UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Retraction in Montana Salish lateral consonants McDowell, Ramona E. 2004

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2004-0554.pdf [ 27.1MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0091700.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091700-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091700-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091700-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091700-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091700-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091700-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

RETRACTION IN MONTANA SALISH L A T E R A L CONSONANTS by R A M O N A E. M C D O W E L L B.A., The University of Michigan, 2001 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Linguistics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A July 2004 © Ramona E. McDowell, 2004 Library Authorization In present ing this thesis in partial fulf i l lment of the requi rements for an advanced degree at the Universi ty of Brit ish Co lumbia , I agree that the Library shal l m a k e it f reely avai lable for reference and study. I further agree that permiss ion for extensive copy ing of this thesis for scholar ly purposes m a y be granted by the head of my depar tment or by his or her representat ives. It is unders tood that copy ing or publ icat ion of this thesis for f inancial gain shall not be a l lowed wi thout my wri t ten permission. / J J / / / , \ Name of Author (please print) Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Degree: AfoS'krG #f Depar tment of LJ/ s / / c S Year : The Universi ty of British Columbia Vancouver , BC Canada Abstract Although a number of researches have addressed the issue of consonant triggered vowel retraction in Salishan languages, these previous have always been undertaken from the standpoint of acoustic and/or phonological evidence. As documented in this literature (Bessell 1994, 1998; Doak 1992; Egesdal 1993; Czaykowska-Higgins 1990; Kuipers 1974; Martina 1979; Reichard 1938; Shahin 2002; Van Eijk 1997; etc.), consonants functioning as retraction triggers fall into two classes: (i) post-velars (uvulars, pharyngeals and sometimes laryngeals), and (ii) a subset of coronal consonants, including retracted Iri, Is/, Izl Iz'l III, /VI, and HI. Despite the large number of segments in the category of retracted consonants, there has been significantly little investigation into the articulatory process of retraction on any coronal, but most notably, a lack of investigation into the lateral consonants. The current study is an articulatory investigation into the status of retraction on the four lateral consonants in Montana Salish, which are comprised of a phonetically diverse array of segments: two approximants IV and lil, and two obstruents, a fricative l\l and an ejective affricate Fkl. Through the use of ultrasound imaging of the tongue taken during real time speech, this study examines the physical properties of tongue retraction in each of the lateral segments. The articulatory information, taken in consideration with the acoustic signal, provides convergent evidence for the determination of retraction on these consonants. Ultrasound imaging also allows for investigation into the coarticulatory influences such retraction may have on adjacent vowels. Understanding these two components of tongue retraction (the gestures involved and their corresponding coarticulatory effects) aims to contribute both to deepening our understanding of retraction within Salish languages, and to supplementing previous cross-linguistic work on the little studied lateral consonants. Beyond a well-needed articulatory description, this study helps evaluate the physiology of retraction within the phonological and acoustic based literature which distinguishes retraction as "uvularization" and "pharyhgealization". The examined coarticulatory patterns provide insight into the interaction of local gestural resolution versus phonological retraction effects. Lastly, results from this study provide information useful in the phonological debate over the legitimacy of the term "lateral" as a class of sounds. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii C H A P T E R 1 C O N C E P T U A L G O A L S 1 1 . 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 . 2 MONTANA SALISH DIALECTS 2 1 . 3 RETRACTION IN SALISH: DESCRIPTIVE BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL ISSUES 3 C H A P T E R 2: P R O P E R T I E S O F T H E M O N T A N A S A L I S H S O U N D S Y S T E M A N D S T U D Y M E T H O D O L O G Y 9 2 . 1 INTRODUCTION 9 2 . 2 INVENTORY DESCRIPTION 9 Section 2.2.1 Laterals and uvulars: distributional and descriptive information 12 2 . 3 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION FOR EXPERIMENTS 1 7 2 . 4 METHODOLOGY 1 8 Section 2.4.1 Participants 18 Section 2.4.2 Apparatus and Organization 18 Section 2.4.3 Analysis Materials 20 Section 2.4.4 Procedure for Elicitation and Token Organization 20 Section 2.4.5 Procedure for Acoustic Analysis 22 Section 2.4.6 Articulatory Procedure 25 Section 2.4.7 Interspeech Rest Position 30 C H A P T E R 3 R E T R A C T I O N B Y T H E U V U L A R S T O P : E S T A B L I S H I N G A B E N C H M A R K O F C O M P A R I S O N 3 2 3 . 1 INTRODUCTION TO ORGANIZATION OF RESULTS 3 2 3 . 2 VOWEL SPACE 3 2 3 . 3 GENERAL GESTURAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION FOR MONTANA SALISH UVULAR STOP 3 3 C H A P T E R 4 L A T E R A L T O N G U E M O V E M E N T : M T D - S A G I T T A L A N D C R O S S - S E C T I O N A L A R T I C U L A T O R Y E V I D E N C E 4 3 4 . 1 LATERAL TONGUE POSITION AND MOVEMENT: MID-SAGITTAL DATA 4 3 Section 4.1.1 Lateral approximant. 43 Section 4.1.2 Glottalized Lateral approximant 48 Section 4.1.3 Lateral Fricative 53 Section 4.1.4 Lateral Ejective Affricate 55 4 . 2 LATERAL TONGUE POSITION AND MOVEMENT: CORONAL CROSS-SECTION DATA 5 8 4 . 3 CORONAL CROSS-SECTION VS. MID-SAGITTAL ARTICULATORY D A T A 6 1 4 . 4 SUMMARY 6 6 C H A P T E R 5 C O A R T I C U L A T O R Y E F F E C T S O F L A T E R A L C O N S O N A N T S O N V O W E L S 6 8 5 . 1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION FOR EXPERIMENTS 6 8 5 . 2 LATERAL APPROXIMANT 6 8 Section 5.2.1 Lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: acoustics 68 Section 5.2.2 Lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: articulation 71 5 . 3 GLOTTALIZED LATERAL APPROXIMANT 7 3 Section 5.3.1 Glottalized lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: acoustics 73 Section 5.3.2 Glottalized lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: articulation 7 7 5 . 4 LATERAL EJECTIVE AFFRICATE 7 8 Section 5.4.1 Lateral ejective affricate coarticulatory interactions: acoustics 78 Section 5.4.2 Lateral ejective affricate coarticulatory interactions: articulation 81 5 . 5 LATERAL FRICATIVE 8 4 Section 5.5.1 Lateral fricative coarticulatory interactions: acoustics 84 Section 5.5.2 Lateral fricative coarticulatory interactions: articulation 90 5 . 6 COARTICULATORY INTERACTIONS: ACOUSTIC AND ARTICULATORY CONCLUSIONS 9 4 C H A P T E R 6: D I S C U S S I O N O F R E S U L T S 9 6 6 . 1 TONGUE DORSUM VS. TONGUE ROOT RETRACTION 9 6 6 . 2 LATERAL RETRACTION IN MONTANA SALISH PHONOLOGY 1 0 0 6 . 3 GESTURAL CONFLICT 1 0 1 6 . 4 T H E RELATION OF GESTURAL CONFLICT TO PHONOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY 1 0 1 6 . 5 IMPLICATIONS ON THE CLASS OF "LATERALS" 1 0 3 6 . 6 GESTURAL PROPOSAL 1 0 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 0 6 APPENDIX A U 0 APPENDIX B 1 1 6 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2. 1 Montana Salish Consonant Inventory 10 Table 2. 2 Word Selection Criteria 22 Table 3. 1 Variability of til vowel length 39 Table 4. 1 1-5 III position statistics by vowel environment 47 Table 4. 2a-b III Lateral Compression Statistics 64 Table 4. 3a-b Lateral Compression Statistics 65 Table 4. 2 Summary of Lateral Retraction 66 Table 5.1 Acoustic Measurements for ill_ and ilal_ vs. HI 69 Table 5.2 Acoustic Measurements for all_ vs. lal 70 Table 5.3 Acoustic Measurements for ill' _ vs. HI 74 Table 5.4 Acoustic Measurements for il_V vs. HI 74 Table 5.5 Acoustic Measurements ell'_ vs lei 74 Table 5.6 Acoustic Measurements for all' _ and a/l'l'_ vs. lal 75 Table 5.9 Descriptive Statistics: VIJi 82 Table 5.10 Descriptive Statistics: V/X_ 82 Table 5.11 Acoustic measurements for i/f_ vs. /i/ 84 Table 5.12 Acoustic measurements for u/t_ vs. /uf. 84 Table 5.13 Acoustic measurements for e/i_ vs. /ef. 85 Table 5.14 Acoustic measurements for a/f_ vs. /a/. 85 Table 5.16 Measurements for lateral fricative vs. vowels tongue position 91 Table 5.17 Mean tongue position for neutral /i/vs. i/_t 93 Table 5.18 Formant effects on the vowel by VIC_ context 94 Table B.l Additional comparison for il_q sequences 116 V LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 1 Montana Salish Language Map 3 Figure 2.1 Articulators and Places of Speech Articulation 10 Figure 2.2a Placement of Ultrasound Figure 2. 2b Portable Ultrasound 19 Image 2.1 Vocal Tract Tube Model 24 Image 2.2 Angle of Ultrasound View 26 Figure 2. 4 Orientation of MTS ultrasound images 27 Figure 2. 5 Intersect of Measurement Location 28 Figure 2. 6 Location of Tongue Measurements 28 Figure 2. 7 Areas of the Tongue 29 Figure 2.8 Interspeech rest position as plotted against HI, lei, and lal 31 Figure 3. 1 Vowel Formant Averages 33 Figure 3. 2 Position of uvular contact 34 Figure 3. 3 MTS /kw/ vs. NCN/k/ Figure 3.4 MTS q/i_ vs. NCN q/ii_ 35 Figure 3. 5 Cross Linguistic Comparison oflul vowels 36 Figure 3. 6 Significant Formant Differences: HI vs il_q 37 Figure 3. 7 Difference in Tongue Position: [i] versus il_q 38 Figure 3. 8a. /q/contact: scmqin vs. estaqi Figure 3. 8b. /i/: scmqin vs. estaqi 39 Figure Set 3. 9 Significant Pairings Fl-05% - ilq+_ [qi] vs. i/q_ [qei] vs. HI 40 Figure Set 3. 10 Significant Pairings: Fl-50% - i/q+_ [qi] vs. ilq_ [qei] vs. HI 40 Figure Set 3. 11 Significant Pairings: F2-05% - ilq+_ [qi] vs. ilq_ [qei] vs. HI 41 Figure Set 3. 12 Significant Pairings: F3-05% - ilq+_ [qi] vs. ilq_ [qei] vs. HI 42 Figure 4. 1 Tongue initial and final position for/U in Lamiis 44 Figure 4. 2 Frame sequence at 33ms intervals for/li/in likwlexw. 45 Figure 4. 3 III separated by vowel environment vs. interspeech rest tongue position 46 Figure 4. 4 Tongue position for Iql vs. Ill preceding HI 48 Figure 4. 5 /// vs. /i/'in i sits 'it settled' 49 Figure 4. 6 Frame by frame sequence of l'l'ac 'red raspberry' 49 Figure 4. 7 Example of initial /l'/ TD retraction: l'l'ac 50 Figure 4. 8 Independent vs. non-independent/l'/ 51 Figure 4. 9 Independent and non-independent /l? vs. rest 52 Figure 4. 10 Tracings of /q/ vs. /l'/ at peak retracted movement 53 Figure 4. 11 Tongue tracings for/i/and Ii/'in <mil> vs. interspeech rest position 54 Figure 4. 12 /q/vs. /f/in estaqi 'waving at someone' vs. ikwiakwis 'slapping noise of wet moccasins' 54 Figure 4.13 <kwi£t> /%/initial position vs. final position 56 Figure 4. 14 /t/ initial and final position vs./q/. 56 Figure 4. 15 Lateral Affricate Tongue Dorsum Release 57 Figure 4.16 Coronal Cross Section Lateral movement: III 59 Figure 4. 17 t cross-sectional release 59 Figure 4. 18 Coronal Cross-section: sequential frames for / f a / . 60 Figure 4. 19 Averaged /l/, /l7, /i/, and /t/ vs. interspeech rest position 62 Figure 4. 20 Lateral compression and medial expansion for III vs. vowels 63 Figure 4. 21 Lateral compression and medial expansion measurements 64 Figure 5.1 Tongue shape tracing for IIJ compared to lei, rest, and lal 71 Figure 5. 2 III TR measurement split by environment 72 Figure 5. 3 Scattergram of neutral /a/ vs. /IV. 76 Figure 5. 4 Spectrogram of independent IVI vs. non-independent IVI 76 Figure 5. 5 Glottalized lateral approximant tongue position compared to HI, lei, lal, and interspeech rest... 77 vi J Figure 5. 6 Acoustic statistics for i/t_ vs neutral /i/ 79 Figure 5.7a V/Jl TR position Figure 5.7b V/X_ TR position 82 Figure 5. 8 Acoustic statistics for a/i_ vs neutral /a/ 86 Figure 5.9 Fl /i/ vs separated into perceptual categories 88 Figure Set 5.10 F3 /il vs i/_f perceptual categories 88 Figure Set 5.11 F3 /i/ vs i/_t combined 89 Figure 5.11 Lateral fricative tongue positioning as compared to /a/, Ie/, /if, and rest. 90 Figure 5.12 Tongue tracings for/t/ by environment 91 Figure 5.13 /if tongue position: neutral /i/vs. i/_t. 93 Figure B.l Statistics for independent A7 vs. non-independent/l'/ 117 Figure B.2 Statistics for Interspeech Rest as compared with /l7, /a/, /e/, and /if 118 vii Acknowledgements My sincerest thanks go to all my family and friends for the help and support they've given me throughout my times here at UBC. Most especially, thanks to Dunes for all the late night phone calls, and to my family for keeping me grounded in the reality beyond school. I couldn't have done it without you. I also couldn't have lasted without my good friends here in Vancouver; Fiona, Sonya, Christine, Clare, Jeff, Penelope, Fern, Jill, Dominique, Mayo... and the list goes on. Especially thanks to my ultimate frisbee teams and to Grupa Dunbarov for helping keep me sane. I'd also like to thank my committee members and advisors; Pat, Bryan, and Sally. Thanks for all your constructive feedback and encouragement. And lastly, and most importantly, I owe so much to my Montana Salish speakers. Without their generosity and kindness, none of this would be possible at all. Thanks everyone!! This work was generously supported by the First Nations Languages Research Project under the direction of Patricia Shaw. Chapter 1 Conceptual goals 1.1 Introduction Many investigations have addressed the issue of consonant-triggered vowel retraction in Salishan, among other languages. However, these have always been undertaken from the standpoint of acoustic and/or phonological evidence. As documented in this literature (Bessell 1992, 1993, 1998; Doak 1992; and Egesdal 1993; Czaykowska-Higgins 1990; Kuipers 1974; Mattina 1979; Reichard 1938; Shahin 1997, 2002; Van Eijk 1997; and others), consonants functioning as retraction triggers can be commonly summed in two classes: (i) post-velars (uvulars, pharyngeals and sometimes laryngeals), and (ii) a subset of coronal consonants, including retracted Iri, Is/, Izl /z7 III, /IV, and HI. Despite the inclusion of a large number of diverse segments into the category of retracted consonants, there has been significantly little investigation into the articulatory process of retraction. Several authors in various studies, primarily including N. Bessell, have examined the acoustic attributes of retracted consonants, but no articulatory work has been previously presented to establish how the tongue is physiologically involved in retraction for non-uvular and non-pharyngeal consonants. Furthermore, of the work that has been conducted, the narrowest focus considers the set of coronals in this category of phonologically retracted phonemes, and not for example, the lateral consonants, who by nature include an additional method of articulation which has potential to interact with tongue retraction. The current study is an articulatory investigation into to status of tongue retraction on the four lateral consonants in Montana Salish. These are comprised of a phonetically diverse array of segments, two approximants III and Hi, and two obstruents, a fricative IM and an ejective affricate Itl. Through the use of ultrasound imaging of the tongue taken during real time speech, this study is able to examine the physical use of tongue retraction in each of the lateral segments. Articulatory information is necessary to avoid relying on inferences that are based the circuitous acoustic signal, and which can only suggest what tongue movements are involved. The articulatory information, taken in consideration with the acoustic signal, provides direct evidence for the physical determination of retraction on these consonants. Furthermore, once the use of retraction or lack thereof has been determined, ultrasound imaging of the tongue allows for investigation into the coarticulatory influences such retraction may create on adjacent vowels. Understanding these two components of tongue retraction (the movements and/or gestures involved and their corresponding coarticulatory effects) is an important contribution not only within Salish language literature, but also in the supplementation of previous typological work on the little studied lateral consonants. Montana Salish, and indeed the other Salish languages, are unusual among the worlds languages in their diverse array of lateral consonants in their phonemic inventory. Not only does this study provide a much-needed articulatory description of the tongue's involvement in lateral * I am most grateful for the help and knowledge of each Montana Salish speaker who participated in this project. All credit and much gratitude goes to them. 1 consonant production, but it helps evaluate this physiological retraction within the phonological and acoustic based literature which distinguishes retraction as "uvularization" and "pharyngealization". Similarly, as evaluated through Browman and Goldstein's (1992) Articulatory Phonology, this study proposes gestural specification for the involved tongue movements. The examined coarticulatory patterns provide insight into the interaction of local gestural resolution versus phonological retraction effects in those Salish languages that exhibit phonological vowel harmony in conjunction with local consonant retraction. And lastly, results from this study provide information useful in the phonological debate over the legitimacy of the term "lateral" as a class of sounds and their corresponding features. In order to fill in the background for research on these consonants, Chapter 1 includes an overview of the linguistic background of Montana Salish in Section 1.2, and a literature review of the relevant studies in Section 1.3. These are presented below. Chapter 2 presents an inventory description, with specific focus on phoneme pronunciation, distribution, and environmental restrictions, as well as a visually aided description of articulatory production. Chapter 2 also includes a detailed description of the methodology used in this study. Chapter 3 contains both articulatory and acoustic information for the plain uvular stop as the establishment of a model of tongue retraction from which the laterals are compared. Chapter 4 presents the articulatory investigation in determining whether or not the Montana Salish laterals are retracted. Once the physiological use of tongue retraction has been established, Chapter 5 presents a summary of the coarticulatory effects that these laterals have on adjacent vowels. And finally, Chapter 6 discusses the implications of these findings in terms of articulatory specification, typological contributions, lateral class unification, and the phonetic versus phonological function of lateral retraction in the (Montana) Bitterroot Salish language. 1.2 Montana Salish dialects Montana Salish (MTS) is a cover term for the two dialects, Bitterroot Salish and Pend d'Oreille, of a Southern Interior Salish language which is spoken on the Flathead Indian Reservation in northwest Montana in the United States. These dialects are in the same continuum as Spokane and Kalispel (which are dialects spoken in the state of Washington). The Flathead reservation is home to three tribes, the Bitterroot Salish, who call themselves simply the Salish, the Pend d'Oreille, a historically neighboring tribe who speaks a similar dialect, and the Kootenai, a linguistically unrelated tribe.1 The political tribal organization on the reservation is officially called the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. Because of pressures and force by the dominant English speaking community, Montana Salish, which again represents the Pend d'Oreille and Bitterroot Salish dialects, has only about 45 fluent speakers left. This number is quite debatable as a language census or survey has not been taken in the last 10-15 years and most of the first language speakers are very elderly with the exception of a few known younger speakers. Despite generations of intermarriage between all the 1 "Montana" Salish is used only to differentiate between the individual tribes and the Salish language family as the Bitterroot Salish simply call themselves the "Salish". 2 local tribes, as well as many other ethnic groups of people, many elders are assured enough to distinguish which words are Bitterroot Salish and which are Pend d'Oreille or Spokane (neighboring language and tribe).2 English is, however, the predominant language of daily life throughout the reservation. The primary speaker represented in this study is Bitterroot Salish. The figure below, reproduced with permission from the Summer Institute for Linguistics Ethnologue website, locates the Salish tribes in the northwest corner of Montana. NORTHWESTERN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LANGUAGE FAMILIES Hj| SALISHAN J S ] UTO-AZTECAN H| WAKASHAN ] VUKI H I LANGUAGE ISOLATE ALGIC CHIMAKUAN HOKAN NA-DENE PENUTIAN miles 50 1 0 C 100 LANGUAGES WHICH ALSO APPEAR ON SOUTHWESTERN MAP: CENTRAL POMO NORTHEASTERN POMO NORTHERN PA1UTE NORTHWEST MAIDU SHOSHONI (ALSO ON NORTHERN CENTRAL MAP) 130"W PACIFIC OCEAN KATO NORTHEASTERN POMO CENTRAL POMO Figure 1.1 Montana Salish Language Map 1.3 Retraction in Montana Salish: descriptive information and theoretical issues The term "retraction" and its various cognates have been used to represent many different functions in previous literature (Bessell 1998a; Shahin 2002; etc.). Most commonly, previous literature concerning retraction generally distinguishes those consonants which are retracted, (i.e. those whose primary production is in the direction of the pharyngeal space) and those consonants which have a retracted counterpart. For the purposes of the current investigation, articulatory retraction is defined as 2 There has been no systematic work which differentiates the Bitterroot Salish dialect from the Pend d'Oreille dialect. However, some of my speakers would mention that this is or is not "our" word, in reference to both Pend d'Oreille and Spokane. Thomason (p.c. 2004) cites truncation as differing between Montana Salish and Kalispel, but other specific differences have not been investigated. 3 any movement or gesture produced in the direction of the rear pharyngeal wall. Consonants, which are able to retract adjacent vowels, are considered "retracting" consonants, whereas consonants whose primary locus of tongue constriction is near the pharyngeal wall are labeled "retracted" consonants. For example, velars, which have sometimes been considered retracted consonants, are produced with complete tongue raising towards the palate. No backing gesture or movement is inherent in this production and therefore, these are not considered retracted for the purposes of this study. However, uvulars, which involve a directed movement of the tongue into the pharynx, both exhibit tongue retraction and are retracted segments. The acoustic lowering effects the uvulars produce on adjacent vowels enable these segments also to be considered retracting consonants. These vowels themselves are retracted. Since the majority of retraction in the Salish languages results from uvulars and pharyngeals, these segments have been the focus of most previous investigation. However, some investigations into the coronal consonants have been undertaken. According to a summary compiled by Bessell (1994:33, 38, 1998a:128, 137), the following Interior Salish languages include laterals that participate in (regressive) phonological vowel retraction: Snchitsu?umshtsn (Coeur d'Alene) r, r', Kalispel 1, f, Montana Salish 1, f. Often the lateral approximant is described as having a "dark" counterpart, though no concrete connection is made to retraction. Vogt (1940:13) states concerning the lateral approximant in Kalispel "the voiced liquid is actualized as [1] or [lambda]. . . [lambda] is used after vowels, and is darker in timbre, tending towards English dark 1 ". Kuipers (1974:22) does not list the Shuswap IV as "retracted", however, he proposes that Proto-Salish *1 and *r merged into III, whereby" *r 'darkened' a neighboring vowel", while *1 did not. Thompson and Thompson (1992:54—55) describe the lateral resonants (IV and lil) in Nfe?kepmxcin as "usually dark, produced with the tongue root drawn back". For the Lillooet lateral approximants, Van Eijk (1997:3) describes the retracted counterparts of the IV and lil phonemes as "velarization with concomitant tensing" which is compared to "dark" versus "light" English III production. However, beyond these descriptions, there is little acoustic and no articulatory work done on these segments in regards to tongue retraction. Some individual studies describe the other laterals in the related Southern Interior Salish languages in more detail. Vogt (1940:13) posits a non-glottalized /X/ phoneme for Kalispel as a merger between [t] and [i], and It/ as a "strongly glottalized stop". Kuipers (1974:22) also describes the lil in Shuswap phonetically either as [t] or a dental stop [fJ. Thompson and Thompson (1992:54-55) describe the Fkl in Nfe?kepmxcin as a "glottalized dental stop with a lateral affricative ejective release". In Moses-Columbian Salish, Bessell (1998a: 147 classifies the lateral fricative lil as retracted by its "F2 perturbation, reflecting a back articulation for the consonant". (Note however, that there is no mention of any acoustic or phonetic properties which suggest that the lateral ejective affricate is retracted). In Montana Salish, whose consonant inventory includes four lateral segments IV, Hi, lil, and Itl, there is specific mention of the status of IV and HI as a retracted consonants. These are attributed as the source of vowel retraction in otherwise unexplainable environments. According to Egesdal (1993:18) words like ?olin 'stomach' and ?olus 'fire' are said to have lowered the initial IvJ to [o] <o> because the 4 Ill acts as a retracting trigger. However, other than the single statement "(back) III and III must also be included with the retracting, back consonants, at least historically", no investigation, either acoustic or articulatory, into the function of these two lateral approximants, has been attempted in Montana Salish (Egesdal 1993:18). Egesdal (1993:22) does, however, claim that the retracted III is (or was) pharyngealized, not uvularized or velarized. In the Flemming et al. (1994) acoustic study, no mention of "retraction", "dark vs. light" timbre, or lowered adjacent vowels, is made concerning the Montana Salish laterals. Furthermore, most phonological literature describing these retracted consonants differentiates the physical retracted tongue movement into either uvularization or pharyngealization (Shahin 2002). It is generally assumed that these correlate to distinct tongue dorsum and tongue root retraction, respectively, but little is said about the specifics of the articulators involved. Previous literature has described the motivation for adjacent vowel lowering/transitioning through constraints on the articulators involved. Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1994), and Bessell (1998b) among many others, state that the high front position of an HI vowel is in direct contrast with the low, retracted gesture for the post-velar/retracted consonants. These two polar positions create an opposition reflected in both the first and second formants (Bessell 1998b). Through the use of ultrasound imaging of the tongue Gick and Wilson (2002, 2003) present an articulatory investigation into the dynamic function of conflicting tongue targets and their corresponding gestures. From their gestural examination of and acoustic pre- and post-vocalic effects of coronal III, Iri, and excrescent schwa in Nuu-chah-nulth (Wakashan), Beijing Chinese, Chilcotin (Athapaskan), Korean, and English, they conclude that there is a gestural conflict between the tongue root/tongue dorsum articulation of the trigger consonants, and the tongue body articulation of the vowels. Furthermore, they propose that languages physiologically have a choice of two characteristic types of strategies to reconcile this gestural conflict between opposing tongue root and tongue body articulatory targets. One option compromises the tongue body's spatial position by laxing/lowering the vowel; the other entails a temporal adjustment of the transitional articulatory gestures, this typically resulting in a schwa-like transition stage. Gick and Wilson (2003) use this evidence to establish that certain types of transitory schwas during IV production are the result of the resolution of a gestural conflict of tongue root (TR) to tongue dorsum (TD) such that the tongue moves through both articulatory and acoustic space paralleling that of a "canonical" schwa. Furthermore, their investigation reveals that languages utilize the same gestural compromise strategies in exactly the opposite pre vocalic and post vocalic contexts. For example, Nuu-chah-nulth employs vowel laxing/lowering preceding back consonants and excrescent schwa following, while Chilcotin back consonant to vowel interactions are the reverse. Their sample of languages reveals most possible combinations of temporal to gestural compromise except one parallel response. That is, languages tended not to be "symmetrical" in their use of excrescent schwa in both pre- and post-consonantal context. However, one language, Skye Scots Gaelic, was found to demonstrate a laxing/lowering response in both C V and V C positions. In an independent articulatory study investigating the post-velar (pharyngeal and uvular) -vowel interactions in Nuu-chah-nulth, Wilson (2003) found non-parallel vowel 5 effects on adjacent vowels. He states "The uvular stop, Iql, usually lowers a following lil and /ii/, and often a preceding HI and /ii/ too. However, the labio-velarized /q w / has no lowering effect on a following lil or /ii/, there is [sometimes] a schwa off-glide from lil to Iql and lil to /q w /" (Wilson 2003:10). In addition, unlike the effects on the lil vowel, Iql and lq wl have no lowering effect on lui, luul, lal, laal pre or post consonantally, and the pharyngeal fricative gestural conflict is resolved through temporal compromise. In this language Wilson finds that different consonants in the same linear position in respect to a particular vowel utilize different methods of gestural conflict resolution, in this case the Iql and the pharyngeal fricative resolve through vowel lowering and schwa-transition respectively.3 The following investigation into the function of retraction by the lateral consonants in Montana Salish is grounded in the above assessment of the coarticulatory processes. The framework provided for the examination of the Montana Salish lateral consonants is clearly presented in the Gick and Wilson (2002, 2003) gestural analysis and is modeled in the Wilson (2003) study. Presuming the position of the tongue for the Montana Salish laterals is in gestural conflict with at least some of the vowel positions, HI and lui being the most likely, the resolution should either be vowel laxing, or vowel transitioning. However, if the tongue position for the lateral consonants is not in gestural conflict with any vowels, then no spatial or temporal compromise is necessary and the acoustic signal of the vowels should be similar to the same vowel in other non-retracted environments. The precedents set through the Gick and Wilson, and Wilson investigations suggest that the effect of the laterals on adjacent vowels is not necessarily the same pre or post-vocalically, although only one resolution is applicable per environment, nor should each lateral necessarily pattern the same as the other laterals. This latter prediction is especially interesting because the characteristic of lateral class unification implies that these consonants should act similarly. That is, the physical tongue movement involved (whether retracted or not) should be similar for each Montana Salish lateral consonant, but the corresponding effect on the adjacent vowel is not necessarily parallel. Acting concurrently with the above described coarticulatory interactions are the phonological processes of regressive and progressive harmony. These have been sufficiently described by Bessell 1992,1993; Doak 1992; and Egesdal 1993; Czaykowska-Higgins 1990; Kuipers 1974; Mattina 1979; Reichard 1938; Shahin 1997, 2002; Van Eijk 1997; and etc. In these processes the retracted trigger segments act to lower a preceding or following vowel with immediate adjacency no longer being required. The outcome on to the vowels varies by language although the general processes is summed by Bessell (1998a: 129) who states that "faucal articulation in Interior Salish lowers and slightly backs the quality of the adjacent vowel". This vowel movement is reflected in the acoustic signal by a lower F2 and a higher F l . Of specific interest for the following study is the claim by Bessell (1994, 1998a) and Egesdal (1993), that the high front lil vowel does not participate in these phonological processes. That is, HI does not lower in either local or non-local environments. Egesdal (1993) does describe, however, that local i/_Q and i/Q_ result in variable, but lowered phonetic outputs of the lil vowel. He states "pharyngeals do not 3 Note that Wilson (2003) suggests that this difference in resolution is due to the lack of glottal closure on the pharyngeal fricative versus the absolute closure on the plain uvular stop. 6 lower lil to [a]; instead there is a transitional onglide.. .That differs from the change of lil to [e] following uvulars. At most, there is a very slight onglide between uvulars and lil: Q[ee], Qw[oe]" (Egesdal 1993:22). However, no concomitant description is made for the HI vowel's interaction with the lateral approximants, even though they are equally classified as retracting consonants in his description. The other vowels /e, ul lower to [a, D] respectively. While local phonetic effects on adjacent vowels can have the same final outcome as the effects imposed by regressive and progressive vowel harmony processes, the source of these affected vowels is distinctly different. It is probable that this phonological retraction was once initiated by local co-articulatory effects; however, in its current form it does not necessarily represent simple phonetic adjacency effects. The current study has been designed to eliminate as much confusion as possible in regards to the source of the C V / V C interaction. In this effort investigated sequences in Montana Salish have been carefully chosen to exclude all known consonantal retraction triggers except the particular lateral in question, in order to differentiate between C V / V C effects which are purely coarticulatory in nature, and those which might result from the phonological retraction harmony. Therefore, it is important to point out that the words and tokens examined in this study represent adjacent gestural conflict resolution effects only, and are not vowels which are known to exhibit phonological retraction harmony in the examined words. In an attempt to differentiate between the acoustic effects resulting from phonetic V / _ C and V / C _ coarticulation and phonological retraction harmony, Bessell (1998b) compares the acoustic output of such above described gestural conflicts to the phonological vowel lowering (harmony) in Moses-Columbian Salish and Coeur d'Alene. She finds that temporal distribution and formant cues assist in differentiation of phonological lowering effects from phonetic coarticulatory gestural resolution. Furthermore, in a claim disassociating the local gestural conflict resolution from the non-local faucal effects, Bessell (1998b:29-30) concludes that there is "no phonetic evidence for a relationship between faucal harmony and iterative coarticulatory retraction", and further hypothesizes that the vowel harmony likely stems from a relationship where "faucal features are maximally compatible with vocalic rather than consonantal structure. This may form part of the motivation for the association of faucal features with vowels, regardless of the lexical location of the feature".4 In light of these comments, one can see that determining whether retraction is a function of the consonants or the vowels (or roots etc.) is an important question. Although the data presented in this study do not compare consonant retraction versus vowel retraction, if no articulatory basis is found for the retracted effects on the adjacent vowels by the consonants, then either the retraction is truly sourced in the vowels, or the phonology is responsible for clarifying why the retracted effects are present. For example, if the lil in Montana Salish is not phonetically retracted, but an adjacent vowel lowers (or transitions), then this suggests that the source of retraction must instead be attributed to the vowels. Furthermore, according to Browman and Goldstein's (1992) model of Articulatory Phonology, each of these gestural motions and targets have phonological 4 Bessell uses the term "faucal" here to refer to the class of back consonants. This includes uvulars and pharyngeals. 7 meaning. This allows the individual tongue gestures such as TT, TD, and TR to represent phonological units (which therefore, are specified in the language's phonology) (see for example, Gick and Wilson 2003). If the retracted movements in Montana Salish can be systematically interpreted as representing distinct gestures, then this implies that the location of retraction in Montana Salish laterals is sourced in the phonology. However, if instead, it is found that the mechanism of retraction is variable, inconsistent, and explainable phonetically, then this would reflect a lack of specification for the tongue articulator. This specified movement, or lack there of, is a factor in determining of the retraction is phonological or phonetic. Understanding the movements involved in lateral retraction is also relevant in consideration of the previous phonological literature which has presented uvularization and pharyngealization as the two types of retraction, which reflect the tongue dorsum and tongue root respectively. If tongue root retraction differs from tongue dorsum retraction, yet each still moves with the other as they are interconnected areas of the tongue, then gestural specification has to differentiate between these contradictory processes. A significant contribution of the present study using ultrasound technology is that it enables a clear look at the tongue during real time speech which assists in clarification as to which movements are phonologically specified gestures, and those which are the result of the tongue's physiological make up. In light of the previous literature, this study investigates the physical properties of tongue retraction within the four laterals in the Montana Salish language, in the attempt to clarify their dynamic function as possible retracting agents. While previous conclusions have been based on the acoustic signal, an articulatory study of this magnitude will sufficiently clarify the function of physical tongue retraction for the lateral segments. This is done through direct investigation of the involved articulators and is not based solely on entire reliance on an indirect acoustic signal. Given that Salish literature predominantly describes only the lateral approximants as possibly retracted, and only once mentions lateral fricative and never the lateral ejective affricate as exhibiting retracting properties, and given that for Montana Salish, only the lateral approximants are proposed to have retracted counterparts, it is proposed that Montana Salish III and lil will demonstrate retracted movements, while lil and It/ will not. Accordingly, the two approximants should pattern closest to the other retracted consonants, especially the uvulars, in acoustic effects and articulatory movement, although to a lesser degree. Once the articulatory examination of tongue movement has been successfully described for the lateral consonants, categorization of the function of these events as phonetic or phonological is possible. Classification of phonological status of tongue retraction for the lateral consonants includes insight into legitimacy of "lateral" as feasible phonological feature. The diverse array of laterals within a single language presents a unique arena to test this designation by investigating whether or not these lateral consonants pattern together in the use of tongue movement. Most importantly, this study supplies a detailed phonetic description of a little investigated language, which may in turn be incorporated into descriptive pedagogical materials for the Montana Salish tribe. 8 Chapter 2 Properties of the Montana Salish Sound System and Study Methodology 2.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to introduce the Montana Salish sound system, and to present the methodology used in this study. The consonant inventory is presented first, and is followed by the phonemic vowel chart. Next, additional phonotactic and descriptive coarticulatory information is presented for the lateral, uvular, and pharyngeal consonants. The uvular and pharyngeal consonant information is included in order to establish the kinds of coarticulatory effects which are in place for known back consonants. Additional morphophonemic information is presented when necessary. Lastly the study methodology is presented in Section 2.5. 2.2 Inventory Description The Montana Salish dialects have a rich sound inventory. They consist of 38 consonants, and 5 vowels. These are presented in Table 2.1 below. The consonants are organized in the table below according to their place and manner of articulation. A brief introduction to the vowel system is presented in the following diagram. In the ensuing chapters words and cited examples are written in the standard orthography used by the Montana Salish tribes. However, when more subphonemic detail is of interest, an additional IP A transcription is included. For both orthographic and IPA transcriptions of examined words, see Appendix A. 9 Place: Lab Alveolar Lateral Alveo-Palatal Palatal Velar Labialized Velar Uvular Labialized Phar Lab-Uvular Phar Glottal Manner: Voiceless Stops: plain ejective P 5 P t i (k) (*) £w q q w q 4W ? Affricates: voiceless ejective c c * C t Fricatives: voiceless s S Xw X x w Resonants: Nasals plain glottalized m rh n 5 n 1 r y 5 y w w ? Ow Central Approximant: h Table 2.1 Montana Salish Consonant Inventory In order to help identify where these sounds are produced in the mouth, the Figure 2.1 below identifies several locations within the mouth that are used for Montana Salish speech. Note that the parts of the tongue are specifically marked as is the rear pharyngeal wall. Glottis ' Articulators and Places of Speech Articulation Figure 2.1 Articulators and Places of Speech Articulation 10 Montana Salish has 5 vowels, lui, HI, /e/=[e], /o/=[o], and /a/.1 These are shown in the chart below. Primary stress is marked with the (') over the vowel. Stress always falls on the vowel (as opposed to a consonant), and never on prefix. While not underlyingly distinctive, the remaining vowel which requires consideration in Montana Salish is schwa. This vowel is not written in the standard orthography, is never stressed, never occurs word initially, and its quality is extremely variable, as is its length and audibility. While acoustic measurements have not been collected for this vowel in this study, its impressionistic quality is inconsistent and varies by both speaker and context.2 Flemming et al. (1994:13) describe this as a "transitional vowel of indeterminate quality".3 The importance of mentioning this vowel stems from the Gick and Wilson (2002, 2003) hypothesis, who show that a transitional schwa-like vowel is a byproduct of one method of resolving conflicting gestures. Not only does this apply to gestures in as much opposition as those used to produce a Iql and an lil, but also to those with less contrast in target position. In Montana Salish, a schwa, which is a byproduct from a transition between two conflicting gestures, is a distinct phenomenon from a full schwa as target articulation for the vowel nucleus.4 However, both are phonetically apparent. Moreover, the second motivation for discussion of schwa is in the clarification that these phonological characteristics help define schwa, the default vowel, as distinctly different from interspeech rest position (See section 2.4.7). Nuclear schwa distribution is, for the most part, predictable in occurrence based on environment and syllabic structure. Generally, any time a resonant consonant, such as /m, m, n, h, 1, f, y, y, w, w, ?, Sw. V' w/, is preceded by another consonant, a schwa-like vowel is inserted (Flemming et al. 1994:13). Flemming et al. (1994:13) state "...sonorants may not follow obstruents in a cluster, they are always separated by a vowel. The vowel transcribed as [a], a transitional vowel of indeterminate quality, only occurs between a sonorant and a 1 Status of the <o> in Montana Salish is unclear. It is possible that there are phonetically two vowels, low back rounded [o] and another mid back rounded vowel resulting from the no longer pronounced pharyngeal consonants. In addition, when adjacent to a rounded or labialized consonant, the <o> is closer to an [o] sound. Because of this variability, the lol vowel has not been examined in this study. 2 In the current study, the nuclear schwa is transcribed as [a], while the transitional schwa is unwritten, unless it is apparent in a C V / V C sequence already under investigation. Otherwise, standard orthographic transcription is used for all Montana Salish words. When necessary, a narrower IPA transcription is also added. When no [a] transcription is present, e.g. maninfp, then the consonants are all individually released without a vowel between them. 3 Schwa does not occur word initially, but there are examples of it occurring word finally in three different contexts. 4 For further information on the properties of nucleic schwa, the reader is referred to Shaw (1992 and 2004 to appear). 11 preceding consonant".5 Similarly, when two resonants are immediately adjacent to each other like Imi and Inl in the word a%womn [axwom9n] 'old-time scraping instrument', there is a brief transitional vowel which surfaces in between the two resonants.6' Section 2 . 2 . 1 Laterals and uvulars: distributional and descriptive information In addition to the general introduction to the Montana Salish phonemic inventory, the laterals, in particular, deserve additional attention. These discussions are presented below and are followed by coarticulatory information for the uvular and pharyngeals. The latter two sets of consonants are included since the adjacent vowel interaction is what is expected of "typical" retracted consonants. This helps create a baseline from which the interaction with the lateral consonants can be compared. Montana Salish lateral approximant IV occurs in all locations within a word: initially as in the woman's name lamiis, medially as in sqelixw 'people', and finally as in qwe?el 'something dried up'. However, occurrences of word final III are numerically very few. There are also no restrictions on vowel environment. The consonant IV can occur with all vowels, following or preceding. Some Montana Salish additional examples of this are eslalamisti 'I'm moving around, restless' and esctaxelsi 'he's hurting, suffering'. However, most pronunciations of III include a small pre-stopped sound, followed by at least minimal frication of the lateral. This pre-stopped onset to the [1] is durationally very short, but auditorily quite distinct. Flemming et al. (1994:13) state "In most environments, the voiced and voiceless laterals are usually produced with a brief stop closure or some other gesture that produces a burst-like transient at the beginning of the lateral. However, this does not always occur".7 This observation corroborates with Vogt (1940:13) who notes for the Kalispel dialect that the [1] is "pronounced with a supradental closure of short duration before the lateral release". When utilized, this pre-stopped movement is relevant for the articulatory analysis, as this contact with the roof of the mouth provides a consistent locus for the TT gesture. The authors also describe the voiced lateral as often fricated and sometimes devoicing (often only partly) in the word-final position and preceding voiceless consonants (Flemming et 5 Additional clarification to these rules of schwa distribution is provided by Thomason (p.c. 2004) and will be included in Thomason, Sarah G. In preparation. A sketch of Montana Salish structure. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, ms. 6 However, when two of the same resonants are adjacent word finally (only mm, nn, yy, ww) they can be long without a transitory vowel of any kind between them as in the /mm/ sequence in iescanmm, 'I 'm holding (one object) tight'. Resonant /ml coalescence only occurs word finally, and depends upon whether the first Imi morpheme contains an underlying vowel (Thomason, p.c. 2004). Flemming et al. state "in sequences of more than two sonorants, they need not all be separated by vowels; for example, in some utterances of [sa'nam'ne] 'toilet' there may be two, but not three epenthetic vowels" (Flemming et al. 1994:13). 7 The alternation in between the prestopped [1], and the non-prestopped [1] is in free variation. Also, because many times the tongue tip is not visible on the ultrasound image, there is no articulatory evidence to differentiate these two types of productions. Similarly, the glottalized IV and plain IV appear to have the same tongue motions but because the tongue tip is often not visible, this is a descriptive remark rather than one based on measurements or statistical comparisons. 12 al. 1994:14). These observations are consistent with the current speaker's data. These variations are [dl],[d}3],[dtl], [l].8 In addition, because IV is often preceded by this stop-like onset, [11] sequences are never long, but are always independently produced. This is similar, but independent from, another pattern whereby all consonants can be reduplicated, thus yielding sequences of identical segments. In this process, all stops, and affricates are individually released. The Hi can have all the voicing variations that are described above for the plain IV (partially or completely voiced or voiceless), and still include the pre-glottal closure. Flemming et al. (1994:16) state "glottalized sonorants. . .are preglottalized. . .Glottalized laterals are also pre-stopped". They also state "In final position and before voiceless consonants, the lateral is devoiced, as with non-glottalized laterals" (Flemming et al. 1994:17). In addition, sometimes the pre-glottal closure is incomplete and creaky voice results on the preceding vowel and/or a portion of the lateral. The pre-glottalized lil is found preceding and following all vowels in Montana Salish. It is also found initially, medially, and finally as in l'axtmn [l'axtmsn] T became friends with him', and ltltk wu 'otters', pl'ip 'it drifted away' and / n m a V 'it's a warm liquid'. Next, sequential IVI is common as in cn ?esseVl' 'twins'. The word l'lac 'red raspberry' is sometimes pronounced with two glottalized /1/s as l'l'ac. Here, the first lil is pronounced independently (without any vowel-like transition). Next, the lateral fricative is found both preceding and following all vowels. Some examples are cn kw6i T feel nervous, scared', snfucus [s3nfucus] 'dough', and iicntux w [iits 9ntux w\ '(you got) whipped, spanked'. It can also be word initial, medial, or final as in the words, teen T smoothed it', ccecete 'three people', and mii 'too'. Furthermore lil can also be pronounced independently, with no intervening transitory vowel, as in the words itxta 'pepper' and itptiipn [ftptup3n] 'several little black widow spiders'. As with other Montana Salish consonants, in sequences, the lateral fricative can also be pronounced with length. Some examples are cifmo?tetk w 'a little steamboat', qeyitms [qeyffsms] 'he woke you folks up' and ifu 'few, less'. The lateral ejective affricate is found both before and after all vowels. However, it has limited contact with both lot and lui as there are only two roots with a Fkol sequence, %6q w,\o crack knuckles' and %6xw'rattle; the sound of something rolling around'. There are similarly limited examples of lotl sequences; x wo% 'crackling sound' and qw6%/'run (plural)' are the only roots with an ot combination.9 Al l other examples are allomorphs of a lutl combination. Additionally, priX as in i cn put 'I'm greasy' is the only root with a lutl sequence. There are many more Fkul combinations. Fkl is found at the beginning, middle, and end of words, and, as all other consonants, in reduplicative sequences. Some examples are, tayt 'fast', esfiemscu 'getting into trouble', escmifi 'something that's spread on, (e.g. butter)' and iniXfii 'it's a sharp point'. There is no non-ejective counterpart for this lateral affricate except in reduplicated sequences like [infXtff] 'it's a sharp point'. In these sequences, only the last lateral affricate is ejective. 8 For the current study, only fully voiced and non-fricated IV data was used in order to provide a control within lateral production. 9 It is not clear whether these two roots have an underlying lol since they are perpetually adjacent to possible retraction triggers. 13 Since the following articulatory examinations are partly motivated by the retraction effects that a consonant may produce on the adjacent vowel, it is important to describe what effect this might be. In this task, the vowel interactions with the known retracted consonants, or those whose primary production involves the uvula or pharynx, are described. Generally this interaction involves a lowering or schwa-like transition for the high vowels, but minimal or no change in the low vowels. In Montana Salish, the only consonants which have been proposed to interact in such a way with the adjacent vowels, are the uvulars and pharyngeals. The known co-occurrence restrictions and relevant vowel interactions are described below. An immediate dissimilarity is obvious between the above environmental limitations for the lateral segments and those co-occurrence restrictions for the known retracted consonants. Overall, the laterals are found both preceding and following all vowels in the Montana Salish inventory. However, pharyngeals, for example, are not. This is because Id always lowers to [a] when adjacent to a pharyngeal. Similarly, limitations on lul adjacent to a pharyngeal or uvular are because lul almost always lowers to [o]. In order to fully evaluate these environmental dissimilarities in comparison with the laterals, the co-occurrence limitations for the uvulars and pharyngeals are presented below. The consonants Iql and Iql are commonly found with all vowels except lul. There are only two isolated examples of [qu] combinations, although various root final Iql grouping with the suffix =ulex w, 'earth, land' occurs 5 times. The other root final Iql combination occurs with the =ups 'bottom, tail' suffix.10 According to Thomason (p.c. 2004), when an Iql and /w/ are adjacent to each other, they are phonetically distinguished by an inserted schwa, such that the sequence /qwi/ would be realized as [qawi] not [qwi]. Similarly, a non-labialized Iql followed by the vowel lul does not necessarily result in labialization of the Iql. Instead, these sequences can be pronounced as [qsu] where schwa is never stressed, but the full [u] vowel may be. Since uvular consonants, including the two fricatives, are back consonants, they can lower the quality of the adjacent vowel as demonstrated in the word nisq wdt 'And that's when they bought this [land] across the river and into the mountains' where the lexical suffix =ut for 'far off place' has lowered. A similar example is lq wqw6tm 'it can be done' where the lexical suffix =utm 'possible' has lowered in the environment of the uvular. Here the lul is pronounced somewhat between an [o] and an [o] sound as it is affected by the labialization of the uvular as well as the retracted status of the uvular. Some additional words which demonstrate the effect from the adjacent uvular are \x wopt] from the root yr wupt 'lazy', [sc9mqein] from scmqin 'brain' and the uvular-/i/ sequence in the sentence cn escaxi [ests'ax3i] T'm frying something'. However, the uvular-/i/ transition is not always audible to the same degree. There is a large variation in the amount of transition depending on the word. For example, the word estaqi 'waving at someone', has a much less audible transition between the uvular stop and the following lil while scmqin 'brain' has a very distinct transition.11 Not only do within-speaker repetitions often vary in amount of transition in the uvular-vowel/ vowel-uvular sequences, but also it is likely that the amount of transition, 1 0 Numerical occurrence comes from the dictionary files of Thomason (2000). 1 1 Thomason (p.c. 2004) cites penultimate vowel stress from Mengarini (1877-1879) for estaqi. Pronunciation from the speaker in this study was difficult to determine, but seemed to be final vowel stress. 14 i f any, between the v o w e l and consonant depends can vary depending on sy l lab i f ica t ion. That is, when the retraced consonant is i n the coda pos i t ion , its effect on the preceding v o w e l is o f a s l igh t ly di f ferent qual i ty than w h e n the consonant is in the onset pos i t ion. For example, in the w o r d sixweyxwdsi.xweyxw° 'badger ' , the first /xw/ is on ly produced as the onset o f the second syl lable, and there is m i n i m a l acoustic effect on the in i t ia l lil. However , the lil t ransi t ion before the coda Iql as i n piq is a m i n i m a l but not iceable ongl ide. M o r e dramatic v o w e l interactions are associated w i t h the pharyngeals. For example, pharyngeals general ly occur f reely w i t h lal, and HI ei ther preceding or f o l l o w i n g , as in nc?ils ' Y o u went up the r iver ' f r o m the root c? ' ups t ream' , es?ac ' i t ' s t ied ' f r o m the root ?ac ' t i e ' , yf?'w ' i t moved ' f r o m ?'wii, the root fo r ' w h o l e ' , and c'lF™, the root fo r ' squeal ' . However , there are some numer ica l l imi ta t ions o n these environments. W h i l e , lil is of ten found f o l l o w i n g the labial ized pharyngeal i t is does not precede i t except in one example li^mstn, [ l i ^ m s f n ] T rang the bel ls accidental ly ' f r o m the root liwmeaning ' b e l l ' . Fur thermore, wh i l e there are /aV/ and A a / sequences, there are no stressed or unstressed /aY"/ or A ^ a / sequences. The on ly t w o examples o f / a ? ' w / combinat ions are found as al lomorphs o f the roots haw' ' l oose ' and caw, 'bathe, w a s h ' . The lul v o w e l is somewhat l im i ted in occurrence preceding and f o l l o w i n g the various pharyngeals, as i t o f ten lowers to [o] w h e n adjacent to a pharyngeal , but is by no means proh ib i ted complete ly. There is on ly one example o f an lul preceding the p la in pharyngeal and i t is not i n the under ly ing root (e.g. ha?u2 ' i t came loose ' from the root haw', ' l oose ' ) . S imi la r ly , the on ly luSI or / u W (stressed or unstressed) sequences are found in var iat ions o f the root cu?™, ' p r in t ' . There are on ly t w o roots w i t h lul preceding a labial ized pharyngeal , cu?w, ' p r in t ' , and xwu?™, ' vag ina ' , and on ly t w o examples w i t h lul immediate ly f o l l o w i n g a p la in labial ized pharyngeal , es?wum, ' i t 's mashed together ' f r o m the root ?wum, ' r u b ' and cn ^Icu^us T made a pr in t o f m y face', where c u f ^ i s the root, but /=us/ is the lex ica l su f f i x for ' face ' . There are no A " w u / or / u S " w / combinat ions (stressed or unstressed). N o r does the v o w e l lol occur w i t h any non- labia l ized pharyngeals but on ly w i t h rounded pharyngeals as in yoyo?wt fo r ' s t rong ' , l?'w6 'pu t i n ' , and a metathesis o f the v o w e l and pharyngeal in the phrase ns?'w6p ' i t is d ra in ing ' f r o m the root so?'w, ' to become l o w ' . M o r e restr icted, /e/ does not surface adjacent to any pharyngeal , labial ized or p la in , as /e/=[e] a lways lowers to [a ] i n the adjacent pos i t ion. No te that pronunc ia t ion o f the pharyngeal great ly varies. Sometimes the pharyngeal i t se l f is lost complete ly , but the remain ing coart iculatory effect is real ized as a long v o w e l (e.g. i xaa ' i t ' s coo l ' ) . Or, the pharyngeal m a y be under l y ing as in ?w6s Tost ' , but i t is not pronounced, on ly the effect on the v o w e l is, as i n [oos] or [ 6 0 s ] . I n many cases, what was once a pharyngeal h is tor ica l ly , o r w h i c h s t i l l occurs as a pharyngeal i n the ne ighbor ing Salishan languages, is no longer pronounced i n present day Mon tana Salish speech. However , of ten the v o w e l effects (such as lower ing ) remain and have become lexical ized independent o f the pharyngeal 's surface occurrence. I n these cases, the resul t ing surface pronunciat ion is w i t h addi t ional length o n the v o w e l , and/or lower ing . A previous summary o f v o w e l interact ion w i t h pharyngeals is noted i n F l e m m i n g et al. (1994:19) w h o state, "Rounded pharyngeals on ly appear before round vowe ls or word - f i na l l y , and unrounded pharyngeals on ly appear adjacent to the l o w , unrounded 15 vowel /a/". According to Egesdal (1993:9) "Id and lui never directly precede a uvular or pharyngeal. Surface [u] may be contiguous to a uvular, as a result of /w/ vocalizing". However, as demonstrated by data above, S.G. Thomason (2000) has elicited pharyngeals in more diverse environments since these papers were published. Regardless, any cases of lui immediately adjacent to pharyngeals are interesting. An analysis of retracted tongue root ought to predict that these instances would surface as lol not lui. It is therefore not entirely clear why these surface as lui. The interactions with uvulars and pharyngeals are important to interpret here in light of the lack of restrictions for the lateral consonants. The retracted back consonants (uvulars and pharyngeals) impose more dramatic coarticulatory effects such that some vowels do not ever surface adjacent to them. However, the laterals impose no such restrictions, regardless of their coarticulatory influences. Because the laterals have no distributional restrictions, it implies that the laterals will exhibit less of a retracted movement, if any, as compared with the uvulars and pharyngeals. In other words, these distribution facts imply that there will be less dramatic adjacent vowel effects than the other back consonants. Two additional Montana Salish phonological generalizations, which are relevant for the examined Itl sequences presented in the following chapter, concern consonantal release as opposed to glottalization or ejection. All consonants can occur in clusters. However, when any stop or affricate is immediately next to another stop or affricate consonant in a cluster, then each sound is separately articulated. That is, each consonant is pronounced and released (without any vowel or vowel-like sound between the consonants). In addition, all consonants can be reduplicated, thus yielding sequences of identical segments. In this process, all stops, affricates, and the lateral approximant, are released. However, when glottalized oral stops and affricates are adjacent to another ejective, only the last ejective in the sequence is pronounced. That is, all ejectives are deglottalized except the last one in the sequence. This does not apply to glottalized resonants (Thomason, p.c. 2004). The last comment concerns the remaining consonantal inventory and the establishment of "neutral" and "non-neutral" segments. In order to acoustically and articulatorily pair vowels which are influenced by back consonants, with those not under the same retracting influence, categorization of the inventory items was made. Recall the effects on the vowel inventory as listed in the sections on uvulars and pharyngeals above. Since no vowels in the context of the remaining inventory items are known to lax/lower, all consonants whose primary place of articulation is at the velum or farther front in the mouth, are considered "neutral". This is not to ignore the obvious coarticulatory effects that all consonants have, regardless of place or manner, but simply to differentiate between these effects and those retracted tongue root effects which have the potential to retract the adjacent vowel. In addition, to eliminate large coarticulatory effects, vowels adjacent to glides are not counted in the neutral category. Complete methodology for the comparison of these vowels, both articulatorily and acoustically, is presented in the following section. 16 2.3 Introduction and Motivation for Experiments As demonstrated by the variable vowel pronunciation discussed previously, interaction with retracted consonants has a large effect on adjacent vowels. Previous literature, as discussed in Chapter 1, has shown that these effects are noted across multiple Salish (and non-Salish) languages. However, all studies prior to this have relied on acoustic analysis such that when claims about lateral segments were made, they were indirect regarding the actual function of the lateral. Acoustic measurements can reflect certain tongue behavior, but these are indirect inferences and cannot be considered conclusive as there are numerous factors that can influence the acoustic signal which are not sourced in the oral tract. A specific illustration of the lack of clarity in the interpretation of the acoustic signal is shown in Egesdal (1993). He posits two historically distinct retracted and non-retracted lateral approximants in Montana Salish in order to explain the variability in adjacent vowel lowering that is not otherwise accounted for by the standard post-velar consonants. He then goes on to say that the amount to which these two historical /l/'s have merged is unclear in current speakers (Egesdal 1994:18). It is clear that Egesdal has used the variability in the acoustic signal to motivate the positing of two distinct phonemes (which may or may not have merged). This was done in response to conflicting interpretations of the acoustic signal. A direct look at the articulators involved will avoid the convolution of the acoustic signal, and be able to make more conclusive claims on tongue movement. It is clear from previous literature that there is potential for IV in Montana Salish to have a retracted component, but to what extent is yet to be clarified. The following chapter is an in-depth examination of possible tongue retraction of the lateral consonants in Montana Salish. The investigation will determine which laterals are retracted, and what the dynamics of the retraction movement are. How these tongue movements affect the adjacent vowels is discussed in the following chapter. Specifically, investigation into the use of tongue dorsum versus tongue root movement will reveal whether all lateral retraction is dynamically the same, or whether there is differentiation. As previously mentioned, according to findings by Gick and Wilson (2003), adjacent vowel laxing can be explained as the byproduct of a gestural conflict between the tongue root and tongue dorsum. If the tongue root is retracted for a back consonant, such as a uvular, but the tongue dorsum needs to be high and front for an HI vowel, the physical system has the option of either compromising the tongue body's spatial position by laxing/lowering the vowel, or compromising temporally, which then results in a schwa-like transition stage; that is, "the resulting transition moves the tongue through an articulatory and acoustic space almost identical to that of a canonical schwa" (Gick and Wilson 2003:13). This choice is evident in the acoustic signal. Furthermore, in order to clearly differentiate why the lateral consonants might cause any kind of gestural conflict, clarification of their movement and position in the oral tract must be made. That is, if the lateral consonants exhibit a retracted movement, then it would necessarily affect the high vowels, either through spatial or temporal resolution. If there is no retracted movement, then there is no motivation for retraction effects on adjacent vowels (if indeed there are any). An articulatory analysis of the lateral to vowel interactions in Montana Salish will convincingly determine whether the lateral consonants themselves are retracted. 17 Three separate methods of analysis are used in order to fully investigate the retraction in laterals (or lack thereof) and the overall TR7TD gestural conflict in Montana Salish. These are: tongue position measurements, overlaid tracings of tongue positions, and the acoustic signal. Specific methodology for these is discussed below in section 2.4. These processes facilitate the establishment of retracted and non-retracted baseline of comparison for lateral consonant positioning and acoustic interactions. The following sections detail the methodology of these comparisons. 2.4 Methodology Section 2.4.1 Participants The author collected data during a four-week field session in the fall of 2003 with three elderly female, Montana Salish speakers. Sessions were recorded on site at the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal reservation. All speakers are of the Bitterroot dialect of Salish, which is to be distinguished from the related "Pend d'Oreille", or "Kalispel" dialects. The primary speaker (DF) was ~ 74 at the time of recording. DF's father was Spokane. She often commented that certain words were "ours" and other words were either Pend d'Oreille or Spokane. She, and the other speakers, use English as a daily language though each is fluent in Montana Salish. Because only one speaker (DF) provided visually clear ultrasound data, she has become the case-study speaker for this study. Neither acoustic nor articulatory data from the second or third speaker was interpreted within this study. However, descriptive and perceptual observations are still taken from all three speaker's recordings when valuable.12 Section 2.4.2 Apparatus and Organization Real-time ultrasound recordings were made of all three speakers using a Sonosite 180 Plus portable ultrasound machine with Sonosite 180 plus C15/4-2 MHz M C X set at the obstetrics setting, penetration, with a non-reported internal scan rate, linked to a Sony (mini-dv) Handycam Vision DCR-TRV900 (NTSC) digital video recorder (Figure 2.2b). The camera recorded at 30 frames per second. The transducer was held steady by a microphone stand set upon a table before which the consultant sat (Figure 2.2a). An Audio Technica lapel microphone was attached to another stand in front, but level with the consultant's mouth, and simultaneously captured the audio signal (digitized at 44,000Hz). The ultrasound was placed directly in front of the speaker during recording in 1 2 Because all three speakers worked together on this project, even though only data from only DF was clear enough to be used, I am including their information as well: Speaker 2 (SH) was ~72 at the time of recording and had both one parent and husband who spoke Spokane. She is, however, self-described as competent between noting the origins of true Bitterroot Salish vocabulary, and other related dialects. Speaker 3 (MF) is ~80 years old, but is much less assertive in her Montana Salish speech because she has not spoken it in years. She also suffered slight hearing loss and lack of front teeth, which affected her speech. 18 order to establish a location of focus and eliminate as much head movement as possible. Because the speakers could watch their tongue while speaking, they were potentially able to self-correct if they noticed their head position was slipping. However, none of the speakers actually did this. Rather, perhaps because of an overload of information, the speakers consistently closed their eyes when speaking in Montana Salish, but opened them in the pauses while I was prompting them for the next set of tokens.13 This balanced out possibility of visual feedback correction. Regardless, because of the point of focus, speakers were much more able to maintain a steady amount of pressure on the transducer and therefore produce a clearer image.14 Figure 2.2a Placement of Ultrasound Figure 2. 2b Portable Ultrasound An attempt was made to measure the transducer to head angle but there was still enough uncontrollable head movement that only a general angle could be established. All pictures viewed represent a mid-sagittal cross-section of the tongue within the mouth such that the consultant's head is not vertical in the images. Instead, this angle is approximately 25 degrees off from true-vertical so that the a line drawn from the center of the tongue image to in-between the tongue tip and tongue dorsum is close to a true-vertical reading (See Image 2.2). Some isolated clips of the coronal cross-sections of the tongue were taken for select consonants (laterals and uvulars) by turning the transducer 90 degrees. When collecting the cross-sectional data, transducer stability and head movement was only minimally controlled for, thus the data cannot be analyzed in any manner other than descriptively. Because the speakers did not actually focus on the real-time ultrasound images, there is little likelihood of the data being skewed by visual feedback. 1 4 Maureen Stone (p.c. 2004) has suggested that for future data collection, a fixed point upon the wall or anywhere directly at eye level about 6 feet in front of the speaker is the best option for stabilizing head movement. Gick (p.c. 2004) also suggests that resting the back of the head against a wall or any other hard surface will reduce head movement. 19 Section 2.4.3 Analysis Materials Analysis of collected data was conducted using numerous hardware and software. Initial transfer of the mini-dv recordings to a Macintosh computer and, finally, to D V D was done through use of Macintosh Final Cut. Subsequent acoustic analysis utilized Praat 4.0.22 while statistics were compiled using both Microsoft Excel and Statview 5.0.1. Apple Quicktime and Macintosh Final Cut were used for articulatory analysis of the ultrasound images, and Adobe Premiere provided the same function when on a PC. Image J version 10.2 was used to measure the articulatory data. Section 2.4.4 Procedure for Elicitation and Token Organization First, a word list of Montana Salish words exemplifying the targeted C V / V C interactions was created by referencing previous language data collected by Dr. S.G. Thomason in her Montana Salish Dictionary project and also previous language data collected by McDowell. Word lists were reviewed with all three speakers as a group in an audio session prior to ultrasound recording. The group review made sure that each speaker knew the targeted words, and was comfortable with their use and definition. If the words were not familiar, they were eliminated. The word list was constructed to illustrate all possible stressed C V / V C combinations of Id, IM, /VI, Itl, IM, with Id, Id, lil, and Id} 5 Note, first, that combinations with lol, semi-vowels, and glides are not analyzed and second, that limitation of particular sequences resulted from gaps in the language where the desired C V / V C sequence did not exist or simply could not be found without another possible retraction trigger in the word.16 For a full list of elicited words, see Appendix A. Words were collected individually in isolated repetition sets numbering 3 at a minimum, and sometimes several more. The polysynthetic nature of Montana Salish meant that some words were collected in a declarative sentence (different stress patterns for a phrase and sentence were noted when necessary). For the few elicitations in multi-word/multi-particle sentences, tokens were eliminated if the desired vowel was not stressed, if syllabification changed across word boundaries, or if the immediately adjacent word contained a retracted consonant. Stress in the repetition cycle was also noted for its effect on formant frequency. That is, in a set of three repetitions, the last utterance was often lowest in intensity, though still stressed (more than a non-stressed vowel). However, because of a concern for a sufficiently robust sample size, all three repetitions were still used unless the difference was sufficiently of concern. Acoustic data collected simultaneously with the ultrasound images are in "citation form". That is, the author prompted the speaker with either the previously reviewed Salish word or the English translation of the reviewed word. However, acoustic data collected during the initial overview of the words with the speakers could be considered from a "natural" context as the desired words often arose in a kind of 1 5 Because stress placement does not rely only phonetic or phonological properties of a word and is partially predictable by lexical specification of morphemes as 'strong' or 'weak' it is considered contrastive (Thomason, p.c. 2004). 1 6 The vowel lol is not analyzed because of its additional conflicting status. It is not always clear whether it is lol underlying, or it is a lowered lul under influence from a retracted consonant. 20 discussion over the speaker's familiarity with the words. This context varied from sentences to isolated utterances etc. and was not taken into account for the acoustic statistics unless a dramatic stress shift or other dominant change occurred. Both sets of acoustic data were used in the data analysis. For example, the i/_i sequence in mii eta tu Mali 'Mary is too skinny' has an lil vowel which is reduced to a slightly lower vowel during fast speech, where as mit in isolated production is with a true [i] vowel. See Chapter 4 section 5 for acoustic validation for this distinction. Next, individual words were chosen to demonstrate the targeted consonant-vowel combination as stressed, within the same syllable. This includes the first vowel following a consonant cluster of the CCCV type (etc.,). Since there is no word initial stress (except in mono-syllabic words), all CV/VC contexts were either word medial, or word final position such that unless the vowel is monosyllabic, it is never stressed in word initial position (e.g. %e?e£ 'the sun, or something/someone, peeks out' and i cn put 'I'm greasy'). Furthermore, in the selection of the elicited words, morphology and syllable structure are constrained as much as possible, though this is dictated primarily by coda and onset position. First, CV/VC sequences which span a morphological boundary are accepted in the selection of tokens as long as the CV sequence is onset-vowel and the VC sequence is vowel-coda. Therefore the /qi/ sequence a word like estaqi 'he/she's waving at someone', (ACT-wave- INTR.CONT.) would be acceptable even though the Iql is from the root (taq 'wave') while the HI is the continuative suffix. Similarly, because syllabification (likely) results in the Iql acting as an onset for the following lil vowel, this word would be used. Unfortunately, sometimes situations occurred where the coda/onset function of an intervocalic consonant is unclear, and the VCV context is the only possible environment available. When this was true, the word in question was examined separately in the analysis but used anyway. For example, in the word smulmn [smufWn] 'war lance, spear' because there is a slight vocalic like sound between the lil and the Imi, the lil could conceivable act as the onset rather than as the coda in the /ul'/ sequence. Similarly ambiguity arises in vcv sequences like talip 'loose', where the consonant of focus is either a coda, an onset, or both, to the adjacent vowels.17 Next, the majority of words examined exhibit a CV/VC interaction that occurs in the morphological root, but when this was not available, CV/VC combinations found in a lexical or grammatical suffix were utilized. Lastly, and most importantly, words with any possible non-adjacent retracting trigger anywhere within the word (or on an immediately adjacent word regardless of intervening vowels) were eliminated. This includes any of the four laterals, the uvulars, or the pharyngeal consonants (but not the low vowels).18 In addition, words with historically known retracted segments were rejected such as those with known underlying (but not surfacing) pharyngeals etc.19 For example, cross-reference with 1 7 No template of syllable structure is promoted by any of the criteria used in word selection for this project. 1 8 In order to eliminate all chances for long distance phonetic or phonological effects from retracted consonants, words with any back consonant are eliminated. For example, qwo qweylis "Johnny cheated me' would not be used because in theory, the uvular could effect the IV even though a vowel and a glide are situated in between the consonants. 1 9 Thomason (p.c. 2004) notes that there are possible effects of glottalization on vowels. Thomason cites Mengarini (1877-79) who writes <ko> for words which are [kw]u but <ku> for [kw]u. In consideration of 21 cognates in Spokane, Colville-Okanagan, and Kalispel as documented in the Montana Salish dictionary (2000) enabled this criterion to be enforced. Because of the frequency of these back consonants and the other strict definitions for which words might be eliminated, some V C / C V combinations could not be obtained. Other words in the word list are the sole known examples in the language after all the criteria have been applied. Conditions for inclusion or exclusion in the examined words are listed in the table below. Table 2.2 Word Selection Criteria Words Used Acceptable Environment RTR Consonant anywhere in word No RTR Consonant in adjacent word less than 1 syllable away (for phrases only) No RTR Consonant historically present No C V / V C across morphological boundary Yes Coda-vowel sequence/ vowel-onset sequence No Stressed vowel Yes In addition to the focused elicitation, supplemental elicitation from the three Montana Salish speakers was used to collect phrases and words which demonstrate all additional phonemic inventory items. Beyond the targeted C V environments, examples of all items in the inventory (32 consonants, 5 vowels, and 4 semi-vowels/glides) were recorded on ultrasound imaging. A complete word list for tokens utilized in this study is found in Appendix A. The list is separated into words used in both acoustic and articulatory analysis, and words that are only used in the articulatory analysis. Section 2.4.5 Procedure for Acoustic Analysis Acoustic analysis was done through cross-vowel comparison of the first, second, and third vowel formants. Formant transitions were measured and compared between "neutral" vs. "non-neutral" vowel environments, that is, between environments with the specified consonant, and those without any possible retracting consonant. For acoustic comparison, in addition to the elimination of known retracted consonants (and laterals), a "neutral" vowel environment was considered the context of consonants produced at the velum or farther forward in the mouth. In order to eliminate large transitory effects resulting from vowel-glide sequences, the stipulation of a "neutral" vowel also excluded adjacency with all glides (/y, y, w, w/) 2 0 this possible retracting effect on the adjacent vowel, it is possible that the predominant effect on the /u/ in eslcwu?ffi and kw\i?f is not from the lateral, but from the preceding /kw/. Similarly, if effect from the /k w/ carried over to the lateral, it would help explain why the lateral position in these two words is more defined then the lateral in pfip and smufmn. Nevertheless, since these lui vowels were not evaluated auditorily, they do not skew the acoustic results for the Hi. 2 0 Henceforth, all reference to neutral vowels refers to this definition and is not meant to imply that other segments do not exhibit acoustic effects on an adjacent vowel. 22 Approximate correlations made from the measured formant values were as follows. Tongue body height is encapsulated through the first formant frequency such that the higher the tongue body, the lower the F l . Tongue body backing is reflected through F2 whereby the farther back the tongue body moves, the lower the F2 falls. And lastly, tongue root retraction is captured by changes in F3 such that the more tongue root constriction, the lower the third formant frequency Kent and Read (1992). However, interpretation of F3 is more complicated since there is also a pressure maximum near the uvula. It seems possible then that F3 formant values could rise in this location, thereby convoluting the interpretation of the F3 signal. In order to understand the possible interpretations of the F3 readings in terms of TR or TD retraction or advancement, F3 is discussed in more detail below. The figures below illustrate a simple tube diagram of the vocal tract. Here pressure (P) and velocity (V) maximums correspond to different areas and constrictions in the vocal tract. Constriction at a V maximum lowers F3, while constriction at a P maximum raises the third formant. For example, in theory, F3 is lowered by movement of the tongue back in the TR area, but raised by movement of the tongue toward the uvular. However, beyond all the additional factors like lip rounding (which lowers all formants), the exact location of the P or V maximum is difficult to correlate with specific consonants. This is because consonants, and indeed all sounds, are not necessarily produced at exact pressure maximums or minimums. Montana Salish uvulars (see Chapter 3) seem to be produced in the upper pharyngeal, posterior uvular area and thus the F3 values reflecting this may not reflect the exact center of a pressure maximum. Therefore, F3 can be considered a more convoluted, and less straightforward formant than either F l or F2. Kent and Read state, "the curve for F3 has negative [lowering] regions corresponding to constrictions as the lips, the palate, and the pharynx" (Kent and Read 1992:27). However, the diagrams below, as modeled from Borden et al. (1994:97), put the pressure and velocities at slightly more specific places within the vocal tract.21 These many-to-one effects on the acoustic formants underlie the importance of a direct investigation into the articulatory production. F3 information is valuable when incorporated along with the articulatory imaging which illustrates the direction of tongue movement. For constriction locations for F l and F2 see Bessell (1991). 23 Perturbation Theory: constriction locations F l Perturbation Theory: constriction locations F2 Perturbation Theory: constriction locations F3 V \ X V - V e l u m V - TR \ i ^ p \ ^ ^ / Image 2.1 Vocal Tract Tube Model F3 is not the on ly signal w h i c h is interpreted through the many- to-one acoustic-art iculatory relat ionship. A s i l lustrated here, i t is fact o f the acoustic signal that extension in one area or compression in another area w i l l change the resul t ing fo rmant values. Th is is par t icu lar ly relevant to F2 and F3 as there are mul t ip le locat ions o f ve loc i ty and pressure m a x i m u m s and m i n i m u m s , but is equal ly appl icable to F l . W h i l e interpretat ion o f the signal is i n terms o f T B height, T B back ing, and T R retract ion, there are always addi t ional factors both internal and external to the oral tract w h i c h can in f luence the f ina l fo rmant outcome. Th is is fundamenta l ly w h y a direct look at the art iculators is necessary n o w that the means is available. Con t inu ing w i t h the acoustic measurement procedure, F l , F2 and F3 are measured at 5%, 5 0 % and 9 5 % into each vowe l ne ighbor ing the targeted consonant for al l words. Th is was completed in Praat 4.0.49 (1992) using the scr ipt ing and text -gr id funct ions. A l l measurements are compared against the fo rmant value o f the neutral vowe l at that part icular t ime. For example, in the words,piq ' w h i t e ' and ciq ' d i g ' , a l l fo rmant values fo r HI are measured not ing that the f i rst measurement 5% into the v o w e l w i l l most l i ke l y ref lect the preceding consonants effect, and less o f the f o l l o w i n g consonants effect. M i d w a y should show inf luences f r o m the consonant on either side, but 9 5 % into the v o w e l w i l l show more o f the f o l l o w i n g consonants effects. S imi la r ly , the reverse is appl icable to a V / C _ context. I f a l l three measurements demonstrate retained l ower ing effects f r o m the adjacent retracted consonant, then the v o w e l cou ld be considered to be lowered, as w e l l as transi t ioned. These are compared to averaged HI values for a neutral lil at the same poin t i n t ime (5%, 50%, 95%). The neutral v o w e l values always represent the average o f al l neutral NI measurements as i n such words as t'apim ' she/he shot someth ing ' . I n addi t ion, as exempl i f ied b y W i l s o n ' s (2003) N u u -chah-nul th ar t iculatory and acoustic results, i t is necessary to separate v o w e l results b y pre- and post- consonantal pos i t ion. 24 Section 2.4.6 Articulatory Procedure The procedure for the articulatory, ultrasound analysis was as follows. Still frame clips were extracted from the video, and real distance was calculated in centimeters (to the tenth of a centimeter) as marked by the fixed control points (represented by circular white dots) imprinted on the recorded ultrasound image. Real distance was calculated through a pixel to cm conversion in the Image J program. Measurements were then compared both internally and also externally against measurements from other the laterals and vowels. These measurements quantify the amount of tongue root retraction (or lack thereof) in each V C / C V environment. In addition to comparing the position of the specified consonant, a comparison was sometimes made between this adjacent "retracted" vowel position and the "neutral" vowel position (e.g. i/q_ vs. i/p_). This enables a conclusive claim as to whether the vowel adjacent to the specified consonant did or did not completely reach its gestural target. When the selected consonants demonstrated a distinct end to their movement, such as that done by the lateral ejective affricate, measurements were taken both at time of the tongue (tip) constriction, and then at the peak back movement of the release. For consonants that did not have a clear end to their movement, tongue position data was recorded midway through the consonant. The mechanics of the articulatory measurements are described subsequently: Figure 2.3 below, copied with permission from the Laval X-ray database (Munhall et al. 1995), illustrates the location of the epiglottis relative to the tongue root. The epiglottis is a fixed position and is therefore, the ideal location which can be a steady base point from which other measurements can be made. (Munhall, Tohkura, Vatikiotis-Bateson 1995) However, the epiglottis position is not visible within the scope of the ultrasound image. Additionally, the shadow of the hyoid bone is often observable in the ultrasound image, and frequently blocks the image of the tongue root. An illustration of the width of the ultrasound's midsagittal image is shown in Image 2.2. One can see that hyoid bone, which blocks the sound wave signal, is in the visual scope of the ultrasound image. 25 Approximate Center of the ultrasound images: ~ 2 5 degrees f rom ver t ica l Hyoid bone • Approxi mate scope of ultrasound images I m a g e 2.2 A n g l e o f U l t r a s o u n d V i e w (Image adapted from Stone 1997) Furthermore, since there was minimal ability to control for head movement during field collection, all measurements and data need to be relative to the tongue itself, rather than the transducer. That is, the only static point visible on the ultrasound image is one that is internally relative to the tongue. As neither the epiglottis, nor any other static point, is visible as long as head contact is maintained with the transducer, then the tongue root position becomes the steadiest landmark available. This locus became the base point from which the other measurements were made. Specifically since this locus is tongue internal, it allows for measurements to be taken even though the tilt of the head may vary.22 It is imperative to compare all images with the real time video in order to make sure that the same part of the tongue was visible in all frames. Figure 2.4 shows the location of the hyoid bone shadow in the collected ultrasound data and displays where the initial tongue root measurement was taken. This area of shadow is extremely variable by speaker and transducer angle. Note that all ultrasound images are presented with the tongue tip facing the right, and the tongue root facing the left. 2 2 However, note that this speaker's head tilt has proven to be exceedingly minimal, even over multiple sessions and multiple days. 26 Area obscured by hyoid bone shadow Figure 2.4 Orientation of M T S ultrasound images The locus of the initial baseline measurement (#1) bears explanation: A completely tongue internal measurement, is based exclusively on the measurer's judgment of where the TR is, and which spot represents the same position as the last image that was measured.23 However, a completely tongue external measuring method bears no relation whatsoever to where the tongue actually is on the ultrasound image. That is, the visible area of the TR varies in each captured image (because of speaker head tilt, hyoid bone shadow intrusion, and other still unexplained clips on the image). This limits the possible method of measurement to the more reliable approach and when visible cues are taken into account, this is what the closest point on the transducer arc represents (Figure 2.5). (The measurer keeps a crucial visual note of where the same part of the tongue is in each different image). Further support for the chosen process is possible because the particular speaker used in this study had exceedingly little head tilt. In addition, note that the "TR" measurement does not represent the true actual physical base of the tongue where it connects to the larynx. If measurements were taken here, they would not reflect the tongue's movement. Furthermore, the numbers in the following section represent the change in tongue movement, not the actual size or shape of the tongue. Transducer arc Intersect of arcs: 1 possible measurement Hypothetical transducer center: constant radius Figure 2. 5 Intersect of Measurement Location Figure 2.6 below illustrates the process and location of each ultrasound measurement. Measuremen locations etc. C15 2 cm 3, 2 f Hypothetical transducer center • 3 1 cm reference scale- visible on all ultrasound images 2003Sepl5 14:17 Figure 2. 6 Location of Tongue Measurements Measurements (in cm) were taken along the outline of the tongue beginning at the visible base-point TR position (1) to the closest point on the transducer arc, then at three points in between T T and TR, each 2 cm apart initiating from the TR position (2, 3, 4), then from TT (5) to closest point on the transducer arc, and finally from the T T (5) position to the TR position (1). Established procedure (Stone 1997) is that these measurements are taken from the underside of the white lines visible on the ultrasound image. As mentioned before, because of possible head tilt, only measurements based on an internal marker within the tongue image allow for inter-speaker comparison. In this 28 system, a larger number between the TR (1) and the base-point measurement on the transducer arc, represents more tongue root retraction, as the whole tongue mass is shifting back. Therefore, a lower number for measurements 1 and 2 represents a more advanced tongue position. Measurements 2-4 approximate the general area of the upper TR, uvular, and TB positions. Numerical values for measurements 3-5 represent the position for the TD, TB, and TT, but do not equate exactly to more or less tongue retraction. These measurements are only analyzed as a complete set demonstrating the entire tongue position (i.e. as a measurement set including 1-5). Using MRI data, Gick et al. (2002) divide the vocal tract into upper and lower pharyngeal, uvular, and oral regions. Furthering this distinction, Figure 2.7 below illustrates the parts of the tongue in relation to speech as shown using ultrasound imaging. Notice that the uvular region has been separated into an upper and lower area in order to distinguish the Montana Salish pharyngeal-uvular (posterior uvular) production from "true" uvulars. However, even this distinction does not sanction clear boundaries from one area of articulation to another. Tongue body: velar range OB Tongue dorsum: posterior uvular region ^ f Tongue Tip C J 5 Tongue root: lower f ( pharyngeal ^ — — region * 3 MMMMI " 7.4 Areas o f the Tongue  c m 2003Sep22 15:17 Figure 2 .7 Areas of the Tongue The organization of articulatory analysis merits further elaboration. The subsequent chapters explore the following attributes of dynamic gestural movement. First, position of the tongue gestural target for the lateral consonants is considered. Relevant statistics for tongue positioning are presented. Average positioning is compiled per environment and exemplified primarily with tongue tracings. These tracings allow for an illustrative comparison of consonant and vowel positions in different environments. Tracings of the tongue illustrate retracted and non-retracted counterparts for the vowels and consonants in question. All tracings, and corresponding plotted tongue positions based on the averaged measurements, are compared to interspeech rest position (see section 2.4.7). Next, the articulatory analysis includes a description of the dynamic movements of the tongue. This is illustrated in a frame-by-frame level of analysis either through 29 sequential images of the tongue, or with tongue tracings. This enables a conclusive portrayal of tongue retraction (or lack of retraction) for each consonant. Averages for initial and final position are again compared statistically and represented graphically. This supplements the static measurements of the tongue through qualitative description of the tongue shape, movement, and direction. Lastly, articulatory analysis also includes a comparison of coronal cross-section data. For this imaging, the transducer was turned 90% from the mid-sagittal position and placed under the midpoint of the chin. The angle of measurement varied more than the mid-sagittal data because only a few consonants along the coronal cross-sectional view were recorded, and this cross sectional sampling was collected under less controlled conditions. Therefore, no measurements are made from this view. However, tongue tracings, which demonstrate the dynamic movement of the tongue, are used. Section 2.4.7 Interspeech Rest Position Once the procedure for measurement was established, comparison was made between tongue positions in different vowel contexts. In addition to visual determination, the objective method of quantifying whether the amount of retracted tongue movement qualified the token as "retracted" involves evaluating the particular consonant context in comparison to lil, Id ([e]), "interspeech rest position", and lal. These four target tongue positions create a scalar baseline for advanced tongue root (HI), no TR advancement or retraction (rest position), and retracted tongue root (lal). Rest position was averaged from a variety of tokens (that is, with varying consonants and vowels word finally and initially) and taken from the brief pause in between repetitions of words. If the pause was too short, and the 'rest' position skipped, then these tokens were ignored. As the minimal variability in the rest position images demonstrates (Figure 2.8) this is a targeted position that is regularly reached in between inter speech tokens.24 Measurements were taken the same as with the other vowels and consonants from all the specified points along the tongue. In this subsequent attempt to establish a entirely neutral baseline of comparison for whether a segment can be defined as "retracted" tongue measurements for inter speech rest position were taken and plotted against the vowels in the graph below. According to Gick et al. (2004c), inter utterance rest position is a language specific articulatory target. Gick (p.c. 2004) suggests that this position may represent a medial position within the language inventory (not necessarily the medial position within the vocal tract) such that the tongue positioning might reside in the middle between retracted and non-retracted vowels as well as consonants. In order to spatially examine the effects on tongue position, a baseline position of the neutral vowels is collected based on the 5 measurement points along the tongue. These plot the vowel space at the midpoint of production, thus corresponding to the acoustic measurement of 50% into vowel production. This referential comparison of vowels to interspeech rest position is presented below. For more information in interspeech rest position, the reader is referred to Gick et al. (submitted). 30 Averaged Tongue positioning for Id, Id, l\l, vs. rest Measurement points along tongue edge Figure 2.8 Interspeech rest position as plotted against IM, Id, and Id Note, fore mostly, that at the tongue root measurements of #1 and #2, rest exhibits a medial position between the low and non-low vowels. As predicted, tongue root position during inter utterance rest does lie between the low vowel Id [a] and the mid and high vowels Id [e] and lil [i], and is thereby consistent with function as an objective medial baseline. Interpretation of the graph is such that at measurements #1-2 a number smaller than that of interspeech rest is not "retracted" but a larger number along the Y-axis represents more TR retraction. Note that the tongue dorsum measurement (#3) acts as the approximate fulcrum, such that rest measurements 4-5 (representing tongue body and tongue tip) are now lowered more than that lil and Id [e] vowels, but are not as low as the Id vowel. The area represented by measurements #4 and #5, while not the focus of the current investigation, is used in overall description of the tongue position. In addition, it must be clarified that interspeech rest is independent from the canonical schwa vowel in Montana Salish. Interspeech rest as proposed by Gick et al. (2004c) maintains an independent language articulatory setting which is a distinct and consistent gestural target and is produced with a degree of accuracy equivalent to that of vowel targets. Now that interspeech rest has been established as a point of reference for retraction within Montana Salish, objective evaluating the retraction of the laterals is possible. 31 Chapter 3 Retraction by the Uvular Stop: estabUshing a benchmark of comparison 3.1 Introduction to organization of results The processes and methods discussed in Chapter 2 facilitate the establishment of retracted and non-retracted baseline of comparison for lateral consonant positioning. The results sections are organized in the following manner. First, in Section 3.2, a summary of the primary speaker's vowel space is presented in order to assist in the interpretation of the acoustic results. In addition to the auditory signal, vowel tongue positioning is compared to interspeech rest position. Articulatory positioning of interspeech rest is presented as a speech internal tongue position which represents the outlined boundary between retracted and non-retracted vowel positions. Next, in Section 3.3, an acoustic and articulatory analysis of the uvular stop is presented. The Montana Salish uvular stop is included as representative of an uncontroversial retracted consonant. This, then, allows it to become the reference of tongue retraction via acoustic effects on adjacent vowels, the tongue position within the oral tract, and the overall dynamic tongue retraction movement. In Chapter 4, the tongue movement of the laterals is examined using both this, and interspeech rest positioning as a reference. 3.2 Vowel Space The following graph and table provide referential data for the vowel space of the speaker from whom all the ultrasound information was collected. Recall that all measurements are taken in non-retracting environments (i.e. no uvulars, laterals, or pharyngeals in the word context). Also note that too few lol vowels in non-retracting environments were available for analysis and are therefore not included below. The following vowel averages in Figure 3.1 for the speaker used in this study are consistent with those averages as listed in the Flemming et al. (1994) acoustic survey which was collected from 3 female Montana Salish speakers (one of which is the same consultant as in the present study). Flemming et al.'s listed formant values for F l and F2 range considerably. For lil F l extended from near 275Hz to 500 Hz while F2 ranged from near 2500 Hz to 3200 Hz with means being 372 Hz and 2645 Hz respectively. F l for Id stretches from approximately 400-650 Hz: F2 for Id between 2100 Hz and 2900 Hz with the means at 535 Hz and 2181 Hz. F l for lui was between 300 Hz and 550 Hz with several outliers and F2 was between 1150 Hz and 1800 Hz. The averages for F l and F2 for lui were at 407 Hz and 1168 Hz. Formant frequencies for lol ranged from 450 Hz to 725 Hz for F l and 1200 Hz to 1600 Hz, again with several outliers. Average frequencies were 601 Hz (Fl) and 1170 Hz (F2). Lastly, Flemming et al. (1994) found lal to range between near 600 Hz and 1100 Hz for the first formant, and then from 1600 Hz to 2200 Hz for the second formant, with means listed at 854 Hz and 1603 Hz. Formant averages collected by Flemming et al.(1994) are consistent the formant values collected for the present study listed in Figure 3.1 below. Note that these represent the formant average at the midpoint of each vowel in order to best avoid coarticulatory influences of the adjacent segments. 32 Bivariate Scattergram Split By: Vowel F2-50% 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 I 750 1--' ? 300 ~i—'—i—•—r 500 700 F1-50% l — • — i — 1 — r 900 O a O E C i O u 1100 Descriptive Statistics Split By: Vowel Mean F1-50%, a F1-50%, e Fl-50%, i Fl-50%, u F2-50%, a F2-50%, e F2-50%, i F2-50%, u F3-50%, a F3-50%, e F3-50%, i F3-50%, u Std. Dev. Std. Error Count 901.143 89.376 19.503 21 584.833 86.854 20.472 18 420.056 57.847 13.635 18 425.818 50.133 10.688 22 1418.476 102.231 22.309 21 2202.444 71.570 16.869 18 2880.118 103.158 25.020 17 1207.045 170.384 36.326 22 3236.450 186.090 41.611 20 3352.500 132.760 31.292 18 3411.412 118.437 28.725 17 3279.550 88.091 19.698 20 Figure 3.1 Vowel Formant Averages Once average vowel formant ranges have been established, pairings against the same vowel adjacent to the possible retracted lateral segments can be examined. The differences in formants reflect the coarticulatory effects of the adjacent lateral. 3.3 General Gestural Conflict resolution for Montana Salish Uvular stop A sketch of the uvular articulation is presented in order to situate the articulatory investigation of the four lateral consonants. Since previous research has distinguished "uvularization" from "pharyngealization" in terms of tongue retraction, one must articulatorily define what this entails (Bessell 1998a; Doak 1992; Egesdal 1993; Johnson 1975; Shahin 2002; etc.,). Shahin (2002) describes Arabic uvulars as co-occurring with pharyngealization such that the uvular movement cannot occur without the pharyngeal movement (Shahin 2002:24). For Coeur d'Alene, Doak (1992:12) states "In the pharyngeal resonants, this [pharyngeal] constriction is primary... In the uvulars and r, pharyngeal constriction is produced by tongue roof retraction coinciding with other articulation, in these cases produced by the tongue blade or body". This implies that uvular production includes both tongue dorsum and tongue root retraction. If true for Montana Salish, then similar retracted acoustic effects produced by the laterals would imply a similar tongue shape and movement. Interpretation of the lateral consonants tongue movement is therefore paired against the uvular results presented below. The plain uvular stop is used to represent the class of uvulars in terms of physical movement and corresponding effects on the vowel's acoustic signal. That is, since in Salish languages, loj is a prototypical retracted consonant, it is used as a baseline of comparison which gives a frame of reference in relation to direction of retraction. Investigation into the uvular as compared with the lateral consonants allows the claim designating uvular space as X. Laterals retract to this space, which is in Y relation to the uvular space and the pharyngeal space within the oral tract. The target retracted consonants interact with vowels in Z relation. Analysis of the plain uvular stop consonant as the least marked segment of the uvular class is used as a 33 representative for the class of uvulars. The plain uvular is chosen because a labialized sound will affect the acoustic results and make for a different interaction with the vowels beyond the simple uvular interaction. Similarly, an ejective sound will allow too much movement to take place during the glottal closure so that the conflict resolution is possibly masked (acoustically). Figure 3.2 below illustrates the locus of prototypical uvular constriction for Montana Salish plain uvular stops. Notice the large TR presence in both the uvular and pharyngeal region. This TR presence illustrates that these uvular stops are consistently produced in the upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular locus of the oral tract and can considered uvular-pharyngeal in production. Tonsue Contact with Uvu la Figure 3.2 Position of uvular contact It is clear through the ultrasound imaging that the uvulars, as a class are produced in the far back uvular-pharyngeal range and no fronting occurs. Egesdal (1993) claims that uvulars change lil to [e] with at most, a slight onglide of Q[Ee], Q w [°e]. He also reports that some speakers instead produce a higher vowel [e+] or [i-]. However, he then erroneously explains this by saying it is likely that the uvular consonants (as a whole) are fronted toward velars (Egesdal 1993:22). The articulatory evidence shows that uvulars do not front, but that instead, the amount of vowel transition is variable. Additionally, acoustic data presented below does not show [i] lowering entirely to [ee] or any other ultimately laxed/lowered vowel. Since the uvular is really an upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular, as shown in the figure above, then it has the potential to lower the immediately adjacent lui. That is, if the uvulars were true uvulars, then there is no articulatory reason for the (uvular/back) lui, to lower, unless, the lui itself is somewhat more anterior. In order to attempt explanation of this lowering phenomena in MTS, the Iql and lui were examined in comparison to the Iql and lui in Nuu-chah-nulth. Montana Salish Iql almost always lowers a following lui to [a], but Nuu-chah-nulth lui does not lower when adjacent to a Iql (Wilson, 2002).1 One initial hypothesis is that the MTS Iql is 1 A l l Nuu-chah-nulth data and information is credited to Wilson (2002). 34 produced farther back in the mouth and therefore, the immediately following lul position creates a gestural conflict, resulting in gestural compromise. Similarly, N C N Iql would be slightly more anterior (or the lul would be more posterior) and the lul would not be in conflict. Comparisons of the two are illustrated below. The two figures below are approximate overlaid tracings of a Nuu-chah-nulth Ikl and q/ii overlaid with a Montana Salish /kw/ and q/i_ respectively. They are a visual attempt to represent the different uvular production in these two languages as seen in the ultrasound films. While the two sets of ultrasound data were recorded from two different speakers in different locations and times, and with differing setups (thus possibly a different probe or head angle etc.), a visual comparison between the /u/s and /q/s is worthwhile. However, no measurements can be made. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) describe uvular production as the backing of the tongue dorsum into the uvular region, which resides just above the pharynx. However, in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, notice that while the MTS and N C N velars appear to have a similar production location the two languages uvulars are (consistently) produced quite differently. The MTS Iql is predominantly retracted in the tongue dorsum area, and has significantly less tongue root retraction than the N C N uvular has. The N C N uvular has both a large TR backing and raising as well as the predicted TD retraction. The tongue fills more of the back of the mouth for the N C N uvular stop, than for the MTS uvular. This production difference undoubtedly has different corresponding acoustic effects as the gestural resolution is resolved. However, general uvular production is described as involving the posterior uvular/upper pharyngeal region by both the TD and TR. 2 Figure 3. 3 MTS /k w / vs. N C N Ikl Figure 3.4 MTS q/i_ vs. N C N q/ii A more relevant set of comparisons is displayed in figure 3.5 below. These tongue tracings represent three different lul vowels. The light blue line is the N C N lul after a uvular. The white line is the MTS lul in a non-uvular context, and the dark blue line is a MTS lul immediately following a Iql. Notice the large difference in MTS lul productions depending on environment. The MTS lul following a uvular has a lower tongue body and more retracted tongue root and dorsum than the non-uvular context lul When the lul is viewed in comparison to the above MTS uvular production, the difference in TR positioning is obvious. It is this conflict which the results in the 2 The Montana Salish frames in Figures 3.2-3.4 come from cikwkwkwkw, piq, and nq'wusn. The Nuu-chah-nulth words are quul, ciikiiqa, and ciiqciiqa. 35 modification of the lui position and thus the acoustically lowered vowel. The tracing representing the N C N u/q_ does not show as large an amount of retraction and backing, but no N C N non-uvular context IvJ was available for comparison. However, the Iql and lui in N C N visually seem to be as distinct from each other as the MTS Iql and lui, therefore it is not clear why the N C N IvJ does not also lower. Figure 3.5 Cross Linguistic Comparison of lui vowels Next, in order to determine the acoustic effect which this retracted consonant has on adjacent vowels, an acoustic comparison between the high front vowel lil and an lil preceding a uvular stop is presented below. Statistical information for each formant with significant pairings at 50% (midpoint), and 95% (offset) is listed in the figures and table below. Differences in F l were not significant and are therefore, excluded. The deviations from the mean for il_q are consistent with the perceived auditory variation of the vowel within multiple repetitions of the same tokens. Notice that by midway through the vowel, F2 and F3 are already much lower for the lil in the retracted context as compared with the neutral HI values. The statistically significant differences are listed in the tables below. 3 Significant level is set for p > 05%. = MTS [u] =MTSq/u_ • =NCNq/u. 36 Cell Bar Chart Split By: CV environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: i/_q vs i aqoustic Hz 3600 3500 34001 33001 3200 3100 3000 2900 2800J Cell Bar Chart Split By: CV environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: i/_q vs i acoustic F3-50% F3-95% i / -q i , i / -q [ Fisher's PLSD for F2-50% Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 295.276 86.506 Fisher's PLSD for F2-9596 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value i, i/_q | 430.486 | 84.831 | <.00Q1 | S Fisher's PLSD for F3-50% Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value i, i/_q | 1 85.372 | 67.217 | <.00Q1 | S Fisher's PLSD for F3-95% Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value i, i/_q | 82.359 | 69.158 | .0210 | S Count Mean Std. Dev Std. Err. 17 2 9 1 9 . 1 1 157.228 3 8 . 1 3 3 J S i/ q 19 2 6 2 3 . 8 4 9 3 . 4 5 3 2 1 . 4 4 0 Count i / - q Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 17 2931 .1 1 1 1 9 . 9 2 ; 2 9 . 0 8 6 19 2 5 0 0 . 6 3 129 .407 2 9 . 6 8 8 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. j 17 3 4 2 7 . 5 2 111 .515 2 7 . 0 4 6 i / - q 19 3 2 4 2 . 1 5 8 6 . 5 2 4 1 9 . 8 5 0 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std . Err. i 17 3 4 5 0 . 4 1 8 3 . 1 0 3 2 0 . 1 5 5 i / - q 19 3 3 6 8 . 0 5 116.135 2 6 . 6 4 3 Means Table for F2-50% Effect: CV environment Row exclusion: i/_q vs I Means Table for F2-95% Effect: CV environment Row exclusion: i/_q vs i Means Table for F3-5094 Effect: CV environment Row exclusion: i/_q vs i Means Table for F3-95% Effect: CV environment Row exclusion: i/_q vs i Figure 3. 6 Significant Formant Differences: IM vs i/_q Interpretation of the 2 graphs in terms of formant predictions for tongue movement is revealing. Following the assumptions of Borden et al (1994), F2 is commonly seen to reflect the tongue body backing position where a lower F2 represents a farther tongue body retraction. Clearly the lil preceding a Iql is predicted to have a more retracted tongue body than neutral lil. This is initiated as early as midway through the vowel. Interpretation of F3 must take into account more variables. The 50% measurement shows a value for /i_q/ significantly lower than the lil value. This likely reflects a more retracted tongue root position. However, F3 rises for the measurement taken at 95% into the vowel, which is closest to the uvular consonant. Here, it is not clear whether the rising is due to a lessening of the TR retraction, or in fact, as is more likely, a retraction instead in the direction of the uvula. This general trend of F2 decreasing is consistent with results presented by Bessell (1998b: 18) who finds that faucals, or retracted consonants, in Moses-Columbian and Coeur d'Alene exhibit this effect on preceding vowels, though maximum decrease occurred at different temporal points within the vowel production for each language. Partially similar to the Coeur d'Alene pattern, the MTS vowel data presented above 37 illustrates that the lil preceding the uvular is maximally lower than a neutral HI at the closest point to the uvular consonant, however, significant differences begin well before midway through vowel production. This pattern is slightly different from Moses-Columbian where the vowel transition is gradient and evident at onset, midpoint, and offset rather than entirely an edge effect. Next, although the average formant values vary between lil and /iq/, all the values for HI preceding the uvular do not entirely enter the expected range for an [i]. That is, F l values for both neutral lil and i/_q are similar, but F2 and F3 show ranges for i/_q which are in closer to those expected for an [i]. Phono logically, lil in MTS is maintained to be transparent to all retraction effects and therefore, there is no [I] present in the language (Bessell 1994, 1998a; Egesdal, 1993). This corroborates with Bessell's (1998) summary of the i/_Q environments in Moses-Columbian and Spokane. She states "Thus, despite evidence for HI initially resisting faucal coarticulation, it is not true that i/Q does not shift, or that it does not shift as much as other vowels. It is the timing of the shift which is delayed relative to other vowels, with the result tha the first third of the i/Q is minimally differentiated from i/nonQ" (Bessell, 1998b:23). To corroborate with these acoustic predictions Figure 3.7 below illustrates tracings of the tongue for the peak advanced gesture made by the HI in both above mentioned contexts. The vowel preceding the uvular clearly shows a more retracted tongue root, farther tongue body backing, but an overall higher tongue body. Figure 3. 7 Difference in Tongue Position: [i] versus i/_q Both acoustic and articulatory evidence substantiate the auditory perception of a high front vowel somewhat in between an [i], and an [i]. This is contrary to phonological predictions of HI transparency. However, it is likely that the lag time between the end of voicing of the vowel and the onset of the Iql, which averages around 22ms, covers what would be perceptually the lowest part of the vowel transition. Next, examination of HI following the uvular Iql yields far more variable results. The gestural conflict between the Iql and the HI is generally resolved through a temporal compromise, resulting in a vowel transition. However, the amount of this transition is extremely variable. For example, according to Thomason's Salish Dictionary files (2000), the lexical suffix =qin 'head' is sometimes pronounced as [qi], and sometimes as 38 [qei] <qey> (in addition to [q0nApn] when the vowel is unstressed). Interestingly, while not from the same morpheme, the uvular-high front vowel sequence estaqi/es-taq-i/ (ACT-wave-INTR.CONTJ 'waving at someone' was the sequence in which the pronunciation of the vowel was closest to [i]. The two images below illustrate the Iql for each word, estaqi [estaqi] and scmqin [sc3mqein] and the peak III gesture for each word. It is obvious that both the locus of constriction for the Iql and the final tongue position for the lil vowel is similar for both tokens. However, the length of the vowel lil voicing is significantly different for the two tokens and corresponds with the auditory perception of a vowel transition following the Iql in scmqin. Table 3.1 Variability of lil vowel length Token # of repetitions mean vowel length [sc9mqein 5 195 ms [estaqi] 3 95 ms Figure 3. 8a. Iql contact: scmqin vs. estaqi Figure 3. 8b. lil: scmqin vs. estaqi The acoustic statistics for i/q _ [qei], i/q+_ [qi], and neutral lil are listed below in Figure Set 3.9. Notice that MTS lil vowel differences are for the most part resolved by midway through the vowel, though this is variable by token such that i/q+_ [qi] returns to the neutral lil value sooner than i/q _ [qei].4 Furthermore, while both lil vowels in the environment following a uvular exhibit a significantly higher F l at 05% into the vowel with an average of 400 to 450 Hz than as compared with 380Hz for the neutral lil vowel, these lil values do not reach the average range for the Id [e] vowel which lies near 585 Hz. 4 Because there are only 3 repetitions of the /qi/ [qi] environment, these conclusions merit further validation. However, this comparison serves well to illustrate the variability in all the i/q_ sequences utilized in Montana Salish. 39 500 475 450 425 1 400 2 375 <5 350 325 300 275 250 Hz Interaction Bar Plot for F1-05% Effect: CV environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) rm Means Table for Fl -05% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 16 383.875 22.178 5.544 i/q+_ [qi] 3 406.667 7.371 4.256 i/q_ [qei] 11 451.727 27.911 8.415 Fisher's PLSD for F1-05% Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % i/q+_ [qi] Cell i/q_ [qei] Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value i. i /q+- [qi] -22.792 30.706 .1394 i, i/q_ [qei] -67.852 19.116 <.0001 i /q+- [qi], i / q - [qei] -45.061 31.789 .0072 Figure Set 3. 9 Significant Pairings Fl-05% - i/q+_ [qi] vs. i/q_ [qei] vs. IV Now consider the vowel measurements taken at midway through the vowel production as illustrated in Figure Set 3.10 below. Here, there are statistically significant differences only between neutral lil and the i/q_ [qei] tokens. Notice, unexpectedly, that the bar representing the [qei] sequence illustrates a lower F l than the average for that of the neutral lil vowel. This difference is only ~30 Hz, but in the "wrong" direction such that it seems as though the lil in the environment following the uvular ([qei] sequence) has over compensated in tongue body height. Interestingly enough, this corresponds with the image presented previously in Figure 3.8b where the retracted lil has a higher tongue body than the non-retracted lil, though it still maintains a farther back tongue body, dorsum, and root. Interaction Bar Plot for Fl-50% Effect: CV environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) 475 450 " 425 " 400 375 -350 " 325 300 275 250 J Hz i /q+_ [qi] Cell i / q - [qei] Means Table for Fl-50% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 16 409.500 38.749 9.687 i/q+_ [qi] 3 426.000 23.516 13.577 i / q - [qei] 11 373.273 12.191 3.676 Fisher's PLSD for Fl-50% Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value . i / q+ - [qi] , i/q_ [qei] /q+_ [qi], i /q - [qei] -16.500 39.371 .3974 36.227 24.510 .0053 52.727 40.759 .0132 Figure Set 3.10 Significant Pairings: Fl-50% - i/q+_ [qi] vs. i/q_ [qei] vs. I\l 40 Now consider the F2 changes for / i / following a uvular stop. Consistent with other acoustic investigation of i/_q, the second formant for the vowel at onset is considerably lower when following a uvular consonant. However, unlike i/_q, all statistically significant differences are resolved by the vowel midpoint such that there are no significant differences between F2 at 50% into the vowel. The values at onset are presented in Figure Set 3.11 below. Interaction Bar Plot for F2-05% Effect: CV environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Means Table for F2-05% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 2900 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 Hz i 18 2719.944 235.198 55.437 i / q+ - [qi] 3 2228.333 72.831 42.049 i/q_ [qei] 11 2052.182 249.749 75.302 Fisher's PLSD for F2-05% Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value i, i / q+ - [qi] 491.611 297.209 .0021 i, i /q_ [qei] 667.763 182.396 <.0001 i /q+ - [qi], i / q - [qei] 176.152 310.425 .2553 i/q+_ [qi] Cell i /q_ [qei] Figure Set 3.11 Significant Pairings: F2-05% - i/q+_ [qi] vs. i/q_ [qei] vs. /i/ In the Montana Salish measurements, F2 for the HI following the uvular environment is 500-650 Hz lower than the average for neutral lil, which puts the vowel onset near the average values for the Id [E ] vowel at 2200 Hz. However, results indicate that these F2 discrepancies between the value for neutral lil and i/q_ are mediated by 50% into the vowel as there are no statistically significant differences at the vowel midpoint or offset. The two i/q _ environments in the current Montana Salish data only correspond with the first part of Egesdal's perceptual description which states "At most, there is a transitional on-glide, between uvulars and lil; Q[ee], Qw[oe]. Some speakers, however, show no such on-glide, with a higher vowel [e+] or [ i-]; that suggest fronting of uvulars toward velars" (Egesdal 1993:22).5 As is seen in the graphs for F2 in Figure set 3.11 and Table 3.1 the HI following the Id is longer in duration and lowers sufficiently to the Id [E ] vowel range as [qEei]. However, by midway into the vowel, F2 has returned to near the neutral [i] average. Egesdal's description inaccurately maintains that the HI vowel following a uvular only reaches an [e] as its final value. Last in the acoustic comparison, the significant values for F3 are presented below. F3 does not provide distinguishing information between the either of the i/q _ sequences. Even at vowel onset closest to the uvular consonant, there is no statistically significant difference between the lil following the uvular, and the neutral HI (as based on a Fishers PLSD analysis). However, there is approximately a 200Hz difference between the two tokens of i/q _ such that F3 is higher for the i/q+_ sequence across a morpheme 5 That is, no fronting of the uvulars towards velars has been substantiated. 41 boundary (which is also the more [i]-like sounding i/q_ sequence) indicating less tongue root retraction. This statistically significant difference is mediated by midway through the vowel. Interaction Bar Plot for F3-0596 Effect: CV environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) 3500 i i /q+_ [qi] Cell Means Table for F3-0596 Effect: CV environment i /q_ [qei] Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 17 3330.765 124.078 30.093 i/q+_ [qi] 3 3473.667 66.252 38.251 i/q_ [qei] 9 3265.111 97.153 32.384 Fisher's PLSD for F3-05% Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value , i / q+ - [qi] , i / q - [qei] / q + - [qi], i /q - [qei] -142.902 145.153 .0534 65.654 95.552 .1697 208.556 154.527 .0101 Figure Set 3.12 Significant Pairings: F3-05% - i/q+_ [qi] vs. i/q_ [qei] vs. HI As noted, the pronunciation of the /=qin/ lexical morpheme is variable. The Montana Salish Dictionary files list qin, qeyn, qeyn, qan, qn, qn, qey, qa, qey, qan, qeyn, and qi as variants. While the cross-morphemic i/q+_ combination analyzed above is represented by only 3 repetitions of one token, taken in combination with the variation within the single lexical morpheme listed above, the hetero-morphemic i/q+_ production supports the generalization that the high vowel in all the i/q_ sequences is variable. Nevertheless, the final output of this vowel is at the offset always reaches the [i] production. This implies that lil is the phonological target and no phonologically specified retraction or lowering is taking place. Within this adjacent sequence, this variation in the HI production also points toward transition, or temporal compromise, as the chosen method of gestural conflict. This further implies that languages may not necessarily specify the amount of transition required for gestural resolution within each V / _ C and V / C _ sequence. More importantly, as demonstrated above, the uvular to lil interactions in Montana Salish conform to the general trend of retracted consonant interactions such that F l rises, and F2 lowers in the environment preceding or following a retracted consonant. However, recall from Figure Set 3.10 that F l at midpoint for i/q+_ [qi] surpassed the average for neutral lil suggesting a higher tongue body position for i/q+_ [qi]. This was validated by the articulatory results as illustrated in Figure 3.8b. Next, F3 for i/q_ vs. neutral lil was not statistically significant, while for i/_q demonstrated statistically significant pairings at both the midpoint and offset (95% into the vowel). Now that the articulatory and acoustic results have been demonstrated for vowel interaction with a prototypical retracted consonant, these trends can be compared with those produced by the lateral consonants. Furthermore, the retracted TD and TR position of the uvular consonant can now be analyzed in contrast with the position and movement of the Montana Salish laterals. 42 Chapter 4 Lateral Tongue Movement: Mid-sagittal and Cross-sectional Articulatory Evidence Now that the complete analysis for the uvular stop has been presented in Chapter 3, the articulatory results based on the mid-sagittal ultrasonic view are presented for the individual lateral consonants. The order begins with the lateral approximant, glottalized lateral approximant, lateral ejective affricate, and lateral fricative. These are in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.4 This mid-sagittal data is then followed in Section 4.2 by the coronal cross-sectional data for each of the laterals. Lastly, in Section 4.3, a joint comparison of the coronal and mid-sagittal articulatory data is presented. This contrasts the medial expansion/ lateral compression visible in the mid-sagittal angle of ultrasound imaging to the vertical and lateral movement visible in the coronal cross-section view. 4.1 Lateral Tongue Position and Movement: Mid-sagittal data The following section endeavors to establish whether any of the four lateral consonants in Montana Salish are retracted or not. In order to accomplish this objectively, the articulatory images relevant to each of the four laterals are compared and contrasted to a proto-typical retracted consonant, represented through the uvular data presented in the previous section, and also to interspeech rest position. The comparison with the /q/ tongue positioning represents the descriptive terms of "uvularization" and establishes a benchmark of retraction as modeled by the uvular consonants. The comparison with interspeech rest has been chosen based on previous work by Gick et al. (submitted) who posit that inter utterance rest position is a language specific articulatory target. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, interspeech rest represents a tongue position which is medial within the vowel inventory at the initial TR measurement (#1) and also measurement (#2). Section 4.1.1 Lateral approximant The articulatory and acoustic properties of the lateral approximant, and indeed all the laterals in Montana Salish, are little described. However, Flemming et al. (1994) make one relevant descriptive comment on the lateral approximant and lateral fricative in Montana Salish. They state "The laterals III and lil are pre-stopped in most environments by most speakers. Depending on its context it is realized as a voiced [dl] or fricated [d*f] or [dl$. When fricated, it can be phonetically similar to /!/" (Flemming et al. 1994:7). This is consistent with the current study's findings. While not all productions of III in other languages use full contact with the alveolar ridge (Scobie, p.c. 2004), because the Montana Salish III is pre-stopped, contact is obligatory, thus giving a precise landmark for analysis of III movement that is important in understanding the physical movement involved. To orient the articulatory investigation on the lateral consonants, the image below illustrates the retracted tongue movement through the /l/'s initial and final position in the name Lamus. The blue line is the initial position and the (dotted) tan line is the final position. The bottom (yellow) tracing is an overlay of interspeech rest. 43 IM start IM finish Figure 4.1 Tongue initial and final position for IM in Lamus Notice that there seems to be minimal retraction of the tongue root in the tracing above. The TB flattens slightly and the TD is pushed slightly back. However, note that the initiation of the tongue movement from interspeech rest requires that the TR advance, but the TD both raise and retract. The arrows on the above image indicate the direction of movement which occurs from the initiation of interspeech rest into the production of the word initial. It is possible that during its production, the IM simply moves directly into the back lal which masks any retracted motion of its own. To make sure that there is not an inherent retraction movement which is masked by the following back position for the lal vowel, Figure 4.2 below shows the IM position in the word likwlexw 'prairie, bare land'. The following comparison is a temporal illustration of the IM movement in the sequence UM. Here tongue movement for the IM is clearly distinguishable. It is located between two non-retracted tongue positions; interspeech rest and the lil preceding the velar [kw]. The tongue position is initiated from a non-retracted interspeech rest and ends in a non retracted [i]. The images below are still frames extracted from the running video at every 33ms interval from the [li] sequence within the word likwlexw. The labeled frame numbers indicate the continuation of voicing for the particular segment. Compare frame 2 to frame 5, which represent the initiation and end of the IM production. Note that the tongue root retraction is minimal for the IM, especially in relation to the IM tongue root position. However, the flattening of the tongue body and the movement of the tongue dorsum towards the uvular area is very visible in the IM production. 44 Figure 4.2 Frame sequence at 33ms intervals for IMI in lilMex To establish the presence of retraction in the plain lateral approximant the next test is an objective comparison of the lateral approximant to interspeech rest. This is especially important because image overlays represent a single token as opposed to the temporal diagram presented above. The following comparison represents the measured positions along the tongue surface (as described in Chapter 2) averaged over numerous tokens and examples. In order to differentiate the possibility of co-articulatory effects, l/_i sequences have been distinguished from l/_a. Further elimination of confounding variables calls for additional differentiation within the l/_i sequences such that two subsets are differentiated: l/a_i and l/_i where any non back vowel or post-velar consonant can precede the IV. These are each plotted against interspeech rest for the 5 measurement points along the tongue. 45 Averaged / l / b y environment compared to interspeech rest position Measurement points along the tongue Figure 4. 3 IM separated by vowel environment vs. interspeech rest tongue position The above graph compares the tongue position of IM in different environments to interspeech rest. For measurement #1 at the tongue root, there are statistically significant differences between all positions (l/_i to rest, l/_a to rest, l/a_i to rest, l/a_i to l/_i, l/_i to l/_a etc.) except 1/ai to l/_a. All IM sequences are less retracted at the TR than interspeech rest. Furthermore, since the l/a_i sequence is more retracted than the Mi sequence it seems that the /a/ pulls the TR back despite of the high front vowel following the IM. At measurement #2 (2cm up from the TR), the tongue position as compared to rest is reversed. Each of the laterals is more retracted than rest. This represents the lower TD area of the tongue. All pairings (l/_i to rest, l/_a to rest, l/a_i to l/_a, l/a_i to l/_i, M_i to M_a etc.) are statistically significant except l/a_i to rest. Similarly, at measurement #3 (4 cm up from the TR), all are significant except l/_a to rest. Note that, except for TT position (#5), all pairings with l/_i are significant. As seen in the TR measurement (#1), all the IM positions are less retracted than interspeech rest position. However, the general trend at the second measurement, is that interspeech rest is now less retracted than the laterals. The same is true for the rest of the measurements. The two measurements which are closest to reflecting the T D position (#2 and #3), indicate that all the IM contexts have a greater protrusion at the TD area than does interspeech rest. The tables below list the significant differences between the above graphed points. 46 Table 4.11-5 l\l position statistics by vowel environment Fisher's PLSD for TR (point 1) 1 Fisher's PLSD for TR-6cm (point 4) Effect: CV context 1 Effect: CV context Significance Level: S % Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value l/a_i, l/_a -.080 .211 .4458 l/a_i l/_a .084 .175 .3378 l/a_i, l/_i .318 .228 .0076 s l/a_i l/_i -.388 .216 .0008 s l/a_i, rest -.264 .179 .0050 s l/a_i rest .318 .170 .0005 s l/_a, l/_i .398 .211 .0005 S l/_a, l/_i -.472 .175 <.0001 s l/_a, rest -.184 .157 .0229 S l/_a, rest .233 .114 .0002 S l/_i, rest -.582 .179 <.0001 s l/_i, rest .706 .170 <.0001 s Fisher's PLSD for TR-2cm (point 2) Effect: CV context 2 Significance Level: 5 94 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value l/a_i, l/_a .095 .219 .3830 l/a_i, l/_i -.266 .237 .0289 l/a i, rest .071 .186 .4465 l/_a, -.361 .219 .0020 l/_a, rest -.025 .164 .7602 l/_i, rest .337 .186 .0008 Fisher's PLSD for TT (point 5) Effect: CV context 5 Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value l/a_i, l/_a -.055 .168 .5100 l/a_i, l/_i -.180 .206 .0849 l/a i, rest .618 .162 <.0001 l/_a, l/_i -.125 .168 .1419 l/_a, rest .674 .110 <.0001 l/_i, rest .798 .162 <.0001 Fisher's PLSD for TR-4cm (point 3) Effect: CV context Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value l/aj l/_a .129 .212 .2271 l/a_i I/J -.482 .263 .0006 s l/aj rest .398 .207 .0004 s l/_a, l/_i -.611 .212 <.0001 s l/-a, rest .269 .136 .0002 s I/J, rest .880 .207 <.0001 s Since it has been demonstrated that the IV position is less retracted at the TR but more retracted at the TD than interspeech rest, an additional comparison to the uvular is necessary. In the previous literature, retraction has been termed as either "uvularization" or "pharyngealization" (Bessell 1998a; Doak 1992; Egesdal 1993; Johnson 1975; Shahin 2002) with TD generally considered the primary retraction locus for the first, and TR for the second. The following image compares the uvular position to the lateral approximant. There are two significant observations here. First, one sees an almost identical locus of TD retraction in the uvular area between an IV and the Iql. Second, this TD retraction is not coupled with a TR retraction for the lateral IV whereas there is TR retraction for the Iql. A tracing illustrating this is presented in Figure 4.4 below. 47 Figure 4.4 Tongue position for Iql vs. IM preceding IM The important focus of attention on Figure 4.4 above is not only the similar TD position between the two consonants, but also the distinctly different TR positions. The TR for the Id is both higher and back farther than that of the III production. The III production is neither "pharyngealized" nor quite "uvularized" as there is no TR movement, but instead is a retracted movement of its own which occurs without a secondary retraction movement. Since the lateral approximant exhibits a TD peak in the same area as the Iql, but does not have the same TT and TR position, it implies that there will be less retracted acoustic effects on adjacent vowels than the uvular. As the evidence presented above has shown, the plain lateral approximant includes a retracted component to its production. Unlike some of the other laterals (still to be discussed), the inherent retracted III movement is quite minimal. However, even without a large, dynamic movement of retraction, the overall target position of the III is such that it provides enough gestural conflict for a transitional resolution to be necessary with certain vowels. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the primary retracted component for the III is the tongue dorsum and not the tongue root. Section 4.1.2 Glottalized Lateral approximant Figure 4.5 below shows the general tongue positioning difference for the high front vowel as opposed to the Hi. Figure 4.10 shows the position of the IV vs. the Iql. Similar to the plain lateral approximant, the glottalized IV exhibits both a general TB flattening and a distinct TD movement backward. The following image shows the IM and the following Itl from the V C sequence in the word i Sifs 'it settled'. Notice first that the peak in the tongue is in the direction of the posterior uvular region by the tongue dorsum, and second, that the IV TB height is not yet significantly lowered as it is still coming down from the higher TB position for the HI. Also notice, similar to the plain lateral approximant, that the TR position for the IV is not very retracted. 48 Figure 4. 5 HI vs. IM in i Stfs 'it settled' Next, examination of the Hi movement over time reveals an unambiguous retracted movement of the tongue. The following /l'l'a/ sequence in Figure 4.6 is from the word l'l'ac 'red raspberry'.1 Frames 1-3 show the entire TB lowering and flattening. Between frames 4, 5 and 6, there is a solitary TD movement back while the TR stays in place, and also between 5 and 6 the TT releases contact with the alveolar ridge. Frames 7 and 8 show a small TD rising. Frames 10 - 11 are the pause in the voicing between the articulations of the two glottalized lateral approximates, during which, the front TB and TT rises to contact the alveolar ridge. Note that the tongue root holds its position throughout this entire articulation until the initiation of the second lateral, at which point, it begins retracting to meet the targeted back position of the lal vowel. The major retraction movement for the /l7 is located at the tongue dorsum. l #1 r 2 # 1 r 3 #1 r 4 #11' 5 #11' 6 #11' r ^  7 #11' 8 #1 1' 9 #1 r 10 pause 11 pause 12 #21' 13 #2 1' 14 #21' 15 a 16 a 17 a Figure 4. 6 Frame by frame sequence of ffac 'red raspberry' 1 Some additional repetitions were produced with a plain, not glottalized second /!/. 49 A summary of this retracted TD movement is illustrated in Figure 4.7 below. Tongue tracings of the first lil in the sequence (labeled above as #1 f) are taken at 2 frames, the initial Hi production, and the final retracted tongue position for the same segment. These clearly illustrate the differentiation between TR and TD movement such that there is a minimal change in TR position, but a distinct TD movement. Figure 4. 7 Example of initial lil TD retraction: ffac The TD movement in the plain lateral approximant tracings and also the second glottalized lateral approximant is considerably less than the movement shown by the initial lil in the image above. It is possible that the variability in the trough of the tongue body, and thus the simultaneous tongue dorsum retraction, is a reflection of the amount of pressure on the transducer such that greater pressure is applied by the tongue muscles for the syllabic production of lil as opposed to the non-syllabic version.2 If this is true, the difference between the first and second glottalized lateral in l'fac, as well as the difference between the plain III and glottalized lil tongue positioning would then be a factor of the independent nature of the initial lil, rather than a feature of its own.3 That is, pressure (on the transducer) intensifies the more defined the consonant gesture, and this more dramatic movement is more commonly used during independent production.4 This explanation is consistent with the difference in lil positioning represented by the lil in Figure 4.7 and the lil tongue position in Figure 4.9. The lil in the independent pronunciation exhibits a much more defined and clear movement.5 2 This line of thought is credited to M . Stone (p.c. 2004). 3 In order to avoid unintended claims on a template of syllable structure, this type of l7_{C or #} is henceforth labeled as "independent". 4 It is also worth noting that the initial lil in the first two repetitions of l'fac (out of five) was produced with the pre-stopping, and this is where the retracted gesture was most visible. The following three repetitions were not pre-stopped, had a less distinct motion, and also one of these was not pre-glottalized. 5 For lack of additional tokens, the summed averages for the III data does not include any syllabic productions of IM, while the summed data for the Hi does. However, comparisons within the Hi data are separated in order to distinguish which results might be from the /l7 and which are possibly enhanced because of syllabic production. Because the non-syllabic /l7 production still exhibits TD retraction, it is considered a retracted consonant. 5 0 To investigate the possibility that the retraction is a factor of the independent nature of the consonant, a comparison was made between the independent-like /l'/s in [kwu?fj 'labor, work', and [eskwu?lTi ] 'it is being born', and the non-independent 111 and Hi in [p3li(p)] 'it drifted away', and [smiffmsn ] 'spear, war lance' (respectively).6 [kwu?fj, [eskwu?fl'i ], and [fl'ac] are additionally grouped by their similarity in position: 1'/_{C or #}, where as both the /l'/s in [smu?fm9n ] and [p°li(p)] are released into a vowel. Figure 4.8 below shows tracings of all four /l'/s at their peak retracted movement from [kwu fj, [eskwu?lTi ], [p°l'i(p)] and [smu?Pm3n ]. In general, their positions are very similar except for the tracing for the first lil in esiwul'l'i, which has a greater protrusion backward at the tongue dorsum area. The real-time film of this token portrays a clear retracted movement back for the independent lil where the TD retracts and the TB flattens. The movement for Jtwufis the same, though less dramatic. The lil in p°li(p) shows no movement back, but this could be a function of its initiation from near schwa position which has a more retracted TR and TD position than the lul in eskwufl'i and kwut. There is also no flattening of the TB for pslip. The word smul'mn illustrates an lil posture, but does not exert enough distinctiveness to produce a trough (i.e. no TB flattening and no TD retraction at all). eskVfl'i p9fi(p) kwu?f smul'mn — — — -Figure 4. 8 Independent vs. non-independent lil Graphically, it seems that the independent productions of lil exemplify a greater retracted movement, but quantification of these comparisons must be made in order for this claim to be conclusive. To quantify these descriptions, Figure 4.9 below shows the plotted pairings between the independent lil and non-independent lil and rest. Only measurements #1 and #2 showed statistically significant differences between the two sets of /l'/s. All other points of measurement were not statistically significant. (For a list of all statistics for the following comparison, see Appendix B.) 6 These tokens were chosen singularly based on their availability. The lateral in p3l'i(p) was produced with some voiced frication. It seems that anytime there is lateral frication, the IV gesture is not as distinct. However, it is as of yet still unclear when frication (voiced or voiceless) is used and when it is not. 51 T o n g u e p o s i t i o n : res t vs IVI 1 2 3 4 5 M e a s u r e m e n t p o i n t s Figure 4. 9 Independent and non-independent Itl vs. rest As the graph in Figure 4.9 illustrates, interspeech rest position begins with the most retracted tongue root at measurement (#1), but quickly reverses position by the second measurement for both glottalized /l'/s. The difference at these two measurement points is statistically significant. (See Appendix B for a list of statistics for this comparison). As expected from a "rest" position, interspeech rest continues with lower tongue body and tongue tip (measurements #4 and #5). While it seems that overall tongue root position for both glottalized laterals is less retracted than rest, the tongue position at the tongue dorsum is more retracted for the laterals than rest. Again, this underscores the importance of treating tongue root and tongue dorsum retraction separately. This movement is most visible in the independent pronunciation, but is also inherent in the plain productions. It seems clear that when a glottalized lateral approximate is independent, the amount of retraction is greatly magnified. While no examples of independent plain lateral approximate were available in this study, it is predicted that this same pattern will hold as well for those consonants as well since it is a function of the phonetic production, and not a phonological specification. Regardless, the overall /l7 position and movement seems to be that of a retracted segment, with the caveat being that this is variable by vowel context and independent or non-independent nature. Lastly, from the above discussion, it is apparent that the glottalized lateral utilizes a clear movement by the tongue dorsum. If the retraction of this consonant patterns with its non-glottalized counterpart, the direction of this movement should be similar. The following tongue tracing represents a comparison with the uvular stop. Here, notice that the retraction is in a slightly different area than that of the plain lateral approximant. However, a similar trend is visible with the TD being the main locus of retraction, and the TR not being as predominant. 52 Figure 4. 10 Tracings of Iql vs. Hi at peak retracted movement The articulatory data presented above demonstrate the retraction movement inherent in the Montana Salish productions of the glottalized lateral approximant. Similar to its plain counterpart, this lateral uses a primary retraction in the area of the TD and no retraction by the TR. Furthermore, a generalization which has fallen out from the available data, is that retraction, as a function of the physical movement, is greatly enhanced by the independent nature of the consonant. Independent pronunciation seems to be coupled with enhanced tongue movements, and for the Hi, this is shown by an exhibition of greater TD retraction. Section 4.1.3 Lateral Fricative The next lateral consonant under investigation is the lateral fricative. To visually situate the position of the lateral fricative within the oral cavity, the Figure 4.11 presents tracings of the /il overlaid with tracings of interspeech rest and the HI vowel. The HI and lateral fricative are taken from the same sequence /if_#/ from the word mii 'too'. The compiled image shows two overlaid images of the tongue with tongue edge tracings. The first, and darker, inner line is taken from the peak advanced movement of tongue for the vowel HI, while the outer line, shows the peak movement back made by the lateral fricative. The gesture following the fricative production then preceded forward again to make the closure for the lei in the phrase Mii eta fu Mali 'Mary is too skinny'. When the Hil sequence is followed by a consonant or vowel (or rest) gesture, which is more retracted than the HI, the tongue motion for the lil simply continues back. 5 3 Interspeech Rest mmm 7.4 cm 2003Sepl9 14:10 Figure 4. 11 Tongue tracings for lil and lil in <mri> vs. interspeech rest position Notice that at the tongue root, the lil production is almost half way in between the tongue position for the lil and the tongue position for interspeech rest. However, at the TD area, the lil holds its shape, while interspeech rest lowers. In this tracing, there is no distinct TD retraction evident. Because the lil tongue position does not reach the interspeech rest position at the TD or TR position, it also will not reach the back tongue shape for the uvular consonants. However, to keep the comparisons standard across all the laterals, the following image is provided in order to illustrate the different positions of these two consonants. The tongue tracings are taken from the Iql in estaqi 'waving at someone' and the lil in ikwtakwts 'slapping noise of wet moccasins'. Figure 4.12 Iql vs. lil in estaqi 'waving at someone' vs. ikwiakwis 'slapping noise of wet moccasins' Notice the advanced TR and high TB for the lateral fricative. Also, note the small curve at the lower TD area on the lateral fricative. This slight peak is somewhat reminiscent of the dorsal movement for the glottalized lateral approximant and the plain lateral approximant. However, this small TD curve is not always visible in all the lil examples, and the amount is extremely variable. 54 All differences shown in the above illustrations are statistically significant for each of the measurement locations, which represent TR, and TD location. Most importantly, it is clear from the data presented above, that despite the variable TD peak shown in Figure 4.12, the lateral fricative has a target tongue position that does not include an inherent retracted movement in the same capacity as the previously discussed lateral approximants. That is, unlike the III and lil, the fricative does not conclusively demonstrate a retracted TD or TR movement. However, as the tongue tracings have shown, there does seem to be a slight TD curve which is reminiscent of the TD movement of the glottalized lateral approximant. Section 4.1.4 Lateral Ejective Affricate The last of the four Montana Salish laterals to be investigated is the lateral ejective affricate. Since this sound is phonetically a combination of the [f] and the [i] phonemes, it is predicted to pattern with the tongue position for the lateral fricative. However, if the components are instead [f] and [1], then the tongue position should pattern with that of the lateral approximant. However, as the articulatory data presented below illustrates, neither is the case. Instead, the lateral ejective affricate provides us with a very clear example of a retracted movement of the tongue different from any of the previously discussed laterals. Articulatory images reveal both tongue root and tongue dorsum retraction upon release of the glottal closure.7 This retracted movement is shown in Figure 4.13 where the inner tracing represents the tongue at the initiation of the Itl (at the time of T T constriction at the alveolar ridge), and the outer line, the peak back movement after the It/ release. Since the release is both lateral and towards the back of the oral cavity, the tongue anterior position does not necessarily change. Note the distinction in the locus of tongue retraction as compared with the image for the III, Hi, and HI above. Here the TR is retracting back and 'up', with the attached TD accompanying this massive TR movement. Recall that all previous lateral retraction has been only in the locus of the tongue dorsum. 7 That is, at the time of ejection, since all lateral affricates are always released. 55 Figure 4.13 <kwi>tt> ftl initial position vs. final position To exemplify the amount and direction of retraction, the following image (Figure 4.14) shows overlaid tracings of the tongue for a uvular consonant upon contact with the oral cavity and the lateral ejective affricate at both tongue tip contact and ejective release.8 The motion demonstrated here is a retraction both in the tongue dorsum area and the tongue root area with larger movement being in the latter. The final position for the FkJ is similar to the Iql in that both TD and TR have been retracted. - q constriction -1 constriction - t release Figure 4.14 Itl initial and final position vs. /q/ Despite the retracted movement of the TR into the pharynx, this consonant cannot be phonologically categorized with the pharyngeals. In addition to the distinction made by the lateral movement involved in the It/, its distributional patterns and phonological restrictions with respect to the vowels, as presented in Chapter 2, do not show any similarity to the class of pharyngeals. This next discussion illuminates an additional component of the lateral ejective affricate's release. The following image (Figure 4.15) represents tongue tracings from the second non-ejective lateral affricate in the word inttti [inXX7vi] whereby (as a result of a phonological process of de-glottalization) only the last lateral affricate in a sequence Frames are extracted from <estaqi> and < cn p\i£>. 56 is glottalized, though all are released.9 It is obvious in the real-time film, and is visually represented here, that the lateral affricate release is primarily a function of the tongue dorsum. The tongue body flattens very slightly, and the tongue dorsum protrudes directly back, with the tongue root following by nature of being attached, rather than as a separate or distinct movement. As seen in the above figures, the lateral ejective affricate demonstrates a clear case of tongue root retraction. However, when viewed independent of the ejective release, the [X] also exhibits retraction specifically in the locus of the TD. Nevertheless, during the [t] release, the TR movement is primary. The retraction demonstrated here is unique among the laterals. Notice both the initial and final position as compared to interspeech rest. The TR is much less retracted than interspeech rest, while the TD illustrates a small, but distinct retracted peak. It is probable that there is a biomechanical explanation for the extreme tongue root retraction of the lateral ejective affricate which would also clarify why this is not a function of the ejectives in general. Motivation for this claim is supported by additional literature on other non-lateral segments. For !Xoo clicks, Traill (1985) notes that there is a TD retraction which occurs after the release of the posterior constriction. More recently, Miller-Ockhuizen (2004) describes a TD/TR retraction gesture in the [!] which occurs the release of the click in the Khoekhoe language. Similarly, Thomason (p.c. 2004) notes that there is one historical reference to a non-post-velar ejective influencing adjacent vowels differently than its non-ejective counterpart. She cites Mengarini (1877-79) who writes <ko> for words which are [kw]u but <ku> for [kw]u. The only time the non-ejective lateral affricate is found in Montana Salish is as a result of this phonological deglottalization process. It does not exist independent of this process, which, in addition, is applicable to all sequences of stops and affricates, not just the lateral ejective affricate. Figure 4.15 Lateral Affricate Tongue Dorsum Release 57 In Montana Salish, among the laterals, this dramatic retracted TR movement is unique to the /t/ and only takes place when the consonant is ejected. During the release of the ejective, which occurs while the TT is still maintaining contact with the alveolar ridge, and the sides of the tongue are shooting down, the tongue root (or, variably the entire posterior region of the tongue) is forced backward. Contact in the front of the mouth by the TT is coupled with the requirement that the large amount of displaced tongue volume move somewhere and these joint stipulations result in a dramatic tongue movement back. Thus, the common thread between these clicks, the lateral ejective affricate, and the labialized velar ejective, lies in the large volume of tongue that is displaced with a dramatic, and ballistic tongue movement.10 Ejectives, which do not require large amounts of tongue volume displacement, are not predicted to exhibit any retracted movement of the tongue. The observation for Montana Salish that the [t] and [fj do not utilize any TR or TD retraction supports this hypothesis.11 4.2 Lateral Tongue Position and Movement: Coronal Cross-section data In another approach to viewing Montana Salish laterals, coronal cross-section data was collected and examined. Since mid-sagittal imaging of the tongue only reveals the front to back motion of the tongue and the nature of a lateral consonant is its release to the sides, discussion of the movement from the view of a coronal cross section is merited to facilitate full understanding. The following images illustrate the lateral movement for three of the four lateral consonants; lateral approximant, lateral ejective affricate, and lateral fricative. No data was available for the glottalized lateral approximant, but it is hypothesized to pattern similarly to the plain lateral approximant. The following Figure 4.16 is a coronal cross-section tracing of a plain lateral in the sequence [la]. Notice the deep groove along the centerline of the tongue during the final production of the IV. Here the sides of the tongue have risen to form peaks on either side.12 Subsequently, the entire tongue body returns to near the initial IV position during the production of the /a/ vowel. The movement is not only in the raising or lowering of the sides of the tongue, but in the overall lowering and raising of the tongue, while maintaining the groove along the tongue centerline. 1 0 Use of the phrase "ballistic tongue movement" is cited to Gick (p.c. 2004). " Comparison of [t] to [f] is based on descriptive observation only and has not been examined statistically. 1 2 Unfortunately, the speaker's head was not still for these sets of tokens so the tongue is also seen to drift slightly to the right of the ultrasound view screen. 58 Blue Purple = 1 end Yellow = a mid Figure 4 .16 Corona l Cross Section Latera l movement: /!/ Next, the cross-sectional data for the lateral ejective affricate is presented. It is especially important to view the mid-sagittal data with the coronal cross-section view in mind, because this helps explain the drastic TR movement which occurs only for this segment. While glottal pressure is building up for the lateral ejective affricate, both the right and left sides of the tongue are raising towards the teeth to form an air pocket. At the same time, the center-line of the tongue is forming a concave dip. When the air is released, the center and sides switch directions. The center-line of the tongue shoots upward towards the hard palate, not making contact, but forming a convex hump, at the same time the sides of the tongue have instantaneously shot down towards the bottom of the mouth. This movement is illustrated in Figure 4.17 by tracings taken at peak pressure build up before the release, and the tongue position after the release.13 Initial position Final position Figure 4 .17 5t cross-sectional release It is probable that this movement simultaneously corresponds to the large TR movement as seen from the mid-sagittal view. As the tongue forms to make the defined gesture for the /!/, the side peaks and inner bowl are created. Then, upon pressured release 1 3 Since the coronal cross-section films were of poor quality and scope, the movement illustrated in this image is likely less dramatic than actual production. That is, ultrasound images of non-Montana Salish speakers producing a lateral ejective affricate show a greater contrast between the center and sides of the tongue at initial and final position. 59 of the sides, the previous bowl turns convex. The TR as an attached part of the tongue, is a part of this convex peak. This concave turned convex movement is represented on the mid-sagittal angle by the TR retraction back and upward into the pharynx. It should be clear from the above presented coronal and mid-sagittal data that the TR movement of the lateral ejective affricate occurs after the lateral affricate has been released. Since release of the lateral occurs simultaneously with the sides of the tongue dropping down (i.e. lateral movement, the TR movement cannot be a function of laryngeal movement during ejection). Gick et al. (2004b) in their study of cross-linguistic timing of liquids conclude that two independent gestural events often have variable timing. Therefore, if the TR movement and the TD or TB movements were independent gestures, then variable timing is expected. One may order before another in one production while another time, the order may be reversed. However, articulatory data investigation conducted here shows that the order of events for the production of the lateral ejective affricate in Montana Salish never switches order. The timing of the TR movement and lateral movement of the sides of the tongue is locked with the TR movement always occurring last. This implies that this TR movement is a direct result of the tongue displacement which occurs after the lateral affricate's release and lateral movement. Lastly, coronal cross-sectional images from the lateral fricative are examined. The following sequence of frames in Figure 4.18 illustrate the movement of the lateral fricative as viewed from the coronal cross-section along the tongue centerline. Notice the rounded and high position of the tongue at interspeech rest, before the start of the lateral fricative. In frames 3-6, during the lateral fricative, a distinct groove develops along the centerline of the tongue while the sides remain raised. In the /a/ vowel, represented in figures 7-10, the tongue centerline rises to match the position of the sides, and then continues to rise to form a convex curve for the final production of the /a/ vowel.14 I resi 2 res! 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7,i Sa (>;i 10 a Figure 4.18 Coronal Cross-section: sequential frames for /ia/ 1 4 Unfortunately, these images are less clear along the side view of the tongue. This is likely because the coronal cross-sectional data was not collected along a prescribed angle and is very variable in quality. 60 While not as much as the IXI, lil or Fkl, the lateral fricative demonstrates the same concave center groove and raised sides while the whole tongue height rises and lowers. The general movement is such that the body of the tongue lowers, while the sides press outward. These coronal cross-section images show that despite the minimal movement of the tongue as seen in the mid-sagittal view, the tongue is making definitive gestures laterally. These images illustrate a dynamic movement of the tongue during lateral production which is not visible along the mid-sagittal field. While the TR is obviously not visible in the coronal cross-section, the lateral gestures of the tongue are clear and some of these correspond to the TR movement along the mid-sagittal angle. These movements are imperative in understanding the overall tongue gestures involved in the lateral consonants production. As mentioned previously, imaging along the coronal cross-section plane assists in deciphering what retraction is biomechanically required, and which is not. Consider the TD retraction in the lateral approximants. The coronal cross-sectional images show the whole tongue surface lowering while maintaining the peaks and grooves required for "lateral" production. Since the tip/blade of the tongue is already in contact with the alveolar ridge, there is no place else for the tongue to go in the front direction. Therefore, while the whole horizontal surface of the tongue is lowering for the IXI production, the only direction the remaining parts of the tongue can go are laterally and back. This is because the tongue is a volume preserving unit such that movement in one area always equates to a corresponding movement is some other area. Therefore, this lowering along the horizontal plane of the tongue as seen in the coronal cross-sectional view, requires that the tongue either retract toward the back of the mouth (neither pharynx nor uvular is inherently specified), and/or expand laterally. The lateral approximant simply utilizes both of these expansions. Unfortunately this does not necessarily clarify why the expansion back is TD as opposed to TR, but only why expansion can possibly be phonetically explained. It is possible that similar to a languages unique specification of gestural conflict resolution (either vowel laxing/lowering or vowel transitioning), a language specifies where the tongue moves for the laterals: either back or sideways, or in the case of Montana Salish, both. If the same approach is applied to the lateral ejective affricate a slightly different conclusion concerning retraction is reached. Here again, lateral production physically requires that tongue expansion go somewhere, but this is confounded by the ejective nature of the lateral affricate. Here the coronal cross section illustrates a distinct tongue center protrusion "up" as the sides of the tongue drop "down. This up motion along the center of the tongue is correlated to the distinct TR retracted movement as seen on the mid-sagittal imaging. In this case, lateral compression is forced to be resolved by expansion in TR area. 4.3 Coronal Cross-section vs. Mid-sagittal Articulatory Data As demonstrated above, comparison and assessment with the coronal cross-sectional data for articulatory movement is critically important, especially for the lateral segments, 61 which, as their name implies, are distinguished by their movement in the sides of the tongue. In many of the mid-sagittal images of the tongue during lateral production, it seems that the laterals (especially the lateral approximates and lateral ejective affricate) have a larger amount of tongue body present in the ultrasound viewing field than the vowels or other consonants. It is hypothesized that this impression is a reflection of a physical tongue narrowing such that a smaller mid-sagittal view is in opposition to a larger view of the coronal cross-section. In other words, because the tongue is a volume preserving unit, and only the tongue edge is outlined on the ultrasound machine, the more space is filled with the tongue on the mid-sagittal view, the more the tongue is narrowing and rising in the coronal cross-section angle. This type of observation is best visible in the line chart in Figure 4.19 illustrating the distance from the transducer arc for measurement locations #l-#5.15 The equivalent of a tongue narrowing is then a larger space under the curve of the graph. Take for example, the graph comparing interspeech rest position to all the lateral consonants. Here it seems that rest (and the other vowels which cluster and pivot around rest) generally has a lower overall tongue position than the laterals (except the lateral fricative), and therefore is laterally expanding in the horizontal direction, which is not displayed within the ultrasound viewing field. The lateral fricative patterns with the vowels by pivoting along the hypothetical fulcrum between measurements #2 and #3 for interspeech rest position. Overall, interspeech rest maintains a significantly lower overall tongue position than the glottalized lateral approximant. Average Lateral Tongue Position as Compared to Rest Measurement Location Figure 4.19 Averaged HI, Hi, Ii/, and flJ vs. interspeech rest position Here, based on a Fisher's PLSD comparison, there is a significant difference (< .05%) between rest position and all the other laterals for measurement #1, only the lateral ejective affricate (labeled LEA) at tongue contact position for measurement #2, and 1 5 Recall that measurement 1 begins at the TR and measurements 2-4 are taken 2cm up along the tongue outline. Measurement 5 is from the most visible part of the TT to the transducer arc. again, for all the laterals at measurements #3, #4, and #5. This is consistent with the individually illustrated laterals in the previous sections. The above graph illustrates the comparison between the medial expansion of the average interspeech rest position and lateral compression of the lateral consonants. Interspeech rest position is marked by tongue expansion along the horizontal plane, while the laterals pattern with vertical expansion (lateral compression). In order to examine the validity of this hypothesized trend, a comparison of the "average distance from tongue surface to transducer arc", as a representation of compression and/or expansion, was created by comparing the average overall distance of each lateral to the averaged overall distance for interspeech rest and the vowel positions. This was compiled by summing each of measurement points (#l-#5) for each token, taking that average, and then plotting it against the computed averages for the other tokens (III, laJ, Id, Id, /rest/, III, III, lil, and Itf). The "average distance from tongue surface to transducer arc" exemplifies a measure of medial expansion/lateral compression, through arbitrary numerical values. Figure 4.20 below validates this pattern for III as compared with the front vowels. Here, significant pairings between the vowels (except Id [e]), rest, and III, demonstrate the medial expansion as visible in the mid-sagittal view of the tongue. The large medial expansion results in the tongue filling up the space of the ultrasound view. That is, the larger amount of tongue visible in the mid-sagittal view corresponds to higher average numbers along the Y-axis as plotted in the line graphs. Since the tongue is volume preserving, the center peak of the cross-sectional view corresponds to a lateral narrowing along the vertical plane. As expected, the lateral approximate III illustrates the most medial expansion as compared to the other tokens. This graph illustrates that the medial expansion corresponds with the III as compared to the vowels. The statistical significance pairings are presented below. Average Tongue Lateral Compression & Medial Expansion •Tongue area summation average Token Figure 4.20 Lateral compression and medial expansion for IM vs. vowels 63 Table 4. 2a-b IM Lateral Compression Statistics Fisher's PLSD for Distance to transducer arc (i Effect: Token Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value a, e -.182 .093 .0002 s a, i .063 .085 .1476 a, 1 -.240 .080 <.0001 s a, rest -.009 .084 .8297 e, i .245 .087 < 0001 s e, 1 -.058 .082 .1634 e, rest .173 .086 .0001 s U -.303 .073 <0001 s i, rest -.072 .077 .0690 1, rest .231 .072 <.0001 s A ) Means Table for Distance to transducer arc (cm) Effect: Token Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. a 14 3.628 .068 .018 e 13 3.810 .165 .046 i 19 3.565 .120 .028 I 26 3.868 .138 .027 rest 20 3.637 .094 .021 B The same comparison of medial compression and lateral expansion is illustrated below for the lateral ejective affricate, glottalized lateral approximate, lateral approximate, and lateral fricative as compared to interspeech rest. 64 Table 4.3a-b Lateral Compression Statistics Means Table for Averaged Distance from Transducer Arc (cm) Effect: Token Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. Glottalized Lateral Approximate 23 3.997 .225 .047 Lateral Approximate 29 3.981 .176 .033 Lateral Fricative 91 3.924 .222 .023 LEA Peak back gesture 49 3.924 .229 .033 LEA Tongue contact 49 3.645 .180 .026 Rest Position 21 3.633 .094 .020 Fisher's PLSD for Averaged Distance from Transducer Arc (cm) Effect: Token Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Glottalized Lateral Approximate, Lateral Ap... .016 .112 .7745 Glottalized Lateral Approximate, Lateral Fr... .073 .094 .1264 Glottalized Lateral Approximate, LEA Peak ... .073 .102 .1568 Glottalized Lateral Approximate, LEA Tongu... .352 .102 <.0001 Glottalized Lateral Approximate, Rest Posit... .365 .121 <.0001 Lateral Approximate, Lateral Fricative .057 .086 .1938 Lateral Approximate, LEA Peak back gesture .057 .094 .2351 Lateral Approximate, LEA Tongue contact .336 .094 <.0001 Lateral Approximate, Rest Position .348 .115 <.0001 Lateral Fricative, LEA Peak back gesture 2.041 E-4 .071 .9955 Lateral Fricative, LEA Tongue contact .279 .071 <.0001 Lateral Fricative, Rest Position .291 .097 <.0001 LEA Peak back gesture, LEA Tongue contact .279 .081 <.0001 LEA Peak back gesture, Rest Position .291 .105 <.0001 LEA Tongue contact, Rest Position .012 .105 .8214 There are several points to notice from Figure 4.21. First, note that there are statistically significant differences between the glottalized lateral approximate and rest, the lateral approximate and rest, the lateral fricative and rest, and the lateral ejective affricate (LEA) peak backward release movement and rest, but not between rest and the lateral ejective affricate position at tongue contact with the alveolar ridge. Second, note the large difference between the lateral ejective affricate at initial and final release position. Recall from the discussion of this consonant as viewed from the angle of the coronal cross section, that the center of the tongue created a groove during Itl initiation, and a convex peak at PfU release. This corresponds to the numerical difference of the two FkJ as represented on the Y-axis of the above graph. Third, note that with the exception of the Pkl at initiation, all the laterals exemplify a large amount of medial expansion as compared to interspeech rest position. This is shown by the large numerical difference along the Y-axis. As seen in the above graph, the positions of the lateral consonants, in comparison to rest position, imply that there are large amounts of medial expansion during the lateral production. Recall the movement of the lateral ejective affricate from Figure 4.13. Here 65 the final position for Fkl is with a peak along the centerline of the tongue. This centerline peak is consistent with the same drastic movement in the tongue body and tongue root which are viewed in the mid-sagittal ultrasound data. The same is true of the lateral fricative. While creating and maintaining a small groove along the centerline of the tongue, the entire tongue body lowers, and simultaneously protrudes the sides of the tongue out laterally. The sides then subsequently lower. This is shown as a larger number in the lateral expansion graph (Figure 4.21). 4.4 Summary In summary, this chapter has presented articulatory and acoustic evidence demonstrating the retracted nature of the IV, lil, and the Fkl consonants. These 3 laterals exhibit a distinctive retracted movement which is clearly visible in the ultrasound imaging and is especially noticeable when compared to interspeech rest position and the tongue position for the uvular consonants. The lateral fricative does not exhibit a retracted movement, however, there is inconclusive evidence that predicts that there is some movement in the area of the TD. Furthermore, the data presented necessitates that the tongue root and tongue dorsum be treated independently in terms of the gestural functions. Only the TD exhibited major retraction for the two lateral approximants, while the TR was the primary locus of retraction for the lateral ejective affricate. These distinctions are summed in the table below. Table 4 . 2 Summary of Lateral Retraction Retracted TD movement TR movement IV V V no lil V V no IM variable no Itl V no V Determining phonological status is another important aspect of this differentiation of retraction between the lateral approximants and the lateral ejective affricate. Since the tongue is a volume preserving hydrostat, compression in one area of the tongue is always in opposition to expansion in another area. In the case of the lateral consonants, this means that while some tongue root retraction is a phonetic byproduct of movement in the tongue dorsum area, this is to be distinguished gesturally from true phonologically specified tongue root retraction. The lateral approximants demonstrate variable TR placement, but this is only a byproduct of the TR's attachment to the TD. The TD maintains the locus of gestural specification. Consider also the lateral ejective affricate. Here tongue retraction is tongue root retraction whereby the tongue root projects back. The glottalized lateral approximate is defined by tongue dorsum retraction, whereby the tongue dorsum moves back, without an additional movement up or down. However, because the parts of the tongue are interconnected, this movement back in the 66 tongue dorsum also creates a smaller movement back of the tongue root. In other words, in addition to the distinct locus of retraction that is different for the lateral approximants as compared to the lateral ejective affricate, the retraction for the latter can be primarily explained as a biomechanical byproduct. That is, rather than a specified articulatory target, the retracted movement for the Fkl is a function of the ejected lateral release. 67 Chapter 5 Coarticulatory effects of Lateral Consonants on Vowels 5.1 Introduction and motivation for experiments Since the physical events associated with tongue retraction have been clearly established by data presented in the previous chapters, it needs to be determined how this retraction affects adjacent vowels. As demonstrated with the uvular stop investigation in Chapter 3, dynamic movements and position of the selected consonants and adjacent vowels are greatly reflected through the acoustic signal. The following section presents the results from the investigation into the coarticulatory effects of adjacent vowels. This includes both measurements of the acoustic effects of the lateral consonants as well as additional articulatory description of lateral-vowel and vowel-lateral interactions. The acoustic and articulatory procedure is the same as that described in Chapter 2. Beginning with the lateral approximant and glottalized lateral approximant, following with the lateral fricative, and ending with the lateral ejective affricate, both pre- and post-consonant vowel effects are presented. In the following investigation two primary methods of analysis are used in order to determine whether the consonant is retracted or not. First, the acoustic effects of the lateral consonants on adjacent vowels are examined with the assumption that co-articulatory consonant effects will be present in the vowel formants. That is, if the laterals are retracted, then one expects a rising of F l , a lowering of F2, and a rising/lowering of F3 (raising- if tongue retraction is in the uvular area, lowering-if tongue retraction is to the pharyngeal area) for the vowels adjacent to the laterals. Second, coarticulatory interactions are examined through ultrasound imaging such that lateral tongue positioning is measured in different vowel contexts. 5.2 Lateral Approximant Section 5.2.1 Lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: acoustics To begin the investigation of retraction by the laterals, acoustic evidence from the lateral approximant is examined. Since the lateral approximant demonstrates a retracted tongue position in the direction of the uvula by the tongue dorsum, acoustic effects on the adjacent vowels are predicted.1 These include a lower F l , lower F2 and higher F3. In order to investigate this, two measurements are taken at 50% and 95% into the vowel for preceding vowel contexts, and 05% and 50% for following vowels. These averages are directly contrasted with the same positions for the neutral vowel contexts. Beginning with the assumption that if/1/ is retracted, the most salient and visible effects would be on the high front vowel, III is examined first.2 These two segments would have final tongue positions in the greatest opposition with a high front tongue body position for the 1 The Wilson (2003) Nuu-chah-nulth study models the necessity of distinguishing pre- and post-consonantal vowel positioning. 2 *No i / _ l , a/_l, e/_l, u/_l, e/l_, or u/l_ data in non-retracted environments were available for comparison. 68 lil vowel and a back position for the III. Statistically significant differences in the pairing between i/l_ and lil formant values are listed below.3 Upon commencement of this comparison, it became evident in Chapter 4 that i/al_ and i/l_ needed to be treated independently because of the co-articulatory effects of the preceding lal vowel. As well as the affect that the lateral can have on the adjacent vowel, the vowel in return affects the lateral tongue positioning. Gestural examination of these co-articulatory vowel effects on the lateral approximant support the separate analysis of i/al_ and i/l_, and are presented in the subsequent articulatory section. Table 5.1 Acoustic Measurements for i/l_ and i/al_ vs. lil Significant differences: Averae 2s: Significance levels # of Tokens F2 05%-i/al : i Hz: 2348 2720 <.0001 15:18 F2 05%- i/l_: i Hz: 2290 2720 <.0001 12:18 F2 50%-i/al : i Hz: 2698 2909 .0027 15:18 F2 50%- i/l_: i Hz: 2570 2909 <.0001 12:18 F3 05%-i/al : i/1 Hz: 3248 3124 .0204 15:12 F3 05%- i/l_: i Hz: 3124 3330 .0001 12:18 F3 50%i/al : i Hz: 3267 : 3417 .0002 15:18 F3 50% i/1 : i Hz: 3197 : 3417 <.0001 12:18 Interpolation of these significant formant values identifies significantly more TB backing for both i/al_ and i/l_ than neutral HI (reflected in F2) and also more TR retraction for either i/al_ or i/I_ than neutral HI (F3). These acoustic differences continue to persist up to the midway point of the vowel production. These suggest that the vowel HI, when preceded by III, has a greater tongue body backing and more tongue root retraction than HI in a non-retracted environment. However, unlike the i/q_ sequences investigated in Chapter 3, there is no significant difference in the first formant between the neutral HI value and the values from the i/al_ or i/l_ sequences, and there is a significant difference in F3 for i/al_ and i/l_ whereas there is not for i/q_. This F3 difference continues to persist through the midpoint of the vowel. Nevertheless, a similar pattern emerges for F2, although as expected, the amount of retraction is less for the III than the Iql. The i/q_ F2 difference between the retracted and non-retracted vowel ranges between 500-650 Hz, while the i/al_ and i/l_ F2 differences ranges between 350-400 Hz. Recall from Figure 3.11 the i/q_ F2 average of -2090 Hz. This presents a gradient scale of retraction as implied through the acoustics. Here, as expected, Iql has the largest lowering effect on F2, while the III lies part way in between Iql and the non-retracting consonants. Next, while lowering the HI vowel, affect of the III on a following /a/ vowel is the opposite. Here, the acoustic measurements indicate that III seems to raise and front the tongue body of the following lal as compared to the lal in a neutral position. Thus, it is 3 Formant significance values were only listed in tables if the mid point and the edge measurements coincided in significance. For example, i f a V /_C context had midway (50%) as significant, but not 95%, then it was not included. 69 clear from the acoustic measurements, that IV has a strong effect on the adjacent vowels which advances the low vowel lal, but retracts the high vowel IV. Averages for a/l_ sequences as compared with neutral lal are presented below. Table 5.2 Acoustic Measurements for a/l_ vs. lal Significant differences: Averages: Fl-05%a/l_: a Hz: 763 : 837 Fl-50% all :a Hz: 792 : 905 Significance .0081 .0002 levels # of Tokens 15:22 15:22 F2-05% all F2-50% all : a : a Hz: 1638 : 1456 Hz: 1499 : 1419 .0002 .0170 15:22 15:22 The trend for III to raise the second formant of the following lal vowel is reminiscent of a similar pattern in Arabic as described by Alwin (1996). He finds that F l , (but not F2 as above) lowers after a uvular whereas it rises after a pharyngeal. Bessell (1991) documents that F l values rise for the Moses-Columbian Salish lal following a uvular. She uses these findings to suggest that the Moses-Columbian Salish uvular is produced farther back than the Arabic uvular. While F l for lal in Montana Salish does not pattern with the Moses-Columbian data, it does match the trend demonstrated in the Arabic a/Q_ environments. This acoustic data is consistent with the articulatory data presented in Chapter 3. Recall from Figure 4.4 the image of Iql vs. Ill which places the TD in roughly the same locus of retraction but the TR and TT in different locations. The acoustics match this difference in primary retraction location. There are acoustic effects as the result of these conflicting gestures between the consonant and the adjacent vowel, but they are less substantial for the lateral approximant to vowel interactions than they are for the uvular-vowel interactions. At formant onset measurement (05%), Vq_ had the largest difference in F2 on the following IV vowel such that it averaged near 2090Hz, where i/l_ averaged higher at approximately 2300 Hz. 4 These two values were both significantly lower than the average IV value near 2700 Hz and the difference between all three values were statistically significant. The important focus of attention in the Iql vs. IV tongue positioning (Figure 4.4) is not only the similar TD position between the two consonants, but also the distinctly different TR positions. The TR for the Iql is both higher and farther back than that of the III production. This difference is reflected in the second formant.5 By taking the tongue positions (as demonstrated by the tracings in Figure 5.1) into consideration with the acoustic results, it seems clear that the tongue root position and tongue dorsum both contribute to the transitioning and lowering effects on the following vowel. The second formant seems to correlate with more than just TB advancement or retraction. The difference in effects on the F2 values of adjacent vowels must be contingent on the TR as well, not just the TD or TB since the TD position is similar for Iql and IV, but the TR 4 This i/q_ represents the combination of all i/q_ words used in Chapter 3 section 3. 5 F3 is predicted to indicate the TR (and/or TD) position. It does not do so for the Iql, but variably does for the l\l comparisons. This discrepancy is not clearly understood and is a likely result of the many-to-one acoustic to articulatory relationship. 70 position is not. The difference in the Iql and IM lies both in the TR and the T T position and this is evident in the changes to F2. Section 5.2.2 Lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: articulation Since there are notable acoustic effects of the lateral on the following vowels, another look at tongue positioning is merited, this time in comparison with the vowels. The acoustics suggest that the lateral approximants generally pattern to raise the low vowels, but lower the high vowels, therefore this should be evident in their articulatory positioning. That is, from the acoustic results, we expect that the IM position lies medially between the lal and IM position. In order to orient the tongue position of the lateral approximant in relationship to the vowels in Montana Salish, Figure 5.1 illustrates a comparison of the most fronted IM (M_M) to rest, Id, IM, and lal. Here tongue tracings outline the position at the midway through each segment. It is clear that measurement #1 (tongue root to transducer arc) is numerically the most reflective of TR retraction but that the TD movement is somewhat between measurements #2 and #3. Here an entire tongue tracing best illustrates any retraction which occurs in the TD area. Figure 5.1 Tongue shape tracing for l/_i compared to Id, rest, and /a/ The image in Figure 5.1 reinforces two points. First, the TR position for the IM is much more advanced than that of the lal, Id, or interspeech rest, while the TD position is retracted as much as the lal position (with all other segments much more advanced at the TD locus). Second, the lateral approximant is unique among the above segments as being the one segment with only TD retraction. The lal vowel has greater TR retraction than the IM. This is consistent with the findings reported in the previous chapter. Next, since the above illustrative description is a tracing of a single segment overlaid onto other tracings, it is important to have an objective comparison of tongue positioning. The following examination presents the tongue position averaged over multiple tokens and repetitions for the IM in various environments. From this 71 investigation a pattern of retraction has developed. This trend, whereby the amount of gestural retraction is contingent upon the environment, seems to display itself throughout the Montana Salish lateral consonants. For example, an l/_i combination such as in the word likwlexw 'prairie, bare ground' does not utilize any tongue root backing as it is initiated from interspeech rest position, nor is its IV position (taken at the midpoint of the IV), very retracted in oral cavity. This is because interspeech rest already has a fairly retracted TR position. However, an IV preceding an lal, such as in nclatkw 'cold water', is much more retracted in its overall tongue position (midway through production) and demonstrates both a tongue root and tongue dorsum movement back into the lal vowel. The graph in Figures 5.2 illustrates the significance of this observation. For the first measurement of tongue root position (measurement point #1, Figure 5.2), all differences between lil, l/_i, lil, rest, l/_a, a/l_, and lal, are significant except a/l_ to lal, l/_a to rest, l/_i to lil, and HI to lil. Take note of the large difference in tongue position for IV preceding lil versus IV preceding lal. Interaction Bar Plot for TR to transducer (cm) Effect: Token (environment) Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: I vs a vs t tongue a a / l _ i l /_a l/_i rest Means Table for TR to transducer (cm) Effect: Token (environment) Row exclusion: I vs a vs t tongue Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. a 15 3.067 .148 .038 a / l _ 8 3.146 .298 .105 i 20 1.815 .143 .032 l /_a 8 2.647 .188 .066 l/_i 12 2.067 .189 .055 rest 21 2.794 .202 .044 Fisher's PLSD for TR to transducer (cm) Effect: Token (environment) Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: I vs a vs t tongue Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value a, a / L - .080 .164 .3382 a, i 1.252 .128 <.0001 s a, l/_a .419 .164 <.0001 s a, l/_i .999 .145 <.0001 s a, rest .272 .127 <.0001 s a / L , i 1.332 .157 <.0001 s a / L , l/_a .499 .188 <.0001 s a / L , l/_i 1.079 .171 <.0001 S a / L , rest .352 .156 <.0001 S i, l/_a - .833 .157 <.0001 s i, l/_i - .253 .137 .0004 s i, rest - .980 .117 <.0001 s l /_a, l/_i .580 .171 <.0001 s l /_a, rest - .147 .156 .0648 l/_i, rest - .727 .136 <.0001 s Figure 5.2 l\l TR measurement split by environment Figure set 5.2 above illustrates the tongue positions relative to each other for the measurement taken at the tongue root (#1). As expected, all IV productions are more retracted than lil. However, since that IV position is variable, there is an additional difficulty in making an absolute claim on the amount of IV retraction. That is, for the initial tongue root measurement (#1), IV retraction is directly correlated to the following vowel such that if the vowel is high, the tongue root does not retract as much as if the vowel is low. In either environment, the amount of tongue root retraction lies between the lal and the lil with "rest" position lying between the /I/s and lal. This yields the 72 ranking of retraction as: a > rest > 1 > i. In addition, at the point of measurement for the tongue root (#1), neither /l/s preceding lil or lal surpass the mean 'rest' position for the tongue root location, (i.e. smaller number on the Y-axis than 'rest') indicating that this second measurement must be interpreted in relation to the tongue shape as a whole. Without interpreting the entire tongue shape, not just tongue root, one comes to the initial conclusion that, either 'rest' is not a good representative of the medial position, or that III is simply not retracted. In fact, however, this vowel retraction data corroborates the previous chapter's description of the III retraction. If the TD is the primary articulator involved in the retraction movement, not the TR, then the TR is not necessarily specified in its gestures. That is, the TR does not maintain an exact target position, while the TD does. Therefore TR variability by vowel context is not surprising. Also, recall from the discussion on the acoustic effects of the lateral approximant (Section 5.2.1), that variability by vowel environment was also visible in the acoustic signal. This corroborates the TR measurements presented above. F2 is higher for the low lal vowel in the all_ sequence and as illustrated below, the TR position is also less retracted than an lal vowel. Similarly, F2 lowers in the lil vowel adjacent to a lateral just as the TR position for the l/_i sequence is more advanced than the TR position for the l/_a sequence. While F2 is generally seen to imply TB backing or advancing position, this cannot be physiologically separated from its connection to the TR. Again, this discrepancy is a likely result of the many-to-one acoustic articulatory relationship. From the above investigation two general observations can be made. First, it is clear that the retracted nature of the III is variable by vowel context and in overall shape. That is, its target gestural position is always more retracted than an lil vowel and less retracted than and lal vowel. Within this general range, the exact tongue position depends on context. The III is more fronted next to a high vowel, but more retracted next to a low vowel. Second, not only do the vowels effect the III position, but the III range of retraction also has equal effects on the adjacent vowels. The III lowers the acoustic formants (F2) for the lil vowel, but raises those for the low lal vowel. This suggests that the tongue position of the vowels also varies. It seems that the lateral approximant demonstrates that not unexpectedly, coarticulation works in both directions. 5.3 Glottalized lateral approximant Section 5.3.1 Glottalized lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: acoustics Next, continuing with the acoustic investigation into the laterals, is the glottalized lateral approximant. As described in Flemming et al. (1994), this is a pre-glottalized consonant. The table below illustrates the significant pairings of formant values for the i/l'_ to neutral lil analysis. A lower F2 for il\_ implies more tongue body backing than neutral HI, which even continues up until the midpoint of the vowel. Similarly, lower F3 at both 05% and 50% into the vowel implies more TR retraction for the vowel following the glottalized lateral. These are shown in the table below. 73 Table 5.3 Acoustic Measurements for i/l'_ vs. IM Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F2 05%-i/f_: i Hz: 2459:2720 .0041 10:18 F2 50%- i/1'_ : i Hz: 2699 : 2909 .0106 10:18 F3 05%-i/1'_ : i Hz: 3199: 3331 .0078 9:17 F3 50%-i/f : i Hz: 3288:3417 .0334 9:17 Recall that a statistically significant F2 and F3 formant pairing was found for plain IV as well. However, as was also the case with the plain lateral approximant, the amount of retraction on the IM following the lil is significantly less than when the same vowel follows a uvular. At vowel onset, the i/l'_ F2 sequence averages 230 to 310 Hz higher than that of the i/q_. The i/f_ sequences for the second formant are also 100 to 150 Hz higher than those of the plain lateral approximant i/l_ sequences, although the difference between the IM and lil effects on the IM are mediated sometime beyond the midpoint of the vowel (50%). That is, the IM following either of the two lateral approximants does not reach [i] values until sometime beyond 50% into vowel production. Next, Table 5.4 presents the average values for the i/_f sequence as compared with the IM preceding a neutral consonant. These results do not parallel the results of IM in the environment following lil. Here, F2 indicates more tongue body backing for IM when preceding the lil, but this is neutralized sometime before the midpoint of the vowel. This is consistent with the acoustic trends presented in Bessell (1991) who found F2 lowering for i/_Q. In my data F l and F3 showed no significant difference at all. Table 5.4 Acoustic Measurements for i/_l' vs. TM Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F2 95%- i/_l' : i Hz: 2670 : 2925 .0044 9:18 While the general trend of the i/_f acoustic effects pattern with those presented in previous studies of uvular consonant vowel effects such as Bessell (1991, 1998a), the above results to not entirely pattern with those found for the uvulars of this study. That is, Iql in Montana Salish exhibits significant F2 effects on the preceding IM. These begin midway through the vowel (50%) and have maximal differentiation occurring at the closest point to the uvular. However, only the closest measurement to the glottalized lateral approximant demonstrates a statistically significant difference between the IM vowels in the neutral and lateral environments. Furthermore, as was shown in Figure 3.6, F3 for i/_q was statistically significant. There is no statistically significant difference in F3 present for the i/_l' sequence. Next, available data allows for an additional comparison of the lei and /a/ environments. Looking first at the effects of a preceding lil on a following Id and Id, significant comparisons are listed below.6 Table 5.5 Acoustic Measurements e/l'_ vs Id Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F l 05%- di : e Hz: 638 : 532 .0020 14 :18 6 No ul', el', al' or l'u data was available for comparison. 74 F l 50%-e/f : e Hz: 668 : 584 .0080 14 :18 Table 5.6 Acoustic Measurements for a/l'_ and a/l'l'_ vs. /a/ Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F2 05%-a/f :a Hz: 1817 : 1456 .0001 6 : 22 F2 05%-a/l'_: lfa Hz: 1817: 1366 .0002 6 : 22 F2 50%-a/f :a Hz: 1627 : 1419 .0011 6:22 F2 50%-a/l' : l'l'a Hz: 1627 : 1456 .0095 6 : 22 First, the higher F2 for the a/f_ implies that /lV actually pulls the TB farther forward in the case of a following /a/, but the reverse is true following Id. As seen in Table 5.5 lower F2 implies that the TB is pulled back as compared with the vowel Id [e] in a neutral environment. That is, neutral Id reflects a higher TB than Id following the glottalized lateral approximant. Results for the a/f_ vowel parallel those for the a/l_ sequence where F2 is higher in the III environment than in the non-/l/ environment. Therefore the implications are that there is fronting of the tongue body for the lal following the Hi (or III) as compared with the TB position of an lal in a neutral environment. The absence of any data with e/l_ prohibits comparison with e/l'_. An interesting feature which arises from the articulatory examination of the lil is that there is a distinction between the acoustic effects of an lil produced independently and the lil produced non-independently.7 The two sets of tokens represented in Table 5.6 (above) for the glottalized lateral approximant preceding an lal are analyzed separately. That is, repetitions of the lal vowel in the word representing two lil in a row, /l'fac/ [ 1 lats] 'red raspberry', is examined separately from the single III found in such words as the name pfasuwe [p fasuwe] 'Frank' (Figure Set 5.4). F l and F3 showed no significant results on the adjacent lal vowel, either with the Hi tokens separated, or when all the lil and liil examples were grouped as one. However, F2 results for these two tokens varied. This variability in the influence of Hi vs. /if / on the following lal is shown by the formant differences in the spectrogram images below. The scattergram shows the F2 ranges for the lal vowels following lil and /if/ as paired against neutral lal. The two images below illustrate the formants for these two words (fl'ac and pfasuwe). Notice that in columns two and three (from the left), both F2 values at onset and midway through the vowel are significantly different for the two productions of a/l'_. That is, F2 for the lal preceded by two glottalized lateral approximants is much lower than F2 preceded by a single lil. 7 As per discussion in Chapter4, "independent" /!'/ refers to f/_{C or #}. 75 Bivariate Scattergram 1900 1800 1700 1600 Hz 1500 1400 1100 8 o i 8 o • a/ l '_ CV environment a/IT. O F2-05% • F2-50% Figure 5. 3 Scattergram of neutral /a/ vs. /IV T w o spectrograms o f the analyzed tokens are presented be low to show the var ia t ion i n the second formant. No te that as is often found in M o n t a n a Sal ish g lot ta l ized resonants, g lot ta l izat ion (on the second lil i n flac) is real ized as var iab ly pronounced laryngeal izat ion. A l s o note the burst - l ike onset w h i c h is apparent on the lil i n plasuwe. l'l'ac 'Red Raspberry ' 7 6 As the images in Figure Set 5.4 show, F2 of the /a/ following the /ft/ production is clearly influenced by the initial lil through lowering the first part of the second formant. The focal points are indicated by the arrows on the above two images. The onset of the vowel /a/ is initially higher in l'l'ac than it is in pl'asuwe. Overall summary of the acoustics highlight the general trend of F2 rising on a low vowel /a/ when following the glottalized lateral approximant, but lowering on the high vowel IM. This is the same pattern that was exemplified by the plain lateral approximant. However, the illustrated F2 lowering for a vowel adjacent to /l7 is not as great as that which occurs when the vowel is adjacent to a uvular consonant. Section 5.3.2 Glottalized lateral approximant coarticulatory interactions: articulation Next, the tongue position of the glottalized lateral approximant is plotted as compared to the vowels. This image represents the averaged tongue position at each of the 5 measurement points along the tongue for all of the lil tokens. Notice that the TR position of the lil is less retracted than that of Id, Id, or interspeech rest, but by the second measurement up along the tongue surface, these positions have reversed. Now the lil presents the most retracted position. All comparisons at the initial TR measurement (#1) are statistically significant whereas the difference between lil and Id is mediated and is no longer statistically significant at measurement (#2). Additional statistics are included in Appendix B. Tongue position: glottalized lateral approximant vs. vowel 1 2 3 4 5 Measurement points along tongue edge Figure 5. 5 Glottalized lateral approximant tongue position as compared to IM, Id, Id, and interspeech rest As is shown in Figure 5.5 above, the tongue position for the glottalized lateral approximant has significantly more advanced TR, but a more retracted T D as compared with interspeech rest and the Id and Id vowels. While F2 is generally seen to reflect TB advancement and retraction, this articulatory investigation suggests that F2 also reflects 77 TR and TD positioning. Again, this underscores the necessity for a direct look at the articulators rather than relying on inferences from the acoustic signal. 5.4 Lateral ejective affricate Section 5.4.1 Lateral ejective affricate coarticulatory interactions: acoustics Next, acoustic results for the FkJ - vowel interactions as paired against the vowels in non-retracted environments are listed in the tables and figures below, beginning with the iFk_ sequence. Here the transition [k01i] between the initiation of the vowel adjacent to the lateral ejective affricate, and the end of the vowel, is distinctly audible. F l and F3 demonstrate no significant differences between lil in either a neutral environment or following the FkJ. However, F2 measurements support this perceived transition and are shown in Figure 5.6. At 05% into the vowel, there is a distinct range for the vowel in each the two contexts, which does not have crossover. As shown in the significantly low F2 average, the acoustic measurements for the lil vowel in the ifk_ sequence imply the movement of tongue body backing. There is a gradual resolution of the lil vowel such that the lil in iFk_ does not reach proximity with the neutral lil values until sometime between the midpoint and 95% into the vowel. Despite that Flemming et al. (1994:9) documented an average glottal lag time of 87ms (-/+ 18) for the Fkl, this is not enough time for the gestural conflict between the lil target position and the FkJ target position to be resolved. Therefore, since the 05% measurement of this study indicates 05% beyond the onset of voicing, and voicing begins after the glottis is no longer closed, the presence of transitory vowel effects still evident on the adjacent vowels implies that not all the gestural conflict is resolved during the glottal closure. 78 Box Plot Split By: CV environment 2000 F2-05% F2-50% F2-95% Means Table for F2-05% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 18 2664.389 146.877 34.619 i/t 10 2208 .900 112.291 35.509 Means Table for F2-50% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 18 2886.833 104.055 24 .526 10 2625 .000 83.276 26 .334 Means Table for F2-95% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 18 2925.278 118.951 28.037 10 2875 .900 43 .116 13.634 Fisher's PLSD for F2 Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % , i / * J , i / * J Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 455.4891 110.1791 < . 0 0 0 l | Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 261.8331 78.9351 < . 0 0 0 l l Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 1 49 .378 80 .645 .21941 Figure 5. 6 Acoustic statistics for \Tk_ vs neutral HI Furthermore, note that the i/t_ F2 average at 05% into the vowel (2208 Hz) is remarkably close to the F2 average for the i/q_ sequence at the same point in time (2050-2200 Hz) ( Figure Set 3.11). In addition, while the i/q_ sequence showed no significant differences by midway through the vowel, the HI in the ifk_ sequence does not match neutral HI until sometime between 50% and 95% into the vowel. Continuing with the acoustic results for the other vowel to lateral ejective affricate interactions, more variability is demonstrated. The pairings with significant differences are listed below in Table 5.7. For the alt_ sequence, both Fl and F2 show significant differences between the neutral lal and the same vowel following the lateral ejective affricate. F l differences are neutralized by midway through the vowel, but F2 differences persist through the midpoint of the vowel. The acoustic results for lal following the lateral ejective affricate indicate that it has a higher and more advanced tongue body than neutral lal. This is discussed in greater detail below. Here, the lower F3 formant averages for e/t_ entail greater tongue root retraction than neutral lei. Interestingly, F l was significant for e/l'_ sequences and F3 was not. Lastly, through higher Fl values, ult_ exemplifies a lower tongue body than neutral lui. These Fl differences for u/?t_ and lui are neutralized by midway through the vowel. Table 5.7 - Significant V/3t_ sequences Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens Fl 05%- alt_ : a Hz: 668 : 837 <.0001 12:22 F2 05%- alt_ : a Hz: 1641 : 1456 .0002 12:22 79 F2 50%- dt_ : a Hz: 1568 : 1418 .0001 12:22 F3 05%-e/*_:e Hz: 3050:3327 <.0001 10:18 F3 50%- dt_ : e Hz 3107: 3352 <.0001 10:18 F l 05%-u/7t_:u Hz 444:406 .0114 15:23 The dt_ results are somewhat similar to the a/l_ and a/l'_ data presented in the previous two sections. Recall that F l for a/l_ was lower than neutral /a/ and F2 for a/l_ was higher than neutral /a/, and these effects continued past midpoint of the vowel. Here the F l dt_ data at 05% is lower than the average of 763 Hz of the a/l_ sequences. However, F l for dt_ is neutralized by the midpoint. F2 for both a/l_ and d%_ continues past 50% into the vowel, and the 1641 Hz for dt_ almost exactly matches the 1638 Hz average for a/l_. Like the gradual resolution for the i/5t_ sequence presented above, it takes longer for the dt_ formants to match the neutral /a/ averages than either of the lateral approximants. However, of the laterals thus far, the glottalized lateral approximant exhibits the highest F2 average (~1800 Hz) as compared with neutral /a/ (-1400 Hz). Next, consider the V / _ C sequences presented in the table below. Here, only Id [e], and HI exhibit statistically significant differences between the vowel preceding the lateral ejective affricate and the same vowel averaged over neutral environments. As the results listed in Table 5.8 show, there is an anticipatory effect from the lateral onto the preceding vowels. For the at 95% into the vowel, there is a significantly lower F l at 352 Hz than for the lil in neutral environments whose F l averages at 395 Hz. This indicates a higher tongue body for the lil adjacent to the It/. Table 5.8 - Significant V/Jt sequences Significant differences:8 Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F2 50%-e:e* Hz: 2202:2297 .0032 18:8 F2 95%-e:e/t Hz2117:2285 .0003 18:8 F 1 5 0 % - i : i / _ £ Hz 421:378 .0137 18:17 F195%-i: i /_* Hz 395:352 .0214 18:17 F2 9 5 % - i : i / £ Hz2925:2802 .0380 18:17 While the differences listed above are still statistically significant, the mean difference as compared with all other V / _ C and V / C _ interactions is minimal. For example, F2 95% for Id vs. d_t differs by 168Hz. Additionally, F2 50% for Id vs. dji differs by only 95Hz and lil vs. iljk by 123 Hz. Recall the larger variation between neutral and "retracted" lil from the i/_f comparison in Table 5.4. The mean difference between lil and i/_f averaged near 255 Hz. Furthermore, note the variability in significance levels and mean differences for these interactions as compared with the values listed for the C V sequences. The V / C _ differences at the closest measurement to the consonant for i/l_ and i/q_ each averaged 8 No significant differences were found between lul and ul_t for any formants. There was not enough a/_£ data available for comparison. 80 several hundred hertz, 261 Hz and between 492-668 Hz respectively. In particular, there appears to be a greater average difference in means between the V/t_ sequences and the Vl_t sequences such that a vowel preceding the lateral ejective affricate is always less affected than a vowel following the lateral consonant. The second formant at 95% into the vowel indicates greater tongue back backing than neutral lil with a mean of 2802 Hz for the il_t combination and 2925 Hz for the neutral lil. When compared to the F2 average at onset for the ilt_ of 2209Hz, the greater V/_t effects are clear. The It/ vowel interactions exhibit an important trend. In the environment of the lateral ejective affricate as reflected in the lower F2 values, the high front vowel HI is retracted in tongue body position but the low back vowel lal is more advanced. This implies that the Itl targeted tongue body position lies somewhere between these two vowels, and is certainly not more retracted than the lal. This pattern of retraction of the high vowel and advancement of the low vowel is mirrored in the glottalized and non-glottalized lateral approximants, as well as the lateral fricative. A summary of the acoustic data for the Vlt_ combinations demonstrates that while tongue body height and backness are affected, (Fl and F2 respectively), tongue root positioning is not (F3). Out of all the vowel-lateral ejective affricate combinations, F3 showed statistically significant differences only for the dt_. Since articulatory examination in Section 4.1.4 has clearly shown the large variability in TR positioning, F3 results are expected. Lack of F3 results is a likely result of the many-to-one acoustic-articulatory relationship and further highlights the importance of looking directly at the articulators. Nevertheless, it is possible that the lack of demonstrable F3 results suggest that the tongue root position is dependent upon the preceding vowels, otherwise some of the vowel contexts would exhibit significant differences in F3 when compared with the neutral vowel. That is, lack of F3 results suggest that the ultimate TR position could be entirely dependent on the adjacent segment in which case, it would be more advanced for an lil, but more retracted for an lal and this accommodation would not create statistically significant differences in the acoustic signal. This suggests that rather than the TR movement being an articulatory target specified by the phonology, it is a phonetic byproduct whose final position is largely dictated by the surrounding environment. Section 5.4.2 Lateral ejective affricate coarticulatory interactions: articulation In consideration of this prediction made on the basis of the acoustic results, which is that the TR exhibits a phonetic movement dictated by vowel environment, a comparison of the tongue position of the lateral ejective affricate by vowel context is presented in Figures 5.7a-b along with Tables 5.9-10.9 These graphs represent measurements of the TR position as viewed along the mid-saggital plane (measurement #1). These graphs illustrate the correlation between the amount of TR retraction backward upon release of the lateral ejective affricate and the adjacent vowel environment.10 The tongue 9 No aljk sequences were available for comparison. 1 0 Note that the lil and lui positions appear to be unexpectedly reversed. However, this observation is mitigated by various factors. TR position for both vowels are very advanced, lui is a back vowel by nature of its tongue dorsum and tongue body position, not its tongue root location. Finally, note that current data 81 constriction measurement is the still frame extracted form the real time ultrasound imaging of the tongue at the rime of the lateral ejective affricate's tongue tip constriction at the alveolar ridge. The measurement for the TR retraction is taken at the time of the tongue's peak movement backward towards the pharynx. Bivar ia te S c a t t e r g r a m Spl i t By : TR, M e a s u r e m e n t Po in t #1 B iva r ia te S c a t t e r g r a m Spl i t By: TR, M e a s u r e m e n t Po in t #1 ul t il t el t 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 Mean distance t o transducer (cm) O Final TR Position (Peak back movement ) Q • Initial TR posi t ion(at t ime of tongue constr ic t ion) 0 Figure 5.7a V/Jfc TR position i — ' — i — > — i — > — i — • — i — • — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — 1 — i — • — i 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3. Mean distance t o t ransducer (cm) Final TR Position (Peak back movement ) Initial TR Position (a t t ime of tongue constr ic t ion) Figure 5.7b V/3t_ TR position Table 5.9 Descriptive Statistics: V/Jt Split by Environment; Time of Measurement Mean distance to transducer from TR (cm) Std. Dev. # of Tokens u/ k - initial 1.58 .067 3 u/ k - final 3.03 .131 3 i/ k - initial 1.77 .160 9 il k - final 2.77 .481 9 el k- initial 1.96 .060 5 el k - final 3.04 .040 5 Table 5.10 Descriptive Statistics: Vlt_ Mean distance to transducer from TR (cm) Std. Dev. # of Tokens ufk - initial 2.09 .185 14 wlk - final 2.29 .251 14 iTk - initial 2.63 .059 3 has only 3 tokens of ul_X. Furthermore, the lil and lul are seemingly reversed in expected tongue root position when following the Itl as well. However, this is probably because all examples of \fk_ are preceded by two articulations of [X] which would establish the TR in a farther back position. 82 i/X - final 3.07 .185 3 e/X - initial 2.22 .449 11 e/X -final 2.84 .155 11 a/X - initial 2.32 .480 15 a/X - final 2.82 .348 15 The above analysis of the amount of retraction demonstrates extreme variability in TR position as a function of vowel environment beyond that of the other laterals. Statistical compilation of lateral ejective affricate articulatory results also demonstrate a large standard deviation by vowel environment in the peak tongue backing motion of the tongue movement as well as the TR position at the time of lateral contact. 1 Since the backward movement by the /X/ TR has no specific target, it implies that there is no phonological target. This variation suggests that the tongue retraction movement is a phonetic volume-preserving by-product created by the release of the lateral ejective. There is, therefore, no necessary gestural target. If there is no target, then variability of this sort, where the vowel has overriding determination in tongue root position, is expected. Furthermore, a visual comparison of all the laterals via the ultrasound imaging reveals that the large TR release movement is isolated to only the lateral ejective affricate. That is, despite its TR movement, belonging to the class of laterals is not enough for phonological retraction to occur. This variability by vowel context is consistent with the pattern found in the acoustic data. Recall from Figure 5.6 that /X/ significantly lowered the F2 values for a following HI such that this retracted vowel did not reach neutral lil values until between the midpoint and the final edge of the vowel production. Figure 5.7b above shows that i/X_ exhibits the greatest degree of retraction in its peak release tongue position (3.07cm from the transducer arc), thereby helping to explain why it takes the longest for lil to reach actual [i] formant averages. This does not equate to the largest difference in movement from initial to final /X/ position, but simply the most retracted final tongue position. Unexpectedly, this large TR movement is not reflected in the F3 measurements, since no statistically significant differences were found, but only in F2. As shown in the previous chapter, the lateral ejective affricate demonstrates a clear case of tongue root retraction. This retraction is reflected in the acoustic effects on the adjacent vowels, but because of the glottal pause, much of the gestural resolution can take place without the entire audio signal of the vowel being affected. It is predicted that there would be a greater acoustic affect on the adjacent vowels from such a large amount of tongue root retraction if the tongue resolution did not partially take place during glottal closure. Nevertheless, since acoustic effects are present, and the large TR movement is visibly distinct, it is very interesting to question why the lateral ejective affricate has never been posited to pattern with the other retracted consonants. 1 1 Clarification of the tongue constriction measurement is necessary: this is the still frame extracted from the real time ultrasound imaging of the tongue at the time of the lateral ejective affricates tongue tip constriction at the alveolar ridge. 83 5.5 Lateral Fricative Section 5.5.1 Lateral fricative coarticulatory interactions: acoustics Lastly, coarticulatory investigation into the effects of the retraction on the lateral consonants concludes with the lateral fricative. The acoustic effects are presented first. Previous research has not documented any perceptual differences for vowels adjacent to lateral fricatives, nor have any distributional differences been listed in the Montana Salish dictionary files for vowels adjacent to the lateral fricative. However, the current acoustic investigation of F l , F2, and F3 between vowels in neutral contexts and the vowels adjacent to the lateral fricative, reveals a handful of statistically significant differences. The data for the V / i _ sequences are listed below. The first table lists the significant differences between neutral HI and the HI following the lateral fricative. Notice that the lil in the lateral context shows a higher F l , lower F2, and lower F3. This implies that the lil following the lateral fricative has a lower TB, more TB backing, and more TR retraction, than neutral lil. Table 5.11 Acoustic measurements for ili_ vs. HI Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F l 05%-i/t_ : i Hz 436 : 398 .0152 20:18 F2 05% - Hi : i Hz 2458 : 2664 <.0001 20:18 F2 50%-i/*_ : i Hz 2732 : 2875 .0012 20:18 F3 05% - iii : i Hz 3120 : 3331 <.0001 20:17 F3 50% - Hi : i Hz 3283 : 3417 .0011 20:18 The lul following the lateral fricative similarly shows significant differences in both the second and third formant. Here, however, the opposite tongue movement is implied. The higher F2 for uli_ indicates TB advancement, and the lower F3 indicates more TR retraction. Table 5.12 Acoustic measurements for uli_ vs. lul Significant differences: Averages Significance levels # of Tokens F2 05%-u/i :u Hz 1724 : 1406 .0004 13:23 F2 50% - uli_ : u Hz 1399 : 1198 .0015 13:23 F3 05% - uli_ : u Hz 2926 : 3167 <.0001 13:19 F3 50%-u/i :u Hz 3146 : 3279 .0002 13:20 As seen in Table 5.13, the eli_ sequences show differences only in the third formant. Here a lower F3 for the Id [e] following the fricative is indicative of more TR retraction. Neither the F l nor the F2 formant values yield any significant differences between the neutral and non-neutral vowels. 84 Table 5.13 Acoustic measurements for e/f_ vs. Id Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F3 05%-e/i_: e Hz 3141:3326 .0002 9:18 F3 50%-e/f_:e Hz 3327:3353 .0001 9:18 Lastly, the a/i_ sequence in Table 5.14 below shows significant differences from the neutral vowel only in the second formant. Here F2 for Id is much higher when following the lateral fricative. This is indicative of an advanced TB position. Table 5.14 Acoustic measurements for a/i_ vs. /a/ Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels # of Tokens F2 05% - ali_ : a Hz 1829 : 1456 <.0001 9 : 22 F2 50%-a/i_:a Hz 1542: 1418 .0018 9:22 As the tables above illustrate, there is no significant difference for F l between u/i_ and lui, e/f_ and Id, or a/f_ and /a/. There is however a significant difference for i/f_ and lil at 05% into the vowel such that F l implies that the vowel in i / i_ has a higher tongue body than the same vowel in a neutral environment. F2 for i/f_ vs. lil entails more TB backing for the lil following the fricative. However, both F2 averages for lui and lal following the lateral fricative indicate a more fronted TB than the corresponding neutral vowel, that is, a TB fronting as opposed to backing. Therefore, F2 seems to indicate that lil fronts the TB position of the back vowels, but retracts the TB position of the high front vowel. F3 shows an independent degree of tongue root retraction for the vowel in the e/f_ sequence as opposed to the neutral Id. Here the HI retracts the tongue root of the following Id vowel. Similarly, F3 for lui and lil imply that the TR is more retracted for the vowel in the l\l context. There were no significant differences in F3 for the a/f_ sequences. The a/f_ vs. lal and u/f_ vs. lui data is worth further elaboration because the lateral fricative actually works to raise the formants of the following vowel, despite the vowel's back position. This raising seems regardless of vowel height, as it affects both lal and lui. The figure below illustrates a more detailed look at the significant differences between F2 for lal following the lateral fricative, and lal averaged over neutral environments. Here the frequencies for lal following the lateral fricative indicate a more fronted tongue body. 85 Bivariate Scattergram Means Table for F2-05% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. a 22 1456.273 134.850 28.750 a/t 9 1828.889 45.504 15.168 Fisher's PLSD for F2-05% Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. a, af t P-Value -372.616 94.858 <.0001 CV environment Bivariate Scattergram 1700 1600 1500 " F2-50% 1400 " 1300 " 1200 -1100 8 o a/t CV environment Means Table for F2-50% Effect: CV environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. a 22 1418.773 99.777 21.273 a/t 9 1542.222 62.026 20.675 Fisher's PLSD for F2-50% Effect: CV environment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. a, a/t -123.449 73.596 P-Value .0018 Figure 5. 8 Acoustic statistics for a/i_ vs neutral Id Interpretation of the F l and F2 results in light of the retracted and non-retracted lateral fricative in Moses-Columbian Salish as described in Bessell (1998) exemplify that while there is a statistically significant difference between the lil following the lil and the lil in a non-retracted environment, this may not equate to a distinct retracted lil phoneme in Montana Salish. Bessell (1998a:147-148) found an average F2 difference at vowel onset between the retracted lil and non-retracted lil ranging between 600-700 Hz while the present MTS F2 measurements average only -200 Hz apart. The Moses-Columbian measurements for F l on the HI vowel similarly rose 150-200 Hz while MTS F l measurements average only 38 Hz apart.12 No F3 data is presented in Bessell's work for comparison with the present results. Next, the V / _ i sequences are examined. The formant averages for both Id and Id, entail that the vowel in the context of the lateral fricative has a slightly lower tongue body than the neutral vowels. This is indicated by the higher first formant and is presented below in Table 5.15. 1 2 Bessell's measurements occur at vowel onset which can be interpreted in comparison with the current study's measurement at 05% into the vowel. Bessell lists two speakers with the 150-200Hz range for F l . However, her third speaker (ED) did not show any change in F l . 86 Table 5.15 Acoustic Measurements /e/ vs. e /J and /u/ vs. ulj Significant differences: Averages: Significance levels F l 50% - e : dj Hz 584 : 740 .0008 F l 95% - e : e/ f Hz 556 : 726 .0008 # of Tokens 18 : 7 18 : 7 F l 95%-u:u/ f Hz 406 : 465 .0245 20 : 7 Upon investigation of the UJ sequences it became evident that the tokens separated into two patterns. Because these two patterns were acoustically quite distinct, further investigation became necessary in order to determine whether these effects were due to the lateral fricative or whether they were external. Multiple repetitions of two words, mii 'too much' and nfiilt""dirty water' comprised the i/J sequences used in this analysis. Of the eight total mii productions, there were four whose vowel quality is distinctly closer to an [e], than an [i]. All of the mii examples were taken from the same sentence mii eta iu mali 'Mary is too skinny'. However, for lack of additional i/_i sequences, all of these tokens have been included in the overall i /_i average. The primary difference in the i/J sequences is visible in the first formant. The i/J results are separated into two perceptually based categories, both of which are paired against the neutral lil values. That is, these two categories distinguish those four mii tokens which have [e] from all the other examples of lil preceding the lateral fricative. Therefore, the first [if] is comprised of all the i/J sequences which are perceptually pronounced with an [i], and the second, (represented in the third column in Figure 5.9) is comprised of the remaining tokens with an auditory perception of a lowered vowel near to a phonetic [e].13 The statistical means and significance pairings are show in the tables below. Fisher's PLSD Effect: V/_C environment Significance Level: 5 % Hz 7 0 0 ' 6 5 0 ' 6 0 0 ' 5 5 0 5 0 0 4 5 0 4 0 0 3 5 0 3 0 0 2 5 0 Bivariate Scattergram CO GO 8 o i / J V / _ C env i ronment i - [ e ] / J O F l - 5 0 % O F T - 9 5 % i, i / J i, i - [ e ] / J i / J . i - [ e ] / J Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 4.736 36.441 .7917 -233.139 47.405 <.0001 -237.875 52.517 <.0001 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 42.278 41.839 .0478 -223.972 54.428 <.0001 -266.2S0 60.297 <.0001 i, i / J i, i - [ e ] / J i / J , i - [ c ] / J Means Table for F1-50% Effect: VC environment F1-50% F1-95% Count Mean S t d . Dev. S td . Err. i 18 4 1 7 . 6 1 1 4 9 . 1 6 3 1 1 . 5 8 8 i t 8 4 1 2 . 8 7 5 2 5 . 4 2 5 8 . 9 8 9 i t [e] 4 6 5 0 . 7 5 0 2 2 . 7 6 5 1 1 . 3 8 3 Means Table for F1-95% Effect: VC environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std . Err. i 18 3 9 2 . 7 7 8 5 6 . 8 5 8 1 3 . 4 0 2 i t 8 3 5 0 . 5 0 0 2 6 . 8 4 9 9 .492 i t [c ] 4 6 1 6 . 7 5 0 2 6 . 9 1 2 1 3 . 4 5 6 1 3 Please note that this [e] is the phonetic representation even though <e> is the standard orthographic convention for what is phonetically realized as [e]. 87 Figure 5.9 Fl lil vs i/jr separated into perceptual categories Note that even when the i/_i words are separated perceptually, the [i]/_i tokens still show a statistically significant difference from the neutral lil values at F l 95%. However, although not shown, when all the i/jf sequences are grouped as one category, regardless of vowel quality, the statistical significance between lil preceding HI and the neutral lil values disappeared. A similar statistical comparison for F2 reveals no significant difference between any of the pairings, either when the i/_i sequences are separated perceptually or when they are combined all together. However, statistically significant differences are evident in the third formant as shown in Figure 5.10 below. Here, F3 is statistically significant for all pairings against neutral lil. That is, there is a significant difference between neutral lil paired against i/_f and also against i-[e]/jr (separated perceptually). However, no significant difference was found between the two perceptually separated sets of i/_i tokens. 3 6 0 0 Cell Bar Chart Split By: V/_C environment Error Bars:. ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Fisher 's PLSD f o r F 3 - 5 0 % Ef fec t : V/_C env i ronment Signi f icance Leve l : 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value i, i / J i, i - [e] /J i / J , i - [e] /J 192.014 94 .189 .0003 137.889 122 .530 .0288 -54.125 135.741 .4204 • i / J i-[e]/J Fisher 's PLSD f o r F3-9596 E f fec t : V/_C env i ronment Signi f icance Leve l : 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value F 3 - 5 0 % F 3 - 9 5 % i, i / J i, i - [e] /J i / J , i-[e]/_ 100.578 103.966 .0573 208.662 121.669 .0017 108.083 141.325 .1276 Means Table f o r F3-5096 E f f e c t : V/_C Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 18 3 4 1 6 . 8 8 9 117 .227 27.631 8 3224 .875 69 .538 24 .585 4 3 2 7 9 . 0 0 0 126 .034 63 .017 Means Table f o r F 3 - 9 5 % E f fec t : V/_C Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 17 3450 .412 83 .103 2 0 . 1 5 5 6 3349 .833 85 .563 34 .931 4 3 2 4 1 . 7 5 0 202 .462 101 .231 Figure Set 5.10 F3 lif vs i/Jt perceptual categories Next, even when all twelve of the i/jt tokens are combined, the difference between the third formant values remains at both 50% and 95% into the vowel. This is shown in the Figure 5.11 below. Statistically significant differences are denoted by the two stars above the columns in the bar graph. If these the tokens with retracted lil to [e] were taken from a different set of words, it could be plausible to suggest that these differences in F3 reflect a distinction in the amount of TR retraction in the HI production 88 as a result of two /*/ and lil phonemes. However, since these results primarily reflect variability within pronunciation of single word, the cause of the difference is not clearly understood. Hz Cell Bar Chart Split By: VC environment Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation (s) _ _ F3-50% F3-95% Figure Set 5.11 F3 IM vs M_i combined Means Table for F3-5096 Effect: V / _ C environment 3600 3500 3400 3300 3200 3100 3000' Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 18 3416.889 117.227 27.631 V i 12 3242.917 90.108 26.012 Means Table for F3-95% Effect: V / _ C environment Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. i 17 3450.412 83.103 20.155 il t 10 3306.600 144.382 45.657 Interestingly, the patterns above are only partially consistent with the trends presented in Bessell (1998a). In her data, the Moses-Columbian Salish retracted lateral fricative was primarily visible through its effects on the lowered F2 of the adjacent vowel. In the Montana Salish data presented here, F2 does lower on the adjacent high vowels, but only minimally as compared with the retracted fricative in Moses-Columbian Salish (Bessell 1998a: 147-148). For example, IM following retracted I f in Moses-Columbian Salish had an average range for Fl between 388Hz and 547Hz. (Data for IM preceding the lateral fricative was not documented in that study). However, for i/i_ sequences in Montana Salish the IM values averaged near 439 Hz as compared to a neutral IM average of 398Hz. In addition, the F2 results for the lateral fricative in Montana Salish suggest a fronting of the TB for the di_ and di_ back vowels, but not any retraction. Bessell (1998a: 148) documents a change in F2 for Moses-Columbian lil at vowel onset from near 2300Hz when following the non-retracted lateral fricative, to near 1600Hz when following the retracted lateral fricative. Montana Salish lil changed only from 2664Hz to 2458Hz at the 05% measurement point. F3 results in the current acoustic investigation were variable but as Bessell (1998a) did not report any F3 results for the i/i_, comparison is not possible. The overall implications of an acoustic investigation of the lateral fricative are similar to the previous vowels. While sometimes supported by significant differences in Fl or F3, only F2 consistently displayed retracted effects for each of the lateral-vowel interactions. The third formant shows low values for only some of the vowels (lil, lul, and I d following lil, and only HI preceding HI), just as there was only a significant correlation for F3 in the investigated i/_q but not the i/q_ sequences. It is possible that the minimums and maximums for the third formant signal are simply balancing out between each other as a result of constrictions and extensions of the tongue. Not only does this lack of consistency support the necessity of a direct investigation into the articulators involved, but it further suggests that the third formant does not prove most informative or consistent in its implications of tongue movement. Fl also seems to be 89 equally variable in reflecting tongue body movement whereby it did not consistently show significant differences for each of the vowel contexts, only i/i_, e/_t, u/_i, and i/_i (only when separated into [i]l_i and [e]/_f sequences). Nevertheless, summary of the acoustic comparison with the retracted and non-retracted lateral fricative in Moses-Columbian Salish does not show continuity with the /+/ results for Montana Salish. These results suggest that there is only one lil in Montana Salish and it is not retracted. Section 5.5.2 Lateral fricative coarticulatory interactions: articulation Since the acoustic investigation has revealed certain coarticulatory effects, three methods are used to investigate articulatory retraction by the lateral fricative in relation to the vowels. The first compares the lateral fricative to the lil, lal, and lei [e] vowels to demonstrate its position within the mouth, with interspeech rest position included for reference. The second compares the position of the lateral fricative in the lal and HI vowel contexts in order to demonstrate the varying position of the lateral fricative. The last comparison illustrates the lil vowel tongue position in the context of lil as paired against the neutral HI vowel tongue position. The following graph in Figure 5.11 illustrates the average lil tongue position as compared with the HI, lei and lal vowels, and also with interspeech rest position. The plotted values for lil represent the average from all the lil tokens. Notice that the TR placement for the lateral fricative at measurement points #1 and #2 is very similar to the position of the lei [e] vowel. There is no statistically significant difference between the lei and the lil at these first two initial measurement positions. Both of these segments are also less retracted than interspeech rest, and lal vowel TR position. The TR difference between lil and rest, lil, and lal is statistically significant. 5.5 3 "9 4 5 c 1 s u 3.5 u 2.5 Tongue position: lateral fricative vs. vowel a....„interspeech rest [a] [e] - * - [ i ] 2 3 4 Measurement points along tongue edge Figure 5.11 Lateral fricative tongue positioning as compared to lal, Id, HI, and rest 90 Table 5.16 Measurements for lateral fricative vs. vowels tongue position Mean tongue position (cm) T R T R up 2cm T R up 4cm T R up 6cm T T to trans A v g : St.dev A v g : St.dev A v g : St.dev A v g : St.dev A v g : St.dev i 2.65 0.31 3.65 0.47 4.24 0.29 4.64 0.58 4.56 0.49 rest 2.79 0.2 3.62 0.16 3.87 0.18 4.04 0.15 3.83 0.2 3.07 0.15 3.75 0.15 4.06 0.17 3.86 0.14 3.38 0.15 [el 2.68 0.18 3.56 0.22 4.14 0.29 4.41 0.14 4.28 0.13 [il 1.18 0.14 3.01 0.12 4.06 0.18 4.74 0.11 4.34 0.15 In complement to the emerging lateral consonant pattern where by the TR of the lateral is less retracted than /a/, interspeech, and resides near the Id [e] position, notice that unlike the previous laterals, by the second measurement point, the lil has not completely reversed position with the vowels and become more retracted. That is, the lateral approximants presented a more retracted tongue position at measurement #2, but here the lateral fricative has not quite surpassed the other vowels in its distance from the transducer arc. One additional trend which is observed in the above graph and corresponding table, is that the lil has a very large standard deviation as compared with either the vowels or interspeech rest position. This large variance indicates the HI relationship to its adjacent vowel environment. That is, the HI tongue position is correlated with vowel context. This variation is shown below. In Figure 5.12, the inner dashed line is the initial frication following the HI vowel. The middle line is the position of the tongue during the end of the lateral frication (word finally). The outer dotted line is the midpoint for the frication for the di_ sequence. Notice the gradient tongue root and dorsum positioning for each of these V/t_ sequences even while the tongue body maintains stable placement. - i mid pt. tkwfakwiS - i frication end mii - i frication beginning mii Figure 5.12 Tongue tracings for lil by environment However, despite this more retracted position as compared with the high front vowel, this lil position back does not quite reach the interspeech rest position.14 Recall Recall from Section 5.5.1 that the vowels in the mii tokens were separated into [e] and [i]. The tongue tracing used here represents lil taken from a mii repetition where the vowel was pronounced [i]. 91 from Figure 5.11, that only the /a/ vowel was more retracted in TR position than interspeech rest, although Id [e] tongue position was close to rest for measurement #1 at the TR. Upon evaluating the HI position in relation to this data, it becomes clear that HI does not exhibit an overall retracted tongue position. That is, since the TR for HI in a retracted or non-retracted vowel environment never reaches the amount of retraction displayed by interspeech rest, Id or Id, it does not seem plausible to consider it a physically "retracted consonant". Furthermore, note from the above tongue tracings, that the tongue body and tongue tip for the HI are consistently produced in the same location. That is, unlike the TR and the TD areas of the tongue, the TB maintains the target position for the production of the lateral fricative. The variable TR position signifies that the gestural target is only specified for the TB position, and not the TR or TD. Since the TB and TT position for the lateral fricative remain constant regardless of environment, it suggests that the lateral fricative tongue position is specified only for the TB (but not the TR and TD), with the range of tongue root movement being dictated by the adjacent segment environment. However, while the final TR position is not specified exactly, it maintains a positional range that corresponds to the fricative production. This TD and TR range resides in between the advanced tongue position for a high front vowel and the retracted tongue position for a low back vowel. Thus, its position as shown in the image above is consistent with the acoustic measurements which indicated that the lateral fricative fronts the tongue body position of the Id and the Id but retracts the tongue body position of the already front HI vowel. One last comparison is presented to establish the nature of tongue retraction for the lateral fricative. Since the acoustics indicate a lowering of the adjacent HI vowel (via the second formant), and the plotted graph 5.11 illustrates that the HI is in a more retracted position than the high front vowel, it is necessary to examine whether the lateral fricative affects the average tongue position of the adjacent HI vowel. The chart and table below illustrate the average tongue positions based on measurements 1-5 for the lil vowel preceding the HI paired against the HI vowel in neutral contexts. Here, it seems that the HI does not compromise the tongue positions for the high front vowel except at the initial TR position. Only measurement point #1 at the base of the TR exhibits a statistically significant difference between the lil adjacent to the HI, and the HI in a neutral environment. However, the numerical difference at this measurement locale is not large with the i/jf TR position at 1.77cm from the transducer arc, and the neutral lil at 1.81cm from the same point. This does seem to correspond to the acoustic difference found for F3 for the same /i/-lateral fricative sequence. 92 Average Tongue Pos i t ion o f lil vs . / i f / 1.50 -lil tongue position -/it/ tongue position 1 2 3 4 5 Measurement positions along tongue edge Figure 5.13 / i / tongue position: neutral lil vs. i/_t Table 5.17 Mean tongue position for neutral lil vs. if Number of tokens TR cm TR up 2cm TR up 4cm TR up 6cm TT to trans TT to TR Avg: St.dev Avg: St.dev Avg: St.dev Avg: St.dev Avg: St.dev Avg: St.dev 18 lil 1.81 .143 3.01 .120 4.06 .181 4.74 .110 4.34 .161 6.43 .203 12 il f 1.77 .05 2.93 .096 3.92 .132 4.69 .090 4.43 .102 6.54 .097 Significant yes no no no no no Through considering all the above examinations, it should be clear from the data presented above, that the lateral fricative has a target tongue position that does not include an inherent retracted movement which is anything close to that of the other laterals. Despite the lateral fricative's ability to influence the adjacent lil vowel TR position, the overall tongue position of the lateral fricative is clearly advanced as compared to interspeech rest. In addition, unlike the three other laterals, II, l', tJ, the fricative does not demonstrate a retracted TD or TR movement. Taken in consideration with the lateral fricative acoustic results, it is apparent that the lateral fricative instead holds a medial TB position in between the back and front vowels. This medial targeted tongue position acts to raise the back vowels, but lower the front vowels, even though only the TR position varied for the lil vowel in the i/_i sequence as compared with the neutral lil position. Furthermore, while the TB and TT positions seem stable, the corresponding TR and TD positions are variable such that the tongue position of the lil is fronted next to those same high vowels, but more retracted next to the low vowels. In addition to this medial tongue position there is small, variably produced TD peak that showed up on a few of the lil repetitions. This small peak was only visible irregularly and does not act or look similar to the TD gesture for the lateral approximants (Figures 4.1 and 4.7). An example of this is illustrated in Figure 5.12. for the lil tongue tracing in ikwiakwis. Regardless, the overall evidence for the lateral fricative does not seem to group with the retracted tongue movements utilized by the other lateral 93 consonants. The lateral fricative does not exhibit a retracted movement by either the TD or the TR. 5.6 Coarticulatory interactions: acoustic and articulatory conclusions The overall coarticulatory examination as presented in the current chapter has confirmed the retracted status of the III, Hi, HI, and It/. The acoustic results form a general trend for vowel interaction with the lateral consonants, though the amount of formant change is variable by consonant. This is most consistently visible through the second formant. Common to all the laterals is this pattern of retracting the tongue position of the high vowels, but advancing the tongue position of the low vowels. That is, the laterals demonstrate a general lowering of F2 for the adjacent high vowel (specifically HI), and a rising of F2 for the adjacent low vowels (specifically /a/). This proved consistent for both V / C _ as well as V / _ C contexts. To illustrate this pattern, the table below presents the V / _ C sequences for each of the four laterals as compared with both lal and HI. Here it is clear that F2 rises for all lateraWa/ sequences, and lowers for all lateral-/i/ combinations. Furthermore, the variable and inconsistent F l and F3 results are visible. It is not clear why the drastic F2 lowering which spans the entire vowel in the ilt_ sequence is not also manifested in the F3 and F l formants. Table 5.18 Formant effects on the vowel b; y V / C _ context Lateral to Vowel Sequence F l effect F2 effect F3 effect i/1 none lower lower all higher higher none i/f none lower lower alt none higher none ui none lower none alt lower higher lower i/f higher lower lower a/f none higher none Because the laterals have conformed to the general pattern of advancing the low back vowel tongue body position, but retracting the high front vowel tongue body position, their coarticulatory effects upon the adjacent vowels are those of consonants with a medial tongue position located between the high and low vowel positions. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that these medial tongue positions exhibit a large coarticulatory effect on the adjacent vowel. Interpreted in addition with the articulatory evidence, which demonstrates that the overall tongue position itself also varies by the vowel context, it seems that the designation of an articulatory target is specified for the individual locus along the tongue, rather than encompassing the whole muscle. In each of the laterals, the TR and TD are variable in position, while the TB and TT/tongue blade, are stable. Within the TR and TD, the TD includes a specified retracted gesture for the lateral approximants, but achievement of this target is dictated by adjacent contextual 94 coarticulatory influences. The TR does not exhibit a retracted gesture for any of the laterals, even though for the lateral ejective affricate it exemplifies a retracted movement as a phonetic byproduct of other gestures. Furthermore, this coarticulatory information provides further enlightenment in the function of phonetics and phonology for the lateral consonants. All the laterals show coarticulatory effects similar to the acoustic patterns, and variable TR and TD positioning as a function of vowel context. However, these are hypothesized to occur as result of different types of retraction. For example, the HI does not exhibit a phonetically retracted movement to its tongue movement (either TR, TD or TB), but coarticulatory vowel interaction does show a difference in ultimate tongue position such that the TR and TD position of the HI are more advanced when adjacent to an lil than when they are adjacent to an lal. Similarly, the TR position for IV is more advanced when adjacent to and lil as compared to the IV adjacent to an lal, as is the TR positioning for the It/. The lateral approximants differ from the lateral ejective affricate in type of tongue retraction, yet they all show retraction effects on the adjacent vowels.15 1 5 It is still not clear why the lateral ejective affricate has never been proposed to pattern with the other retracted laterals. 95 Chapter 6 Discussion of Results It is clear from the data presented in the previous chapters that articulatory retraction is a function of some laterals in Montana Salish. The lateral approximant, glottalized lateral approximant, and lateral ejective affricate all exhibit some retracted movement by the tongue, though to varying degrees and in different directions. Alone among the laterals, the fricative does not display a distinct retracted movement in its overall position and shape. All of the lateral consonants show coarticulatory retracted effects and variability by vowel context. These observations do not entirely comply with the initial proposal of the study. As proposed in the initial hypothesis, IV and lil exhibit a retracted tongue movement most similar to the uvulars as compared with the other laterals, (though this movement is still quite distinct and is discussed more below). However, contrary to the initial proposal, the lil also demonstrated a large retraction movement by the tongue and has an ultimate tongue position that is phonetically closer to the pharynx than the other laterals. Phonological and distributional patterning of the Fkl is entirely distinct from the uvulars and pharyngeals which are also produced with a tongue retraction into the pharynx. The primary investigated movements are summarized in the table below. Table 6.1 Locus of Tongue Movement 1 1' t i X1 q TB no no no no (no) no TD yes yes var no (yes) yes TR no no no yes (yes) yes 6.1 Tongue Dorsum vs. Tongue Root Retraction The retraction exhibited by the Montana Salish lateral reveals something more: an important differentiation between tongue root and tongue dorsum retraction. The lateral approximants exhibit TD retraction, while the lateral ejective affricate exhibits TR retraction. While many studies on Salish retraction have not distinguished TR from TD retraction, there is a general distinction in the retraction literature (as described by Bessell 1998a; Cole 1987; Doak 1987; and Shahin 2002) between uvularization and pharyngealization. However, as the articulatory investigation into the Montana Salish uvular consonant production discussed in this study demonstrates, production in the uvular area is also coupled with a tongue presence in the pharyngeal area. This is consistent with the claims of Shahin (2002:24) who cites the Arabic lyj (and the other uvulars) as being comprised of a primary uvular and a secondary pharyngeal articulation. Shahin (2002:24) claims that "uvular articulation does not occur without pharyngealisation" (sic). Note that in terms of Browman and Goldstein (1986, 1992), designation of primary and secondary gestures both equate to phonological gestures. Parentheses are used to denote the non-phonemic status of this particular sound, and because analysis of the [X] is based on multiple repetitions of only one word. 96 Furthermore, data in this current study illustrating both the Nuu-chah-nulth (Wilson 2003) and Montana Salish uvular stop exemplifies variability in tongue position for this consonant (and set of consonants) by language. As seen through the variable uvular position between the MTS and N C N Iql, the "secondary articulation" of the TR may exhibit more or less presence in the pharynx for the uvular consonants in different languages. Nevertheless, it is present for all the uvulars. It is possible that the degree of TR is specified in each language, but it is more likely that as with other sounds, languages simply differ in exact phonetic realization of the uvular consonants. Description of the back articulators for the retracted coronals is slightly less meticulous, for lack of previous articulatory investigations into these sounds. Bessell (1998a: 125) states that these underlying retracted coronals "involve some lowering and/or backing of the tongue". This movement, however, does not pattern the same as that of the uvular consonants. The lateral approximants within the Montana Salish languages demonstrate that unlike the uvular stop Iql, the MTS III does not involve primary or even secondary pharyngealisation. No TR movement is necessarily coupled with the TD retraction. Futhermore, even within the exhibited TD retraction, there is still variability in its overall position with respect to uvularization. Sometimes the TD position for the III is entirely in the TD area range for the uvular even though the III TR does not mimic the uvular TR position. However, other times, the consonant III does not reach this extreme peak TD position so similar to the uvular position. This was illustrated in the /li/ sequence in likwlexw and also the TD movement of the first lil in the l'l'ac sequence (Figures 4.2 and 4.6). This new evidence suggests that while uvularization may not occur without pharyngealization as Shahin claims for her Arabic data, the TD movement of the lateral approximants may occur without a distinct TR movement. This is also contrary to Bessell (1990:9) who cites that retracted coronals are produced with a secondary tongue root retraction. Egesdal's (1993:22) description of the retracted III which specified it as pharyngealized, unrounded, not uvularized or velarized, is also not correct for the laterals investigated in this study. While the current investigation can make no claims on the historically retracted III phoneme, the presently documented III does not fall in this category of a pharyngealized consonant. The articulatory data presented here has clarified that lateral retraction it is not necessarily uvularized or pharyngealized, but another distinct gesture such that this posterior uvular area is targeted only by the TD and not the TR. However, as the acoustic and vowel harmony evidence suggests, distinction between the tongue root and tongue dorsum movements does not necessarily equate to two different types of phonological retraction. The acoustic effects of tongue dorsum versus tongue root are slightly different, (variably evident F3 and Fl); however, through F2 the overall effects are still generally the same. All the laterals raise the low vowels and lower the high vowels. This variability of tongue movement in what determines the outcome of the acoustic signal again underscores the necessity of consulting articulatory evidence. Nevertheless, phonological implications of retraction have been suggested only for the two lateral approximates (i.e. the two segments with tongue dorsum as their primary retracting gesture). The lateral ejective affricate has no known phonological retraction effects despite its large effect on the adjacent vowels acoustic signal. That is, in Montana Salish, fkl is not claimed to participate in regressive or progressive retraction 97 (Egesdal 1993), nor has it been listed as a retracted segment in any Interior Salish language even though a large TR movement into the pharynx is demonstrated by the /X/. This would imply that unlike the established retracted triggers like /Q/ and /V/, etc., the retracted movement of the lateral ejective affricate does not lower adjacent or non-adjacent vowels. However, as clearly demonstrated in the previous chapters, this consonant not only exhibits the largest TR retraction, but it has definite acoustic effects on adjacent vowels, including These are present despite the glottal nature of this sound. Phonetic actuality therefore does not restrict the lateral ejective affricate from participating in the phonological retraction processes in which III and /l7 are proposed to participate. In all these cases, this local conflict is resolved via the transitory temporal compromise and via not complete vowel laxing/lowering. For whatever reason the two lateral approximants are posited to participate in phonological lowering, which includes non-local interactions of vowel lowering, but the lateral ejective affricate is restricted to immediate vowel transitioning in local contexts. However, if phonological retraction initiates from phonetic effect, then it is unclear why the /X/ is not included with the other retracted laterals in phonological processes. A deeper look at Fkl reveals something more than the first impression of only TR retraction. First, as previously mentioned, Montana Salish only has the Fkl phoneme, but sometimes has the [X] as a phonetic realization. This non-ejective form occurs only in sequences of reduplicated Fkl, whereby only the last one is ejected, though all are released. So for the sequence [inXXXi], the first two are non-ejective, (but released), and the last one is ejected. Visual examination of the tongue movement through ultrasound has shown that the release of the non-ejective lateral affricates occurs primarily in the direction of the retracted tongue dorsum (in addition to laterally). The direction of this movement is somewhat similar to the direction for the lateral approximates (glottalized and non-glottalized). This smaller, reminiscent TD movement is a likely function of the lateral consonant production whereby in addition to the lateral movement by the sides of the tongue, volume preservation requires some minimal tongue backing. This is likely the same reason the small and variably present TD peak is apparent in some productions of the/f/. It would be phonologically unintuitive for the /X/ to pattern with the approximants and not the fricative as the /X/ consists of a [f] and a [i]. In each of the /X/ and HI, there seems to be a consistent TB and TT position, but the ultimate position and movement of the TR and TD is variable. This suggests that the /X/ retraction is comprised of two distinct components: a small TD retraction for the release of the affricate, and a dominant TR retraction for the ejective release. Nevertheless, analysis of this segment shows that while there are inherently two underlying components to the retracted movement of the /X/, the drastic TR movement encompasses any retraction which might occur at the TD. Moreover, it is only the TD movement of the /X/ which could pattern with the TD gesture of the lateral approximants, but the TR movement as a phonetic byproduct completely encompasses any TD movement.2 If the tongue root (TR) is phonologically unspecified, the large variability by vowel context in TR positioning for the Fkl and /i/ is expected. This implies that the phonological gesture, as defined by Browman and Goldstein (1992), is specified only for 2 It is imperative to differentiate the release of FKl glottal closure from the release of the fkl as an ejective. 98 the necessary part of the tongue but not elsewhere. In this case these are the TT and TB area (or at least the tongue constriction area). If this line of thought is correct, then the four laterals are consistent with each other for the phonological gesture, but not those tongue movements which are a byproduct of another via the tongue's interconnected set of muscles in one unit of volume. That is, the TT and TB gesture is specified for the FkJ and /f/, while the gesture specified for the IM and Fil is the TD and TT. Another factor differentiating the retraction of the lateral approximants from that of the lateral ejective affricate is the phonetic reality. Since the tongue is a volume preserving hydrostat, compression in one area of the tongue is always in opposition to expansion in another area. In the case of the lateral ejective affricate, the dramatic ejected release has been shown to equate with a large tongue root movement, while the remaining sections of the tongue (TB, TT) remain constant. This TR movement has been established by both acoustic and articulatory evidence to be a phonetic byproduct: an action out of necessity, rather than from phonological specification. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, there is a biomechanical explanation for the dramatic TR retraction of the lateral ejective affricate: this distinguishes why it is not a function of the ejectives but rather sourced in ballistic volume displacement coupled during ejection. This is consistent with the TD retraction in !Xoo clicks (Traill 1985) and the TD/TR retraction gesture in the [!] in Khoekhoe (Miller-Ockhuizen 2004). Similarly, dramatic volume displacement is the likely source of the Montana Salish vowel quality change between <ko> [kw]u and <ku> [kw]u (Mengarini 1877-79; Thomason p.c. 2004). This similar action across such a diverse grouping of sounds implies that the physical motivation for the TR movement is instead sourced in the forced tongue body lowering which takes place during each of these sounds. The tongue body lowering co-occurs with a backward displacement of a large amount of tongue "flesh" which is primarily composed of the TR. Returning to the question of differentiation in phonological retraction, it is suggested that distinction between the tongue root and tongue dorsum movements can, but does not necessarily, equate to two different types of phonological retraction. Despite two phonetically different retraction movements by the tongue, the acoustic realizations are such that the FkJ generally patterns the same as the III and /l'/ in lowering of high vowels, and raising of low/back vowels. It seems to make no difference what the primary phonetic or phonologically dictated gesture is for the acoustic signal, but rather, it is dependent upon the entire tongue shape (and other non-connected external factors like lip rounding, etc.). Both types of retraction can be resolved gesturally either though temporal compromise (vowel transitioning), or spatial compromise (vowel laxing/lowering). Therefore, the overall outcome and effect on the vowels within a language, and similarly, one instigating foundation for phonological retraction, may not necessarily distinguish between the two different origins of their retraction. However, distinction of TR from TD in terms of retracted gestures implies that retraction need not necessarily correlate to RTR as a feature. That is, the lateral approximants exhibit a retracted TD gesture, but this does not couple with a simultaneous TR retraction. Therefore, while these segments can be retracted consonants, (in addition to retracting consonants), this does not equate to a retracted feature of RTR. 99 6.2 Lateral retraction in Montana Salish phonology Thus far, little mention has been made of how any lateral tongue retraction fits into the Montana Salish phonological system. As discussed in Chapter 1, Egesdal (1993:18) proposed two distinct lateral approximants; a retracted and non-retracted version of the plain lateral approximant III, and glottalized lateral approximant lil. He uses this historically based stipulation to justify the vowel lowering in such otherwise unexplainable environments as the lateral approximants. However, this is done with the caveat that the amount of merger between these two distinguished (hypothetical) segments is unclear in current speakers. While this present examination did not survey enough lateral approximants to distinguish whether two distinct retracted and non-retracted lateral approximant phonemes exist in modern day Montana Salish, some light can be shed on this matter when one recalls the choice of words used in this study. Along with Egesdal's (1993:18--19) generalization, he lists 22 words with a historically retracted l\l. Given that none of the words in Egesdal's (albeit presumably incomplete) list of retracted III words were used in the current study, it can be concluded that the retraction demonstrated here is inherent in the non-retracted III movement. The tongue position of the non-historically retracted consonant III presents sufficient gestural conflict with the adjacent vowels such that some resolution must take place. In addition, recall that the III affected the adjacent lal vowel such that it pulled it forward, rather than retracted it back, as it did for the lil vowel. This implies that all synchronic Ills are retracted, and this retracted gesture has a specific enough target to advance the position of the low/back vowels, but retract the position of the high, front vowels. Nevertheless, this targeted position is an area in which ultimate position is dictated by coarticulatory effects. The acoustic coarticulatory effects from the vowels and laterals onto each other mirror this overall retraction and general tongue position. As reflected in the formants (primarily F2), the low vowels are raised, while the high vowels are lowered when adjacent to the lateral consonants, though the total amount is variable by vowel and lateral. This occurred in both pre- and post-adjacent contexts. Furthermore, the physical tongue position of the laterals themselves also exhibits coarticulatory effects as a result of the adjacent vowels. The TR and TD are slightly more fronted in the environment of a high vowel but more retracted in the environment of the low vowel lal. While the TD movement for the lateral approximants is a specified TD gesture, the final amount of this retraction is dictated by the coarticulatory effects of the adjacent segments. These coarticulatory effects appear to be most influential on the TR, with the TT/tongue blade and TB seeming to maintain a more constant position.3 Here it seems that the gestural target is not specified for the TR. 3 This claim that the TB and TT are only minimally variable is based only on observations made through tongue tracings and not through statistical measurement, since neither the TT nor TB is the focus of the current articulatory investigation. 100 6.3 Gestural conflict The data presented in this study also have implications for the subject of conflicting tongue target gestural resolution within a language. The descriptions within Gick and Wilson (2002,2003) and Wilson (2003) imply that only one strategy is operable per pre-or post-adjacent environment. Recall that the investigated data has demonstrated that all conflict is resolved via transition. The amount and length of time utilized in this resolution is variable, but spatial compromise as it equates to an ultimate laxed or lowered vowel is not demonstrated in the local environment. However, Montana Salish literature (Egesdal 1993; Bessell 1998a; Thomason 2000) presents that back consonants lower adjacent vowels. The vowels Id, lui, lol, etc. lower to [a], [o] and [o], etc. in the environment of adjacent uvulars, pharyngeals, and some laterals as well. If this lowering is simply one method of resolving the gestural compromise between the conflicting position of the vowel and consonant, then an important generalization about gestural resolution can be made: the lateral and uvular consonants exhibit both laxing and lowering in the same environment. The lateral consonant to vowel conflict is resolved by transition, as well as laxing, and the uvular conflict for HI is resolved by transition (and laxing), and for the other vowels, laxing, then both processes are at work in MTS in the same environment. If one sequence can either transition, or lax, then it implies that a language does not necessarily set which type of resolution it prefers to use, but rather lets that decision be dictated by other parameters and generalizations which hold in the phonology. However, if instead, the laxing/lowering of vowels is only a phonological phenomenon, as is implied by the current study, then rather than a language not specifying which gestural resolution is applied, the language differs as to which method of resolution is used in the phonology and which is used in the phonetics. In this case, all the investigated sequences exhibited vowel transition as the method of gestural compromise. However, this was expected, as the selected word list specifically was designed not to contain vowels which were known to be phonologically lowered. Therefore, no truly conclusive claims about specified gestural resolution can be made. Nevertheless, it seems probable that the vowel lowering in Montana Salish is phonological, but at least for the lateral consonants and the plain uvular stop, the phonetic realization is vowel transitioning. 6.4 The relation of gestural conflict to phonological transparency If correct, this local gestural conflict has important ramifications for the phonetic and phonological descriptions of retraction or faucal harmony in the Salish languages. Recall that Egesdal (1993) and Bessell (1994, 1998a) claim that lil in Montana Salish is "transparent" (i.e. it does not pattern with the other vowels by lowering/laxing in a retraction-triggering context). In this same context, and in the case of both progressive and regressive retraction, lui lowers to [o], and Id laxes to [a], which, according to 101 Egesdal (1993:4) are not "audibly" distinct from phonemic lol and lal.4 Other phonemic lol and lal are already low and/or back, they do not participate in this process. However, the investigation here has shown that lil preceding or following a lateral or uvular stop is not inert. It is not phonetically unaffected. The realization of lil in these contexts clearly exemplifies vowel transitioning to or from the retracting consonant. What is significant, however, is that the articulation of lil even in these retracting environments always resolves to that of a neutral HI. In some cases the amount of transition is resolved by the midpoint of the vowel, while in others full [i] formant values are established only at the 05%/95% point of the transition (i.e. at the measure point of the vowel that is maximally distant from the triggering consonant. Phonetically lil is subject to the same gestural conflicts that all other vowels are. This suggests that the resolution to this conflict is simply a temporal compromise, rather than a spatial one. This is, in fact, also consistent with the acoustic evidence on lil lowering presented in Bessell (1998b) for two languages in which lil is documented as participating in phonological retraction effects as well as local coarticulatory retraction, specifically Moses Columbian Salish and Coeur d'Alene Salish. In Moses-Columbian, the local phonetic interaction of lil with uvulars and pharyngeals yields [i, ie, e], while regressive harmony yields [e] (Bessell 1998b:5). In Coeur d'Alene HI preceding a uvular yields [e], Id yields [a], and Id yields [o] while for regressive harmony interactions HI is transparent. Bessell (1998b) claims that this adjacent lowering is coupled with some form of transition as well. The lowered HI in fact does transition as well but rather than specifying amount, she lays the onus on the timing of the HQI shift. For Nxa?amxcin (Moses-Columbian) the lil lowering is based on a transitory change, gradual throughout, whereas for SnchitsuVumshtsn, (Coeur d'Alene) there is less transition, but it occurs at an earlier moment and is quickly stabilized for the rest of the vowel production (Bessell 1998b:23~25). The implication here is that the transition part of the vowel is the phonetic result of gestural compromise, whereas the maintenance of a lowered vowel is dictated by the phonology. Here, the languages demonstrate the phonetic and phonological retraction working jointly to produce the final outcome. One further implication of the coarticulatory evidence presented for the lateral consonants in Montana Salish concerns retracted tongue root (RTR) harmony and segment transparency. If phonological harmony is phonetically grounded (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994) and further, if harmony is grounded in some local effect, then transparent segments of any kind present a problem. Not only has lil been considered a transparent segment for Montana Salish, it is implicitly implied in most literature discussing these vowel harmony systems in the Salish languages, that the consonants are transparent as well. That is, harmony can pass through these consonants, but does not affect them directly. While the current study has not compared the lateral positions in RTR contexts to non-RTR contexts, it has clearly shown that there is TR variability as a function of the adjacent vowel. Recall from Chapters 4 and 5, that 1 / _a has more TR retraction that 1 l_i, though this is only visible at the very first measurement at the base of the TR. 4 The current analysis documents a difference between a/l_ and neutral /al as well as other such pairs. If there is a distinct difference between IV, a non-retracted consonant, and lal, then there is predicted to be an even greater difference between Iql and /a/. The same implication applies to other V / C _ and V / _ C sequences. 102 Similarly, lil and It] both have more TR and TD retraction in the lal context as compared with the lil context. It is plausible to hypothesize that since the laterals have parts of the tongue (generally the TR and sometimes the TD as well) which vary by vowel, it is possible that RTR harmony does in fact influence the consonant as well. Currently this can only be attributed to pure coarticulatory effects, but nevertheless, it implies that i f an adjacent segment is effected, then it is further possible for RTR harmony to pass through at least some consonants on to other non-adjacent segments. This, in fact, is consistent with preliminary articulatory results by Archangeli and Kennedy (2004) who demonstrated with ultrasound that putatively transparent segments in Wolof and Hungarian are not phonetically transparent to retraction effects. A further articulatory study of consonant position in the environment of low or back vowels, or retracted consonants, would test these predictions. 6.5 Implications on the class of "laterals" In addition to the valuable descriptive nature of the articulatory discussion on Montana Salish lateral consonants, this study has far-reaching implications into the area of phonological theory, specifically in the phonologically based categorization of lateral consonants as one class. Bessell (1998a) briefly addresses this issue of series unification versus subset differentiation for the coronal segments. She concludes that both in Salish and Arabic, all coronals do not always pattern as a class in terms of retraction (Bessell 1998a: 141). However, the specific issue of unified lateral action is not approached. Montana Salish's rich phonemic inventory with four lateral consonants allows for a greater look into this grouping. Recall that only three of the four lateral consonants exhibit tongue retraction. On the surface, then, these consonants do not act uniformly as one class ought to. However, a closer look within these "retracted" laterals, must distinguish the tongue dorsum retraction of the two approximants from the tongue root retraction of the lateral ejective affricate. At an even deeper level, the III and lil act slightly differently as retraction for the III is a factor of its overall shape and less of its movement, while the glottalized lateral demonstrates a more distinct movement. The latter generalization being a caveat of the adjacent consonant and vowel environment such that i f any of the laterals are initiated from a high front sound, then by nature of their targeted position, they have to retract, but i f they are initiated from a retracted consonant or vowel, then this movement does not show up independently on the III, but does on the lil (and t). In her 1997 dissertation, Walsh Dickey claims that liquids differ from each other by place features, not manner features. She states "Corono-Dorsal place structure defines a lateral segment... the manner feature [lateral] is not phonologically valid" (Walsh Dickey 1997:68-69). She further claims that obstruent and sonorant laterals can only be grouped together based on place features, but not with "lateral" as a manner feature. Her motivation for such a claim is based on trends within a number of surveyed languages which have laterals but where the lateral "does not define a phonological class observed in rules or co-occurrence restrictions...and laterality...never spreads independent of the whole segment" (Walsh Dickey 1997:19). Since the claim is that the lateral (approximants), are made up of a complex of both coronal and dorsal gestures, for Walsh Dickey (1997) the term "lateral" is redundant 103 in terms of its reference to gestural movement. She specifically defines the coronal gesture as a "movement of the tongue blade to the alveolar ridge. The dorsal gesture is a retraction of the tongue body away from the palate" (Walsh Dickey 1997:49). However, the definition of the TD gesture away from the palate seems incomplete when the Montana Salish laterals are taken into account. Here the ultrasound imaging clearly shows the TD making a movement backward in the pharynx with no movement in relation to the palate being relevant. If this movement is taken to be the dorsal movement for the lateral, then it is still not common across all the four MTS laterals, thus requiring that the coronal movement must be the primary gesture for the lateral fricative. Furthermore, the articulatory data presented here has clearly shown that there is a lateral movement in each of the four examined consonants, that is, at least in terms of a movement made by the sides of the tongue. This movement is variable, but common to each lateral consonant is the raising and/or lowering of the sides of the tongue such that peaks and troughs are created in the tongue, as viewed in the coronal cross-section images, regardless of airflow direction and movement. The ultrasound data here has presented evidence for lateral unification based on the lateral movement by the sides of the tongue, also implied through mid-sagittal lateral compression, as well as a continued basis for the feature "lateral". While specification seems to be variable in terms of RTR, this does not necessarily imply that the laterals are not a class, simply that they do not pattern together in all areas. 6.6 Gestural Proposal Based on the establishment of the physical tongue movement during lateral consonant production, a proposal of the phonological status is possible. Following Browman and Goldstein (1992), gestures are phonological and could therefore be proposed to correspond to features in a feature system. In light of the articulatory documentation for the Montana Salish lateral consonants, two main proposals are presented. First, consistency in direction, shape, and function of the TD movement beyond physical necessity in the lateral approximants points toward its classification as a phonological gesture, and not just a movement. This is in complete opposition to the TR movement observed in the Fkl which has been explained as a physical by-product of tongue volume preservation. The TD gesture of the lateral approximants is also viewed distinctly from the sporadic and minimal TD peak that is variably apparent on the lateral fricative. Second, coronal cross-sectional imaging, which has documented the lowering of the tongue sides common to all the investigated laterals, in addition to the mid-sagittal measurement of medial expansion which reflects lateral compression, both support the proposition of a common feature "lateral". Importantly, the proposed notion of a unifying lateral movement, termed "lateral compression", is not making reference to airflow. Lateral airflow and the feature "lateral" are distinct. In addition, in terms of phonological gestures, using both lateral compression and TT would be redundant, (since lateral compression entails TT) and therefore TT is excluded from the analysis below. Similarly, because TB movement was not the focus 104 of the present investigation, phonological status for this subsection of the tongue is not discussed. Lastly, glottal closure is presented as an equally distinguishing gesture. These propositions are summarized in Table 6.2 below. Table 6. 2 Classification of Phonetic and Phonological Status for Tongue Movements: Gestural Proposal TR TD Lat-comp Glot-closure q + + l + + f + + + f + i + + Specification of a back gesture for what have been traditionally considered non-"retracted" consonants (i.e. non-uvular and non-pharyngeal consonants) is not a new proposition. In an investigation of palatal and post alveolar clicks in Khoekhoe, Miller-Ockhuizen (2004a: 1) states "Ultrasound images and EPG contact patterns confirm that the post-alveolar [!] click type has a uvular gesture produced with the tongue body to form the posterior constriction of this click type". Traill (1985) also notes a TD retraction for the same click in !Xoo and Thomas-Vilakati (1999) notes a TB retraction for IsiZulu. This is important since it is a relevant question among Salishanists whether it is the consonants that are retracted, or the vowels that retract these consonants. The evidence presented in this study has shown that while vowel context influences the total amount of tongue retraction, the movements involved are specified gestures made toward phonological targets. The TD retraction on the two lateral approximants 1X1, lil, occurs independent of vowel environment. Lastly, one further contribution to the articulatory investigation of retraction is provided by the methods established in this study. Interspeech rest, as defined by Gick et al. (2004) has been shown to occupy a medial place in the Montana Salish vowel inventory with respect to the tongue root and tongue dorsum positions. It lies near the average position for the Id [e] vowel in the first three measurement positions. Even though the areas of the tongue farther forward than the TD do not resemble any other vowel, the TR and TD positions are medial with respect to tongue retraction. It is likely that within the relevant physiological constraints, this interspeech rest position will also sit medially in additional languages. From the multiple above discussions, the implications of this study have been presented. New methods of investigation into the tongue articulators involved in consonant and vowel retractions have been demonstrated. Not only does this study contribute to the typological knowledge of lateral consonant behavior for some little-studied laterals, as well as to the documentation of a little-studied language, the results are relevant for many areas of phonological theory. Implications from this study have given insight to the issues of phonological transparency, lateral class legitimacy, language specification of gestural conflict resolution, and most importantly, the issue of consonant retraction in the Salishan languages. 105 References Alwan, Abeer. 1986. Acoustic and perceptual correlates of pharyngeal and uvular consonants. M A thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Alwan, Abeer. 1989. Perceptual cues for place of articulation for the voiced pharyngeal and uvular consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 86 (2):549-556. Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Archangeli, Diana, and Bob Kennedy. 2004. Transparency in Wolof and Hungarian. Paper presented at Ultrafest II, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Bessell, Nicola J. 1991. Vowel effects of uvular and pharyngeal consonants in Nxa?amxcin (Interior Salish). Paper presented at the 121st Acoustical Society of America, Baltimore. Bessell, Nicola J. 1992. Towards a phonetic and phonological typology of post-velar articulation. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Bessell, Nicola J. 1994. Interior Salish progressive and regressive harmonies. Paper presented at the 29 th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Pablo, MT. Bessell, Nicola J. 1998a. Phonetic aspects of retraction in Interior Salish. In Salish languages and linguistics: Theoretical and descriptive perspectives, eds. Ewa Czaykowska Higgins and M . Dale Kinkade, 125-152. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bessell, Nicola J. 1998b. Local and nonlocal consonant-vowel interaction in Interior Salish. Phonology 15:140. Borden, Gloria J., Katherine Harris and Lawrence Raphael. 1994. Speech science primer: Physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Williams. Browman, Catherine, and Louis Goldstein. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3:219-252. Browman, Catherine, and Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49:155-180. Carlson, Barry F. 1972. A grammar of Spokan: A Salish language of eastern Washington. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii. Cole, Jennifer S. 1987. Planar phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1990. Retraction in Moses-Columbia Salish. In Papers for the 25th 106 International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. 8196. Vancouver, BC. Doak, Ivy G. 1987. Coeur d'Alene vowel harmony. Paper presented at the 22n d International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Victoria, B.C. Doak, Ivy G. 1992. Another look at Coeur D'Alene harmony. International Journal of American Linguistics 58 (1): 1-35. Egesdal, Stevan M . 1993. Retracted vowels in Selish (Flathead). Ms., Salish Kootenai College, Pablo, Montana. Flemming, Edward, Peter Ladefoged, and Sarah G. Thomason. 1994. The phonetic structures of Montana Salish. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 87:1-34. Gick, Bryan. 2002. The use of ultrasound for linguistic fieldwork. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32 (2): 113-122. Gick, Bryan. 2002. An X-ray investigation of pharyngeal constriction in American English schwa. Phonetica 50:38-48. Gick, Bryan, and Ian Wilson. 2003. To appear. Excrescent schwa and vowel laxing: Cross linguistic responses to conflicting articulatory gestures. In Papers in Laboratory-Phonology VIII. Gick, Bryan, and Sonya Bird. 2004a. To appear. Techniques for field application of lingual ultrasound imaging. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics. Gick, Bryan, Fiona Campbell, Sunyung Oh, and Linda Tamburri-Watt. 2004b. Under review. Toward universals in the gestural organizations of syllables: A cross-linguistic study of liquids. Gick, Bryan, Ian Wilson, Karsten Koch, and Clare Cook. 2004c. Under review. Language specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Johnson, Robert E. 1975. The role of phonetic detail in Coeur d'Alene phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University. Kent, Ray, and C. Read. 1992. The acoustic analysis of speech. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc. Kinkade, M . Dale. 1967. Uvular-pharyngeal resonants in Interior Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 33 (3):228-234. Kuipers, Aert. 1974. The Shuswap language. The Hague: Mouton. Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. Sounds of the world's languages. Cambridge: Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter, A. Cochran and S. Disner. 1977. Laterals and trills. Journal of the 107 International Phonetic Association 7:46-54. Mengarini, Gregory, Joseph Giorda, Leopold van Gorp, Joseph Bandini, and Joseph Guidi. 1877-79. A Dictionary of the Kalispel or Flathead Indian language. St. Ignatius, MT: St. Ignatius Print. Miller-Ockhuizen, Amanda. 2004a. Posterior tongue body constriction location differences in click types. Paper presented at the 9 t h Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Urbana Champaign. Miller-Ockhuizen, Amanda. 2004b. Postvelar TB constriction location differences in clicks. Paper presented at Ultrafest II, Vancouver. Miller-Ockhuizen, Amanda. 2004c. Postvelar TB constriction location differences in clicks. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of African Linguistics, Boston. Munhall, Kevin G., Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson, and Yoh'ichi Tohkura. 1995. X-ray film database for speech research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98 (2): 1222-1224. Peterson, Gordon, and Harold Barney. 1952. Control methods used in a study of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24:175-184. Shahin, Kimary. 1997. Post-velar harmony. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Shahin, Kimary. 2002. Post-velar harmony. Philadelphia: John Benjamin. Shank, Scott, and Ian Wilson. 2000a. Acoustic evidence for 111 as a glottalized pharyngeal glide in Nuu-chah-nulth. In UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 3: Proceedings of 35* International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, eds. Suzanne Gessner and Sunyoung Oh, 185-197. Shank, Scott, and Ian Wilson. 2000b. An acoustic analysis of vowel formants in pharyngeal and glottal contexts in Nuu-chah-nulth. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 19:75-84. Shaw, Patricia. 1992.Templatic Evidence for the Syllable Nucleus. Paper presented at the 23rd North East Linguistics Society, Universite d' Ottawa. Ottawa, ON. Shaw, Patricia. 2004. To appear. Inside access: The prosodic role of internal morphological constituency. In The nature of the Word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky. eds. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas. Cambridge: MIT Press. Stone, Maureen. 1997. Laboratory techniques for investigating speech articulation. In Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, eds. William Hardcastle and John Laver, 11-32. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Thomas-Vilakati, Kimberly. 1999. Co-production and co-articulation in Isizulu clicks. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 108 Thomason, Sarah G. 1992. The Flathead word. Ms., University of Pittsburgh. Thomason, Sarah G. 1996. Irregular velar developments in Montana Salish. In Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. M . Dale Kinkade, 311-319. Vancouver: B.C.: University of British Columbia. Thomason, Sarah G. 2000. Montana Salish dictionary. Ms., University of Michigan. Thomason, Sarah G. 2002. On Montana Salish Ihl. In UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 9: Papers for the 37h International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, eds. Rachel Wojdak, Niomi Sawoi and Carrie Gillon, 335-356. Thomason, Sarah G. In preparation. A sketch of Montana Salish structure. Ms., University of Michigan. Thompson, Lawrence C. and M.Terry Thompson. 1990. Thompson Dictionary. Ms., University of Hawai'i. Thompson, Lawrence C. and M.Terry Thompson. 1992. The Thompson Language. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics, No. 8, Missoula, MT. Traill, Anthony. 1985. Phonetic and phonological studies of !Xoo Bushman. Hamburg: H . Buske Berlag Quellen zur Khoisan Forschung. Van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Vogt, Hans. 1940. The Kalispel Language. Oslo: Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. Walsh Dickey, Laura. 1997. The phonology of liquids. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Wilson, Ian. 2002. Ultrasound database of Nuu-chah-nulth. University of British Columbia. Wilson, Ian. 2003. Post-velar CV interactions in Nuu-chah-nulth: Phonology or phonetics? Doctoral generals paper. University of British Columbia. 109 Appendix A List of Elicited of Montana Salish Words Some initial comments: Pronunciations in [ ] brackets represent the elicited pronunciations which were used in data analysis. All words without additional transcription information were elicited as written. Words are written in the standard orthography with the exception of the vowel Id which is written as its phonetic pronunciation of [e]. Note that schwa has been transcribed as either [o] or [3] corresponding to variability in its phonetic realization. Status of this vowel as either nucleic or not is yet undetermined. -Parentheses ( ) indicate that what occurred inside was sometimes said and sometimes not included at all. Often this changes the meaning of the English gloss. Many times, something in parentheses was said once, and then the word or phrase was repeated without it. Words with Lateral Consonants used in Articulatory and Acoustic Analysis Montana Salish Words English Gloss 1. ccsceie three people 2. cclexw muskrat 3. cmi^mn [cmi^man] butter (something that spreads) 4. cn esnxampci [es3nxampci] I'm getting thirsty 5. es5te?erhscu getting into trouble 6. escmi^ it's already spread on 7. eskwuTfi it is being born 8. esnqamelsi ** he/she feels calm (safe) 9. i tax it's stiff 10. icncucn I'm quiet 11. iesslim I'm setting out a bunch of stuff 12. i kwkwl'if [kwkwliU the sun is shining 13. i nft&i / i n-Hffii \mX\tmin\Xt\\ it's a sharp point 14. i nmat [inma| ] it is warm 15. cn kwef |c°n kwef] I'm nervous, scared 16. kwitt others 17. likwlexw prairie, bare ground 18. lamus (woman's name) Lamus 19. tcta blackbird 20. ti already 21. "TEcn [t£c°n] smooth it down 22. ik^ak^s slapping sound of wet moccasins 23. ttxta pepper 24. « u [ « ] less, few 25. mali Mary 26. makali Margaret 110 27. malukw out of joint 28. (sc)ntucu?s [sc3n<tucus]/[n<riicus] (dough) mix, knead 29. nt'i<rkw dirty water 30. nclatkw it's cold water 31. luneX mix 32. npXa take it off 33. nsXa all kinds of things 34. i'lac red raspberry 35. p(9)lip it drifted away 36. i cn piiX [puX] I'm greasy 37. sAukwm rs7Cukw3ml 'Indian' carrot 38. sXusm [s7tus3m] look all around 39. sckw?tus eye 40. scufm [scutum! bull 41. scfcufm [sctcu^m] several bulls 42. skw?tus face 43. smul'mn [smuPmsn] war spear, lance 44. sncle coyote 45. splimcm [splinic°m1 lip, mouth 46. stlt'la thunder 47. talip it got untied 48. cn essal'l'i I'm bored in addition to those listed above: Word Used in Acoustic Analysis: for Laterals, Uvular /q/, and 'neutral' Vowels Word with 'neutral' vowels also used in articulatory analysis 49. ?ann [a?n] magpie, or a reference to someone who talks too much 50. cn cc'nam I won't let go, I hold it tight. 51. cn c x w d m ci qsxwu & ni?ay I made plans to go to Missoula 52. cmiXmn fcmiTt^'nl butter, something that spreads 53. cn zita I say no, I take it back again 54. csaxm [csax3m] near 55. cccelscn [cc'el'scan] woodtick 56. i c'an [c'an it's tight 57. ciq dig 58. ckwunt pull it! 59. cunc he told him 60. qe cuntm [ciinfml we told someone 61. es?i?a? they gathered together e.g. birds getting ready to go south 62. esfip stripe, marker 63. Esc'anm [esc'an3m] its being tightened, squeezed 64. put u Esc '£k w omi the flowers have bloomed 111 65. ?espcma it (fly) is laying eggs, fly blow 66. espmpma resp^p'ma] he's going faster 67. estaqi *** waving at someone 68. Eswamisti he hurrying, walking fast 69. Espat' something that is soft, like mud, diarrhea 70. (cn) E s n x a m p c i (I'm) getting thirsty 71. hasE is that right? is that correct? 72. iscuaxxn i / t a x [iscuaxxan i tax] My arm is stiff 73. i nas It's wet 74. i nikw It's rotten, (or if clothes are ragged, threadbare) 75. i tas It is hard 76. isil's incitxw My house settled low 77. qwo kwiipntxw [kwup3ntxwl You pushed me 78. kwulm [kwuyl'T work, labor 79. kwtkwtuwnsn [kwtkwtuwns3n] big feet 80. imfama Pf3mfa:ma] frog 81. ticntxw rtic'ntx^ You whipped him/her 82. iEsiinm [iEsiinaml I'm sprinkling it 83. iinm [iinsm] she/he sprinkled something 84. iqqa?sq£ petite, thin 85. mii ct'a iu mali Mary is too skinny 86. mali cxwi?cutmntm (t nqwiqwsmi) rcxwi?cut3m8nt3m t nq wiq wos°rhil Mary got attacked (by dogs) 87. mii too much 88. nEm maybe (future) 89. niapa absolutely, darn right! 90. nt'amcan kiss 91. nkwtnaqs coni Johnny has a big nose 92. nkwu?st'apsqE one shot (at a person) 93. nk wk wa yarrow, milfoil 94. nmEX mix 95. (sqwd?i) nsufkw honey (Bitterroot Salish, cf. lamna 'honey' which DF says is Pend d'Oreille) 96. piitt thick 97. (i)piq (it's) white 98. spupusEnc sorrow, sadness 99. pt'at' spill something over 100. pacnt press something, squeeze it! 101. pTasuwE Frank 102. pT 'ESUWE Francis 103. qaxe? aunt (mother's sister) 104. qE we (tr. subj.), us (obj.) 105. qE cuntm [cunt3m] we told someone 112 106. qe esqeymu our tipi 107. qe qskwisqqme We're going to go fishing 108. scmcmacs [sc3mcmacs] eye matter, eyes got ditry 109. sc'mqin [sc'smqln] brain 110. s cutuim/s ciuim [s ciii^m] several bulls 111. sk^iis face 112. smama? uncle 113. snsa tame 114. snsot'qon [s3ns6t'qon] stocking cap 115. smifu least 116. ssalu hailstones 117. stsa huckleberry 118. sxwiepsm [sxwteps3m] firefighter 119. cn spsqe Tspsqel I was hitting people 120. tec touch 121. tqtqene deaf 122. tspisc'e yesterday 123. tcap slap! sound of impact when someone falls and hits the ground 124. xa nexwiicn [xa? nexwiic3n] 125. cn yak^oqeynsn [yak^oqeynsV] I skinned my knee 126. yayamrhin [yamsmi] farm hay rake 127. yapcin to be in need Words Used in Articulatory Examination of Lateral Consonants (also used in acoustic evaluation) Montana Salish Words English Gloss I* ccfexw muskrat eskwulTi it is being born i nmaf it is warm malukw out of joint l'l'ac red raspberry p(a)l'ip it drifted away smul'mn [smuPmsn] war spear, lance sn6l'e [s3n l^'e] coyote kwul'm [kwuvf| work, labor pl'asuwe [p3l'asuwe] Frank isil's incitxw My house settled low gn essal'l'i I'm bored t cmi?tmn [cmi^3mon] butter (something that spreads) 113 ESXEVEITISCU * getting into trouble EScmiX it's already spread on i tax it's stiff i nttti 1 i n***i rinXXXil/riniXXil it's a sharp point iscuaxxn (i tax) [iscuaxxan i tax] my arm is stiff k w i t t others tcta blackbird t i already nmit mix wpta take it off vista all kinds of things i cn puX [pu ]^ I'm greasy sXukwm [sXukw3m] 'Indian' carrot sXusm [sX:us3m] look all around sckwX\is eye skw£us face 1 issslim I'm setting out a bunch of stuff Lamiis * (woman's name) Lamus likwlexw prairie, bare ground Mali Mary Makali Margaret splimcm [splimc3m] lip, mouth sfltla thunder talip it got untied i k ^ l ' i f [kwkwlil 1 the sun is shining nclatkw it's cold water calt it's cold i esiip stripe, marker mit too much cn k w £ t I'm nervous, scared cn mii I'm recovered, I'm no longer in pain Hen [tEC3n] smooth it down ticntxw [tic3ntxwl You whipped him/her iEstinm [iEstinom I'm sprinkling it tinm [tinsm] she/he sprinkled it tkwtakwts slapping sound of wet moccasins tmtama * [tomta:ma] frog ttxta pepper itu [tu] less, few (sc)ntucu?s [ntucus] (dough) mix, knead nt'itkw dirty water 114 rrta?pa * absolutely, darn right scutm [scuf^m] bull smitii least ccecefe three people scicuim [scicut3m] several bulls sxwiepsm [sx^eps3!!!] firefighter q ciq it's dug estaqi *** waving at someone cn c x w d m ci qsxwu t ni?ay I made plans to go to Missoula iqqasqe petite, thin (i) piq (it's) white cn spsqe Tspsqe] I was hitting people sc'mqin [sc'snufin] brain snsot'qsn [s°ns6t'q9n] stocking cap tqtqene deaf qaxe? aunt (mother's sister) qe we, (tr. subj.) us (obj.) qe ciintm [ qe cunt3m] we told someone qe esqeymu our tipi qe qs£ w i sqqme We're going to go fishing (cn) yak^oqeynsn fyak^oqeyn^n] I skinned my knee *Note that in these three words the stress is not on the vowel adjacent to the lateral consonant. However, to maintain a sufficient number of sequences investigated, these were still incorporated into the statistical evaluation for each environment. ** This word was used only in the tongue tracings for a sequence of segments as illustrated in Chapter 4, not in statistical analysis. ***Stress on this word was difficult to determine. Thomason (p.c. 2004) cites Mengarini and Giorda (1877-1879) who place the stress on the /a/ vowel. -Number of repetitions for each word varies: minimum 3, maximum 12. 115 Appendix B Supporting Statistics and Comparisons The following information is presented to supplement the discussion of the uvular vowel interaction with the preceding lil vowel (Chapter 3.3). Resolution of the gestural conflict for the lil preceding the uvular is variable. For example, preliminary acoustic measurements for within word i/_q tokens yield formant values much closer to [i] than the formants for the vowel-uvular sequence across a morphological boundary. It is interesting to note that i/+_q adjacency across a word or particle boundary, consistently results in HI audibly lowering to the hi vowel range. However, this could a function of single word citation versus (non-) phrasal utterances. This is illustrated in Table B.l below. Table B.l Additional comparison for i / q sequences i/_q Context # Reps Fl 5% Fl 50% Fl 95% F2 5% F2 50% F2 95% F3 5% F3 50% F3 95% /piq/ & /ciq/ 19 395 420 396 2532 2624 2495 3120 3242 3368 cn cxwdm ci qsywu b niay 4 571 570 566 2210 2136 2006 3156 3168 3066 116 Fisher's PLSD for TR (Measurement #1) Effect: Production Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Means Table for TR (Measurement #1) Effect: Production Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. independent 1', non-independent I1 .238 .175 .0088 S independent 1', rest -.108 .156 .1696 non-independent I1, rest -.346 .152 <.0001 S independent I1 11 2.686 .089 .027 non-independent I1 12 2.448 .281 .081 rest 21 2.794 .202 .044 Fisher's PLSD for TR 2cm up Effect: Production Significance Level: 5 % independent I', non-independent I' independent I', rest non-independent I', rest (Measurement #2) Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value .464 .191 <.0001 .478 .170 <.0001 .013 .165 .8715 Means Table for TR Effect: Production Count independent I' non-independent I' rest 2cm up (Measurement #2) Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 11 4.101 .103 .031 12 3.637 .368 .106 21 3.623 .159 .035 Fisher's PLSD for 4cm up Effect: Production Significance Level: 5 % (Measurement #3) Means Effect: Table for 4cm Production up (Measurement #3) independent I', non-independent I' independent I', rest non-independent I1, rest Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. .072 .235 .5422 independent 1' 11 4.408 .321 .097 .536 .210 <.0001 S non-independent 1' 12 4.337 .374 .108 .465 .204 <.0001 S rest 21 3.872 .176 .038 Fisher's PLSD for 6cm up (Measurement #4) Effect: Production Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. r independent I', non-independent I' independent I', rest non-independent I1, rest P-Value .104 .168 .2177 .610 .150 <.0001 .505 .146 <.0001 Means Table for 6cm up (Measurement #4) Effect: Production Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. independent I' non-independent I' rest 11 4.650 .260 .078 12 4.546 .208 .060 21 4.040 .154 .034 Fisher's PLSD for TT (Measurement #5) Effect: Production Significance Level: 5 % Means Table for TT (Measurement #5) Effect: Production Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. independent I', non-independent I' .069 .155 .3757 independent 1' 10 4.671 .148 .047 independent I', rest .841 .139 <.0001 S non-independent 1' 12 4.603 .148 .043 non-independent I', rest .773 .131 <.0001 S rest 21 3.830 .205 .045 Figure B. 1 Statistics for independent (syllabic) vs. non-independent /IV Fisher's PLSD for Measurement Point #1 TR Effect: Segment Significance Level: 5 % Fisher's PLSD for Measurement Poioint #2 Effect: Segment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit . Diff. P-Value Mean Diff. Crit . Diff . P-Value i 1.244 .137 <.0001 S a, i .746 .162 <.0001 S I' . 504 .131 <.0001 S a, r - . 1 0 1 .155 .2005 rest .272 .132 .0001 S a, rest .127 .157 . 1 1 0 0 r - . 7 4 0 .124 <.0001 S i, 1' - . 8 4 6 .147 <.0001 S rest - . 9 7 2 .126 <.0001 s i, rest - . 6 1 8 .149 <.0001 S rest - . 2 3 2 .119 . 0 0 0 2 s 1', res t . 228 .142 . 0 0 2 0 S Fisher's PLSD for Measurement Point #3 Effect: Segment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit . Diff. P-Value a, i - . 0 1 0 .164 . 9 0 4 8 a, I' - . 3 2 9 .157 <.0001 S a, rest .189 .159 .0205 S i, 1" - . 3 1 9 .149 <.0001 S i, res t .199 .151 .0106 S 1', rest .518 .143 <.0001 S Fisher's PLSD for Measurement Point #4 Effect: Segment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit . Diff . P-Value a, i - . 8 8 2 .118 <.0001 S a, r - . 7 5 3 .113 <.0001 S a, rest - . 1 8 3 . 1 1 4 .0021 S i, 1' .128 .108 . 0 1 9 9 S i, rest . 698 .109 <.0001 S 1', rest . 570 .103 <.0001 S Fisher's PLSD for Measurement Point #5 TT Effect: Segment Significance Level: 5 % Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value a, i - . 9 6 2 .118 <.0001 S a, 1' - 1 . 2 5 3 .113 <.0001 S a, rest - . 4 4 9 .114 <.0001 s i, 1" - . 2 9 1 .107 <.0001 s i, rest .513 .108 <.0001 s 1', res t . 8 0 4 .103 <.0001 s Figure B. 2 Statistics for Interspeech Rest as compared with /IV, /a/, Id, and lil 118 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items