1. Witsuwit’en final glottalization and voice quality Sharon Hargus sharon@u.washington.edu University of Washington SSILA, Oakland CA, January 8, 2005

2. 2 Athabaskan tonogenesis Proto-Athabaskan *t S h a  ‘beaver’ (Leer 87) –Sekani ts h à / (low-marked language) –Slave ts h á / (high-marked language) –Ahtna ts h a / (toneless) Background

3. 3 Distribution of tonal and toneless languages (Krauss to appear) Background

4. 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’ VOTshortlong pitchloweredraised spectrumincreased energy in higher frequencies rise timeslowerfaster variability of glottal cycle increased?

5. 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. 6 Witsuwit’en Dialect of Babine-Witsuwit’en Not a tone language –Impressionistic higher pitch on / -final syllables Much historical loss of final glottalization –[ts h a] ‘beaver’ < *t S h a  –two types of final glottalic consonant: / ; n’, m’ Closely related Chilcotin and Carrier are high- marked (more uncertainty re Carrier) Background

7. 7 Babine- Witsuwit’en language area speakers who participated in current study Background

8. 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. 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. 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 –Measure perturbed = Measure endpoint − Measure midpoint Methods

11. 11 A [ / ]-final token e e     Methods [en’]: [ee  ]

12. 12 Spectral tilt perturbation positive number: decrease in creaky voice negative number: increase in creaky voice Results

13. 13 Effect of glottal stop on spectral tilt perturbation (across speakers) F[1,7] = 6.365, p =.0396 (repeated measures ANOVA)

14. 14 Energy perturbation negative number: decrease in overall energy positive number: increase in overall energy Results

15. 15 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

16. 16 Jitter perturbation negative number: decrease in jitter positive number: increase in jitter Results

17. 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

18. 18 Pitch perturbation negative number: decrease in pitch positive number: increase in pitch Results

19. 19 Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation (across speakers) Effect of glottalization: n.s. Effect of nasality: n.s. No interaction effect

20. 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. 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 effect MF, HM results similar to MA [je / ] ‘boy’ (voc.)

22. 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 [je / ] ‘boy’ (voc.)

23. 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 [je / ] ‘boy’ (voc.)

24. 24 Effects of glottalization and nasality on pitch perturbation for KN, a pitch raiser Effect of glottalization: F[1,75] = 28.828, p <.0001 Effect of nasality: 4.375, p =.0399 No interaction effect [je / ] ‘boy’ (voc.)

25. 25 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.)

26. 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 [je / ] ‘boy’ (voc.) [jen’] ‘bridge’

27. 27 Pitch perturbation before glottalic consonants Results

28. 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. 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. 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. 31 Pitch perturbation x jitter perturbation AJ MA KN LM HM SM BM MF Discussion

32. 32 Jitter perturbation x energy perturbation Discussion AJ MA KN SM BM MF LM HM

33. 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. 34 Initial vs. final pitch perturbation significantly correlated (r =.888, p =.0459) Discussion AJ MA MF SM LM

35. 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. 36 Acknowledgements Thanks to Witsuwit’en speakers for their participation Thanks for useful advice and comments from: –Michael Krauss, Richard Wright, Laura McGarrity