witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality
DESCRIPTION
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) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality
Sharon [email protected]
University of Washington
SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005
![Page 2: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Athabaskan tonogenesis
• Proto-Athabaskan *ta ‘beaver’ (Leer 87) – Sekani tsà (low-marked language)– Slave tsá (high-marked language)– Ahtna tsa (toneless)
Background
![Page 3: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Distribution of tonal and toneless languages (Krauss to appear)
Background
![Page 4: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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 ?
![Page 5: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Babine-Witsuwit’en language area
speakers who participated in current study
Background
![Page 8: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Research questions
• How does final glottalization affect the voice quality of the preceding vowel?
• Are there differences between glottalized nasals and glottal stop?
![Page 9: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
A []-final token
e e
Methods
[en’]: [ee]
![Page 12: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Spectral tilt perturbation
• positive number: decrease in creaky voice
• negative number: increase in creaky voice
Results
![Page 13: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Energy perturbation
• negative number: decrease in overall energy
• positive number: increase in overall energy
Results
![Page 15: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Jitter perturbation
• negative number: decrease in jitter
• positive number: increase in jitter
Results
![Page 17: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Pitch perturbation
• negative number: decrease in pitch
• positive number: increase in pitch
Results
![Page 19: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation (individuals)
• Pitch lowerers: HM, LM, MA, MF
• Pitch raisers: AJ, KN, (SM)
• Mixed: BM
Results
![Page 21: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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.)
![Page 23: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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.)
![Page 24: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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.)
![Page 25: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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.)
![Page 26: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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’
![Page 27: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
![Page 28: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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
![Page 30: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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
![Page 34: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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
![Page 35: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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?
![Page 36: Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022052510/56814916550346895db64d5c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Acknowledgements
• Thanks to Witsuwit’en speakers for their participation
• Thanks for useful advice and comments from:– Michael Krauss, Richard Wright, Laura McGarrity