Witsuwit en final glottalization and voice quality
Download
1 / 36

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


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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)

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

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.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

Sharon Hargus

sharon@u.washington.edu

University of Washington

SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005


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)

Background


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

  • 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

  • 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

speakers who participated in current study

Background


Research questions

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

  • Are there differences between glottalized nasals and glottal stop?


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

  • 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

e e

[en’]: [ee]

Methods


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)

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


Energy perturbation

  • negative number: decrease in overall energy

  • positive number: increase in overall energy

Results


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

  • negative number: decrease in jitter

  • positive number: increase in jitter

Results


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

  • negative number: decrease in pitch

  • positive number: increase in pitch

Results


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)

  • 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

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

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

[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”

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

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

Results


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?

  • 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?

Correlation matrix:

Discussion


Pitch perturbation x jitter perturbation

AJ

SM

KN

BM

MF

LM

MA

HM

Discussion


Jitter perturbation x energy perturbation

MA

MF

HM

BM

SM

LM

KN

AJ

Discussion


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


Initial vs. final pitch perturbation

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

SM

AJ

MF

LM

MA

Discussion


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?


Acknowledgements

  • Thanks to Witsuwit’en speakers for their participation

  • Thanks for useful advice and comments from:

    • Michael Krauss, Richard Wright, Laura McGarrity


ad
  • Login