witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality
Post on 15-Jan-2016
29 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality
Sharon Hargussharon@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005
2
Athabaskan tonogenesis
• Proto-Athabaskan *ta ‘beaver’ (Leer 87) – Sekani tsà (low-marked language)– Slave tsá (high-marked language)– Ahtna tsa (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
creaky voice, ‘slack’ ejectives
tense voice, ‘stiff’ ejectives’
VOT short long
pitch lowered raised
spectrum increased energy in higher frequencies
increased energy in higher frequencies
rise time slower faster
variability of glottal cycle
increased ?
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– [tsa] ‘beaver’ < *ta – 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
Methods
[en’]: [ee]
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)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
Spe
ctra
l tilt
per
turb
atio
n (d
B)
glottal plain
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)
-24-21-18-15-12-9-6-303
Ene
rgy
pert
urba
tion
(dB
)
glottal plain
oralnasal
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
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
Jitte
r pe
rtur
batio
n (%
)
glottal plain
oralnasal
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
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
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 effectMF, HM results similar to MA
[je] ‘boy’ (voc.)
-100
-60
-20
20
60
100
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
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
-100
-60
-20
20
60
100
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
[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
-100
-60
-20
20
60
100
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
[je] ‘boy’ (voc.)
24
Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for KN, a pitch raiser
-100-75-50-25
0255075
100
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
Effect of glottalization: F[1,75] = 28.828, p < .0001
Effect of nasality: 4.375, p = .0399
No interaction effect
[je] ‘boy’ (voc.)
25
Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for SM, a pitch “raiser”
-100-75-50-25
0255075
100
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
Effect of glottalization: F[1,94] = 3.949, p = .0498
Effect of nasality: n.s.
No interaction effect
[je] ‘boy’ (voc.)
26
Effect of glottalization: n.s.
Effect of nasality: F[1,59] = 8.908, p = .0041
Interaction effect: F[1,59] = 13.731, p = .0005
Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for BM, a pitch raiser/lowerer
-100
-60
-20
20
60
100
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
glottal plain
oralnasal
[je] ‘boy’ (voc.)
[jen’] ‘bridge’
27
Pitch perturbation before glottalic consonants
Results
-125
-75
-25
25
75
125
Pitc
h pe
rtur
batio
n (H
z)
AJ BM HM KN LM MA MF SM
oralnasal
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?
pitch perturb.
jitter perturb.
spectral tilt perturb.
energy perturb.
pitch perturb.
1.000 -.802 (p = .0132)
.441 -.624
jitter perturb.
1.000 -.118 .692 (p = .0570)
spectral tilt perturb.
1.000 .141
energy perturb.
1.000
Correlation matrix:
Discussion
31
Pitch perturbation x jitter perturbation
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80pi
tch
pert
urba
tion
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16jitter perturbation
pitch perturbation = 56.596 - 8.587 * jitter perturbation; R^2 = .644
AJ
MA
KN
LMHM
SMBM
MF
Discussion
32
Jitter perturbation x energy perturbation
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16jit
ter
pert
urba
tion
-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4energy perturbation
jitter perturbation = 15.218 + .783 * energy perturbation; R^2 = .479
Discussion
AJ
MA
KN
SMBM
MF
LM
HM
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 perturbationsignificantly correlated (r = .888, p = .0459)
-70-60-50-40-30-20-10
01020
initi
al p
itch
pert
urba
tion
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80final pitch perturbation
initial pitch perturbation = -12.483 + .659 * final pitch perturbation; R^2 = .788
Discussion
AJ
MA
MF
SM
LM
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
top related