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