Witsuwit en final glottalization and voice quality
Download
1 / 36

Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on

Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality. Sharon Hargus [email protected] 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)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality' - urian


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Witsuwit en final glottalization and voice quality

Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality

Sharon Hargus

[email protected]

University of Washington

SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005


Athabaskan tonogenesis
Athabaskan tonogenesis

  • Proto-Athabaskan *tSha ‘beaver’ (Leer 87)

    • Sekani tshà/ (low-marked language)

    • Slave tshá/ (high-marked language)

    • Ahtna tsha/ (toneless)

Background


Distribution of tonal and toneless languages krauss to appear
Distribution of tonal and toneless languages(Krauss to appear)

Background


Deriving low or high tone from final glottalization
Deriving low or high tone from final glottalization

  • Kingston (to appear): 2 different Proto-Athabaskan dialects with different glottalic consonants

Background


Voice quality in athabaskan languages
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


Witsuwit en
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


Babine witsuwit en language area
Babine-Witsuwit’en language area

speakers who participated in current study

Background


Research questions
Research questions

  • How does final glottalization affect the voice quality of the preceding vowel?

  • Are there differences between glottalized nasals and glottal stop?


Methods
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


Measures
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


A final token
A [/]-final token

e e

[en’]: [ee]

Methods


Spectral tilt perturbation
Spectral tilt perturbation

  • positive number: decrease in creaky voice

  • negative number: increase in creaky voice

Results


Effect of glottal stop on spectral tilt perturbation across speakers
Effect of glottal stop on spectral tilt perturbation (across speakers)

F[1,7] = 6.365, p = .0396 (repeated measures ANOVA)


Energy perturbation
Energy perturbation speakers)

  • negative number: decrease in overall energy

  • positive number: increase in overall energy

Results


Effects of nasality glottalization on energy perturbation across speakers
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


Jitter perturbation
Jitter perturbation (across speakers)

  • negative number: decrease in jitter

  • positive number: increase in jitter

Results


Effects of nasality glottalization on jitter perturbation across speakers
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


Pitch perturbation
Pitch perturbation (across speakers)

  • negative number: decrease in pitch

  • positive number: increase in pitch

Results


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation across speakers
Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation (across speakers)

Effect of glottalization: n.s.

Effect of nasality: n.s.

No interaction effect


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation individuals
Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation (individuals)

  • Pitch lowerers: HM, LM, MA, MF

  • Pitch raisers: AJ, KN, (SM)

  • Mixed: BM

Results


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


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for lm a pitch lowerer
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.)


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for aj a pitch raiser
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.)


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for kn a pitch raiser
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


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for sm a pitch raiser
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.)


Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for bm a pitch raiser lowerer
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’


Pitch perturbation before glottalic consonants
Pitch perturbation before glottalic consonants for BM, a pitch raiser/lowerer

Results


How does final glottalization affect the voice quality of the preceding vowel
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


Are there differences between glottalized nasals and glottal stop
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


2 types of glottalic consonants
2 types of glottalic consonants? stop?

Correlation matrix:

Discussion


Pitch perturbation x jitter perturbation
Pitch perturbation x jitter perturbation stop?

AJ

SM

KN

BM

MF

LM

MA

HM

Discussion


Jitter perturbation x energy perturbation
Jitter perturbation x energy perturbation stop?

MA

MF

HM

BM

SM

LM

KN

AJ

Discussion


Effects of initial vs final glottalization
Effects of initial vs. final glottalization stop?

  • 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


Initial vs final pitch perturbation
Initial vs. final pitch perturbation stop?

significantly correlated (r = .888, p = .0459)

SM

AJ

MF

LM

MA

Discussion


Conclusions
Conclusions stop?

  • 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?


Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements stop?

  • Thanks to Witsuwit’en speakers for their participation

  • Thanks for useful advice and comments from:

    • Michael Krauss, Richard Wright, Laura McGarrity


ad