Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Towards a phonetic and phonological typology of post-velar articulation Bessell, Nicola J. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_spring_phd_bessell_nicola.pdf [ 18.18MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086353.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086353-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086353-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086353-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086353-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086353-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086353-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TOWARDS A PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL TYPOLOGYOF POST-VELAR ARTICULATIONbyNICOLA JANE BESSELLB.A. Hons., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1981B.A. Hons., University of Oxford, 1983M.St., University of Oxford, 1984A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Linguistics)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADecember 1992© Nicola Jane Bessell, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of ^wa-c3The University of Britis'F ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ^DE-6 (2/88)AbstractThis dissertation develops a typology of post-velar articulation from the point ofview of available inventory, phonetic and phonological studies. The database on whichsuch typologies can draw is expanded by the examination of data from the Interior Salishlanguages of the Pacific Northwest. The post-velar inventory of Interior Salish isexamined acoustically in order to place it within the phonetic typology of post-velars asunderstood from work on Semitic and Caucasian. Pharyngeals from six Interior Salishlanguages are examined to determine the range of variation. The basic finding of thisacoustic work is that the Interior Salish post-velars are commensurate with what is knownabout post-velars based on Semitic data and articulatory modelling.Interior Salish phonological data support the extension of articulator-based featuregeometry to a fourth node, here termed Tongue Root. It is shown that the fourth node isrequired to class Interior Salish faucals and accommodate their participation in harmonyprocesses. Furthermore, constraints on the phonology of the fourth node in InteriorSalish suggest that we are dealing with an Advanced Tongue Root phenomenon such asfound in some African vowel harmonies. This is an encouraging result in the sense that itconfirms the existence of Tongue Root consonants and does not confine the fourth nodeto vowels. The analysis of Interior Salish laryngeals without the fourth node thatcharacterizes their Semitic counterparts corroborates our understanding of laryngeals aslacking Place specifications in the default case. Furthermore, it is argued that thedescriptivist and Dependency Phonology view of /2, h/ as minimal stop and fricative isphonologically appropriate. Evidence from epenthesis, laryngeal transparency anddebuccalization support the analysis of ii, h/ as (+consonantal, -sonorant, +/-continuant].Debuccalization and epenthesis processes also suggest that h/ do not necessarily bearLaryngeal Node features. It is argued that unless phonemic phonation features arepresent in an inventory, there is no need for /2, h/ to bear [constricted glottis, spreadglottis].It is noted that the phonology of post-velars in Interior Salish contrasts with theirpatterning in Semitic (McCarthy 1991) and Nisgha (Shaw 1991b), specifically withrespect to the representation of /2, h/. The presence of a fourth node in Interior Salishdoes not require that laryngeals be dependents of it. The same finding is reported byMcCarthy (1991) for Semitic. Given that there is no acoustic evidence at present tosuggest that we are dealing with distinct phonetic entities, it appears that therepresentation of laryngeals in languages with a fourth node must be stipulated.Table of ContentsAbstract^List of TablesList of Figures^  xiiAcknowledgments  xvChapter One: Introduction1.0 Introduction^  11.1 Aims of dissertation  41.2 Database^  61.3 Outline of dissertation^  9Chapter Two: Fourth node history2.0 Introduction^  122.1 Early ATR assumptions^  122.2 Traditional representations  132.3 Current proposals^  152.3.1 Fourth node in Semitic^  162.3.2 Fourth node in other languages  232.3.3 Fourth node for secondary articulations^  252.4 Conclusions^  24Chapter Three: Systemic typology of post-velars3.0 Introduction^  273.1 Uvulars  283.2 Pharyngeals^  29iv3.2.1 Pharyngealized consonants^  343.2.2 Pharyngealized vowels  353.3 Glottals^  353.3.1 Stop and fricative?^  403.3.2 Secondary articulations on glottals^  433.3.2.1 Rounding on glottals  433.3.2.2 Prenasalization on glottals^  443.3.2.3 Palatalization on glottals  453.4 Aspiration and ejection^  473.5 Conclusions^  49Chapter Four: Phonetic investigations into post-velar articulation4.0 Introduction^  504.1 The anatomy of post-velars^  504.1.1 The major cavities  514.1.2 Places of articulation^  514.1.3 Articulators^  524.1.3.1 The tongue^  524.1.3.2 The pharynx  554.1.3.3 The larynx^  574.2 Articulatory descriptions of post-velars^  594.2.1 Uvular stops^  594.2.2 Uvular fricatives  604.2.3 Uvular trill^  604.2.4 Pharyngeal stop  604.2.5 Pharyngeal fricatives/approximants^  604.2.6 Epiglottal stop^  614.2.7 Epiglottal fricatives^  624.2.8 Glottal stop  644.2.9 Glottal fricatives^  644.2.10 Summary 654.3 Natural language data^  674.3.1 Semitic  674.3.1.1 Dorsals^  694.3.1.2 Pharyngeals  714.3.1.3 Emphatics^  754.3.1.4 Glottals  814.3.1.5 Vowel effects^  814.3.2 Caucasian^  854.3.2.1 Dorsals  854.3.2.2 Pharyngeals^  854.3.2.3 Pharyngealized consonants and vowels^ 864.3.2.4 Glottals^  884.3.2.5 Vowel effects  894.3.3 Interior Salish^  914.3.3.1 Dorsals  914.3.3.2 Pharyngeals^  934.3.3.3 Retracted coronals  974.3.3.4 Glottals^  994.3.4 Khoisan^  994.3.5 Nootka  1004.3.6 Hthda^  1024.4 Acoustic consequences of post-velar articulation^  1024.4.1 Uvulars and pharyngeals^  1034.4.2 Emphatics ^ 1094.4.3 Glottals 1144.5 Summary and conclusions^ 115Chapter Five: Interior Salish Phonetics5.0 From acoustics to place of articulation^  1185.1 The acoustic theory of speech production  1195.2 Moses-Columbia Salish: A case-study in post-velar articulation^ 1235.2.1 Methods^  1245.2.2 Moses-Columbia: an overview^  1265.2.3 Stressed vowels before coronals  1325.2 4 Stressed vowels before retracted coronals^ 1335.2.5 Stressed vowels before velars^  1345.2.6 Stressed vowels before uvulars  1355.2.7 Stressed vowels before pharyngeals^  1385.2.8 Stressed vowels before glottals  1405.2.9 Bilabials and Summary^  1425.3 Pharyngeal Articulation^  1455.3.1 Arabic pharyngeals  1475.3.2 Interior Salish pharyngeal articulation^  1535.3.2.1 Kalispel-Spokane^  1535.3.2.2 Colville-Okanagan  1595.3.2.3 Coeur d'Alene^  1625.3.2.4 Shuswap  1675.3.2.5 Me?kepmxcin^  1695.3.2.6 Moses-Columbian  1735. Voiced pharyngeals^  174vivii5. Voiceless pharyngeals^  1775.4. Conclusion^  187Chapter Six: Post-velar phonology6.0 Introduction and overview^  1906.1 Semitic^  1946.1.1 Semitic gutturals^  1946.1.2 Semitic emphatics  1996.2 Interior Salish^  2046.2.1 Evidence for uvulars as Dorsals^  2056.2.2 Evidence for uvulars and pharyngeals as Tongue Root^ 2096.2.3 Evidence for pharyngeals as Tongue Root resonants^ 2126.2.4 Coeur d'Alene^  2236.2.4.1 Morpheme structure constraints^  2296.2.4.2 Root patterns ^  2306.2.4.3 Regressive Faucal Harmony^  2326.2.4.4 Regressive Faucal Harmony formalized^ 2396.2.5 Regressive Faucal Harmony in other Interior Salish languages^ 2456.2.5.1 Spokane Regressive Faucal Harmony^ 2476.2.5.2 Kalispel Regressive Faucal Harmony  2496.2.6 Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony^  2506.2.6.1 Type-i: Colville Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony^ 2536.2.6.2 Type-ii: Spokane and Kalispel Progressive PharyngealHarmony^  2566.2.6.3 Type-iii: Coeur d'Alene, Shuswap, Lillooet^ 2616. Coeur d'Alene^  2636. Shuswap  274viii6. Lillooet^  2776.2.6.4 Type-iv: 1•11e2kepmxcin and Moses-Columbian^ 2786.2.6.5 Type-v: Retraction of consonants^  2916.2.6.6 Summary of Salish^  2946.3 African ATR systems  3006.4 An alternative: [-high, +back]^  3056.5 Conclusions^  312Chapter Seven: Glottal phonology7.0 Introduction^  3167.1 The Sound Pattern of English^  3207.1.1 Use of [+low]  3247.1.2 Glottals as [-consonantal, +sonorant] glides^ 3327.2 Malay^  3387.2.1 Hiatus^  3397.3.2 Transparency  3417.3 Debuccalization^  3477.3.1 Stop > [2]; Fricative > [h]^  3487.3.2 Stop > [h]^  3547.4 fl, hi, Aspiration and Ejection^  3607.5 Glottals and continuancy  3637.6 Underspecification and licensing^  3677.7 Conclusions^  371Chapter Eight: Conclusions and future research^ 374Bibliography and references^  376AppendicesAppendix A: Interior Salish inventories^Appendix B: Interior Salish spectrogramsix405409List of TablesChapter ThreeTable 3.1: Distribution of uvulars^  29Table 3.2: Distribution of pharyngeals with other post-velars^ 30Table 3.3: Distribution of pharyngeal fricatives^  32Table 3.4: Distribution of glottals^  36Table 3.5: Distribution of rounding  44Table 3.6: Distribution of palatalization^  46Table 3.7: Distribution of aspiration and ejection^  48Chapter FourTable 4.8: Arabic dorsals^  70Table 4.9: Arabic pharyngeals  73Table 4.10: Arabic emphatics^  80Table 4.11: Arabic vowels effects  83Table 4.12: Interior Salish uvular effects^  92Table 4.13: Interior Salish pharyngeal effects  96Table 4.14: Interior Salish retracted coronal effects^  98Table 4.15: Kyoquot vowel allophony (Rose 1981)  101Table 4.16: Klatt and Steven (1969): Constriction area 0.05 and 0.1 cm2^ 104Table 4.17: Alwan (1986): Constriction area 0.15 cm2, length of constriction 1 cm.105Table 4.18: Arabic post-velars (Alwan 1986)^  107Table 4.19: Arabic post-velars (Ghazeli 1977)  107Table 4.20: Iraqi Arabic pharyngeals and glottals (Butcher and Ahmad 1987) ^ 108Table 4.21: Sudanese Arabic pharyngeals and reference vowels (Adamson 1981) 109Table 4.22: Alexandrian emphatic effects (al-Ani and el-Dalee 1984)^ 110xiTable 4.23: Egyptian Arabic emphatic effects (Norlin 1987)^ 111Table 4.24: Consonantal loci in Iraqi Arabic (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)^ 112Chapter FiveTable 5.25: Interior Salish Database^  126Table 5.26: Summary of Nxa'amxcin articulatory effects: MM and JM^ 128Table 5.27: Plain, rounded, voiced and voiceless pharyngeal effects: MM^ 139Table 5.28: Ms-Cm place of articulation effects summarized: offset values^ 145Table 5.29: Formant values of pharyngeals examined in text^ 146Chapter SixTable 6.30: Guttural and faucal classes^  191Table 6.31: Effects of post-velars on vowels (Kinkade and Thompson 1974)^ 220Table 6.32: Interior Salish Regressive Harmony onto roots or suffixes^ 246Table 6.33: Interior Salish Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony^ 252List of FiguresChapter FourFigure 4.1: Tongue musculature (Laver 1980) ^55Figure 4.2: Velopharyngeal muscles (Laver 1980) ^57Figure 4.3: Iraqi Arabic It!, It/ and /q/ (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)^77Figure 4.4: Tunisian Arabic: /g,x/ and /t,t/ (Ghazeli (1977) ^78Figure 4.5: Tunisian Arabic: /S/ before initiation (solid line) and during production(dotted line) in [Tx:li]. (Ghazeli (1977)^  79Figure 4.6: Udi V1 (Catford !983)^  88Figure 4.7: Palestinian Arabic short vowels: plain and emphatic^ 113Figure 4.8: Palestinian Arabic long vowels: plain and emphatic  113Chapter FiveFigure 5.9: Vocal tract with standing waves^  121Figure 5.10: Ms-Cm Vowels at all POA, Stressed and Unstressed^ 130Figure 5.11: Ms-Cm Stressed Vowels^  131Figure 5.12: Ms-Cm Vowels before Coronals  132Figure 5.13: Ms-Cm Vowels before Retracted Coronals^ 133Figure 5.14: Ms-Cm Vowels before Velars^  134Figure 5.15: Ms-Cm Vowels before Uvulars  135Figure 5.16: Ms-Cm Vowels before Pharyngeals^  138Figure 5.17: Ms-Cm Vowels before Glottals  140Figure 5.18: Uvular effects: ciqn 'digging' (Ms-Cm: MM)^ 141Figure 5.19: Glottal transparency: (kn) p'i?q 'I'm cooked, burnt' (Ms-Cm: MM)^ 142Figure 5.20: Ms-Cm labial effects: yaT'p(qin) 'many, lots'.: Speaker: ED^ 143Figure 5.21: Cadu 'enemy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)^ 148xiiFigure 5.22: ?aiwa 'yes' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)^ 150Figure 5.23: sali:d 'happy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)  151Figure 5.24: halab 'he milked' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)^ 152Figure 5.25: liast 'char' (Chewelah/Kalispel: AS)^  154Figure 5.26: ?ay kwast 'tomorrow' (Moses-Columbian:MM)^ 155Figure 5.27: Ciast 'char' (Spokane: MS)^  156Figure 5.28: Simt 'get angry' (Spokane: PF)  157Figure 5.29: p'aS 'burn' (Spokane: PF)^  158Figure 5.30: hec yall'mi 'people are gathering' (Spokane: PF)^ 159Figure 5.31: Sitmn 'teeth' (Colville: CQ)^  160Figure 5.32: pal 'grey' (Colville: CQ)  161Figure 5.33: xwuyt ciyalp 'they have arrived' (Colville: COD^ 162Figure 5.34: ?ar 'much, plenty' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)  164Figure 5.35: cic lay' 'I'm angry' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)^  165Figure 5.36: mel'wns 'he broke it' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)  166Figure 5.37: Tipkn 'I'm angry' (Shuswap:BD)^  167Figure 5.38: plpelt 'grey' (Shuswap:BD)  168Figure 5.39:^'dragging things around' (Shuswap:BD)^ 169Figure 5.40: Sis 'shrink' (Nie?kepmxcin: DS)^  170Figure 5.41: calp 'ripped' (Nle?kepmxcin: DS)  171Figure 5.42: pal 'bleached by the sun; grey' (Nte?epmxcin: DS)^ 173Figure 5.43: l'1' 'brighe (Moses-Columbian: AB)^  175Figure 5.44: nxwlank 'cave; hole in a hill' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 176Figure 5.45: scyaMmix 'they're gathering' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 177Figure 5.46: himt 'angry' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^  178Figure 5.47: ph 'grey' (Moses-Columbian: AB)  179Figure 5.48: kihana 'teenage girl' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 180xivFigure 5.49: ?dhwa? 'cough' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^  181Figure 5.50: ha2lcw61"Are you warm enough?' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 183Figure 5.51: pax(paxt) 'wise' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 184Figure 5.52: CEA /h/ spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint (bottom).^ 185Figure 5.53: Moses-Columbian [hi spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint(bottom) 186Figure 5.54: Moses-Columbian [h]: spectra at midpoint^ 187Figure 5.55: Moses-Columbian [x]: spectra at midpoint.  187Chapter SixFigure 6.56: Coeur d'Alene vowels : stressed and unstressed^226Figure 6.57: Coeur d'Alene Stressed Vowels 227Figure 6.58: Coeur d'Alene vowels:means ^299Chapter SevenFigure 7.59: [skixzeh] 'mother' (1•1101cepmxcin: DS)^  336AcknowledgmentsI thank my committee members, Patricia A. Shaw (Chair and Supervisor), EwaCzaykowska-Higgins, M.Dale Kinkade and Mark Y. Liberman. This dissertation owes aparticular debt to Patricia Shaw, who has always insisted that I think carefully and has nottolerated cavalier phonology. Her example as a fine phonologist with unusual respect forfieldwork has obviously influenced the orientation and execution of this dissertation.Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins supplied countless hours of official and unofficial consultationon Salish and general linguistic issues, consultation and company on fieldwork, and acritical eye not deterred by friendship. Her generous, disciplined and detailed attention tothis dissertation has improved it immeasurably. I also thank M. Dale Kinkade who(along with Mandy Na?zinek Jimmie) first introduced me to the initially alarmingwonders of Interior Salish and encouraged phonetic work on the languages. Thisdissertation has clearly benefitted from the depth of his unique scholarship and hiswillingness to share it. I am grateful to Mark Liberman for generously supporting myresearch in innumerable practical and psychological ways, not the least of which wasgranting me access to the Phonetics Lab at the University of Pennsylvania and welcomingme to an exciting and exacting research community.I owe a major debt to the Salish speakers whose data are represented here.Obviously this would be a very different dissertation without their input and we would allknow less about Interior Salish phonetics and phonology as a consequence. I especiallythank Agatha Bart, Elizabeth Davis, Mandy Nahinek Jimmie and Mary Marchand forfriendship and encouragement as well as consultation. I also thank Lavinia Clark, BasileDeNeau, Pauline Flett, Nora Jimmie, Blanche LaSartre, Lawrence Nicodemus, CharlieQuintasket, David Shooter, Margaret Stensgar and Jimmie C'al' Toodlican. I thank BarryCarlson for providing recordings of Margaret Sherwood and Alex Sherwood, M.D.Kinkade for recordings of Jerome Miller, Linda Walsh for recordings of Bertha Azak(Nisgha), Ivy Doak for assistance with Coeur d'Alene and Dwight Gardener for assistancewith Shuswap.I also thank Andre-Pierre Benguerel for commentary on phonetic work, advice,and general interest in my work. Bruce Bagemihl and Keren Rice also commented onearly versions of some chapters. For encouragement and professional advice I thank IvyDoak, Douglas Pulleyblank, Edwin Pulleyblank and Mike Rochemont, as well as friendsand colleagues in Vancouver, Philadelphia and elsewhere: Helmi Braches, Gene Buckley,Henry Davis, lain Higgins, Katherine Hunt, Mandy Nahinek Jimmie, Bill Reynolds,Mark Steeciman, Yan Feng Qu, Bonnie Webber, Christine Zeller and Katya Zubritskaya.I especially thank Bruce Bagemihl and Mary Peckham for their steady friendship. I amgrateful to Carmen da Silva for administration at UBC.The fieldwork on which much of this dissertation is based was made possible bygrants from the Phillips Fund to Nicola Besse11, and Jacobs Fund and SSHRCC grants toEwa Czaykowska-Higgins. I gratefully acknowledge all sources of funding.My final acknowledgement goes to my family, and to Gregory Provan forpatience and wisdom that exceed my own.XV[ant][lat]Chapter One: Introduction1.0 IntroductionThere has been considerable research activity since Clements' (1985) article "Thegeometry of phonological features" on the restructuring of phonological feature theoryfrom flat or linear feature representations to hierarchical ones. A major advance is Sagey(1986), who develops a model of feature geometry grouping some of the terminal featuresof Clements (1985) into articulator node constituents. Sagey (1986) argues for three sucharticulator nodes: Labial, Coronal and Dorsal, represented here under an organizing node,termed Place.(1) Sagey (1986)ROOTLaryngeal^ [consonantal][?tr. gl]^ cont]spr. gl .]stiff v.c.]^Supralaryngeal[slack v.c]1Soft Palate[nalall^Labial/[rd]Place1 Coronal1^Dorsal[distr]^[low]^/ \[high][back]Ladefoged and Maddieson (1988) and Ladefoged and Halle (1988) propose theaddition of a fourth articulator node 'Tongue Root' dominating a feature [ATR] (or[Advanced Tongue Root]). The resulting geometry under Place is as in (2).DorsalPlaceLabialI[round][distributed][anterior]Coronal[lateral][high][back][low]Tongue Root(2) Cole (1987), Sagey (1988)It was originally suggested that the fourth node is needed to account for tongueroot harmonies as found in the vowel systems of some Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian languages. Its restriction to vowel representation is odd though, particularlyin light of recent work examining the phonological interaction between consonant andvowel features under all articulator nodes (Gorecka 1989, Clements 1991, E. Pulleyblank1989, 1992, Shaw 1991a,b, Hume 1992). However, Cole (1987) uses a fourth nodedominating a feature [±ATR] for her account of the Coeur d'Alene post-velars andHayward and Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991) propose that the Semitic 'guttural'class which is composed of uvulars, pharyngeals and glottals, also requires a fourth node.McCarthy (1991) departs from the model in (2) in several interesting ways. He proposesthat articulator geometry be complemented by place-of-articulation geometry so that thenodes under Place now designate places of articulation rather than articulators. Thisreflects a phonological division of the vocal tract into Oral and Pharyngeal places ofarticulation. The original three articulators of Sagey (1986) fall under the Oral place, thefourth node Pharyngeal falls under the Pharyngeal place.2(3) McCarthy (1991)Place 0OralDorsal[lat][distr[pharynge ]^\[radical]PharyngealLabial/[rnd]^Coronal[ant][back]Our most developed understanding of the phonetics and phonology of post-velarconsonantal articulation comes from Semitic, which plays a dominant role in extensionsof feature geometry to a fourth node.1 This limitation invites several obvious questions:What happens in other languages with similar post-velar inventories (i.e. with uvulars,pharyngeals and glottals); Do these languages support the proposed modifications tofeature geometry and/or the universality of these proposals; What is the cross-linguistictypology of post-velar phonetics and phonology?Here I must clarify some terminology. The class which I term post-velars consistsof uvulars, pharyngeals and glottals. Uvulars are generally made at the very rear of thesoft palate, where the oral and pharyngeal cavities intersect. Pharyngeals seem to varysomewhat in precise location within the pharynx, but constriction narrows the pharyngealcavity rather than the oral one. Glottals are made by vocal fold gestures within thelarynx. I use the term 'post-velar' as a neutral descriptive term for this class of segments,referring to their general place of articulation. The term 'pre-uvular' will designatelAlthough Cole (1987) proposes a fourth node for Coeur d'Alene, she does not attempt to justify herinnovation beyond Coeur d'Alene harmonies.3articulation anterior to the intersection of the oral and pharyngeal cavities. Neither ofthese terms is common, but their designations are fairly apparent. A neutral descriptiveterm is necessary since it is not the case that all post-velars are gutturals in the senseestablished by Semitic phonology.1.1 Aims of dissertationThis dissertation addresses the general issues raised by current proposals for afourth node and evaluates data relevant to an inquiry into the phonetics and phonology ofpost-velar articulations. It does so in part by laying the groundwork for typologies ofpost-velar articulation in three areas: gross systemic, phonetic and phonological. It isargued that typological work in each of these domains contributes to our understanding ofpost-velar activity in a larger context.A gross systemic typology of post-velar articulation is developed on the basis ofthe distribution of post-velar consonants in the 693 inventories contained in Ruhien(1975). This dissertation also expands the post-velar database by examining data fromthe Interior Salish languages of the Pacific Northwest. These languages have extensivepost-velar inventories which have not been examined acoustically. Given the rarity ofpharyngeal articulation in general, it is important to establish the phonetic composition ofthe Salish post-velar class. Developing a phonetic typology enables the Salish data to becompared to Semitic and Caucasian post-velars.The Interior Salish post-velars are also phonologically active as a class. Theirpatterning, however, explicitly excludes laryngeals. This contrasts with ourunderstanding of the Semitic guttural class, which includes laryngeals and so motivatesthe Pharyngeal node in (3) as a place of articulation node. Given the disparity betweenSalish and SemiticlNisgha post-velar phonology, the proper phonetic identification ofthese sounds in each language group is important. Are we in fact dealing with the 'same'4segments? These issues are critical to the proper representation of post-velars and thegeneral development of an adequate feature geometry.Within the overall research paradigm pursued here, the major questions addressedare the following:(i) What exactly are the phonetic facts of post-velar articulation?Phonetic descriptions of post-velar articulation are bewildering in their variety.More specifically, considerable confusion arises over:• The involvement (or lack thereof) of the tongue root in uvular, pharyngeal,glottal and emphatic articulation. Descriptions vary as to the contribution oftongue root activity to some and/Or all of these articulations.• The interaction of tongue root activity with constriction of the pharyngeal wallsand/or faucal pillars to achieve post-velar articulation or emphatic/retractioneffects.• The role of the larynx in pharyngeal articulation and the role of the pharynx inlaryngeal articulation. Does the frequent laryngealization of pharyngeals, forexample, suggest a relationship between these two segments which is beyond thephonetic? Are there in fact two types of laryngeals—those which pattern withpharyngeals (as in Semitic) and those which do not (as in Salish)?(ii) How do the phonetics and phonology of post-velar articulation in Salish and Semiticcompare with what is known about African ATR systems? This question is relevantsince the fourth node was originally proposed for ATR systems.5(iii) What kind of feature geometry is necessary to capture the phonological patterning ofpost-velar articulation in Semitic and Salish, while still accommodating the facts ofAfrican ATR systems?1.2 DatabaseThe answers to these questions are not immediately apparent for several reasons.First of all, both uvulars and pharyngeals are quite rare cross-linguistically. While labial,coronal and velar consonants are found in virtually every language, uvulars occur in 21%of Ruhlen's (1975) sample of 693 languages and 14.8 % of Maddieson's (1984) sample of317 languages. Pharyngeals are rarer still. They occur in 7% of Ruhlen's (1975) sample,and 4% of Maddieson's (1984) sample. It turns out that the effect of the putativepharyngeal node/site for consonants can be explored only in three languages groups.Apart from the Afro-Asiatic data examined by Hayward and Hayward (1989) andMcCarthy (1991), post-velar inventories which include pharyngeals are known fromlanguages spoken in two other areas of the world: the Caucasus mountains of the formerSoviet Union, and the Northwest Coast of the North American Continent. Many of theNW and NE Caucasian languages have inventories of post-velars that surpass those foundin Semitic (see Colarusso 1988). Of the wealth of indigenous languages of NW NorthAmerica, the combination of uvulars, pharyngeals, glottals and retracted coronals appearsexclusively within the Interior branch of Salish. Outside Salish, phonemic pharyngealsare found in the Wakashan language Nootka, some Northern dialects of Haida (alanguage isolate), and in the Stoney dialect of Dakota (Siouan). In both Nootka(Jacobsen 1969) and Haida (Krauss 1979, Levine 1981) the pharyngeals are derivedhistorically from uvulars, but the Stoney pharyngeals (h, C) are derived from what areanalysed as phonemic velar fricatives (Shaw 1980).A second problem is that the rich tradition of phonetic and phonologicalinvestigation in Semitic is not always matched in other language groups of interest. As6McCarthy (1991) comments, very little is known about the phonology of the Caucasianlanguages, despite their obvious importance. A considerable body of writing in Russianand other Soviet languages on Caucasian exists but much of this material is not easilyaccessible to readers in the West. The most notable exception to this generalization isColarusso's thesis (1975, 1988), written in English and detailing a vast spectrum ofprimarily phonetic and comparative information on the Northwest Caucasian languages.As for the languages of the Pacific Northwest, Krauss (1979:895) remarks that thelevel of description required for valid phonological analysis is not yet achieved in workon Haida. For Nootka, there is the work of Sapir (1911, 1938) and Sapir and Swadesh(1939). The phonologies of the Wakashan languages in general are intriguing to say theleast (see Lincoln and Rath 1986 for Haisla, Rose 1981, Stonham 1990 for Nootka).However, very little work has focussed specifically on the phonological behaviour ofNootkan pharyngeals. There is an obvious need for fieldwork to concentrate on thisaspect of Nootka. This leaves Salish.Within the Interior branch of Salish readily accessible research material is scanty,with the fruits of many years' laborious fieldwork often confined to theses or regionallydistributed grammars and dictionaries. There are, however, numerous articles on aspectsof these languages to be found, particularly in the International Journal of AmericanLinguistics (IJAL). Within the compass of what is available on Interior Salish, much canbe learned about post-velar patterning from these languages. Reichard's (1938) grammarof Coeur d'Alene identifies a class of segments with post-velar articulation whichconditions a rule of regressive vowel-lowering across morpheme boundaries. Ofimmediate interest is the fact that 12, hi are not members of this class, although uvularsand pharyngeals are. This finding is corroborated by Sloat (1966, 1975, 1980) and Doak(1992). Kinkade (1967) identifies the presence of pharyngeal resonants throughoutInterior Salish and includes them in a class of 'back' consonants which historicallyconditioned lowering of preceding vowel quality (Kinkade and Sloat 1972, Kinkade and7Thompson 1974). Mattina (1979) isolates a rule of Pharyngeal Movement in certainroots which subsequently lowers stressed vowels in suffixes. Although PharyngealMovement proper is proposed for Colville, the presence of cognate 'retracting roots'containing vowels of a lowered/dark/retracted timbre has been an issue in Salish studiesfor some time. Clearly, Interior Salish critically affects issues of post-velar phonology.Unfortunately, almost no acoustic work exists on the large and very interestingSalish inventories. There is a general lack of systematic phonetic information on most ofthe indigenous languages of the region, although there are a number of comprehensivephonological and morphological accounts available.This dissertation focusses on Interior Salish data, given its obvious relevance tothe theoretical issues sketched above and the acute need for continued documentation ofthese languages. Salish is spoken on the Pacific northwest coast of the North Americancontinent from the north Oregon coast as far north as Bella Coola in British Columbia,though not in an unbroken line, as Bella Coola is suffounded by Wakashan languages tothe north and south and by Athabaskan languages to the west. From this coast, Salish isspoken as far east as western Montana. Much of what is now Washington State waspeopled by Salish speakers at the time of contact with Europeans, their presenceextending across the Canada-United States border to encompass vast areas of southernBritish Columbia. Thompson (1979) divides the family into three divisions: Coastal,Tsamosan and Interior. 2 The Interior languages with which this dissertation is primarilyconcerned are divided into Northern and Southern groups, the constituency of which isgiven in (4).2Bella Coola is an isolate belonging to none of these three groups.8(4) Interior Salish3Academic name^Native nameNorthern^Lillooet^S^'imxcinLil'watThompson^NiekepmxcinShuswap SxwepmxcinSouthern^Moses-Columbian^NxahmxcinColville-Okanagan^Sxwy2ifpxSnSickstxKalispel-Spokane-Flathead NqlispeliknNpoqiniknCoeur d'Alene^Sn6icu?niknColvilleLakes91.3 Outline of dissertationThis dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 outlines the research contextin which proposals for a fourth node have been made and documents current applicationsof the fourth node. It is noted that most fourth node proposals are based on either AfricanATR or Semitic data. This raises the question: what other languages motivate a fourthnode and how does the phonetic quality and phonological behaviour of post-velars insuch languages reflect on what is known from Semitic and African systems. As one31 note here that in many cases the academic term for a given language often covers several dialects. Theparent constituency as constructed by linguists is not necessarily recognized by speakers themselves. Asfar as I know, for example, there is no term for the dialect continuum termed Colville-Okanagan.Frequently the native term for a given dialect centres on the name of the people for themselves. Thus, theNie2kepmx are the Thompson people, so named in English after the Thompson River gorge, the lowerportion of which is central to their territory (Thompson and Thompson 1992). Their language isNle?kepmxcin, the language of the N4e2kepmx people. As a consequence of this practice, there can be asmany language names as groups of people identified, even though the differentiation may be minimal froma linguistic point of view. As a consequence, I have retained the academic terms for the various languagesas defined by linguists. However, I make one exception and refer to Thompson by the name1\14e2kepmxcin. For Nte?kepmxciui the major written sources (Thompson and Thompson 1990, Thompsonand Thompson 1992) are based on data from the central part of Thompson territory which the termN4e2kepmx properly designates. Furthermore, since Mandy Na2zinek Jimmie, a linguist, friend andspeaker of N4e7kepmxcin prefers that the language be referred to as Nle?kepmxcin, I choose to respect herwishes. I realize that this decision is in some senses arbitrary.response to these questions, Chapter 3 develops a gross systemic typology of post-velarphonology based on data from Ruhlen (1975). This survey documents the occurrence ofpost-velar articulation in a fairly large sample of languages and establishes some sense ofthe statistical likelihood of co-occurrence within the post-velar class. The generalfindings are that uvulars are not dependent on the presence of pharyngeals or glottals inan inventory; inventories with pharyngeals are highly likely to have uvulars and glottals;the presence of glottals alone does not imply the presence of uvulars or pharyngeals.These findings, while suggestive, are not presented as definitive given the need for aclose phonological investigation of post-velar activity in individual languages. Chapter 4examines the phonetic aspects of post-velar articulation based on vocal tract anatomy,descriptions of post-velars in natural languages and the acoustic consequences of post-velar articulation. This lays the basis for evaluation of the Salish phonetic data presentedin chapter 5. The first part of chapter 5 undertakes a detailed acoustic investigation ofpost-velar segments and their effects on adjacent vowels in Moses-Columbia Salish. Thisenables an estimation of place of articulation for the Interior Salish post-velars. Thesecond part of chapter 5 examines the acoustic characteristics of pharyngeals asmanifested throughout Interior Salish. This investigation is based primarily on datagathered in my own fieldwork but includes analysis of some data which has kindly beenmade accessible to me by other researchers.4 The information from the acousticinvestigation of Interior Salish pharyngeals is compared with the Semitic data and what isknown about Caucasian. The acoustic profile of Salish post-velars indicates that theimpressionistic accounts of them are entirely appropriate: uvulars are uvulars,pharyngeals are pharyngeals and glottals are glottals. As a consequence, the Salish post-velars are comparable to their Semitic counterparts, bearing in mind that no twolanguages have exactly the same articulatory settings. What is more interesting is thephonological divergence of the two language groups. Chapter 6 presents a phonological4In particular I thank Barry Carlson for making Spokane data available to me, and M.D. Kinkade foradditional data on Moses-Columbia Salish.10typology of post-velar behaviour as it is manifested in the seven Interior Salish languagesand compares the results with the outcome of McCarthy's (1991) work on Semitic and theconsensus of work on African ATR systems. The major theoretical findings here are (i)Interior Salish motivates a fourth node to characterize the behaviour of its post-velars; (ii)laryngeals are not characterized by this fourth node; (iii) the phonology of Salish post-velars appears to be sensitive to constraints also found in African ATR systems. Sincethe representation of glottals divides Salish and Semitic, Chapter 7 closely examinesglottal phonology. It is argued that 12, h/ are Placeless obstruents bearing continuancyvalues, and that in the default case, they do not bear Laryngeal Node features. Based onthis, it is concluded that the Semitic and Nisgha paradigm is typologically unusual.11Chapter Two: Fourth node history2.0 IntroductionThis chapter reviews the research motivating a fourth node and documents thevarious proposals for its instantiation in Semitic, Salish and Nisgha. There isconsiderable variation across proposals, much of it having to do with the phonologicalrepresentation of segments involving more that one articulator node.2.1 Early ATR assumptionsIt has been noted that the fourth node was originally introduced to integrate thedescription of African ATR harmonies into a feature geometric framework. Theassumption that ATR harmonies require a fourth node reflects the disparity between thetraditional vowel features [high, back, low] and our understanding of ATR systems. Thisof course raises the question: what defines an ATR harmony system?ATR harmonies are found in many Sub-Saharan African languages. They maynot only be morpheme-controlled (e.g. the root or suffix vowel determines the vowelquality of other morphemes) but may also have dominant and recessive vowel sets. Inthe latter case, dominant vowels trigger harmony regardless of what morpheme they arefound in, thereby erasing the root-affix distinction discussed above. The result of theseharmonies is that specified domains usually have vowels from one of the two sets only.Typically, the vowels of one set are transcribed as higher in vowel space thancorresponding vowels in the other set. The higher set of vowels is often described as'breathy, hollow, muffled', whereas the lower set is often recorded as sounding 'hard,creaky, brassy' (Stewart 1971). Such vowel systems are often (but by no meansexclusively) composed of ten vowels, five in each set, of the sort /i, e, 3, 0, u/ versusIt, E, a, o, u/. The first set, often labelled 'close' is the relatively higher and12breathy/muffled/hollow set, while the second set, often labelled 'open' is the relativelylower and hard/brassy/creaky set.The articulatory basis of this distinction has been argued to be tongue rootposition rather than tongue body height such as traditional transcriptions would suggest.Ladefoged (1964) demonstrates from X-rays of Igbo (Kwa) that tongue root displacementis the most salient articulatory distinction between the two sets of vowels. Crucially, heshows that tongue root position is to some extent independent of tongue height. Forinstance, two vowels may have the same tongue height in the mouth but differ in tongueroot position. This and other research led to the distinction being referred to as'advanced/unadvanced tongue root', or ATR as we now know it. This physiological basisfor African ATR systems has been confirmed by the work of Stewart (1967), Painter(1973) and Jacobson (1978). Subsequent work has pointed to the reduction in pharyngealarea as a consequence of retracting the tongue root for the unadvanced vowel set (Delattre1971, Lindau 1979). Despite the sometimes complex and variable articulation of ATRcontrast, it has been assumed that a single phonological feature can account for the vastmajority of the data.Ten vowel systems of the sort /i, e, 3, 0, u/ versus It, e, a, o, u/ are of courseextremely difficult to describe in terms of the three heights afforded by the variouscombinations of [+/- high] and [+/- low]. Such systems call for another feature,independent of phonetic arguments that tongue root retraction, as opposed to tongueheight, is the articulatory instantiation of harmony.2.2 Traditional representationsAn independent source of evidence motivating the fourth node can be found byconsidering the difficulties which conventional feature analyses have had withcharacterizing post-velar segments.13As noted in Chomsky and Halle (1968), Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) andMcCarthy (1991) among others, distinctive feature theory must at least be able todescribe all the distinctions made in any of the world's languages, and it must be able torepresent the set of natural classes in the world's languages. On the first count, thefeatures used in Chomsky and Halle (1968) are problematic. Chomsky and Halle (1968)characterize velars, uvulars and pharyngeals as follows:(1)^Velars^Uvulars^Pharyngealshighlowback +However, both Colorusso (1988) and Catford (1983) confirm that the Byzb dialectof Abkhaz (a Caucasian language) contains plain velars, uvulars, pharyngeals andpharyngealized uvulars in phonemic contrast. The feature array in (1) cannot describesuch segments without simultaneously eradicating the distinctions between them.Problems with the use of the Chomsky and Halle (1968) features for post-velarconsonants are further discussed in Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979), Czaykowska-Higgins (1987), Keating (1988) and McCarthy (1991). Czaykowska-Higgins (1987)notes that Arabic emphasis is not well described in terms of the features in (1). Whetheremphasis is uvularization or pharyngealization, the spread of [+back] predicts thatemphatic vowels become [+back]. This is empirically false: emphatic vowels may wellback slightly but they do not become [+back]. McCarthy (1989), echoing currenttheoretical concerns with the articulatory integrity of features, notes that [high, back, low]are tongue body features, and that neither uvulars nor pharyngeals are correctly classifiedusing these features. Uvulars are deemed [-high] in (1), whereas their articulationinvolves raising the dorsum. Pharyngeals are [+low ,+back] in tongue position, but also14involve articulators (pharynx wall, epiglottis, tongue root) which bear no straightforwardrelation to tongue body activity. Thus, reports of so-called 'fronting' from pharyngealsmay be explained if pharyngeals lack any dorsal representation. Columbian Salish, forinstance, is recorded with slightly fronted low vowels in the environment of voicelesspharyngeals (but never uvulars: Kinkade 1967:232), as are some dialects of Arabic(Harrell 1957), demonstrating some degree of independence between the tongue body andthe tongue root.2.3 Current proposalsEarly proposals for the fourth node do not attempt to examine the interaction ofthe Radical/Tongue Root node with other articulator nodes or with other segments in theinventories of languages with tongue root activity.1 This is not surprising since thelanguages for which the fourth node was originally proposed do not seem to have tongueroot consonants2 and, almost without exception, ATR vowel harmonies proceed withoutaffecting consonants at all.Czaykowska-Higgins (1987) explicitly compares the qualities of ATR-typesystems with languages such as Arabic and Salish which have post-velar consonants. Sheargues for a distinction between the features [retracted tongue root] and [advanced tongueroot]. Languages which have uvular, pharyngeal, glottal and retracted coronal segmentsin their inventories are characterized by the presence of a fourth node Tongue Root whichdominates two features: [upper pharynx] and [lower pharynx]. Activation of the fourthnode implies retraction of the tongue root (and is [RTR] in this sense) but the feature[ATR] is independent of the fourth node, being active instead in languages with voice-quality distinctions on its vowels. The resulting feature combinations under the Tongue1Cole (1987) is something of an exception to this statement in the sense that she uses the fourth node forpost-velars. She does not, however, defend this analysis outside Coeur d'Alene.2For example, of the 51 Niger-Kordofanian languages in Ruhlen (1975) two have some post-velars:Ngemba and Ewe have /CA but no uvulars. Of the twenty-five Nilo-Saharan languages, Tama has /11/ and nouvulars.15Root node capture the necessary distinctions between uvulars and pharyngeals on the onehand and emphatic (uvularized) pharyngeals (such as found in some Arabic dialects) orpharyngealized uvulars (Bzyb) on the other hand.(2) Czaykowska-Higgins (1987)q^ciT^CGI^Xr (=rhotacization)Upper Pharynx^+^+Lower Pharynx^+^+^+Czaykowska-Higgins' proposal does not rely on the double articulation of uvulars asDorsal-Pharyngeal, although this type of configuration is suggested as a way to capturevelar blocking of Tongue Root features in West Greenlandic and Chilcotin.2.3.1 Fourth node in SemiticThe most recent, fully documented discussion of relevant, mostly Semitic materialis that of Hayward and Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991), both of whom formalizewhat has often been remarked on in descriptive studies of Semitic languages—thatuvulars, pharyngeals and glottals function as a class for the purposes of a number ofphonological phenomena. This class is traditionally referred to as the 'gutturals'.Hayward and Hayward (1989) suggest a 'zone' is required to characterize the gutturals.One of McCarthy's innovations based on Semitic data is to propose that nodes underPlace in the feature geometry tree are place of articulation nodes, since it is only on thisassumption that 12, h/ can be grouped with /x, i , h, S/ in Semitic phonology. Proposalsprior to McCarthy (1989, 1991) follow Sagey (1986) in assuming that all nodes underPlace, including the fourth node, are articulator nodes. (3) below summarizes the formaldetails of McCarthy's proposal:16Larynge[cstr. gl][spr. gl .]Place 0haryngeal[dorsal]^[radical][pharyngeal]OralLabial/[rnd] CoronalDorsal[low]7[high][back][ant][lat][clistr](3) McCarthy (1991)r sonorant 1L consonantal _I17nasal]cont]Features and nodes under Oral are comparable to those found in Sagey (1986), butthe Place node Pharyngeal may dominate three features: [pharyngeal], [radical] andoptionally [dorsal]. The feature [pharyngeal] exists to make the distinction between classnodes (such as Oral and Pharyngeal) which 'specify featural subgroupings' (McCarthy1991:53) and terminal features which can code phonological distinctions. The feature[radical] refers to the tongue root as an active articulator. The feature [dorsal] functionsunder either the Oral node or the Pharyngeal node and indicates active articulation of thetongue body. Based on this feature geometry, McCarthy's representation of Semitic post-velars is thus:(4) Semitic gutturals, emphatics, and /q/: McCarthy 199118Guttural UvularsPhar oGlottalsPhar[pharyngeal]PharyngealsPhar[radical] [pharyngeal][dorsal] [pharyngeal]Coronal EmphaticsA[coronal] [dorsal] [pharyngeal]Oral o^o Phar[dorsal]^[pharyngeal]The feature [radical] which appears on /1, h/ represents the activity of the tongueroot in articulating pharyngeals. The combination [dorsal] [pharyngeal] dominated by thePharyngeal Place Node on /x, is/ indicates activity of the dorsum in the pharynx. Thelaryngeals /2, h/ are articulator-less, but not Placeless, being represented with aPharyngeal Place node. Gutturals all have primary articulation in the pharyngeal cavity,with the emphatics and the uvular stop /q/ (which is not a guttural in ContemporaryStandard Arabic) considered to be complex segments since they have an additional Placespecification under the Oral node. With respect to the identification of primary asopposed to secondary articulation, McCarthy proposes that phonological rules can specifywhich, if any, place or articulator features are primary or secondary. As an alternativeMcCarthy suggests that any segment with only an Oral place has a primary Oralarticulator and any segment with only a Pharyngeal place has a primary Pharyngealarticulator. If so, then presumably OraVPharyngeal segments will be complex unlessotherwise stipulated.The division of the traditional Place node into Oral and Pharyngeal places (withthe features dominated by those nodes representing articulators) formalizes some aspectsof the traditional phonetic notions of articulator and place of articulation as primitives inthe description of segments. Gorecka (1989) represents an attempt to justify this divisionphonologically across all places of articulation.The use of two nodes (Dorsal and Pharyngeal) in (4) to characterize uvulars isfound in Czaykowska-Higgins (1987), Cole (1987), Besse11 and Remnant (1989), Besse11(1990), Remnant (1990). From a cross-linguistic point of view, Elorrieta (1991) arguesthat uvulars are of two types: those that are purely dorsal and may be characterized byvalues for [high] and [back] as opposed to those which are dorsal-pharyngeal and maybear not only features for [high] and [back] but also Tongue Root and its dependent[RTR].A further contribution to feature geometry research is Gorecka's (1989)dissertation. Gorecka defends and formalizes a view of articulation that defines segmentsaccording to their site (i.e. the passive articulator or place of articulation) and articulator.A segment then, is represented by a tree with the traditional root node, but also with aphonological constituent (a Constriction Node) that dominates a Site and Articulatornode, both of which are directly relatable to the articulatory properties of that segment.The general model is thus:(5) Gorecka (1989)R otLaryngeal features^eatures(Constriction)^ConctionSite^Articulator19The possible values for Site are Labial, Anterior, Palatal, Velar and Pharyngeal.Site values do not dominate any features. Articulator values are Lower Lip (dominating[round]), Tongue Blade (dominating [lateral], [distributed]), Tongue Body (dominating[high], [low]), Tongue Root, Pharyngeal and Glottis. Gorecka's representations of theclass of Semitic gutturals is such that they all share a Pharyngeal Site, while havingdifferent Articulators. Gorecka's work is unusual in formalizing the Glottis as anarticulator.(6) Uvulars, Pharyngeals and Glottals (Gorecka 1989)Uvular20Con triction^Site^ArtillatorVelar^Tge BodyConstrictionSite^ArtilulatorPharyngeal^Tge RootS,hConstrictionSite^ArtilulatorPharyngeal^Tge Root?,hConstrictionSite^ArtilulatorPharyngeal^GlottisHerzallah (1990) develops a feature geometry for Palestinian Arabic post-velarsbased on Clements (1989, 1990) and McCarthy (1989). The primary distinction betweenthis and McCarthy's model has to do with the representation of secondary arcticulation.Xtsonorant]consonantal][continuant]SuprAprure^V-place[open]^[labial][coronal][dorsal][pharyngeal][labial][coronal][dorsal][pharyngeal][radical](7) Herzallah (1990)C- lace^Va1icIn Clements' model secondary articulation on consonants is represented by aVowel-place node. Thus, Herzallah's representation of coronal emphatics considers theirprimary place of articulation to be coronal, but with [dorsal] and [pharyngeal] (therepresentation for uvulars) under the Vowel-place node denoting secondary uvulararticulation. The Palestinian pharyngeals and glottals have primary [pharyngeal]articulation under the Consonantal node, with /h, S/ involving a radical articulator that isabsent for /?, h/. Uvulars are complex [dorsal] [pharyngeal] articulations. Theserepresentations parallel McCarthy's (1991) in that the guttural class is comprised ofsegments without secondary articulation per se. Herzallah's representation of /a/ formallycharacterizes it as the vocalic version of /?, h/. SL in this diagram refers to theSupralaryngeal node; C-place refers to Consonant Place.21(8) Herzallah (1990): Palestinian ArabicEmphatic CILC-place[corona']V- ace[dorsal] [pharyngeal]Uvulars1_,C- ace[dorsal][pharyngeal]PharyngealsILC- lace[pharyngeal][ralical]Glottals^/a/SL SLIC-Jace^V-placeI I[pharyngeal]^[pharyngeal]The claim that /a/ is the vocalic version of /?, h/ is refuted by E. Pulleyblank(1992), who argues for a pharyngeal glide [a] as the non-vocalic counterpart of the lowvowel /a/. Pursuing this hypothesis, Pulleyblank suggests that Standard Arabic /q/ isdistinguished from the guttural class by having [a] as a secondary glide articulationprovided by the radical articulator. Uvular gutturals are then complex segments withdorsal and radical primary articulations. The pharyngeals /h, 1/ are simply obstruentversions of the glide [A]. Under this analysis there is an intimate relationship betweenvocalic [a], glide [A] and fricative [h, 1] rather than [a] and [2, h] as glides.Finally, a quite different proposal for post-velars is made by Halle (1989), whosuggests a node Laryngeal, dominating two articulator nodes, Tongue Root and Glottis.The Tongue Root node dominates two features, [advanced tongue root] and [constrictedpharynx]. [Advanced tongue root] is to accommodate African ATR harmonies,22TongueRoot[ATR]^[CP][constricted pharynx] reflects retraction of the tongue root towards the rear wall of thepharynx and is used for Arabic uvulars and pharyngeals. The class of Semitic gutturals isthus accessed by reference to the Laryngeal node.(9) Halle (1989, 1992)23SupralaryngealSoft^PlacePalateLabialCoronalLaryngealGkitis[stiff vc]DorsalMcCarthy (1991) argues against the grouping of pharyngeal features under theLaryngeal node on the basis of Obligatory Contour Principle effects which reference thePlace node and include pharyngeal articulations but not laryngeal ones. A secondargument in favour of the fourth node grouping in some manner with the three traditionalarticulator nodes comes from the complications with stating guttural lowering underHalle's assumptions: whereas Laryngeal features seem to spread without reference to oraffect on Place features, guttural features interact with the height specifications oftargetted vowels.2.3.2 Fourth node in other languagesThe use of the fourth node is not limited to Semitic and ATR systems. Doak(1989) proposes a node Pharyngeal dominating a feature [retracted tongue root] toaccount for Coeur d'Alene vowel harmonies. In her 1992 paper this feature is abandonedand only the node Pharyngeal is used. Bessell and Remnant (1989) and Bessell (1990)Dorsal Tongue Root([epiglottis])1 Tongue Root1^Coronal[+epiglottis]^Dorsaluse a fourth node Tongue Root for Coeur d'Alene; Remnant (1990) proposes a feature[epiglottis] under a fourth node Tongue Root to characterize the effects of Lillooetpharyngeals. In none of these cases is there evidence for glottals being characterisedunder the fourth node, and therefore none of the analyses mentioned attempt to includethem there.(10) Remnant (1990): Lillooet uvulars, phaiyngeals and /z/Uvulars^Pharyngeals^/z/Place o Place Place24Tongue Root([epiglottis])Shaw (1991b) uses a fourth node Pharyngeal to capture alternations betweenglottals and uvulars in Nisgha, a Tsimshianic language spoken in the Nass River valley ofBritish Columbia (Tarpent 1983, 1987, Shaw 1987). Nisgha lacks pharyngeal resonantsof the sort found in Interior Salish, but provides evidence for the characterisation ofglottals and uvulars by a fourth node. /?/ in this analysis is distinct from /q7 by bearing aLaryngeal Node that does not dominate the feature [+glottalized]. Structurally, /ca can beviewed as a glottalized version of /2/. Also of note in Shaw's analysis is therepresentation of PI as [-continuant], on a par with the other stops in the language, butcontrary to assumptions in generative phonology that glottals do not bear continuancyvalues (Chomsky and Halle 1965, McCarthy 1988, Lombardi 1990, Padgett 1991).(11) Shaw (1991b): Nisgha uvulars and glottals 25/?/^/11/^/q/[-son] [-s n] [-son] [-son]L R]^[-cont] [LP1 0[PHAR][-cont]^[L R]^[-cant]P1 0I^P1 7 [+gllot] P1 7[PHAR]^[PAAR]^[P AR]Goad (1989, 1990, 1991) uses a fourth node Pharyngeal dominating a feature[retracted tongue root] with a separate feature [advanced tongue root] under a Vowelplace node. Goad represents co-occurrence restrictions between the features [low] and[atr] directly in the feature geometry. She argues that this type of geometry is necessaryto account for so-called 'Flattening' processes in the Athabaskan language Chilcotin(Cook 1983, 1987).(12) Goad (1991)PlaceLabialCoronalDorsalPharyngealVohi hlow/atr2.3.3. Fourth node for secondary articulationsThe fourth node is also used to capture the notion of tongue root retraction as asecondary articulation in Arabic emphatics (Herzallah 1990, McCarthy 1991), by Besselland Remnant (1989), Bessell (1990) and Remnant (1990) to characterize Coeur d'Alene/r, r'/, and Lillooet /z, z'/. Doak (1989, 1992) also uses the fourth node for Coeur d'Alene/r, r'/.2.4 ConclusionsFrom this survey it can be seen that the fourth node has had a short and somewhatturbulent history. The precise relationship between the fourth node in African ATRsystems as opposed to Semitic and Salish is not apparent and most authors have notattempted to deal with the issue. The inclusion of Semitic data in the debate has led toconsiderable changes in feature geometry based primarily on the patterning of glottals inSemitic. Shaw's (1991b) analysis of Nisgha compounds the evidence that glottals canpattern as if Pharyngeal in place even in an inventory without /h, T/. Furthermore, acrucial question is raised by the extension of the fourth node to characterise Salish andSemitic pharyngeals. Namely, are the segments we are dealing with phoneticallycomparable? Are the Salish segments transcribed /q, x,L, h/ uvulars and pharyngeals inthe same sense that the Semitic ones are? Chapters 4 and 5 consider these questionsdirectly.26Chapter Three: Systemic typology of post-velars3.0 IntroductionThis chapter examines the systemic distribution of uvulars, pharyngeals, glottalsand pharyngealized segments as they occur in the 693 inventories in Ruhlen (1975).1This survey establishes the broad distributional properties of post-velars from a cross-linguistic perspective. Section 3.1 examines the distribution of uvulars and section 3.2considers pharyngeals and pharyngealized segments. In general uvulars are notdependent on the presence of pharyngeals or glottals in an inventory, but inventories withpharyngeals are highly likely to have uvulars and glottals. Section 3.3 considers thedistribution of f2, h/ in some detail since their status as stop and fricative respectively ischallenged in the generative tradition. The presence of glottals alone does not imply thepresence of uvulars or pharyngeals. Inventory evidence also points to /?/ as a voicelessstop and /h/ as a voiceless fricative. Glottals are also highly unlikely to accept secondaryarticulations such as palatalization and rounding, which, while they have clear Placepreferences, can occur on segments at all places of articulation. Furthermore, while thepresence of ejectives or aspirates in an inventory is likely to co-occur with /2/ or /h/respectively, the occurrence of /2, h/ does not necessarily imply the presence of /C', Ch/.A full discussion of glottal representation is deferred to Chapter 7.Before embarking on this survey, I note that there are several unavoidableshortcomings of this type of gross systemic work. One is its reliance on existinganalyses. Fieldworkers are neither phonetically nor phonemically infallible, obviously.Of particular concern with respect to post-velars is that the transcription of glottalfricatives can be problematic. It can be difficult to distinguish between [x, x, h, II],especially if they are lightly articulated. For example, Maddieson (1984) considers /h/ soproblematic that he does not include it in his discussion of fricatives. Referring to Pike1I have used Ruhlen (1975) as opposed to Maddieson (1984) for the simple reason that there are 376 moreinventories in Ruhlen.27(1943) and Merlingen (1977) he considers what is transcribed as /h/ to be variable inplace of articulation and therefore difficult to assess in terms of place of articulationcategories (see section 4.2.9). The distinction between velar and uvular articulation canalso present transcriptional difficulties. A particularly acute problem in the case of 1?, h/is the decision to accord them phonemic rather than phonetic status. It is well known that/2, h/ are very common as epenthetic consonants, filling onset and sometimes codapositions. Unfortunately, not all analyses are clear with respect to the status of glottalswithin the total phonology of the language. Although I have checked Ruhlen's originalsources in some cases in order to verify the transcription and distribution of glottals, thesources themselves do not always provide sufficient information to determine whetherh/ are unquestionably phonemic or not. However, for the purposes of calculating thesystemic typological patterning of glottals, I consider /h/ to be a phonemic glottalfricative and IV a phonemic glottal stop. As a consequence of these shortcomings,typological work of this sort needs to be balanced by close investigation of individuallanguages. It is my purpose here simply to document rhe general distributional propertiesof post-velars, without making strong claims about patterning based on overtphonological evidence.3.1 UvularsUvulars occur in 146/693 languages in Ruhlen (1975). This amounts to 21% ofthe total number of languages surveyed. Velars are present in all 146 of these languages(100%); pharyngeals are present in 41(28%); glottals are present in 129 (88%). Thesefigures reflect the almost universal occurrence of velars, the scarcity of pharyngeals andthe relatively high occurrence of glottals (see section 3.2 and 3.3 below). However, giventhat pharyngeals occur in only 7% of Ruhlen's sample, their co-occurrence with uvulars isfour times their average distribution throughout the database.28The distribution of rounding as a secondary articulation points to a correlationbetween velars and uvulars. Rounding tends to be associated with Dorsal consonants. Of41 languages with rounded uvulars, 40 have rounded velars (98%), 12 have roundedCoronals ((29%) and one has a rounded labial (2%).There are 6 languages with rounded velars but no rounded uvulars (Buang, Coos,Diegueno, Eyak, Hopi and Tsimshian).Table 3.1: Distribution of uvularsIi Number PercentL's with uvulars 146/693 21%K also 146/146 100%C also 41/146 28%2 also 128/146 88%3.2 PharyngealsPharyngeals occur in only 48/693 (7%) of the languages sampled by Ruhlen(1975).2 Of the 48 languages with pharyngeals, 39 have both lb. 11(81%); 3 havevoiceless /h/ only (6%) and 6 have /1/ only (13%). 41/48 languages with pharyngealshave uvulars as well (85%); 45/48 also have laryngeals (94%). From these figures it canbe seen that there is a high co-occurrence of uvulars with pharyngeals (85% as comparedwith 21% of the entire database). The co-occurrence of laryngeals with pharyngeals islikewise higher than the general occurrence of glottals in the database (94% as opposed to75%), but nowhere near the same extent as the co-occurrence of pharyngeals withuvulars.292Pharyngeals occur in 4% of Maddieson's (1984) sample.Table 3.2: Distribution of pharyngeals with otherpost-velarsII Number I Percent^IL's with pharyngeals 48/693 7%thi and n/ 39/48 81%/h/ only 3/48 6%ni only 6/48 13%Q also 41/48 85%? also 45/48 94%There are some cases where the appearance of a single pharyngeal can be viewedas filling in holes in the uvular inventory to make it symmetrical with either the velarinventory (Koryak) or the fricative inventory as a whole (Achumawi).(1) Maverick pharyngeals as structural uvularsKoryak (Paleosibetian)P^t^6^k^q^2V Y rm^n^yi^01^AAchumawi (Hokan)P^t^ts^k^q^?s^5^x h^hm n1CAn intriguing case is Ngemba, where it looks as if the voiced pharyngeal may bethe voiced fricative counterpart to N.30(2) Ngemba (Niger-Kordofanian)t^k^2b^d^gf^s fV^Z 3 y^Sm^n ji g1, rSecondary articulations on pharyngealsRounding and glottalization are the only attested secondary articulations onpharyngeals, and both are exclusive to Interior Salish in Ruhlen's database, whichincludes 2 of the seven Interior Salish languages. Pharyngeals and glottalized resonantsare attested in all seven of the Interior Salish languages, so the appearance of /S', T'Iv/ isexpected, given that pharyngeals in these languages are phonologically [+sonorant](section 6.2.3). The appearance of rounded pharyngeals in Interior Salish is matched byrounded velars and uvulars. The analysis of Agul 'deep' pharyngeals may include alaryngeal feature (see sections and 4.5) as may the Nootka and Haida ones.Since pharyngeals are central to this dissertation, Table 3.3 lists all of thelanguages in Ruhlen (1975) with a pharyngeal and whatever other post-velars there are inthe inventory. Ruhlen (1975) uses square brackets [Ito  indicate the phonetic presence ofa sound where presumably its phonemic status is questionable. The figure under eachlanguage group indicates the number of languages in that group which contain apharyngeal. For example, Afro-Asiatic (11/29) indicates that of the 29 Afro-Asiaticlanguages in Ruhlen's database, 11 contain pharyngeals.31Table 3.3: Distribution of pharyngeal fricatives: (Ruhlen 1975)LanguagegroupLanguage Pharyngeals Uvulars Glot-talsC', CT etc.Afro-Asiatic(11/29)Shilha h,T none [h] ti,d1,0,sT,zf,nl,lr,rTTamazight h,T clw,Xw,gw ?,h tS,d,si,zi,ni,11,r1Bilin h,1 cbqw ?,h t', k','é'Somali h,1 G 2,h cf1raqw h,T ci,(4W ?,h [6, cf]EgyptianArabich,T cl,X,ff 2,h ts,dc,sc,zcIraqi Arabic h,T q,x,y 2,h tS,sl,e,fC,zi,niC,11, [pC,bC]MoroccanArabich,1 (1,X,ff 2,h tC,c1S,s,cl,[bC,zT,rnT,1C]SyrianArabich,T cl,X,Is 2,h bT,tS,c1S,sT,zT,nf,1C, m1Tigre h,1 none ? p',t',k',s','é'Geez h,T none 2,h pt,t1,1e,dt,s'Niger-Kordofanian(2/51)Ewe T none none,Ngemba T none ?Nilo-Saharan(1/25)Tama h none h 6, ccIndo-European(2/73)Tajik Persian h cl,X,g noneKurdish h,T cl,X,ff 2,h lul, [s19Caucasian(23/37)Andi h,T qh,q,,qhw,cfw 2,h t',ts',61,1c1, {X]Avar h,T q, q' ,q'w, x,Xw, If2,h f,ts',61,k',X'32Axvax ti,f cl,q' 2,h pl,t1,ts',6",k',X'Bagvali [ti,S] h^,q ,c1 ?,h e,c',6',1c1, s',f'Bezhita [ti,C] qh, q, , X, g 2,h pf,e,ts',6',k',X'Botlix [11,C] q, q' ?,h tI,ts',,k',X'Chamalal [h],1 q' 2,h f,ts',1c1,X1,f',[x]Dido ti,T q, cf, X, IS ?,h p',e,ts',6',1e,XIGinux h,S q, q', qw,X, Xvv,g, NW7,h p',f,ts',6',k',X 'Karata ti,S q, q' 2,h e,ts',6',k',X'Tindi 11,C h^,q , q 2,h ti,ts',,k',X'Xvarshi h,C q, qw, q', q'w,X, g?,h p',t',61,k',X1Dargwa h,f qh , cf , G ?,h p',e,ts',6',k'Lak 11,1 q, qw, q', x 2,h p',e,ts',61,k'Agul h,1 qh, q', qw, q'w ?,h pe,e,ts',61,k'Archi ti,S h^,q , q , X, g ?,h p',f,ts',,k',X'Budux ti,T q, q', x, g ?,h p',e,tsk'Kryts ti,S qh, q', G ?,h p',e,ts',k'Xinalug h,C CI, q', x , II ?,h p',e,ts',61,1c1Bats h,S q, qX, x, IS 2,h p',e,ts,k'Chechen ti,f q, qX, X, is ?,h p',e,ts',k'p',e,ts',6',k'p',V,ts',1e,sC,flIngush h,S q', qx, X, IS 2,hE. Circassian ti,[S] q, qw, x, xw, is,isw?,hAltaic (2/39) Tatar r q, x, IS, N ?Buryat h none nonePa1eo-siberian (1/8) _Koryak r q, q: 233Austro-Tai(1/67)Atayal h q ?Salish (2/10) Columbian 1, Sw, 5', 1'w,h, hwq, qw, q', q'w,X, Xw?,h p'41c1,ts',X',1',m ' ,n ' 91 ' ,r ' ,y ' ,WIOkanagan 1, Cw, 5', S'w q, qw, q', q'w,X, Xw?,h p',f,k',ts',X',1',m',n1,1',e,y',WIWakashan Nootka(1/2)h,1 q, qw, q', x, xw 2,h p',f,le,ts',6',Hokan (1/19) Achumawi h q 2,hGe-Pano-Carib (1/24) _Capanahua h none ?3.2.1 Pharyngealized consonantsPharyngealized consonants occur in 7/693 (1%) languages in Ruhlen (1975).Four of these are Arabic, two are Caucasian and one is a Berber language. As can beseen from (3), in all cases except Shilha, uvulars are present; in all cases except Ubyxpharyngeals are present; in all cases except Shilha, glottals are present.(3) Post-velar inventories in languages with pharyngealized consonantsEgyptian Arabic: AT, d1, sf, zC , q, x, Is , h, 1,? , h/Iraqi Arabic: / t1, sC, 15T, q, h, 1, h, 2/Moroccan Arabic: AT, dT, s1, IS, q, x, u , h, 1, 2, h/Syrian Arabic: /1§, tS, (IT, s1, 414 , nC , li , q, x, is , h, 1, ? , h/Circassian: 15S, 3T, q', q'w, qx, qxw, X, xw, 15, 15W, h, [1], 2 , 2w, h/Ubyx: 101, p'S ,b5, fC, m5, qh, qhw, q', X, xw, h/Shilha: AT, dC, kC, s5, z5 ,l5 , ri, h, 1, [h]/In those Interior Salish languages for which retracted coronals are derived orunderlying3, pharyngeals, uvulars and glottals are present in the inventory. Chilcotin, an3The phonology of Interior Salish retraction is considered in Chapter 6.34Athabaskan language which neighbours Lillooet and from which it may have borrowedits retraction phenomena, has retracted coronals, uvulars and glottals (Cook 1983, 1987).3.2.2 Pharyngealized vowelsPharyngealized vowels are not recorded in any language in Ruhlen (1975). Hedoes notate creaky vowels, which in some cases are otherwise described aspharyngealized. An example in Ruhlen is Archi (Caucasian), which has pharyngealized/e, m/ and a pharyngealized rounded /a/ vowel, as well as uvulars, pharyngeals andglottals. Dido, also Caucasian, has plain and pharyngealized /i, e, a, o, u/ as well asuvulars, pharyngeals and glottals. From this it would appear that pharyngealized vowelsdo not appear in inventories without primary pharyngeals, uvulars and glottals.Of the Khoisan languages, Ruhlen lists !Kung with 'pressed' vowels /x, o/ withpharyngeal friction. In !X66 the pharyngealized vowels are /a,o,u/ (Traill 1985). !X(56has two 'uvular-pharyngeal' consonants transcribed by Traill as /x, q/. See section 4.3.4for further discussion of Khoisan.3.3 GlottalsA glottal of some sort occurs in 520/693 of the languages in Ruhlen (1975). Thisamounts to 75% of all the languages in his survey. The breakdown between 121 and /h/ isas follows: /2/ occurs in 337/693 languages (49%); /h/ occurs in 442/693 (64%) and istherefore more common that IV; 264/693 (38%) of the languages in Ruhlen have both 12,h/; 78/693 (11%) have /2/ without /h/; 178/693 (27%) have /h/ without /?/. Theoccurrence of glottals with pharyngeals and uvulars respectively reflects the generaldistribution of these segments in the database as a whole, and shows that once you have apharyngeal or uvular the liklihood of a glottal in the inventory is very high.35Table 3.4: Distribution of glottals4Il No. of Ls 1 Percent12/ 337/693 49%/h/ 442/693 64%Pi or /h/ 520/693 75%12/ and /h/ 264/693 38%/2/ only 78/693 11%/h/ only 178/693 27%2 and T 45/520 8.6%? and Q 129/520 25%The fricative /h/, along with coronal Is/, is the most commonly found fricative ininventories. Maddieson (1984) reports that 63% of his sample contains somethingtranscribed as /h/. This is very close to the figure (64%) derived from Ruhlen's sample.The presence of /h/ does not necessarily imply /2/ (178 cases in Ruhlen, 27% of alllanguages, 34% of all languages with a glottal). It might be argued that the presence of/h/ without /2/ represents an asymmetry since labial, coronal and dorsal fricatives do notusually appear without a homorganic stop counterpart. It is suggested in Chapter 7 that iflaryngeals require only the root value [consonantal] or [-sonorant] then the presence ofany obstruent provides the features [consonantal] and [-sonorant], which is all that isneeded for /?/ if [-continuant] is the unmarked value for continuancy. /h/ then requiresthe presence of a fricative to provide the inventory with [+continuant]. As it happens, /h/almost never appears in an inventory without /s/ or some other fricative.While the vast majority of languages have fricatives at some place of articulation,36/693 (5%) do not. Ruhlen (1975:141-2) notes 'Except in Oceania, almost all of theworld's languages have one kind of fricative or another. Only 36 of the 693 languages inour sample lack fricatives altogether. Of these 36 languages, one is found in Africa, three4These calculations collapse /fi/ with /h/. I have counted 5 cases of /fi/ in Ruhlen's database. Instances of[h] or [7] are not included since this notation indicates some question about the phonemic status of thesegments.36in South America, and the remaining 32 in Oceania (22 in Australia, seven in NewGuinea, two in Bougainville, and one in the Gilbert Islands.'. Of interest here is that noneof the Australian languages has a glottal fricative, nor does any other language mentionedby Ruhlen as lacking fricatives altogether.This might lead one to think that /h/ never occurs without a fricative in theinventory. This is not completely true, since Ruhlen (1975) makes his calculationstreating laryngeal articulations as a separate class. There are four languages in Ruhlen'ssample which are recorded with an /h/ but no other phonemic fricative. Given the 442languages with /h/, these four exceptions amount to 1%. The consonantal inventories ofthe four exceptions are given in (4). Each language contains consonantal phonemes thatare phonetic continuants.(4) Occurrence of /h/ without a fricativeHawaiian: /p, k, 2, m, n, 1, h/Marshallese: /t, U, k, kw, b, hi, bw, m, mi, mw, n, g, gw, 1, lw,r, rw, rJ, h /Yagua: /p, t, k, ?, ts, m, n, r, h/Tairora: /p, t, k, ?, mp, '1t,^b, m, n, r, h/Of these exceptions, Bender (1971:450-451) remarks on the Marshalleseinventory, "The status of h—velarized (or perhaps pharyngealized) counterpart of y andw—is most tenuous, since it is the onset, transition, or coda one finds in the absence ofy,w, or another consonant, and is in this sense predictable. However, its use greatlysimplifies canonical forms, eliminating initial and final vowels and vowel clusters orgeminate vowels...'. This description points to /h/ as an epenthetic, possibly pharyngealconsonant in Marshallese. It may not be a laryngeal fricative. In the Hawaiian inventory,/11/ is the reflex of Proto-Polynesian */s/• Proto-Polynesian *Th/ has reduced to [0] inmost languages, including Hawaiian (Biggs 1971). I have not been able to determine37from the sources for Tairora and Yagua if the analysis of /h/ as phonemic is appropriateor not.It would appear then that there is a dependency between the presence of /h/ andthe presence of other fricatives, but this is difficult to prove conclusively given the highoccurrence of /s/ anyway. However, the distribution of /h/ is almost completely inaccordance with the hypothesis that its presence is made possible by the presence offricatives. The obvious question is: Is the distribution of /2/ likewise predicated upon theappearance of voiceless stops?It would appear so. In those (few) languages which lack a voiceless series of anysort there is no /2/ (or /11/ for that matter, as mentioned above).5(5) Yanyula (Australian)b^ci^d^di^4^gm n^nj 111Ngarndji (Australian)b^ddiclj^gm^n^ni1^li^1e^rIt is difficult to find many true test cases, since almost all languages have either plainvoiceless or voiceless aspirated stops. Either of these series would provide the features[+consonantal, -sonorant] for IV, but in inventories with Ch only (and no plain voicelessstops) we might expect /2/ to be /2h/. Chapter 7 remarks on the poor documentation of[2h], despite its occurrence. In line with the undertranscription of [2h], there is no /2h/ in51f the use of /b, d, g/ in such languages is meant to indicate unreleased or unaspirated stops withvariable/secondary voicing, then we do not predict the necessary absence of N. But if I'll appears in suchlanguages one would expect it to be unaspirated at least.38the inventories reviewed by Ruhlen. However, the source for Rawang (Morse 1963), oneof the inventories entered with only a voiceless aspirated stop series, notes that /7/ isunreleased in the same contexts as the other voiceless stops of the inventory. Morse(1963) analyzes word-initial [7] as epenthetic and says it is less fortis than its phonemicword-final counterpart. It would appear that this is a case where if the laryngealdistinction really is voiceless aspirated, then ill participates, as predicted. Three otherlanguages merit investigation to test the prediction that their /?/ should be Ph/ if (i) theanalysis of their stop series as voiceless aspirated is correct and (ii) /?/ is phonemic.These three languages are Motilon, Nengone and Tehran Persian. I note here that TajikPersian is not transcribed with phonemicFinally, there are cases of /?/ in inventories without a plain voiceless stop series,but with a voiceless aspirated series and either ejectives or implosive stops. Bothejectives and implosives would be a source of the feature [A-constricted glottis]./?/ is the most common stop after /p/, /t/ and /k/. It is more frequent in occurrencethan palatal and uvular stops.6 /2/ occurs in 342 of the 693 languages in Ruhlen (49%).All languages have stops, and the vast majority of languages have voiceless stops. Giventhe suggestion that every language with voiceless stops licenses /2/ and every languagewith continuants licenses /h/ one might expect glottals to turn up more often. So why arethey so much less frequent than /p,t,k/ or /s/ ? First of all, even if they are not analysed asphonemic, /?/ and /h/ are often phonologically relevant in languages precisely becausethey are so readily available for syllabification processes in supplying onsets, etc.English is a good example. /7/ is not presented as phonemic in anlayses of English but itis argued to provide an onset for vowel-initial syllables and many dialects have reductionof /t/ in particular to , though it can occur from every place of articulation (Harris6That is, assuming that alveo-palatal affricates are not better thought of as palatal stops, which may not bequite right. The occurrence of stops by place of articulation in Maddieson (1984) is bilabial 99.1%; dentalor alveolar 99.7%; velar 99.4%; palatal/palato-alveolar 18.6%; uvular 14.8%.391990). Malay (see chapter 7) is another example of a language without a phonemic /?/,but [2] nonetheless figures prominently in the phonology of the language.3.3.1 Stop and fricative?The assumption of non-generative inventory architecture is that /2/ is a voicelesslaryngeal stop and /h/ is a voiceless laryngeal fricative. This is really the defaultdescriptivist assumption, though it is not the most common generative assumption. Thestandard generative tradition argues that /?, h/ are glides (see chapter 7). Given thedivergence between descriptivist and generative assumptions, the issue bears someinvestigation from the point of view of systemic typology.Traditionally, inventories are structured with /?/ as part of the voiceless stopseries, /h/ in the voiceless fricative series, and both /2, h/ as a 'final' place of articulationin a continuum from the lips to the glottis. These assumptions are reflected in thepresentation of inventories in both Ruhlen (1975) and Maddieson (1984). 264 of the 693languages in Ruhlen structure /h/ as the fricative counterpart of ill, given the presence of/2/ (38% of the total number of languages). No inventory places /?, h/ with the glides/w, j/. Seri is a typical example.(6) Seri (Hokan, NW Mexico)p^t^k^kw ?sf x^xw hm^n^01If /2/ is present without /h/ (78 languages, 11%) it is always presented as the finalplace of articulation in the voiceless stop series, as in (7).40(7) Angataha (Indo-Pacific, SW New Guinea)p^t^k^?0However, some inventories present /h/ as a kind of 'gap-filler', in that it patternswherever there is a space for it in the voiceless fricative series (typically in the velar oruvular region) and usually if there is no /?/ for it to pair up with. This type ofarrangement is presented for more than 170 of the languages in Ruhlen (178 Ls have /h/without 121; 27%). Moru is an interesting example.(8) Morn (Nilo-Saharan)P^t^W^kb^dj^jwg6^cfS^sw^h^hwz^zwm^n 0r 1 rThere are also examples of /h/ as fricative counterpart to /4, gbi (Bini, Ngbandi). Thepoint here is simply that /h/ is considered part of the voiceless fricative series and oftenhas secondary articulations otherwise restricted to obstruents.Even in inventories with /21, 1W can still take secondary articulations which are notpresent on /7/ but are on velar or uvular articulations. The implication that /h/ patterns asif it were a velar or uvular fricative is of course made possible by the absence of suchsegments in an inventory. Rawang is a typical example of this sort of inventory. Itrestricts rounding and palatalization to dorsals (in this case velar stops and nasals), lacks avoiceless velar fricative series, has glottal stop and a series of h's with exactly thesecondary articulations otherwise restricted to velar place of articulation.41(9) Rawang (Sino-Tibetan, N. Burma)ph^th^6^kh khw^2b^d^j^g gws^5^h hwzm n^a ev1Similar patterns are found in 14 other inventories in Ruhlen (1975).Of course an inventory on the page of a book says nothing about the phonologicalevidence for proposing rounded This and /k/'s as fricative and stop counterparts of oneanother. It turns out that constraints on the content of syllable onsets is the dominantfactor in the analysis of /hw/. Thus, for example, C+w sequences in Chipaya are limitedto /kw, qw, ?w, hw/, and the syllable structure of the language is maximally (s)CCVCC(t)if we analyze the limited C+w sequences as unitary Cw. In Lao, Rawang and Siona onlysingle consonant onsets are allowed, providing we analyse Cw (and Ci) sequences asunitary. The one language which has both /2w/ and /hw/ is Yay, a Tai language spoken inN. Vietnam, which likewise restricts CC onsets to velars or glottals plus /w/. The twoYuman languages with /hw/ are Mohave and Kiliwa, and there is clear comparativeevidence that they are historically derived from voiceless velar fricatives. Thus, forexample, Mohave has 2ahwat 'red' where Maricopa has xwetam, Diegueno and Tipai havexwat 'blood'. Kiliwa has sah where Tipai has ?ax, Diegueno 2u2ax and so on.The relevance of these facts, whether invested in inventory arrangements orstatements of phonotactics is of course that /h/ and /2/ are understood to patternphonologically with fricatives and stops respectively. In more specific terms, /7/ patternswithin the class of voiceless stops and /h/ within the class of voiceless fricatives.423.3.2 Secondary articulations on glottalsOne very striking distributional property of n, h/ is that they tend not to takesecondary articulations which otherwise occur fairly freely with other places ofarticulation. Rounding as a secondary articulation provides the clearest evidence of thisconstraint. Rounding on glottalsRounded consonants (Cw) occur in 20% of Ruhlen's sample (136 languages). It israre to find rounding on segments at every place of articulation. In the Circassianlanguage Adyge consonants at all places of articulation are phonemically rounded,including /?/ (but not /h/).7 Instead of being evenly distributed across place ofarticulation, the preferred locus for labialization is dorsal consonants. 131 of the 136languages with Cw include rounded dorsals (96%) and 63% restrict rounding to dorsalsonly.8 The occurrence of rounding by place is tabled in (3.5). These calculations excludeinventories where rounded dorsal stops lack a homorganic fricative counterpart which/hw/ may be argued to take the place of (such as Rawang). In this table, 'P' stands for alabial consonant, 'T' for a coronal, 'K' for a dorsal, 'V for a pharyngeal and '?' for a glottal.437A very similar inventory is found in Kabardian (East Circassian). The only other language in Ruhlen'scollection to labialize consonants across place of articulation is Juat (pw, tw, kw), but it does not have anyglottals. This amounts to three languages which labialize across place of articulation, two of which areclosely related (2.2% of the 136 languages with Cw).8 If both velars and uvulars appear in an inventory, both are rounded, with three exceptions where onlyvelars are rounded: Buang, Hopi, Tsimshian.Table 3.5: Distribution of roundinOccurrence of plain segment inlanguages with CwOccurrence of Cw by Place ofArticulationSeg't I^No. of L's I^Percent Cw I^No. of L's I^PercentP 130/136 96% Pw 16/136 11.7%T 136/136 100% Tw 20/136 14%K 136/136 100% Kw 131/136 96%r 13/136 9.5% Tw 2/136 1.4%2 111/136 82% 2w 7/136 5%The resulting hierarchy of preference for rounding is: Dorsal > Coronal > Labial >Glotta1.9The place of pharyngeals in this hierarchy is a little more complicated to evaluategiven their restricted occurrence in general. Rounded pharyngeals are exclusive toInterior Salish. Ruhlen's database includes Moses-Columbian and Okanagan—these arethe 2/136 in Table 3.5. Given that there are only 13/136 Cw languages with pharyngealsat all, the presence of Tw represents 15% of the possibilities. This is obviously a higheroccurrence than the 7/111 possibilities for 2w (6%). Including pharyngeals, the hierarchyis: Dorsal > Coronal > Labial > Pharyngeal > Glottal. Prenasalization on glottalsSixty languages in Ruhlen have prenasalized segments (9%). The overwhelmingpreference is for prenasalization to co-occur with voiced stops (86% of prenasalizedsegments are restricted to the voiced stops of an inventory). In almost all casesconsonants at all available places of articulation are prenasalized; of course /2/ as avoiceless stop is not prenasalized, and /h/ as a fricative is not either. In all cases,9These hierarchies are based on raw figures only—the statistical significance of these claims variessomewhat.44prenasalized stops do not occur unless they have a plain counterpart: an unadorned stopmust exist before its modified counterpart can.However, there are 8 languages with prenasalized voiceless consonants. Three donot have /2/ so cannot speak to the possibility of prenasalized glottals (Malay, TemTein,Berta). Of the remaining five, four prohibit the prenasalization of /2/ (Wolio, MargiTairora, Amuzgo). It would appear then that even when voiceless stops can beprenasalized /?/ is not included.However, there is one exception to this. Adzera is transcribed with a prenasalizedglottal stop. Adzera prenasalizes every non-continuant non-sonorant consonant in itsinventory where pre-nasalization agrees with the place of articulation of the stop: /?/ turnsup with engma before it. If the constraint on prenasalization operates off a[+consonantal, -continuant] root node in Adzera, the correct results are obtained. Notethat /2/ must be [consonantal] and [-continuant] for it to fall into this class.(10) Adzera (Oceanic, NE New Guinea)P mP t^'it k pk 2^02b mb d ndts ntsdz ndzg Ogf s h111 nr03.3.2.3 Palatalization on glottals46/693 languages have palatalization (7%). Palatalization tends to favour thecoronal place of articulation, with 39/46 languages having palatalized coronals (85%).20/46 have palatalized velars (43%), 13/46 have palatalized labials (28%), 5/46 havepalatalized /h/ (11%). There are no cases of palatalized pharyngeals in Ruhlen (1975).Clearly palatalized glottals are disfavoured. The hierarchy then is: Coronals > Dorsals >45Labials > Glottals > Pharyngeals. In this table, 'C' stands for any consonant, 'P' for alabial, T' for a coronal, 'K' for a dorsal, 'V for a pharyngeal and '2' for a glottal.Table 3.6: Distribution of palatalizationI^Segment^II No. of Ls^Il Percent^ICi 46/693 7%Pi 13/46 28%Ti 39/46 85%Ki 20146 43%si 0 02.1 5/46 11%On closer insepection, the five cases of 2i (which are all in fact /hi/) aresuspicious.10 Lapp has Ci for every segment in its inventory, as does Vepsian. Thiswould argue for a syllable structure constraint. For Igbo, there is likely a syllablestructure constraint which better explains the distribution of palatalized segments.Dunstan (1969) argues for C1C2V as the canonical syllable structure, where C2 is limitedto /w, j/. Lakkia /hi, hw/ can be argued to pattern as velar fricatives, since it has /ki, kw/but no velar fricatives. This reduces the isolation of /h/ for palatalization to one case,Nenema.(11) Nenema (Austro-Tai, NW New Caledonia)PPhP wP hw^t t^ch k khmb mbw^nd ilj^Ogv^S^V^h Ili hwm rri mw rqw^n 11 .ri^u 01 rNenema has aspiration at all places of articulation (turning up as voicelessness on nasals),and rounding on labials only, except for this odd case of /h/. /h.j/ is likewise odd inbeing the only palatalized segment in the inventory. Nenema also has /w, j/. If /Ili/ and/hw/ are parallel to nasals then they can be regarded as the aspirated/devoiced version of10Flowever, Catford (1983) reports 2i in Abkhaz Adyghe.46/j/ and /w/ respectively, thus substantially reducing the idiosyncracies of this inventory:/hi/ is /j/ and /hw/ is /n/. This reduces cases of palatalized glottals to two languageswhere every segment in the inventory can take palatalization (Lapp and Vepsian).In summary, it is rare to find secondary articulations on glottals. There are 6relatively clear cases of a labialized glottal where phonotactic constraints argue for asingle segment analysis, one of prenasalization (glottals tend instead to be transparent),and three of palatalization where syllable structure constraints are relevant. Of 242languages with some sort of secondary articulation then, a maximum of 10 appear toinclude glottals in the class of segments which can take secondary articulation (4%).3.4 Aspiration and ejectionPhonetics has long made the distinction between /2, h/ as segments with alaryngeal place of articulation, as opposed to adjustments of the vocal folds to generatephonation types, such as voicing, aspiration and ejection. Catford (1988) is very clearabout distinguishing the glottis in its initiatory function from the glottis as a place ofarticulation. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1988) suggest that phonology should recognizethe glottis as a place of articulation separate from its initiatory function. The distributionof glottals in the traditional organization of inventories recognizes this distinction bystructuring 121 as a stop and /h/ as a fricative, although it is not always clear what theevidence might be for so doing. Here I consider the bald distributional facts concerningthe presence of f?, h/ on the one hand and /C', Ch/ on the other.47Table 3.7: Distribution of aspiration and ejectionSegment No. of L's Percent^Segment No. of L's Percent337/693 49% h 442/693 64%C' 117/693 17% Ch 148/693 21%? without C' 220/337 65% h without Ch 294/442 67%C' and ? 100/117 85% Ch and h 125/148 84%C' without ? 17/117 15% Ch without h 23/148 16%Aspirated consonants occur in 148 of 693 languages (21%). 125 of theselanguages have /h/ also (85%). Ejective consonants occur in 117 of 693 languages(17%). 100 of these languages have /?/ also (84%). One might consider this as evidencethat given the presence of /C'/, the liklihood of /2/ being phonemic is higher than usual;the same is true for /Ch/.11 The distribution of glottals in general confirms this, since rilappears 49% of the time, /h/ 64% of the time. However, it is also possible(approximately 15% of the time) to get aspirated or ejective consonants without thepresence of /2/ or /h/, respectively.Does the presence of glottal segments imply glottalized and aspirated segments?Of the 337 languages with /2/, 100 have C' also (34%). Of the 442 languages with /h/,125 have Ch also (35%). Put the other way round, /?/ occurs without C' 65% of the time,and /h/ occurs without Ch 67% of the time. Thus, it is more likely for a language not tohave both /C'/ and /V, /Ch/ and /h/ than to have both of them. However, this must becontrasted with the fact that C' occurs in 17% of all languages in Ruhlen, Ch occurs 21%of the time. The co-occurrence of C' with /?/ is thus double that of the distribution of /2/throughout the database, and the co-occurrence of Ch with /h/ is more than half again.Furthermore, the presence of /C', Ch/ implies the presence of a plain, voicelesscounterpart almost without exception. In this respect, /C', Ch/ have a clear Place11The 148 languages with Ch include 60 in which there is not a three-way distinction between voiceless C,voiced C and aspirated C. As a consequence, aspiration in these languages may well be a phoneticaccompaniment to lack of voicing. The individual phonologies must be looked at to determine this.However, abstracting away from these cases, there remain 88 languages with voiceless unaspirated C,voiceless aspirated C and voiced C in contrast. Of these, 78 have /h/ also (89%). 47 have /2/ also (53%).48dependency. While there are preferences for the affiliation of ejection with velar orcoronal place (Maddieson 1984), stops at all places of articulation can be ejective oraspirated.3.5 ConclusionsFrom a systemic point of view the following statements can be made about thedistribution of post-velars. First, given pharyngeals in an inventory, uvulars are fourtimes more likely to be present than their distribution throughout the database wouldindicate; glottals are 1.3 times as likely to be present. The connection betweenpharyngeals and uvulars is thus stronger than that between pharyngeals and glottals.Second, given uvulars in an inventory, pharyngeals are four times more likely to bepresent than their general distribution would indicate; glottals are 1.2 times more likely tooccur. Again, the connection between uvulars and pharyngeals is stronger than thatbetween uvulars and glottals. Third, given the presence of glottals in an inventory, theoccurrence of uvulars is 1.2 times that of their usual distribution. The same figure appliesfor the likelihood of pharyngeals given glottals. While pharyngeals and uvulars stronglyimply one another and glottals are 20-30% more likely to occur with uvulars andpharyngeals than their general distribution would indicate, there is a considerabledifference in the strength of these implications.49Chapter Four: Phonetic investigations into post-velar articulation4.0 IntroductionThis chapter develops a phonetic typology of post-velar articulation based onwhat is known about (i) the physiology of the vocal tract involved in post-velararticulation, (ii) language independent descriptions of post-velars, (iii) descriptions ofpost-velar articulation in Semitic, Caucasian and Interior Salish and (iv) the theoreticaland attested acoustic consequences of post-velar articulation. These issues are consideredin Sections 4.1 to 4.4 respectively.In brief, the phonetic facts discussed provide evidence for a distinction betweenvelar and uvular places of articulation with uvulars sharing properties with both velarsand pharyngeals as a consequence of their position at the intersection of the oral cavitywith the pharyngeal cavity. Pharyngeals fall into two articulatory classes: those madewithout consistent laryngeal involvement and with the option of constriction relativelyhigh in the pharynx as opposed to those made with a laryngeal component andconstriction very low in the pharynx. Both types of pharyngeal articulation can contrastwith fl,h/. Finally, Semitic, Caucasian and Interior Salish present 'pharyngealized'segments. The phonetics (and phonology) of these segments is discouragingly unclear,though best understood and documented in Arabic studies.4.1 The anatomy of post-velarsIn order to assess and discuss the general articulation of post-velars, as well aslanguage-specific descriptions of them, it is necessary to have some understanding of thevocal tract anatomy involved in their production. While much of this information istrivial in the sense that it can be found in any anatomy (and some phonetic) texts, itremains the case that the details of post-velar articulation are poorly understood and littlediscussed in the standard phonological literature. In particular, the relationship between50tongue root activity and pharyngeal constriction is central to deciphering the barrage ofvariant phonetic detail in descriptions of pharyngeal articulation. The extent of thisvariation is discussed in section 4.3.This section divides the anatomy of post-velars in terms of the relevant majorcavities (4.1.1), places of articulation (4.1.2) and articulators (4.1.3).4.1.1 The major cavitiesFor the purposes of describing the articulation of speech sounds, the human vocaltract can conveniently and naturally be divided into three major cavities: the oral cavity(from the lips to the uvula, roughly speaking), the nasal cavity and the pharyngeal cavity.The pharyngeal cavity is usually divided into three parts, the nasopharynx, oropharynxand laryngo-pharynx (Daniloff 1973, Catford 1977,1988). The nasopharynx is the areaabove the velum, where the very upper reaches of the pharyngeal wall intrude into thenasal cavity. The oropharynx extends from just behind the mouth down to the hyoidbone (Daniloff 1973) or just above the larynx (Catford 1988). This leaves thelaryngopharynx, which is usually defined as terminating with the laryngeal andesophageal openings and rising to the level of the hyoid bone. The larynx itselfconstitutes both a place of articulation (/2,h/) and a source of excitation for many speechsounds but it is not, naturally enough, considered to be a cavity per se.4.1.2 Places of articulationWithin the oral and pharyngeal cavities, and including the larynx this time, theInternational Phonetic Association in its Alphabet (revised to 1989) labels eleven primaryplaces of articulation: bilabial, labiodental, dental, alveolar, postalveolar, retroflex,palatal, velar, uvular, pharyngeal and glottal. It does not chart, but provides symbols forthree epiglottal segments: a voiced and a voiceless fricative C, H and a plosive ? . Theselatter segments and their place among post-velars are discussed more fully in sections514.2.6-7. The eleven IPA divisions are intended to represent phonologically contrastivesites of articulation, and the symbols contained within the chart are intended to besufficient to represent 'all the possible sounds of the world's languages' (InternationalPhonetic Association (1989)). Various combinations of place of articulation complete theinventory of possible segments.4.1.3 ArticulatorsThe active articulators of the human speech system are usually considered to bethe lips, the tongue, and the velum. However, the muscles in the pharyngeal walls whichplay a role in swallowing can function to constrict and expand the pharyngeal cavity forthe purposes of speech. The larynx of course contains musculature which adjusts thevocal folds for the articulation of glottal segments as well as phonatory gestures such asvoicing. In this respect, both the pharynx and the larynx are potential places ofarticulation and articulators.This section deals with the tongue, pharynx and larynx musculature as each playsa role in post-velar articulationl. The tongueWithin the (phonetic) tradition adopted by phonology, the tongue is divided intoseveral zones (Ladefoged 1982, Catford 1988). The tip (apex) is the most anterior part ofthe tongue, followed by the blade (lamina), the portion of the tongue which lies under thealveolar ridge when the tongue is at rest2. The rest of the tongue is divided into the body(dorsum) and the root (radix). The dorsum in turn is usually divided into anterior andposterior sections, or front and back. The front of the tongue, therefore, is behind the apexiLabial activity is not directly related to post-velar articulation, but the contribution of lip gestures toemphasis is remarked on in some descriptions of Semitic emphatics (Mitchel 1956, McCarus and Yacoub1962, Blanc 1953, Maamouri 1967).2Keating (1991) defines the blade of the tongue as the tip plus the first 2-3 cm beyond the tip. The exactlength of the blade is not relevant for the discussion here.52and blade, and normally lies beneath the hard palate, while the back or posterodorsumarticulates with least effort in the velar and uvular zones. The root is the most posteriorportion of the tongue, forming the anterior wall of the pharynx. It is the least mobile partof the tongue, having some direct attachments to surrounding structure (Daniloff 1973)Crucially, tongue muscles are connected to the epiglottis, the hyoid bone, the jaw, partsof the soft palate and so on. Thus, tongue movement can affect the dimensions of boththe oral and pharyngeal cavities either discretely or simultaneously.A consideration of the basic musculature of the tongue reveals the complexinteraction of tongue movement and general vocal tract configuration. Useful treatmentsof this topic can be found in Perkell (1971), Laver (1980), Borden and Harris (1984). Ireview the major issues here, since the terminology is useful and an understanding ofmuscle interaction is crucial to an accurate description of articulation in general.Tongue musculatureThe major intrinsic (i.e., with no external attachment to another structure) tonguemuscles are those that flatten the tongue (vertical muscle), those that narrow and elongatethe tongue (transverse lingual muscle), those that curl the tip and edges of the tongue andpossibly shorten it (superior longitudinal muscle) and those that pull the tongue tip downor shorten the tongue (inferior longitudinal). The latter muscle has its point of origin inthe tongue root. Basically the longitudinal muscles bunch the tongue from front to backwhen contracted.The major extrinsic (i.e., with an external attachment) tongue muscles are thegenioglossus, the styloglossus, the hyoglossus and palatoglossus muscles.The genioglossus is the largest tongue muscle. It is described by Laver (1980:53)as 'the big, fan-shaped vertical muscle that makes up the bulk of the body of the tongue,running from the inner surface of the jaw, at the chin, backwards to the hyoid bone andupwards to the dorsum of the tongue. Its action pulls the body of the tongue forward,53when the jaw is in a fixed position'. Daniloff (1973) reports that it can also pull thetongue downward into the jaw, making the tongue concave.The styloglossus is externally attached to the styloid process of the temporal bonein the skull, and runs down to insert into the sides of the tongue where it spreads outalong the tongue almost as far as the tip. Contracting the styloglossus lifts the tongueupwards and backwards, and may also lift the edges of the tongue.The hyoglossus, as its name indicates, is externally attached to the hyoid bone. Itthen runs upwards and enters the tissue at the tongue root and mixes with thepalatoglossus muscle. The hyoglossus acts to lower and retract the body of the tongue.The palatoglossus muscle originates in the soft palate and runs down the back andsides of the mouth and into the sides of the tongue, forming what are commonly referredto as the front faucal pillars. This muscle then blends in with the styloglossus andhyoglossus muscles. Contracting the palatoglossus either raises the tongue body orlowers the velum. In general, the styloglossus and palatoglossus muscles lift the tongueupwards and backwards, while the hyoglossus and genioglossus retract and lower thetongue.54The basic tongue muscles and their external connections are diagrammed inFigure 4.1, taken from Laver (1980:52).Schematic diagram of the action andi . Styloid processz. Styloglossus muscle3. Palatoglossus muscle4. Superior longitudinal muscle5. Inferior longitudinal muscle^i6. Transverse lingual muscle iFigure 4.1: Tongue musculature (Laver 1980:52) The pharynxAlthough the pharynx is not traditionally considered an articulator, it does possessa musculature which can assist in the articulation of sounds that rely on altering thedimensions of the pharyngeal cavity.In general, the oropharynx can be viewed as composed of an inner and an outerlayer of muscles. The outer layer of muscles includes the superior, middle and inferiorconstrictors.The superior constrictor, at the top end of the pharynx, may assist in elevating thevelum. Contraction of this muscle also tends to lift the tongue root upwards andbackwards since at least some fibres of this muscle originate in the lower sides of thetongue. The middle pharyngeal constrictor originates from the hyoid bone and runs up55location of the lingual muscles7. Hyoglossus muscle8. Middle pharyngealconstrictor muscle9. Genioglossus muscleo. Geniohyoid musclei . Hyoid boneand backward to encircle the pharynx. Its contraction narrows the oropharynx, lifting thehyoid bone slightly in the process. Finally, the inferior constrictor muscle originates fromthe cricoid and thyroid cartilages. It is the strongest of the three pharyngeal constrictors.Its contraction can narrow the lower pharynx and upper larynx. It can also pull the larynxupwards if it is not fixed by the action of other muscles (e.g. the infrahyoids).The inner muscles of the pharynx include the palatopharyngeus and thestylopharyngeus. The rear faucal pillars, or palatopharyngeus muscles, are considered tomark the beginning of the pharynx proper. This pair of muscles originates in the velumand runs down the walls of the pharynx until it reaches the back end of the thyroidcartilage which houses the larynx. The palatopharyngeus acts in conjunction with thepalatoglossus (the front faucal pillars) to pull the velum downwards. These muscles mayalso contract like a sphincter, thereby pulling the faucal pillars together and reducing thedimensions of the oropharynx. Contraction of the palatopharyngeus can also assist inraising the larynx, thereby shortening the pharynx and overall vocal tract length, as wellas reducing the volume of the pharyngeal cavity. This latter effect is commented on byPike (1943:123-124). He suggests that faucal approximation is accompanied byconstriction in the lower pharynx as well as glottal tension and raising of the larynx.The second set of inner pharyngeal muscles is the stylopharyngeus, which ispaired (like the faucal pillars) and runs from the temporal bone in the skull into threestructures: the constrictor muscles mentioned above, the palatopharyngeus (front faucalpillars) and the back of the thyroid cartilage. Contraction of the stylopharyngeus pulls thepharyngeal walls and the larynx upwards (via the connection with the thyroid cartilage)or else it can widen the pharynx if the larynx movement is countered by the infrahyoids.56Figure 4.2, from Laver (1980:71) shows the front (palatoglossus) and rear(palatopharyngeus) faucal pillars, with the latter anchored to the thyroid cartilage.106Schematic diagram of the action and location of the velopharyngealmuscles, seen from behind (adapted from Van Riper and Irwin1958)i . Soft palate^ 6. Palatal tensor muscle2. Tongue 7. Palatal levator muscle3. Thyroid cartilage^8. Azygos uvulae muscle4. Palatogiossus muscle 6. Hamular process of the5. Palatopharyngeus muscle^pterygoid bonelo. SkullFigure 4.2: Velopharyngeal muscles (Laver 1980) The larynxFinally, there are aspects of laryngeal anatomy which are pertinent to a discussionand understanding of pharyngeal articulation (see Sawashima and Hirose (1983) for atechnical discussion).The larynx is surrounded and protected by three cartilages. The thyroid cartilage(Adam's apple) is the largest of the three. Both the true and the false (ventricular) vocalfolds are attached to the inside front surface of this cartilage. Beneath the thyroid is thecricoid cartilage. It too serves to protect the larynx. The two cartilages are linked by thecricothyroid muscles. At the back of the cricoid cartilage, the arytenoid cartilages are57located. The posterior ends of the true vocal folds are attached to the lower ends of thearytenoids, while the posterior ends of the ventricular folds are attached to the upperportion of the arytenoids. The large thyroid cartilage is also connected to the hyoid boneby the thyrohyoid muscles and ligaments. Recall that the thyroid cartilage also anchorstongue muscles (hyoglossus) and pharyngeal muscle (middle and interior constrictor) aswell as the stylopharyngeus and palatopharyngeus (rear faucal pillars).The muscular coordination involved in positioning the vocal folds for the variousphonation types is complex and delicate. A lengthy and detailed discussion can be foundin Laver (1980:99 ff.). The major point of interest here is the possible contribution of theventricular or false vocal folds to pharyngeal(ized) articulation. Both the true and falsevocal folds are part of the thyroarytenoid muscle- so named because it anchors in both thethyroid and arytenoid cartilages as described above, with the true vocal folds connected toa lower portion of the arytenoids than the false vocal folds. There is, therefore, a certain"depth" to the vocal folds, with the false vocal folds in a superior position to the trueones. The upper portion of the thyroarytenoid muscles, these so-called false orventricular vocal folds also have a slightly different composition from the lower, truevocal folds. The ventricular folds contain less muscle fibre, being described by Kaplan(1960, quoted by Laver 1980) as soft and flaccid, and they are covered by mucous tissue.In fact, Kaplan describes them as thick rounded folds of mucous membrane. Becausethey contain few muscles fibres, the contribution to phonation made by contacting thethyroarytenoid muscle proper is inefficient in the case of the ventricular folds. Anextreme setting of the thyroarytenoid is needed to get the ventricular folds to vibrateregularly. Possible ventricular articulations are discussed in sections 4.2.6 and Articulatory descriptions of post-velarsIn so far as it is rational to describe the articulation of segments independent oflanguages in which they occur, the following articulatory generalizations can be offeredfor post-velar segments.4.2.1 Uvular stops /q,According to Ladefoged (1982:148), 'Uvular sounds are made by raising the backof the tongue towards the uvula'. A uvular stop then involves contact between theposterior part of the tongue dorsum and the uvula, or extreme end of the soft palate, as ismade explicit in Catford (1988:98): 'The extreme back of the tongue is in contact with theuvula and the extreme back of the velum' (see also Catford 1977:160, where he says thatthe dorso-radical surface of the tongue may be involved). Judging from this description,the tongue is the active articulator and the uvula the passive one. While this is generallythe case, the uvula itself contains the azygos uvulae muscle, the action of which may beinvolved in sealing off the velar-pharyngeal port. It is not inconceivable that the action ofthis muscle may also lower the uvula towards the retracting tongue dorsum in theformation of uvular segments. Constriction of the faucal pillars can also bring the uvulacloser to the tongue dorsum, but the primary gesture in the production of uvular stops isthe raising and backing of the tongue dorsum to contact the extreme back region of thesoft palate.Catford (1988) describes uvular stops as having a more 'sloppy' release thanvelars, since the tongue dorsum must pull away from the soft and irregular surface of theback velum and uvula rather than the relatively firm and concave surface of the velum.This tendency is often manifested by phonetic fricative release of uvular stops. Thiseffect is certainly evident in spectrograms of Interior Salish, and is reported by Matisoff(1973) for the aspirated uvular stop of Lahu also. There are cases of allophonic variationbetween uvular stops and fricatives in a number of languages. Elorietta (1991) develops59these phonetic facts in support of an argument that uvulars are halfway between velars(which show stable continuancy values) and pharyngeals (which do not bear distinctivecontinuancy values) in showing a ready tendency to lose distinctive values forcontinuancy.4.2.2 Uvular fricatives /x, g/Uvular fricatives are also produced by moving the posterior tongue dorsumupwards and backwards towards the uvula, but with a 'small central channel' (Catford1988) between the tongue and the uvula which allows the airstream to pass through.Widening this channel produces an uvular approximant. Uvular fricatives may tendtowards a trill because the small uvula is easily vibrated by the fricative airstream.4.2.3 Uvular trill /R/The uvula vibrates 'in a deep longitudinal groove ... formed in the back of thetongue'. The tongue shape is thus modified from the 'relatively flat or convex'configurations for the corresponding fricatives (Catford 1988:99).4.2.4 Pharyngeal stopSaid to be next to impossible to produce by Ladefoged (1975:143)3, but see thediscussion of epiglottal stop in section Pharyngeal fricatives/approximants /h, S/Pharyngeals are described by Ladefoged (1975:143) as 'pulling the root of thetongue back towards the back wall of the pharynx', with /S/ often accompanied 'with agreat deal of laryngealization, perhaps because the necessary constriction in the pharynxalso causes a constriction in the larynx'. Ladefoged (1982:149) rephrases this to state that3Ladefoged (1982:149) rephrases this to say 'many people cannot make a stop in this position'.60the epiglottis is pulled back towards the rear wall of the pharynx. The distinction rests onwhether or not the epiglottis can be considered an articulator independent of the tongueroot. Laufer and Condax (1979) argue that the epiglottis is an independent articulator,Laufer and Baer (1988) retract this and say that it is not.Catford (1977, 1983) distinguishes two types of pharyngeal articulation: faucal ortransverse pharyngeal as opposed to linguo-pharyngeal. The former is produced bylateral compression of the faucal pillars high in the oro-pharynx, possibly withconcomitant raising of the larynx. Catford (1977, 1988) suggests trying to touch theuvula, thereby triggering the 'gag' reflex, as an approximation of the gesture for faucal ortransverse pharyngeals. Catford (1977) considers this the most common articulation ofArabic /h,V. Linguo-pharyngeals are described as articulation where 'the root of thetongue, carrying with it the epiglottis, moves backwards to narrow the pharynx in a front-back dimension' (Catford 1977:163). It is considered a lower articulation than thatproduced by transverse pharyngeal constriction.Catford's terminology obviously reflects an attempt to distinguish two types ofpharyngeal articulation- one relatively high in the pharynx, the other relatively low.While linguo-pharyngeals may better be described as epiglottal, as Catford himself laterconcedes, the IPA (1989) does not fully recognize the possibility of two distinctive sitesfor pharyngeal articulation. The IPA provides symbols for epiglottal segments, butoutside the bounds of the chart proper.4.2.6 Epiglottal stop I? /What is termed an epiglottal stop here (following revised IPA terminology),Catford (1988:101) describes as complete closure in the pharynx 'formed by folding theepiglottis back, as in the act of swallowing'. Catford (1988) remarks that some dialects ofArabic as well as what he calls Oriental Hebrew have a pronunciation of the 'amn (ICI) as61an epiglottal stop. He further comments that it is found in several Caucasian languages,where in Chechen, Ingush and Batsbiy it contrasts with fit.In earlier work Catford (1977) considered this type of epiglottal articulation to belaryngeal in the sense that it involves a ventricular (false vocal folds) place ofarticulation, albeit distinct from glottal (involving the true vocal folds). Thus Catford(1977:105) suggests that a ventricular stop can be formed by intense constriction of theupper larynx, though it likely cannot be made without simultaneous glottal stop. Plainglottal stop is distinguished from ventricular (plus glottal) stop in that 'the latter involvesa considerable feeling of upper-larynx constriction, which is quite absent from the former'(Catford 1977:105). That ventricular/epiglottal stop (also termed 'strong glottal stop')cannot be dismissed as an allophone of glottal stop is argued for by the contrast betweenglottal stop and ventricular stop in some of the Caucasian languages, mentioned above.Its existence is referred to in the Russian literature as 'pharyngealized glottal stop'(Gaprindashvili 1966, quoted by Catford 1977). It is possible that such a segment isbetter regarded as glottal stop with secondary pharyngealization or epiglottalization. Thefact that in later work Catford does not use the term 'ventricular' and instead substitutesthe term 'epiglottal', in line with other descriptions (such as the 1989 IPA chart) wouldindicate that a consensus has developed which considers these articulations as primarilyepiglottal, although they may involve some ventricular activity.4.2.7 Epiglottal fricatives /H, c /Such sounds, referred to as 'deep' or 'emphatic' pharyngeals are reported distinctfrom the higher pharyngeals AN in the Burkikhan dialect of Agul (a Northeast Caucasianlanguage) by Catford (1983). Colarusso (1988) mentions a Bzhedukh (NorthwestCaucasian) pharyngeal with breathy voice which he notes is made by approximating theepiglottis with the opening of the larynx. Catford (1977) also hypothesizes that theClassical Arabic pronunciation of 'amn (ICI) was likewise a ventricular/epiglottal62approximant, as evinced by some phonetic descriptions of medieval Arabic (see Semaan's(1963) translation of Ibn Sina's Risalah for example). Using the term ventricular (asdiscussed in section 2.2.6) Catford (1977) also reports a ventricular fricative trill inAbaza , and in Adyghe and Kabardian (all Northwest Caucasian languages) where thesound is used in Arabic loan words containing 'am.Finally, what Catford (1977:103) calls ventricular articulation in the Caucasianlanguages is said to impart a '"strangulated" nuance of pharyngealization' to adjacentvowels, whereas glottal stop and /h/ do not4. Catford's description links the Caucasianarticulation with the strident, pressed epiglottal vowels in !X66. Ladefoged (1983a/b)discusses epiglottalization in !X6s5 (based on work with Tony Traill), saying that itfunctions like a phonation type, forming strident or "pressed" vowels. Such vowels aredescribed as produced "by constricting the upper part of the larynx so that the posteriorend portion of the aryepiglottic muscle nearly contacts the root of the epiglottis"(Ladefoged 1983b:183). !X68 speakers (and Traill) are reported to have enlargedmuscular pads just above the larynx, presumably as a result of making this sort of sound.Ladefoged (1983b) refers to the !Xda phonation type as "ventricular" while at the sametime describing their articulation as involving the epiglottis.It should be noted that while some studies of Semitic pharyngeals (Laufer andCondax 1979) have claimed that the epiglottis is an independent articulator, later work(Laufer and Baer 1988) suggests that it is almost impossible to separate tongue rootactivity from epiglottal activity, and it is not clear that the epiglottis is an independentarticulator. However, based on the descriptions noted above, it may be that epiglottalactivity can be a component of primary laryngeal activity (as in !!X(56 and possibly the4Catford (1977) also mentions the contribution of ventricular voice to diplophonia, a condition where 'twovoices' can be heard, one with higher pitch relative to the other. While this type of vocal ability is generallyregarded as pathological in Western culture, 'double voice' is reportedly used by Tibetan monks whenchanting certain mantras. Laver (1980) discusses 'ventricular dysphonia' or 'ventricular voice' as apathological or paralinguistic phenomenon (expressing anger) but not as a phonological phenomenon. It isdescribed in the voice pathology literature as the result of excessive laryngeal tension so extreme that thetrue vocal folds are no longer well approximated but the ventricular folds are. Ventricular voice isdescribed by Plotkin (1964, also quoted by Laver) as 'characteristic deep hoarse voice'.63Agul 'deep' pharyngeals) as well as primary tongue root activity (as in the case ofpharyngeals lacking a distinctive laryngeal component).One further variation on the epiglottal theme must be mentioned. Hess (1990),based on observations on glottal articulation made by Lindqvist (1969), suggests that thepatterning of Arabic glottals with pharyngeals may be explained if their articulationinvolves the aryepiglottic folds (muscles which link the arytenoids to the epiglottis) aswell as a purely glottal gesture. This effectively links glottal articulation withpharyngeal/tongue root anatomy, and so treats all guttural glottals with a phonetic (andpotentially phonological) pharyngeal component. This view is formalized in Halle'sfeature geometry (Halle 1989), see section Glottal stop /2/Catford (1988) and O'Connor (1973) define /?/ as complete closure of the vocalfolds with a subsequent build-up of pressure below the glottis and explosive release.Ladefoged (1982) simply defines it as complete closure of the vocal folds. The supra-laryngeal vocal tract may be in a configuration determined by adjacent segments.4.2.9 Glottal fricatives/h/Approximation of the vocal folds with the supra-laryngeal tract usually in theconfiguration of the following vowel (Pike 1943, Jones 1957, Abercrombie 1967,O'Connor 1973, Catford 1988). Shuken (1984( collects the various descriptions of /h/ asa voiceless glottal fricative (Malmberg 1963, IPA), voiceless or whispered vowel (Jones1957, Abercrombie 1967, Pike 1943), glottal friction plus oral cavity friction (Ladefoged1975, Pike 1943). Catford (1977) says that /It/ has cavity friction if supralaryngealstricture is greater that glottal stricture, if the other way round, it has glottal friction.64If/The voiced glottal fricative is described by Catford (1988) as a brief period ofbreathy or whispery voice (i.e. a reduced glottal opening compared to voiceless gestures,but not so close along the whole length of the vocal cords that the whole glottis vibrates,as in the case of fully-voiced sounds).4.2.10 SummaryIn the abstract then uvular articulation is achieved by rearward movement of thetongue dorsum to approximate the extreme rear of the velum. This is fairly clear from X-rays of uvular articulation in Arabic (Ghazeli (1977), Giannini and Pettorino (1982) andalso Caucasian (Colarusso 1988), but it must be remembered that such data are language-specific and the precise site of uvular articulation will vary somewhat from language tolanguage, as with other consonantal sites and depending to some extent on whether thelanguage has contrasting velars of the same manner of articulation. Depending on howfar back uvular articulation is, it will affect the dimensions of the upper pharynx, simplyby virtue of the fact that the uvular site is located at the juncture between the oral cavityand the upper pharyngeal cavity. Phonologically this is reflected in the fact that phoneticuvulars can pattern as dorsal articulations on a par with velars, or as pharyngealarticulations on a par with primary pharyngeals. This latter grouping is attested by theSemitic guttural class, which includes uvular fricatives and /h,S/. The patterning ofuvulars with velars as a class of dorsals is also attested in a number of languages. Bothpatternings are discussed in Chapter 6.From a phonetic point of view descriptions of ventricular/epiglottal as opposed tofaucal/transverse articulation suggest that pharyngeals can be achieved by (i) contractionof the upper pharynx where the palatoglossus and palatopharyngeus muscles (front andrear faucal pillars) intersect with the oropharynx and/or (ii) rearward movement of thetongue root, carrying with it the epiglottis and thereby achieving a constriction lower in65the pharynx. The distinction between the two types of pharyngeals boils down topharyngeal constriction achieved by internal and external pharyngeal musculature asopposed to that primarily achieved by tongue activity (retraction into the pharyngealcavity). Noting that the rear faucal pillars, while they originate in the velum also extenddown the walls of the pharynx until they reach the thyroid cartilage, one might expectupper pharyngeal constriction to bring with it a certain amount of general pharyngealconstriction. On the other hand a purely tongue root/epiglottal pharyngeal may not be soprone to upper pharyngeal constriction. In support of this, Ghazeli (1977) notes that theconfiguration for Tunisian A/ has a relatively large upper pharygneal area and maximalconstriction low in the pharynx.Further, although Caucasian data make it clear that languages can makephonological use of the distinction between two types of pharyngeal constriction, whatremains unclear is whether the laryngeal aspect of 'lower' pharyngeals in the Caucasianlanguages is secondary or primary. Given Caucasian contrasts such as found in theBurkikhan dialect of Agul /h, T, H, 1, ?, h, ?/ (Catford 1983) it would appear that wemust distinguish between pure glottals (h,?) pure pharyngeals (h,S) anddeep/emphatic/epiglottal/ventricular pharyngeals (i„ ?).As will be discussed in the next section, there is evidence from Arabic that itspharyngeals have a phonetic laryngeal component, but the phonological status of thisaspect of pharyngeal articulation is disputed. McCarthy (1991) claims it isphonologically irrelevant, whereas Halle (1989) invests the laryngeal nature of Arabicpharyngeals into his feature geometry.664.3 Natural language dataIn this section I consider how the language independent articulatory and acousticdescriptions of uvular and pharyngeal articulations correspond to real language data,specifically dialects of Arabic (with some reference to Hebrew and other Semiticlanguages where relevant), Caucasian and Interior Salish. This section collates availabledescriptive information on post-velar articulation from the various language groupsmentioned. Much of the information contained here is provided for purposes of referenceand comparison rather than argumentation.4.3.1 SemiticThere is so much dialectal variation among Arabic speakers, that it makes littlesense to discuss consonant and vowel articulation as if there existed a general "Arabic".What is commonly called "Contemporary Standard Arabic" is a modern form of ClassicalArabic (i.e. the language in which the Koran is written and formally read). It is thelanguage of learning, education and public address (radio, television, theatre etc.). In thissense a general Arabic does exist, with the caveat that it is spoken slightly differently inthe various Arabic speaking countries, and by the educated portion of the population.The vast majority of Arabic-speaking people use the vernacular of their region and herethe dialectal variation is considerable. Dialects described as "contemporary" refer to thatregion's version of Contemporary Standard Arabic, the classically based language.Dialects described as "colloquial" refer to the vernacular of the area or specific religiousgroups.Arabic dialect studies identify about eight major dialectal regions: Syrian (Syria,Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, Jordan); Egyptian (the colloquial of the sedentary populationof the lower Nile valley); Iraqi (ancient Mesopotamia); North African (Morocco, Algeria,Tunisia, Libya etc.); Maltese; Arabian Peninsula (Oman,Yeman,Kuwait, Saudi Arabiaetc.); Sudanese and Central Asian. The material surveyed here is limited to examples67from the Syrian, Egyptian, North African and Iraqi regions5. Where I have been able tofind information (in a European language) on Arabian Peninsula dialects (Saudi, forexample) it is included. Maltese is a unique dialect both historically and synchronically.Modern Maltese lacks some of the phonemes of other Arabic dialects and I will notdiscuss it further.The inventory of Contemporary Standard Arabic is as in (1). Although dialectalinventories vary, they are almost always considered to vary with respect to (1), and forthis reason it is useful to refer to it.(1) Contemporary Standard Arabic (McCarthy 1991)Lab Coronal^Emphatic^Velar Uvular^Phary Glottalb^df^0, s^ X^h^hz z1,rm nTables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 detail articulatory descriptions of dorsal, pharyngeal andemphatic articulation from at least one language in each dialect group. These tables andthe ensuing discussion do not claim to be exhaustive: there remains a considerable degree5The major sources I have consulted for the various dialect regions are:Syrian: Lebanese:Delattre (1971), Obrecht (1968)Palestinian: Blanc (1953), Card (1983), Herzallah (1990)Egyptian: Mitchell (1956), Harrell (1957), Erwin (1963,1969), McCarthy and Raffouli (1964),Khalafallah (1969), Gary and Gamal-Eldin (1982)Iraqi: al-Ani (1970), All and Daniloff (1972), Giannini and Pettorino (1982), Butcher andAhmad (1987).N. African: Moroccan: Harrell (1965), Heath (1987), Abdel-Massih (1974)Tunisian: Ghazeli (1977), Talmoudi (1980)Arabian Peninsula: Saudi: Lehn (1967b)Classical Arabic: Gairdner (1925)Medieval Arabic: Semaan (1963)68of extremely interesting variation that would doubtless reward further investigation. It ismy purpose here merely to give some indication of the type of variability in post-velararticulation that is attested cross-dialectally in the Arabic-speaking world. DorsalsThe following general points can be made about the data in Table 4.8. First of all,there is some variability in the description of velar and uvular segments. The plosives /k/and /q/, where dialects have both, seem to be distinguished by aspiration in the case of/k/, with /k/ also palatalizing in the environment of high front articulations. Some Gulfdialects (Holes 1990) show allophonic variation between such palatalized velars (/k,g/)and the (post-alveolar) affricates [tf, d3]. This would further distinguish velar plosivesfrom uvular plosives. Many dialects have lost the /q/ of Classical Arabic altogether,replacing it with glottal stop in many cases, but also with a voiced uvular plosive [G](Gulf dialects) or a velar, as in some Iraqi dialects. The fricatives symbolized /x/ and /g,y, g/ also vary between velar and uvular place of articulation. In some dialects they areclearly and unambiguously described as uvular in place, and pattern with the gutturalclass (uvulars, pharyngeals, glottals). In other dialects such as Palestinian, /x/ isdescribed as velar Blanc (1953). According to Blanc (1953), velar /x/ takes emphasis,but all segments in Palestinian are reported to take emphasis, so this will not distinguish itfrom uvulars. Herzallah (1990) considers the Palestinian guttural class to consist of /K, x,y, h, 2, h/ where /K, x, y/ are considered to be back velars. This latter classificationseems to be phonologically rather than phonetically based.69Table 4.8: Arabic dorsals1 Seg't 1 Region^IDialect^li Articulatory description^II Alternations Ik Syrian Lebanese no infoPalestinian post-palatal stop kc /i,a,yk, / CEgyptian velar stop k, /front VIraqi vls. aspirated velar stop ki /i(:)N. Africa Tunisian velar stopMoroccan vls. aspirated. velar stopArabP Saudi velar stopq,Syrian Lebanese reduced pharyngeal area; tonguedorsum at uvulak26Palestinian vls. post-velar stop q, /emphasisEgyptian vls. unaspirated. uvular stop 2Iraqi vls. unaspirated. uvular stop q,g,y,kN. Africa Tunisian reduced phar. area, tongue dorsumpressed against uvula, narrowing of oro-pharynx, narrowest at level of epiglottis,slight larynx raising but no contractionof laryngo-pharynx.Moroccan vls. unaspirated uvular stop, may beglottalized2ArabP Saudi has lost /q/g,y„g` Syrian Lebanese constriction high in pharynx formed bya circular motion of tongue root, sometrilling.Palestinian vd. back-velar spirant g, /emphasisEgyptian vd. uvular fricative g, /emphasisIraqi vd. uvular fricative velar /i(:)q (nomadic)N. Africa Tunisian vd. uvular fricativeMoroccan uvular, like Fr. 'r'ArabP Saudi vd. uvular fricative q (Hufaf)706ICfasrsghab dialect.x Syrian Lebanese vls. /g/; stricture narrower than for /g/Palestinian vls. velar fricative x, /emphasisEgyptian vls. (dorso-)uvular fricative x, /emphasisIraqi vls. velar fricativeN. Africa Tunisian vls. post-velar/uvular fricative like /g/but not as far backMorrocan uvular approximantArabP Saudi vls. uvular fricative4.3.1.2 PharyngealsWithin the class of Arabic pharyngeals, two major articulatory questions arise,both of which were raised in section 1.1. The first is whether tongue root retraction is theprimary gesture, with concomitant general pharyngeal contraction or whether the pharynxis the primary articulator with secondary tongue root retraction. The second queries therole of the larynx in the production of pharyngeals.With respect to the first question, Erwin (1963, 1969, Iraqi Arabic) and el-Dalee(1984, Lower Egyptian Arabic) explicitly insist that pharyngeals are produced byposterior pharyngeal musculature to the exclusion of tongue-root retraction. At the veryleast, if the tongue root is involved, it plays a secondary role. Of interest is that EgyptianArabic is described as permitting the spread of emphasis to all segments. It may thereforebe of considerable significance that the primary pharyngeals are described as pharyngealrather than tongue root articulations, thereby permitting the tongue-rooting (i.e."emphasis") of pharyngeals, so to speak. It may be that dialects in which the primarypharyngeals are described in terms of tongue root activity do not have this optionavailable, and so do not evince emphatic pharyngeals. Palestinian Arabic, which is alsodescribed as having emphatic pharyngeals would be another case in point, although thereis no explicit mention in the literature that I have reviewed that Palestinian /S,h/ are onlypharyngeal in articulation, and not tongue-root. That there may be two types of71pharyngeals (those which can be emphatic, those which cannot) which are phoneticallydistinct, has not been overtly discussed, to my knowledge. This matter requires furtherresearch.With respect to the second issue, the role of the larynx in pharyngeal articulation,it can be seen from Table 4.9 that alternation between the voiced pharyngeal and glottalstop, or creaky, allophones is fairly common. This alternation is attested historically also.The synchronic allophonic variation is non-distinctive, but suggests that pharyngeals areprobably being articulated with some laryngeal component, either raising of the larynx orcompression of the larynx due to the action of the middle and inferior pharyngealconstrictor muscles. The laryngeal component may be expected whether the relevantarticulator is the tongue root or the pharynx since both the hyoglossus and genioglossusare attached to the hyoid bone, which is also the origin of the middle pharyngealconstrictor. Further, the strongest external pharyngeal constrictor muscle (the inferiorconstrictor) originates in the cricoid and thyroid cartilages. Thus even general pharyngealconstriction may simply bring with it some laryngeal side-effects.There is particular phonetic variability noted in the manner of Arabic voiced andvoiceless pharyngeals. For example, Al-Ani (1970) reports that the most commonallophone of /3/ in Iraqi Arabic is a voiceless stop, whereas Ladefoged (1982) doubts thepossibility of a pharyngeal stop. Ghazeli (1977) refers to /V and /h/ as fricatives, but asnoted by Butcher and Ahmad (1987), Ghazeli's spectrograms do not support thisassumption for M. Klatt and Stevens (1969) suggest that /f/ is a sonorant along with /is/in Lebanese Arabic at least. Butcher and Ahmad (1987), in an effort to make sense of thevariant descriptions of pharyngeals as glides, approximants, stops and fricatives,investigated Iraqi Arabic pharyngeals both aerodynamically and spectrographically.Their findings are that /h/ is a voiceless continuant with high rates of air flow, highintensity noise in the waveform and a marked formant structure. /h/ did not havesufficient airflow to match the voiceless fricative profile that accompanied most tokens of72/h/. Based on airflow measurements /C/ is classified as a voiced approximant with glottalrelease in final position and a glottal burst in initial position some 60% of the time,accompanied by creak in almost all cases and with no evidence of friction in any tokens.In other words, the interpretation of A/ as a stop in Iraqi is better interpreted as a glottalgesture accompanying the pharyngeal constriction, possibly due to the extreme lownessof the articulation or the fact that some of the muscles involved in pharyngeal constrictionmay raise the hyoid bone and thus affect the orientation of the larynx in the throat.73Table 4.9: Arabic pharyngeals1 Seg't Region^Dialect Articulatory Description AlternationsSyrian Lebanese C, /emphasisv. low stricture between tongue andpharynx wall; small pharyngeal cavityarea, tongue dorsum higher and morefronted than for /a/; some larnyxlowering, dorsal bulge. Some creak.Palestinian vd. pharyngeal fricative with some stopcharacteristics Egyptian (radico-)pharyngeal c, /emphasisIraqi vd. phar. approximant, creaky withglottal release. Some tokens may bemade at glottis. Constriction of musclesof upper throat, walls of pharynxcontract.N.Africa Tunisian ?, creakvd. phar. fricative, contraction oflaryngo-pharynx by tongue rootretraction and pharyngeal wallmovement; larynx raised and tense.Tongue shape like a pyramid with bladeand dorsum straight and depressed.Large upper pharynx area. Mostconstriction 3.5 cm from glottis, at levelof epiglottis. Fl raised, F2 low. Moroccan vd. phar glide with some glottal stopcharacteristics. Simultaneous raising oflarynx and backing of tongue root(Harrell). Constriction lower andnarrower than for /h/, tongue dorsumraised to velum (Boff Dkhissi).ArabP Saudi vd. pharyngeal 214Medieval deep in the throat, where the air invomiting is located, at the opening ofthe larynx.h Syrian: Lebanese stricture lower and narrower than 1,pharyngeal cavity smaller than I.Palestinian vls phar spirant h, /emphasisEgyptian made in throat at point larynx rises to inswallowing, suggests retching, with rootof tongue filling throat.Iraqi produced entirely with throat action,tongue should not curl up or back(Erwin 1969); tongue root againstpharyngeal wall (al-Ani 1970);pharyngeal approximant, larynx raisedand maybe constricted (B&A 1987).N.Africa Tunis as with /1/ but constriction narrower,slight depression of tongue root —1cmabove epiglottis.Moroccan heavy breath through light constriction;fricative with higher constriction than I(B off Dhkissi).ArabP Saudi vls pharyngealMedieval where the air involved in clearing thethroat is located (i.e. higher in thethroat).744.3.1.3 EmphaticsThe use of the terms "emphatic" and "emphasis" to refer to a subset of thecoronal obstruents and their spreading effects in Arabic dialects is fairly recent.Traditionally the emphatic segments (in Classical Arabic) fall into two classes referred toby a number of terms.The term Wtbaq or mutbaqa is used by Sibiwayh (a prominent eighth century Arablinguist) and translates as "covered, lidded" (see Ghazeli 1977, Giannini and Pettorino1983). Used only of A, 4, s, 0/, the term refers to the 'trapping' of these sounds betweentwo places of articulation, one of which is a raising of the tongue toward the upper palate.While this description does not clarify whether the secondary articulation of z`baqsounds is velar or uvular, it is useful to bear in mind the following.The term 2isrlal ("raised") encompasses A, cl, $, 0/ and the dorsals /x, y, q/. It ispresumably a reference to the fact that the tongue dorsum is raised towards the roof of themouth in their articulation. The grouping together of dorsals/uvulars with retractedcoronals in an articulatory description may suggest they shared a uvular site in theClassical pronunciation which Sibiwayh describes. While it can be seen (Table 1) thatthere is frequent confusion within the class of dorsals, it is noteworthy that the phoneme/k/ is never included in the class of 2isilal consonants.Tafxim or mufaxxama ("thickening", "heaviness") is a more recent termintroduced in 19th century and applied to the emphatics. It has been used to refer to thefortis nature of A, 4, s, 0/. It is sometimes used to encompass the four 2itbaq consonants,the uvulars and possibly /1,r,y/, but not, according to Ghazeli, the primary pharyngeals.Ghazeli (1977) interprets tafxim as an auditory term, referring to the thick or muffledquality of such sounds.The discussion of emphasis by modern scholars tends to be inconsistent with thetraditional divisions discussed above. In some cases all post-velars (except glottals) areregarded as emphatic, in others, the classical divisions are referred to, with only the 2itbaq75consonants being emphatic. Both phonetic and phonological factors seem to havecontributed to the confusion, quite apart from the fact that both factors can vary fromdialect to dialect. It seems useful to reserve the term 'emphatic/emphatics' for the four2itb aq consonants. These are sometimes referred to as the primary emphatics,particularly in analyses which claim that the feature associated with the phonologicalspread of emphasis is underlying only on A, d, s, 0/ or some limited set of consonants.The terms pharyngeal and pharyngealized can then be reserved for /h,S/ and whatevertheir effects may be. This is contrary to some usage, such as Heath (1987), who refers toeffects from ?itbaq consonants under the rubric 'pharyngealized'.In terms of production, there has been tremendous controversy about the properarticulatory and acoustic description of emphatics, with the lips, tongue dorsum, tongueroot, epiglottis and pharyngeal walls all claimed to be relevant articulators. The acousticargument over whether emphasis is velarization, uvularization or pharyngealization hasgenerally resolved itself into a claim that emphasis is better described as acousticallysimilar to pharyngealization, meaning with a constriction somewhere in the pharynx (seeGiannini and Pettorino (1982) for a discussion of Iraqi Arabic). Whether emphatics canbe described as uvularized as opposed to pharyngealized remains unclear. Both phoneticclaims exist in the literature. Instrumental investigations, while interesting and helpful,do not entirely solve the problem.76Figure 4.3 reproduces X-ray tracings for plain /t,s /, emphatic /t, s/ and /q/.(Giannini and Pettorino (1982) : Iraqi Arabic). It is clear that reduced pharyngeal cavityvolume is common to the emphatics and /q/, and based on this one might describe theemphatics as uvularized. Giannini and Pettorino (1982) argue against this interpretationof their data however, preferring to consider the emphatics 'pharyngealized' on the basisof observed tongue root retraction which is claimed not to be present in uvulararticulation. Giannini and Pettorino (1982) do not provide examples of pharyngealarticulation to compare with emphatic articulation.77Figure 4.3: Iraqi Arabic: /t/, /t/ and /q/ (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)Laufer and Baer (1988) in a fibrescopic study of emphatics and pharyngeals inHebrew and a number of Arabic dialects, also claim that emphatics involve lowerpharynx constriction. They found the greatest degree of constriction at the level of theepiglottis, with the tongue root the active articulator. They argue that emphatics arepharyngealized, that is, with less constriction than /h,f/, but definitely pharyngeal ratherthan uvular. Further, they report a variety of Muslim Arabic in which the tongue dorsumis pulled down in the velar region, presumably ruling out the possibility of uvular co-articulation for emphatics.Ghazeli (1977) provides tracings of his own production of Tunisian emphatics,which he interprets as having a place of articulation midway between uvulars andpharyngeals, that is to say, with a general constriction midway in the pharynx. He doesprovide tracings of pharyngeal as well as uvular and emphatic articulation. Whentracings of emphatic articulation are laid over tracings for uvular fricatives andpharyngeals, the closest match is between emphatics and uvulars. Pharyngeals have alarger upper pharyngeal volume than either emphatic or uvular articulation. Pharyngealsalso have a more reduced laryngo-pharyngo volume than either uvulars or emphatics.This can be seen in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. In Figure 4.4 the leftmost tracing is of [x] in theword [xali] (solid line) and fg] in the word [ffali] (dotted line). The rightmost tracing isof [t] in [biSa] s(olid line) and [t] in [tbi:SEe] (dotted line). These tracings can then becompared with that of pharyngeal articulation in Figure 4.5.78Figure 4.4: Tunisian Arabic: /g, x/ and it, t/ (Ghazeli 1977)Figure 4.5: Tunisian Arabic: /C/ before initiation (solid line) and during production(dotted line) in [Tx:li]. (Ghazeli 1977)An interesting approach to the difficulties of reconciling what appears to becontradictory data is Hess' (1990) factor analysis of X-ray data, which includes Ghazeli'sTunisian and some Damascan data. Her results may lend some credibility to the term'pharyngealized' for emphatics in the sense that emphatics and pharyngeals were found toshare positive amounts of her Factor A (retraction of tongue root at the epiglottis, raisedlarynx and rearward movement of the upper pharyngeal wall). The pharyngeals AN areseparated from the emphatics by Factor B (lowering of tongue blade and dorsum,retraction of tongue root, raising of larynx) which achieves a low tongue body position.As coronals, the emphatics do not have a low tongue body position. As emphatics, theyhave reduced lower pharyngeal volume. Unfortunately, Hess does not include tracings ofuvulars in her analysis, so it is unclear what emphatics might share with uvulars under afactor analysis.Table 4.10 charts the description of emphatic articulation in the same dialectregions for which dorsal and pharyngeal articulation have been presented. Bracketed79phonemes indicate emphasis as a derived feature, though sources are often very unclearas to what segments are underlyingly emphatic, and what are derived.Table 4.10: Arabic Em atics[Language i Dialect Emphatic If ArticulationSyrian Lebanese b, d, t, z,$, Ill, 4,1/L.secondary pharyngeal constriction.Palest'n t, p, (f),m, 0, t,(Z), $, 1,(r)retraction of tongue, raising of dorsum to velum,advancing of lips, possible glottal constriction.Egyptian t, d,^, z,(r)Vowels: pharyngeal constriction, lowering of tongue,retraction of tge, protraction of tge. Consonants:velarization, alveolarization of dentals glottalization of AApost-palatals with tge broadening at closure point. Lipprotrusion.Iraqi t. 4, 0,(a), (1)centre of tge raised,tge tense and retracted, someconstriction of pharyngeal walls. Tge tip may beretracted. al-Ani's X-ray tracings show a flattened tonguebody, with considerable narrowing in the mid-pharynx.Giannini & Pettorino report that the tge root is retracted atthe level of the 3rd and 4th vertebrae, the hyoid bone isslightly raised, the larynx is not raised. Ali and Daniloffreport tongue root retraction, with overall tongue shapedistinguishing between plain and emphatic consonants.N.A. Tunis t, $, 0 back of tge moves to pharyngeal wall at level of 2ndvertebrae midway between place of articulation for /q/and /h/, palatine dorsum of tge depresses, rearwardmovement of epiglottis, no laryngeal displacement, nolip-rounding, no contraction of laryngo-pharynx.80Mor t, ci, s, (r)/b,m,z,l/maybecomeemphaticlower pitch,greater muscular tension, raising and backingof tge in roof of mouth.ArabP SaudiMedieval t, d, s, z larger surface of tge in length and breadth, hollow intongue surface, lateralization4.3.1.4 GlottalsIn all the dialect regions surveyed here, /2/ is described as a voiceless glottal stopor 'catch in the throat' (Ferguson et al. 1961). /h/ is referred to as a voiceless glottalspirant. Care is taken in some descriptions to contrast glottalic with pharyngealconstriction. Thus Erwin (1963, 1969) states that /h/ in Iraqi Arabic has no closure orstricture elsewhere in the vocal tract and that the throat is 'relaxed'. Gairdner (1925)makes the same kind of comment for the pronunciation of Classical Arabic. None ofthese sources record lowering effects on vowels from glottals. Alternation of PI withzero is noted in a number of dialects, for example by Blanc (1964) for Iraqi Arabic and byGarbell (1958) for Eastern Mediterranean dialects. Blanc (1953) reports /h/-->0/-# forNorth Palestinian. Vowel effectsAccounts of vowel quality in Arabic reflect a variation parallel to that found inconsonantal articulation. This is not surprising since vowel quality is clearly affected byconsonantal environment. The basic variation is tabulated in Table 4.11. Gaps in thetable indicate lack of specific information in the sources consulted.The effects of adjacent uvular and pharyngeal consonants are always local andaffect only vowels, whereas emphatic effects are long-distance and include consonants81and vowels. In general, the effect of uvulars and emphatics is considered roughlycomparable in phonetic terms, though it is always stressed that emphatic effects are themost striking. Effects from pharyngeals seem to vary from on/off glides to centralizationof vowels. It is noteworthy that Harrell (1957) describes the pharyngeals of EgyptianArabic as having no backing effect on the /a/ vowel. The phonetic realization of thisvowel is recorded as roughly [m] in pharyngeal environments as opposed to [a] in uvularand emphatic environments. This is sometimes interpreted as a 'fronting' effect, though itis not entirely clear that the vowel is being fronted by the pharyngeal. This may be aconsequence of two factors: (i) the pharyngeal is simply not backing the vowel, and sowhat emerges is a quality otherwise associated with pre-uvular contexts (ii) it may be thatthe pharyngeal in question is so low in the context of /a/ that F2 is raised, creating thefronted quality relative to uvulars and emphatics. The mechanics of this possibility arediscussed further in Chapter 5, but basically the explanation is this: a constriction lessthan 2 cm from the glottis is close to an F2 velocity minimum, constriction in thislocation will raise F2, creating a fronting effect. Trubetzkoy (1969:124) makes similarcomments about palatalization effects from pharyngealized consonants in Caucasian, aswill be discussed in section general I would comment though, that until descriptions of subtle variation invowel quality are investigated acoustically, they will remain difficult to assess. This isnot to say that researchers have transcribed incorrectly, but there can be no question that(i) transcriptions are filtered through the phonetics of the transcriber's native languageand (ii) the sound in question may contain a number of phonetic cues with thetranscription reflecting a decision based on only one of them. While spectrography doesnot solve all of these problems, it can frequently provide more accurate representations ofvowel quality. I wonder, for instance, if the [x] in the environment of Egyptianpharyngeals (Harrell 1957) is as high and front as that found in the context of pre-uvulars.82Table 4.11: Arabic Vowel Effects[Region^II Dialect I UR 'Plain II Emphatic^1 Uvular^II Phary. 0 Source^ISyrian Leb ii:aa:Uu:ti:am:uu:centralizedcentralized andloweredbackedbackeduu:ObrechtNPal iUai,tu,ux,acentralizedaao/OaBlancPal i:ie:ea:ao:0u:Ui:ie:em:s0:ou:ui:ie:,ea:, a:a0:5defectivedistributionu:u,CardEgypt i:e:u:o:a:iUai:e:u:o:m:,mrI,i0,ux,x'"^_as /q Ie:'5u:-o:a:iuai: + glideglideu:- +glideo: + glideeoa,xHarrell83Iraqi ii:e:aa:o:Uu:t.,ii:e,cE,Mx:,a:o:u,uu:ia i,iac,ea,oa,o0irtrL,Ec,eauErwinN. Africa Susa7 iaUicuiiaoiiaoiiaoTal-moudiMor8 iUaiuxeoa/a,eoatuaHeathClass9 i:iu:Ua:aituux:xglideglideuuaGairdner7A Tunisian dialect included here because Talmoudi gives more precise phonetic notations for allophoniceffects that does Ghazeli (1977). Ghazeli (1977) also says that for his dialect the true pharyngeals haveonly a minor coarticulatory effect on adjacent vowels which does not change steady-state vowel quality.He reports all vowels backed adjacent to emphatic coronals.8Harrell (1962) also describing Moroccan Arabic, gives the following alternations:Ii/^fel/emphatic C, uvulars and pharyngeals^/a/^[a]/ uvulars, pharyngeals,#[i]] elsewhere^ [a]/ emphatic C/u/^[ti )141,x,R,tiS [m] elsewhere[01/emphatic C, q[u] elsewhere9McCarus and Yacoub (1962) describing the literary Arabic used in Syria (i.e. educated speech based onClassical Arabic) note similar allophonic variation, with both long and short /u/ seemingly impervious tothe presence of back consonants or emphatics. They do note however that the "backed" allophone of allvowels is not so back in the environment of uvulars and pharyngeals as it is in the environment ofemphatic s .844.3.2 Caucasian4.3.2.1 DorsalsVelars and uvulars in Caucasian seem generally to be velar and uvular in place,although there is some interaction between velars and palatals. The rounded velars foundin all Northwest Caucasian languages are argued by Colarusso (1988) to be velar in place,with the distinction with rounded uvulars made by place, and not the affricated releasewhich occurs with plain uvular plosives. X-rays of Ubykh /x/ show greatest tongueapproximation to the uvula and reduced volume in the upper pharynx. This aspect ofuvular articulation appear to be crucial in the distinction between palatalized uvulars,plain uvulars and pharyngealized uvulars such as found in Ubykh. Palatalized uvularsshow no reduction of pharyngeal volume. Colarusso describes the tongue root asadvancing for this articulation, so that the tongue bunches in the mouth. Pharyngealizeduvulars on the other hand, show evidence of tongue root retraction to the extent ofpushing the epiglottis back against the rear wall of the pharynx. PharyngealsAs mentioned above (section 4.2.4 ff), the Burkikhan contrasts /h, 1, H, C', ? , h, 2/(Catford 1983) argue that languages can distinguish among two types of pharyngeals aswell as glottals. The Caucasian languages seem to be unique in using this degree ofdifferentiation in the pharynx-larynx region. Arabic and Interior Salish both contrastpharyngeal with glottal articulation, but not two types of primary pharyngeals. The terms'strong glottal stop' and `pharyngealized glottal stop' (Catford 1977) both suggest theparticipation of the larynx in the low, epiglottal pharyngeals. Catford's early descriptionof them as ventricular also emphasizes their laryngeal component.854.3.2.3 Pharyngealized consonants and vowelsPharyngealized consonants do not occur in all Caucasian languages. The core-inventory, as represented by Kartvelian for instance, does not contain CS (Catford 1977b)However, pharyngealization occurs on labials and uvulars in Ubykh. Two otherNorthwest Caucasian languages, Abaza and Ashkarwa Abkhaz have pharyngealizeduvulars. Such segments are relatively common in the North East Caucasian languages,being reported in the Lakk-Dargwa subgroup, Kubachi and some dialects of Dargwa, theLezgi subgroup and the Avaro-Ancli subgroup (Colarusso 1988).As mentioned in the discussion of Caucasian uvular articulation, X-ray data ofUbykh pharyngealized /x/ shows backing of the tongue into the pharynx with the tonguetip curled upwards. Bzyb pharyngealized /x/ shows no such tongue tip action, but similarretraction of the tongue root with the epiglottis pushed against the pharyngeal wall.Chechen (Northeast Caucasian) pharyngealizes its labials, dentals, alveolars andpalatals. Ingush and Bats (Northeast Caucasian) also pharyngealize labials, as do somedialects of Lakk and possibly Udi (Colarusso 1988). Pharyngealization is also reportedon vowels in some of the Lezgian languages. I deal here with the effects ofpharyngealized consonants first, excluding pharyngealized uvulars since they havealready been discussed.Acoustic investigation of the pharyngealized consonants of Chechen by Kingstonand Nichols (1986) reveals that Fl rises consistently, with lowering of F2 and F3dependent on the primary place of articulation of the CS. F2 does not lower withpharyngealized bilabials, a result which is explained by the already low F2 conditionedby a labial place of articulation. F2 is higher for alveolars, and so shows the effect ofpharyngealization by lowering. Based on such an acoustic profile, Kingston and Nichols(1986) argue that pharyngealization in Chechen is accomplished by constriction in thelower pharynx, with a resultant compact (F1 close to F2 and a lowered F3) as opposed to86flat (all formants lowered) spectrum. In support of this, they note that the acoustic effectsof CC and the pharyngeal consonants of Chechen are identical.Colarusso (1988:132) reports that pharyngealization of Ubykh (NorthwestCaucasian) labials (/pC, bl, phS, vl, wS, mS/) results in consonants of a longer duration,with an added formant centering around 500 Hz and 'the occasional addition of apharyngeal formant around 1100 Hz'. Colarusso further notes (footnote 4, p174) that'These formants coalesce with the first formant of an adjacent vowel to produce a verywide and loud first formant. Some workers have interpreted this as a raising of thevowel, since high vowels have low first formants'. Under this interpretationpharyngealization is called 'emphatic softening' or 'emphatic palatalization' (Trubetzkoy1969: 131). Trubetzkoy assumes that the tongue body actually fronts during thearticulation of Caucasian pharyngealized consonants, thus explaining what he calls anopening effect on vowels: i-->e, a-->m, u-->ä. This effect is basically a centralizing one,as can be seen very clearly in Figure 4.6, which plots Fl and F2 values given in Catford(1983) for VC in Udi, one of the languages specifically mentioned by Trubetzkoy ashaving emphatic palatalization effects. The Udi vowels are /i, e, a, o, u, il, eS, aC, oS, uC/with pharyngealized variants represented as capital letters in this figure.8788U§ --2000^-1500Aa-1000Figure 4.6: Udi VC (Catford 1983)Catford does not specify at what point in the vowel these readings are taken orwhether the vowels themselves are derived or phonemic, but Colarusso (1988:174) notesthat analyses of these segments (in the Russian literature) argue that the vowels bearpharyngealization rather than deriving it from consonantal environments. X-ray tracingsof VI in both Udi and Tsalchur (Gaprindashvili 1966, reproduced in Catford 1983) showtongue root retraction at the level of the epiglottis, a depression in the tongue dorsumopposite the uvula and a bulge further forward in the tongue. This configuration is veryclose to that of American English In (Delattre and Freeman 1968, Ladefoged 1979).GlottalsCaucasian /2,h/ are considered laryngeal articulations along the lines of thosefound in other languages, with the exception of the epiglottal/ventricular articulationsalready mentioned. /h/ can be voiced intervocalically. None of the glottals are recordedas having coarticulatory effects on vowels. Vowel effectsDescriptions of Caucasian vowel allophony are strikingly reminiscent of thosefound for Interior Salish. Kuipers (1960:22-24) charts front, central, back, higher andlower variants of the short vowels /a,a/ in Kabardian, with choice of variant dependent onconsonantal environment. Thus: 'Front variants (i,e) are found after lateral, palatalizedpalatovelars, uvulars and laryngals (after the latter two consonants central vowels are alsoheard), back rounded variants (u,o) after labialized palatovelars, uvulars and laryngals,central variants (a,ce) after other consonants. Before labialized consonants halfroundedvowels are found, central (0, 0) or back (u,o) depending on what precedes.. .Before thepharyngeal h there is no distinction between a higher and a lower vowel....(a:) in mostcases produced as a front a; back variants are found in the neighbourhood of uvulars andpharyngeals'.Colarusso (1988) reports that all tautosyllabic consonants colour vowels, withconsiderable variability from speaker to speaker and with some variation in default vowelheight from language to language. Thus the vowels in Circassian tend to be higher thanthose in Ubykh or Abaza. However, Colarusso's description of coarticulatory effectsfrom consonants to vowels in Ubykh is mostly very similar to Kuipers' description ofKabardian, given above. That is to say, anterior consonants condition front vowels, highconsonants condition high vowels, back consonants produce back vowels. Colarussoreports the pharyngeal behaves as a back consonant for purposes of vowel allophony10.With respect to laryngeal effects, Colarusso has the following telling comment: 'Todetermine the independent articulatory positions of /a/ and /a/ one may elicit them eitherformant values, Colarusso gives [a] in /qa/ sequence with Fl 800 F2 1400, but I know of no place inthe text where he gives formant values for pre-uvular articulation. With respect to the 3 vowels which hetranscribes as /a,a,a:/ Colarusso shows a formant plot for one Ubykh speaker which shows Fl for /a/ higherthan Fl for /a/, and /a:/ with a slightly higher Fl than /a/. There is considerable overlap, however.89in isolation, in the environment of a laryngeal, or next to a labial, providing in the lastcase that the informant utters the word in an isolated form and not in connected speech sothat the formant transitions due to the labial consonant can be ignored. In suchenvironments other factors affecting the position of the tongue are absent so that it mayassume the positions inherent in /a/ and /a/ themselves' (p. 299). Thus, laryngeals haveno coarticulatory effect on vowels.There is a complication however. Contrary to Kuiper's statement that thedistinction between high and low vowels is neutralized in the environment of pharyngeals(and the tendency for fieldworkers to report lowering of vowels in the environment ofpharyngeals), Colarusso (1988:336ff) claims that Caucasian pharyngeals absolutely donot lower vowel quality, and may even raise vowels. He cites Fl lowering from thepharyngealized uvular of Ubykh as an example and attributes this affect to the fact thatthe Caucasian pharyngeals are not articulated with dorsal gestures, and are in this sensesimilar to laryngeals and labials. This claim might be compared with Choi (1990) on thecoarticulatory effects of Kabardian consonants on vowels. Analysing Kabardian with /i,a, a:/ Choi's plot of the steady-state values of /a/ shows it lowest in the environment ofpharyngeals so that it approaches the value of /a:/ in the environment of velars andpalatals. Uvulars lower all vowel qualities, palatals raise and front, labials raise and back,velars raise the /a:/ vowel and back /i, a/. In general Choi's findings support Kuiper'simpressionistic account of Kabardian allophony and contradicts Colarusso's claim thatpharyngeals do not lower vowels. However, Colarusso's investigations are based onUbykh, not Kabardian, and Choi shows pharyngeal effects only on the /a/ vowel.Clearly, further instrumental work is needed on these languages to assess exactly whatrange of coarticulatory effects consonants may have on vowels, and what the acousticcues are for the extensive post-velar inventory.904.3.3 Interior SalishAs discussed in chapter 1, some of the languages of Northwest North Americapresent inventories with uvular and pharyngeal consonants. The most extensive post-velar inventory is found in Moses-Columbia Salish. The other Interior Salish languagesdo not appear to have both voiced and voiceless pharyngeals, but otherwise havecomparable inventories with respect to post-velar places of articulation.As with the Semitic material, descriptions of Salish pharyngeals vary somewhatfrom language to language. In particular, the degree of constriction seems to vary,resulting in fairly fricative-like sounds to very approximant-like sounds. Tables 4.12-4.14 present the available descriptions of Salish uvulars, pharyngeals and retractedcoronals along with the quality of contingent vowels. Glottals are not consistently notedas having an effect on vowel quality. It is sometimes noted that vowels followed byglottals are not as high as they are before pre-uvulars. This might be interpreted as alowering effect, but this can be argued against on both phonetic and phonologicalgrounds (see section 5.2 and chapter 6) For now, suffice it to note that glottals are neverreported to have effects comparable to those found in the context of uvulars andpharyngeals. Likewise, glottals in Caucasian and Semitic are not included in the class ofpost-velars for the purposes of vowel effects. DorsalsThe following generalizations may be drawn from Table 4.12.11 /q/ is generallyagreed to be uvular in place of articulation but the potential for non-native confusionbetween uvulars and velars is noted. Uvulars in all Interior Salish languages are11The major sources for Interior SalishN4e7kepmxcin (Thompson)LillooetShuswapColville-OkanaganSpokaneCoeur d'AleneMoses-Columbiaas represented in this table are:Thompson and Thompson (1992); Kinkade (1967)van Eijk (1985); Kinkade (1967)Kuipers (1974, 1989); Gibson (1973)Mattina (1973); Kinkade (1967)Carlson (1972); Kinkade (1967)Reichard (1938); Johnson (1977); Kinkade (1967)Kinkade (1967)91consistently reported to condition vowels of a lower quality than found in pre-uvularenvironments. Here, allophonic effects are reported from following consonants becausethese produce the strongest and most predictable effects.Table 4.12: Interior Salish uvular effectsLang[Articulatory description /V/ /-pre-I uvulars/-uvularsNI uvular place, but may be fronterdepending on speech communitylit/e//u//a/[i,i'][2][u,u' ][i,a,t,u][e,e1,[m][o][A]Lt uvular place, but close to velars;/q',q'w/ with affricated release thatvelar counter-parts lack/i//e//a//a/[e][x][0][a][E][a][o][A]Sh uvulars described as "post-velar" inplaceIi//e//u/A/[i][E,xl[u, o][t, a][2,11[a][o, A][A]Cr q-series called 'velar' ,but uvular inplace, k-series called 'palatal'./i//a//u/[i,e][x, 8][u,c][eta][a][a]Ms-Cmuvular lit/a//u//a/Rel[x,a][u,u,o][a ,u,i][e',2][a][ov,o][A]Co-Okpost-velar /i//a//u//a/[i,e][x,a][u,c][OA[9i, ia][a][o,au, 0][a]Sp unrounded q-series produced 'v. farback in the mouth' but roundedvelars and uvulars easily confusedby non-native speakersIi/le//u//a /[i][x,e][u][a, DAC][e,ia][a][o ,o][A,o]92Mayes (1979) conducted a spectrographic investigation of velar and uvular stoparticulation of one female speaker of Niekepmxcin.12 Formant transitions fromconsonants to vowels were not measured, so there is no indication of allophonic variationdue to a change in place of articulation from velar to uvular. Instead Mayes measuredclosure duration, burst duration and amplitude. Her findings are that /k/ has greater burstduration and frequency than /q/, but that /q/ has greater burst amplitude than /k/. It isshown in Chapter 5 that formant transitions also serve to distinguish velar from uvulararticulation, as indicated by the vowel variation in Table PharyngealsPharyngeal segments (/1, I', Cw, S'w/) are found throughout Interior Salish, butonly Moses-Columbian has phonemic voiceless pharyngeals (/ti, hw/); all other languagesreport voiced pharyngeals only. Pharyngeals may have some upper pharyngealcomponent. The degree of friction in the voiced pharyngeal varies with some languagespresenting articulations so glide-like they are sometimes heard as vowels. Pharyngealsare reported to lower all adjacent vowels. Usually the similarity between pharyngeal anduvular effects is noted, as in Arabic. Kinkade (1967) notes fronting effects from Moses-Columbian voiceless pharyngeals.An example of the considerable difficulty experienced in the transcription of thesesounds can be found in Vogt's work on Kalispel (1940). Vogt proposes stressable/i,e,a,o,u/ for Kalispel, noting that /o/ is usually a "morphophonemic variant of /u/, butcases as sanos 'snot', oost 'he gets lost', contrasted with mus 'four', ust 'he dives' etc.clearly establish /o/ as a distinct phoneme" (p.14). Subsequent work has shown that thereare two issues here. One has to do with the proper identification of pharyngeals, for12Mayes's consultant was Mabel Joe from the Shulus Reserve in the Lower Nicola Valley, B.C., Canada.93which Vogt transcribes long vowels13, the other with a class of retracted roots foundthroughout IS. sanos belongs to the class of retracted roots sometimes characterised bythe presence of one of a set of retracted coronals and/or a vowel of particularlow/retracted quality. Historically these roots are thought to have contained a pharyngealwhich frequently appears in Colville cognate roots (Mattina 1979). Thus, the Colvilleword for 'snot' is transcribed by Mattina as seas (Mattina 1987). The root for Kalispeloost 'he gets lost' is transcribed in Spokane as Awos (Carlson and Flett 1989). Vogt alsotranscribes yesaacim 'I am tying it', with the root Vaac cognate with Spokane Vac(i),Colville Vfac, Nfakapmxcin vac. These correspondences suggest that what Vogt heardand transcribed as long vowels are actually pharyngeals.Gladys Reichard, whose grammar of neighbouring Coeur d'Alene (1938) wasread by Vogt, transcribed what she terms 'faucals', with the symbols /R, R'/ and /rw, r'w/.These segments, plus an apical /r/, form what Reichard terms the 'r-series', described asfollows:14The most distinctive phonetic characteristic of Coeur d'Alene is the r-series. Thesound written r is close to the apical slightly trilled initial r as it is spoken in mostparts of the United States, although the tongue is pulled farther back and the r isanticipated by drawing the preceding vowels correspondingly farther back. Thefaucal trill which may be surd (R) or labialized (rw) is difficult to make anddescribe.. .in order to achieve it, place the tongue in position for a, draw the larynxdown and back ... and trill the faucal region. For the labialized rw place the lips inthe position for labialization ... at the same time following directions for R.The implication of the term laucal' and the use of variants of r to transcribe them,suggests that Reichard thought of the r-series as uvular.Kinkade (1967) comments on the mismatch between Reichard's symbols andterminology (r-sounds, trilling in faucal region) as opposed to the symbols andterminology used by Vogt (1940) in describing the closely-related Kalispel. Vogt13Interestingly, some Arabic course books warn students that they may have trouble hearing thepharyngeals at first, and will likely mistake them for vowels, e.g. Erwin (1963).14It is not quite clear what Reichard means by terming R and rw as 'surds' if 'surd' means voiceless. As faras I know the Coeur d'Alene pharyngeals are not described as voiceless elsewhere in the literature, and thetokens examined in section are not voiceless.94neither transcribes nor mentions an r-series. In fact, he interprets the Coeur d'Alenefaucals as voiced counterparts to the voiceless uvular fricative series, appealing to the factthat Coeur d'Alene has voiced counterparts to its coronal, alveo-palatal and velar stopseries, so that the faucals can be seen as filling in a structural gap among the uvularsegments. For structural reasons this analysis disintegrates when applied to Colville-Okanagan and Nxa'amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish), since neither of these twolanguages has a voiced stop series, but both have pharyngeals (see Kinkade 1967).Kinkade's fieldwork in Nxa'amxcin, which has unmistakable /C, Cw, h,hw/, clarified the description of faucals/long vowels/r-sounds in Interior Salish. Then,gathering his own data and collating material from other sources, Kinkade demonstratedthe presence of pharyngeals throughout Interior Salish. Kinkade (1967) reports that thephonetic manifestation of these sounds varies somewhat from language to language andthis is confirmed by the range of descriptions in the various grammars. Kalispelpharyngeals are reported to be very hard to hear, while the series in Moses-Columbian isnot only supposedly the most pharyngeal, but has split into a voiced and voiceless series.The Nfekepmxcin pharyngeals are considered to involve some uvular frication/trill aswell as tongue retraction and general pharyngeal narrowing (Thompson and Thompson1992). van Eijk (1985) describes Lillooet pharyngeals as further back than the French orGerman uvular /R/ and more lax than Arabic IS/. The various descriptions of pharyngealsin Interior Salish are tabulated in Table 4.13 along with the reported coarticulatory effectson adjacent vowels.While I have not asked speakers of all the languages how to make pharyngeals,Agatha Bart offered the following description for Moses-Columbian pharyngeals: 'pullthe tongue all the way back in your throat, as far as you can go'. Mrs. Bart also reportsgeneral tension in the throat in making pharyngeals. These instructions can be comparedto Mrs. Bart's description of /q/, which she reports is made as if something is caught in95Table 4.13: Interior Salish pharyngeal effectsArticulatorx description/T,Sw/ involve some uvularfriction or trill, some creak.Retraction of tongue andgeneral narrowing ofpharynx.NfLang. /V/ /-pre-uvulars l-pharyngealas /q, seeTable 4.12asTable4.12as Table 4.12pharyngeal glide with wideaperture; further back thanuvular stops. More lax thanArabic 1.; some uvularquality reported close to a voiced uvularfricative or trill, with wideaperture. Sounds like apharyngealized back /a/. faucal trills formed withthroat drawn back, larynxdrawn down and back;voiced and uvular /V-V, -#but #S- is a voiceless [a]with friction; Avv- is avoiceless [D] with friction.ShLt Ii//a//u//a/asTable4.12asTable4.12/1/ vd. pharyngeal fricativewith little friction; /ti/strong vls. pharyngealfricative[x]/h,fother vowelsas /q, seeTable 4.12/a/as /q, seeTable 4.12as /q, seeTable 4.12the throat or nose. This would suggest a very back articulation at the velar-pharyngealport.96Sp^uvular-pharyngeal resonant asseries formed by narrowing Tablethe pharyngeal cavity with 4.12frequent concomitantnarrowing in the post-velarareaCo- Vowel plus pharyngeal^asOk^constriction, with greatest^Tableconstriction initially; all^4.12four pharyngeals voiced,with NS- sometimes auvular flap in Ok,sometimes voiceless in /q, seeTable 4.12as /q, seeTable Retracted coronalsThe occurrence of retracted coronals is relatively rare, but consistent withinNxa'amxcin, Nlakapmxcin and Lillooet. Where they occur, retracted coronals are alwaysapical articulations, as opposed to laminal. They also lower adjacent vowel quality andare frequently referred to as imparting a 'darkened' timbre (e.g. Kuipers 1989). Thephonological patterning of retraction is discussed in Chapter 6.97Table 4.14: Interior Salish retracted coronal effects(Lang. Articulatory description /V/ -/pre-uvular I-CNf k, c',^, z, z'/ tongue tipwith hollowing of tonguebehind occlusion. /1,17 are'dark'.asTable4.12as Table 4.12 as /qLt k,S,1,17 tongue-tiparticulation with retractionof tongue root considered asvelarization. /z, z'/ are laxdenti-laterals with localretracting /qSh k,s/ rare as /qCr In apical trill withtonguepulled back; backedapical trillas /qNx k,^, 1, 1%(13)/ as /qCo-Ok ,NoneSp NoneTo summarize: with the exception of Lillooet, vowel quality in the environment ofretracted coronals, pharyngeals and uvulars is reported to be very similar. van Eijk(1985) remarks on the pharyngealized quality of Lillooet vowels adjacent to pharyngealphonemes, and Kinkade (1967) notes that the low vowel /a/ of Nxa'amxcin is oftenfronted in the environment of voiceless pharyngeals. Other than this single case, vowelquality in the environment of post-velars is transcribed as lower or more back than thatfound in pre-velar environments.984.3.3.4 GlottalsInterior Salish glottals are referred to as glottal in place of articulation, withaspirated release noted for /7/, usually word-finally and in some cases post-tonically(Vogt 1940, Carlson 1972, Thompson and Thompson 1992). Thompson and Thomspon(1992) note occasional phonetic confusion between /h/ and dorsal spirants inMe?kepmxcin. /h/ is generally not found word-finally and is not common. Both /h/ and/2/ alternate with zero in rapid speech (Mattina 1973 for Colville-Okanagan). /?/ isrecorded as transparent to lowering from immediately right-adjacent uvulars in Lillooet(van Eijk 1985) and, as will be shown in Chapter 5, Moses-Columbian /2/ is transparent tocoarticulatory effects from consonants onto preceding vowels.It is sometimes the case that vowels do not achieve as high a quality in theenvironment of glottals as they do with pre-uvulars. There is variation on this: I havetranscribed relatively high and relatively low allophones in glottal environments, butvowel quality in the environment of glottals is never equated with that found in thecontext of other post-velar segments. This is clear in all sources. The Nxatamxcin datapresented in Chapter 5 show that all consonants have an effect on vowel quality, withpre-velars tending to raise vowels, post-velars lowering and glottals doing neither--hencethe transcription of less extreme vowel qualities in glottal environments.4.3.4 KhoisanIt has already been mentioned that some Caucasian language have pharyngealizedvowels. Some of the Khoisan languages also have VS (Traill 1985). The acoustic cues toKhoisan /aS/ reported in Ladefoged and Maddieson (1990) are raised Fl and F2, loweredF3 and diminution of energy in the 400-700 Hz region. The raised F2 of thepharyngealized /a/ vowel, which has the effect of fronting (or not backing) the vowelrecalls reports of fronting from pharyngeals in Nxa'amxcin, Caucasian and some Arabicdialects.99Khoisan strident vowels, which are distinct from pharyngealized vowels and arementioned in section 4.2.7, have a laryngeal component created by a constriction'between the part of the tongue below the epiglottis and the tips of the arytenoid cartilagesin the upper part of the larynx' (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1990:114). These vowelshave even more radical Fl and F2 raising, as well as F3 lowering on the /a/ vowel atleast. The acoustic profile of both types of Khoisan articulation suggests an extremelylow place of articulation.4.3.5 NootkaDialects of the Wakashan language Nootka include phonemic pharyngeals derivedfrom uvulars. /1/ is derived from /q', q'w/; /h/ from /x, xw/. Jacobsen (1969) argues thatthis is a very recent innovation which does not go back to Proto-Wakashan or Proto-Nootkan.There are no /q', q'w, xw/ in the modern dialects of Nootka. /x/ occurs in one rootand one suffix in the Kyoquot dialect of Nootka described by Rose (1981). /h/ sometimesalternates with [x], reflecting its historical origin as a uvular fricative. /hw/ occurs before/u/. In Nitinaht /q', q'w/ have become /V, but /x, xw/ have not become /h/ as in Nootka(Jakobsen 1969). All descriptions of the Nootkan sounds reflect a strong laryngealelement. Sapir and Swadesh (1939, quoted by Jacobsen 1969) describe the Nootka IT/ asa 'glottal stop pronounced with the pharyngeal passage narrowed by the retraction of theback of the tongue toward the back of the pharyngeal wall', while /h/ is described as 711/pronounced with the pharyngeal passage thus constricted'. The sense of a glottal elementis so strong that Sapir and Swadesh (1939) label the sounds as flaryngealized glottals'.Sapir (1911) earlier had described Nootka /1/ as "a peculiarly harsh and choky glottalstop.resembling Arabic 'am' "; in a later article he described M as 'a peculiar glottal stopof strangulated articulation and velar resonance'; Swadesh (1939) referred to M as a'glottal stop with pharyngeal constriction'. Nootkan /h/ also is likened to Semitic /h/ by100Sapir (1911). Rose (1981:14-15) describes pharyngeals in the Kyoquot dilaect of Nootkaas follows:The Nootka pharyngeals are not characterized by associatedlabialization or nasalization. The h is like a fricative inbeing composed of aperiodic noise, but it is like a resonantin having large formant transitions which are perceived as offglidesand onglides in adjacent vowels. The I consists of apharyngealized glottal closure which, like the h, is accompaniedby a raised larynx and a retracted tongue root. I is like a resonantin having no burst (i.e. a stop release). However, associatedlaryngealization, perceived as a series of 'cracks', gives the impressionof a series of stop bursts. Impressionistically, the Nootka I soundsmuch more stop-like and crisp than the Salish sound written withthe same symbol.The lowering effect of both pharyngeals on high vowels is noted in early descriptions (seeJacobsen 1969). Rose (1981) transcribes local vowel alternation which is very similar tothe Salish and Semitic effects already discussed.Table 4.15: K o uot Vowel allo hon (Rose 1981:16)/V/ Basic Alveo-palatalVelar_VelarRound ,Uvular UvularRoundPharyn-gealLaryn-geal .i I i i I' c £ £v I'U U U' U' U '. 0'. S o' U -a a,a £' £' A' a A' a' aThe glottal aspect of Nootkan /I/ is reflected in several processes. For example,some inflectional suffixes in Nootka cause glottalization of a preceding stop, affricate orresonant. /q, qw/ surface as [C] in these cases, suggesting that [5] is both uvular and[+constricted glottis]. Under the same conditions a fricative is changed to a homorganicglide. /h/ alternates with [w] in these cases, reflecting its historical origin in /xw/.Furthermore, Rose (1981) states that ejectives and 'other glottals such as /h, ?, I/ do notoccur morpheme-finally, and that vowels are retracted when adjacent to labialized or101pharyngealized consonants and are laryngealized adjacent to ejectives, glottalizedresonants, I and ?.It would appear then that the Nootkan pharyngeals maintain a structuralrelationship with uvulars. They may be better thought of as phonetically pharyngealizeduvulars with a glottal feature.4.3.6 HaidaHaida is a language isolate spoken on the Queen Charlotte Islands in BritishColumbia as well as Ketchikan and Hydaburg in Alaska. There are two basic dialects,Nothern Haida (spoken by the Alaskan and Massett people) and Southern Haida. Haidapharyngeals, like those in Nootka, are derived from uvulars. Krauss (1979) reports thatuvular /G,x/ have become pharyngeals in Northern Haida, but /q,q7 have remainedunchanged. /x/ has become a voiceless pharyngeal like Semitic /h/ in Massett, but inHydaburg, Krauss describes the sound as a 'hoarse pharyngeal trill'. Massett /G/ hasbecome a pharyngeal much like Semitic /C/, but in Hydaburg the /G/ has become 'anaffricate, glottal stop followed by a hoarse pharyngeal trill' (p. 840). Levine (1981) notesthat this phoneme can reduce to glottal stop then delete, whereas /h/ does not. If [G, x]turn up at all in Northern Haida, they can be traced to borrowings from Southern Haida.Very little is known about the phonology of these sounds.15Sapir's (1923) paper 'The phonetics of Haida' deals with the Southern SIddigatedialect which has not innovated pharyngeals from uvulars, and so contains no informationrelevant on this point.4.4 Acoustic consequences of post-velar articulationThe acoustic consequences of constriction in the vocal tract can be predictedtheoretically by modelling the vocal tract dimensions and cross-sectional areas resulting15I thank William Seaburg for sending me examples of Hydaburg pharyngeals. The /7/ is odd indeed andsounds like a cough almost. It is nothing at all like Salish /C/ which is entirely resonant.102from various types of articulation. This section discusses the acoustic effects of uvularand pharyngeal articulation as predicted by vocal tract modelling and surveys the resultsof acoustic studies on Arabic uvular, pharyngeal and emphatic articulation. Sincemodelling studies do not explore the theoretical consequences of post-velar articulation incombination with some other (primary) place of articulation (such as is found with Arabicemphatics) one can turn only to data-oriented studies to develop an acoustic profile ofpost-velar constriction as a secondary articulation. It should be noted however that such aprofile is specific to the language and segments in question and can be extended to othercases considered to involve some post-velar component only with caution.Modelling studies predict that there is a unique class of articulation made in thepharynx with two major constriction sites: the upper and lower pharynx. Differences inFl values distinguish the two articulations, with what we transcribe as pharyngealshaving a higher Fl than what we transcribe as uvulars. Natural language data fromstudies on Semitic confirm these predictions.4.4.1 Uvulars and pharyngealsKlatt and Stevens (1969) calculate the resonances for sounds with primaryconstriction in the pharynx, given three different constriction sizes. Their predictions arethat for a constriction between 3-7cm from the glottis, which they estimate as appropriatefor the articulation of pharyngeal and uvular consonants in general, the first formant willbe high and the second formant will be low. Although they remark that this area of thevocal tract is relatively insensitive to the exact location of constriction, within thisarticulatory and acoustic class, a constriction approximately 3-4 cm from the glottis(pharyngeals) besides having high Fl and low F2 is predicted to have F3 lower than aconstriction 7 cm from the glottis (uvulars). Klatt and Stevens comment further that F2for the uvular articulation may also be lower relative to F2 for the pharyngeals. Uvularsare also predicted to exhibit a higher F3 than pharyngeals, with F3 close to F4, leaving a103wide gap between F2 and F3. For more constricted configurations, Fl is predicted to belower for uvulars than for pharyngeals. These general predictions are given in Table4.16.Table 4.16: Klatt and Stevens (1969) Constriction area 0.05 and 0.1 cm2Constriction site^—II Consonant type Fl F2 F31 11cm fromglottisvelar low near F37 cm fromglottisuvular high lower close to F43-4cm fromglottispharyngeal higher low lowerAlwan (1986), uses a vocal tract model with tapered junctions between eachcavity and the constriction site, thus avoiding sharp discontinuities in area functions thatthe Klatt and Stevens (1969) model does not. In general her more refined modellingsupports the predictions made by the Klatt and Stevens model. Table 9 summarizesAlwan's predictions for uvular and pharyngeal articulation based on a constriction area of0.15 cm2. Of the three constriction areas for which Alwan makes predictions, 0.15 cm2 isclosest to the figures (0.05 and 0.1 cm2) discussed by Klatt and Stevens (1969) in the textof their paper. Thus it is the most appropriate choice for comparisons between the twomodels.Alwan's results also indicate that Thu s articulated with a tighter constriction than/V, since her model compares more favourably with real data when the area ofconstriction for /11/ is less than that for /c/ (0.15 vs 0.25 cm2).104Table 4.17: Alwan (1986) Constriction area 0.15 cm2, length of constriction lcm.ConstrictionsiteConsonant type Fl (Hz) F2 (Hz) I^F3 (Hz) 3cm fromglottisr 715 1152 2263h 747 1785 23448cm fromglottisis 483 1241 2610X 553 1241 2737Alwan (1986) also conducts perceptual tests which confirm the centrality of Flvalues as a cue to distinguishing uvular from pharyngeal place of articulation in Arabic.Using native speaker16 judgements of [Sa:] and [ica:] stimuli in which F2 is held constant,it was found that Fl is an essential cue for identifying place of articulation. Alwan(1986:109-110) reports that an onset value of Fl which is 'at least as high as that in thesteady state of the vowel...results in the perception of a pharyngeal, and its perceptionincreases with increasing Fl onset value. The uvular on the other hand, is perceivedwhen the onset value of Fl is at least 90 Hz less than that during the steady state of thevowel...'.The results of perceptual experiments reported in el-Halees (1985) are inagreement with the finding that Fl is a crucial cue not only to a post-velar place ofarticulation, but to distinctions within it. Tokens with higher Fl transitions fromconsonant to vowel were judged as pharyngeal rather than uvular by el-Halees' Jordaniansubjects. In fact, Fl transitions alone proved sufficient to cue the distinction betweenuvular and pharyngeal place of articulation.Natural language dataAcoustic studies of Arabic language data confirm that post-velar articulationraises Fl values, with the Fl for pharyngeals being higher than that for uvulars. Theresults of several such studies are presented in Tables 4.18-21. Of particular note is the16mwan's subjects for this particular experiment consist of 3 Iraqis, 1 Kuwaiti, 1 Lebanese and 1 Sudanese.105range of formant values reported for both uvular and pharyngeal articulation. Mostly itvaries depending on the vowel which follows, but it also varies considerably acrossstudies and according to dialect as well as within and across speakers of the same dialect.Based on four studies alone, the Fl of /I/ ranges from 464-900 Hz, of /h/ from 433-1100Hz; F2 ranges form 1065-1887 Hz for /S/ and from 1050-1937 Hz for /h/. There is lessdata on uvulars, but what there is produces an Fl range of 382-600 Hz, and an F2 rangeof 782-1300 Hz. Presumably the considerable variation reflects both contextual effectsand basic variation in location of articulation.The studies below concentrate on uvular and pharyngeal data, but Kuriyagawa(1984) compares Cairene /k/ versus /q/ and finds strong F2 lowering and Fl raisingeffects on vowels from /q/ which distinguish it from /k/. Kuriyagawa (1984) particularlynotes the extreme extent of F2 lowering conditioned by /q/.Alwan (1986)Table 10 is based on data averaged from four speakers (3 Iraqi, 1 Lebanese) inAlwan (1986), with measurements taken at the onset of the vowel in CV: sequences takenfrom ?V:CV: or CV: nonsense utterances. As a point of comparison, Alwan gives thesteady-state values for /i:,a:,u:/ in post-velar contexts averaged across four speakers andbased on ten tokens per speaker. In the case of pharyngeal-V: sequences Fl fallsconsistently regardless of vocalic environment, but for the uvulars, Fl falls in Qi: and Qu:but rises in Qa: sequences. The fall in Fl from offset of the pharyngeal to steady-state ofthe vowel is greater in the case of pharyngeals than uvulars, thus corroborating theprediction that pharyngeals have a higher Fl than uvulars.106Table 4.18: Arabicpost-velars (Alwan 1986)I^Seg't^Vowel /a:/ Vowel /i:/ Vowel /u:/FlIF2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F31 728 1181 2224 492 1887 2561 464 1065 2022h 739 1266 2321 453 1937 2592 453 1181 2084x 584 1294 2553 382 1987 2604 403 790 2472q 587 1143 2522 409 1784 2574 401 782 2562Steady-stateVowel,661 1206 2470 311 2213 2751 350 786 2414Ghazeli (1977)Table 4.19 summarizes the figures available from Ghazeli (1977) who recordedtwo CV tokens of each type (C a uvular or pharyngeal, V one of /i,a,u/) from twelvesubjects of various dialects (6 Tunisian, 2 Libyan, 1 Algerian, 1 Cairene, 1 Jordanian, 1Iraqi). Readings are taken at the boundary between the consonant and the vowel. Henotes interdialectal variability of +/- 50 Hz on Fl, +/- 100 Hz on F2 and +/- 250 Hz on F3and considerable dialectal variation on the value of the low vowel when it is not in a post-velar environment, e.g. [c/x] for Libyan and Cairene speakers and [w/a] for the Jordanianspeaker. Despite variation Fl is high for pharyngeals regardless of following vowel,though highest for pharyngeal-a sequences. Ghazeli does not provide figures for uvulararticulation other than next to the /a/-vowel.Table 4.19: Arabic ost-velars Ghazeli 1977IBM^Vowel /a/^Vowel /i/ Vowel /u/Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 ,^Fl F2 F3I 900 1450 2300 700 1700 , 2700 650 1300 ,^1700h 1100 1700 2300 700 1800 2700 550 1100 1700is 500-6001200-13002300-2600107Butcher and Ahmad (1987)Butcher and Ahmad (1987) recorded three speakers of Iraqi Arabic with fiverepetitions of a series of CVC tokens. Their tokens were (mostly nonsense) words of theshape CIVC2 with a pharyngeal in C1 or C2 position, and V ranging over /i:, e:, a:,.o:, u:,i, a, u/. Values for the pharyngeals tabulated here are taken at the pharyngeal-vowelboundary of a T/hVC sequence. For comparison, Butcher and Ahmad present formantvalues taken at the steady-state portion of each vowel following a glottal consonant. Thisis intended to serve as an indication of what vowel-quality is like when unaffected byadjacent consonants. Fl values for pharyngeal -a: sequences are not as high as thosefound by Ghazeli (1977). Fl values for the pharyngeal -i sequence are higher than thosereported by Ghazeli. Compared to the values for vowels preceded by glottals, Fl isconsistently higher for pharyngeals, by as much as 100% on the Ii:/ vowel for instance.This should be compared to the values reported by Adamson (1981) for Sudanese Arabic,Table 4.21, where Fl is not nearly so high in absolute terms for pharyngeal-i sequences,but Fl doubles in pharyngeal environments, just as it does in the Iraqi data.Table 4.20: Iraqi abicpharygeals and glottals (Butcher and Ahmad 1987)[^Seg't Vowel /a:/ Vowel /i:/ Vowel /u:/Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3T 861 1408 2036 815 1461 2386 602 1203 1566h 855 1517 1979 761 1767 2789 642 1222 17782 690 1195 2588 398 2366 3130 412 592 unclearh 727 1296 2487 375 2329 _ 3070 _ 416 680 2535Adamson (1981)This study uses real (rather than nonsense) C1VC2 words in a sentence frame,with C1 a pharyngeal and readings taken at the pharyngeal-vowel boundary for /h/ butduring the consonant itself for /C/. The vowel values which are provided for reference are108taken from the steady-state portion of the same CVC sequences. Readings are taken fromfour speakers of Sudanese Arabic, 23 words per subject.Table4.21: Sudanese Arabic pharyngeals and reference vowels (Adamson 1981)I^Seg't Vowel /a/^Vowel /i/ Vowel /u/Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F31 580 1440 2266 500 1600 weak 475 1150 weakh 650 1450, 433 1800 460 1050Steady-stateVowel500 1500 250 2100 250 9004.4.2 EmphaticsAs mentioned, acoustic modelling of post-velar articulation does not deal directlywith the effect of post-velar secondary articulation. However, extrapolating the verifiedprediction that post-velar constriction, such as found in both uvular and pharyngealarticulation, results in high Fl and low F2 values, one would expect to find some effect ofthis sort even in complex articulations where post-velar constriction is not the onlyarticulatory gesture. The classic example of such an articulation is of course the class ofArabic emphatics, which combine a coronal place of articulation with post-velarconstriction. A comprehensive review of the history of scholary inquiry into Arabicemphatics can be found in Giannini and Pettorino (1982). In brief, all studies concur thatF2 lowering is a cue to emphatic articulation (Obrecht 1968, al-Ani 1970, Giannini andPettorino 1982, Card 1983, el-Halee 1985) but the contribution of Fl, which has beenshown to be so critical in modelling uvular and pharyngeal articulation, is mostly ignoredby both Obrecht17 (1968) and Card (1983). Giannini and Pettorino (1982) note theomission of Fl effects in Obrecht's work and based on their own investigation of an Iraqi170brecht (1968) justifies the exclusion of Fl effects from his study on the basis of preliminaryspectrographic investigation which showed that F2 was the most powerful cue. His own data though, doshow Fl effects.109Arabic speaker, they find that both Fl and F2 effects cue emphasis, although F2 seems tobe the most consistent cue. This general finding is supported by al-Ani (1970), Ghazeli(1977), al-Ani and el-Dalee (1984), el-Dalee (1984), el-Halees (1985) and Laufer andBaer (1988). While F2 effects feature most prominently in descriptions of emphasis el-Dalee (1984) and el-Halees (1985) found that Fl lowering was particularly striking on theemphatic pharyngeals [C, h]. In contrast, Card (1983) reports a 700 Hz lowering of F2 for[s] and does not mention Fl effects.18 Table 4.22 charts the results of al-Ani and el-Dalee's work on 220 [?VCV] utterances by an Alexandrian speaker with C varyingbetween emphatic and non-emphatic articulation. Measurements are taken at the vowel'ssteady state.Table 4.22: Alexandrian emphatic effects (al-Ani and el-Dalee (1984))Plain EmphaticVowel Fl F2 Vowel Fl F2a 743 1614 a 736 1062i 314 2086 i 495 1667u 357 850 u 371 867Norlin (1987) investigates the acoustic properties of emphasis in Egyptian Arabicusing real monosyllabic and disyllabic words containing the vowels /i:, e:, a:, o:, u:/  and/i, a, u/ in four phonolocial contexts: CV(:)C; CV(:)C; CV(:)C ; CV(:)Q. All tokenswere produced six times in a sentence nine male native speakers from Cairo.The first instance was discarded, formant frequencies were taken from the steady stateportion of stressed vowels. Fl and F2 variation across speakers was found to be small,with F3 variation larger. Table 4.23, which presents average formant values for ninespeakers (5 tokens each) of /i, a, u/ in plain and emphatic contexts, illustrates the dramaticlowering of F2 triggered by emphatic consonants. Fl raises, but minimally in18However, from what I can decipher of the spectrograms in my copy of her dissertation, it looks as if Flraises also.110comparison to F2 movement. Based on t-tests on measurements of the differencebetween long vowels in plain and emphatic contexts, a cline of the order /a:/ > /i:, el >/u:, o:/ is reported. However, Norlin reports that differences in transition onsets increaseso as to compensate for the minimal steady state distinction between high back vowels inplain and emphatic contexts. In summary, high vowels are affected less that low vowelswhile front vowels are affected more than back vowels. The /a, al vowels of EgyptianArabic are relatively front.Table 4.23: Eg • tian emphatic effects (Norlin 1987)Plain^ Em haticVowel Fl F2 Vowel Fl F2i 435 1915 i 450 1485a 615 1585 a 630 1165u 415 1120 u 450 955Norlin also investigates the spectral properties of emphatic and non-emphaticsibilants using data from real words in initial postion of a carrier sentence. Nodifferences could be quantified based on examination of the waveform and spectrograms.The only quantitative measure which differentiates between plain and emphaticconsonants is the centre of gravity (a measure of the overall pitch level of the spectrum)in the critical band spectra. 14/ has lower centre of gravity than /s/ except for one speaker,and greater dispersion (i.e. a flatter spectrum). /z/ has a lower gentre of gravity than /z/,and /z, z/ have flatter spectra than /s, 4/. Norlin finds very little affect from emphatics on/u/.An obvious question raised by the acoustic description of emphasis is how itcompares with the acoustics of other segments involving post-velar articulation.Comparing the loci for Fl F2 and F3 for velar, uvular, pharyngeal and emphaticconsonants, Giannini and Pettorino (1982) note that emphatic articulation is like post-111velar articulation in having (i) a high Fl loci and (ii) a low F2 loci. Table 4.24summarizes the basis for these observations. The Fl locus for uvulars is reported as 500Hz, for pharyngeals 1000 Hz and for emphatics 600 Hz. All of these values aredramatically higher than the Fl loci reported for velars (250 Hz) and for the non-emphatic counterparts (250Hz) of the emphatics under consideration. Emphatics alsopattern with uvulars and pharyngeals against both velars and non-emphatic coronals inobserved F2 loci.Table 4.24: Consonantal loci in Iraqi Arabic (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)Articulation Fl loci (Hz) F2 loci (Hz)Velar stop 250 2300Uvular stop 500 1400Uvular fricatives 500 1500Pharyngealfricatives1000 1500Emphatic s 600 1000Non-emphatics 250 2000Despite not discussing the contribution of Fl to emphatic effects, Card (1983)does provide Fl and F2 readings for emphatic and non-emphatic minimal pairs. Figures4.7 and 4.8 plot the steady-state readings of long and short vowels in an emphatic andnon-emphatic environment. Arrows go from the non-emphatic vowel to the emphaticvowel. All four of Card's Palestinian speakers are represented. While some speakersshow considerable Fl effects and lower emphatic vowels, all speakers show F2 effects onshort vowels. The situation with long vowels is more complicated. /u:/ is minimallyeffected by emphasis, but that is well-described in the literature. 1o:/ lowers considerablyfor all four speakers, but these findings are based on only one form for each speaker. /a:/mostly just backs; /i:/ even raises for two speakers and /e:/ lowers for three and raises forone. For one speaker the difference between emphatic and non-emphatic /e:/ is lowering.11200a^A,^ A113-1600^-1400^-1200^-1000F2(Hz)Source: Card (1983)Figure 4.7: Palestinian Arabic Short Vowels: Plain and EmphaticCI00 _o-2000 -1500^-1000F2(Hz)Source: Card (1983)Figure 4.8: Palestinian Arabic Long Vowels: Plain and EmphaticThe acoustic effects of Caucasian pharyngealized consonants have already beendiscussed in section 4.3.2. The VT of Udi (Figure 4.6) show centralizing of a sort not atall reminiscent of the Arabic data plotted in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. There is no acousticdata on Interior Salish retracted coronals other than that reported on in the next chapter ofthis dissertation (section 5.2.4).4.4.3 GlottalsAs discussed in sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, glottal articulation is achieved byadduction of the vocal chords. While there may be tongue body movement associatedwith glottals, it varies according to vocalic environment and so cannot be viewed asintrinsic to the glottal segment itself. Given the lack of an intrinsic supra-laryngeal vocaltract configuration for glottals, the effect of a purely glottal gesture should in itself haveno effect on the formant structure of adjacent segments. This can be shown to be truefrom both a perceptual and acoustic point of view. Proving the perceptual relevance offlat formant transitions for /?/, Alwan (1986:106) synthesizes flaa/ sequences with noformant transitions from the /?/ to the vowel. Such tokens are judged as glottal stop initialby her Arabic-speaking subjects, whereas /Taa/ and /isaa/ sequences crucially requireformant movement from the consonant to the vowel in order to be correctly identified.On the acoustic front, Butcher and Ahmad (1987) use /?/ as a touchstone to highlight theformant effects of pharyngeal articulation in Arabic. As phoneticians their understandingis that glottal articulation, since it lacks an intrinsic gesture other than that of vocal foldadduction, is ideally suited as a neutral benchmark against which the supra-laryngealarticulatory effects of other segments can be gauged. In confirmation of this,spectrograms of vowel-glottal sequences in the Iraqi Arabic of Butcher and Ahmad'sconsultants show no transition from the vowel into the consonant (Butcher and Ahmad1987). This is in direct comparison to spectrograms of vowel-pharyngeal sequences,which show F2 lowering and Fl rising as the vocal tract assumes the post-velar114constriction appropriate for A,h/. Klatt and Stevens' (1969) spectrograms of a Lebanesespeaker's /ha-/ and /7a-/ sequences likewise show no formant transitions from theconsonant to the vowel onset. That the supra-laryngeal vocal tract assumes theconfiguration of adjacent segments while the glottis adjusts appropriately for /h/ or /7/ isillustrated by O'Connor (1973), who shows spectrograms of [#hi], [#ha] and [#11o]sequences in which the intial [h] reflects the formant structure of the following vowel.4.5 Summary and conclusionsIt has been demonstrated from language-independent and language-particularfacts that there is an articulatory and acoustic class of uvulars distinct from that of velars.This of course has been known for some time, but the various types of evidence for thedistinction between the two classes are rarely brought together in a way that predicts thedual nature of uvular articulation given its uniqueness with respect to position in thevocal tract and its connections with both dorsal and pharyngeal musculature.The uvular place of articulation distinguishes itself by being at the juncturebetween the extreme posterior end of the oral cavity and the top end of the pharyngealcavity. As a consequence, uvular articulation reduces upper pharyngeal cavity volume ina way that velar articulation does not. This results in high Fl values for uvulars relativeto pre-uvular segments. This is verified by the acoustic examination of uvulararticulation in Semitic and will be shown to hold for Interior Salish in the followingchapter. Furthermore, while the velars and uvulars contrast in many languages, there arealso clear phonetic (and phonological) affiliations between the two since both velars anduvulars are made by dorsal gestures to the front (velars) or rear (uvulars) of the soft palate(see Cole 1987, McCarthy 1989, 1991, Elorrieta 1991).With respect to pharyngeals, there appear to be two types: those with a relativelyhigh constriction in the pharynx, and those with a relatively low constriction in thepharynx. No language contrasts an upper pharyngeal, a middle pharyngeal and a low115pharyngeal. In those (rare) cases where a phonemic contrast is maintained between twotypes of pharyngeals, a laryngeal component is evident in the lower one. This is certainlytrue in the description of Caucasian 'deep' or 'emphatic' pharyngeals. Another example ofpharyngeal articulation with a phonemic laryngeal component is found in the InteriorSalish contrast between /f/ with /V. In some of the languages the contrast exists withiiw/ and /C'w/ as well. Glottalization is a pervasive feature on all resonants in InteriorSalish- /T'S'w/ are simply patterning as resonants with the laryngeal feature [constrictedglottis] in these cases. This raises the question of whether the Caucasian segments arestructurally to be viewed as glottalized versions of the 'higher' pharyngeals (T'), or aspharyngealized glottal stops (21). The latter interpretation is suggested by Colarusso(1988) given the pervasive secondary pharyngealization in many of the languages whichare reported to have 'strong' glottal stop. In the Semitic languages dealt with here there isno segmental phonemic contrast between upper and lower/glottal pharyngeals and nosystemic contrast between plain and laryngealized segments, although there is of coursethe phonological spread of emphasis which is reported to affect /?/ in several dialects,producing [7]. No study that I have been able to review relates the occurrence of phoneticglottal effects on pharyngeals with the spread of emphasis onto /?/—in other words,descriptions of [7] do not indicate similarity with versions of [1] that have a laryngealcomponent. Articulatory descriptions of pharyngeals in Semitic and in Interior Salishindicate a fairly broad range of possibilities within the confines of pharynx. Semiticpharyngeals nonetheless maintain a phonological affiliation with 17, h/ which is lacking inInterior Salish. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. The precise nature ofCaucasian pharyngeal articulation remains something of an issue given conflictingreports on Kabardian (Choi 1990) and Ubykh (Colarusso 1988) with respect to voweleffects.Glottals in the languages dealt with here are described as laryngeal gestures withlittle or no affect on adjacent vowels, contrary to both uvulars and pharyngeals.116Whatever the phonetic distinctions in post-velar articulation in Salish, Semitic andCaucasian, a very striking fact is the presence of 'pharyngealized' consonants in all threelanguage groups. The primary acoustic effect of Arabic emphatics seems to be backingof targetted vowels, although lowering is also a factor. In must be borne in mind thatsince the primary emphatics (the Wtbaq consonants) are all coronals, we would not expectthe same extent of Fl raising that is found with uvular and pharyngeal articulation.The situation is not clear concerning the effects of Caucasian pharyngealizedconsonants. One study (Kingston and Nichols 1986) reports Fl raising, whereasColarusso (1988) reports a relatively low Fl and comments on the impression of vowel-raising and slight fronting from pharyngeals and on the pharyngealized vowels reportedfor Tsakhur. On the other hand the data in Catford (1983), plotted in Figure 4.6, showpharyngealized vowels in Udi are clearly centralized in comparison to their non-pharyngealized counterparts. The same is true for the Tsalchur data in Catford (1983).What is being called fronting seems only to apply to back vowels. It is not clear how thegesture which accomplishes CC is related to other pharyngeal gestures in the Caucasianlanguages.Interior Salish retracted coronals are impressionistically recorded as lowering anddarkening vowel quality. It will be shown in Chapter 5 that retracted coronals inNxa'amxcin result in lowered vowel quality, but not as low as that found in theenvironment of uvulars and pharyngeals.117Chapter Five: Interior Salish Phonetics5.0 From acoustics to place of articulationThis chapter turns to an acoustic study of consonantal place of articulation inMoses-Columbia Salish (Nxa'amxcin). The aim of the study is to achieve a reasonableestimate of place of articulation for all the Moses-Columbian consonants, but particularlythe post-velars in the inventory.The investigation itself is divided into two parts, the first of which is presented inSection 5.2, the second in Section 5.3 of this chapter. The first part of the studyestablishes estimates of place of articulation for the Moses-Columbian post-velars throughthe examination of co-articulatory effects on preceding stressed vowels from consonants atall places of articulation in the language's inventory. The resulting data enable (i) acharacterization of the nature and extent of -VC- co-articulation from every consonantalplace (bilabial, coronal, velar, uvular, pharyngeal, glottal) and (ii) a comparison of theeffects of pre-uvular articulation with post-velar articulation as has been done with theArabic data discussed previously. The second part of the study compares pharyngealarticulation across the various Interior Salish languages and evaluates their acousticproperties by comparison to what is known about Arabic pharyngeals. Results of bothparts indicate that Interior Salish uvulars and pharyngeals (i) display the acoustic propertiespredicted by a post-velar constriction site and (ii) pharyngeals on average condition higherFl effects on preceding vowels than do uvulars. Further, glottal stop is shown toparticipate in two effects. It can be transparent to coarticulatory effects from followingconsonants in the configuration -V?C- , or else it manifests itself as varying degrees ofphonetic creak on the preceding vowel, without affecting vowel quality in any observableway.Studies of speech sound acoustics such as the one undertaken here are relevant tospeech production in so far as one can establish a relationship between acoustic events and118articulatory events, thereby enabling an interpretation of acoustic phenomena in articulatoryterms. Section 5.1 makes explicit the general guidelines for the translation of acousticevents into their articulatory counterparts.5.1 The acoustic theory of speech productionThe natural resonances of a uniform tube open at one end are in a 1:3:5 ratio.Assuming that the human vocal tract can be likened to a tube open at one end, and given thedimensions of the average male vocal tract (17cm in length) these ratios convert toresonances at 500Hz, 1500 Hz, 2500Hz respectively by the following formula (Chiba andKajiyama 1941, Fant 1960).1(1) Resonance frequencyn = (2n-1) c / 4 (vocal tract length)c= speed of sound (343 metres/second)Applied to the dimensions of the female vocal tract (15 cm in length) the resultant resonantfrequencies are 572 Hz, 1716 Hz and 2858 Hz.2 Largely as a consequence of the differentdimensions of male and female vocal tracts, the formant frequencies of women's speechtend to be 18-20% higher than those found in men's speech (Fant 1960, Nordstrom1977).3 These general differences in the predicted formant values of female and male vocaltracts must be born in mind when evaluating formant readings and will be of somerelevance in the comparision of Interior Salish data with Arabic.To illustrate the relevant aspects of the acoustic theory of speech production, in'See Chiba and Kajiyama (1941) and Fant (1960) for a detailed explication of the physics behind theacoustic theory of speech production. These three authors are the original references on the topic.2Female and male vocal tracts also differ in terms of mouth cavity dimensions and pharynx length as wellas the size and length of the vocal cords (Chiba and Kajiyama 1941, Fant 1966, Nordstom 1977, Ohala1983).3Nordstom (1977) shows that there is more to the discrepancy between female and male formant values thanphysiology since there is a residue of variation unaccounted for by what is known about the anatomicaldifferences between female and male vocal tracts. Nordstrom (1977) suggests that social, cultural andperceptual factors may motivate manipulation of the vocal tract to exaggerate or enhance physiologicallydetermined differentiation.119Figure 5.9 places of articulation in the human vocal tract are transferred onto threerepresentations of the vocal tract as a tube open at one end. Within the tubes arerepresentations of the amplitude envelope for the volume velocity waves of the first, secondand third resonances respectively, assuming a resonator closed at one end (the glottis): one-quarter of the wavelength of the first resonance fits into the tube (labelled Fl, the topmosttube), 3/4 of the wavelength of the second resonance (labelled F2, the middle tube) and 5/4of the wavelength of the third resonance (labelled F3, the bottom tube). There is a velocitymaximum (or antinode) for all resonances at the lips, and a velocity minimum (or node) forall resonances at the glottis. In Figure 5.9 velocity antinodes correspond to the highestamplitude portion of the resonance waveform. Velocity nodes correspond to the lowestamplitude portion. Assuming a 17cm vocal tract there is an additional velocity antinode forthe second resonance 5.67 cm from the glottis, and a velocity node 11.33 cm from theglottis. For the third resonance there are velocity antinodes at 3.4 cm and 10.2 cm from theglottis (and at the lips, of course, as for all resonances). Velocity nodes for F3 are 6.8 cmand 13.6 cm from the glottis as well as at the glottis. Constriction at a velocity antinodelowers the frequency of the standing wave, whereas expansion at the same velocityantinode raises the resonance frequency. The converse is true for constriction andexpansion at velocity nodes (Chiba and Kajiyama 1941, Fant 1960, Ohala 1990).120F3FzPAL PHARVEL^uv IFigure 5.9: Vocal tract and first three resonances (adapted from Giannini and Pettorino(1982).Using the principles outlined above and armed with formant values one can derive areasonable estimate of place of articulation for a given segment without the intrusion ofphysical investigation of the vocal tract during articulation. For example, a rule of thumbfor conversion between formant values and articulation is that constriction in the frontregion of the vocal tract (hence near a velocity antinode for all three resonances) leads to121low Fl values. Conversely, constrictions nearer the glottis result in higher Fl values sinceconstriction is now nearer a velocity node. By the same token, F2 is high in the case ofpalatal constriction since the articulation is closer to the velocity node for the secondresonance of the tube than it is to a velocity antinode. Thus, for instance, the /i/-vowel ofmany varieties of English, since it is articulated with a constriction fairly forward in thevocal tract, has low Fl and high F2. A high back unrounded vowel will have a slightlyhigher Fl as the constriction moves away from the front palatal region and a significantlylower F2 since the constriction is virtually at the velocity node for the second resonance ofthe vocal tract. Rounding, depending on the gesture involved, can lengthen the vocal tractby lip protrusion and narrow the lip orifice. Both components of labialization lower allresonances (Fain 1968, Lindblom and Sundberg 1971). As a further example, consider themaximally high Fl of pharyngeals. There are two things one might do to raise Fl from itsstanding wave frequency of 500 Hz. One is to maximize expansion at F1's velocityantinode (the lips), and the other is to constrict at F1's velocity node, near the glottis.Pharyngeal articulation does both of course, the jaw lowers, the vocal tract opens like ahorn and the tongue backs into the pharynx.While it is traditionally assumed that Fl is correlated with phonological featuresreflecting tongue height, this is a simplistic and not entirely accurate translation betweenacoustics and tongue configuration. The role of mandibular movement in conditioning Flvalues is made clear in Lindblom and Sundberg (1971), who demonstrate the correlationbetween jaw lowering and rising Fl values given a constant tongue position. As such,mandibular movement plays a role in determining the relative openness of the vocal tract,which in turn is reflected in Fl values. Lindblom and Sundberg's articulatory modellingalso shows the extreme sensitivity of F2 to the position (and shape) of the tongue body inthe mouth. F2 lowers dramatically as the tongue body moves towards the pharynx. F2also tends to be affected by the degree of constriction. In the case of palatal constriction,F2 rises as the constricton narrows, for velar and pharyngeal constriction F2 lowers as the122constriction narrows.Finally, I note that the translation from acoustics to articulation is not always one-to-one (Stevens and House 1955, Atal et al. 1978) and should be accompanied withdescriptive and instrumental articulatory data. The ideal case is for acoustic studies to becomplemented with X-ray or electromagnetic resonance data. At present this kind ofinformation simply is not available for the Interior Salish data examined here.5.2 Moses-Columbian (Nxa?amxcin): A case-study in post-velar articulationTo assess the place of articulation of Interior Salish post-velars I concentrate on dataelicited from four speakers of Moses-Columbian. This is done for several reasons: (i)Moses-Columbian pharyngeals are the easiest to identify within Interior Salish. Becausethey are the most fortis4 of the Interior Salish pharyngeals, segmentation procedures areslightly less problematic and co-articulatory effects can be documented more accurately.(ii) Moses-Columbian has the fullest inventory of pharyngeals found in Interior Salish, viz/c, V, Cw, V w, h, hw/. The other Interior Salish languages do not have the phonemicvoiceless pharyngeals found in Moses-Columbian.5 Since Arabic has both /S,h/,examining the Moses-Columbian inventory enables one to place both voiced and voicelessInterior Salish pharyngeals within a cross-linguistic context. (iii) I was able to gather datafrom three speakers of Moses-Columbian (MM, AB, ED) with a fourth (JM) added fromM.D. I(inkade's recordings. By considering four speakers one can be reasonably sure thatconsistencies across speakers reflect effects specific to the language rather than individualspeakers.While data from all four speakers were analysed, for purposes of illustration in thetext data from a single speaker (MM) are presented. In general, the data presented arerepresentative of coarticulatory effects that are consistent across all four speakers, but there41 use the term 'fortis' loosely here. Nxa'amxcin pharyngeals are less readily confused with vowels (unlessin the context [-aTa-]) than in the other languages.5/1,w/ occurs in only one morpheme in Moses-Columbian. Furthermore, it may be that Okanagan hassome rare occurrences of /11/ (Tony Mattina, personal communication, 1992).123is some variation, particularly in the influence of uvulars (section 5.2.6). Preliminaryinvestigation of data from speakers of other Interior Salish languages (Colville-Okanagan,Coeur d'Alene, Shuswap, Nielkepmxcin) indicate that the findings presented here arereasonably representative of co-articulatory effects found throughout Interior Salish, butfurther comparative study is an obvious need.5.2.1 MethodsAll data collected and analysed here are actual phonological words in the givenlanguage, elicited in citation form with each token repeated twice. In most cases therecordings were made with a Marantz 430 cassette recorder, an AKG D320B uni-directional microphone and metal cassette tapes. Some early recordings were made with aUher 4000 Report 1C and Ampex 631 1/4 inch polyester tape. Most recordings were madein the field, but with considerable care to ensure a quiet environment with no appliancesrunning. To this end I have even waited for refrigerators to cut out and have re-recordeditems if outside noise interferes. A considerable portion of the Moses-Columbian databaseand some Niakapmxcin were recorded in a sound booth and so is of optimal quality. In alllanguages where I was able to record several speakers, the same lexical items wererecorded if possible.Recorded data were digitized at 10 or 12 kHz and analyzed with the waves+program on a Sun or Sparc workstation at the University of Pennsylvania. Some analysiswas done using MacSpeech Lab II at the University of British Columbia. All data analysedwith waves+ were formant-tracked, with the output hand-corrected if necessary.Correction is necessary when formant tracks clearly do not coincide with the placement offormants in the spectrographic display. Such mis-matches are by no means dominant in thedata, but it tended to be a factor with speakers with a relatively high fundamental frequency(typically female), or with speakers whose source characteristics include a high-amplitudefirst harmonic. Such voice-quality characteristics tend to confuse accurate identification of124Fl in particular. As is well-known but little discussed in the literature on spectrography,the wider-spaced harmonics of a voice with a high fundamental simply provide feweropportunities for the instantiation of well-resolved formant structure and so can complicatethe proper identification of all formants. Whenever formant mis-matches arose in the data,both FFT and LPC spectra as well as narrow-band spectrograms were generated to aid inmore accurate identification of formant structure. Formant-tracks can be re-drawn on thebasis of such information and corrected values read into the data-files.The analysis of data from all speakers in all languages focusses on stressed vowelsleft-adjacent to the consonant under investigation. This is because coarticulatory effects inInterior Salish tend to be strongest on vowels preceding a given consonant and withoutstress Interior Salish vowels tend either to delete or reduce to schwa. Two measurementswere taken of each vowel, the first one at the midpoint (defined as the local maximum ofFl, or else of F2 if Fl is steady; if both formants are in transition, the temporal midpointwas taken) and the second one at vowel offset.While the inventory of velars, uvulars and pharyngeals in Moses-Columbiancontains rounded phonemes, I have excluded these from consideration wherever possibleso as to avoid confusing the effects of rounding with the effects of primary place.However, there are some cases, due to shortage of data, where I was obliged to measurevowels in the context of rounded consonants. Where this occurs, it is noted in the text.Table 5.25 outlines the entire Interior Salish database on which the acoustic analysispresented in this dissertation was undertaken, as well as speakers whose data has beentranscribed impressionistically but has not been systematically investigatedspectrographically. Information relevant to the Moses-Columbian place of articulationstudy presented in section 5.2 is given in the first five rows of the table.125Table 5.25: Interior Salish DatabaseII Speaker (Sex) 1 Age 0 Recorded by II Language I^Total V's II Stressed V's IMM (F) 60's NJB Moses-Columbian239 117ED (F) 70's NJB Moses-Columbian506 280AB (F) 60's NJB Moses-Columbian485 266JM (M) 60's MDK Moses-Columbian250 116Total vowels in Moses-Columbian database 1480 0^779^IOther ISLanguages indatabasePF (F) 60's NJB Spokane 133 96MS (F) 60's BC Spokane Pharyngeals onlyAS (M) 60's BC Ch-Kalispel Pharyngeals242onlyI^166CQ (M) 70's NJB Co-OkLC (F) 60's NJB Co-Ok only impressionistic dataavailableLN (M) 70's NJB Coeur d'A 428 I^222BL (F), MSt(F) 60's NJB Coeur d'A only impressionistic dataavailableDS (M) 60's NJB Nte?kepmx 275^I 202JT (M),NJ (F),MJ (F)40's;40's;60'sNJB Nfe2kepmx only impressionistic dataavailableBD (M) 60's NJB Shuswap 181^I 137Total analysed vowels in IS database 2739^1^1602^I5.2.2 Moses-Columbian: an overview(2) presents the Moses-Columbian consonantal inventory for reference purposes.Phonemic vowels are /i, a, u, a/.126(2) Moses-Columbian (Moses-Columbia Salish: Kinkade 1981)Lab Coronal^C^Velarp^t^c (tf)^(ts) k kwp'^c'^(tf')^k' k'wS x xwnrl y^1^wm'^n' r'^y'^1'^w'Uvularq qwq coyX XwPhar^Glottalh hwççwC'wAs noted above, the major effects illustrated here are fairly consistent across all fourMoses-Columbian speakers and can be considered representative of co-articulatory effectsin the language. Further, both impressionistic and acoustic examination of data fromspeakers of other Interior Salish languages suggest that the general findings presented herefor Moses-Columbian can be extrapolated to Interior Salish in general, although furtherwork is required to gauge the full extent of speaker- and language-specific variation.Spectrograms illustrating place-of-articulation effects for some of the other languages in thedatabase can be found in Appendix B. Table 5.26 summarizes the formant values plottedin the following figures for speaker MM and for comparison, summarizes formant valuesfor the same contexts from JM, who is MM's father, recorded by M.D. Kinkade in 1966.Gaps in the table indicate lack of information.In brief, the results of this investigation are that pre-uvulars (labials, coronals andvelars) distinguish themselves from post-velars (uvulars and pharyngeals) by raisingvowels in formant space. Furthermore, velars and labials tend to back vowels, coronalstend to front them. Uvulars and pharyngeals pattern together in lowering all vowels.Pharyngeals lower vowels more than uvulars do. Glottals neither lower nor raise vowelquality.127Table 5.26: Summary of Moses-Columbian articulatory effects: MM and JMI Speaker: M.Marchand (MM) J. Miller (TM)^)Vowel II Nucleus^I Offset Nucleus^I OffsetBilabialsFl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2i 285 2049 245u 528 1212 424 1164a 585 1422 579 1411a 497 1257 511 1074Coronalsi 427 2245 374 2281 420 1939 347 2059u 435 1271 346 1240 429 1126 406 1238a 708 1797 541 1966 587 1501 540 1532a 569 1490 478 1667 475^1654^454^1556Retracted coronalsi 499 2170 397 2319 418 1865 428 1814I; 605 1081 457 1229 652 703a 869 1500 737 1641 765 1360 777 1341q 639 1470 550 1350 568 1280 547 1353Velarsi 416 2170 319 1710 357 2100 367 2143u 609 1284 431 905 445 1318 418 1016a 708 1723 569 1693 618 1468 592 1779a 514 1486 381 1292 479 1785 472 1763Uvularsi 585 2088 633 1950 470 1807 502 1760u 681 1288 572 1119 415 1213 499 1080a 862 1721 835 1669 661 1400 681 1393a^__ 713 1594^_ 735 1616 673 1468 647 1453Pharyngeals (Nw,tiw/ not excluded: see Table 5.27)i 613 1979 601 1618Ua 899 1729 817 1449 722 1301 832 1325a 743 1586 800 1569  663 1498 652 1519Glottalsi 317 2473 355 2527 387 2059 377 2008u 506 996 371 984 428 1091 377 1254a 815 1681 789 1668 555 1539 571 1519aTo illustrate the coarticulatory effects from which place of articulation can beestimated, a series of Fl vs F2 plots of the measurements from Moses-Columbian speakerMM are presented: Figure 5.10 plots all vowels in speaker MM's database, Figure 5.11plots all the stressed vowels and Figures 5.12 to 5.17 deconstruct the Moses-Columbian128vowel space according to place of articulation of following consonant, starting from thecoronals in the inventory and ending with glottals. Bilabial effects are illustrated at the endof the section because there were insufficient data to plot their effects on all vowels. Theplots which follow should be interpreted in the context of the acoustic theory of speechproduction, as discussed in section 5.1. That is to say, the phonological front-backdimension can be viewed as reflected in F2 values, with a high F2 corresponding to aforward articulation. The degree of openness of the vocal tract is reflected in Fl values,with high Fl values indicating an unconstricted, open vocal tract configuration.129Figure 5.10 plots the midpoint values of all vowels, stressed and unstressed, in thedatabase for speaker MM. This will give some idea of the total vowel space for thisspeaker. It is a remarkably triangular system in the sense that /i/, /u/ and /a/ define the threeFl ,F2 extremes of the data in a classic way. The schwa vowel is transcribed as 'E' inthese figures. Moses-Columbian also has a set of retracted vowels, occurring in a smallsubset of roots and cognate with other Interior Salish roots which have lost a historicpharyngeal. The vowels in these roots are transcribed /e,A,o,V/ in this figure, althoughusually they are represented as 49 III Q/. The phonological status of these vowels isdiscussed in Chapter 6.0cJ130_1.0(90o—ie E^E^E^E u uEe .e^ EEE uuue E^Ve i E Ei u uouI V Eti fa EA EA 21 iva^ua^ AAaVEE VE a Et E g „^0 E^2E u^F ^09 °i^lii^E g-^v EjE E E • E^131-o.a-a lifi %a_  z oaa4?^ EA Ea a^aEa a E a^VA4^uE6asa a aA^AE^.aa Aa aaaefa AAaEAA AAAVV-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.10: Moses-Columbian vowels at all places of articulation, stressed and unstressedAs mentioned, Interior Salish vowels tend to delete or reduce in quality unlessstressed, although the different languages vary somewhat as to which option they take. Toeliminate stress shift as a condition for alternation in vowel quality, the core of my analysisis confined to stressed vowels. Figure 5.11 plots the midpoint values of MM's stressedvowels.E u uEE00 _0 _o —700CV —7-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.11: Moses-Columbian Stressed VowelsThe most obvious consequence of eliminating unstressed vowels is to clear out thecentral portion of the vowel space, indicating that stress loss in Moses-Columbian results incentralization. This figure also illustrates the considerable allophonic variation in vowelquality which is characteristic of all the speakers I have examined. For example, Fl valuesrange from 400 Hz to 700 Hz for the front vowel IV, while F2 values range from 2000 Hzto 2500 Hz for the same vowel. In some languages (such as English) this range wouldencompass several phonemic vowel qualities, but in Moses-Columbian the variation is131e .ele^Ii'Gii^ ui^E^V 0 E^00^0,i 'ii^E^Vv v^BJEE u^000i E, E E Eu. a oa oaa a aE A^ua fa aaE IA EE Aa Eak^uE^asAAaala A A1,-^AAE^EE80-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000predictable based on place of articulation of following consonants. This pervasivecoarticulation is also documented for many Caucasian languages with similar inventories interms of consonants at most places of articulation between the lips and the glottis and aminimal vowel inventory (Kuipers 1963, Colarusso 1988, Choi 1990) as is noted inChapter Stressed vowels before coronals 7Figure 5.12 shows vowel quality in the environment of non-retracted coronals,averaging the midpoint and offset values. This gives an extremely simplified, two-pointformant trajectory, illustrating the direction and extent of formant transitions from itsmidpoint to offset. All vowels preceding non-retracted coronals raise somewhat in formantspace, with /a/ raising most and the /i/ vowel minimally affected. Both of these effects areto be expected given the low, back constriction site for /a/ and the high front constrictionsite for /i/.F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.12: Moses-Columbian Vowels before Coronals5.2 4 Stressed vowels before retracted coronals /s, c, 1, 17Figure 5.13 plots the same data for vowels before the retracted coronal series.132A8 _00Comparison of Figure 5.12 with 5.13 shows that retracted vowels are somewhat loweredin vowel space compared to non-retracted ones, especially /A/, and that retracted vowelsraise somewhat at offset, presumably in response to the coronal component of thefollowing consonant. In every case midpoint values for these retracted vowels are lowerthan their non-retracted counterparts.-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.13: Moses-Columbian Vowels before Retracted CoronaIs133i-2000F2(Hz)Spkr:MM30005.2.5 Stressed vowels before velars 1k, le,x/Turning to velars, the effects found here are entirely consistent with a high, backarticulation. Figure 5.14 shows how each vowel is raised and backed in formant space. /a/is least affected in the F2 (i.e. front-back) dimension.Figure 5.14: Moses-Columbian Vowels before Velars1348X-00NI;.a5.2.6 Stressed vowels before uvulars /q,q1,x/Figure 5.15 shows the effect of uvular consonants on vowels. Comparing theposition of midpoint and offset values of vowels before coronals and velars with thosebefore uvulars, it is clear that a consistent consequence of uvular articulation is that of Flraising. For example, to take velar (Figure 5.14) as opposed to uvular articulation (Figure5.15), there are several indications of the lowering effect of uvular articulation. First, atmidpoint, vowels before uvulars have higher Fl values than their -VK- counterparts. Thisis true for all vowel qualities. Second, Fl values at offset remain high for all vowelqualities. Third, in all cases the nucleus and offset Fl values of vowels before uvulars ishigher than either the onset or offset Fl value of vowels before velars. The same array offacts hold for a comparison between uvular and coronal effects.-3000^-2500^-2900^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr MMFigure 5.15: Moses-Columbian Vowels before UvularsF2 effects from uvulars are most pronounced on the /i/ vowel, where F2 lowers by138 Hz. This is /a/ hardly shifts at all on the F2 dimension, and schwa moves forward alittle bit. The /u/ vowel here shows a high Fl and low F2 at the midpoint, but Fl and F2lowering at its offset. This is because the vowels in the forms analysed here are followedby a rounded uvular. The rounding then has the effect of lowering Fl and F2 at the135vowel's offset and thereby counteracting the effect of pure uvular articulation.Considering the raw formant values for vowels in the context of uvulars for bothJM and MM, it can be seen that JM's values are in all cases not as high as those recordedfor MM (Table 5.26). This is to be expected given the difference in female and male vocaltract dimensions, as already discussed. These differences must be born in mind, sinceMM's values for uvular articulation as given in Table 5.26 are high compared with thosenoted in Tables 4:18 and 4:19 for Arabic uvulars. At face value this would indicate that theColumbian uvulars are articulated with a constriction further back in the vocal tract than theSemitic ones. However, JM's data are closer to those recorded for Arabic uvulars, whichis to be expected insofar as the Arabic studies analyse male speech. Furthermore, datafrom two other (female) speakers of Moses-Columbian (AB and ED) suggest that there issome genuine variability in uvular articulation not related to the known artifacts of speakersex. Uvular data from both AB and ED show greater F2 lowering than Fl raising in thecontext of uvulars and in this respect are very similar to their Arabic conterparts, for whichnoticeable F2 effects are often reported.There is also some evidence that variation in uvular articulation is common acrossInterior Salish. Data from Colville (CQ) show a similar profile to that found for Moses-Columbian as spoken by AB and ED, that is to say, greater F2 lowering than Fl raising(see Appendix B). These mixed results suggest that uvular articulation in Interior Salishmay be accompanied by variable decrease in pharyngeal volume either because thearticulation is sometimes made at the extreme end of the soft palate, or because there isaccompanying general pharyngeal constriction. This in turn might be understood toindicate that Salish uvulars sometimes have a 'pharyngealized' variant. However, it wasnoted in section that Caucasian /cir/ is perceived as raising vowels, that is to say,lowering Fl (Colarusso 1988). This does not appear to be the case with the Salish dataexamined here, where there is unambiguous Fl raising for uvulars in data from MM andJM, although less so in data from ED and AB. A more detailed understanding of variation136in Interior Salish uvular articulation and a close comparison of the Salish data withCaucasian material is obviously desirable, but will have to await further research.6 Fornow I note that the phonetic variation in Salish uvular articulation reflects the production ofvery back as well as slightly less back articulations.For the most part the acoustic results reported here confirm the impressionisticallyderived observation prevalent in studies of Interior Salish that vowels before uvulars lowerin quality compared to a pre-uvular articulation (see Table 5 for a summary of theseobservations). These results are also in line with the predictions made by acousticmodelling studies, in which post-velar articulation is cued by relatively high Fl values(Klatt and Stevens 1969, Alwan 1985).13760ne problem in carrying out such research is the real paucity of data on those Caucasian languages withpharyngealized uvulars.5.2.7 Stressed vowels before pharyngeals /C,C',Sw,C'w,h,hw/Figure 5.16 shows the effect of pharyngeal articulation on /i,a/ and /a/, collapsingthe effects of both rounded and unrounded pharyngeals. There are no cases of /u/ beforepharyngeals in the database. Compared to pre-uvular consonantal effects, all vowelsbefore pharyngeals lower dramatically. All tokens of the /i/ vowel represented here arefollowed by /?w/, the effect of which is to lower and back the vowel considerably.Rounding effects can be seen most dramatically on /a/ in the environment of the voicedrounded pharyngeal, where a very low value is recorded at midpoint, but a higher andbacker value is found at offset, thereby obscuring the full extent of lowering.F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.16: Moses-Columbian Vowels before PharyngealsIn order to separate the effects of rounding and voicing of pharyngeals, Table 5.27gives formant values for vowels in the various pharyngeal environments. Gaps in the tableindicate gaps in the database for this speaker. As has been mentioned, the effect ofrounding is to lower formant frequencies as a consequence of constriction at a velocitymaximum (the mouth) for all three formants. This can be seen clearly for Nw/ as well as/hw/• The form recorded here, [26hwa?] 'cough, have a cold' is the only morpheme in the138language in which itiw/ occurs so I have given formant values for both examples of thisform. The high offset Fl reading for the second token (1053 Hz) suggests that rounding isnot affecting Fl at the point the reading was taken in this token. Kinkade (1967) reportsthat the stressed vowel in this form is fronted and fully rounded in anticipation of thefollowing ihw/.The F2 values recorded on /a/ and /a-vowels before unrounded pharyngeals are inthe range of those found for MM at the offset of /a/ when followed by a coronal, whichwould account for the impression of a non-backed vowel, but Fl values are much higherthan those found with V-coronal sequences. The combination of relatively high F2 andhigh Fl gives the effect of low, relatively front vowel.Table 5.27: Plain, rounded, voiced and voiceless pharyngeal effects (MM: Moses-ColumbianNucleus Offset Nucleus OffsetFl^1 F2 Fl^1 F2 F!^1F2 Fl^1 F2Vowel -T -Swi 613 1979 601 1618Ua 952 1718 714 1437a 955 1690 924 1633 576 1375 592 1275-h _hwia 789 1778 812 '1876a 937 1767 898 1804 734, 731154915517541053152517051395.2.8 Stressed vowels before glottalsFinally, Figure 5.17 plots vowel quality in the environment of glottal stop. Thedatabase does not contain examples of -V!h- sequences, but they are not reported to havean effect any different from /?/, although of course they will not make a preceding vowelcreaky.813000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.17: Moses-Columbian Vowels before GlottalsAs can be seen, coarticulatory effects from glottals are minimal. Vowels followed byglottal stop commonly show one of two effects. Sometimes there is minimal formantmovement, as on the /i/ vowels plotted here, and the vowel is simply creaky. Frequentlyhowever, the glottal stop is transparent to coarticulatory effects on the vowel from theconsonant following it (-WC). In such cases the vowel preceding /?/ is affected as if theglottal were not there. This effect can be seen in Figure 5.17 on the /u/ vowel, which in thetokens plotted here is followed by a coronal and shows therefore a raising and slightfronting effect. There are many cases of both transparency and creak on preceding vowelsin the total Interior Salish database, and there are cases which combine such effects. Toillustrate glottal transparency, Figure 5.18 shows the effect of uvular articulation on animmediately preceding [i] vowel in the form [ciqn] 'digging'. This can be compared to the1406000500040003000200010000.0^ C.^ 0.3^ r.4mm29.dFigure 5.18: Uvular effects: ciqn 'digging' (Moses-Columbian:MM)0.6form [kn pq?q] 'I'm cooked, done' in Figure 5.19, where the intervening glottal stoppermits the uvular to affect the offset of the [i] vowel in a similar way. Both tokens arefrom MM, the same speaker whose data have been plotted all along.1416000um210.dFigure 5.19: Glottal transparency: kn p'i2q 'I'm cooked, burnt' (Moses-Columbian:MM)In no context does /2/ lower a preceding vowel. Vowels are sometimes reportedwith more lax allophones before glottals, but never with the full lowering effect of uvularsand pharyngeals. Of course, glottals do not raise vowels in the way that pre-uvulararticulation can either. Given that co-articulation is cleary the norm in Interior Salish,glottals are unique in not imposing a co-articulatory effect on preceding vowels. It must benoted however that there are no cases of [a/2], but only of [all]. It would appear that thecontrast between /a/ and /a/ is neutralized in this environment.5.2.9 Bilabials and SummaryUnfortunately, the database for MM contains no tokens of bilabial /p, p'/ right-adjacent to a stressed vowel. There are a number of examples of /-Vm/, but it is difficult toabstract the effect of nasal resonances and anti-resonances from the waveform so as to14200 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.640a .d0.1^0.260005000400030002000100000013954—6977--6977isolate reliably the effect of labial closure. However, Figure 5.20 shows an example ofMoses-Columbian bilabials having the expected effect of lowering all formants, given thatclosure takes place at a velocity maximum for all resonances of the vocal tract. Thisparticular example (from speaker ED) is all the more striking since the /p/ occurs after /17with its characteristically high Fl. At midpoint of the vowel-pharyngeal sequence Fl is885 Hz, F2 1807 Hz, F3 2654 Hz. At offset the values are Fl 687 Hz, F2 1657 Hz. F3has disappeared. This form also shows the glottal effects discussed above. While the rootis phonologically 4yaT', the glottalized pharyngeal is realized as creaky offset, possiblyfollowed by Pt In either case, the glottal aspect of /C7 is clearly transparent to formanttransitions triggered by the following /p/.Figure 5.20: Moses-Columbian labial effects: yaVp(qin) 'many, lots': Speaker: EDThis investigation of Moses-Columbian has shown that consonants at every placeof articulation trigger coarticulatory effects reflecting the place of articulation of theconsonant itself. The exception is the class of glottals, which render preceding vowels143creaky and do not themselves affect preceding vowel quality, although they may betransparent to effects from following consonants. Bilabial, coronals and velars patterntogether in conditioning relatively low Fl values on left-adjacent stressed vowels.Uvular's, pharyngeals and retracted alveolars pattern together in that these and only thesesegments are preceded by vowels which are consistently higher in Fl (and hence lower inquality) than those found in other consonantal environments. The main acousticmanifestation of this is raising of the first formant although there are clear F2 effects also.Both effects can be linked with reduced pharyngeal cavity volume.Table 5.28 collects the averaged values at offset for vowels at each place ofarticulation. In effect it is a summary of Tables 5.26 and 5.27. The values recorded in thistable for pharyngeals are those found in the environment of unrounded pharyngeals,specifically in the context of/-h/ for the a-vowel, and of /-S/ for the a-vowel. Full details ofpharyngeal values are given in Table 5.27. There are no examples of /i/-pharyngealsequences. This is because there were no cases of stressed /i/ before a pharyngeal in MM'sdatabase. There are /i/-pharyngeal sequences in the database for several other Moses-Columbian speakers though. For example, [kihana2] 'teenage girl' (Figure 5.48) shows anFl reading of approximately 800Hz at the vowel-pharyngeal boundary. F2 is in the 2400Hz region, having lowered from 2800 Hz. The Fl value here is higher than the reading fori/-uvulars given in Table 5.28, reflecting a more open vocal tract configuration.Uvular and pharyngeal effects are obviously distinct for /a/ and /3/: Fl is lower inthe environment of urffounded pharyngeals than it is in the environment of unroundeduvulars. F2 values are roughly comparable for the /a/-vowel, but /a/ before pharyngealshas a higher F2 than before uvulars. This would make it more front. Further confirmationof the observation that pharyngeal articulation conditions a higher Fl than uvulararticulation is presented at the end of section where the spectral attributes of// andN are contrasted.Glottals do not lower /V or /u/ in any way. The values found here are comparable to144those found in pre-uvular environments. The /a/ vowel is extremely interesting. It has anaverage Fl of 789 Hz before glottal stop, 924 Hz before pharyngeals and 835 Hz beforeuvulars. a/-7 is thus not as low as before uvulars or pharyngeals, but it is lower than beforepre-velars. This is consistent with the hypothesis that pre-velars tend to raise precedingvowels, post-velars lower, and glottals have little to no effect since they do not have asupralaryngeal gesture other than lack of constriction to impose on the preceding vowel.As a consequence, they neither lower nor raise preceding vowels.Table 5.28: Moses-Columbian ilace of articulation effects summarized: offset valuesV Labials^Coronals(JM) ('VelarsL(MM)Uvulars(MM)Pharyngeals(MM)GlottalsOMI^Fl F2 IJ Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2i 245 374 2281 319 1710 633 1950 355 2527u ' 424 1164 ' 366 1240 319 1710 572 1119 371 984a 579 1411 541 1966 569 1693 835 1669 924 1633 789 1668a 511 _1074 478 1667 381 1292 735 1616 898 18045.3 Pharyngeal ArticulationThis section seeks to clarify the empirical and phonetic issues of Salish pharyngealarticulation namely, whether the relevant segments are indeed pharyngeal in place (they arereported to have a uvular component in some languages), what their manner of articulationis and how they compare to what is known about pharyngeals in other languages, inparticular, Arabic. First, Section 5.3.1 briefly reviews the relevant aspects of Arabicpharyngeals so as to establish points of reference for the Salish data. Then in section 5.3.2the results of spectrographic and waveform analysis of pharyngeals from six of the InteriorSalish languages is presented and compared to the Arabic data. In general the results ofacoustic investigation support Kinkade's (1967) analysis of a set of pharyngealsthroughout Interior Salish and indicate that Salish pharyngeals are very much like theirArabic counterparts in terms of manner and place of articulation.By way of summarizing the results of this investigation of Interior Salishpharyngeals, Table 5.29 collects formant information on all pharyngeals represented145spectrographically in the text. In brief, it is quite clear that high Fl is a consistent cue toSalish pharyngeals as it is with Arabic ones. F2 tends to be quite sensitive to adjacentvowels, as is reported for Arabic also (Alwan 1986). The Fl range in these data are 495Hz to 1052; F2 from 1138 Hz to 2021 Hz. F2 is highest in the context of following /V. Flis lowest in the context of a rounded pharyngeal. It is impossible to say, without thebenefit of X-ray or comparable data, that the Salish pharyngeals have 'the same place ofarticulation' as the Arabic ones. However, of direct relevance in the comparison of Salishwith Arabic is that the range of Fl values documented here for Salish is directly comparableto that found for Arabic (section 4.4.1).Table 5.29: Formant values of Interior Salish pharyngeals examined in textFigure H Language If Speaker If Segment^if Fl (Hz)^if F2 (Hz)^H F3 (Hz)^I21 CEArabic SW #Ca- 964 139321 #Sa- 818 1633 224123 -afi- 882 1595 214024 #ha 1052 1630 275025 Chewelah AS #si- 689 118027 Spokane MS #Si- 695 1434 288728 PF #si- 732 1273 280429 -S# 875 1239 278830 -aT'C'm- 807 1281 290831 Colville CQ #Ti- 712 1462 226432 -f# 826 1469 256933 -Sp 802 1449 246334 Coeur d'Al -LN Via- 658 1246 235135 -cTs- 616 1478 219836 -Ef'wn- 495 1440 164237 Shuswap BD #1i- 678 1419 223938 PTP- 760 1203 237439 #1S'i- 894 1241 230040 NI DS #Si- 727 1429 211341 -aSp# 559 1141 211642 -c# 799 1138 242243 Ms-Cm AB #Swa- 703 1438 187144 -aTa- 1051 1615 244545 -af'S'a- ' 865 1782 247546 #hi- 832 2021 252247 -h# 1034 1706 259348 -iha- 811 2361 282349 -ahwa- 620 1613 23861465.3.1 Arabic pharyngealsThe phonetics of Arabic pharyngeals are discussed in section There areseveral salient details for purposes of the ensuing comparison of Arabic pharyngeals withSalish which I outline here: (i) Arabic pharyngeals are produced with a constricted pharynxalthough descriptions vary on how this is achieved and the exact location of the maximalconstriction; (ii) /5/ is often 'creaky' and/or glottalized on release; further, [2] is sometimesan allophone of IS/; (iii) /5/ is a voiced approximant in Iraqi (Butcher and Ahmad 1987),reported as a spirant in Palestinian (Blanc 1953), as fricative-like in Tunisian (Ghazeli1977), a sonorant in Lebanese (Klatt and Stevens 1969); (iv) /h/ is a voiceless spirant inMoroccan (Harrell 1957) and Palestinian (Blanc 1953) or approximant in Iraqi (Butcherand Ahmad 1987), produced lower than /5/. Some descriptions suggest the constrictionarea is less for fh / than /V. (v) Fl is high for both /5/ and /h/, whereas F2 tends to be low(Butcher and Ahmad 1987, Laufer and Baer 1988, Alwan 1986, Ghazeli 1977).The realization of /1,h/ is more readily appreciated by reference to spectrograms,where the manner of articulation is visually observable. The literature contains a number ofexamples of pharyngeals in various Arabic dialects, as noted in the previous paragraph.Below are several examples of pharyngeal articulation in Colloquial Egyptian Arabic asspoken by a male native speaker in his early thirties (SW). All forms analysed here wereelicited in the same way as the Interior Salish data, that is to say, they are citation forms ofwords existing in the language, with each token repeated twice. Colloquial EgyptianArabic is reported to have emphatic as well as plain pharyngeals (Mitchel 1956, Khalafallah1969, but cf Harrell 1957 who says he cannot tell the difference between emphatic andnon-emphatic uvulars or pharyngeals). The examples below are of non-emphaticpharyngeal articulation so as not to introduce the complication of emphasis into thediscussion.Figure 5.21 is of the word [Sadu] 'enemy'. The uppermost display in this andfollowing figures of this sort, is of course the spectrogram itself. Immediately below the1470.6 070.2^0.3a0.4^0.50 0132006600-66000.0 0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7sw112.d0.1 0.2C o1320C660C———-660C-- •3w112.101.g.d1r••spectrogram is the corresponding waveform, on a matching time-scale. The large-scaleexpanded waveform at the bottom of the figure is provided to facilitate closer examinationof the moment of pharyngeal articulation in the token. The expanded waveform is alwaysof the pharyngeal segment in question with as much adjacent material as can be included.The black line beneath the unexpanded waveform indicates the portion which is expandedin the lower display.Figure 5.21. Saciu 'enemy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)The expanded waveform in Figure 5.21 shows this word-initial voiced pharyngealhaving a period of more than 100ms very low amplitude but fairly regularly voiced148initiation, corresponding to low-frequency (1000 Hz and below) energy on thespectrogram. There is no 'burst' portion such as found by Butcher and Ahmad (1987)with some of their Iraqi tokens. Butcher and Ahmad (1987) report an average Fl of 964Hz, F2 of 1467 Hz at the pharyngeal-vowel boundary of the form [Taft For [Ta!du]'enemy' values at the pharyngeal-vowel boundary are Fl 921 Hz, F2 1393 Hz and F3unreliable. There is no appreciable evidence of frication in these or Butcher &Ahmad's(1987) forms. The Egyptian form is thus quite comparable to the Iraqi fonns7.1497With one exception: the duration of the pharyngeals in the two tokens of [cadu] 'enemy provided by SW isamost twice that of the example in Butcher and Ahmad (1987). Too much cannot be made of this differencethough, since there are insufficient data from SW to make reasonable statements about the duration of hispharyngeals.Compared to the waveform (shown here expanded) of the word [?aiwa] 'yes' inFigure 5.22, the peculiar properties of initial [f] are obvious: in the Pad sequence there isno comparable period of low-amplitude wave-form and instead the waveform immediatelyand regularly gains amplitude as it moves from release of the glottal into the vowel. At theglottal stop-vowel boundary of Paiwa] Fl is 818 Hz, F2 1633 Hz. F3 is not visible butthe formant-tracker provides 2241 Hz. Thus, Fl is just over 100 Hz higher and F2 240 Hzlower in [cad as opposed to [2a-]. Note also that there is no formant movement in [?aiwa]until the [a] shifts into [i], at which point Fl lowers and F2 raises. Critically, there is noformant transition at the [2-a] boundary, indicating that the supra-laryngeal vocal tract is in aposition for [a] as it forms and releases the glottal stop.sw83.expandedAFigure 5.22: ?ai(wa) 'yes' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)The voiced pharyngeal, when intervocalic as in [sali:d] 'happy', does not have theperiod of low amplitude initiation seen above in Figure 5.21.1500 0^0.1^0.2^, 0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4sw24.dVA.^.0.1 0.200Figure 5.23 shows intervocalic [1] to be entirely resonant, although close inspection of theexpanded waveform suggests that the [1] is none the less relatively constricted compared toflanking vowels, having a curiously jagged' waveform at a point corresponding to thetranscription of a pharyngeal. Isolation and playback of this portion of the waveformconfirms that this is indeed the most pharyngeal moment. Finally, this form shows clearraising of F2 and lowering of Fl as the vocal tract moves towards the following [Nvowel.This of course is entirely in line with the documentation of pharyngeals with high Fl andlow F2. Formant values at the point of maximal pharyngeal constriction in this token asjudged from the period of low amplitude waveform are Fl 882 Hz, F2 1595 Hz, F3 2140sw24.expanded.dFigure 5.23: saTal 'happy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)151As a final reference example of pharyngeal articulation, consider Figure 5.24. Thisshows a word-initial voiceless [h] in the form [halal)] 'he milked'. The expandedwaveform in this case is very much like that reported by Butcher and Ahmad (1987)indicating a noisy unvoiced sound with an aperiodic, fricative-like waveform. The higheramplitude portion may indicate the difficulty controlling regular air-flow through theconstriction site for [h], as well as the considerable force with which air is forced throughthe constriction. At the pharyngeal-vowel boundary Fl is 1052 Hz, F2 1630 Hz, F3 2750Hz.00^04^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^1 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0sw94.d1 68423421.**0444#01)****6"1111152I I0.2sw94.exica1ded.d.^t^.0.3 0.4-3421 ---—00Figure 5.24: halab 'he milked' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)5.3.2 Interior Salish Pharyngeal ArticulationAs mentioned, the proper identification of what are now termed pharyngeals inInterior Salish historically has been something of a problem. The sounds are often difficultto hear as consonants and descriptions of their place of articulation vary between uvular andpharyngeal, depending on the language. This has been discussed in order to address the question of what Interior Salish pharyngeals are phoneticallyand how they might vary across the different languages, this section presents the results ofacoustic analysis of samples of pharyngeals from each of the Interior Salish languages.Collection and analysis methods are as documented in Section 5.2.1 of this chapter. Kalispel-SpokaneFrom a phonetic point of view, as we shall see, it was not unreasonable for Vogt totranscribe VV in sequences in Kalispel where in other Interior Salish languages apharyngeal-vowel sequence is usually transcribed8. Phonologically, the transcriptionmakes less sense, since pharyngeals pattern as full-blooded consonants in terms of CVC-and -(V)C reduplication throughout IS and behave as consonantal resonants with respect tosvarabhakti vowel insertion and the phonetic manifestation of glottalization. Thephonological behaviour of Interior Salish pharyngeals is discussed fully in Chapter 4.By way of examining the sorts of sounds Vogt (1940) transcribed as double -aa-vowels, Figure 5.25 is a spectrogram of the form [Sieast] 'char' as spoken by AlexSherwood, a Chewelah9 speaker recorded by Barry Carlson in 196910. Although this is aword-initial pharyngeal as in the Colloquial Egyptian Arabic form [Tactu] 'evening' (Figure5.21) there seems to be little indication of extreme constriction at onset. One token for ASshows some initial noise before voicing begins. The one given here shows less but the8Vogt was dealing with a very limited corpus and may not have had forms with pharyngeal reduplication.However, he did know Reichard's Coeur d'Alene material as noted in Section (1972:iv-v) notes that Chewelah is 'virtually identical with Kalispel but is considered distinct bythe Indians'.101 thank Barry Carlson for allowing me to analyse data from Alex Sherwood and Margaret Sherwood.153015460005000^-E4000^-F300020001000waveform in all cases transposes very quickly into what sounds like a regular, voiced [a]with Fl 689 and F2 1180, indicating a low, open articulation comparable to the BE /a/ of'father'll."T'"'' "I^''"I"^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I5^ 1.30.1^0.2 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^4 foo22.d 0.1 0.2 0.3foo22.big.dFigure 5.25: Tiedst 'char' (Chewelah/Kalispel: AS)Figure 5.25 (and 5.27, 5.28) should be compared to Figure 5.26 of the Moses-Columbian word [?ay' kw4st] 'tomorrow'. This form shows an [-ay-] sequence, withoutthe influence of a pharyngeal. The contrast is relevant since the form Mast] 'char' couldbe, and sometimes is, transcribed as [Tayast]. It is not an unreasonable transcription, andlimy own formant values for the BE [A] vowel are Fl 900, F2 1100. Catford (1988:161) cites Fl 750,F2 940 as average values for Cardinal Vowel 5 [A].0 0shows how pharyngeals can give the percept of an [a]-vowel.C C^ C.3^ C.4^ C.5^ C.E^ C.?mrn1Figure 5.26: ?ay' kw4st 'tomorrow' (Moses-Columbian: MM)1556000500040003000200010000 0118285914-5914.......^ . ..I^..■ .1't 1.55112 —0-51127-1—0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4^1.5foo24.d.^...10224 ^ I....Figure 5.27 shows Margaret Sherwood's pronunciation of Fiastrchaf, the sameword given by AS in Figure 5.25, but in Spokane, which appears to have retained somemore consonant-like constriction for the initial pharyngeal. Fl during the pharyngeal is695 Hz, F2 1434 Hz, F3 2887.1560 0^ 0.1^ 0.2ms24.expanded.dFigure 5.27: Ficestrchar' (Spokane: MS)6000500040003000200010001.000018472 'T9236---9236:00^0.1 0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0pf45.d0 0 0.1 0.2184729236-9236Figure 5.28 is of a Spokane speaker in her sixties (PF) pronouncing [Timt] 'getangry'. As with the Kalispel-Chewelah form, word-initial [c] has a period of low-amplitude initiation, but this speaker moves into a full-amplitude vowel more rapidly thanAS and far more rapidly than MS. Fl 732 Hz, F2 1273 Hz, F3 2804 Hz.pf45.big.d157Figure 5.28: Timt 'get angry' (Spokane: PF)600050004000300020001000Word-finally PF's pharyngeals tend to voiceless expiration and loss of energybetween formants, as seen in Figure 5.29. Fl is 815Hz , F2 1239 Hz, F3 2788 Hz as thewaveform loses amplitude. F3 in particular decays at offset.0.1^0.2^0.3^0.5^0.6^0.7 pf4b.d158 kO\0.0^0.1^0.2pf46.big.dFigure 5.29: p'aS 'burn' (Spokane: PF)600050004000300020001000919552 ^' 19776-97760.0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6, I „In,,,,,,,^,,,,,,,,^•0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4pf 54.dThat this is a word-final phenomenon is clear from the form [hec ya.T'C'mi] 'peopleare gathering' (Figure 5.30) where the pharyngeal remains fully voiced and fully resonantdespite phonemic glottalization realized phonetically as varying periods of glottal closure(and some creak) after the pharyngeal itself. Formant values are Fl 807 Hz, F2 1281 Hz,F3 2908 Hz at the midpoint of the second pharyngeal.Figure 5.30: [hec yaMmi] 'people are gathering' (Spokane:PF) Colville-OkanaganColville pharyngeals have been described as difficult to hear. Mattina (1987:vii) inhis dictionary of Colville-Okanagan notes that 'the most likely cases of phonetic uncertainty1590. 7n6000s on:-4000:-3000-2000-0074503725-37250.4^0.5^0.6^0.7loc99.d0.0involve the glottalized resonants and the pharyngeals12. The speaker (CQ) who providedme with the forms shown below is a respected story-teller with considerable knowledge ofdialect variation within the Colville-Okanagan continuum. His word-initial pharyngeals(Figure 5.31) start off with what seems to be a characteristic low-amplitude sectionfollowed by gradual increase (full amplitude at 130 ms into the utterance). Formant valuesare Fl 712 Hz, F2 1462 Hz, F3 2264 Hz at voice onset.Figure 5.31: Sitmn 'teeth' (Colville: CQ)12This problem is not specific to Colville though. Low vowel-pharyngeal sequences are notoriouslydifficult to transcribe in proper order without the aid of phonological information. The Nxa'amxcin wordfor 'crow' is transcribed xaixaz,, but one speaker (AB) wrote it variably as 'Oak, nana.1600 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7cq57.dcq57.biq.d60005000-4000-3000-2000-1000-0 p7930.j.^11o 73965-^ye,*Word-finally, [S] tends to voiceless aperiodic release as in the Spokane formsabove. In Figure 5.32 Fl is 826 Hz, F2 1469 Hz, F3 2569 Hz just before cessation ofvoicing.161Figure 5.32: pal 'grey' (Colville: CQ)60005000:4000:3000-2000-ion"- 011411011' T8I14,11:38401I^I^I^1^..I^I^I^■^I^■^I^I^I0.1^0.2 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7cq79.dIH^I 1^.■^1.^,.,.^,^. 1^' 0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3-3840:0 0oq79.expanded.dThis amplitude decay in the waveform occurs before a voiceless obstruent also,with corresponding loss of energy in the higher region of the spectrum. This can be seenin Figure 33 where F3 and F4 pretty much disappear. Fl is 809 Hz, F2 1439 Hz, F3 2475Hz just before amplitude reduction. (F1 is 802 Hz, F2 1449 Hz, F3 2463 Hz duringreduced period).Figure 5.33: [xwuyt ciya^'they have arrived' (Colville: CQ) Coeur d'AleneThe speaker (LN) who provided me with the forms shown below also served as162Reichard's consultant in 1935-36. The form in Figure 5.32 is of a word-initial IV followedby a low vowel which is backed to [a] by the following /r/. I include this form here sinceCoeur d'Alene In is a member of the faucal class for this language and plays a role invarious phonological harmonies which lower and retract vowels (section 0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.31n74.d0.20. 0 0.11n74.1n1g.d600050004000300020001 0 0000010964—0.75482 -istiofft/0004-44-44.0-mw+-4,-----109645482 ———————-5482 —frjThe obstruent quality of the glottal gesture for /?/ is apparent from this spectrogram—theform starts off with a classic stop release. Full amplitude on the vowel is reached veryquickly (within 4 glottal cycles), which again differentiates the articulation of /?/ from /l/.Fl is high (658Hz) and F2 low (1246 Hz), F3 2351 Hz even at voice onset, illlustratingthe well-documented effect of retracted Coeur d'Alene In on preceding vowels. As withAmerican /r/, Coeur d'Alene In lowers F3 dramatically.Figure 5.34: ?ar 'much, plenty' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)Consonant-resonant sequences in Interior Salish are typically phonetically separatedby a brief svarabhakti vowel, the quality of which is determined by consonantal1641215000 0.3 0.5^0.61n219.d0.1 0.40.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.14/Of'1,1 0.11n219.expan3ed.dJ-a-0 0 0.2environment. This is illustrated in Figure 5.35 with the form [cic C6/'[ 'I'm angry'.Figure 5.35: cic Tgy"I'm angry' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)After release of the [s] of Rs], there is a schwa-like vowel of one glottal cycle, then a 70 msperiod of the now-familiar low-amplitude irregular waveform corresponding to the periodof maximal constriction. Fl is 616 Hz, F2 1478 Hz , F3 2198 Hz as voicing resumes.Voicing and amplitude become regular as the vocal tract moves into the following let-vowel. This particular example shows creak coming out of the pharyngeal and going intothe vowel. To my knowledge this form is not transcribed with [V]. Again, as with theSpokane forms above, this phonetic creak is quite different from the realization of1650.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.21n51.d0 0^0.1^0.20.2ilb,^pri 4^rtl^A =A^/I,AJ^/VI^r\ " '7?6 6 L"F "—'1""1"1" l'—{1-1" 1'1^'^I^I^'^I^1 '6000^5000^-E4000^-E3000^-E20001000^0 ^0.0phonemically glottalized /V/. As seen in Figure 5.36 [mcf'wns] 'he broke it', phonemicglottalization of pharyngeals can phonetically decompose into a [?5] sequence, leaving inthis case a period of voiceless aspiration showing the formant transition from [e] to [S"'].This example also shows the low-amplitude start-up for [VI. F3 lowering in this form isalso visible, but may be exaggerated by the rounding on [Tw]. Fl, F2 and F3 at glottalclosure are 546 Hz, 1732 Hz, 2384 Hz. At onset of voicing for [Vv] the values are 495Hz, 1440 Hz and 1642 Hz respectively. These relatively low formant values undoubtedlyreflect the rounding on [M.1n51.expanded.dFigure 5.36: mET'wns 'he broke it' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)1660.4^0.5^0.6^0.739 .d0 0^0.1^0.2^0.325232126160 0 0. 1 ShuswapThe three Northern Interior Salish languages, Lillooet, Shuswap and Nie?kepmxcin(Thompson) are considered a sub-branch of Interior Salish. I deal here with Shuswap andthen Niekepmxcin. The Shuswap pharyngeals are consistent with what has beendiscussed for the Southern Interior languages. Word-initially [1] shows low-amplitudeirregular initiation, with Fl 678 Hz, F2 1419 Hz, F3 2239 Hz (Figure 5.37).bd39.expari1ed.dFigure 5.37: Sipkn 'I'm angry' (Shuswap: BD)167In the form [pfpeCt] 'grey' (the form is reduplicated with syncope of the prefixvowel conditioned by stress loss) Fl and F2 clearly raise from their position right-adjacentto initial [p] and there is mirror-image lowering just before the point of bilabial closure(Figure 5.38). Maximal formant values are Fl 760 Hz, F2 1203 Hz, F3 2374 Hzrespectively. The pharyngeal is very resonant with most excited Fl, F2 and F3, but clearF4 and F5.1681:d116.dbd116.big.dFigure 5.38: pipeft 'grey' (Shuswap:BD)The Shuswap version of [51 can be seen in Figure 5.39. Phonologically the formis^'dragging things around', but phonetically it is [lTi7im] with clear transition to theryi 0 917332 8666-8666stressed vowel just before and during the glottal stop portion of [S']. Midpoint values ofthe pharyngeal portion are Fl 894 Hz, F2 1241 Hz and F3 2300 Hz. F2 and F3 risenotably to following IV.I^"'I""'" 'I"^'^I^'^I^'^I16960005000-4 000 -3000 -2000-1000 -^+ + +^+ + + +^+ +^+ + + +8666-866600 0. 1 0.2^0.3 0.4^0.5bd130.d0.6^0.7^0.8^0.900^ 0.1^ 0.2bd13 0 . big dFigure 5.39: 1Ci2im 'dragging things around' (Shuswap:BD) Nle?kepmxcin (Thompson)Figure 5.40 shows a word-initial pharyngeal, spoken by DS, a male speaker ofIsRekepmxcin. Isolation and playback of the portion preceding transition into [i] suggeststhat this initial consonant has some uvular quality. It sounds much like a uvular trill. Itwas difficult to read format values for this consonant, but the formant tracker provides Fl446 Hz, F2 1386 Hz with F3 unreliable. Readings taken at the point of transition into the/i/ vowel are Fl 727, F2 1429, F3 2113. The increase in Fl from a relatively low 450 Hzvalue to a value otherwise co-occurring with pharyngeals suggests that this segment movesfrom a uvular place of articulation to a pharyngeal one. This speaker also has some creakright at transition into the [i] vowel, a moment clearly corresponding to release of a lowback articulation and into a high front one13.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7s4.d0 8^0.9^1.0^1.1170--w2Aryi1/20.1 0.2ds4.expanded.dFigure 5.40: Sis 'shrink' (1•14e2kepmxcin: DS)It has been mentioned that [Ta, all sequences are difficult to distinguish131t should be noted that DS, recorded in the summer of 1991, had had bronchitis that winter. Laryngealgestures in his tokens cannot be confidently attributed to Nlakapmxcin rather than the left-overs ofbronchitis.0.5^0.6^0.7^0.E.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4ds122.d^iCo 0.1^ 0.260005000 -4000300020001000Co^c21674 —1083710837-10837h-721674phonetically, although there are often phonological processes such as reduplication whichwill serve to order the two segments. It would seem that the diagnostics of low-amplitudeand waveform-shape can be used to disambiguate [Ca, as] sequences. For example, thetranscription of [cCap] 'ripped' as CCVC rather than CVCC is derivable from thecharacteristics of the waveform, see Figure 5.41.Figure 5.41: cCap 'ripped' (Islle?kepmxcin: DS)The waveform is markedly different immediately following release of the initial affricatecompared to the full amplitude vocalic portion preceding the final [p], cf. for example thelow amplitude irregular waveform noted for #S- in Figures 5.25, 5.27, 5.31 and 5.37. Inconfirmation of the analysis of this form as CCVC rather than CVCC, the waveform of /a/171does not expire to low-amplitude before final [p] as it seems to in other cases of MI before aconsonant, such as in Figure 5.38. Of further note is the fact that the 'pharyngeal' portionof this waveform also sounds much like a uvular trill". However, an FFT spectrum takenat the onset of [S] shows the harmonics of the spectrum decreasing in amplitude from thefrist harmonic of 109 Hz (=F0) until a slight amplitude peak at 914 Hz. If this highestharmonic (914 Hz) is interpreted as Fl, then it is very high and suggests a very open vocaltract, which is not consistent with relatively high uvular constriction. On the other hand, atthe transition from [f] to [a], Fl is 559 Hz, F2 1141 Hz and F3 2116 Hz. Fl here is lowfor a pharyngeal and in line with the understanding that while Fl is a cue for 'low'articulations, Fl will be lower for uvulars than for pharyngeals. The vowel's steady statevalues are 600 Hz, 1179 Hz and 2160 Hz respectively.17214 I isolated and played this portion to two phonetically-oriented linguists, both of whom thought itsounded like a uvular trill.Word-finally the 1■14e2kepmxcin pharyngeal seems very much like the Spokaneones, with voiceless aspirated expiration, as in Figure 5.42. Formant values for thepharyngeal are Fl 799, F2 1138, F3 2422.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ds160.d 417314714 7357-73570.0^ 0.1^ 0.2ds160.expanded.dFigure 5.42: paf 'bleached by the sun; grey' (Nlekepmxcin: DS) Moses-ColumbianI turn now to pharyngeal articulation in Moses-Columbian, which is unique inInterior Salish in adding phonemic [h,hw] to a pharyngeal inventory which in the otherlanguages contains only voiced pharyngeals.15 None of the Moses-Columbianpharyngeals I have recorded sound at all uvular-like in the way that some N1eikepmxcinpharyngeals do. Voiced pharyngeals:/C,CY do not occur initially in Moses-Columbian (Kinkade 1967). Instead, Figure5.43 shows word-initial [SW] in the form [Cw611 'bright, shiny, glisten'. The spectrogramof this word shows no energy above 1000 Hz for about 200 ms, matching the long periodof low-amplitude initiation before the vocalic portion begins.17415Although, as noted, /hw/ occurs in only one morpheme and Okanagan may also have /h/.6000+ + + ++ + + ++ + + +500040003000200010000.3i-6839-^.1^I•.. I,... ^.I 0 3^0.1 0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5i0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4^1.5ab156.d0.1 0.2004186-418675--8372ab156.expanded.dFigure 5.43: '1' 'bright' (Moses-Columbian: AB)17560005000r-4000-3000-2000-1000-,1111.60HOWww11,.K,^1.4I^'^I0'.0 0120806040--6040-0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4ab137a.d10.1 0.2An example of intervocalic [T] is given in Figure 5.44. This form is transcribed[nxwaTank] but may better be [neSank/. In any case, the pharyngeal is very resonant inthis position and there is no question of suppressed initiation. It is like intervocalicpharyngeals in this respect, including the Arabic one in Figure 5.23. (F1 1051 Hz, F21615 Hz, F3 2445 Hz).ab137.expanded.dFigure 5.44: nxw(a)idnk 'cave; hole in a hill' (Moses-Columbian: AB)1766000.....,..„,1^1,^,^I^'^I^I^ 1'111'0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ab146a.dThe form [scyaT'S'inix] 'they're having a gathering' (Figure 5.45) shows aglottalized [V] which is phonetically a little different from the Spokane form given by PF,Figure 5.30. While [C'] is still fully resonant and regularly voiced in this form,glottalization is realized with what may be a source effect along the lines of breathiness. Atmidpoint of the first pharyngeal, Fl is 865 Hz, F2 1782 Hz, F3 2475 Hz.abl4E.expanded.dFigure 5.45: scyaT'C'mix 'they're gathering' (Moses-Columbian: AB) Voiceless pharyngeals:Word-initial voiceless [h] is shown in Figure 5.46. [h] has an obvious formantstructure with concentrations of energy in the 1000+ Hz, 1800 Hz, 2500 Hz and 4400 Hz1770.5^0.6ab164a.d0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1regions. The waveform shows a strong aperiodic noise component of varying amplitude,very much like the Arabic [hi in Figure 5.24. Formant measurements taken at the point oftransitions to the following [i] vowel are Fl 832 Hz, F2 2021 Hz, F3 2522 Hz. Thesevalues are not exactly the same as those discussed for CEA [halabi, but of course thefollowing vowel is different. An -ha- sequence can be seen in Figure 5.48. Fl for Moses-Columbian [h] in this form is nonetheless high and in the region of that found with voiced[1].ab164.expanded.d178Figure 5.46: himt 'angry' (Moses-Columbian: AB)Word-finally, as can be seen in Figure 5.47, [h] maintains its formant structure andis similarly noisy, but with reducing amplitude as the constriction is released.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6ab168a.dab168.expanded.dFigure 5.47: ph 'grey' (Moses-Columbian: AB)1790.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4ab171.d0.20.10.0 0.3^0.46000kift1041C.iii1119 ,1099 11.-ab171.expanded.dIntervocalic /h/ does not appear to voice and shows clear movement of formantsfrom the preceding to the following vowel. [h] does not influence the midpoint or steady-state quality of preceding [i] in the form [Icit. nal 'teenage girl' Figure 5.48, although thereare certainly cases where [h] has effects intruding more into the nucleus of precedingvowels. [h] in this form still shows obvious co-articulatory effects of Fl rising and F2lowering as the vocal tract configures for the [h].Figure 5.48: kiha na 'teenage girl' (Moses-Columbian: AB)180I^'^I I^'^I0.0 0. 1 0.2 0.3-F4000-^30007^4-2000710007^4-0 ^t.,^I00194860 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ab181.d0.96000.^An example of [hw] is given in Figure 5.49. Fl and F2 are a little lower than thenon-labialized [h], as would be expected under the influence of rounding. Again there isno voicing of intervocalic [hw]. At offset, the stressed schwa has an Fl of 620 Hz, F21613 Hz and F3 2386 Hz. At the temporal midpoint of [hw] formant values are 931 Hz,1729 Hz and 2000+ Hz.ab181.expanded.dFigure 5.49: ?e hwa? 'cough' (Moses-Columbian: AB)I have not shown that [h] is distinct from laryngeal [h] and uvular [x], the twosegments of which one might suggest they are potential variants. Word-initial laryngeal [h]181is shown in Figure 5.50. In this position it contrasts with /h/. For speaker AB, initiallaryngeal [h] is markedly and consistently shorter in duration than initial [h]: 143 ms vs.244 ms respectively, averaged over four tokens for each type. Intervocalically (six tokens)and before a consonant (four tokens), [h] has a duration close to 200 ms. Intervocalic [hw](two tokens) has an average duration of 202 ms for this speaker. Thus, all /h/ are 200+ms for AB. For speaker ED the distinction in word-initial duration seems to be lessstriking: 132 ms vs. 144 ms averaged over four tokens for [#h-] and five tokens of [#h-]Intervocalically for this speaker, duration of [h] ranged from 75 to 180 ms, but was verydifficult to measure because of heavy coarticulation with flanking [al-vowels (the form is[saelihaha?u) 'neighing').From the expanded waveform of Figure 5.50 it can be seen that [h] does not havethe amplitude of noisy frication that [h] appears to have. In Arabic, /h/ is commonlyreferred to as 'soft h', an appellation which seems appropriate here also, since in contrast to[h], laryngeal [h] seems to me to be noticeably muted, at least in these recordings.1820.30.2frHowever, M.D. Kinkade (pc) reports that /h/ and /h/ are often difficult to distinguish inMoses-Columbian and it appears that in some tokens given me by ED, /h/ has lenited to[h]. Unfortunately, the data do not exist to construct diagnostics based on airflowmeasurements for these two consonants.; : -1-'3 13-1- + + . + +_ + + + , -I- __ -4- -E -E -i- + 3^3 3^-_0.^3331 -1-^• -E -1- -E + k, . -,'1^,14,1:10,1411. 011.:^i+ .; + + .^ev,:!* + -1- -;33h3;33!3wilyfiktid.^.__,,3.i.,1^0 k 7 kw L 1.4'' '^'^'^' I'^'^I i I i i ' I ' 1 f 1^1 ' '1^1 1 I1111 11111i00 0.1 0.2 0.3^0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7^0.ab179a.d 183600050004003002001001292621-621ab179.expanded.dFigure 5.50: ha? kw61"Are you warm (enough)?' (Moses-Columbian: AB)As for the voiceless uvular [x], this fricative too tends to have formant structure,with bands at 1500+ Hz, 3000+ Hz and 4000 Hz. These are quite different from theformant structure of [h] (as in Figure 5.47) which has formants in the region of 1100 Hzand 1800 Hz. The formant structure of [x] can be seen quite clearly in Figure 0.20 0ab51a.diiCoarticulatory vowel effects from uvulars are distinct from those conditioned bypharyngeals and glottals as has been seen.6000184.1.^I,^J0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3ab51a.dFigure 5.51: pax(paxt) 'wise'Finally, to underscore the distinction between uvular, pharyngeal and laryngealarticulation, consider the following four figures. In terms of the spectral attributes ofvoiceless [h], broad peaks at high frequencies are reported for Arabic /h/ (Alwan 1985).Figure 5.52 shows two spectra of Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [h] (taken from the formshown in Figure 5.24) taken at the beginning and middle of [h]. The window size for allspectra shown here is 50 ms.p fmntilincihomehicolakfbiegyptispeechisw94.d: 759.48n1445.1Hz^85.6dB^80. 3dB"604020— 01170.1'^TO—_—__—, .qi i 'W1. 31TrI1'..rl't II I. 4E1000 2006^3000^4000^500010 fmntilinc/hometnicolatdbiegyptispeethisw94.d: 759.56E201. 2Hz^104.1dB^97. 7dB.,^I,^i^i^,^1^1^1^■^1^■100 —eo60 ——40 ..--—20 r--'`)01 .^,`'6itr'q ' I1 000^Zood^iooci^4006^iooOFigure 5.52: Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [hi spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint(bottom).185From Figure 5.52 it can be seen that Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [h] has slightly broaderpeaks than the Salish [h] spectra in Figure 5.53, which are taken at the beginning andmiddle of the first pharyngeal in the form [2ihaha2am] 'neighing' as spoken by AB.0 ilmnt/lincihomeinicola/db/mosesabispeechiab164.d: 1201097.6Hz 90.4dB^86.3dB^90806014020O-'-,-III!.'.:'1^1 ' 'Ill,. ,.^I • i6^ioc6^ioo6^3006^4006^50000 imntilincihomeinicola/db/mosesab1speechlab164.d: 12IQ1061.0Hz^106.8dB^105.4dB10080604020I^14! 1 ,r^1 1 1 I .' " I r1^'1' .1.'16166'''''20I66'''''30l06'.'''40106'''''0'0 '''''''Figure 5.53: Moses-Columbian [h] spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint(bottom)Further, while the Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [h] shows little decline in energy in thehigher energy regions and has a relatively flat spectrum, this is not the case for the Moses-Columbian /h/, particularly in the middle portion where there is a noticeable decline inenergy in the 2500-4500 Hz region. Compared to the spectrum for Moses-Columbian [h]in Figure 5.54, perhaps the most striking difference is the position of F3 relative to F4.These two formants are much closer together for [h] than [h].1862000^3000^4000^5000-2080604020[gi finntlinc/homeinicolaidbArnosesabispeechiabl 79.d: 1601042.7Hz^90.7d8^90.6dB^90Figure 5.54: Moses-Columbian [h] spectra at midpointFinally, with respect to uvular /x/, F3 and F4 are close together as with [h], but thedistance between F2 and F3 is larger than that for both [h] and [h] (Figure 5.55). Fl in thespectra of [x] is in the region of 600 Hz16 and there is a second peak at 1500 Hz. Thesereadings are quite different than those for [hi, viz. 1000+ Hz and 2000 Hz.0 tmntf1incihomeinicola/dbfrnosesa3ispeechiab51 a.d: 24.E0237.8Hz^80.6.8^87.5dB^801111N1111111111111111.111.11.111111.11N11111111111111111111E. 1^.4020-201^.. I rilfI0^1000^2000 3000 4000 5000Figure 5.55: Moses-Columbian [x]: spectra at midpoint.5.4. ConclusionFor the phonological purposes of this dissertation it is important to establish the factthat Interior Salish has segments very much like Semitic is, h/. Given a clear phonetic16Note that this is a case where an unusually high harmonic in the region of 200+ Hz has been picked outas as a peak. This is the FO value for this speaker, but in tracking this as a (formant) peak, the LPCalgorithm has chosen to treat the peaks in the region of 400-800 Hz as a trough between the higheramplitude peaks at 200 Hz and 1500 Hz.187affiliation between Semitic and Salish pharyngeals, their phonological affiliation (or lackthereof) can be explored without the complaint or suspicion that we are dealing withdifferent physiological and acoustic entities.From a phonetic point of view, the investigation I have undertaken replicatesanalysis techniques that render the results reported easily comparable with the vast majorityof investigative phonetic work on Arabic, as well as that reported for Caucasian andKhoisan.There are several directions that further work might concentrate on: first, it isrecorded in the literature that fundamental frequency is lowered in the production of ArabicIS/ (Ghazeli 1977) and on /1, is/ (Alwan 1986, et al.). While this study has notedoccasional creaky voice and voiceless word-final expiration of /5/, it has not presentedstructured information on the topic. The situation in Interior Salish is complicated by thephonemic contrast between /1/ and /17, which does not exist in Arabic. One would notexpect phonetic laryngeal effects on /1/ to challenge consistently the interpretation of /57,since this would neutralize the contrast. Adequate investigation of the FO characteristics ofInterior Salish pharyngeals requires an extensive investigation of the FO characteristics ofother fricatives and resonants in the inventory as well as their glottalized counterparts(where they occur), since these are the two classes of segments to which pharyngeals mightbe argued to belong and from which they must be distinguished. I leave this as a matter forfurther investigation, and simply note here that the descriptive literature does not reportglottal effects on non-glottalized pharyngeals in Interior Salish that parallel the descriptionsof glottal effects on Arabic /1/, and my own investigations do not suggest the same extentof laryngeal involvement in Salish pharyngeals as is reported for Arabic. Second,structured information on formant bandwidths and the duration of the various pharyngealshas not been presented. However, Alwan (1986) found that the voicing contrast had moreto do with conditioning duration on uvulars and pharyngeals than place of articulation, soone would not expect duration to substitute for place of articulation cues. Third, absolutely188no perceptual work has been done17. Alwan (1986) reports perceptual data showing thatpharyngeals can be differentiated from uvulars on the basis of Fl bandwidth. It is hopedthat these shortcomings will be remedied in due course.18917 A potentially interesting experiment would be to isolate and play Interior Salish pharyngeals to Arabicspeakers, and vice versa. I have played Niekepmxcin pharyngeals to a phonetician who is also an IraqiArabic speaker. He immediately identified the pharyngeals as pharyngeals, even though NIelkepmxcin is alanguage in which they are sometimes recorded as somewhat uvular.Chapter Six: Post-velar phonology6.0 IntroductionChapters 3 and 4 have considered the broad typological and the general phoneticaspects of post-velar articulation. Chapter 5 examined Interior Salish data in somephonetic detail, noting that post-velars (with the exception of /2, h/) form a phonetic classwith respect to co-articulatory effects on vowels. This chapter turns to consider thephonological behaviour of post-velars, focussing on data from Interior Salish. Theinvestigation of Interior Salish brings three main results: (i) the phonetic classhood ofpost-velars as examined in Chapter 4 is phonologized in ways which provide evidence fora fourth articulator node; (ii) there are constraints on post-velar activity analogous tothose found in some African ATR systems and some descriptions of Arabic emphasis;(iii) Interior Salish laryngeals are not characterized under the fourth node motivated foruvulars and pharyngeals.In motivating a fourth node Interior Salish parallels Semitic, but the class ofSemitic gutturals does not have a correspondent in Interior Salish. While uvulars andpharyngeals are members of natural classes in both language groups, the Semiticgrouping of laryngeals with uvulars and pharyngeals is unattested in Interior Salish. Thisis despite the fact that the Interior Salish inventory contains all of the segments that makeup the guttural class—that is to say uvulars, pharyngeals and laryngeals. It is also thecase that Contemporary Standard Arabic does not include the uvular stop /q/ in theguttural class, whereas /q/ is not phonologically isolated from other uvular segments inInterior Salish. These facts are of some theoretical and typological interest.190The constituency of the phonological classes attested in Contemporary StandardArabic and Interior Salish are given in Table 6.30, using Coeur d'Alene as representativeof a post-velar class which includes a coronal.Table 6.30: Guttural and faucal classesContemporary Standard Arabic gutturals Interior Salish FaucalsX, g, 5, h, 2, h q, qw, Ce, qiw, X, Xw, 5, 5w, 5% 5'w, (h, hw)Contemporary Standard Arabic emphatics Interior Salish retracted coronals1t, (1, 5, Z g, $, 1, l', r, r', z, z', (0)This chapter begins by outlining the phonological processes motivating the classof Semitic gutturals (section 6.1). Evidence from Semitic for the grouping of emphaticswith uvulars and pharyngeals is also reviewed. The discussion is based primarily on datapresented by Hayward and Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991). As a consequence ofthis research, the Semitic gutturals are currently understood to motivate the inclusion of azone (Hayward and Hayward 1989) or node (McCarthy 1991) by which gutturalclasshood is referenced. Section 6.2 considers the general properties of individualmembers of the post-velar class as it is constituted in Interior Salish. In particular, dataand argumentation are presented for the representation of Interior Salish uvulars with aDorsal and Tongue Root node and for the identification of a class of resonants of whichpharyngeals (but not uvulars) are members (sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.3). Section 6.2.3concludes by considering the broad distributional properties of Interior Salish post-velarsand points to diachronic evidence for the identification of a class of post-velars in thedevelopment of the modern vowel inventories from Proto-Salish */i, a, u, a/.Section 6.2.4 develops argumentation for the class of faucals /r, r', q, qw, q', q'w, x,xw, 5, SW,^S'w/ in Coeur d'Alene, and proposes that a fourth node, Tongue Root, is1/z, z'/ are found in 1•14elkepmxcin and Lillooet (Thompson and Thompson 1992, van Eijk 1985). They aredenti-lateral resonants. The status of retracted /4/ is not entirely clear so it is parenthesized.191required to represent their phonological behaviour. Section 6.2.5 pursues evidence forthe Tongue Root node from the characteristics of Regressive Faucal Harmony in the otherInterior Salish languages. Evidence for the opacity of /i/ to Regressive Faucal Harmonyin Spokane and Kalispel is of some theoretical importance since it parallels somecharacteristics of African ATR systems.Section 6.2.6 examines further phonological evidence for a Tongue Root node byconsidering progressive harmony processes in Interior Salish, again focussing on Coeurd'Alene, but considering the variation in target conditions across the various languages.As with Regressive Faucal Harmony, there are some languages in which /i/ andoccasionally /u/ are resistant to harmony. Section 6.3 considers the application ofconstraints on African ATR systems to Interior Salish harmonies. It is argued that theSalish systems provide evidence for some of the constraints proposed by Archangeli andPulleyblank (1992) to govern the association of [+/-ATR] with height and backnessfeatures. Finally, in section 6.4 the use of the Dorsal features [-high, +back] tocharacterize Coeur d'Alene faucals is considered and contrasted with an analysis whichforegrounds the considerable degree of parallelism between Interior Salish harmonyprocesses and tongue root harmonies of the sort found in many African languages.Section 6.5 concludes by presenting evidence that the Interior Salish laryngeals are notcharacterized under the node Tongue Root, and are appropriately analysed as Place-less.192Coronal^Tongue RootThe representations here proposed for Interior Salish post-velars (as found inCoeur d'Alene) are given in (1) (cf. Cole 1987, Besse11 and Remnant 1989, Besse11 1990,Remnant 1990, Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991, McCarthy 1991, Shaw 1991bDoak 1992).(1) Coeur d'Alene Post-velars/r, r'/^ Uvulars[+son] [-son]I IPlace Place193Tongue Root0DorsaloPharyngeals[+son]I) Placeo Tongue RootGlottals[-son] [+/-cont]Only relevant root node and Place information is shown for those segments withPlace specifications in (1). The use of two articulators for the representation of uvularscan be compared to use of the Coronal and Dorsal nodes for palatals. Phonetic as well asphonological distinctions between uvulars and pharyngeals are fomalized via this doublearticulation.2 The crucial aspect of Interior Salish /?, h/ is that they are formallyPlaceless. Given the Sagey (1986) model of articulator node feature geometry, thistranslates into the representation of r2, h/ without the fourth node which is otherwisemotivated for post-velar segments in Salish. Since there is no evidence in Coeur d'Alenefor a pharyngeal zone or place of articulation such as is motivated by Semitic evidence20ne might appeal to phonetic implementation rules to derive some aspects of the difference betweenuvulars and pharyngeals as given in (1), i.e. that the TR node in combination with Dorsal is realizeddifferently that a pure Tongue Root articulation. Crucially, (1) affords a representation of uvulars andpharyngeals such that they share a node (Tongue Root, in this case) that is referenced for phonologicalpurposes.for the grouping of uvulars, pharyngeals and glottals I continue to use the term TongueRoot for the fourth node, and I assume that it is an articulator node. If Semitic is taken tobe the paradigm case motivating a division into Oral and Pharyngeal zones (see section6.1), and the fourth node should be understood as a Pharyngeal Place node, then theInterior Salish data discussed here unambiguously confirm the observation that laryngealsneed not be characterised by it (McCarthy 1991).3 Furthermore, the geometries proposedhere do not characterize Interior Salish pharyngeals with a Dorsal node since I know ofno processes which require it on pharyngeals (see sections 6.2.1 and 6.4). Languagesmay vary as to which coronals are 'retracted' (Lillooet and Nie?kepmxcin have a retracted/z/ for instance), but otherwise the representations in (1) are proposed across InteriorSalish. The use of continuancy features for glottals is discussed in Chapter 7.6.1 SemiticThe class of Semitic gutturals has been noted descriptively for some time (e.g.O'Leary 1923, Blanc 1953, Ullendorf 1955). Individual members of the class arereconstructed for Proto-Semitic, although it is not clear that the diagnostics for a gutturalclass in Modern Standard Arabic as derived from Classical Arabic themselves date backto Proto-Semitic, although some may (McCarthy 1991). The theoretical significance ofthe guttural class, particularly its implications for the characterization of laryngeals, isnoted by Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979). Formal analyses in current frameworkswere independently derived on opposite sides of the Atlantic by Hayward and Hayward(1989) and McCarthy (1989, 1991).6.1.1 Semitic gutturals31 note here that while the Salish data do not motivate the full details of McCarthy (1991) model they arenot incompatible with it in the sense that the Salish representation of non-Pharyngeal laryngeals can bestipulated. I have maintained the articulator model for the sake of exposition.194As mentioned, it has been recognized for some time that gutturals constitute aclass in Semitic phonology but only recently have formal proposals found their way intothe theoretically-oriented literature. A paper on the topic was presented at the 1987meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain by Hayward and Hayward, amanuscript version of which circulated until its publication as "'Guttural': arguments fora new distinctive feature", in the Transactions of the Philological Society in 1989. Adetailed presentation and discussion of a broad range of relevant data appear inMcCarthy's (1991) manuscript, which also proposes revisions to feature geometry toaccommodate formally a class of gutturals. Drawing on these papers and otherdescriptive sources, the need to refer to gutturals as a natural class can be summarized asfollows.4 In general, the evidence is of five or six types, and here I follow McCarthy'sdivisions. Formalization of the processes outlined below is argued by McCarthy (1991)to require reference to a node Pharyngeal which characterizes the class of gutturals.1. Vowel lowering in guttural contextsSection 4.3.1 discusses the phonetic lowering (and arguably centralizing) effectsthat Semitic uvulars and pharyngeals tend to have on adjacent vowels. This is not aparticularly surprising phonetic fact, since the tongue configuration required for uvularsand pharyngeals involves backing with concomitant reduction of pharyngeal arearegardless of whether a pharyngeal or uvular is articulated. Based on the understandingthat glottal /h/ and /2/ are laryngeal articulations and do not involve tongue activity, onewould not expect laryngeals to pattern with uvulars and pharyngeals by conditioningphonetic effects determined by tongue configuration. Indeed, as has been noted (sections4.3.1.4; 4.4.3) the vast majority of descriptions of Semitic do not record laryngealspatterning with pharyngeals and uvulars vis-à-vis coarticulatory effects on vowels.However, evidence that laryngeals and pharyngeals may condition similar phonetic vowel40f course, a summary cannot do justice to the detail presented in McCarthy (1991) to which the reader isreferred.195quality is presented from Tigrinya (Ethiopian Semitic) by Hayward and Hayward (1989).In Tigrinya the phonemic contrast between /d/ (phonetically [a]) and la is neutralized insyllables with a guttural (N,h,2,h/) in onset or coda position. In such cases, only /a/ isfound, with the vowel quality described as more 'open'. This apparently is also the casein Harari, Gafat and Amharic (also Ethiopian Semitic languages) with Amharic having allof its gutturals reduced to the glottal /h/. Among the Cushitic languages, D'opaasunte hasa phoneme transcribed /A/ which appears as [m] in the environment of gutturals (Ix, G, S',h, 2, h/, where G is an imploded uvular stop) but [E] elsewhere. In these cases /h, ?/ arepatterning with pharyngeals (and in D'opaasunte with uvulars) to condition a lower andmore open vowel quality on the low vowel of the system. Johnstone (1967) reports aninteresting set of data from Eastern Arabian dialects where /a:/ surfaces as [x] except inthe environment of gutturals and emphatics, where the guttural class includes /2/ but not/h/. [a] is recorded in the environment of /2, C/ and uvulars, [a] in the environment ofemphatics and labials.McCarthy (1991) discusses examples of vowel lowering in guttural contextswhich are conditioned morphologically. The roots of Arabic verbs fall into one of fiveablaut classes (for the purposes of forming imperfective and perfective aspects)depending on the quality of the last vowel of the stem. The ablaut class patterns are a/u,aii, Va, a/a, u/u, with membership in the a/a class conditioned by the segmentalcharacteristics of the root. 94% of the a/a roots examined by McCarthy contain a gutturalright-adjacent to the second vowel. Therefore one can argue that a/a roots are derivedfrom a/u and a/i roots by a rule of lowering to [a] in the environment of a guttura1.5 Therule is morphologically conditioned since /V and /u/ are not lowered to /a/ under any otherderivational circumstances. There is also some evidence for the ordering of guttural51t may be that the presence of a preceding /a/ in Guttural Lowering is relevant since only the vowels of theaji and a/u ablaut classes are affected, and u/u roots do not lower to u/a despite the presence of gutturals.McCarthy notes that the u/u class is semantically determined (it consists only of statives), but this wouldnot, a priori, block the application of the rule as stated in (2). McCarthy does not discuss how (2) interactswith the featural specifications of /i/ and /u/.196lowering with other phonological rules of Arabic, cementing the status of gutturals as aphonological (rather than phonetic) class. McCarthy (1991) formalizes the rule ofGuttural Lowering in Imperfect stems as in (2), making reference to the [phayngeal]feature of the guttural class.(2) Arabic Guttural LoweringC^V^C/_]Imperfect Stem[pharyngeal]Furthermore, two rules of Guttural Lowering are proposed for Tiberian Hebrew,.one which is feature-changing, the other feature-filling. Both rely on a similaridentification of the class of conditioning segments as [pharyngeal].2. Root co-occurrence restrictionsHayward and Hayward (1989) discuss co-occurrence restrictions on morphemesin Qafar (Cushitic) which forbid roots to contain homorganic or identical consonants.For the purposes of homorganicity, the guttural segments of the language (IT, ti, h/)function as a class and cannot co-occur in a root. Further, McCarthy (1989, 1991)discusses data from Medieval Arabic and Modern Literary Arabic which likewiseprohibit the occurrence of two gutturals in a root. Segments from other places ofarticulation behave similarly, (3).(3) Arabic Root Morpheme Structure Conditions (McCarthy 1991)a) Labials^/f, b, nilb) CoronaIs ([+sonorant])^/1, r, n/c) CoronaIs ([-continuant]) It, d, , cl/d) CoronaIs ([+continuant]) /0, 6, s, z, $, z (0), /e) Velars^/g, k, q/f) Gutturals /x, lc, C, h, 2, h/197Formally, these constraints can be understood as a consequence of the ObligatoryContour Principle (Leben 1973, Goldsmith 1976, McCarthy 1981, 1986, Odden 1988)which prohibits the occurrence of adjacent identical elements. In order to state thegeneral prohibition against two of /x, i, C, h, 7, h/ in a root, McCarthy (1991) argues thatthe members of this class share a Pharyngeal node in their underlying representation.3. Epenthesis and syllable-final gutturalsMcCarthy (1991) presents data from Tiberian Hebrew where an epenthetic vowelis inserted after syllable final gutturals in unstressed syllables (see also Malone 1984). Asa consequence of this rule syllable final gutturals are rendered syllable initial. No otherclass of segments conditions this rule. Similar processes are recorded in some BedouinArabic dialects (Mitchell 1960, Johnstone 1967, Wright 1966).4. Vowel assimilation across gutturalsJibbali, a Southern Arabian language discussed by Hayward et al. (1988) andHayward and Hayward (1989) has a general rule ensuring that vowels on either side of aguttural are of the same quality. The epenthetic vowel inserted after syllable-finalgutturals in Tiberian Hebrew likewise harmonizes with (or totally assimilates to) thepreceding vowel. Ge'ez (Ethiopian Semitic) has a regressive rule of height assimilationto which gutturals are transparent (see McCarthy 1991).5. Guttural degeminationGeminate gutturals are forbidden in Tiberian Hebrew (Prince 1975, Malone 1978,Lowenstamm and Kaye 1986, McCarthy 1991). McCarthy (1991) notes that the sameprohibition operates in Ge'ez (Lambdin 1978) and Tigre (Raz 1983).1986. Historical mergersMcCarthy (1991) summarizes his sampling of historical merger data within theclass of gutturals, observing that the predominance of merger within the class can beinterpreted as evidence that gutturals share an articulatory node.(4) Guttural merger6Hebrew, Aramaic, MalteseHebrew, Aramaic, Malteseh—>h^Chad Arabic, SocotriT—>2 Chad, Yemenite, Anatolian Arabic, SocotriBefore considering how McCarthy formally represents the class of gutturals asmotivated by the processes outlined in (1-6) above, evidence for a relationship betweengutturals and emphatics must be considered since geometries for post-velars must be ableto account for the behaviour of emphatics as well.6.1.2 Semitic emphaticsThe phonetic facts of emphasis (emphatic consonants induce vowel allophonessimilar to those found adjacent to uvulars and involve some sort of tongue dorsum or rootactivity which reduces the dimensions of the pharynx) might lead one to expectphonological patterning between emphatics and some or all post-velars. The phonetics ofemphasis are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, sections and 4.4.2.Within Semitic, one strand of evidence for emphatics patterning with gutturalsappears to be diachronic in nature and can be reconstructed for pre-Modern Aramaic.Hoberman (1985) reconstructs a regular interaction between emphatics and pharyngealsin the precursor of the modern dialects of Azerbaijan Jews (NW Iran) and Koy Sanjaq61 note here that there do not seem to be cases of uvulars merging with laryngeals, instead uvulars mergewith pharyngeals and pharyngeals with laryngeals. The well-known case of Classical /q/> Colloquial [7] isan obvious candidate for uvular/laryngeal merging, but since /q/ is not a member of the guttural class asconstituted in Classical Arabic it does not bear on the issue of merger within the class of gutturals.199(North Iraq in origin). Neo-Aramaic dialects have a series of emphatic consonants whichbehave much like their Arabic counterparts, invoking spread throughout the worddomain. Interestingly, the physiological correlates of this distinction and its spread inNeo-Aramaic dialects include velarization, labialization, aspiration (Urmi) and evenglottalization (Jewish dialects of Azerbaijan). One of the historical conditions for what istermed "flat" harmony in the Urmi dialect of Iranian Neo-Aramaic is the presence of h, t/or A/ in the old Aramaic cognate. This suggests the inclusion of /1/ in the class ofemphatic/flat segments. The conditions under which /S/ is preserved provide furtherevidence of emphatics patterning with uvulars and pharyngeals. Koy Sanjaq words witheither (i) also contain /q/, or (ii) are cognate with Azerbaijan words that are flat. Incomplementary distribution with A/ is PI , which appears in Koy Sanjaq only if the worditself does not contain /q/ and the Azerbaijan cognate is plain rather than flat. Hobermanhypothesizes that the immediate precursor to Koy Sanjaq and Azerbaijan was a dialectthat had both /2/ and A/ in complementary distribution governed by the appearance of /q/or flat segments within the word: this argues for the exclusion of /?/ from the class offlat/emphatic segments, as also noted by McCarthy (1991).The distribution found in Koy Sanjaq is not a totally isolated phenomenon sincesome Kurdish (Indo-Iranian) dialects also show flat segments in free variation with plainpharyngeals while /q/ conditions the presence of pharyngeals just as it may have in theprecursor of Koy Sanjaq (Kahn 1976, Hoberman 1987, McCarthy 1991). The primarypharyngeals of Kurdish (A, h/) pattern with /q/ and /4, p, P, c/7: a word can contain onlyone of these segments. Borrowings from Arabic with two segments from this class arerestructured to respect these distributional constraints. This patterning can be accountedfor with a morpheme structure constraint referencing and forbidding identical featuralspecifications on If, h, q, s, z, g, t, a. Furthermore, McCarthy (1991) notescorrespondences of the sort Arabic /N:Ugaritic /y/; Arabic /d/:Aramaic /S/ which also7'c' denotes a palato-alveolar affricate (Kahn 1976).200suggest a common element in the representation of emphatics and other post-velars. TheUgaritic correspondence is apparently inconsistent however.Herzallah (1990) discusses some phonological evidence for the grouping of theemphatics of Palestinian Arabic with other post-velars. She cites cases of A, s, 0, z, r, x,y, K/8 functioning as a class for a rule of [-open] dorsalisation which derives the surfacevowel [u] in the imperfective. This particular class does not include the pharyngeals andlaryngeals. A second case from Palestinian involves the emphatics and the entire gutturalclass, viz. A, s, 0, z, r, x, y, K, h, S, h/. This class conditions the appearance of [a] inthe feminine suffix and is analysed by Herzallah as the spread of a specification for[pharyngeal].Data of the sort discussed in the preceding two sections is considered by Haywardand Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991) to motivate a phonologically relevant zone orplace of articulation. This place is termed Pharyngeal by McCarthy (1991) and isintegrated into feature geometry as in (5). This theoretical innovation is discussed insection 2.3.1, the relevant parts of which are repeated here for convenience.2018Herzallah (1990) uses /K/ to indicate the Palestinian reflex of Classical Arabic */q/. It is apparently not asfar back as the Classical /q/, but is distinct from /k/ derived from Classical Arabic */k/, which is notpalatalized by all speakers.(5) McCarthy (1991)[back]A major innovation in (5) is the division of Place into Oral and Pharyngeal,reflecting two zones/places of articulation in the mouth. Features and nodes under Oralremain as they were, but the Place node Pharyngeal dominates three possible features:[pharyngeal], [radical] and [dorsal]. The feature [pharyngeal] exists to make thedistinction between class nodes (such as Oral and Pharyngeal) which 'specify featuralsubgroupings' (to quote McCarthy 1991:53) and terminal features which can codephonological distinctions. The feature [radical] refers to the tongue root as an activearticulator. The feature [dorsal] functions under either the Oral node or the Pharyngealnode and indicates active articulation of the tongue body. Based on (5), the fullyspecified geometries proposed for segments involving post-velar articulation in Semiticare as in (6).99McCarthy suggests that the [dorsal] feature of coronal emphatics can be eliminated in underlyingrepresentation.202PharyngealsPhar[radical] [pharyngeal]Oral Ao Phar[dorsal]^[pharyngeal](6) Semitic gutturals, emphatics and /q/: McCarthy 1991203Guttural Uvulars^GlottalsPhar o^Phar^[dorsal] [pharyngeal]^[pharyngeal]Coronal Emphatics01:  o^131-[coronal] [dorsal] [pharyngeal]Section 2.3.1 noted the following aspects of (6), repeated here for convenience.The feature [radical] on n, h/ represents the activity of the tongue root in articulatingpharyngeals. The combination [dorsal] [pharyngeal] dominated by the Pharyngeal PlaceNode on /x, g/ indicates activity of the dorsum in the pharynx. The laryngeals 12, h/ arearticulator-less, but not Placeless, being represented with a Pharyngeal Place node.Gutturals all have primary articulation in the pharyngeal cavity, with the emphatics andthe uvular stop /q/ (which is not a guttural in Contemporary Standard Arabic) consideredto be complex segments since they have an additional Place specification under the Oralnode. With respect to the identification of primary as opposed to secondary articulation,McCarthy proposes that phonological rules can specify which, if any, place or articulatorfeatures are primary or secondary. An alternative is that any segment with an Oral placehas a primary Oral articulator and any segment with a Pharyngeal place has a primaryPharyngeal articulator. If so, then presumably Oral/Pharyngeal segments will be complexunless otherwise stipulated.The division of the traditional Place node into Oral and Pharyngeal places (withthe features dominated by those nodes representing articulators) formalizes some aspectsof the traditional phonetic notions of articulator and place of articulation as primitives inthe description of segments. Gorecka (1989) represents an attempt to justify this divisionphonologically across all places of articulation. McCarthy's model is more constrainedthan Gorecka's, but there is nothing in principle to prevent other Oral features such as[labial] and [coronal] from functioning under the Pharyngeal node as articulators.106.2 Interior SalishHaving reviewed some of the Semitic evidence which is considered to argue for afourth node, I turn now to Interior Salish.A generalized Interior Salish inventory (based on Thompson 1979) is given in (7).From this it can be seen that Interior Salish presents a phoneme inventory containingmany of the individual members which make up the Semitic guttural class.(7) Generalized Interior Salish consonantal inventoryllLabial Coronal^Velar^Uvular^Pharyngeal GlottalP^t^c k^kw^q^qw ?p'^t'^c'^X'^k'^k'w^q'^q'wS^i^x^xw^X^Xw^hm^n^(r)^1^Y^w c^Tv?m'^n'^(r')^1'^y'^w' SI^S'wGiven (7) one might wonder how the 'gutturals' of Interior Salish behave. Henceforth,for ease of reference I use the term 'faucal' to refer to the class of post-velar segments asis it constituted phonologically in Interior Salish in general and in the individual10External constraints could be referenced though, since it is physically impossible for the lower lip as anarticulator to combine with the pharynx as a place of articulation (see Gorecka 1989 for mention of suchexternal constraints). On the other hand, given a model of the sort in (5), one might expect to find segments(such as xw or Tw) that can phonologically reference the Pharyngeal node as a place of articulation and thelower lip as an articulator. This, then, might be a case of Labial articulation at the Pharyngeal Place, tospeak in phonological terms.1J have retained the use of L c, c', t, , j, X' for IPA f, ts, ts', tf, tr, d3, a for the sake of consistencywith published sources and because the transcription of affricates as two segments, while it has phoneticmotivation, obscures their phonological status as single segments in Salish.204languages.12 This will serve to distinguish the class as it is constituted in Interior Salishfrom the Semitic guttural class and avoids the ambiguities of the term 'post-velar', whichcan be understood to include laryngeals. As noted, the phonological class of InteriorSalish faucals does not include laryngeals.It was demonstrated in Chapter 5 that uvulars, pharyngeals and the retracted rootsof Moses-Columbian pattern together in conditioning lower and backer adjacent vowelqualities, but this does not speak to the phonological patterning of faucals. Beforepresenting phonological evidence for the class of Interior Salish faucals, I consider firstbroad evidence for the representation of Interior Salish uvulars with both a Dorsal nodeand a fourth node, here termed Tongue Root. Secondly, evidence for the classification ofpharyngeals as (i) [-i-sonorant] and (ii) [+consonantal] is considered. Establishing themembership of resonant and obstruent classes is necessary since one of the majormorpheme structure constraints of Interior Salish forbids C1VC2(C3) roots in which C1and C2 are identical in place and manner. It is shown that while resonants pattern with[-Fconsonantal] obstruents in occupying onset and coda positions in the prosodictemplates referenced by reduplication patterns, their resonancy is reflected by predictablepatterns of syllabic alternations and their status as targets for rules of glottalization.Further, pharyngeal resonants pattern with the more familiar semi-vowels /y, w/ invocalic alternation with [a, i, u]. Thirdly, the distribution of uvulars, pharyngeals andretracted /r, r'/ is summarized. All o