1 / 36

Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality

Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality. Sharon Hargus sharon@u.washington.edu University of Washington SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005. Athabaskan tonogenesis. Proto-Athabaskan *t S h a  ‘beaver’ (Leer 87) Sekani ts h à / (low-marked language)

urian
Download Presentation

Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality Sharon Hargus sharon@u.washington.edu University of Washington SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005

  2. Athabaskan tonogenesis • Proto-Athabaskan *tSha ‘beaver’ (Leer 87) • Sekani tshà/ (low-marked language) • Slave tshá/ (high-marked language) • Ahtna tsha/ (toneless) Background

  3. Distribution of tonal and toneless languages(Krauss to appear) Background

  4. Deriving low or high tone from final glottalization • Kingston (to appear): 2 different Proto-Athabaskan dialects with different glottalic consonants Background

  5. Voice quality in Athabaskan languages • Kaska (Morice 1902-3: 528): the ‘...voice must also be raised with a sort of constrained effort when one pronounces the words khon’ “fire”, nehn’ “land”, tze “gum”, etc., though many other monosyllables lack this distinguishing feature’ • Hupa (Gordon 1995): creaky voice accompanies final glottalized sonorants • Tanacross (Holton 2000): high tone syllables have up-tilted spectrum Background

  6. Witsuwit’en • Dialect of Babine-Witsuwit’en • Not a tone language • Impressionistic higher pitch on /-final syllables • Much historical loss of final glottalization • [tsha] ‘beaver’ < *tSha • two types of final glottalic consonant: /; n’, m’ • Closely related Chilcotin and Carrier are high-marked (more uncertainty re Carrier) Background

  7. Babine-Witsuwit’en language area speakers who participated in current study Background

  8. Research questions • How does final glottalization affect the voice quality of the preceding vowel? • Are there differences between glottalized nasals and glottal stop?

  9. Methods • Word list recordings. Sample set: • je ‘louse’ • je/ ‘boy’ (vocative) • njen ‘across’ • jen’ ‘bridge’ • 8 speakers (2 male, 6 female) • 4-6 sets/speaker • 4 repetitions/token

  10. Measures • 30 ms. window at vowel midpoint and endpoint • Pitch • Jitter (Koike 1973) • Energy • Spectral tilt (h1-h2) (only oral tokens measured for spectral tilt) • Normalization • Measureperturbed = Measureendpoint− Measuremidpoint Methods

  11. A [/]-final token e e [en’]: [ee] Methods

  12. Spectral tilt perturbation • positive number: decrease in creaky voice • negative number: increase in creaky voice Results

  13. Effect of glottal stop on spectral tilt perturbation (across speakers) F[1,7] = 6.365, p = .0396 (repeated measures ANOVA)

  14. Energy perturbation • negative number: decrease in overall energy • positive number: increase in overall energy Results

  15. Effects of nasality, glottalization on energy perturbation (across speakers) Effect of glottalization: F[1,7] = 48.574, p = .0002 Effect of nasality: n.s. Interaction of glottalization, nasality: F[1,7] = 32.019, p = .0008

  16. Jitter perturbation • negative number: decrease in jitter • positive number: increase in jitter Results

  17. Effects of nasality, glottalization on jitter perturbation (across speakers) Effect of glottalization: F[1,7] = 34.488, p = .0006 Effect of nasality: n.s. No interaction effect

  18. Pitch perturbation • negative number: decrease in pitch • positive number: increase in pitch Results

  19. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation (across speakers) Effect of glottalization: n.s. Effect of nasality: n.s. No interaction effect

  20. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation (individuals) • Pitch lowerers: HM, LM, MA, MF • Pitch raisers: AJ, KN, (SM) • Mixed: BM Results

  21. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for MA, a pitch lowerer Effect of glottalization: F[1,61] = 74.996, p < .0001 (factorial ANOVA) Effect of nasality: n.s. No interaction effect [je/] ‘boy’ (voc.) MF, HM results similar to MA

  22. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for LM, a pitch lowerer Effect of glottalization: F[1,60] = 36.450, p < .0001 Effect of nasality: F[1,60] = 45.048, p < .0001 Interaction effect: F[1,60] = 24.259, p < .0001 [je/] ‘boy’ (voc.)

  23. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for AJ, a pitch raiser Effect of glottalization: F[1,62] = 165.396, p < .0001 Effect of nasality: n.s. Interaction effect: F[1,62] = 9.196, p = .0035 [je/] ‘boy’ (voc.)

  24. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for KN, a pitch raiser [je/] ‘boy’ (voc.) Effect of glottalization: F[1,75] = 28.828, p < .0001 Effect of nasality: 4.375, p = .0399 No interaction effect

  25. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for SM, a pitch “raiser” Effect of glottalization: F[1,94] = 3.949, p = .0498 Effect of nasality: n.s. No interaction effect [je/] ‘boy’ (voc.)

  26. Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for BM, a pitch raiser/lowerer Effect of glottalization: n.s. Effect of nasality: F[1,59] = 8.908, p = .0041 Interaction effect: F[1,59] = 13.731, p = .0005 [je/] ‘boy’ (voc.) [jen’] ‘bridge’

  27. Pitch perturbation before glottalic consonants Results

  28. How does final glottalization affect the voice quality of the preceding vowel? • increased energy in h2 • decrease in overall energy • increase in jitter • pitch lowering or raising Discussion

  29. Are there differences between glottalized nasals and glottal stop? • Pitch effects generally uniform for segment types (except BM) • [/] has more extreme effect on pitch than [n’] (AJ, LM) Discussion

  30. 2 types of glottalic consonants? Correlation matrix: Discussion

  31. Pitch perturbation x jitter perturbation AJ SM KN BM MF LM MA HM Discussion

  32. Jitter perturbation x energy perturbation MA MF HM BM SM LM KN AJ Discussion

  33. Effects of initial vs. final glottalization • Initial [t’] (Wright, Hargus and Davis 2002): no significant correlations between voice onset time, pitch perturbation, jitter perturbation, or rise time • 5 speakers in both initial, final glottalization studies • Significant correlations • only initial, final pitch perturbation • not initial rise time, final energy perturbation • not initial, final jitter perturbation Discussion

  34. Initial vs. final pitch perturbation significantly correlated (r = .888, p = .0459) SM AJ MF LM MA Discussion

  35. Conclusions • Witsuwit’en a microcosm of Athabaskan? • final glottalic consonants have both pitch raising, lowering effects • support for Kingston (to appear) • Pitch raising vs. lowering characteristic of speakers in initial, final position • only shared characteristic of glottalization?

  36. Acknowledgements • Thanks to Witsuwit’en speakers for their participation • Thanks for useful advice and comments from: • Michael Krauss, Richard Wright, Laura McGarrity

More Related