It is obvious enough that linguists in general have been less successful in coping with tone systems than with consonants or vowels. No single explanation is adequate to account for this. Improvement, however, is urgent, and at least three things will be needed.

The first is a wide-ranging sample of successful tonal analyses. Even beginning students in linguistics are made familiar with an appreciable variety of consonant systems, both in their general outlines and in many specific details. An advanced student has read a considerable number of descriptions of consonantal systems, including some of the more unusual types. By contrast, even experienced linguists commonly know no more of the range of possibilities in tone systems than the over-simple distinction between register and contour languages. This limited familiarity with the possible phenomena has severely hampered work with tone. Tone analysis will continue to be difficult and unsatisfactory until a more representative selection of systems is familar to every practicing field linguist. Papers like these four, if widely read, will contribute importantly to improvement of our analytic work.

The second need is better field techniques. The great majority of present-day linguists fall into one or more of a number of overlapping types: those who are convinced that tone cannot be analysed, those who are personally scared of tone and tone languages generally, those who are convinced that tone is merely an unnecessary marginal feature in those languages where it occurs, those who have no idea how to proceed with tone analysis, those who take a simplistic view of the whole matter. The result has been neglect, fumbling efforts, or superficial treatment. As these maladies overlap, so must the cure. Analyses such as these four will simultaneously combat the assumptions that tone is impossible and that it is simple. They will give suggestions that can be worked up into field procedures. Good field techniques will not only equip linguists for better work, but also help them overcome negative attitudes. Actually, none of these papers says much directly about field techniques. But it is worth pondering that very little has been published on any phase of field techniques in linguistics. These things have been disseminated by other means, but always in the wake of extensive publication of analytic results.