in suprasegmental marking?
Focus marking in prosody involves complex phonetic modulation across acoustic and articulatory domains, signaling discourse structure and information status. Identifying which phonetic variables most reliably distinguish focus types and prominence helps understand how speakers modulate suprasegmental features to convey meaning. Investigating multiple simultaneous cues through controlled experimental approaches enables researchers to parse the relative contribution and interaction of fundamental frequency, duration, intensity, voice quality, and articulation in prosodic focus marking.
3. What is the theoretical status of phonological features with respect to phonetic substance, and how can substance-free phonology account for suprasegmental phenomena?
A major theoretical question in suprasegmental phonology concerns whether phonological features are inherently tied to phonetic substance or whether they can be represented and learned independently in a substance-free computational system. This theme explores proposals for phonology that exclude referential phonetic content from their primitives and rules, focusing instead on abstract structural properties. It also examines computational models demonstrating how phonological features and their links to both phonetics and morphology may emerge without presupposed substance, offering insights into acquisition and the modular organization of phonology and phonetics.

![* ~ The main problem, then, is how to interpret the two patterns. While we have fully specified all vowels (moras) with a H or L tone in Tables 1| and 2, it is clear that there is much redundancy in these transcriptions. Assuming that we do not want to mark the difference with a stress (or other accent) mark we could do either of the following, each with clear implications for a parsimonious orthography: (i) Mark the position of the last /H/. Pattern A would have an acute accent on the first vowel, pattern B on the second. (11) Mark the position of the first /L/, if occurring. Pattern A would have a grave accent on the second vowel, pattern B on the third (if there is one). Examples of both systems are given in Table 3. ° All words end in a vowel in Mee, and especially when short, a word-final vowel may be followed by a glottal stop, e.g. [napo?] ‘egg’. Perhaps Doble interpreted this short H pitch with glottal stop as accented.](https://figures.academia-assets.com/74941463/table_003.jpg)
![In the marked-H analysis, anything after the /H/ would be L, but the one or two moras that precede the /H/ in pattern B would be H.’ This could conceivably be attributed to an initial %H boundary tone, whose effect is observed only in pattern B. In the marked-L analysis, anything before the /L/ would be H (again perhaps due to a %H boundary tone), while everything following the /L/ would be L. The fact that no word can be all L, as well as the limited distribution of the H may recommend the marked-H analysis, especially as H tones are more restricted and hence more sparse than Ls. Also, the placement of the marked-H in pattern B could be attributed to initial extrametricality, something which is a bit more difficult in the marked-L analysis, where the L can get as far in as the third syllable. On the other hand, we prefer the marked-L notation as an orthography, since it would directly mark the pitch drop. In short, we do not see much analytic advantage to one vs. the other of these two interpretations. Note in the ahove that we have not emnhacized the fact that a word cannot he al] TT. for](https://figures.academia-assets.com/74941463/table_004.jpg)