Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Retraction in St’át’imcets : an ultrasonic investigation Namdaran, Nahal Jan 8, 2006

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2006-0275.pdf [ 30.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0092646.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0092646-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0092646-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0092646-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0092646-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0092646-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0092646-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0092646-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0092646.ris

Full Text

RETRACTION IN ST'AT'IMCETS: AN ULTRASONIC INVESTIGATION by NAHAL NAMDARAN B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Linguistics) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 2006 © Nahal Namdaran, 2006 Abstract Retracted consonants and their effects on surrounding vowels have been widely investigated in Interior Salish languages (Bessell 1992, 1998ab; Remnant 1990; Shahin 1997, 2002; van Eijk 1987, 1997; McDowell 2004; inter alia). It has been claimed that retracted consonants (uvulars, pharyngeals, sometimes laryngeals, and a subset of coronal consonants postulated to be articulated with a secondary retracted tongue root position) often trigger retraction in neighbouring vowels. However, with the exception of McDowell (2004), previous studies in Salish have examined vowel retraction effects from the perspective of acoustic and/or phonological evidence, leaving unanswered the question of how retraction is achieved articulatorily. The current study uses ultrasound imaging of the tongue in conjunction with the acoustic signal to examine the articulations involved in St'at'imcets retraction. This investigation attempts to answer the following questions: (i) what are the physiological mechanisms involved in the production of St'at'imcets retracted consonants—both inherently retracted (q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, T, ?w, 5", T,M) and secondarily retracted (c, c', s, IV, and Lower dialect z, z*), and; (ii) what are the coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on adjacent vowels? Articulatory results indicate that all St'at'imcets retracted consonants are produced with significant tongue root retraction towards the lower pharyngeal wall. Uvular consonant articulation also involves an upper pharyngeal/posterior-uvular constriction made by the tongue dorsum; for retracted coronal consonants, the participation of a retracted and raised tongue dorsum varies across speakers. Concerning St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects, articulatory and acoustic results indicate that vowels I'll and lui undergo retraction when adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants, with surface retracted qualities differing between uvular consonant contexts and retracted coronal consonant contexts. Furthermore, St'at'imcets retracted consonants generally exhibit symmetrical coarticulatory effects on adjacent vowels. Apart from the much-needed articulatory description of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects, some issues emerge regarding the phonological representation of St'at'imcets retraction. For example, this study evaluates the extent to which phonetic variation is encoded in the phonological structure. The examined St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation and coarticulatory patterns provide information useful in the study of retraction processes present in other languages (e.g. Arabic). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iiList of Tables vList of Figures viii Acknowledgements xCHAPTER 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of St'at'imcets 3 1.1.1 St'at'imcets segmental inventory 4 1.2 St'at'imcets retracted consonants 6 1.2.1 Inherently retracted St'at'imcets consonants 7 1.2.2 Secondarily retracted St'at'imcets consonants 9 1.3 St'at'imcets vowel retraction 12 1.3.1 Progressive versus regressive retraction in St'at'imcets 12 1.3.2 "Pharyngealization" versus "uvularization" 15 1.3.3 Effects of retraction on vowel quality 16 1.3.4 Directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction 19 CHAPTER 2 Methodology 21 2.1 Participants2.2 Equipment/Materials 2 2.3 Stimuli 5 2.4 Procedure 28 2.5 Analysis '. .• 30 2.5.1 Articulatory analysis 1 2.5.1.1 Interspeech rest position 37 2.5.2 Acoustic analysis 39 CHAPTER 3 The Articulatory Makeup of St'at'imcets Retracted Consonants 42 3.1 Methodology specific to St'at'imcets consonant articulation 43 3.1.1 Stimuli 43.1.2 Analysis 4 3.2 Results 6 3.2.1 Uvular stop "q" 47 3.2.2 Uvular/pharyngeal approximant 49 3.2.3 Retracted coronal fricative "s" 52 3.2.4 Dental/Interdental fricative "z" 8 in 3.3 Discussion 67 CHAPTER 4 Coarticulatory Effects of St'at'imcets Retracted Consonants on Adjacent Vowels 71 4.1 Methodology specific to St'at'imcets consonant-vowel interactions 75 4.1.1 Stimuli 74.1.2 Analysis 8 4.1.2.1 Articulatory analysis 74.1.2.2 Acoustic analysis 80 4.2 Results 84.2.1 Baseline /i/and/u/ 81 4.2.2 St'at'imcets retracted consonant effects on adjacent vowel target.. 81 4.2.2.1 I'll preceding retracted consonants q, £, s, z (L) 82 4.2.2.2 lui preceding retracted consonants q, T, s, z (L) 89 4.2.2.3 I'll following retracted consonants q, T, s, z (L) 98 4.2.2.4 lui following retracted consonants q, ?, s, z (L) 105 4.2.3 Directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction (VC versus CV) 112 4.2.3.1 Vowels adjacent to uvulars 113 4.2.3.2 Vowels adjacent to retracted coronal s 118 4.2.3.3 Vowels adjacent to coronal z 124 4.2.4 Degree of retraction: VC versus CV 8 4.3 Discussion 133 4.3.1 Retracted surface variants for St'at'imcets l\,ul 135 4.3.2 St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects: VC versus CV 137 4.3.3 St'at'imcets retraction effects: /i/versus lui 139 4.3.4 Degree of St'at'imcets vowel retraction: VC versus CV 141 CHAPTER 5 General Discussion and Conclusion 143 5.1 St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation 144 5.1.1 Inherently retracted St'at'imcets consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, ?, ?w, T'w 144 5.1.2 Secondarily retracted St'at'imcets consonants c, c', s, I, /', Lower z, z 146 5.2 St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects '. 148 5.3 Phonological implications of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction 151 5.3.1 Phonological representation of St'at'imcets retracted consonants 3 5.3.2 Phonological representation of St'at'imcets vowel retraction 154 5.4 Conclusion 157 Bibliography 158 iv Appendices 162 Appendix A: Phonemic Conversion Chart 16Appendix B: Stimuli 164 Appendix C: Additional Chapter 3 Statistics 167 Appendix D: Additional Chapter 4 Statistics 1 74 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Phonemic inventory of St'at'imcets consonants 5 Table 1.2 Summary of St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation hypotheses ... 11 Table 1.3 Summary of St'at'imcets vowel retraction hypotheses 20 Table 2.1 Stimuli test conditions 26 Table 2.2 Number of preliminary tongue position angles 35 Table 3.1 TR/TD positions of q versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP 48 Table 3.2 TR/TD positions of? versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP 51 Table 3.3 TR/TD positions of s versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP 54 Table 3.4 TR/TD positions of z versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP 61 Table 3.5 TR/TD comparisons of z, s, s for VB (L), GNd (U), AJP (U) 65 Table 4.1 A summary of hypothesized St'at'imcets retracted C-V interactions .... 75 Table 4.2 Formant means for /i, u/ at 50% 81 Table 4.3 Articulatory measurements for l\l vs. i/_q, i/_?, i/_s, i/_z at 50% 82 Table 4.4 Articulatory measurements for lui vs. u/_q, u/_?, u/_s, u/_z at 50% 89 Table 4.5 Summary of /i, ul retraction effects for VC condition at vowel target ... 97 Table 4.6 Articulatory measurements for III vs. i/q_, i/?_, i/s_, i/z_ at 50% 98 Table 4.7 Articulatory measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 50% .... 105 Table 4.8 Summary of /i, ul retraction effects for CV condition at vowel target ..112 Table 4.9 Summary of the directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction ... 128 Table 4.10 St'at'imcets retraction magnitude differences between VC and CV 133 Table 5.1 A summary of the major findings of this study 14Table 5.2 Phonological encoding of St'at'imcets retracted consonant constrictions 154 Table 5.3 Comparison of processes of St'at'imcets vowel retraction 157 Table Bl Glossary of all Stimuli 164 Table B2 Stimuli collected per participant 165 Table DI Articulatory measurements for HI vs. i/_q, i/_?, i/_s, i/_z at 95%> 174 Table D2 Formant measurements for HI vs. i/_q, i/_?, i/_s, i/_z at 50% 174 Table D3 Formant measurements for III vs. i/_q, i/_?, i/_s, i/_z at 95% 175 Table D4 Articulatory differences across i/_retracted consonants at 50% 175 Table D5 • Articulatory differences across i/_retracted consonants at 95% 176 Table D6 Formant measurement differences between i/_q, i/_?, i/_s, i/_z at 50% 17Table D7 Formant measurement differences between i/_q, i/_?, i/_s, i/_z at 95% 7 Table D8 Articulatory measurements for lui vs. u/_q, u/_?, u/_s, u/_z at 95% 178 Table D9 Formant measurements for lui vs. u/_q, u/_?, u/_s, u/_z at 50% 178 Table D10 Formant measurements for lui vs. u/_q, u/_?, u/_s, u/_z at 95% 178 vi Table DI 1 Articulatory differences within u/_retracted consonants at 50% 179 Table D12 Articulatory differences within u/_retracted consonants at 95% 179 Table D13 Formant measurement differences between u/_q, u/JT, u/_s, u/_z at 50% 180 Table D14 Formant measurement differences between u/_q, u/JT, u/_j, u/_z at 95% 1 Table D15 Articulatory measurements for l\l vs. i/q_, i/?_, i/s_, i/z_ at 5% 181 Table DI 6 Formant measurements for III vs. i/q_, i/T_, i/s_, i/z_ at 5% 182 Table D17 Formant measurements for I'll vs. i/q_, i/s_, i/z_ at 50% 182 Table DI 8 Articulatory differences within i/retracted consonants_ at 5% 1 83 Table D19 Articulatory differences within i/retracted consonants_ at 50% 183 Table D20 Formant measurement differences between i/q_, i/?_, i/s_, i/z_ at 5% 184 Table D21 Formant measurement differences between i/q_, iA"_, i/s_, i/z_ at 50%Table D22 Articulatory measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 5% 185 Table D23 Formant measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 5% 185 Table D24 Formant measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 50%> 186 Table D25 Articulatory differences within u/retracted consonants_ at 5% 186 Table D26 Articulatory differences within u/retracted consonants_ at 50% 187 Table D27 Formant measurement differences between u/q_, u/V_, u/s_, u/z_ at 5% 18Table D28 Formant measurement differences between u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 50% : 188 Table D29 Formant means for HI preceding retracted consonants q, f, s, z (VC)... 189 Table D30 Formant means for HI following retracted consonants q, T, s, z (CV)... 189 Table D31 Formant means for lui preceding retracted consonants q, T, s, z (VC)... 189 Table D32 Formant means for lui following retracted consonants q, f, s, z (CV)... 190 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Map of St'at'imcets 3 Figure 2.1 Portable ultrasound 23 Figure 2.2 Transducer mount 4 Figure 2.3 Specially modified chair 5 Figure 2.4 Equipment layout with (non-participating) human model 29 Figure 2.5 Location of hypothetical transducer centre 33 Figure 2.6 Locations of TR, TD, and TB positionsFigure 2.7 Angles for TR, TD, and TB positions 4 Figure 2.8 TR, TD, and TB distance measures 36 Figure 2.9 Image of an intervening hyoid bone 7 Figure 2.10 (i) Phase 1 (ii) Phase 2 (iii) Phase 3 9 Figure 3.1 Frame extraction process 45 Figure 3.2 Tracings of q, ISP, k for VB (L) 47 Figure 3.3 Tracings of q, ISP, k for GNd (U) 8 Figure 3.4 Tracings ofq, ISP, k for AJP (U)Figure 3.5 Tracings of f, ISP, q for VB (L) 50 Figure 3.6 Tracings of T, ISP, q for GNd (U)Figure 3.7 Tracings of f, ISP, q for AJP (U) 51 Figure 3.8 Tracings of s, s, and ISP for VB (L) 3 Figure 3.9 Tracings of s, s, and ISP for GNd (U)Figure 3.10 Tracings of s, s, and ISP for AJP (U) 54 Figure 3.11 Tracings of q, T, s, and ISP for VB (L) 6 Figure 3.12 Tracings of q, T, s, and ISP for GNd (U) 5Figure 3.13 Tracings of q, ?, s, and ISP for AJP (U) 7 Figure 3.14 Spectrograph of Upper St'at'imcets z [z] 58 Figure 3.15 Spectrograph of Lower St'at'imcets z [6s] 9 Figure 3.16 Tracings of z and ISP for VB (L) 60 Figure 3.17 Tracings of z and ISP for GNd (U)' Figure 3.18 Tracings of z and ISP for AJP (U) 1 Figure 3.19 Tracings ofz,s,s for VB (L) 63 Figure 3.20 Tracings of z, s, s for GNd (U)Figure 3.21 Tracings of z, s, s for AJP (U) 4 Figure 3.22 Tracings of q, T, z, ISP for VB (L) 66 Figure 4.1 Midpoint positions of HI, i/_q, i/_? for VB (L) 83 Figure 4.2 Midpoint positions of III, i/_q, UJ for GNd (U)Figure 4.3 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/_q, i/JT for AJP (U) 84 Figure 4.4 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/_z, i/_s for VB (L)Figure 4.5 Midpoint positions of i/_z, i/_s for GNd (U) 85 Figure 4.6 Midpoint positions of HI, i/_s, i/_z for AJP (U)Figure 4.7 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/_z, i/_s, i/_q, i/Ji for VB (L) 87 viii Figure 4.8 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/_z, i/_s, i/_q, for GNd (U) 87 Figure 4.9 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/_z, i/_s, i/_q, for AJP (U) 88 Figure 4.10 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_q for VB (L) 90 Figure 4.11 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_q, u/Ji for GNd (U) 91 Figure 4.12 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_q, u/_T for AJP (U)Figure 4.13 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_s for VB (L) 92 Figure 4.14 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_s for GNd (U)Figure 4.15 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_j for AJP (U) 93 Figure 4.16 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_s, u/_q, u/_? for GNd (U) 95 Figure 4.17 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_s, u/_q, u/J for AJP (U) 96 Figure 4.18 Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_s, u/_q for VB (L) 97 Figure 4.19 Midpoint positions of III, i/q_, i/i'Jbr VB (L) 99 Figure 4.20 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, i/?_ for GNd (U)Figure 4.21 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, i/T_for AJP (U) 100 Figure 4.22 Midpoint positions of hi, i/s_, i/z_ for VB (L) 101 Figure 4.23 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/s_, i/z_ for GNd (U)Figure 4.24 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/z_ for AJP (U) 102 Figure 4.25 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, i/T_, i/z_, i/s_ for VB (L) 103 Figure 4.26 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, i/?_, i/z_, i/s_ for GNd (U) 103 Figure 4.27 Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, i/?_, i/z_ for AJP (U) 104 Figure 4.28 Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/?_for VB (L) 106 Figure 4.29 Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/V_ for GNd (U) 107 Figure 4.30 Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/?_ for AJP (U) 10Figure 4.31 Midpoint positions of lui, u/z_, u/s_ for VB (L) 108 Figure 4.32 Midpoint positions of lui, ulz_, u/s_ for GNd (U) 109 Figure 4.33 Midpoint positions of lui, u/z_, u/s_ for AJP (U) 10Figure 4.34 Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/?_, u/z_, u/s_ for VB (L) 110 Figure 4.35 Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/?_, u/z_, u/s_ for GNd (U) Ill Figure 4.36 Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/T_, u/z_, u/s_ for AJP (U) Ill Figure 4.37 Midpoint and offset positions for i/_q (VB) 114 Figure 4.38 Onset and midpoint positions for i/q_ (VB) 5 Figure 4.39 Midpoint and offset positions of u/_? for AJP (U) 116 Figure 4.40 Onset and midpoint positions of u/?_ for AJP (U) 117 Figure 4.41 Midpoint and offset positions of \l_s for GNd (U) 118 Figure 4.42 Onset and midpoint positions for i/s_ for VB (L) 119 Figure 4.43 Onset and midpoint positions for i/s_ for GNd (U) 120 Figure 4.44 Midpoint and offset positions for u/_j for AJP (U) 121 Figure 4.45 Onset and midpoint positions for u/s_ for AJP (U) 122 Figure 4.46 Onset and midpoint positions for u/s_ for VB (L) 123 Figure 4.47 Midpoint and offset positions of i/_z for VB (L) 125 Figure 4.48 Midpoint and offset positions for u/_z for VB (L) 126 Figure 4.49 Onset and midpoint positions of u/z_ for VB (L) 127 IX Figure 4.50 Midpoint positions of i/_q versus i/q_for GNd (U) 129 Figure 4.51 Midpoint positions of u/JT and u/?_ for AJP (U) 130 Figure 4.52 Midpoint positions of i/_s versus i/s_ for GNd (U) 131 Figure 4.53 Midpoint positions of u/_s versus u/s_ for VB (L) 13Figure 4.54 Midpoint positions of u/_s versus u/s_ for GNd (U) 132 Figure 4.55 Midpoint positions of u/_s versus u/s_ for AJP (U) 13Figure C1 TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, f, s for VB (L) 167 Figure C2 TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, £ s for VB (L) 16Figure C3 TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, T, s for GNd (U) 168 Figure C4 TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, T, s for GNd (U) 16Figure C5 TR ANOVA results ofZSP, q, T, s for AJP (U) 169 Figure C6 TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, T, s for AJP (U) 16Figure C7 TR ANOVA results of ISP, s, z, s for VB (L) 170 Figure C8 TD ANOVA results of ISP, z, s for VB (L)Figure C9 TR ANOVA results of ISP, s, z, s for GNd (U) 171 Figure CIO TD ANOVA results of ISP, z, s for GNd (U)Figure CI 1 TR ANOVA results of ISP, s, z, s for AJP (U) 172 Figure C12 TD ANOVA results ofZSP, s, z, s for AJP (U)Figure C13 TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, f, z for VB (L) 173 Figure C14 TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, T, z for VB (L) 17x Acknowledgements It is with great honour and gratitude that I was able to work with these four St'at'imcets language consultants: Veronica Bikadi, Gertrude Ned, Georgina Nelson, Aggie J. Patrick. Without their incredible kindness, patience, and enthusiasm, this thesis would not have been possible. Thank you! I would like to thank every teacher and professor who has ever stood before me and shared their invaluable knowledge. I would especially like to thank Dr. Henry Davis and Dr. Bryan Gick who have provided me with incredible guidance and encouragement throughout the years. My sincerest thanks go to my thesis committee Dr. Henry Davis, Dr. Bryan Gick, Dr. Sonya Bird, and Dr. Gunnar Hansson for their support, encouragement, and constructive feedback throughout the thesis process. For other thesis-related assistance, thank you Shaffiq Rahemtulla, Fiona Campbell, Ramona McDowell, Ian Wilson, Dr. Doug Pulleyblank, Dr. Eric Vatikiotis-Bateson, and Donald Derrick. To all my friends whose ears empathetically attended to my stress-induced babble and whose warm hearts understandably checked in on me more often than I could reciprocate, you have kept me grounded and appreciably sane! Of these friends, thank you Jaime Holthuysen, Lindsey Mulligan, and Cliff Castillo so much for always being there. I am nothing without the incredible love and support of my family. Kaveh, thank you for being the wonderfully caring brother that you are—your loud music and odd sense of humor kept me wide awake on our trips to Lillooet and Mount Currie. Mom, you are my biggest inspiration: your self-sacrifice and unconditional love is a big part of why I am where I am and why I am who I am. Merci. Research for this thesis was gratefully supported by SSHRC grant # 410-2003-1 138, awarded to Dr. Henry Davis. Portions of this thesis were presented at the Workshop of Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas X in Toronto, Ontario (March 3-5, 2005) and the 149th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in Vancouver, British Columbia (May 16-20th, 2005). xi Chapter 1: Introduction Retracted consonants and their effects on surrounding vowels have been widely investigated in Interior Salish languages (Bessell 1992, 1998ab; Remnant 1990, Shahin 1995, 1997, 2002, van Eijk 1997 for St'at'imcets; McDowell 2004; inter alia). Retracted consonants include uvulars, pharyngeals, sometimes laryngeals, and a subset of coronal consonants postulated to be articulated with a secondary retracted tongue root position. It has been claimed that these consonants often trigger retraction on neighbouring vowels (Bessell 1992, 1998ab, Remnant 1990, Shahin 1995, 1997, 2002, McDowell 2004; amongst others). However, with the exception of McDowell's (2004) study of Montana Salish, previous studies on Salish have examined vowel retraction effects using indirect acoustic and phonological evidence, leaving unanswered the question of how retraction is achieved articulatorily. One such Salish language is St'at'imcets (also known as Lillooet). Based on perceptual and acoustic data, previous studies vary in their descriptions and categorizations of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects. For example, the phoneme transcribed by van Eijk (1997) as [?] has been analyzed both as a uvular or pharyngeal approximant, (Bessell 1992, 1998ab, Remnant 1990, Shahin 1995, 1997, 2002, 2004). With respect to the articulatory descriptions of St'at'imcets retracted consonants, there is disagreement as to whether or not all retracted consonants share identical tongue dorsum and tongue root articulations. Previous studies also disagree as to whether all retracted consonants have the same effect on adjacent vowels. Van Eijk (1997) and Bessell (1992) claim that uvulars and retracted coronals have the same effect (e.g. /V/-»[Vi]/_uvular, /V/^[Vi]/_retracted coronal), whereas Shahin (1997, 2002) claims that there is a difference in vowel quality between vowels in the environment of post-velar consonants and those in the environment of retracted coronals (e.g. /V/^[V,]/_q,/V/^[V2]/_s). These discrepancies in the description of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects may be due to the methodological limitations of linguists' perceptions on the one hand and acoustic phonetic investigation on the other. The first 1 method is hindered by experimenter bias and the subjective nature of informal observation; the second by the "one-to-many" problem in mapping a set of acoustic properties to a vocal tract configuration (Shahin 1997, 2002; Boe et al. 1992). One way of avoiding these problems is to examine the articulators directly in real time during the production of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects. Ultrasound technology affords such direct examination and therefore, this study uses ultrasound to i) describe the articulatory makeup of St'at'imcets retracted consonants; and ii) examine the coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on adjacent vowels. In addition, acoustic data on coarticulation effects with St'at'imcets retracted consonants are also presented, in order to examine correlations between the articulatory and acoustic representations of the same phenomenon. The use of ultrasound technology in field settings is comparatively new, with the only previous study of this kind being that of McDowell (2004). Therefore, the field applications of ultrasound imaging in this study yields an entirely new set of data on St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects. The current study has implications for St'at'imcets phonology, in particular, the featural representation of retracted consonants and St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects. Beyond St'at'imcets, this study contributes to the growing comparative literature on retraction in Interior Salish languages (e.g. Nie?kepmxcfn, Montana Salish) and unrelated languages (e.g. Nuuchahnulth, Arabic). Furthermore, results of this study add to the cross-linguistic investigation of patterns of articulatory conflict resolution. Finally, the ultrasound data collected here will be able useful to current and future St'at'imcets language learners in visualizing and reproducing complex articulations of retracted consonants and their neighbouring vowel retraction effects. This thesis is organized as follows: previous literature on St'at'imcets phonemes and retraction is discussed in the remainder of Chapter 1. A detailed report of the methodology used in this study comprises the content of Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents results regarding the articulatory organization of retracted consonants in St'at'imcets. Results on the nature of coarticulatory effects between St'at'imcets retracted consonants and adjacent vowels are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 concludes this study with a 2 discussion of the results in relation to previous literature and with a discussion of the potential implications of this study's findings. 1.1 Background on St'at'imcets St'at'imcets is spoken by approximately 100 people (H. Davis 2004 p.c.) in an area of southwest Interior British Columbia stretching from Pavilion in the north to Port Douglas in the south. Belonging to the Northern Interior branch of the Salishan language family, St'at'imcets is closely related to the other Northern Interior languages Nie?kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish) and Secwepemctsin (Shuswap). There are two major dialects of St'at'imcets: i) Upper, spoken from D'Arcy to Pavilion, B.C.; and ii) Lower1, spoken from Mount Currie to Port Douglas, B.C. (see map in Figure 1.1, reprinted with permission from van Eijk 1997). Upper dialect ="jV Lower dialect = • U.S.A. Map of the lillooet Lanryage Area Figure 1.1: Map of St'at'imcets These two dialects are mutually intelligible, however, there are some significant phonological, morphological, and syntactic differences between the two (van Eijk 1997). 3 Common characteristics of Interior Salish languages include a rich consonant inventory with a large post-velar component, and various assimilatory processes involving retracted consonants and neighbouring vowels. St'at'imcets exhibits all these characteristics, possessing over 40 phonemes—17 of which are retracted consonants—and demonstrating retraction effects on vowels adjacent to these retracted consonants. There is disagreement in the literature about the classification of retracted processes: van Eijk (1997) and Bessell (1992, 1998ab) divide them into a regressive, phonetically motivated process and a progressive, phonologically motivated process, whereas Shahin (1997, 2002) distinguishes between "uvularization" and "pharyngealization". Detailed descriptions of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction are presented in sections 1.2 and 1.3, respectively. 1.1.1 St'at'imcets segmental inventory Like all Salish languages, St'at'imcets has a large number of consonants and a relatively small number of vowels. The St'at'imcets phonemic inventory consists of 44 consonants, of plain, labialized, retracted, and glottalized types, produced at various places of articulation in the vocal tract. Table 1.1 presents the consonantal inventory of St'at'imcets organized by manner and place of articulation2: For practical purposes, phonemes are represented in a standard Americanist Phonemic Alphabet, as employed by van Eijk (1997). Refer to Appendix A for conversion of phonemes into the van Eijk practical orthography, as used by speakers, teachers, and learners of the language in St'at'imc territory. Phonemes are also converted into the International Phonetic Alphabet. 4 Table 1.1: Phonemic inventory of St'at'imcets consonants3 Lab. Denti-] Dent. ^ateral Lat. Dental-Dent. Palatal Pal. Velar Uvular Laryn. Obstr. Stop P P' t X' c' c' c c k kw k' k'w q qw q' q'w Fric. i s s x xw x xw Res. Nasal m m' n n' Liq. 1 1 rr Glide z4 z' y y' Y Y' h w5 ? w' Regarding the phonemic inventory of vowels in St'at'imcets, previous literature on St'at'imcets generally describes St'at'imcets as having 4 vowels which differ between dialects in phonetic value ([Upper dialect]/[Lower dialect]): lil = [i]/[e], lui = [u]/[o], /a/ = [ae/e]/[ae], and epenthetic lal (Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992, 1998, Shahin 1997, 2002). These vowels are shown in the chart below: Although represented as hi, the status of the epenthetic vowel merits further discussion. The distribution of this vowel is partially predictable, surfacing to repair undesirable consonant cluster formations (Matthewson 1994 cited in Shahin 1997, 2002) and to preserve stress-bearing units (H. Davis, p.c). Like vowels li, u, a/, the epenthetic 3 Abbreviations: Obstr. = obstruent; Res. = resonant; Liq. = liquid; Lab. = labial; Dent. = dental; Lat. = lateral; Pal. = palatal; Laryn. = laryngeal; Fric = Fricative. 4 A difference in articulation exists between Upper and Lower ITL, Z'I. This difference will be discussed in detail further in this section. 5 The phonetic status of /w, w7 is unclear, described as either [iq] (Shahin 1997, 2002) or [w] (van Eijk 1997). The exact articulatory detail of these consonants will be ignored here, as this is beyond the scope of the current study. vowel may bear stress; however, unlike li, u, al, whose basic quality is retained, the surface quality of the epenthetic vowel is variable, depending on the consonants in its environment for its colouring. Representing this epenthetic vowel as hi facilitates the understanding that an epenthetic vowel is present and its surface quality is highly variable (though predictable). It is important to note that an excrescent schwa is distinct from the St'at'imcets epenthetic schwa. In St'at'imcets, an excrescent schwa is a transitional element whose appearance is "independent of the syllable structure" (Matthewson 1994: 5 from Shahin 1997, 2002) and thus not represented in the orthography, while an epenthetic schwa may occupy the syllable nucleus position and is represented in the orthography as "e." This distinction is important given that a possible strategy for resolving conflicting articulatory targets is to insert a transitional schwa-like vowel between conflicting targets (Gick & Wilson 2005). Therefore, in St'at'imcets, the epenthetic schwa is not phonologically identical to a transitional schwa-like vowel. 1.2 St'at'imcets Retracted Consonants Previous literature describes retracted consonants as those pronounced with accompanying tongue root retraction (Czaykowska-Higgins & Kinkade 1998). In an articulatory study of Montana Salish (an Interior Salish language spoken in northwest Montana), McDowell (2004:4) describes retracted segments as articulated with "any movement or gesture [of the tongue] produced in the direction of the rear pharyngeal wall." Consonants produced with such retraction are "retracted," while consonants lacking retraction of the tongue into the pharyngeal space, such as velars, are classified as nonretracted ("plain"). As I will show, all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets, namely uvular, pharyngeal, and retracted coronal consonants, share a physical property of retraction, as described by McDowell (2004) above. Plain counterparts to retracted coronal consonants do not exhibit such retraction. 6 1.2.1 Inherently retracted St'at'imcets consonants Referring back to Table 1.1, the consonantal inventory of St'at'imcets contains 17 retracted consonants6: uvular obstruents q, qw, q', q™, x, xw; resonants f, fw, f', ?'w (described as either uvular or pharyngeal in articulation); and retracted coronals c, c \ s, I I', and Lower dialect z, z '7. Uvular consonants are found across all Salish languages. In St'at'imcets (excluding f, ?w, T'w), six uvular consonants exist: q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw. These uvular consonants have an articulation claimed to be "quite close to that of the velars" (van Eijk 1997:10), confirming that a high tongue dorsum position is needed to produce these consonants. Based on phonological evidence, Shahin (1997, 2002:180) describes St'at'imcets uvulars as "emphatic velars," produced with primary velar and secondary uvular articulation fused phonetically into a single primary uvular constriction, between the tongue dorsum and the uvula, and with accompanying pharyngealization. Although she collected acoustic data, Shahin (1997, 2002) claims that such data would not be useful in determining whether St'at'imcets q is a velar emphatic or a primary uvular "as both types of segments are presumably produced with the same articulation" (Shahin 2002:200). Prior to this study, there has been no articulatory work on St'at'imcets uvulars. Comparison to uvular consonants in other related Interior Salish languages may shed light on the articulation of St'at'imcets q, qw, q', q 'w, x, xw In an articulatory study of Montana Salish (MTS), McDowell (2004) uses ultrasound technology to explore the articulatory makeup of retraction. Results indicate that the MTS uvular stop q is produced "in the upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular locus of the oral tract" by both the tongue dorsum and tongue root (McDowell 2004:34), therefore concluding that uvulars in MTS be considered uvular-pharyngeal in articulation. This description of uvular 6 Laryngeals are excluded from the class of retracted consonants due to their lack of supralaryngeal articulation (Shahin 1997, 2002) and their lack of retraction effects on neighbouring vowels, an effect characteristic of all retracted consonants in Salish (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Remnant 1990; Bessell 1992; Shahin 1997,2002). 7 Note: consonants are presented in APA; refer to Table 1.1 (and Appendix A) St'at'imcets practical orthography and IPA representations. 7 articulation suggests that St'at'imcets uvular consonants q, qw, q', q 'w, x, xwmight involve retraction of the tongue dorsum and root into the upper pharyngeal space. In the literature on St'at'imcets, the exact physiological makeup of St'at'imcets consonants f, Tw, T'w is unclear, described as either uvular or pharyngeal in place of articulation. Early research by Kinkade (1967) shows that when comparing cognates of St'at'imcets and Nxa'amxcin (Moses-Columbian Salish), pharyngeal /h/, A7, and /?'/ in Nxa'amxcin forms occur as voiced uvular fricatives in St'at'imcets. Van Eijk (1987, 1997) describes £ ?™ ?'w as "pharyngeal glide[s] with a wide aperture" (1997:4), whose place of articulation is further back than the French uvular trill but "more lax than Arabic [pharyngeal] AY" (1997: 253). Remnant (1990) and Bessell (1992) assume van Eijk's pharyngeal consonant description, with the latter also reporting the presence of some uvular quality. Based on perceptual and acoustic results, Shahin (1997, 2002:180) analyzes f, fw, i", i"w as uvular resonants In, n\ KW, K'w/, whose articulation is "sometimes post-uvular but usually uvular." The variation in articulatory description for St'at'imcets T, Tw, i", f 'w is a result of the lack of direct articulatory data. Overall, however, there seems to be a consensus that St'at'imcets f, Tw, ?'w consist of tongue retraction in the uvular-pharyngeal space. In Nie?kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish), an Interior Salish language closely related to St'at'imcets, a recent laryngoscopy study by Carlson & Esling (2003) sheds light on the coupling of uvular and pharyngeal articulation for St'at'imcets f, ?w, f"w In this study, a nasally inserted endoscope provided a direct view of the physiological structures of the pharynx during speech to examine ?, ?w, T'w consonants. Results indicate that T, fware "primarily uvular in point of stricture—fricatives or trills—but with considerable secondary narrowing of the [laryngeal] sphincter, which represents a significant degree of uvular-pharyngeal coarticulation" (Carlson & Esling 2003:187), thereby classifying these consonants as pharyngealized uvulars. This finding supports the notion that St'at'imcets T, fw, T'w require movement of the tongue dorsum and root 8 towards the upper pharyngeal wall, an articulation shared by St'at'imcets uvular consonants q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw. 1.2.2 Secondarily retracted St'at'imcets consonants In addition to post-velar consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, T, fw, ?'w, the group of retracted consonants in St'at'imcets also contains a subset of coronal consonants articulated with a retracted tongue position, namely c, c', s, I V, and Lower St'at'imcets z z\ Lower St'at'imcets z, z' is produced with "an interdental pronunciation (where z, z' sound somewhat like lax variants of English voiced 'th')" (van Eijk 1987, 1997:4). Remnant (1990) and Bessell (1992) further describe Lower St'at'imcets z, z' articulation as having a lateral component, with the sides of the tongue raised. An alternate view by Shahin (1997, 2002) presents Lower St'at'imcets dental approximantsz, z' as rhotics with lateral articulation. Although previous St'at'imcets studies suggest that some retraction of the tongue is involved in the articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z, z' no articulatory evidence exists to support this claim. Instead, the retracted status of Lower St'at'imcets z, z' is based on its retraction effects on adjacent vowels, an effect that is shared by St'at'imcets post-velar consonants q, qw, q\ q'w, x, xw, f, Tw, f,w; Upper St'at'imcets z, z' do not exhibit such vowel retraction effects. The retracted position of Lower St'at'imcets z, z' is further supported by articulatory and acoustic studies on Chilcotin8 voiced fricatives z ("sharp") and z ("flat"), which are reported to resemble St'at'imcets z, z' (Krauss 1975). A palatographic and acoustic study by Latimer (1978) shows that the sharp (or plain) z has a more anterior point of contact than the flat z. Latimer (1978) concludes that the more posterior contact of the flat z, in comparison to the sharp z, is due to retraction of the tongue. Tongue retraction for z is also evidenced in the acoustic data, showing lower F2 frequencies of vowels neighbouring z compared to z. These data suggest that Lower St'at'imcets z z' might also involve retraction of the tongue into the pharynx. Furthermore, because i 8 Chilcotin is an Athabaskan language spoken in the Interior of British Columbia, just northwest of St'at'imcets territory. 9 Lower St'at'imcets z, z' exhibits similar vowel retraction effects to those of St'at'imcets postvelars q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, T, ?w, T'w, it expected that the direction of tongue retraction for Lower St'at'imcets /z, z7 is towards the upper pharyngeal space. In addition to Lower St'at'imcets z, z', St'at'imcets has five other retracted coronal consonants: c, c', s, I /', with corresponding plain counterparts coronals c, c', s, I, I'9 (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992, Shahin 1997, 2002). Regarding the articulatory distinction between retracted and nonretracted coronal consonants, van Eijk (1987, 1997) and Bessell (1992) describe St'at'imcets retracted coronal as having "retraction of tongue root considered as velarization" (Bessell 1992:98), which forces an apical anterior constriction, while their plain counterparts lack retraction and have a laminal anterior constriction. Results of acoustic data on retracted coronal consonants in St'at'imcets indicate a large rise in Fl and a large drop in F2 on a vowel adjacent to retracted coronal consonants, in comparison to their plain counterparts (Shahin 1997, 2002). As a result, Shahin (1997, 2002) argues that retracted coronals are both uvularized (having a retracted tongue dorsum) and pharyngealized (having a retracted tongue root), an articulation identical to Arabic emphatic consonants. The comparison of St'at'imcets retracted coronals to Arabic emphatics is also found in Bessell (1992) and van Eijk (1987, 1997:3), where van Eijk explicitly states that "s resembles Arabic 'sad.'" Prior to this study, no articulatory evidence has been adduced to corroborate the presence of some retraction gesture for St'at'imcets. If the articulation of St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants is similar to that of Arabic emphatics, as claimed by van Eijk (1987, 1997), Bessell (1992), Shahin (1997, 2002), then examination of the articulation of Arabic emphatics may be indicative of St'at'imcets retracted coronal articulation. Arabic emphatics are consistently reported as involving secondary pharyngeal constriction caused by tongue root retraction (Bessell 1992:80). In a cinefluorographic study of various dialects of Arabic, Ghazeli (1977) demonstrates that the vocal tract shape of pharyngealized consonants (a term used synonymously with "emphatic") has a larger oral cavity (between the tongue surface and the hard palate) and a smaller pharyngeal cavity (in the lower pharynx) compared to non-9 Once again, consonants are presented in APA. As shown in Table 1.1, retracted consonants c, c \ s, L V are phonetically [tsh, t'sf, s, 1,1'], while their plain counterparts c, c', s, I, I'are phonetically [tf, t'J", f, 1,1']. 10 pharyngealized counterparts. This vocal tract shape for pharyngealized consonants is the result of a primary tongue tip/blade constriction, a secondary backing of the posterior of the tongue towards the pharynx, and "a depression of the palatine dorsum of the tongue" (Ghazeli 1977:126). X-ray tracings of Iraqi Arabic (Giannini & Pettorino 1982) and fiberoptic data of Hebrew and Arabic (Laufer & Bauer 1988) show that emphatics involve tongue root retraction into the lower pharynx, with the "tongue dorsum...pulled down in the velar region, presumably ruling out the possibility of uvular co-articulation" (as summarized by Bessell 1992:77). A comparison of St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants with Arabic emphatic might then suggest that the production of St'at'imcets retracted coronals involves retraction of the tongue root and dorsum towards the lower pharyngeal space. Thus far, it has been suggested that all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets might share a physical property of retraction. Furthermore, it has been suggested that amongst the group of retracted consonants in St'at'imcets, consonants q, qw, q', q 'w, x, xw, T, Tw, ?', ?'w and Lower St'at'imcets z, z' are produced with a locus of retraction in the upper pharynx, while retracted consonants c, c', s, I I' occur with retraction towards the lower pharynx. Plain counterparts c, c', s, I V and Upper St'at'imcetsz, z' lack any property of retraction; thus they are not nonretracted. A summary of the preliminary hypotheses regarding St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation is presented in Table 1.2 below. Table 1.2: Summary of St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation hypotheses 1. All St'at'imcets retracted consonants share a physical property of retraction; plain counterparts to retracted coronal consonants will lack such retraction. 2. St'at'imcets consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, £ fw, f ,whave both an upper and lower pharyngeal articulation. 3. Lower St'at'imcets z z' exhibit an upper pharyngeal articulation that is absent in the articulation of Upper St'at'imcets z z.' 4. St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants c, c', §,11' are produced with a lower pharyngeal constriction that is absent in the articulation of plain counterparts c, c', s, I, V. 11 1.3 St'at'imcets vowel retraction Attested in all Interior Salish languages is a process of vowel retraction, involving the assimilation of vowels to neighbouring retracted consonants. Previous Salish literature has described vowel retraction as the "lowering and/or backing of the tongue root" (Bessell 1998a: 125, van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990) of a vowel adjacent to retracted consonants. Based on acoustic and phonological evidence, Shahin (1997, 2002) divides "retraction" into two distinct processes, "uvularization" and "pharyngealization," defined by retraction of the tongue dorsum and tongue root, respectively. An articulatory study on Montana Salish by McDowell (2004:4) suggests that retracted vowels are those that exhibit any "movement or gesture produced in the direction of the rear pharyngeal wall," a process that is often caused by the presence of a neighbouring retracted consonant. The current investigation adopts this latter definition because McDowell (2004) is the sole study based on direct articulatory evidence. 1.3.1 Progressive versus regressive retraction in St'at'imcets Vowel retraction in St'at'imcets has been divided into two separate processes, one being regressive local assimilation, and the other being progressive and non-local in nature (van Eijk 1997, Bessell 1992, 1998ab). In local regressive assimilation, retracted consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, Tw, ?', £'wcause preceding vowels to lower and retract: li, u, a, a/10 surface as [e, o, a, AJO] (before nonretracted consonants, vowels li, u, a/ surface as [i, u, ae/e] for Upper dialect and [e, o, ae] for Lower dialect11 (H. Davis p.c.)). The Lower dialect retracted coronal fricative z, z' is also reported to retract preceding The epenthetic vowel hi becomes [A] when preceding nonlabialized retracted consonants and becomes [o] when preceding labialized retracted consonants. 11 The surface quality of the epenthetic vowel /a/ is dependent on the place of articulation of the adjacent nonretracted consonant. 12 vowels lu, al, while vowels li, ol are unaffected, e.g. kuzxal [kw5zxael] "to spread out berries to dry" versus xniz 'az' [xnez'az'] "gooseberry bush" (van Eijk 1997).12 In addition to the retracted variants of St'at'imcets vowels /i, u, a, a/, van Eijk (1987, 1997) notes that vowels preceding £ Tw, i", f'ware heard with a pharyngeal quality superimposed on the lowered/retracted variant. Based on van Eijk (1987), Remnant (1990) classifies retraction into processes of "retraction" and "pharyngealization." In "retraction," a given vowel will surface lowered/retracted when preceding uvulars q, qw, q', q'w, x, xwas in e.g. cuqwxal [tf5qwxael] "to tie string together" and when preceding Lower dialect z z'. In "pharyngealization," Remnant (1990) states that a given vowel preceding consonants f, Tw, ?', f'wwill surface with the same lowered/retracted quality as found in "retraction" but will also have a superimposed pharyngeal quality, e.g. lui in scugw [ftfoY*] "stripe" versus ciiqwxal |tf5qwxael] "to tie string together." A second process of St'at'imcets vowel retraction involves retracted coronal consonants in a progressive, non-local manner, whose trigger is phonologically unclear. St'at'imcets progressive retraction involves "retracted roots" that retract coronal consonants s, c, c', I, I' and suffix vowels (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Bessell 1998a)13. Comparison of a suffix attached to a plain versus retracted root illustrates this process: amawH'x [Tasmawil'x] (U)/[?aem9weTx] (L) "to get better, come back to life" {^ama = "good;" -wil 'x = inchoative) versus qdlwil 'x [qAlwelx] "to get spoiled" (V^a/ = "bad;" -wil'x = inchoative), wherein the underlyingly nonretracted suffix -wil'x surfaces nonretracted when attached to a plain root, but surfaces with a retracted vowel and glottalized lateral approximant when attached to a "retracted root." St'at'imcets "retracted roots" are of relatively rare occurrence and appear to consist of two categories: 1) those containing a retracted consonant, e.g. Vga/ [qAl] "bad," psus [psos] "wild (bitter) cherry," and; 2) those containing only a retracted vowel with no 12 Upper dialect z z' show no retraction effects on adjacent vowels, e.g. kwuzxal [kwuzxsel] "to spread out berries to dry," xniz 'az' [xni'z'sez'] "gooseberry bush" (van Eijk 1997). 13 It is only in these "retracted roots" where St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants & c, c', 11' surface. presence of a retracted consonant in the root, e.g. ^psm-p [pAmp] "fast," V&tf [iot] "to squash something soft (esp. a bug)." Because roots lacking a post-velar consonant still act as "retracted roots" in retracting the following suffix vowel, e.g. htiun' [ioton'] "to squash something soft (like a bug)" (V&tf; -un' = transitivizer), Shahin (1997, 2002: 179) defines "retracted roots" as those words with retracted vowels and retracted coronal consonants s, c. £.', L I' for which their retraction cannot be analyzed as triggered by a following q, qw, q', q'w, w, x, xw, ?, ?w, ?'w, or Lower z, z'. Therefore, unlike regressive local retraction, progressive non-local retraction is independent of the presence of post-velars and Lower St'at'imcets z, z'. Several different retraction triggers for St'at'imcets "retracted" roots have been proposed. Remnant (1990) analyzes retraction in roots as caused by a lexically specified floating (retracted) tongue root feature, which docks onto dorsal segments, leaving surface retracted vowels and retracted coronal consonants as underlyingly nonretracted14. Left unanswered is how Remnant (1990) would account for retracted roots that are partially retracted, such msHnfap [mAlintep] "balsam fir," wherein a potential dock/target (in this case the I'll) does not retract. A second analysis of the source for retraction in retracted roots is proposed by Shahin (1997, 2002). Here, Shahin (1997, 2002) posits that retracted coronal consonants are underlyingly retracted (e.g. c is Id) so that in cases of roots with retracted coronal consonants, any vowel preceding such consonants will surface as retracted due to regressive assimilation. Retracted roots containing a retracted vowel but no retracted coronal consonant challenge this approach, e.g. pamp [pAmp] "fast" (^pm; -p = inchoative). The question that arises here is why the epenthetic vowel bl surfaces as retracted when no trigger, namely a retracted coronal consonant, is present? For these cases, Shahin (1997, 2002), like Remnant (1990), posits the presence of a floating retraction trigger ("floating emphasis feature" Shahin 2002:199) linked to the root. Also unaccounted for by Shahin's analysis are cases of rightward retraction where a vowel 14 In order for a floating retracted tongue root feature to dock onto coronal consonants c, s, I, l\ Remnant (1990) claims that these coronals have a [DORS] component in their featural representation, which is necessary to distinguish the two groups of coronals in St'at'imcets: i) "dental coronals" X', i, n, n \ c \ z, z' ([COR]), ii) "alveo-palatal coronals" c, s, I, /'([COR] + [DORS]). 14 following a retracted consonant undergoes retraction (such as is found in retracted suffixes). Another proposal regarding St'at'imcets root retraction is that this type of retraction is not a process, but is instead underlyingly specified. Van Eijk (1997) not only lists retracted coronal consonants as underlying phonemes of St'at'imcets, but also lists 4 underlying retracted variants of St'at'imcets vowels, represented as li, u, a, a/. While this proposal successfully accounts for partially retracted retracted roots, it assumes that a retractable suffix has two underlying representations: one nonretracted (e.g. /-wil'x/ [-wilx] (U)/[-welx] (L) "inchoative marker"), and the second retracted (e.g. /-wil'x/ [-welx]) (H. Davis p.c). Furthermore, this account forces the underlyingly nonretracted suffix variant to surface only when adjacent to a nonretracted root, while the underlying retracted suffix variant is forced to surface only when adjacent to a retracted root. In summary, there is still much controversy over the nature of vowel retraction in St'at'imcets: points of contention include the set of potential triggers, the number of distinct types of retraction, and the existence of underlying as opposed to derived retracted vowels. The results of this study have the potential to shed light on these questions, for example by showing whether retracted vowels surface with different phonetic values in different retraction contexts. 1.3.2 "Pharyngealization" versus "uvularization" In addition to St'at'imcets regressive versus progressive retraction, Shahin (1997, 2002) argues for an analysis of retraction as "uvularization" versus "pharyngealization." Based on phonological and acoustic data, she argues that the vowels li, u, a, e/ undergo "pharyngealization" (medium rise in Fl and medium drop in F2) when preceding post-velar and retracted coronal consonants. In contrast, "uvularization" (medium/large rise in Fl and a large drop in F2) occurs on sounds /a, a, cl immediately preceding retracted coronal consonants s, I l\ which are also pharyngealized. Note that Shahin claims that when preceding an emphatic consonant, high vowels li, ul are pharyngealized but not IS uvularized. Due to the one-to-many problems of relating a vowel's set of formants to its physiological configuration, consulting direct articulatory data would better determine whether vowel retraction is in fact "uvularization" and/or "pharyngealization." 1.3.3 Effects of retraction on vowel quality Based on the findings reported in previous literature, it appears that St'at'imcets vowel retraction is made up of at least two distinct retraction processes: one involving post-velar consonants q, qw, q\ q'w, x, xw, T, Tw, ?', T'w, and Lower z, z'\ and another involving retracted coronal consonants and retracted roots. One question that arises is whether these different types of retraction produce different retracted surface qualities for a given vowel. Van Eijk (1987, 1997), Remnant (1990), and Bessell (1992, 1998a) claim that vowels undergoing local regressive retraction share a similar surface quality to vowels undergoing non-local progressive retraction. Van Eijk (1987, 1997:8) states that the phonetic variants of a given vowel, V, before a post-velar consonant q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, ?w, f'"'are similar to those of the vowel V in progressive retraction environments, e.g. "the vowel of zuqw |zoqw| 'dead' is phonetically like that of stut [stot] 'cricket'." In contrast, Shahin (1997, 2002) claims that a given vowel adjacent to a retracted coronal consonant will surface with a retracted quality distinct from its retracted quality when adjacent to a post-velar consonant. A difference in surface retracted quality for a given vowel is also claimed to occur within a process of St'at'imcets retraction. Van Eijk (1987, 1997) and Remnant (1990) note that vowels preceding T, Tw, f'ware heard with a pharyngeal quality superimposed on the retracted variant, a quality that is absent from the retracted quality of a vowel preceding q, qw, q', q,w, x, xw. Acoustic studies by Shahin (1997, 2002) and Bessell 16 (1997) indicate the opposite: that in general, a given vowel preceding q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw shares an F1/F2 space similar to its F1/F2 space when preceding T, Tw, £'w15. Using ultrasound-imaging technology, this study attempts to clarify whether or not differences exist in the retracted quality of a given vowel between retraction processes. If, as hypothesized in section 1.2 and Table 1.2, the locus of physical retraction differs among St'at'imcets retracted consonants, where post-velars and Lower z z' retract towards the upper pharynx and retracted coronal consonants s, c, c', I V retract towards the lower pharynx, then a given vowel will have different, rather than the same, surface qualities depending on which retracted consonant is adjacent (e.g. /V7->[Vi]/_{q, ?, Lower z}, /V/->[V2]/_s). Note that it is hypothesized that St'at'imcets q and 5" share an upper pharyngeal constriction. Therefore, the retracted quality of a given vowel adjacent to q will be equivalent to its retracted quality when adjacent to f". Another issue regarding St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects is whether retraction affects all vowels in the vocalic inventory. Previous literature on St'at'imcets states that regressive and progressive retraction processes retract all vowels: /i, u, a, a/ (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992). Of special note is that van Eijk (1987, 1997) and Remnant (1990) exclude vowels li, a/ from undergoing retraction when followed by Lower St'at'imcets z, z', e.g. xniz'az' [xnez'az'J "gooseberry bush" (*[xnez'az']). Contrary to previous St'at'imcets studies, Shahin (1997, 2002) claims that while high vowels li, ul are pharyngealized preceding all retracted consonants, these vowels are not uvularized preceding retracted coronal consonants because they lack a steady lowered F2 transition from vowel onset to third quarter (termed "an emphatic target," Shahin 2002:272). Beyond these impressionistic and acoustic descriptions, no articulatory studies exist to determine whether previous observations of unaffected vowel are accurate. The failure of HI to retract is particularly surprising in light of potential explanations such as the 'conflict resolution' model of Gick & Wilson (2005). When two Note that neither of these studies compared the quality of a given vowel preceding Lower z z' to its quality when preceding q, qw, q', q'w, w, x, xwor f, ?w, ?'w. 17 contiguous segments require a given articulator to achieve opposing targets, e.g. segment A requires the tongue root to be advanced while segment B needs tongue root retraction, a conflict arises, necessitating some kind of resolution strategy. Losing one's inherent gesture and adopting the other segment's gesture is one method of conflict resolution, e.g. segment A loses its advanced tongue root position and adopts the retracted tongue root position of adjacent segment B, thus resolving a conflict in tongue root target (Gick & Wilson 2005). However, if two contiguous segments share similar articulatory targets, e.g. segment A and B both require an advanced tongue root position, then no conflict arises. For example, in Nuuchahnulth (a Wakashan language of Vancouver Island), a process of vowel lowering/retraction occurs on most vowels following uvular and pharyngeal consonants (Wilson to appear). While the high back vowels IvJ and /u:/ lower/retract following pharyngeals, these vowels do not lower/retract when following uvulars. In the former sequence, the lowering/retraction of the high back vowels resolves the conflicting tongue root targets between pharyngeals (retracted) and IvJ, Iw.l (advanced). Because both lui and uvular consonants are articulated at the upper/posterior region of the vocal tract, "the gestures used to articulate the two do not conflict and thus there is no need for the vowel to lower" (Wilson to appear: 14). Therefore, if the articulatory targets of an assimilation trigger and adjacent target are compatible with each other, then no assimilation of the target will occur. If the articulatory targets of St'at'imcets retracted consonants are compatible with those of St'at'imcets vowels li, u, al, then no vowel lowering/retraction will occur. For example, if St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, ?w, £'w and Lower z, z are articulated with only an upper pharyngeal constriction, then the high back vowel lui alone will not lower/retract. Furthermore, if St'at'imcets retracted consonants c, c', s, I V involve retraction in the lower pharynx, only the low back vowel lal will not lower/retract. With regards to St'at'imcets vowels /i, o/, because the articulatory targets of li, o/ conflict with all St'at'imcets retracted consonants, these vowels are predicted to lower/retract in the environment of all retracted consonants, including Lower zz\ contrary to previous accounts. 18 1.3.4 Directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction Finally, retraction effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants in post-vocalic position (VC) are compared with those of St'at'imcets retracted consonants in pre-vocalic position (CV). Previous studies concur that local phonetic retraction occurs on a vowel preceding St'at'imcets q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, ?w, f,w and Lower dialect z z' (VC conditions). In the CV condition, both van Eijk (1997) and Shahin (1997, 2002) claim that no retraction occurs on a vowel following St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, qw, q', q,w, x, xw, ?, fw, r, f'w and Lower dialect zz'. Van Eijk (1997) further states that HI following uvulars "is generally diphthongized here: [ey] after unrounded uvulars, [oy] after rounded ones, e.g. ...kaiqin' [kaeiqeyn'] 'three-year-old buck,' qwic [qwoytf] 'rich'" (1997: 254, footnote 1.13). In contrast to van Eijk (1997) and Shahin (1997, 2002), Bessell's (1997) acoustic study on St'at'imcets VC and CV coarticulation indicates that St'at'imcets vowels li, u, a, a/ following uvular consonants q, f have a higher Fl (correlated with TB lowering) and lower F2 (correlated with TB backing) in relation to the F1/F2 values of li, u, a, a/ following nonretracted consonants p, t, k, ?. Based on these formant effects, Bessell (1997) concludes that St'at'imcets vowels do, in fact, lower and retract following uvular consonants. Note however, that Bessell's (1997) study is based upon qualitative examination of only 2 repetitions per stimuli test condition, therefore it is possible that the formant differences between vowels following q, f and vowels following p, t, k, ? are not significant or are due to chance. This investigation of VC versus CV retraction effects is motivated in part by the cross-linguistic finding that within a given language, articulatory conflict resolution strategies present in one direction (e.g. VC) tend not to be mirrored in the other direction (e.g. CV) (Gick & Wilson 2005). For example, Gick & Wilson (2005) demonstrate that in Nuuchahnulth, the high advanced vowel HI moves through a transitional "schwa-space" on its way to the articulation of a following (retracted) uvular stop q (e.g. /siqH/ 19 [si3qe:i] "to cook"), but becomes retracted when following q (e.g. /qicin/ [qetfin] "louse"). Although Gick & Wilson (2005) suggest the possibility of a language exhibiting symmetric responses to articulatory conflict (namely, Skye Scots Gaelic), the lack of primary data leaves uncertain the existence of this type of conflict-resolving language. This asymmetrical effect of articulatory conflict resolution suggests that vowel retraction in St'at'imcets will also exhibit retraction effects differing between VC and CV conditions. Because this study examines vowel retraction in both VC and CV directions, results of this study have the potential to shed light on the issue of directionality effects in articulatory conflict resolution strategies. Based on van Eijk (1997) and Shahin (1997, 2002), I hypothesize that St'at'imcets vowel retraction involving q, qw, q', qm, x, xw, f, ?w, f'wand Lower dialect z z' will be present in the VC condition, but not in the CV condition. Furthermore, due to the phonological nature of vowel retraction involving retracted coronals c, c', s, I 1', the retracted quality of a given vowel preceding a retracted coronal is assumed to be equivalent to its quality when following a retracted coronal. The use of ultrasound imaging in this study will help clarify the variation in previous descriptions of St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects. All relevant hypotheses are shown in Table 1.3 below. Table 1.3: Summary of St'at'imcets vowel retraction hypotheses 1. A given vowel will have different surface qualities due to the type of adjacent retracted consonant (e.g. /V/-»[Vi]/_{q, ?, Lower z}, /V/^rV2]/_s). 2. The absence of vowel retraction in St'at'imcets will occur only if the articulatory targets of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and adjacent vowels are compatible (e.g. if the articulation of St'at'imcets q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw, f, £w, T'w, Lower z, z involves an upper pharyngeal constriction only, then IvJ will not lower/retract). 3. St'at'imcets vowel retraction involving retracted consonants q, qw, q \ q 'w, x, xw, T, Tw, ?'w, Lower z, z will be asymmetrical in direction (VC effects differ from CV effects). St'at'imcets vowel retraction involving retracted coronals c, c', s, I /'will be symmetrical (VC effects are similar CV effects). 20 Chapter 2: Methodology As discussed in the preceding chapter, previous literature on St'at'imcets has presented various descriptions of the articulatory makeup of retracted consonants and their effects on adjacent vowels (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Bessell 1992; Shahin 1997, 2002). To illustrate, the consonant f has been interpreted as a "pharyngeal glide" by some (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992, 1998ab), and as primarily a uvular resonant by others (Kinkade 1967, Shahin 1997, 2002). This variation in description may be due to the indirect methods of examination employed by previous studies. Relying on impressionistic observations and acoustic data alone, previous studies face problems of subjective bias and complications in relating a formant pattern to a specific articulatory configuration, respectively. To test the hypotheses discussed in Chapter 1 regarding the physiological organization of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and their effects on neighbouring vowels, this study uses ultrasound technology coupled with the acoustic signal. By using ultrasound technology, this study provides a direct view of the articulatory gestures involved in producing retracted consonants. Furthermore, coupling the acoustic signal with the ultrasound image provides a more complete picture of the coarticulatory effects these consonants have on adjacent vowels. A description of the general methods used in this study is discussed and illustrated below. Additional methods used specifically for investigating St'at'imcets retracted consonants and St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects are presented in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. 2.1 Participants Four fluent St'af imcets-speaking females (VB, GN1, AJP, GNd), ranging in age from 61 to 74 years of age, participated in this study. The two principal dialects of St'at'imcets are examined in this study: Lower, spoken by participants VB and GN1; and, 21 Upper, spoken by participants GNd and AJP. VB and GN1 were born and raised in Mount Currie ("Lil'wat7ul"), British Columbia, and currently reside in Mount Currie. GNd was born in Tbird ("T'it'qet") Lillooet reserve and moved to Fountain Valley ("Xaxl'ip"), located 20 minutes southeast of Lillooet, after marriage. AJP was born in Jones Creek, but relocated to Seton Portage ("Tsal'alh"), located northwest of Lillooet, where she currently resides. All participants spoke only St'at'imcets during childhood until they attended residential schools throughout the interior of British Columbia. All participants were prevented from speaking St'at'imcets in these schools, but were able to continue use of the language at home. All participants are currently active in teaching St'at'imcets through local schools and programs. The author of this study collected data during the fall of 2004 on site at each of the participants' residences, with the exception of AJP, whose data was recorded on site at the Lillooet residence of Dr. H. Davis. At the time of data collection, all participants were unaware of the details of this study. Before data was collected, all participants signed consent forms and were informed that all collected data would be used only for academic purposes. At the end of data collection, participants were paid for their participation. Data collected from GN1 was transferred to computer but was not used for analysis due to reoccurring shadows of the jaw and hyoid bone, which interfered with the image locations of the tongue root, dorsum, and the anterior portion of the tongue body. As a result, only articulatory and acoustic data from participants VB, GNd, and AJP were used for analysis. 2.2 Equipment/Materials 2-D articulatory data from all four participants was collected using a Sonosite 180 Plus portable ultrasound machine with a Sonosite CI5/4-2 MHz MCX transducer (Figure 2.1). For all participants, the ultrasound machine was set at the obstetrics setting in the penetration mode to provide the best visual information and temporal resolution. Nontoxic, water-based Aquasonic 100 ultrasound transmission gel was applied to the 22 transducer in order to prevent air from intervening between the surface of the transducer and the surface of the skin (Stone 1997). Ultrasonic data was recorded via a Sony miniDV Handycam Vision DCR-TRV900 (NTSC) digital video recorder linked to the portable ultrasound machine. All data were recorded at a standard video rate of 29.97 frames per second to a Sony miniDV cassette tape. For ease of data organization, four miniDV cassettes were used, each corresponding to one participant. Figure 2.1: Portable ultrasound Simultaneous audio information was obtained via a power module Audio Technica lapel microphone clipped onto the participant's shirt, pointed in the direction of the participant's mouth. This signal was then filtered directly through an audio buddy and recorded by the Sony miniDV Handycam digital camera. A stable regular Pro-Sound unidirectional dynamic YU-34 60052 microphone perched on top of a short microphone stand was also present in case the lapel microphone did not work. Because the lapel microphone successfully operated for all sessions with all participants, the stable Pro-Sound microphone was not used in this study. An important drawback to ultrasound technology is its inability to image stable anatomical landmarks, such as the palate, making the association between tongue position measurements and the rest of the vocal tract difficult. However, restricting movement of both the head and the transducer ameliorates this deficiency. In an ultrasound validation study examining measurement accuracy of fixed vs. free head and 23 transducer positions, Gick et al. (2005) found that stabilizing head and transducer positions dramatically reduced head/transducer movement, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of tongue measurements. In this study, to maintain transducer stability the ultrasound transducer was attached to a 17" long non-telescopic microphone boom arm, which was subsequently perched atop a short Apex microphone stand, whose maximum extended height was 1 ft. (Figure 2.2). To attain transducer stability further, a solid, steady table was used upon which the transducer mount rested. Figure 2.2: Transducer mount Furthermore, Gick et al. (2005) shows that some head stability is also needed to reduce measurement error. One method of attaining head stability is to rest the participant's head against a wall behind them. Because data for this study was collected in the field, participant head stability was maintained through the creation and use of a specially modified wooden chair. To restrict head movement, participants rested their head against the chair's modified backrest made of a 3 ft. x 1 ft. x 3/4" board placed vertically on top of the chair's seat and against the chair's original two-rung backrest. To prevent the bottom of the board from sliding forward on the chair, a small piece of poplar wood (13 3/4" x 1 1/2" x 1/2") was attached using two metal screws above the surface of the seat and anterior to the vertical beams of the backrest. For additional head stability and comfort, a small rectangular moderately firm pillow was placed behind the participant's head, just above the base of the neck, resting against the modified backrest. This specially modified chair, as seen in Figure 2.3, allowed for an easy, portable (and 24 relatively comfortable) way of maintaining head stability (see Figure 2.4 for a more detailed image of the set up). Figure 2.3: Specially modified chair 2.3 Stimuli Two word lists were used in this study: a preliminary word list divided into separate test conditions and a final randomized word list whose word content was tailored to each participant. Although each participant had different words from each other, all participants were tested for the same test conditions (same retracted consonants, same vowels, and same word structure). Stimuli words were selected from an existing St'at'imcets dictionary (van Eijk 1987), and were then reviewed by Dr. H. Davis and by each participant. Of the 17 possible retracted consonants present in St'at'imcets (q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, T, ?w, ?'w, c, c', & I, I', and Lower dialect z, z'), this study examines only the plain uvular stop q [q], the plain uvular/pharyngeal approximant f [?], the retracted coronal fricative s [s], and the coronal fricative z [z] (retracted in Lower St'at'imcets, but plain in Upper St'at'imcets). Plain, as opposed to glottalized or labialized versions of these 25 segments, were selected to avoid possible interference from any glottalization or labialization processes16. Of the retracted coronal class c, c \ s, I V, only s was examined in this study because it is closest in articulatory similarity with the postvelars than are the other retracted coronals because s lacks the lateral articulation of laterals and the intermediary articulation of affricates, both of which post-velars also lack. To examine the articulation of these retracted consonants, consonants were flanked by schwa if possible (for an explanation as to why schwa was the flanking vowel, refer to section 3.1.1). St'at'imcets consonant-vowel interactions were investigated using only the advanced high vowels /i, u/ in stressed CV/VC contexts with retracted consonants q, ?, s, and Lower dialect z in onset and coda conditions, respectively. Words with the plain coronal fricative s [f] flanked by schwa and in CV/VC contexts with vowels li, ul were also collected in order to demonstrate the articulation and coarticulatory effects of a typically nonretracted, advanced counterpart to the retracted coronal consonant s. Based on the aforementioned retracted consonant and vowel contexts, a total of 25 stimuli test conditions were developed, as shown in Table 2.1. Ten repetitions for each condition were collected, equaling 250 utterances per participant. Table 2.1: Stimuli test conditions Test Condition Consonants d + {s, s, z, q, ?} + a C-V CV: Interactions {s, 5, z, q, ?} + {i, u} VC: {/, u} + {s, s, z, q, Total 25 A preliminary word list containing all words with the desired vowel and consonant conditions was selected from two main sources: a St'at'imcets-English In the acoustic signal, labialization results in the lowering of all formants; therefore, labialization of the retracted consonant may mask the actual retractedness of the consonant. The retractedness of St'at'imcets retracted consonants may also be affected by glottalization, which has been claimed to interact with the position of the tongue root, e.g. glottalization may involve raising of the larynx, to which the tongue root is attached (McCarthy 1994). 26 dictionary compiled by van Eijk (1987) and an electronic dictionary database collected by H. Davis. For the purposes of this study, stress assignment and syllable structure were controlled for as much as possible by selecting words with the desired stress pattern and consonantal syllable position. For example, in the investigation of retracted consonant articulation, a -9« transitivizing suffix was attached to the root-final sC in order to produce a schwa-C-schwa test condition. For a more detailed discussion of how stimuli were selected for the examination of retracted consonant articulation and coarticulatory effects, refer to sections 3.1.1 and 4.1.1, respectively. Note that controlling for stress was made possible by the general property of St'at'imcets stress assignment, whereby stress in two or three syllable words often falls on the initial syllable (e.g. supaya [jupaeyae] "itch, eczema"), except in cases where the initial vowel was schwa. Here, if the second syllable vowel was an /i, u/, the stress would avoid the schwa and would appear on this second vowel (e.g. nasnus [najhuf] "damp")17. If however, the second vowel were also a schwa, stress would appear on the initial (schwa) syllable, e.g. taqan [tsqsn] "to touch, tr.". The preliminary word list was then reviewed by H. Davis to determine whether stimuli words were still currently used in St'at'imcets and whether additional, undocumented words were present. Words were then presented orally by their English gloss to each participant, who in turn verified the gloss and expressed their (un)familiarity with each word. If possible, two words per test condition were selected, each repeated 5 times in order to fulfill the desired ten repetitions per condition. Stimuli were randomized prior to the recording session using Microsoft Excel. Because specific words for each participant had not yet been determined at the point of stimuli randomization, codes representing each test condition were developed. These codes were then randomized to determine the utterance ordering of all 250 tokens. During the recording session, the participant and experimenter selected usable words, This pattern of schwa-stress avoidance is common throughout Salish languages (see Roberts (1993) for St'at'imcets, Shaw (to appear) for Hen'q'emin'em'). 27 18 which were then inputted into the randomized list according to their codes . For the complete list of stimuli used for each participant, refer to Appendix B. The experimenter prompted all stimuli orally using the English gloss. For each word, participants responded with the corresponding St'at'imcets word framed in the carrier phrase: "Wa?ikai cut lta/lti uxwalmixwca19" Wa?-ikai cut 1-ta/l-ti uxwalmixw-ca prog-lpl.subj say loc-det Uxwalmixw-mouth-det "We say in Uxwalmixwc20" 2.4 Procedure Sessions for participants VB, GN1, GNd, were recorded in a quiet room in each of the participants' homes. Sessions for participant AJP were recorded in a quiet room in the Lillooet residence of Dr. H. Davis. Participants were first shortly briefed about the general procedure and purpose of this study. Consent forms were then reviewed and signed by each participant. Stimuli previously compiled by the author were reviewed by each participant (both St'at'imcets and English gloss were verified) and any word unfamiliar to each participant was eliminated from use. For each stimuli category, the two most familiar words—as identified by each participant—were highlighted for collection. Unfortunately, in some cases, no words were familiar in one or some categories (in particular with retracted s due to the limited number of instantiations of this segment in the language). All established words were placed in a randomized list (see section 2.4 for details on how this list was created), a list that was viewed only by the experimenter. The carrier phrase was then introduced and explained to each participant. 18 To speed up the code-location process, another list indicating the token number where each code appeared was developed (e.g. Iqx (Part 1: consonants, q, word x) = #13, 35, 57, 91, 250). This greatly reduced the time needed to enter words into their exact list order. 19 This is presented in van Eijk's (1997) practical St'at'imcets orthography. In IPA, this is transcribed as [waeftkaei tjut te/ki ?uxwaelmixwtra5]. 20 "ijxwalmixwca" js another term referring to the St'at'imcets language. 28 Although each participant was literate in the St'at'imcets practical orthography, stimuli were not presented in written form, thereby avoiding any possible confusion between the orthography and the actual pronunciation of the stimuli. Instead, to elicit the desired word, the author prompted the participant by saying the English gloss, to which the participant responded with the relevant word embedded in the carrier phrase in St'at'imcets. The author and participant undertook practice trials with the selected words in the carrier phrase, until a level of ease and automaticity with the entire utterance was met. At this point, the participant took a short break while the author set up the equipment. The layout of the equipment is presented in Figure 2.4 (with human model, who is not an actual participant of this study), where it can be seen that all equipment other than the transducer mount and lapel microphone was placed to the left of the participant. Furthermore, to prevent the participant from receiving visual feedback/reinforcement of their articulations, the ultrasound machine and digital video recorder were placed perpendicular to the participant and at a distance away so that the ultrasound and digital video recorder monitors were out of view. The author monitored the ultrasound signal viewed in the ultrasound and digital video recorder visually during data collection. Figure 2.4: Equipment layout with (non-participating) human model 79 After the equipment was set up, the participant was positioned in the specially modified chair, with the pillow placed between their head and the modified backrest and adjustments to the height and distance of the microphone stand and boom arm made. A small nickel-sized amount of ultrasound gel was applied to the ultrasound transducer and the angle of the transducer was then set. The focus of this study examines articulations made predominantly in the posterior region of the vocal tract, therefore, the transducer angle was adjusted as best as possible towards capturing images of the tongue root, dorsum, and body, oftentimes also succeeding in imaging the tongue blade and a portion of the tongue tip. Because of this desired ultrasound tongue image, the angle of the transducer varied between subjects, ranging from 18 to 25 degrees from true vertical21. To further stabilize head position, the participant was asked to fix their gaze at eye level directly in front of them at a point on the facing wall (Stone 1997). With the participant now positioned ready for elicitation, practice trials of the selected words in the carrier phrase were carried out, serving to refamiliarize participants to the procedure for stimuli elicitation and to allow the author to make finer adjustments to the transducer angle. Once the desired ultrasound tongue position was established, all 250 tokens were elicited consecutively in one sitting of approximately 25 minutes to maintain consistency of ultrasound data. Data for each participant was recorded onto Sony mini DV digital tapes and taken to the Interdisciplinary Speech Research Lab at the University of British Columbia for analysis. 2.5 Analysis All data were transferred from miniDV cassettes onto a Macintosh PowerG4 computer via Adobe Premiere 6.5. Once transferred, acoustic data were extracted from the video using Adobe Premiere 6.5 and were subsequently measured using Praat version 4.1.1.3. Articulatory data from the recorded ultrasound images were analyzed using To find true vertical in the ultrasound images, a line is drawn vertically in the center of the image and then tilted 18-25 degrees towards the right of the image. 30 Adobe Premiere 6.5 and NIH Image 1.62. All articulatory and acoustic measurements were entered into Microsoft Excel and StatView 5.0 for statistical analysis. To provide for a more accurate account of retraction in St'at'imcets, data were manipulated in two ways. First, to avoid possible list effects, utterance numbers 1 and 250 (the first and last tokens) were discarded from the analysis, corresponding to condition Ti repetition #1 and qi repetition #10, respectively. As a result, only 9 repetitions of test conditions Ti and qi were analyzed. Secondly, although the velar stop k was not specifically collected, tokens of k were analyzed qualitatively with respect to its physiological makeup in this study. Examination of this segment is useful in determining the velar-uvular boundary in place of articulation and in examining possible distinctions between "retracted," "advanced," and "nonretracted/nonadvanced" tongue positions (S. 22 Bird, p.c.) . Tokens of k were chosen from the word wdikai (wd?-ikai imperfect-first person plural subject "we") present in the carrier phrase, as this would allow for a consistent environmental context across all participants. Investigation of the articulatory makeup of St'at'imcets retracted consonants involved the analysis of articulatory ultrasound images only; acoustic data cannot provide a direct understanding of the articulators involved in physiological production. In examining consonant-vowel coarticulatory interactions, both articulatory and acoustic data were analyzed. General procedures for articulatory and acoustic analyses are discussed in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. A more detailed description of the analyses used specifically for examining retracted consonant articulation and consonant-vowel interactions are presented separately in Chapter 3 and 4, respectively. All measurements are statistically analyzed and results are shown in Chapter 3 and 4. 2.5.1 Articulatory Analysis To measure the distance of the tongue root (TR), dorsum (TD), and body (TB) of consonants and vowels from the centre of the transducer head, first, frames displaying the 22 Where q, T, s = retracted; s = advanced; k = nonretracted/nonadvanced 31 peak constriction movement were extracted from the recorded ultrasound data using Adobe Premiere 6.5. The peak constriction movement for stop consonants was identified as the point where the tongue root reached its maximum retracted/advanced position, often occurring a few frames before the release of the stop. The maximum constriction gesture for continuants, fricatives and resonants, was also realized as the point where the TR reached maximum retraction, often occurring at the midpoint of the continuant, as identified in the waveform timeline. For vowels, the peak constriction point was located at the midpoint of the vowel's duration. For a more complete explanation of "peak constriction" frame selection for consonants and vowels refer to sections 3.1.2 and 4.1.2.2, respectively. Once relevant frames were extracted, positions of the tongue were measured using the transducer centre as the measurement source. Using the reference scale on the right side of the ultrasound image, where hash marks are 1 cm apart, all measurement values were calculated via a pixel-to-centimetre conversion function of NIH Image 1.62. In the ultrasound image, the surface of the transducer head is seen as the arch on the bottom of the image, from which the rest of the image fans upwards. The midpoint of the transducer was calculated by measuring the total length of the x-axis from the left edge to the right edge of the transducer arc (equaling 2.64 cm) and dividing this value in half (equaling 1.32 cm). This value (1.32 cm) was then added to the x-coordinate value of the left edge of the transducer arc (7.36), thus giving a transducer centre x-coordinate of 8.67 cm. The height of the transducer centre was calculated by taking the y-coordinate marking the top of the transducer arc, equaling 2.64 cm (see Figure 2.5). All tongue position measurements were made using this hypothetical transducer centre, with x-y coordinates (8.67 cm, 2.64 cm). 32 I lypothetical Transducer Centre (8.67cm. 2.64cm) ]0- Z-14J 2004Nov21 16:57 Figure 2.5: Location of hypothetical transducer centre Before tongue positions were measured, angles from the transducer to the tongue root, dorsum, and body were determined. These tongue positions were identified by comparing anatomical tongue figures from Ladefoged (2000:4) and McDowell (2004) with dynamic movements of the participant's tongue from the video data (see Figure 2.6). Notice that for all ultrasound images presented, the anterior of the tongue is on the right of the ultrasound image and the posterior is on the left. TRoot TBody I 2004Nov20 12:06 Figure 2.6: Locations of TR, TD, and TB positions 33 When the TR, TD, and TB were visually located, preliminary angles were drawn using the "Angle" tool of NIH Image from a position in the lower left section of the image to the hypothetical transducer centre and then up to each respective tongue position (see Figure 2.7). Each angle (in degrees) was then recorded separately in their TR, TD, and TB categories. TD TB C15 2004Nov20 12:06 Figure 2.7: Angles for TR, TD, and TB positions Because the tongue positions for each consonant/vowel are ultimately different, average tongue root, dorsum, and body angles were determined by measuring two tokens of each experimental test condition. As will be discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, three additional test conditions were established and measured: "interspeech rest position" (a term from Gick et al. 2004, hereto forth referred to as ISP and discussed further in section 2.5.1.1) and baseline values/positions for the high advanced vowels HI and IvJ (see section 4.1). The former is used for comparison to consonantal articulation, while the latter are used for comparison to li, ul in retracted consonant environments. Thus, the total number of test conditions for this study equals 28 (Table 2.2). The two tokens were selected from each of the 28 test conditions based on their temporal order of appearance. Specifically, the first and last appearance of each test condition stimuli was selected (e.g. of the test condition CV-su: supaya "itch'Vsiif/fc "winter", whichever word appeared earliest in the randomized list (su #1) and whichever 34 word appeared latest in this list (su #10) were selected). Consonants in the test conditions examining consonantal articulation (whose stimuli were dCd) were measured for their angles; angles were also measured for midpoint of vowels /i, u/ in the C-V interactions test conditions. To illustrate, in the C-V interactions test condition su, the frame for the vowel l\xl was extracted and subsequently measured for tongue position angles. In total, averaged tongue position angles were calculated based on the preliminary tongue position angles of 56 frames (see Table 2.2 for details). Table 2.2: Number of preliminary tongue position angles Test condition # of extracted frames for preliminary tongue position angles Consonants: a + fs, s, q, f, zj +9 10 (2 per consonant) ISP 2 C-V CV: 20 Interactions: si/su i:2 u: 2 zi/zu i:2 u: 2 si/su i:2 u:2 qi/qu i:2 u:2 Ti/Tu i:2 u:2 VC: 20 is/us i:2 u:2 iz/uz i:2 u: 2 is /us i:2 u:2 iq/uq i:2 u:2 i?/u? i:2 u: 2 baseline /i/ 2 baseline /u/ 2 Total 28 56 Once these preliminary angles were measured, values were inputted into Microsoft Excel, where angles for tongue root, tongue dorsum, and tongue body were averaged. These averaged tongue position angles served as the actual angles along which tongue root, dorsum, and body distance measurements were made for all test condition consonants and vowels. To examine the articulation of retracted consonants and determine the degree of retraction on neighbouring vowels, distances from the transducer to the tongue root, dorsum, and body were measured. Using NIH Image, a line from the hypothetical transducer centre was drawn up to the tongue root, tongue dorsum, and tongue body. According to Stone (1997), the surface of the tongue is located "between the white reflection and the black [tongue] tissue" (1997: 20) in the ultrasound image. As a result, the distance line was measured from the transducer centre up to the underside of the bright white reflection line for each respective tongue position, as exemplified in Figure 2.8. These distance values were then recorded (in centimeters) and used for statistical analyses. In some cases, an intervening hyoid bone, represented in the ultrasound image as a black shadow, obscured the image of the tongue root (see Figure 2.9). When this happened, the tongue root distance could not be measured. Similarly, a black shadow was sometimes present in the anterior portion of the tongue, often obscuring measurement of the tongue body23. As a result, the tongue body distance measurement was not measured in these instances. This shadow may be the result of an intervening mandible or a large air pocket between the underside of the tongue and the floor of the mouth (Stone 1997). Figure 2.8: TR, TD, and TB distance measures 36 2004Nov20 12:13 Figure 2.9: Image of an intervening hyoid bone All articulatory results measured from the ultrasound data are presented qualitatively through the use of overlaid tongue tracings made via Drawing tools of Microsoft Word, as used by McDowell (2004) and Campbell (2004). Each tracing is taken from the token whose individual TR, TD, TB position values best approximated the statistical mean for each segmental group. By overlaying a tracing of the tongue surface for one context onto that of another (or onto multiple context tracings), the mean shape of the tongue during the production of a consonant/vowel is visually compared against the mean shape of the tongue during the production of another consonant/vowel. 2.5.1.1 Interspeech rest position To assess whether a particular consonant's articulation involves retraction, a neutral tongue position, exhibiting a nonretracted and nonadvanced articulatory setting, should act as a comparative baseline. For the current study, inter-utterance speech rest position (ISP) serves as this neutral articulatory baseline. Gick et al. (2004: 229) describes ISP as a "language-specific speech posture to which the articulators return between utterances." Furthermore, McDowell (2004: 31) found the tongue root position of ISP lying between that of the low vowel [a] and that of mid and high vowels [e] and [i] in Montana Salish, suggesting that ISP occupies a "medial position within language inventory." Therefore, it is assumed that ISP represents a medial (neutral) position between retracted and nonretracted segments within the language inventory. Note that for the current study, neither the plain counterpart (s [f]) to the retracted coronal fricative s nor schwa [a] could be used as a neutral baseline for St'at'imcets. Although coronal consonant s [fl has a nonretracted articulation, this consonant is produced with an advanced tongue dorsum and root position; therefore, all segments without an advanced tongue position equivalent to s [T] will appear as retracted (e.g. when compared to s [f], nonretracted Ikl will appear as retracted even though it is not a retracted consonant). The neutral vowel schwa [a] was also not used as a baseline measure because its phonetic output is highly dependent on the articulation of other segments in its environment (Czaykowska-Higgins & Kinkade 1998). In fact, there are very few cases where schwa surfaces as [si]. Using Adobe Premiere 6.5, 10 tokens of ISP distributed across the 250 token stimuli list were identified and extracted. Due to the use of a carrier phrase in the present study, ISP was located within the pause between successive carrier phrases, namely after the phrase final [a?] of Uxwalmixwca and before the following phrase initial [w] of wdTikai. Although this local context might be affecting the position of the ISP (E. Vatikiotis-Bateson p.c, S. Bird p.c.)24, such effects are controlled for in this study by consistently extracting ISP from the pause between carrier phrases. According to Gick et al. (2004), ISP occurred at a "period when the articulators had finished moving after articulating the previous sentence/word but before articulators started moving to articulate the following sentence/word" (Gick et al. 2004:223). Thus, within the "inter-carrier phrase pause," three tongue postures phases were visible: 1) a tongue position showing the perservatory articulation of phrase-final [ae] and moving to (2); 2) a medial tongue position between the low position of [ae] (1) and the high position of [w] (3); and, (3) movement from (2) to a high tongue position anticipating the phrase-initial [w]. Though likely that the local context affects the position of the ISP, the exact extent of such effects remains to be seen (Wilson 2006). 38 Figure 2.10 below illustrate tongue position phases (1), (2), and (3), respectively. These phases were consistently found for participants GNd, AJP, and VB; however in addition, 25 VB exhibited a quick tap of the tongue in the alveolar area between phases (1) and (2) . s -_S_ -» 'JL ' 74 "74 IA cm cm cm 2004Nov20 14:27 2004Nov20 14:27 2004Nov20 14:27 (1) (ii) (Mi) Figure 2.10: (i) Phase 1 (ii) Phase 2 (iii) Phase 3 Based on these three phases, ISP was identified as phase (2), a position that occurred after the perservatory phrase-final articulation and before the anticipatory phrase-initial articulation. An ISP frame was extracted at the temporal midpoint of phase (2) 26. 2.5.2 Acoustic Analysis To examine vowel retraction effects, the first, second, and third formants of vowels li, u/ adjacent to both retracted and nonretracted consonants were measured. Formants Fl, F2, and F3 were analyzed because of their correlations with tongue body height, tongue body backness, and tongue root retraction. According to tube resonance models and perturbation theory (Kent & Read 1992; Pickett 1999; Borden, Harris, & Raphael 2003), Fl correlates with the amount of constriction in the oropharyngeal area of the vocal tract. The greater the constriction in the front oral portion of the vocal tract, as achieved by the raising of the tongue body, then the lower Fl will be. Furthermore, Fl will increase with the lowering of the tongue body, which indicates the lessening of an oral constriction. Tongue body height also impacts the pharyngeal region of the vocal 25 Note: data from participant GN1 was not analyzed due to unclear ultrasound images. 26 For more discussion on the possible effects of this particular method for selecting ISP, refer to section 3.3. 39 tract. Due to the volume-preserving nature of the tongue, lowering/compressing the tongue body would force displaced tongue volume towards the pharyngeal wall, resulting in tongue root retraction, both of which are represented by Fl raising (Pickett 1999). Accordingly, Fl represents tongue body height and tongue root retraction. F2 is correlated with constriction in the oropharyngeal region of the vocal tract. However, it is the location of the lingual constriction, and the resultant length of the oral cavity in front of the constriction, that affects F2 (Pickett 1999, Borden, Harris, & Raphael 2003). Constriction of the tongue body in the front area of the oral cavity shortens the cavity in front of the constriction (and lengthens the pharyngeal cavity), affecting a rise in F2. When the tongue body is constricted further back in the oral cavity, the cavity anterior to the constriction is lengthened (thus shortens the pharyngeal cavity), leading to a lowering of F2. As a result, F2 is linked to the location of the tongue body in the front-back dimension. Finally, the third formant, F3, is indicative of tongue root retraction towards the pharyngeal wall. Constriction of the tongue root towards the pharyngeal wall is correlated to the lowering of F3. However, F3 is more complicated than Fl and F2 because F3 is affected by constrictions/expansions at more regions of the vocal tract than Fl and F2: while F2 lowering is associated with constrictions at the lips and in the pharyngeal area, F3 lowering is associated with "constrictions at the lips, palate, and pharynx" (Kent & Read 1992:27). Therefore, a general backing of the tongue towards the rear pharyngeal wall produces different effects on F3 depending on the specific pharyngeal location of the constriction, as well as constrictions/expansions at other loci along the vocal tract. Generally, a constriction in the lower pharynx, caused by tongue root retraction, is correlated with a lowering of F3, while a constriction towards the uvular region of the pharynx is correlated with F3 rising (Kent & Read 1992, Borden, Harris, & Raphael 2003, McDowell 2004). Another factor that may complicate the interpretation of Fl, F2, F3 as TB height, TB backness, and TR retractedness is that a constriction at the lips acts to lower all formant frequencies. It appears then that the indirect one-to-many mapping of acoustics-to-articulations (Stevens & House 1955) will benefit from supplemental articulatory ultrasound imaging data. 40 All acoustic measurements were made using Praat version 4.1.1.3, a freeware program available on the Internet at www.praat.org. Using the textgrid function of Praat, the vowel adjacent to the desired consonant was labeled and segmented for each token. Once vowel boundaries were defined, formant values of Fl, F2, and F3 were measured at various points of the vowel's duration using the scripting and formant listing functions available in Praat. Where formant markers skewed from the actual formant band, the formant value was extracted manually. For a complete report of the measurements analyzed in this study, refer to section 4.1.2.2. Quantitative acoustic results are presented in Chapter 4. 41 Chapter 3: The Articulatory Makeup of St'at'imcets Retracted Consonants It is clear from previous descriptions of St'at'imcets consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, ?w, f', ?'w, c. c\ Sj I [', and Lower dialect z, z' and their effect of lowering/retracting adjacent vowels that the articulation of these consonants involves some physical property of tongue retraction. In the ultrasound image, retraction is observable in comparisons of the tongue dorsum (TD) and root (TR) positions of retracted consonants to TD/TR positions of a neutral articulatory vocal tract setting, namely interspeech rest position (Gick et al. 2004; see section 2.5.1.1 for a description of interspeech rest position). If all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets share a property of retraction, then it is expected that the distance measured of the TD and/or TR position from the ultrasound transducer will be greater for St'at'imcets retracted consonants than those of interspeech rest position. In contrast, nonretracted consonants in St'at'imcets will lack a retracted tongue position, such that the TR and/or TD distance measurement of the plain nonretracted s will be equivalent to those of interspeech rest position. While all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets appear to share this general property of tongue retraction, evidence presented in Chapter 1 suggests that the articulation of retracted consonants q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw, T, Tw, T ,wand Lower dialect z, z' involves a constriction in the upper pharyngeal space, while the articulation of retracted coronal consonants c, c \ s, I V involves a lower pharyngeal constriction. In the articulatory data collected from ultrasound, the height and distance of the maximum pharyngeal constriction for q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, ?w, ?', T'w and Lower dialect z is thus predicted to be equivalent. In addition, the height and distance of the maximum pharyngeal constriction for consonants c, c \ s, I V is expected to be lower than that of q, qw,q', q'w, x, xw, T, Tw, T', ?,wand Lower dialect z, z'. Finally, the articulatory difference between Lower St'at'imcets z, z' and Upper St'at'imcets z, z' is also examined. Previous studies on St'at'imcets indicate that Lower z, z' is made with a retracted tongue position and causes a retraction/lowering effect on an 42 adjacent vowel (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Shahin 1997, 2002). In contrast, Upper dialect z, z' lacks this vowel retraction effect, thereby indicating that Upper z, z' is not produced with a retraction movement of the tongue towards the rear pharyngeal wall. This dialectical difference in articulation is expected to appear in the TD and/or TR positions of z, z', wherein the difference between the TD/TR positions of Lower St'at'imcets z, z' and interspeech rest is predicted to be greater than the difference between the TD/TR positions of Upper St'at'imcets z, z' and interspeech rest. The present chapter examines the physiological configuration of St'at'imcets retracted consonants, using the articulatory makeup of interspeech rest position (Gick et al. 2004) as a measure of comparison. Methods used specifically for the investigation of tongue positions for St'at'imcets consonants q, ?, s, z, s will be presented in the next section, with articulatory results of the above consonants presented in section 3.2. Finally, section 3.3 contains a concluding discussion of the results for St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation. 3.1 Methodology specific to St'at'imcets consonantal articulation For a detailed description of the general methodology, including the experimental equipment and procedure employed in this study, refer to Chapter 2. The stimuli and analyses used specifically for the investigation of St'at'imcets consonant articulation are discussed here. 3.1.1 Stimuli As stated in section 2.3, of the St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, qw, q', q 'w, x, xw, f, £w, 5T'w, c, c', s, I V, and Lower dialect z, z, only q, ?, £ and z are examined in this study. To determine the physiological makeup of the above retracted consonants, words containing these consonants flanked by phonological schwa were selected, e.g. teqen [tAqsn] "to touch, tr.". As is common in most Salish languages, the surface quality of 43 schwa is highly dependent on any consonant in its environment (Czaykowska-Higgins & Kinkade 1998). For example, hi surfaces as [u] when "between rounded velars and after w w': kwdkwa? [kwakwae?] 'grandmother'" (van Eijk 1997: 11), but surfaces as [a] when "between labials and/or unrounded velars: pdpla? [paplas?] 'one animal'" (van Eijk 1997: 11). This suggests that articulatory targets for St'at'imcets schwa might not be specified underlyingly and thus, would reflect the articulatory targets of neighbouring consonants27. Morphological structure and stress assignment are controlled for as much as possible. The context of schwa-C-schwa is achieved by attaching a -an transitivizing suffix to a root-final aC With regards to retracted coronal consonant s, it was often not possible to flank the consonant by schwa; no word containing the sequence aCa was familiar to participants VB, GNd, and GN1. Instead, a word containing the retracted consonant s preceded by schwa and followed by a voiceless labial stop (e.g. lasp [Usp] "to get caved in") was collected for this test condition. For all consonantal test conditions, stress fell on the initial schwa, CaC-an. Words with s [fl flanked by schwa were also collected and analyzed to exemplify the nonretracted tongue position for the plain counterpart of the retracted coronal s. To further delineate the distinction between retracted and nonretracted tongue position, words with the velar stop Ikl were also qualitatively analyzed in comparison to the uvular stop q. Because tokens of Ikl were not collected in the same test contexts as the other consonants, quantitative comparisons are not possible. 3.1.2 Analysis To determine the physiological property/degree of retraction, tongue positions for q, ?, s, z were compared against those of interspeech rest position (Gick et al. 2004; see 27 The dependence of schwa's articulatory target on targets of its surrounding contexts is also observed in Browman & Goldstein's (1992) study of American English. A more recent study of American English schwa indicates that relative to rest position, American English schwa exhibits a retracted tongue root target (Gick 2002). This leaves open the question of whether St'at'imcets schwa is truly targetless. 44 section 2.5.1.1), which acted as a baseline for a nonretracted tongue position. Tongue positions for the nonretracted consonant s [f] were also analyzed for comparison to its retracted counterpart s. Articulatory analysis of consonantal tongue positions collected from ultrasound technology involved three steps. First, using Adobe Premiere 6.5, the frame exhibiting the consonant's peak constriction posture was extracted. The peak constriction posture for the stop consonant q was identified as the point where the tongue root reached its maximum retracted position, often occurring a few frames before the release of the stop (see Figure 3.1). The maximum constriction gesture for continuants, fricatives and resonants, was also realized as the point where the TR reached maximum retraction, often occurring at the midpoint of the continuant, as identified in the waveform timeline. Figure 3.1 illustrates the process of peak constriction frame extraction for the uvular stop consonant q. The series of ultrasound images progresses from the movement towards the stop closure (frame #1-4) to the closure (frame #5), and then movement away from the closure (frame #6-8). Because frame #5 best represents the maximum retracted position of the tongue root during the stop closure, this frame is extracted as the peak constriction point of the uvular stop q. frame # 1 frame #2 frame #3 frame #4 vb SBHUHHMHHHHHHHi ESflHHHMHNMHMMNMMNM •? J C15 a * " 7 4 2004Nov21 16:58 C15 a * cm 2004Nov21 16 5* C15 ' a cm 2004Now21 16 58 \ • 8 cm 2004No«21 16 58 ms. J • j • 1 • J OB 8 - 7 4 cm 2004Nov21 16 58 OH C15 8 cm 2004Nov21 16.58 OB C15 ' 8 cm 2004Nov21 1658 OB C_15 8 * / 4 2004Nov21 16 58 frame #5 frame #6 frame #7 frame #8 Figure 3.1: Frame extraction process After relevant frames had been extracted, angles representing the position of the tongue dorsum (TD) and tongue root (TR) were located (refer to section 2.5.1 for a 45 detailed description of how these tongue position angles were found). Because of anatomical differences in vocal tract size and shape between speakers, the transducer position and tongue position angle differed across participants (e.g. TR angle for VB was 38°, while TR angle for AJP was 40.68°). Finally, using the linear measurement tool of NIH Image v. 1.63, a line was drawn from the transducer centre along the angle of the TD and TR up to the underside of the bright line representing the surface of the TD and TR. This value (in centimeters) was recorded and used to compare TD/TR distance measurements across consonants. In some cases, a hyoid bone shadow completely obscured the image of the TR surface, thus preventing measurement of the TR. Results are presented in section 3.2. 3.2 Results All tongue dorsum (TD) and tongue root (TR) measurements were inputted into StatView 5.0.1 for statistical analyses. To better illustrate the differences in physical composition between the St'at'imcets consonants under examination, overlaid tracings of the tongue surface are presented alongside the statistical results. Each consonant is presented separately, beginning with the uvular stop q, followed by the uvular or pharyngeal approximant f, the retracted coronal fricative s, and the dental voiced fricative z. All ultrasound images presented in this section are taken at the midsagittal cross-section of the tongue, with the tongue tip located on the right and the posterior of the tongue located on the left. Note that for each participant, the true vertical position of the participant's head is askew. True vertical for VB, GNd, and AJP would appear if the image were rotated 25°, 22°, and 18° counter-clockwise from a vertical line drawn in the centre of the image, respectively. As a result, retraction of the TR/TD is seen as movement towards the left and to some extent up. 46 3.2.1 Uvular stop "q" Figures 3.2-3.4 illustrates a comparison of the articulatory difference between the St'at'imcets uvular stop q [q] and interspeech rest position (ISP) for participants VB, GNd, and AJP, respectively. A tracing of the St'at'imcets velar stop k [k] is also presented to illustrate the difference in constriction location between the uvular and velar stops. Quantitative information regarding TR/TD position for all participants is presented in Table 3.1. (L) and (U) refer to the dialect spoken by the participant, where (L) represents the Lower dialect and (U) represented the Upper dialect. 47 2004Nov20 12:05 Figure 3.3: Tracings of q, ISP, k for GNd (U) uvular TD velar . m cm 2004Nov20 14:35 Figure 3.4: Tracings of q, ISP, k for AJP (U) Table 3.1: TR/TD positions of q versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP Participant Effect TR Mean Dill, (cm) Sig. Level Effect TD Mean Dill, (cm) Sig. Level VB(L) q>ISP 1.142 p < .0001 q>ISP 0.869 p < .0001 GNd (U) q>ISP 1.374 p < .0001 q>ISP 0.992 p < .0001 AJP(U) q>ISP 1.199 p < .0001 q>ISP 0.463 p < .0001 48 For all participants, unpaired t-tests found a significant difference between the tongue root (TR) positions of the q and ISP (p < .0001 for all participants) (for mean values, see Table 3.1). All mean differences were positive, thus indicating that q is significantly more retracted in the TR region than ISP. This is seen in Figures 3.2-3.4 wherein at the TR area, the surface line of the uvular stop is further to the left and slightly above the surface line of ISP. Regarding the tongue dorsum (TD) position, unpaired t-tests found a significant difference in TD position between ISP and the uvular stop q for all participants (p < .0001 for all). This t-test found a positive difference in TD position between the two, thus showing the uvular stop q to have a significantly more retracted TD position than ISP, as seen in Figures 3.2-3.4, with the uvular stop having a higher and backed position than ISP. Finally, with regards to the distinction between uvular and velar articulation, Figures 3.2-3.4 also include a tracing of the tongue surface during the production of k, taken from the carrier phrase word walked [waeikasf ] (third person plural imperfective) "we." These figures illustrate sizeable differences in TD constriction location and TR position between uvular and velar stops. The TD constriction of the uvular is more towards the upper left corner of the image, while that of the velar is more upwards than leftwards. Regarding the TR position, the uvular stop has extreme TR retraction, while that of the velar stop is relatively close to the TR position of ISP. 3.2.2 Uvular/pharyngeal approximant "Y" Previous literature has described the St'at'imcets "f" as a pharyngeal approximant (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992, 1998ab), as a uvular approximant (Shahin 1997, 2002), and as a uvular-pharyngeal resonant (Kinkade 1967). As mentioned in Chapter 1, these articulatory descriptions have relied solely on indirect evidence. Figures 3.5-3.7 illustrate the articulation of f in comparison to ISP and St'at'imcets uvular stop q (which will be discussed in later). Table 3.2 presents relevant statistical data and analyses. 49 Figure 3.5: Tracings of V, ISP, q for VB (L) Figure 3.6: Tracings off, ISP, q for GNd (U) 50 Figure 3.7: Tracings of ?, ISP, q for AJP (U) Table 3.2: TR/TD positions of? versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP Participant Effect TR Mean Dill, (cm) Sig. Level Effect TD Mean Dill, (cm) Sig. Level VB(L) Y>ISP 0.878 p < .0001 ?>ISP 0.818 p < .0001 GNd (U) ?>ISP 1.092 p < .0001 ?>ISP 0.893 p < .0001 AJPfU) ?>ISP 1.004 p < .0001 ?>ISP 0.317 p < .0001 Unpaired t-tests found a significant difference between the tongue root (TR) positions of ? and ISP (p < .0001) for all participants. Mean differences in TR position between fand ISP ranged from 0.878-1.092cm with fas significantly more retracted than ISP. Figures 3.5-3.7 illustrate this difference in TR articulation where f has a greater protrusion leftwards at the TR area than does ISP. Regarding the tongue dorsum (TD) position, unpaired t-tests found a significant difference in TD position between ISP and the uvular stop ? for all participants (p < .0001). A positive mean difference in TD position was found between the two, thus showing St'at'imcets f to have a significantly more retracted TD position than ISP, as seen in Figures 3.5-3.7, with the surface line of the St'at'imcets f in the TD area having a higher and more backed position than the surface line of the ISP in the TD region. SI Results presented above indicate that T is produced with both a retracted TD and TR position, as seen in Figures 3.5-3.7. Also illustrated in Figures 3.5-3.7 is the similarity in tongue position between f and the uvular stop q. Looking at TR mean values of q (Table 3.1) and f (Table 3.2), it appears that the former has a more back TR position than the latter. Unpaired t-tests show that for all participants, this TR difference between ? and q is significant (p = .0049, p = .0065, p = .0007 for VB, GNd, AJP, respectively), indicating that the St'at'imcets uvular stop exhibits more TR retraction (by approximately 2-3mm) than f. With regards to TD position (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.2), for participants VB and GNd, unpaired t-tests show no significant difference between q and f (p = .4869 for VB, p = .0629 for GNd); therefore, q and f share a TD position. Contrastively, for participant AJP unpaired t-tests indicate a significant mean difference in TD position between q and f (p = .0006) with a mean difference of 0.146cm, thus indicating that for AJP alone, the uvular stop q has a more retracted TD position than f. 3.2.3 Retracted coronal fricative "s" The final St'at'imcets retracted consonant under investigation in this study is the retracted coronal fricative s. A comparison of the articulation of s to interspeech rest position (ISP) is illustrated in Figures 3.8-3.10 for participants VB, GNd, and AJP, respectively. A tracing of the tongue position for the coronal fricative s [f] is also presented in order to investigate the articulation of the plain (nonretracted) counterpart to s. Mean differences for s and ISP are represented in Table 3.3. 52 S3 s = — • • cm ISP* 2004Nov20 14:35 Figure 3.10: Tracings of s, s, and ISP for AJP (TJ) Table 3.3: TR/TD positions of s versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP Participant Effect TR Mean Di IT. (cm) Sig. Level Effect TD Mean Diff. (cm) Sig. Level VB(L) s>ISP 0.651 p < .0001 NS GNd (U) s>ISP 0.802 p <.0001 s>ISP 0.513 p < .0001 AJP(U) s>ISP 0.801 p <.0001 s>ISP 0.145 p<.01 For the TR measurements of s and ISP, unpaired t-tests found a significant difference between the two TR positions for all participants (p < .0001). Mean differences between s and ISP, as presented in Table 3.3 above, show the TR position of s as more retracted than ISP by approximately 6.5-8mm for all participants. In Figures 3.8-3.10, the surface line of the s at the TR region protrudes further back and upwards than that of ISP, thus illustrating the more retracted TR position of s in comparison to ISP. Unpaired t-tests found no significant difference between the TD position of ISP and s for participant VB (p < .4116), while significant differences exist between the two TD positions for participants GNd (p < .0001) and AJP (p < .01). As seen in Figure 3.8, the tracing of the tongue at the TD region for s is very close to that of the ISP, but in Figures 3.9-3.10, this TD area of s is much greater than that of ISP. Mean differences in TD position between s and ISP confirm this difference, where for GNd and AJP, the TD position of s is 1.5-8mm further away from the transducer centre than the TD position of 54 ISP, but for VB, the mean difference between the TD positions of s and ISP is less than 1mm (Table 3.3). How does the articulation of the retracted consonants s differ from its plain (nonretracted) counterpart s? As seen in Figures 3.8-3.10, s appears to have a more fronted articulation than s, where s lacks the backed TR and TD position found in s. Additionally, these consonants differ visibly in the tongue body (TB) region with s having a higher TB than s. Unpaired t-tests show that for all participants, the TR position of s is significantly more retracted than that of s by approximately 4-11mm (p < .0001 for each participant). Similar tests indicate that the TD of s_ significantly extends farther from the transducer centre than that of s by approximately l-3mm (p < .03, p < .001, p < .0001 for VB, GNd, and AJP, respectively). While the articulation of s has been shown to be more retracted than ISP and s, it is worth comparing the retracted articulation of s with that of retracted consonants q and ?29. Such a comparison is illustrated in Figures 3.11-3.13 below. Notice that for participant VB (L) (Figure 3.11), the retracted coronal fricative £ has less expansion of the TR and TD than q and f. Furthermore, retraction for VB's s appears to be primarily in the TR position. In contrast, the articulation of s for GNd and AJP (both U) seems to pattern closely with that of f, with retraction both at the TR and TD position (Figures 3.12-3.13). The articulation of s is also compared to that of z later in this chapter (section 3.2.4). 55 2004Nov20 14:35 Figure 3.13: Tracings of q, f, s, and ISP for AJP (U) One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests indicate that significant differences exist in the TR between ISP, q, £ and s for each participant (for VB: [F (3, 28) = 98.28, p < .0001], for GNd: [F (3, 32) = 135.27, p < .0001], for AJP: [F (3, 31) = 346.50, p < .0001]). Significant differences also exist in the TD position between ISP, q, £ and s for each participant (for VB: [F (3, 36) = 120.58, p < .0001], for GNd: [F (3, 35) = 118.07, p < .0001], for AJP: [F (3, 36) = 48.98, p < .0001])30. Fisher's PLSD post-hoc tests show that with regards to the TR position, s is significantly less retracted than both q and f for each participant (for q > s: p < .0001 for all participants; for f > s, p = .0036 for VB, p = .0004 for GNd, p < .0001 for AJP). Post-hoc tests (Fisher's PLSD) also indicate that the TD position of s is significantly lower than that of q by approximately 3-9mm for all participants (p < .0001 for all participants). In addition, s for all participants has a significantly lower TD position than that of T by approximately 2-9mm (p < .0001 for VB and GNd, p = .0002 for AJP). The above statistical results indicate that while retracted consonants q, £ and s all involve general retraction in comparison to interspeech rest position, the overall shape of s differs from that shared by q and f across all participants. Furthermore, the retracted For more detail, see Figures C1-C6 in Appendix C. S7 status of s differs between participants, such that the primary location of retraction for VB's s appears to be in the lower pharynx, whereas retraction for GNd/AJP's s occurs both in the upper and lower pharynx. 3.2.4 Dental/interdental fricative "z" As discussed in Chapter 1, previous literature on St'at'imcets has identified two articulations of z, differentiated based on the dialect of St'at'imcets spoken, where Lower St'at'imcets z z' is claimed to have a retracted tongue position not found in the z of Upper St'at'imcets (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992, Shahin 1997, 2002). Initial impressionistic and acoustic observations support the distinction between Upper and Lower St'at'imcets z z' articulation, where Upper z surfaces generally as a voiced dental fricative [z], with some instances of [s] (see Figure 3.14 below), and Lower z appears to be a voiceless denti-alveolar fricative with a short voiced interdental fricative onset, represented phonetically here as [ds] (see Figure 3.15 below). z[z] qwezen 2.96519 3.64465 Time (s) Figure 3.14: Spectrograph of Upper St'at'imcets z [z] S8 Time (s) [8] [s] Time (s) Figure 3.15: Spectrograph of Lower St'at'imcets z [ s] Regarding the articulatory difference between Lower St'at'imcets z and Upper St'at'imcets z, previous articulatory descriptions and the observation of a pattern of adjacent vowel retraction similar to uvulars q [q] and f [v] led to the hypothesis that Lower St'at'imcets z z' would exhibit a retracted tongue position relative to the nonretracted position of Upper St'at'imcets z z'. Examination of Figure 3.16 in relation to Figures 3.17-3.18 and comparison of mean values/differences in Table 3.4 reveals this distinction 31 31Due to the difference in absolute placement of the transducer across participants, a direct comparison of each participant's z articulation to that of other participants is not possible. Figure 3.16: Tracings of z and ISP for VB (L) Figure 3.17: Tracings of z and ISP for GNd (U) 60 Figure 3.18: Tracings of z and ISP for AJP (U) Table 3.4: TR/TD positions of z versus ISP for participants VB, GNd, AJP Participant TR Effect Mean Diff. Sig. (cm) Level TD Effect Mean Diff. Sig. Level (cm) VB(L) GNd (U) AJP(U) z>ISP 0.489 p<.0001 NS z<ISP 0.151 p=.0144 NS z > ISP 0.244 p = .0001 z<ISP 0.161 p=.0009 Unpaired t-tests found no significant difference between the tongue root (TR) positions of z and ISP for participant GNd (p = .0645). For participants VB and AJP however, unpaired t-tests found significant differences in the TR position of z and ISP (p < .0001 and p = .0144, respectively). Mean differences between z and ISP show the TR position of z for VB as more retracted than ISP by 5mm, while for AJP, the TR position of ISP is more retracted than z by approximately 2mm (see Table 3.4 above). This difference in TR position for z between VB and AJP is seen in Figures 3.16 and 3.18, where in Figure 3.16, the surface line of the z at the TR area is located further to the left and higher than that of ISP, but in Figure 3.18, the TR surface line area is to the right of the ISP. As to the TD position of St'at'imcets z, unpaired t-tests with a hypothesized mean difference of zero, found no significant difference between ISP and z for participant VB (p = .4116), implying that for VB, ISP and z share a TD position. For participants GNd 61 and AJP, the TD position of z was found to be significantly different from the TD position of ISP (p = .0001 for GNd, p = .0009 for AJP). Looking at Table 3.4, mean differences in TD position between z and ISP for GNd and AJP occurred in different directions: for GNd, a positive mean difference in TD position was found between the z and ISP indicating that z is approximately 2mm further away from the transducer centre than ISP (see Figure 3.17); however, for AJP, a negative difference between z and ISP was found showing z to be closer to the transducer centre than ISP by 1.61mm (see Figure 3.18). The presence of TD retraction in participant GNd's z leads to the question of whether the TR retraction of Lower St'at'imcets z justifies its retracted status in relation to Upper St'at'imcets z. To determine the retracted or nonretracted status of z for VB, GNd, and AJP it is worth examining whether z patterns with other similarly articulated retracted and/or nonretracted consonants in the St'at'imcets phonemic inventory. In the current study, it is possible to compare the articulation of z with that of the retracted s [s] and nonretracted s [T], all of which are coronal fricative articulations. Figures 3.19-3.21 illustrate surface tongue tracings for these consonants for participants VB, GNd, and AJP. For Lower dialect speaker VB (Figure 3.19), the surface line of z in the TR, TD, and even TB regions more closely resembles that of s [s]. Figures 3.20-3.21 indicate that the surface line of z for GNd and AJP more closely patterns with s in the TD and TR • 32 region . The tongue body position of z does not resemble that of s because the articulation of s occurs in the post-alveolar region of the vocal tract, while z has a denti-alveolar place of articulation. 62 Figure 3.19: Tracings of z, s, s for VB (L) s = — • • cm z=-- 2004Nov20 12:19 Figure 3.20: Tracings of z, s, s for GNd (U) 63 Figure 3.21: Tracings of z, s, s for AJP (U) A one-way analysis of variance found significant clusters within each participant's datasets for TR position (VB: [F (3, 33) = 51.15, p < .0001], GNd: [F (3, 34) = 104.11, p < .0001], AJP: [F (3, 33) = 164.93, p < .0001]) and TD positions (VB: [F (3, 35) = 4.49, p = .0091], GNd: [F (3, 35) = 25.53, p < .0001], AJP: [F (3, 36) = 17.12, p < .0001]) (see Figures C7-C12, Appendix C). Fisher's PLSD post-hoc tests show that for participant VB, the TR position of z was less retracted than that of s (p = .0087) but more retracted than that of s (p = .0002), while the TD position of z was more retracted than that of s (p = .0134) but equivalent to that of s (p = .9807). Post-hoc tests (Fisher's PLSD) for participant GNd indicate that both the TR and TD positions of z are equivalent to those of s (for TR: p = .1530; for TD: p = .8894) and are less retracted than those of s (p < .0001 for TR and TD). Finally, post-hoc tests (Fisher's PLSD) for participant AJP show that both the TR and TD positions of z are less retracted than those of s (p < .0001 for TR and TD). Interestingly, with respect to s, AJP's z has a more retracted TR position (p = .0444) but shares its TD position with s (p = 3648). Although AJP's z patterns with VB's z in having a more retracted TR than s, recall that the TR position of AJP's z is less retracted than that of ISP while VB's z is more retracted than her ISP. A summary of these results is presented in Table 3.5. 64 Table 3.5: TR/TD comparisons of z, & s for VB (L), GNd (u), AJP (u) VB(L) GNd (U) AJP(U) TR s > z > s (ISP) s>s,z s >(ISP >)z>s TD s_, z> s s>s,z s>s,z Table 3.5 demonstrates that when compared to similarly articulated retracted and nonretracted consonants s [s] and s UJ, respectively, the articulation of Upper dialect z [z] appears to pattern with that of nonretracted consonant s in both TR and TD positions, rather than with the articulation of retracted coronal s [s]. In contrast, the articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z [ds], as spoken by participant VB, appears to correspond more closely to that of the retracted coronal s [s] rather than that of the nonretracted coronal s [Tj. Therefore, regardless of the more posterior TD position of participant GNd's z, the articulation of Upper St'at'imcets z [z] is not considered retracted, whereas Lower St'at'imcets z [ds] is retracted. Most studies on St'at'imcets have categorized Lower z with post-velar consonants in its ability to retract/lower an immediately preceding vowel (van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992). This claim suggests that consonants q, £, and Lower z share some physical property of retraction. Overlaid tongue tracings of these consonants are presented in Figure 3.22 in order to examine the possibility of q, £ and Lower z sharing a TR/TD position. 65 Figure 3.22: Tracings of q, f, z, ISP for VB (L) Results from a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) show significantly different clusters within the data set of TR position for ISP, q, f, and z ([F (3, 29) = 99.49, p < .0001) and within the data set of TD position ([F (3, 35) = 139.25, p < .0001) (see Figures C13-C14 in Appendix C). Fisher's PLSD post-hoc tests indicate significant differences in TR and TD positions between q and T with those of z (where p < .0001 was found for the pairings q: z and ?: z for both TD and TR position). As seen in Figure 3.2 above, the TR and TD positions of z is significantly less than those for q and J"33. While Figure 3.16 and Table 3.4 above found participant VB's z to have a more retracted TR position than that of ISP, the degree of this retraction is not equivalent to the TR (and TD) retraction involved in producing St'at'imcets q and/or f. It is worth noting that the direction of pharyngeal constriction for Lower St'at'imcets z l^s] does not move towards the upper pharynx as initially hypothesized. Instead, the tongue root moves into the lower pharyngeal space, thus verifying the articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z fs] as patterning with retracted coronal s [s], rather than with uvulars q [q] and f [K]. All results presented in section 3.2 will now be discussed further in the following section. 33 For mean values, refer to Tables 3.1-3.2 and 3.4. 66 3.3 Discussion As seen in the data presented in the previous section, it is clear that the articulation of St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, f, s and Lower dialect z involves a general property of tongue retraction. For each participant, the distance of the tongue root and/or tongue dorsum positions of consonants q, <i, s from the transducer centre were found to be significantly larger than the distance from the transducer centre to the tongue root/dorsum measures of interspeech rest position (ISP). With respect to the voiced fricative z, a similar pattern was found for the z of the Lower dialect, wherein the distance in tongue root position from the transducer was greater for z than for ISP. These results indicate that in relation to a neutral articulatory configuration (namely, ISP), the above consonants require retraction of the tongue into the rear pharyngeal space of the vocal tract. Results from the articulatory data examined in the current study show many similarities between the articulation of the St'at'imcets back consonant f and that of the St'at'imcets uvular consonant q. Figures 3.5-3.7 illustrate that both q and f exhibit a more retracted tongue root and dorsum position than those of ISP, as well as those of retracted segments s, z (L) (Figures 3.11-3.13 and Figure 3.22). Secondly, the height of the maximum pharyngeal constriction for ? occurs in roughly the same upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular region as that of q. Finally, both q and f show a secondary tongue root constriction in the lower pharynx (Figures 3.5-3.7). Therefore, rather than being a voiced pharyngeal approximant [?], f appears to be a voiced uvular approximant [K]; this finding is consistent with those of Kinkade (1967) and Shahin (1997, 2002). Although the articulation of q [q] and f [K] share many similarities, a difference emerges between the two when examining the relative degree of retraction present for each consonant. For each participant, the tongue position of the uvular stop was generally more retracted and higher than that of the uvular approximant. This is due to the inherent difference in manner of articulation between a stop and an approximant, where the former requires "complete closure of the articulators involved" (Ladefoged 67 2001: 8), while the latter needs only an approximation of one articulator to another. As a result, a higher degree of retraction for q relative to f facilitates the upper-pharyngeal/posterior-uvular occlusion needed by the stop consonant. Turning now to the St'at'imcets retracted coronal s, articulatory data analyzed in section 3.2.3 indicate that for each participant, the distance of the TR from the transducer was greater for s than for ISP, thus confirming that the articulation of s involves physical tongue retraction and may be represented phonetically as [s]. The articulation of retracted coronal s [s] was also compared against the articulation of its plain counterpart s [TJ. Results from all participants show that the distance of the TR and TD from the transducer for s [s] was greater than that of s [fl; thus corroborating that while s is retracted, s is not34. Looking at Figures 3.8-3.10, two interesting differences appear in the articulation of s across participants. First, articulatory results of Table 3.3 indicate that while TD retraction is present in the articulation of s for participants GNd and AJP (U), it is absent from the s articulation of VB (L). Secondly, the degree of retraction for s [s] differs between participants: the s [s] of VB (L) seems to be less retracted than that of GNd and AJP (U). Mean differences in TD and TR of s [s] and ISP (Table 3.3) quantify this difference in retraction, wherein relative to ISP, the TR position of s for VB is approximately 2mm less retracted than that of GNd and AJP. Furthermore, the TD position of s for VB is less retracted than the TD position of s for GNd and AJP by 1-5mm. What is motivating these differences in retraction between participants? Perhaps the dialectical difference between participants, where VB speaks Lower St'at'imcets and GNd/AJP speak Upper St'at'imcets, is underlying. This hypothesis is supported by the A difference in the location of the primary coronal articulation also exists between retracted 5 and its nonretracted counterpart s. Figures 3.8-3.10 illustrate that the tongue body position of 5 is higher than that of s, with s having a primary constriction in the post-alveolar region of the vocal tract, while s is made with a more front primary constriction, possibly in the denti-alveolar region. However, because ultrasound technology is limited in imaging the surface of the palate, the current data cannot ascertain the precise location of the primary anterior constriction; thus the question regarding the true place of primary articulation is left for future study. 68 geographical proximity of the Lower dialect to Skwxwu7mesh (Squamish), a Coast Salish language located southwest of Lower St'at'imcets area, which has in its phonemic inventory a plain dental fricative s [s] (Kuipers 1967, Bar-el & Watt 1998). Therefore, perhaps the closer proximity of Lower St'at'imcets to Skwxwu7mesh has resulted in the lessening of retraction in Lower St'at'imcets s. Alternatively, the differences in TD retraction and degree of retraction for s between participants may just be variation expected between multiple participants. Further investigation involving more Lower (and Upper) St'at'imcets speakers will clarify this issue. One remaining question is whether the retraction involved in uvular q [q] and f [K] articulation is necessarily distinct from the retraction involved in retracted coronal s [s] articulation. As seen in Figures 3.11-3.13, it is clear that the articulation of uvulars q [q] and f [K] involves both an upper and lower pharyngeal constriction (produced respectively by TD and TR retraction), with its upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular constriction as its primary component. The articulation of retraction for retracted coronal s is not as clear-cut. For participants GNd and AJP (U), s involves both a retracted TD and TR position, thus producing an articulation similar to that of the uvular approximant f [a]. However, for participant VB (L), the articulation of retracted coronals s and z has only a retracted TR position. Because VB's s is still retracted in relation to ISP and its plain counterpart s [f], this might indicate that only the retracted position of the TR is necessary in categorizing St'at'imcets s [s] as retracted; an additional retracted TD position for s [s] might serve to enhance its retractedness (Stevens et al. 1986), but is not crucial for its status as "retracted." Additional support for the articulation of retracted coronal s being mainly tongue root retraction is seen in the articulation of another St'at'imcets retracted coronal, namely z [6s] of the Lower dialect (represented by participant VB). As shown in section 3.2.4, the articulation of VB's z follows that of her s in showing a significant difference in tongue root positions between Lower z [ds] and ISP but no significant difference in tongue dorsum positions between the two. As a result, only retraction of the tongue root towards the lower pharynx is involved in the articulation of Lower z. 69 Finally, it is worth mentioning that the use of interspeech rest position (ISP) (Gick et al. 2004) as a nonretracted baseline articulation might potentially confound the degree of retraction in St'at'imcets retracted consonants between dialects. As described by Gick et al. (2004:229), ISP is a language-specific inter-utterance speech position, whose position may be dependent on the speech sounds of a specific language. If the segmental inventory determines the actual position of ISP, then could the presence of additional retracted consonants in Lower St'at'imcets (namely z z') result in a more retracted ISP for Lower dialect speakers than Upper dialect speakers? If this is the case, then any relative comparisons of retracted articulation between dialects might not be truly representative of the difference in degree of retraction between these dialects. For example, in this study, relative comparisons of uvular consonant q articulation and ISP between Lower and Upper St'at'imcets show a smaller degree of difference in TR position between q and ISP for VB (L) than for GNd/AJP (U) (VB: 1.142cm; GNd: 1.374cm; AJP: 1.199cm). However, if VB's ISP was truly equal to that of GNd/AJP, then perhaps the difference in degree of retraction between q and ISP is actually larger than currently shown. Although ISP could potentially be dialect-specific in addition to language-specific, it is yet to be determined whether ISP is in fact "an effect of the frequency of individual speech sounds in the inventory of a given language" (Gick et al. 2004: 229). Results of the current study have shown that for all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets, physical tongue retraction was involved but the precise location of such retraction differed within the group of retracted consonants. Uvular consonants q [q] and f |K] exhibit a primary locus of constriction towards the upper pharynx, with secondary constriction in the lower pharynx as well. Retracted coronal consonant s [s] shows a constriction towards the lower pharynx, with participants GNd and AJP (both Upper dialect speakers) showing an additional upper pharyngeal constriction for their s articulation. Finally, the retracted coronal z [6s], present only in Lower St'at'imcets (VB), shows only a lower pharyngeal constriction. 70 Chapter 4: Coarticulatory Effects of St'at'imcets Retracted Consonants on adjacent Vowels Previous literature on St'at'imcets reports a process of retraction/lowering on vowels adjacent to retracted consonants q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw, T, Tw, ?', ?'w, c, c \ s, /, /', and Lower dialect z, z' (van Eijk 1997, Bessell 1992, Shahin 1997, 2002). As discussed in Chapter 1, previous literature describes two processes of vowel retraction for St'at'imcets: i) regressive local phonetic retraction triggered by post-velar consonants q, qw, q\ q'w, x, xw, T, Tw, ?', T'w and Lower dialect z z'\ ii) progressive non-local phonological retraction involving "retracted roots" and retracted coronal consonants c, c', I /', whose retraction trigger is unclear. A comparison of the quality of a given vowel in a retracted context with that of the vowel in a nonretracted context (henceforth, "baseline") demonstrates whether the former undergoes retraction. In the ultrasound image, if a given vowel undergoes retraction, it is expected that the distance from the tongue root (TR) and/or tongue dorsum (TD) to the ultrasound transducer will be greater for the vowel in a retracted context than those of the baseline. Furthermore, due to the hydrostatic nature of the tongue, a retracted vowel will show a lower tongue body (TB) position than that of the baseline. With regards to the acoustic signal, a raised Fl, lowered F2, and a raised/lowered F3 (raised if the constriction is towards the upper pharynx, lowered if towards the lower pharynx (McDowell 2004)) is predicted for a vowel in a retracted context versus the baseline. While vowels adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants are predicted to show general backing/lowering, it is worth examining whether the physical differences between retracted consonants are reflected in different coarticulatory effects on a given vowel. Previous studies on St'at'imcets identify only one retracted surface variant of a given vowel, regardless of whether the adjacent retracted consonant is a uvular (Q), 71 Lower dialect zz'(Z (L)), or retracted coronal consonant (C) (e.g. /V/->[Vi]/_Q, Z, C)J3. Results presented in Chapter 3 showed that for participants GNd and AJP (both Upper dialect speakers), uvular consonants q [q] and f [if], as well as the retracted coronal s [s] were articulated with a retracted tongue dorsum and tongue root position, more so for the uvulars than for the retracted coronal consonant. Because both uvulars and retracted coronal s for participants GNd and AJP involve similar retracted tongue positions, it is expected that all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets will produce similar retraction effects on a given vowel. This effect will be seen in the articulatory data wherein the TR, TD, and TB distance measurements of a given vowel adjacent to uvulars is predicted to be not significantly different from those of that vowel adjacent to retracted coronal consonants. Furthermore, the acoustic signal is expected to show formant values of the vowel adjacent to uvular consonants as equivalent to formant values of the vowel adjacent to retracted coronal consonants. The articulation of participant VB's (Lower dialect speaker) retracted consonants differed from those of participants GNd and AJP, thereby suggesting that the coarticulatory effects of VB's retracted consonants on adjacent vowels may be different than those found for participants GNd and AJP. Like GNd and AJP, VB's uvular consonants exhibited a retracted tongue dorsum and root position; however, unlike GNd and AJP, retracted coronals 5 and z showed only a retracted tongue root position. This difference in retracted tongue position between uvulars and retracted coronals suggests that a given vowel will surface with two retracted variants, one when adjacent to uvulars and the other when adjacent to retracted coronal consonants. If such a distinction exists, then it is expected that for participant VB, the TR, TD, and TB distance measurements of a given vowel adjacent to uvulars is significantly different from those of the vowel adjacent to retracted coronals. More specifically, because results of Chapter 3 indicate that uvulars exhibit more tongue retraction than retracted coronals, it is expected that the TR/TD position of a vowel next to uvulars will be greater than the TR/TD position of the vowel next to retracted coronals. Furthermore, to facilitate a more retracted tongue position, the TB position of the former will be significantly lower than that of the latter. 35 «Q „ „z ^ „ act as abbreviations for st'at'imcets uvular consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, x* ?, Tw, f ?'w, retracted Lower dialectz, z', and retracted coronal consonants c, c', $, b [', respectively. 11 With regards to the acoustic data, the Fl, F2, F3 of a vowel adjacent to uvular consonants is predicted to be significantly different from those of the same underlying vowel adjacent to retracted coronal consonants. The current investigation of coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on adjacent vowels also explores the possibility that retraction might not uniformly affect all vowels in the language's inventory. As discussed in Chapter 1, previous studies looking at post-velar consonant-vowel interactions show a disparity in retraction effects that is sensitive to vowel type. For example, Wilson (to appear) found that uvular consonants in Nuuchahnulth (NCN) cause retraction/lowering of an adjacent high front vowel HI, but an adjacent high back vowel lui does not undergo such retraction. It appears then that no conflict in articulation arises between the high back vowel lui and the high back NCN uvular consonant. Returning to St'at'imcets, the articulatory results of Chapter 3 indicate that all St'at'imcets retracted consonants, including uvulars, have a tongue root constriction in the lower pharynx. Recall from Chapter 1 that St'at'imcets vowels li, u, a, a/ ([i, u, se, a] in Upper dialect, [e, o, ae, a] in Lower dialect) have a nonretracted tongue root status; a position that is in direct conflict with the retracted tongue root position of St'at'imcets retracted consonants. Therefore, it is predicted that all vowels in St'at'imcets will undergo retraction/lowering when adjacent to retracted consonants, as exhibited by larger TR/TD and lower TB distance measures from the ultrasound transducer for vowels adjacent to retracted consonants than for those of baseline vowels. In the acoustic signal, higher Fl, lower F2, and higher/lower F3 values for vowels in the retracting condition, as compared to the Fl, F2, F3 of the baseline value, will indicate vowel retraction/lowering. Finally, the current investigation of St'at'imcets retracted consonant-vowel effects also examines the directionality (leftwards vs. rightwards) of retraction in St'at'imcets. Gick & Wilson (in press) (as previously discussed in Chapter 1) indicate that the process of vowel retraction/lowering within a language tends to be asymmetrical in pre- and post-vocalic conditions, such that if vowel retraction/lowering is found in one direction (e.g. rightwards, CV), it will not be mirrored in the other direction (e.g. leftwards, VC). With regards to St'at'imcets, evidence presented in Chapter 1 suggests that local phonetic retraction occurs regressively from St'at'imcets uvulars q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw, ?, Tw, fand Lower dialect z z' onto a preceeding vowel. While previous research concur in noting that Lower dialect z z' do not retract/lower a following vowel, the effect of St'at'imcets consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, f, ?w, T'w on a following vowel is in question. As detailed in Chapter 1, van Eijk (1997) and Shahin (1997, 2002) claim that St'at'imcets vowels /i, u, a, 9/ do not retract when following uvular consonants. In contrast, Bessell (1997) indicates that St'at'imcets vowels do in fact retract/lower following uvular consonants, albeit to a lesser degree than the retraction present in VC conditions. If local vowel retraction in St'at'imcets is solely regressive (van Eijk 1997, Shahin 1997, 2002), then according to Gick & Wilson (2005) a vowel preceding St'at'imcets uvulars and Lower dialect z z' will undergo retraction/lowering, whereas a vowel following such consonants will lack retraction/lowering and instead contain a transitional quality at its onset. This distinction between a retracted/lowered vowel and a transitional vowel quality will be clearly visible in the acoustic signal with articulatory support from ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it is expected that retraction/lowering (Fl raising, F2 lowering, F3 raising/lowering) will be present in the formants of a vowel preceding a uvular consonant and Lower dialect z z' at the vowel's midpoint and offset (50% and 95% into the vowel, respectively). A transitional effect will be reflected in the formants at the vowel's onset (5% point) following these consonants, with the vowel's midpoint (50%) formants approximately reaching those of the baseline quality. Finally, in the case of St'at'imcets non-local retraction involving "retracted roots" and retracted coronal consonants c, c', s, I I', a vowel both preceding and following the retracted coronal consonant is retracted/lowered. As a result, the acoustic signal is predicted to show such retraction/lowering via a raised Fl, lowered F2, and raised/lowered F3 at both the vowel's midpoint and offset when preceding retracted coronal consonants and at the vowel's onset and midpoint when following retracted coronals. A summary of the hypotheses presented above regarding St'at'imcets retracted consonant-vowel coarticulation effects is shown in Table 4.1 below. To investigate these claims, this chapter uses both acoustic and articulatory data collected from three of the 74 four St'at'imcets speaking participants. Methods relevant for the study of St'at'imcets consonant-vowel interactions are discussed in the next section, followed by a presentation of the results in section 4.2. All acoustic, articulatory, and statistical results are discussed in section 4.3. Table 4.1: A summary of hypothesized St'at'imcets retracted C-V interactions Hy potheses 1. For GNd and AJP (U), all retracted consonants will produce similar retraction effects on a given vowel (/V/-»[V]/{Q, C}). For VB (L), a given vowel will surface with two retracted variants: one when adjacent to uvulars and one when adjacent to retracted coronal consonants and retractedzz' (/V/-»rVil/Q, rV2l/{C, Z (L)». 2. All vowels in St'at'imcets will undergo retraction/lowering when adjacent to a retracted consonant; no vowel will be unaffected by a neighbouring retracted consonant. 3. For vowels adjacent to uvulars and Lower zz', an asymmetrical process of vowel retraction will occur, wherein V/_{Q, Z (L)} will be retracted/lowered, but V/{Q, Z (L)} will have a transitional element before reaching its baseline quality. 4.1 Methodology specific to St'at'imcets consonant-vowel interactions Methods presented here, namely the stimuli and analysis, are specific to the investigation of consonant-vowel interactions in St'at'imcets. For a description of the general experimental procedure and equipment used in the current study, refer to Chapter 2. 4.1.1 Stimuli Continuing with the retracted consonants studied in Chapter 3, of the St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, T, ?w, f'w, c, c', s, I V, and Lower dialect z, z', only q, T, s_, and z were examined for their coarticulatory effects on adjacent vowels. Coarticulatory effects of the plain denti-palatal consonant s [JJ on adjacent vowels were also collected and initially analyzed as baseline conditions; however, because of the 7S characteristic fronting and raising effects palatal consonants have on adjacent vowels, these conditions are excluded from the current analysis. Due to the age of the participants in this study, maintaining a rigid head and neck position needed for the experimental ultrasound set-up was uncomfortable. As a result, an effort to reduce the time of the total experiment was carried out, such that only a selection of the St'at'imcets vocalic inventory was examined. The high, front, advanced vowel HI was selected for investigation because its physical position is in maximal conflict with that of St'at'imcets retracted consonants, thereby anticipating prominent coarticulation effects. The high back advanced vowel lui was also selected to test whether or not St'at'imcets retracted consonants produced retraction effects on every vowel in the inventory. The potential for lui not to retract with retracted consonants, specifically uvulars, is based on the high back tongue position shared by both. However, retraction of lui is still possible due to the advanced tongue root position of lui, which opposes the retracted position of St'at'imcets retracted consonants as described in Chapter 3 of this study. This study examines the coarticulation effects that St'at'imcets retracted consonants have on vowels preceding and following the consonant, henceforth VC and CV, respectively. Two main criteria were respected when selecting experimental stimuli: i) that the vowel be stressed; and, ii) that the consonant under investigation be tautosyllabic with the vowel, such that the consonant in VC and CV contexts occupy coda and onset positions, respectively (for more detail regarding the control of stress assignment in stimuli selection, refer to section 2.3). With respect to stimuli selection criteria (ii), to make sure that the consonant in CV conditions was in onset position, the consonant under investigation was often in word-initial position. Words with onset clusters (e.g. C1C2V) were also accepted for CV condition if the desired consonant was strictly adjacent to the vowel (here: C2) e.g. szikalc [fzikasltj*] "loghouse". For VC contexts, to ensure that the consonant was in coda position, monosyllabic words ending in the desired VC condition were selected. When this was not possible, the poly synthetic nature of St'at'imcets allowed for the attachment 76 of -CV suffixes to the root-final VC . Unfortunately, due to the rare occurrence of retracted coronal consonants (c, c', s, I V, and z z'), conditions iz, is, and us with the retracted coronal consonant in coda position was unavailable. Instead, words containing z and s in intervocalic position were selected for these VC conditions. Lastly, in VC contexts of uq and u?, due to a process of rounding assimilation in St'at'imcets (Remnant 1990), no instances of q and ? surfaced unrounded. Finally, in order to determine whether or not /i, ul adjacent to q, ?, s, and z were retracted/lowered, comparison to li, ul in a nonretracted baseline context was necessary. Although not initially collected, baseline HI and lui values were obtained by assessing the collected stimuli for usable baselines. For all participants, the HI of muzmit /muzmit/ "to have pity for someone" and muzmit.s /muzmit-s/37 "to be pitiful," was selected as the baseline value for /i/38. Similarly, for all participants, the lui of iixwalmixwca I uxwalmix^ tja/ "Uxwalmixwca" present in the carrier phrase was selected as the baseline value for lu/39. Ten tokens of uxwalmixwca distributed across the 250 token stimuli set were selected. Stimuli presented to each participant for the study of retraction effects on neighbouring vowels are listed in Appendix B. j6 St'at'imcets syllable structure prohibits vowel-initial syllables; therefore in root-VC + -CV suffix combinations, the suffix-initial consonant is preferably syllabified as an onset to the following vowel rather than as a coda to the preceding root (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Roberts 1993). 37 Possible coarticulatory effects on the l\l from the preceding nasal and the following dental include a lowering of all formants at the vowel onset and raising of F2 at vowel offset. j8 Note that this baseline I'll occupies an unstressed position; as a result, there is a chance that these baseline l\l tokens might be more centralized than a baseline I'll in a stressed position. For further discussion of this effect, refer to section 4.3. 39 Coarticulatory effects from a glottal stop on a following lixl will be subtle since it is "usually not associated with marked formant transitions" (Kent & Read 1992: 143). The velar fricative following lui may produce a fronting effect on the offset tongue position of lui, which may be seen in the acoustics as a raising of F2. 77 4.1.2 Analysis For the investigation of St'at'imcets retracted consonant-vowel interactions, two methods of analysis were used. First, acoustic data were evaluated, wherein any coarticulatory effect was reflected in the formants of the vowel adjacent to the retracted consonant. Second, ultrasound technology was examined to provide a direct observation of the articulatory effects of retracted consonants on neighbouring vowels. To determine whether a given vowel surfaces with a single retracted output regardless of the adjacent retracted consonant type or whether multiple retracted surface variants occur, the temporal midpoint of the vowel adjacent to a retracted consonant is compared to the midpoint of the corresponding baseline vowel. In addition, the surface quality of a given vowel is examined across consonants (e.g. HI preceding q versus HI preceding T). To investigate if retracted consonants affect vowels HI and lui similarly or differently, the coarticulatory effects of retracted consonants on an adjacent HI is discussed relative to the coarticulatory effects of retracted consonants on an adjacent lui. To test the effect of pre- versus post-vocalic position on retracted consonant-vowel interactions, it is necessary to examine the vowel quality at the vowel's edge nearest the approaching retracted consonant in addition to its midpoint quality. In VC conditions, the offset of the vowel preceding the retracted consonant is compared to the offset of the baseline; in CV conditions, the onset of the vowel following the retracted consonant is compared against the onset of the baseline. Furthermore, the quality of a given vowel at these same time points is examined across retracted consonants. Finally, coarticulatory effects of VC conditions are discussed relative to those of CV conditions. Locating the exact position of the vowel's midpoint, offset, and onset in the articulatory and acoustic signal is described in sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2, respectively. Results are presented in section 4.2. 4.1.2.1 Articulatory Analysis The articulatory analysis of vowels adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, T, £ Lower z involved the extraction of frames at the vowel's temporal midpoint, as 78 well as the vowel's offset and onset for conditions CV and VC, respectively. Frames at these same durational positions were also extracted for baseline vowels. Using Adobe Premiere 6.5, the vowel's midpoint was identified as the frame best approximating the centre of the vowel's temporal duration, as seen in the audio waveform. To locate the vowel's offset (95%) and onset (5%) frames, it was necessary to consult the acoustic signal in conjunction with the articulatory image. First, a point discernible in both the acoustic and articulatory signal served as a landmark from which the distance of the vowel offset/onset was calculated. This landmark was identified as the peak constriction position of the consonant under investigation. This peak consonant position was found initially in the articulatory image using Adobe Premiere, and was then marked in the acoustic signal by visually comparing the consonant's waveform in Adobe Premiere to the consonant's waveform in Praat. Once the consonant's peak constriction point was located in Praat, its time (in msecs) was recorded in Microsoft Excel. . Second, to determine the number of frames that had elapsed between the vowel's offset/onset and the consonant's peak constriction, the duration of time (referred to as "lag duration") that passed between the consonant's peak constriction point and the vowel edge point was first calculated (in msecs). For VC conditions, the vowel's 95% time point was subtracted from the consonant's peak constriction time point; for CV conditions, the consonant's peak constriction time point was subtracted from the vowel's 5% time point. Finally, to convert the lag duration into number of actual frames ("frame lag"), the lag duration was divided by the time equivalent to one frame (33.3 msecs). Returning to Adobe Premiere, the frame lag was then used to count from the peak consonant constriction frame to the vowel offset/onset, at which vowel offset/onset frames were extracted. After relevant frames had been extracted, positions of the tongue root (TR), tongue dorsum (TD), and tongue body (TB) were measured using NIH Image v. 1.63. As mentioned in sections 2.5.1 and 3.1.2, measurement of the TR, TD, TB positions involved drawing a line from the centre of the transducer head along previously 7Q determined TR, TD, and TB angles up to the surface line of the TR, TD, and TB positions. These distances (in centimeters) were recorded and used for analysis. 4.1.2.2 Acoustic Analysis The acoustic analysis of vowels /i, u/ adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, T, S_L and z involved two steps. First, segmentation and labeling of the vowel was carried out using the text-grid function of Praat v. 4.1.1.3. Once vowel boundaries were identified and marked, formants Fl, F2, and F3 were extracted at 50% and 95% into the vowel for VC conditions, and 5% and 50% into the vowel for CV conditions using the scripting and formant listing functions of Praat. Formants at all of the above time points were extracted for baseline vowels /i, u/. Where formants were not clearly visible, no value for that particular instance was noted. All values were recorded in Microsoft Excel. 4.2 Results All formant and tongue position measurements of the vowels under investigation were entered into StatView 5.0.1 for subsequent statistical analyses. All acoustic results are discussed and represented using relevant tables and figures. To illustrate differences in TR/TD/TB positions between vowels in retracted consonant contexts and baseline contexts, overlaid tracings of the tongue surface, created using Microsoft Word, are also presented. The organization of the results is as follows: first baseline values for I'll and IvJ are established in the next section; then a look into the effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on adjacent vowel targets is presented in section 4.2.2. Section 4.2.3 examines the directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction, with the final section 4.2.4 examining difference in degree of retraction between VC and CV conditions. 8ft 4.2.1 Baseline lil and lui Formant mean values for vowels li, ul split by participant are presented in Table 4.2. Note that these values are taken at the vowel midpoint (50%), which is assumed to represent the target of the vowel, where formants are relatively stable and slow-moving (Pickett 1999). Table 4.2: Formant means for li, ul at 50% Number Fl (Hz) F2(Hz) F3(Hz) Output IM VB(L) 10 404 2329 2705 [i/i]4° GNd (U) 9 408 2516 2904 [i/i] AJP(U) 10 418 2182 2541 [i/i] lui VB(L) 10 394 969 2578 [u]/[o]41 GNd (TJ) 10 416 1145 2719 [u]/[o] AJP(U) 8 409 844 2518 rui/ioi 4.2.2 Effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on an adjacent vowel's target This section examines the coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on the inherent quality (target) of an adjacent vowel. The vowel quality of vowels li, vJ both preceding and following consonants q, f, s, and z are analyzed individually and in comparison to other relevant retracted consonant-vowel contexts. For each retracted consonant-vowel condition, tongue root (TR), tongue dorsum (TD), and tongue body (TB) positions and formants Fl, F2, F3 are measured at the vowel's midpoint (50% into the vowel), which is assumed to be the vocalic target (Pickett 1999). Furthermore, the above measurements are also taken at the vowel's edge closest to the consonant under investigation (95% into the vowel for VC contexts and 5% into the vowel for CV contexts). These vocalic edge measurements are discussed in more detail Baseline /i/ is transcribed as [i/i] because it has a quality that is somewhat between an [i] and an [i] (/i/ is not as "tense" as [i] but not as "lax" as [i]). 41 Baseline lui is transcribed as [u]/[o] meaning that lui has a quality that varies between [u] and [o]. in section 4.2.3, where they are compared specifically to their respective midpoint (50%) values. 4.2.2.1 I'll preceding retracted consonants q, ?, s, and z (L) A comparison of the articulatory data for baseline I'll against each of i/_q, UJ, i/_s, and i/_z is made for each participant at vowel midpoint (50%) and offset (95%). A one-way analysis of variance found significant differences in tongue root (TR), tongue dorsum (TD), and tongue body (TB) positions between baseline I'll and I'll preceding St'at'imcets retracted consonants at both the vocalic midpoint and offset. Statistical results at vowel midpoint are presented in Table 4.3.42 Table 4.3: Articulatory measurements for lil vs. i/_q, UJ, i/_s, i/_z at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) HI: i/_q HI: i/J lil: il s lil: il z i/_q t p < -oooi il 9 t P < 0001 i/_s t p < .01 i/_z T p < .001 i/_q t P < -01 i/J | p < .01 NS NS i/_q i p < .001 u ? j P < -0001 U_s i p < .0001 i/_z 1 p < .0001 GNd (U) HI: i/_q HI: UJ lil: il s HI: il z i/_q f p < .0001 u y t P < 0001 i/_s t p < .002 NS i/_q f < .0001 il ? | < .0001 i/_s f P < .001 NS i/_q | p < .0001 i/J 1 P < -001 i/_s 1 p < .02 NS AJP (U) HI: i/_q HI: UJ lil: il s HI: il z i/_q f P < .0001 il ? f P < -0001 i/_s f p < .001 NS i/_q t P < .0001 UJ t P < -01 NS NS i/_q | p < .0001 i/ 9 1 P < -0001 i/_s I p < .0001 i/_z | p < .04 Articulatory results above indicate that for all participants, the target of lil preceding each St'at'imcets retracted consonant is articulated with a more retracted TR "Effect" column identifies whether the tongue position of the listed condition (e.g. i/_q) is greater than (t) or lower/less than (J) that of the comparative condition (e.g. /i/). Note that for the TR position, "t" indicates the TR is more retracted, while " J" means the TR is less retracted than its comparative condition. 43 represents conditions where no significant difference was found. 8? and lower TB position than those of baseline HI. This retracted/lowered tongue position for HI preceding uvulars q, f is illustrated in Figures 4.1-4.3 below. Figure 4.1: Midpoint positions of lil, i/_q, i/_Y for VB (L) Figure 4.2: Midpoint positions of I'll, i/_q, i/_Y for GNd (U) 83 Figure 4.3: Midpoint positions of IM, i/_q, i/_Y for AJP (U) Figures 4.4-4.6 below illustrate the retracted/lowered tongue position of HI preceding consonants s, z (L). These figures also corroborate statistical results of Table 4.3 in demonstrating a distinction in the articulation of HI preceding z between participants VB (L) and GNd/AJP (U), where for VB, i/_z has a more retracted TR position than that of baseline, whereas i/_z for GNd/AJP lacks this retracted TR position. Figure 4.4: Midpoint positions of HI, i/_z, i/_s for VB (L) 84 2004Nov20 12:04 Figure 4.5: Midpoint positions of lil, i/_z, for GNd (U) Figure 4.6: Midpoint positions of lil, il_s, i/_z for AJP (TJ) Midpoint articulatory findings of lil preceding q, f, s, z (L) persist into the vowel's offset, with a slight change in TD and TB positions for VB (L) and GNd's (U) lil preceding retracted coronal s: at vowel offset, i/_s for VB now has an additional retracted TD position than baseline, while for GNd, i/_s loses its lowered TB status (see Table DI in Appendix D). Articulatory results for HI preceding uvulars are confirmed by a measure of formants Fl, F2, and F3 which show lil preceding q and f to have a higher Fl and lower x^ F2/F3 at both vowel midpoint and offset than those of baseline HI (see Tables D2-D3 in Appendix D). Interestingly, formant means taken at vowel midpoint and offset for HI preceding retracted coronal s and Lower dialect z suggest that HI preceding s and z (L) has a raised TB position in comparison to that of baseline HI. This raising effect for i/_{s, z (L)} might support the possibility that baseline lil is undergoing unstressed-syllable reduction rather than the i/_{s, z (L)} becoming raised (G. Hansson, p.c). However, stimuli collected for i/_{s, z (L)} also have HI occupying an unstressed syllable position (e.g. lisds [lisds] "angel"), thus suggesting that the acoustic raising effect of HI preceding retracted coronal consonants is unlikely due to the unstressed nature of baseline HI. Regardless of the acoustic data, articulatory results confirm that HI preceding retracted coronals s and Lower dialect z is in fact retracted/lowered. With respect to possible differences in vowel quality for HI across retracted consonants, articulatory measurements of the TR, TD, and TB at vowel midpoint and offset for HI preceding a given retracted consonant were compared with those of HI preceding another retracted consonant, e.g. i/_q versus i/Ji (see Tables D4-D5 in Appendix D for more detail). As illustrated above in Figures 4.1-4.3, for each participant, TR/TD positions for HI preceding q were not significantly different from those of HI preceding f at both vowel midpoint and offset. Furthermore, as seen in Figure 4.4, lil preceding retracted coronal s and Lower dialect z share similar TR, TD, TB positions, while HI preceding s has a more retracted TR and lower TB position than those of lil preceding Upper dialect z (Figures 4.5-4.6). Finally, Figures 4.7-4.9 illustrate articulatory differences/similarities between lil preceding uvulars and HI preceding retracted coronal consonants in St'at'imcets. A one way analysis of variance indicates that generally, HI preceding uvulars has a more retracted and raised TR/TD and lower TB than lil preceding retracted coronal s and Lower dialect z at vowel midpoint and offset across all participants. 86 OB TD TB 2004Nov21 16:48 Figure 4.7: Midpoint positions of/i/, i/_z, i/j, i/_q, i/_Y for VB (L) = cm 2004Nov20 12:04 Figure 4.8: Midpoint positions of /if, i/_z, i/_s, i/_q, i/_? for GNd (U) 87 Figure 4.9: Midpoint positions of /i/, i/_z, il_js, i/_q, i/_Y for AJP (U) Inferences from formant Fl, F2, F3 measurements show results both in agreement and in conflict with the above articulatory data. For example, acoustic data showing a raised Fl and lowered F2 for i/_{q, ?} than i/_{s, z (L)} corroborate articulatory findings that the former has a lower and more back TB/TD position than the latter at both vowel midpoint and offset (Tables D6-D7, Appendix D). Interestingly, Fl and F2 measurements show to have a higher Fl and lower F2 than i/_q for VB (L) at both vocalic midpoint and offset and for AJP (U) at vocalic midpoint, suggesting that i/S" is lower and more back than i/_q. Furthermore, in contrast with articulatory findings, HI preceding Lower dialect z (participant VB) has a lower Fl and F2, assumed to represent significant differences in TB height and backness, than I'll preceding retracted coronal s at the vocalic midpoint. This distinction between i/_s and i/_z (L) however, disappears by vocalic offset, such that now, Fl and F2 of i/_z (L) is no longer significantly different. Retraction effects on lil preceding St'at'imcets retracted consonants are summarized in conjunction with those of lui preceding retracted consonants, in Table 4.5 within the next section. 88 4.2.2.2 /u/ preceding retracted consonants q, ?, s, and z (L) Turning now to the coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, ?, s, and Lower dialect z on a preceding high back vowel IvJ, TR, TD, TB positions and Fl, F2, F3 means for baseline IvJ and IvJ preceding q, f, s, and z were measured at vowel midpoint (50%) and offset (95%). A one-way analysis of variance found statistically significant differences within the u/_retracted consonants dataset. Table 4.4 below presents articulatory measurements of /u/-retraction effects at the vocalic midpoint. Note that for VB (L), word-final f of the ulj condition consistently surfaced as the uvular stop qw [qw]44. As a result, VB (L) has twice the amount of tokens for the u/_q test condition as GNd/AJP (U) and no tokens for ulj. In addition, two test words for the u/_s condition were collected, but only 5 tokens were analyzed for each participant because IvJ preceding s consistently reduced to schwa in the unstressed syllable position of one of the two test words. Table 4.4: Articulatory measurements for lui vs. u/_q, ulj, u/_s, u/_z at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) lui: ul_q lui: u/_s lui: ul z u/_q f p < .0001 u/_s f p < .0001 u/z | p < .0001 NS u/_s | p < .0001 NS u/_q 1 p < .0001 u/_s 1 p < .0001 ul_z i p < .0001 GNd (U) lui: ul_q lui: ulj lui: u/_s lui: u/z u/_q t P < .0001 u/J f P < -0001 u/_s t p < .0001 u/_zl p = .0015 NS NS NS NS u/_q i p < .0001 u/J| P = -0039 u/_s 1 p < .0001 NS AJP (U) lui: ul_q lui: u/J lui: uls • lui: ul z u/_q t p < .0001 u/Jf P < -0001 u/_s t p < .0001 NS u/_q 1 p < .0001 u/J I p = .0004 NS ul_z t p = .0333 u/_q 1 p < .0001 u/J I p < .0001 u/_s j p < .0001 u/_z t p < .0001 As stated in section 2.3, a process of rounding assimilation occurs in St'at'imcets, wherein q/T become rounded #"'/f following the labial vowel IvJ. RQ Articulatory results presented above indicate that IvJ preceding retracted consonants q, f, s, and z (L) has a more retracted TR and lowered TB position than that of baseline IvJ. This is illustrated in Figures 4.10-4.12 and 4.13-4.15 below where the midpoint TR of IvJ preceding uvulars and retracted coronals is extended more to the left of the image than that of baseline IvJ, while the midpoint TB position of IvJ preceding retracted consonants is below the TB tracing for baseline IvJ. This retracted/lowered tongue position of vJ_ {q, Y, s, z (L)} continues into the vowel's offset (see Table D8, Appendix D). Acoustic data indicating a raised Fl for IvJ preceding retracted consonants q, £ s, and z (L) versus baseline IvJ support the lowered and backed position of the former (see Table D9, Appendix D). Interestingly, F2 results show lui preceding retracted consonants as generally having a raised F2 in comparison to baseline IvJ, suggesting that the former has a more front tongue position than the latter. However, articulatory data illustrated in Figures 4.10-4.15 contrasts with this acoustic fronting inference. Figure 4.10: Midpoint positions of lui, u/_q for VB (L) on Figure 4.11: Midpoint positions of /u/, u/_q, u/_Y for GNd (U) Figure 4.12: Midpoint positions of /u/, u/_q, u/_f for AJP (U) Q1 2004Nov21 16:56 Figure 4.13: Midpoint positions of /u/, u/_z, u/_s for VB (L) Figure 4.14: Midpoint positions of /u/, u/_z, u/_s for GNd (U) 0? Figure 4.15: Midpoint positions of lui, u/_z, u/_s for AJP (U) Comparison of Figure 4.13 with Figures 4.14-4.15 clearly illustrates the articulatory difference in vowel-z effects between dialects. In the Lower dialect (Figure 4.13), lui preceding z has a TR position and TB position that is more retracted and lowered, respectively, than that of baseline IvJ. In contrast, IvJ preceding Upper dialect z (Figures 4.14-4.15) has a TR position that is less retracted/equivalent to that of baseline lui and a TB position that is higher/equivalent to that of baseline lui. Returning to the articulatory data presented in Table 4.4, notice that the midpoint TD position of retracted lui is either not significantly different than that of baseline lui (e.g. lui preceding all retracted consonants for GNd) or is slightly lowered than baseline lui (e.g. lui preceding q, ? for AJP). This suggests that the TD position of baseline lui is inherently fairly backed, so that further TD backing for retracted lui is constrained. Differences in vowel quality for lui across retracted consonants were also examined. TR, TD, and TB distance measurements, as well as Fl, F2, F3 measurements, for a given u/_retracted consonant condition were compared with those of other u/_retracted consonant conditions (see Table DI 1 for vowel midpoint and Table D12 for vowel offset in Appendix D). As illustrated above in Figures 4.11-4.12 for GNd/AJP (U), IvJ preceding q and lui preceding f share similar TR/TD positions, with slight differences in TB position at vowel midpoint. By vowel offset, previous differences in 03 TB position between u/_q and u/_? no longer exist, leaving the articulation of the latter equivalent to the former. Regarding formant measurements, acoustic data show no significant differences in Fl between u/_q and u/_9 at vowel midpoint (assumed to indicate similar TB positions between the two conditions). Furthermore, at vowel offset, u/_q for GNd now has a higher Fl than that of u/Ji, suggesting that the TB position of the latter is different than that of the former. Regarding the TR position, F3 results vary across time points, such that at vowel midpoint, GNd/AJP's u/_q has a higher F3 than that of u/_? (assumed to reflect a more advanced TR position for the former than the latter), yet at vowel offset, differences in F3 for u/_q and u/Ji are no longer significant. The variability in acoustics might be reflective of the one-to-many relation between acoustics and articulations since constriction at lips for IvJ is also reflected in all formants (for acoustic results, refer to Tables D13-D14 in Appendix D). Figures 4.13-4.15 above further corroborate the difference in vowel-z retraction effects between dialect, in that IvJ preceding Lower z (Figure 4.13) shares its TR and TB positions with those of IvJ preceding s, while IvJ preceding Upper z (Figure 4.14-4.15) has a TR and TB position that is more advanced and raised, respectively, than that of IvJ preceding s. These articulatory results are found at both vowel midpoint and offset. Acoustic data both supports and contradicts articulatory results, for example IvJ preceding Lower z at vowel midpoint is shown to have a higher Fl than that of IvJ preceding s, presumably indicative of a lower TB for u/_z (L) than u/_s, a position which contradicts articulatory findings for TB position. For more detail with regards to the acoustic results, refer to Tables DI 3-D 14 in Appendix D. In comparison to IvJ preceding uvulars q and £ tongue positions for IvJ preceding retracted coronals s, z (L) vary across participants and vocalic time points. At vowel midpoint, the TR position of u/_{q, ?} for GNd/AJP is less retracted than that of u/_s and more retracted than that of u/_z45 (see Figures 4.16-4.17 below and Table DI 1, Appendix Upper dialect z (in this study: GNd and AJP) is not retracted, therefore, explaining the more retracted TR position of u/_?. 04 D). In addition, the TB position of u/_{q, ?} is higher than that of u/_s and lower than that of u/_z. However, at vowel offset, lui preceding q and f for GNd/AJP (U) shares a TR and TB position with IvJ preceding s, positions that are more retracted and lowered than those of IvJ preceding z (see Table D12, Appendix D). The offset TB position for u/_{q, ?} differs between participants, such that for AJP, u/_{q, ?} has a lower TB than that of both u/_s and u/z, while for GNd, only u/_? has a lower TB than both u/_{s, z} but the TB of u/_q is lower than u/_z and equivalent to that of u/_s. Once again, the acoustic data varies in its agreement with the articulatory data at vowel midpoint and offset (see Tables D13-D14, Appendix D). For example, Fl results for AJP indicate that at vowel midpoint, IvJ preceding q and ? have a higher F1 than IvJ preceding s as well as lui preceding z, suggesting that the former have a lower TB position than that of the latter. At vowel offset, Fl results for AJP agree with her articulatory results in that the Fl of u/_{q, ?} is higher than that of u/_s, z, thus presumably corroborating the lower TB position of u/_{q, V} than u/_s, z. Figure 4.16: Midpoint positions of /u/, u/z, u/_j, u/_q, u/_Y for GNd (U) OS Figure 4.17: Midpoint positions of /u/, u/_z, u/_s, u/_q, u/_V for AJP (U) For VB (L), the midpoint TR and TB positions of u/_{s, z} were not significantly different from those of u/_q46 (see Figure 4.18 below and Table DI 1, Appendix D), while the TD position of u/_q is higher than that of u/_{s, z}. Acoustic data agree with this finding between u/_z and u/_q, but Fl results for u/_s versus u/_q indicate a lower Fl for the latter, suggesting that u/_q has a higher TB than that of u/_s (Table D13, Appendix D). At vowel offset, the TR position of u/_q is not significantly different from that of u/_s, but is significantly more retracted than that of u/_z. Furthermore, the TB position of both u/_s, z is significantly higher than that of u/_q for VB (L) at vowel offset (see Table D12, Appendix D). The TD position of u/_q continues to be higher than that of u/_{s, z} at vowel offset. Acoustic data conflicts with these offset articulatory findings by showing that the F3 of u/_q at vowel offset is higher than that of u/_{s, z}, assumed to indicate that either u/_q has a more advanced TR than u/_{s, z} or that the former has a more upper pharyngeal constriction than the latter (for more detail, see Table D14, Appendix D). As seen in Figure 4.18 below, it appears that while u/q and u/_{s, z} share a retracted TR and low TB position, the lower TD position of u/_{s, z} relative to u/q produces a lower quality for the former than the latter. Recall that VB lacks tokens of u/thus no comparisons of u/s, z to u/_V were made for VB. Qfi cm 2004Nov21 16:56 Figure 4.18: Midpoint positions of/u/, u/_z, ul_s, u/_q for VB (L) A summary of the effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on the target (midpoint) quality of preceding vowel /i/ and lui is shown in Table 4.5 below. The conclusions below are based primarily on articulatory data. Note that indicates that the two vowels under comparison are significantly different in surface quality (hence, articulation), while ' —" means that their quality is similar. Furthermore, "Q" represents both uvular consonants q and f. Table 4.5: Summary of li, ul retraction effects for VC condition at vowel target III lui Baseline NI: /i/^i/_{Q,s} /u/^u/_{Q, s} V/_retracted consonants (il Q, s is retracted). (ul Q, s is retracted). Hl^il z(L) lui j- ul z (L) /i/ = i/_z(U) IvJ = ul_z (U) (i/_z (L) is retracted, i/_z (U) (u/z (L) is retracted, ul_z is not). (U) is not). NI quality across i/_q = i/J ul_q = u/_? retracted consonants il s f il 0 ul Q^ul s il z(U)^i/js ul_z (U) # u/_s il z (L) = il s u/ z (L) = u/ s il z (L) # il 0 u/ z (L) f ul Q Q7 4.2.2.3 HI following retracted consonants q, ?, s, and z (L) Similar to section 4.2.2.1, this section examines the target vowel quality of HI adjacent to St'at'imcets consonants q, f, £ z; however, in this section, the vowel under investigation occurs following the above consonants. Positions of the TR, TD, TB, as well as formant Fl, F2, F3, were measured at vowel onset (5%) and midpoint (50%). Results from a one-way analysis of variance found statistically significant differences in the articulatory positions of baseline HI and I'll following consonants q, T, s, z. Table 4.6 presents midpoint TR, TD, TB positions of HI following q, T, s, z in comparison to those of baseline HI. Note that for participant AJP, no stimuli for the test condition of HI following the retracted coronal s was collected, due to the participant's lack of familiarity with the available stimuli. Table 4.6: Articulatory measurements for HI vs. i/q_, i/Y_, i/s_, i/z_ at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) HI: i/q_ III: i/T_ HI: i/s_ HI: i/z_ i/q_ t P < -0001 i/? | P<-0001 i/s_ T p < .0001 i/z_| p=.0139 NS i/T \ p<.0001 i/s_| p = .012 i/z_ | p = .03 i/q_ I p < .0001 i/?_ 1 P = -0043 i/s_ 1 p < .0001 NS GNd (U) HI: i/q_ lil: i/?_ /i/:i/s lil: i/z i/q_ f p < .0001 i/c | p<.0001 i/s_ T P < -0001 NS i/q_ t P < .0001 i/?_ | p = .0012 i/s_f p = .0051 NS i/q_| p = .0105 NS i/s_ 1 p < .0001 NS AJP (U) lil: i/q_ lil: i/T_ lil: i/z i/q_ f p < .0001 i/? J p<;0001 i/z_| p = .0112 NS NS NS i/q_ 4 p < .0001 i/?_ j P < -0001 NS As shown in the Table 4.6 above, the articulation of HI following uvulars q and f generally involves a more retracted TR and lower TB position than those of baseline HI at vowel midpoint and onset (for offset articulations, see Table D15, Appendix D). The midpoint articulation of i/{q, is illustrated in Figures 4.19-4.21 where the TR of i/{q, 08 extends more towards the left of the image than that of baseline lil and the tracing of the TB position for i/{q, is generally below that of baseline The TD position of i/{q> 1S either equivalent to or greater than that of baseline lil. Acoustic results support the above articulatory findings for I'll following uvulars q and f (refer to Tables D16-D17, Appendix D). OB TD TB •< \ «te / • C15 l/q • " 7.4 ,, cm 2004Nov21 16:48 Figure 4.19: Midpoint positions of lil, i/q_, i/?_for VB (L) Figure 4.20: Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, ii\_ for GNd (U) OQ Figure 4.21: Midpoint positions of lil, i/q_, i/Y_ for AJP (U) The articulation of lil following retracted coronal s follows a similar pattern as that of I'll following uvulars q and f, while lil following retracted z (L) is noticeably distinct. Based on Table 4.6 above and Figures 4.22-4.24 below, HI following s has a more retracted TR, greater TD, and lower TB position than those of baseline HI at vowel midpoint; articulatory results at vowel offset are identical to those found at midpoint (see Table D15, Appendix D). Acoustic measurements of Fl, F2, F3 corroborate this retracted/lowered position of HI following s (Tables D16-D17, Appendix D). Interestingly, the articulation of HI following Lower dialect z involves a more advanced TR and lower TD position than baseline HI, and the same TB position as baseline HI (see Figure 4.22). This nonretracted articulation of Lower dialect z patterns closely with that of lil following Upper dialect z, wherein i/z (U)_ shares its TR/TD/TB positions with those of baseline HI (Figures 4.23-4.24). In general, acoustic results support the nonretracted articulation of HI following both Lower and Upper dialect z (Tables D16-D17, Appendix D). 100 C15 " 7.4 cm 2004Nov21 16:48 Figure 4.22: Midpoint positions of lil, i/s_, i/z_ for VB (L) re s-J , ( / I J C15 ~ 7.4 cm 2004Nov20 12:04 Figure 4.23: Midpoint positions of lil, ils_, i/z_ for GNd (U) 101 cm 2004Nov20 14:39 Figure 4.24: Midpoint positions of /i/, i/z_ for AJP (U) Differences in the quality of retracted HI across retracted consonants were also found to be significant. As illustrated in Figures 4.19-4.21, no differences in the TR and TB positions exist between the target articulations of I'll following q and I'll following ?, with the exception of VB (L), where the TB is lower for i/q_ than it is for i/<i_ (see Table D19, Appendix D). Furthermore, the TD position of i/q_ was found to be significantly greater than that of i/Y_ only for participant VB (L), whereas for GNd/AJP, i/q_ and share a TD position. Acoustic data disagrees with these articulatory findings by showing the Fl and F2 of i/q_ as higher and lower, respectively, than those of presumably indicating that the former has a lower and more backed TB position than the latter. With respect to the target quality of lil following z compared to that of lil following q, ?, and Figures 4.22-4.24 and results of Table 4.6 illustrate that the articulation of i/z_ is equivalent to that of baseline HI, therefore the articulation of i/z_ is also more advanced/raised than that of i/{q, s}_ (see Tables D18-D21, Appendix D for verification by articulatory and acoustic measurements). This is further illustrated in Figures 4.25-4.27 below, where the tracing of i/z_ closely follows that of baseline HI instead of i/{q, s}_. 10? Figure 4.25: Midpoint positions of lil, i/q_, ilS_, ilz_, i/s_ for VB (L) Figure 4.26: Midpoint positions of lil, i/q_, i/Y_, i/z_, i/s_ for GNd (U) Figure 4.27: Midpoint positions of I'll, i/q_, i/Y_, i/z_ for AJP (U) Finally, Figures 4.25-4.26 above demonstrate differences and similarities in the target articulation of HI following uvulars and lil following retracted coronal s. For VB (Figure 4.25), lil following s shares its TR, TD, TB positions with HI following q (see Tables D18-D19, Appendix D); acoustic data however, indicates significant differences in Fl and F3, correlated with differences in TB height and TR position, respectively (Tables D20-D21, Appendix D). For GNd (Figure 4.26), i/s_ has more TR retraction and TB lowering than i/{q, ?}_, thus indicating that for GNd, the quality of lil is more retracted/lowered when following s than it is when following uvulars q and ?. Acoustic data for GNd verify the lowered TB position of i/s_ in comparison to i/{q, ?}_. In summary, the target quality of lil following retracted consonants q, ?, and s undergoes retraction/lowering, while HI following z of both Upper and Lower St'at'imcets remains unretracted. Furthermore, articulatory and acoustic data indicate that the quality of HI following q is similar to that of HI following f; the quality of HI following s compared to that of HI following uvulars q, f differs across participants. A more complete summary is provided in Table 4.8 at the end of section 4.2.2.4. 104 4.2.2.4 lui following retracted consonants q, f, s, and z (L) Concerning the coarticulatory effects of retracted consonants q, ?,_s, z (L) on a following high back vowel lui, TR, TD, TB positions and Fl, F2, F3 means for u/{q, s, z (L)}_ were measured at vowel onset (5%) and midpoint (50%). Results from a one way analysis of variance for each of the articulatory and acoustic measurements indicate significant differences between baseline IvJ and IvJ following q, £ s, z. Table 4.7 presents midpoint articulatory findings for IvJ following q, T, s, z (L) compared to baseline IvJ. Table 4.7: Articulatory measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/Y_, u/s_, u/z_ at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB IvJ: u/q_ u/q_ | p = .0025 NS u/q_ I p = .0001 (L) IvJ: u/V_ u/?_ t p = .0001 u/?_ 1 P = .0016 u/?_ 1 p = .0314 IvJ: u/s_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ I P = .0036 u/s_ | p < .0001 IvJ: ulz NS NS NS GNd IvJ: u/q_ u/q_ | p < .0001 vJq_ t P = .0033 u/q_ | p = .0036 (U) IvJ: u/Y_ u/Y_ T p < .0001 NS u/?_ | p = .0027 IvJ: u/s_ u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/s_ | p < .0001 IvJ: vJz NS NS NS AJP IvJ: vJq_ u/q_ f p < .0001 u/q_ [ P = .0083 u/q_ | p = .0022 (U) IvJ: uA?_ u/?_ T p < .0001 u/Y_ | P = .0161 u/y_i p < .0001 IvJ: u/s_ u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/s_ i p <.0001 IvJ: vJz NS NS u/z_ t p < .0001 Articulatory results indicate that the target tongue position of IvJ following uvulars q and f has a more retracted TR and lower TB than that of baseline IvJ across all participants. This effect is illustrated in Figures 4.28-4.30 wherein the tracings of the tongue surface for lui following uvular consonants extends more leftwards in the TR region and lower in TB region than that of the baseline lui tracing. Notice also that while the target TD position of lui following uvulars is variable across participants in Table 4.7, Figures 4.28-4.30 illustrate a TD position for baseline IvJ which is already quite backed, suggesting that further TD backing for u/{q, 9}_ is limited. These midpoint TR and TB positions of lui following uvulars q and T were also found to exist at vocalic onset (see Table D22, Appendix D). Acoustic results for lui following q and ? are both in agreement and in conflict with the articulatory results. In general, the midpoint-Fl of u/{q, T}_ is higher than that of baseline lui across all participants. This raised Fl is assumed to correlate with a lower TB position for u/{q, than baseline, thus validating TB articulatory results of Table 4.7. In contrast however, generally no significant difference exist in the F3 of u/{q, ?}_ and baseline, conflicting with articulatory TR findings of Table 4.7, which show the TR of u/{q, ?}_ as significantly different from that of baseline. For more detail regarding acoustic findings, refer to Tables D23-D24 in Appendix D. Figure 4.28: Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/Y_ for VB (L) 106 Figure 4.29: Midpoint positions of IvJ, u/q_, u/Y_ for GNd (U) TR u = • • • • • ll/? = Figure 4.30: Midpoint positions of lui, u/q_, u/Y_ for AJP (U) Similar to articulatory results of lui following uvular q and f, lui following s also shows a more retracted TR and lower TB position than those of baseline lui at vowel midpoint across all participants. These differences in TR and TB position between baseline lui and lui following s is visible in Figures 4.31-4.33 below, where the surface tracings of u/s_ is noticeably shifted down and left compared to the baseline lui surface tracing. This midpoint articulation of lui following s is also present at the vowel's onset (see Table D22, Appendix D). Acoustic findings of lui following s vary in their 107 agreement with the above articulatory results, however, Fl is consistently reported as greater for u/s_ than baseline, suggesting that the TB for the former is lower than the latter (see Tables D23-D24, Appendix D for more detail). Finally, Table 4.7 indicates that the target articulation of IvJ following both Upper and Lower St'at'imcets z is not significantly different from that of baseline IvJ. As exhibited in Figures 4.31-4.33, the tongue position tracing of u/z_ is nearly identical to that of baseline IvJ for each participant. Acoustic data for IvJ following z generally agrees with the above articulatory findings (Tables D23-D24, Appendix D). OB C15 / J ~ 7.4 cm 2004Nov21 16:56 Figure 4.31: Midpoint positions of lui, u/z_, u/s_ for VB (L) 108 Figure 4.32: Midpoint positions of/u/, u/z_, u/s_ for GNd (TJ) f t: OB • C15 • 8 2004Nov20 14:45 Figure 4.33: Midpoint positions of IvJ, u/z_, u/s_ for AJP (TJ) The retracted quality of lui was also examined across consonants q, f, s, z. In general, the midpoint TR and TD positions of lui following q were not significantly different from those of lui following f (Table D26, Appendix D). This is visible in Figures 4.28-4.30 above, where the tongue tracing for u/q_ closely hugs that of u/9_ across all participants. Acoustic results are both in agreement and in conflict with the articulatory data (Tables D27-D28, Appendix D). For example, for all participants, the 10Q midpoint Fl for u/q_ is lower than that of u/?_, suggesting that the TB position of u/q_ is higher than that of u/(i_. This acoustic inference however is only valid with participant AJP's articulatory findings and not with GNd/VB's articulatory results (compare Figure 4.30 with Figures 4.28-4.29). Figures 4.34-4.36 below illustrate articulatory results showing the target tongue position of IvJ following s versus IvJ following uvulars q and T. These articulatory findings show u/s_ as having a more retracted TR and lower TB than that of u/{q, across all participants (see Tables D25-D26, Appendix D for more detail). Interestingly, comparison of Figure 4.34 with Figures 4.35-4.36 show the tongue position of u/s_ for VB (L) as noticeably having a more retracted TR and lowered TB relative to that of u/s_ for GNd/AJP (U). Acoustic results are highly variable with respect to F2/F3 comparisons of u/s_ to u/{q, ?}_. However, acoustic results consistently show u/s_ as having a greater Fl than that of u/{q, ?}_ at vocalic midpoint and onset (Tables D27-D28, Appendix D). This greater F1 for u/s_ is assumed to indicate its lower TB position in relation to that of u/q, cm 2004Nov21 16:56 Figure 4.34: Midpoint positions of/u/, u/q_, u/?_, u/z_, u/s_ for VB (L) 110 C15 • 8 2004Nov20 12:04 Figure 4.35: Midpoint positions of IvJ, u/q_, uA_, u/z_, u/s_ for GNd (TJ) C15 u/V = " 8 2004Nov20 14:45 Figure 4.36: Midpoint positions of IvJ, u/q_, u/Y_, u/z_, u/s_ for AJP (TJ) Finally, with respect to the quality of IvJ following z compared to IvJ following s, q, f, both vocalic midpoint and offset articulatory results show the former as having a more advanced TR and higher TB position than those of the latter (Tables D25-D26, Appendix D). Figures 4.34-4.36 above illustrate the articulatory differences between IvJ following z and IvJ following consonants q, £ s at the vowel's midpoint. Acoustic data 111 agree with the above articulatory findings for lui following z (Tables D27-D28, Appendix D). Table 4.8 below provides a summary of the coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets consonants q, f, s, and z on a following HI and lui found in the current study. These vowel retraction effects are based primarily on articulatory data, since acoustic data were often variable and inconclusive47. Table 4.8: Summary of/i, ul retraction effects for CV condition at vowel target IV lui Baseline NI: V/retracted consonants /i/#i/{Q, s}_ (i/Q, s is retracted). lui ± u/{Q, s}_ (u/Q, s is retracted). I'll = i/z_ (L/U) (i/z is not retracted). lui = ulz_ (L/U) (u/z is not retracted). NI quality across retracted consonants i/q_ = iA_ u/q_ = u/9_ i/s_ = i/Q forVB(L) i/s f i/Q for GNd (U) u/Q_^u/s_ i/z (L/U) ± i/{Q, s} u/z (L/U) ^ u/{Q, s} 4.2.3 Directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction (VC versus CV) Based on Gick & Wilson (2005), it is expected that coarticulatory effects of a retracted consonant on a preceding vowel (VC) differs from those found for retracted consonants on a following vowel (CV). To test the presence of such asymmetry in St'at'imcets coarticulatory effects, the trajectory of a vowel preceding a given retracted consonant is compared relatively to the vowel's trajectory when following the given consonant. The trajectory of a vowel is measured using acoustic formant means taken at the vowel's midpoint (50% into the vowel) and the edge nearest the consonant (95% into the vowel for VC contexts and 5% into the vowel for CV contexts). These formant means are contrasted against those of the baseline vowel at the same time points. This section is organized as follows: first, coarticulatory effects of uvular consonants q and f on vowels li, ul are discussed followed by those of retracted coronal 47 The apparent discrepancy between the acoustic and articulatory data may also be partly due to potential measurement errors, particularly within the acoustic data. 11? consonants s and z. In each subsection, the vowel's trajectory, seen at relevant time points for VC and CV contexts, is described using acoustic data and further illustrated with articulatory tongue tracings. 4.2.3.1 Vowels adjacent to uvulars As seen in Table 4.3 and Figures 4.1-4.3 above, the midpoint quality of i/_{q, ?} has a lower and more backed TB and TR position than that of baseline lil across all participants. Moving into vowel offset (95%) position (Table DI, Appendix D), for each participant, i/_{q, Y} maintains its lower, backed TB and TR position, as compared to baseline I'll. Interestingly, comparison of midpoint and offset formant means of HI preceding uvulars q, T indicate that in general, F2 lowering occurs as the vowel nears the following uvular consonant (Table D29, Appendix D). Because F2 lowering is assumed to indicate TB backing, it appears as though lil preceding uvulars is in transition from an already backed/lowered midpoint position to the ultimate retracted articulation of the following uvular, thus producing a transitional "schwa-like" quality at vocalic offset. Figure 4.37 illustrates this trajectory from midpoint to offset for participant VB. Note that the midpoint TB position for i/_q is more front and raised in the anterior region of the vocal tract than that of its offset position. Interestingly, both midpoint and offset positions of i/_q seem to share a retracted TR position. 113 i/_q-mid = HHRi 7.4 i/'q-offset • cm 2004Nov21 16:48 Figure 4.37: Midpoint and offset positions for i/_q (VB) With respect to the coarticulatory effects of uvular consonants q and f on a following I'll (CV), articulatory results indicate that the tongue position for the onset position (5%) of i/{q, 9}_ is lower and more backed than that of baseline I'll across all participants (see Table D15, Appendix D). This lower/backed TB position for i/{q, relative to baseline persists into the vowel midpoint (50%) for all participants (Table 4.6 and Figures 4.19-4.21 above). Formant means of i/{q, ?}_ at vowel onset relative to those at midpoint show that onset-F2 is less than midpoint-F2, suggesting that the TB position is lower at onset than it is at midpoint (Table D30, Appendix D). Thus it seems that I'll following uvulars (CV) moves from a maximal retracted/lowered uvular articulation through a transitional configuration at onset en route to the backed/lowered target articulation. This transition is illustrated in Figure 4.38 below. 114 Figure 4.38: Onset and midpoint positions for i/q_ (VB) As illustrated in Figure 4.38 above, upon the release of the uvular stop q, the onset of I'll has a more retracted TR, a raised TD, and a lower TB position than that of its midpoint position. With regards to the coarticulatory effects of uvular consonants q and f on a preceding IvJ, articulatory results indicate that the midpoint (50%) position of u/_{q, 9} has a lower and more backed tongue position than that of baseline lui across all participants (see Table 4.5 and Figures 4.10-4.12 in section 4.2.2.1). At vowel offset (95%), u/_{q, ?} continues to have a lower/backed tongue position than that of baseline for each participant (Table D8, Appendix D). A comparison of midpoint and offset formant means of IvJ preceding uvulars q and T show F2 and F3 means as consistently lower and greater, respectively, for vowel offset than midpoint across all participants, suggesting that the TB and TR are further backed towards the upper pharynx at vowel offset than midpoint (see Table D31, Appendix D for formant means). Concerning the articulatory results, surface tongue tracings, illustrated in Figure 4.39, corroborate acoustic results showing the tongue position of u/_{q, ?} offset as more backed. However, this backing appears very slight and mainly in the TR region. As a result, IvJ following uvulars q and f generally maintains its retracted/lowered state at vowel midpoint and offset, with a slight increase in TR retraction as the vowel approaches the 1 1S following consonant. Notice that the already high TD of baseline IvJ is shared by that of u/_{q, ?} at vowel midpoint and offset, thus indicating that only modification at the TR is needed for IvJ when preceding uvular consonants. OB TD TB ,< Figure 4.39: Midpoint and offset positions of u/_Y for AJP (U) In rightwards coarticulation (CV), the onset quality of IvJ following uvular consonants q and f shows a more retracted and lowered tongue position than that of baseline IvJ across all participants (see Table D22, in Appendix D). This lowered/backed articulation persists into the vocalic midpoint, as presented in Table 4.7 and Figures 4.28-4.30 above. The transition from onset to midpoint for IvJ following uvulars q and ? shows a raising of F2, more noticeably for u/9_, assumed to indicate that the tongue is moving forwards in anticipation of its midpoint articulation (for formant means, see Table D32, Appendix D). Articulatory tracings for the tongue surface of u/{q, ?}_-onset and -midpoint, illustrated in Figure 4.41, confirm the more advanced midpoint position relative to onset position. Notice however, that the position of the TB and TD for u/?_-onset is similar to that of u/Y-midpoint; a difference in tongue positions between time points emerges only at the TR. 116 Figure 4.40: Onset and midpoint positions of u/V_ for AJP (U) Note that a more fronted articulation for u/?_ relative to u/q_ is possibly due to the difference in articulation of the consonant following lui, where for u/Y_ the consonant following lui is either a palatal glidey' [j'] or alveo-palatal affricate c [tfl; while for ulq_ the consonant following lui is either a glottal stop ? [?] or a lateral approximant / [1]. It is possible that the following palatal/alveo-palatal consonant is causing a fronting effect on the midpoint of the preceding IvJ. In summary, results indicate that lil preceding and following uvular consonants q and f undergoes retraction/lowering at both vowel midpoint and edge nearest the uvular consonant. Also noticeable, is the occurrence of a transitional quality for HI at the vowel's edge (offset for VC condition, onset for CV condition) nearest the uvular. Similarly, coarticulatory results for lui show it to undergo retraction/lowering at both vowel midpoint and edge nearest the following (VC) or preceding (CV) uvular consonant. In contrast to HI adjacent to uvulars, lui preceding and following uvulars generally maintains its retracted/lowered position from midpoint-to-edge/edge-to-midpoint, with slight differences only in the TR position. As a result, it appears that lui adjacent to uvulars lacks a transitional configuration at its edge nearest the uvular. A summary of these findings is presented in Table 4.9 at the end of section 4.2.3.3. 117 4.2.3.2 Vowels adjacent to retracted coronal s As seen in Table 4.3 and Figures 4.4-4.6 in section 4.2.2.1, for all participants, the midpoint (50%) tongue position of lil preceding retracted coronal s is more retracted and lowered than that of baseline lil. This retracted/lowered position of i/_s persists into the vowel offset (95%) (as seen in Table DI, Appendix D). Acoustic evidence comparing midpoint and offset formant means for HI preceding s show little difference between the two time points (Table D29, Appendix D). Articulatory tracings for i/_s midpoint and offset also illustrate minimal difference in articulation between these time points (Figure 4.41 below). Thus, it appears that HI preceding retracted coronal s maintains its retracted/lowered midpoint articulation through to the vocalic offset, without the presence of a transitional quality. Figure 4.41: Midpoint and offset positions of i/j for GNd (U) Looking at coarticulatory effects of the retracted coronal consonant s on a following HI, articulatory data indicate that relative to baseline, both onset and midpoint tongue positions of i/s_ occupy a lower and more retracted region in the vocal tract than baseline for VB and GNd (Table D15, Appendix D for onset and Table 4.6 and Figures 118 4.22-4.23 above for midpoint) . A comparison of onset and midpoint formant means for i/s_ shows variability between participants (Table D30, Appendix D). For VB, only F2 is noticeably different between time points, where from onset to midpoint, a rise in F2 occurs. However, for GNd, a rise in Fl and drops in F2/F3 occur from onset to midpoint. These acoustic results are presumed to indicate only TB fronting (seen in F2) for VB and both lowering and backing of the tongue for GNd as lil following s moves from vocalic onset to midpoint. Articulatory tracings are also examined for onset versus midpoint positions of lil following s. As seen in Figures 4.42 and 4.43 for VB and GNd, respectively, differences between the onset and midpoint articulation of i/s_ lie mainly in the TR position, where in general, a forward movement of the TR occurs from onset to midpoint. Both acoustic and articulatory data indicate that the onset position of i/s_ constitutes a transitional configuration lying between the more backed tongue position for the offset of the preceding s and the more front position for the midpoint of i/s_. Recall that no tokens of HI following s were collected for participant AJP. 1 1Q 2004Nov20 12:04 Figure 4.43: Onset and midpoint positions for i/s_ for GNd (U) In summary, lil adjacent to retracted coronal s is asymmetrical in its coarticulatory effects, where a transition occurs in CV conditions but not in VC conditions. A possible explanation for this asymmetry is discussed in section 4.3. Turning to the trajectory of lui preceding the retracted coronal s_, articulatory results of Table 4.4-section 4.2.2.2 and Table D8-Appendix D show the midpoint and offset tongue positions of ul_s as being more retracted/lowered than those of baseline lui for each participant. Formant means for u/_s-midpoint judged against those of u/_s-offset indicate noticeable differences in F2 for participants VB and AJP and in Fl for GNd (see Table D31, Appendix D). For both VB and AJP, F2 rises from vocalic midpoint to offset, suggesting fronting of the TB, while for GNd, Fl drops from midpoint to offset, implying a raising of TB. Figure 4.44 below illustrates the articulatory position of lui preceding s at vocalic midpoint and offset for AJP. Notice how the TR and TB positions at vowel offset are approximately midway between the more retracted TR and lowered TB of midpoint and the more advanced TR and raised TB of baseline lui. It appears then that as the tongue moves from the retracted vocalic midpoint position to the onset position of s_, a transitional configuration—composed of TB raising and TR fronting—occurs at uls offset. 190 Figure 4.44: Midpoint and offset positions for ul_s for AJP (U) Concerning the effect of the retracted coronal s on a following lui, articulatory evidence shows both onset and midpoint tongue positions of u/s_ as being more retracted and lower relative to baseline lui across all participants (Table D22, Appendix D for onset; Table 4.7 for midpoint). Acoustic results across all participants indicate that from vowel onset to midpoint, u/s_ undergoes F2 lowering, suggesting that the onset tongue position of u/s_ is more front than its midpoint position (Table D32, Appendix D). Articulatory comparisons of onset and midpoint positions for u/s_ show a generally more retracted tongue position for u/s_-midpoint than u/s_-onset; this is illustrated in Figure 4.45 below for participant AJP, where the onset TR position is located midway between the more retracted midpoint position and the more advanced baseline position. Thus it appears that lui following s moves through a transitional configuration at vowel onset from the low/retracted articulation of s to the high/retracted midpoint articulation of lui. 171 /II/ = • • • • • n s -mid = -LI/S -onset = 1 OB C15 " 8 2004Nov20 14:45 Figure 4.45: Onset and midpoint positions for u/s_ for AJP (U) It is worth noting that both acoustic and articulatory results comparing onset and midpoint positions of IvJ following s show differences between participants. For participant VB, comparison of onset and midpoint Fl means for u/s_ indicate a larger Fl at vowel midpoint than onset, supposedly indicative of a lower TB at midpoint than onset. In contrast, acoustic means for participant GNd and AJP show little change in Fl from onset to midpoint, but do show a lowering of F3 at vowel midpoint compared to onset. Furthermore, articulatory results indicate that the onset TB and TD positions of u/s_ for VB are more raised and forward relative to the onset TB/TD positions of u/s_ for GNd/AJP. This articulatory difference is visible by comparing onset and midpoint positions of u/s_ for AJP (Figure 4.45 above) with those of VB (Figure 4.46 below). Notice that the transitional onset position of VB's u/s_ is more drastically different from the midpoint position than is AJP's transitional onset position with her midpoint position. This difference in degree of transition is most likely due to a difference in the inherent articulation of s between GNd/AJP and VB. Recall from Chapter 3 that the articulation of s_ for VB lacked the upper pharyngeal constriction present in the s articulation for GNd/AJP. As a result, the movement from VB's s (non-retracted/non-raised TD) to the retracted/raised TD midpoint position for a following IvJ involves a greater transition than the movement from GNd/AJP's s (retracted/raised TD) to the retracted/raised TD midpoint position for a following IvJ. Ml 2004Nov21 16:56 Figure 4.46: Onset and midpoint positions for u/s_ for VB (L) In sum, coarticulatory effects of the retracted coronal s on following lui (CV) are similar to those of s on a preceding lui (VC). In both conditions, the edge nearest the retracted coronal s enters a transitional configuration that lies between the more retracted/lowered position of vocalic midpoint and the more advanced/raised position of s. Notice that the raising/fronting effect at the vocalic edge for lui nearest the s is contrary to what occurs at the vocalic edge for lui adjacent to uvulars, wherein the vowel offset position is slightly more backed and lowered than that of midpoint. This difference is likely the result of the difference in degree of retracted TR and TD position between uvulars and retracted coronals. Recall from Chapter 3 that St'at'imcets uvulars have extreme TD/TR backing, significantly more so than retracted coronals. Vocalic edge positions of lui adjacent to s and lui adjacent to uvulars suggest that the target TR/TD positions of retracted lui is a medial position between that of the more retracted TR/TD position of uvulars and the less retracted TR/TD positions of s. Thus, for lui preceding uvulars, the TR/TD of midpoint lui must move further back to produce the more retracted TR/TD positions of the following uvular; for lui preceding s, the TR/TD of midpoint lui must move further forward to produce the less retracted TR/TD positions of the following s. The opposite sequence of movements occurs for lui following uvulars and retracted coronals. 1?3 An outline of the directional effects of the retracted coronal s on adjacent vowels HI and IvJ is presented in Table 4.9 of section 4.2.3.3 below. 4.2.3.3 Vowels adjacent to coronal z As seen in Table 4.3 of section 4.2.2.1 and in Table Dl-Appendix D, the midpoint (50%) and offset (95%) articulatory positions of lil preceding coronal z differs between participants. For VB (L), articulatory data show midpoint and offset positions of i/_z as being more retracted and lowered than that of baseline HI; for GNd/AJP (U), midpoint and offset positions of i/_z are equivalent to those of baseline (for midpoint comparisons, refer to Figures 4.4-4.6). As a result, lil preceding Lower dialect z undergoes retraction/lowering while HI preceding Upper dialect z lacks this retraction/lowering effect. With respect to Lower dialect z coarticulatory effects, midpoint and offset formant means and tongue positions for HI preceding z are compared. Acoustic results indicate that as i/_z moves from midpoint to offset, F3 lowering occurs. One interpretation of F3 lowering is the retraction of the tongue into the upper pharynx; therefore, perhaps as the tongue moves from midpoint to offset position for i/_z, the tongue retracts upwards and back towards the upper pharynx. Articulatory results, illustrated in Figure 4.47 below, do not support this upper pharyngeal movement hypothesis; in fact, it appears that the offset articulation of i/z is nearly identical to that of its midpoint articulation. As a result, HI preceding the retracted coronal z (L) maintains its retracted/lowered midpoint position through till offset, with no noticeable transition occurring between the two vocalic time points. 174 W=3 i _z-mid = cm if z-offset - 2004Nov21 16:48 Figure 4.47: Midpoint and offset positions of i/z for VB (L) Regarding rightwards coarticulation, both acoustic and articulatory data indicate that the onset quality of i/z_ is equivalent to and/or more advanced/raised than that of baseline l\l across all participants (see Tables D15-D16 in Appendix D). This equivalent and/or more advanced/raised position of i/z_ relative to baseline persists into the vocalic midpoint across all participants (see Table 4.6 above and Table D17-Appendix D). This midpoint position of i/z_ is illustrated in Figures 4.22-4.24 of section 4.2.2.3. Therefore, it appears that both onset and midpoint positions of I'll following z are neither retracted nor lowered. The coarticulatory effect of coronal consonant z on a preceding IvJ also differs between participants, specifically between participant VB (L) and participants GNd/AJP (U). For participants GNd/AJP (U), both acoustic and articulatory data indicate that midpoint and offset positions of u/z are either equivalent to or more advanced/raised than that of baseline IvJ (see Table 4.4, Figures 4.14-4.15 of section 4.2.2.2 and Tables D8-D10, Appendix D). For VB (L), IvJ preceding z has a more retracted TR and lower TB than those of baseline IvJ at both vowel midpoint and offset (see Table 4.4, Figure 4.13 of section 4.2.2.2 and Table D8-Appendix D). Therefore, lui undergoes retraction/lowering when preceding z of the Lower dialect only; lui preceding Upper dialect z does not retract/lower. 1?S Midpoint and offset formant means and tongue positions for IvJ preceding Lower dialect z are compared. Acoustic results indicate that as u/_z moves from midpoint to offset, an increase in F2 occurs, suggesting a fronting of the TB (see Table D31-Appendix D). As illustrated in Figure 4.48 below, articulatory data show that as u/_z (L) moves from midpoint to offset, a lowering of the TD and a raising of the TB takes place. This transitional offset position for u/_z is the result of preparing for the articulation of Lower St'at'imcets retracted z, which results of Chapter 3 show it to have a retracted TR, a TD position equivalent to that of interspeech rest position, and a raised anterior tongue position for the coronal approximation. Figure 4.48: Midpoint and offset positions for u/_z for VB (L) Also notice in Figure 4.48 how the TR position of IvJ preceding Lower dialect z remains steadily retracted from vowel midpoint to offset. It appears then that by compressing the TD, the TB is able to rise from a low position for u/_z-midpoint to a higher position for z; therefore the progression from u/_z-midpoint to z transitions through a medial TB height at u/_z-offset. Finally, with respect to rightwards coarticulation (CV), the effect of the coronal consonant z on a following IvJ varies among participants. For GNd/AJP (U), both acoustic and articulatory data indicate that onset and midpoint positions of u/z_ are either equivalent to or more advanced than those of baseline IvJ (see Table 4.7, Figures 4.32-196 4.33 of section 4.2.2.4 and Tables D22-D24, Appendix D). For VB (L), articulatory and acoustic data show the midpoint position of u/z_ also as being equivalent to that of baseline IvJ (see Table 4.7, Figure 4.31 of section 4.2.2.4). Interestingly, articulatory and acoustic data show the onset position of u/z_ for VB as having a more retracted TR and lower TB than that of baseline IvJ (Tables D22 and D27-Appendix D). As illustrated in Figure 4.49 below, the onset position of u/z_ also has a slightly more retracted TR and lower TD position than those of u/z_-midpoint and baseline IvJ. It appears then that u/z_-onset occupies a transitional configuration between the retracted/lowered articulation of z and the nonretracted articulation of a following IvJ. Figure 4.49: Onset and midpoint positions of u/z_ for VB (L) In conclusion, across all participants, the coronal consonant z produces no retraction/lowering on the target (midpoint) of a following I'll or lui. A dialectal difference occurs with respect to the coarticulatory effects of z on a preceding li, ul: for the Lower dialect speaker VB, both lil and lui preceding z undergo retraction/lowering, while for Upper dialect speakers GNd and AJP, no such retraction/lowering occurs. This difference in vowel retraction between dialects is due to the inherent difference in articulation between Upper and Lower dialect z, where results of Chapter 3 show only Lower z to have a retracted articulation. Finally, as was shown, a transitional configuration for /u/ occurred at the edge nearest the Lower z. Ml Table 4.9 summarizes the effect of St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, ?, s, and Lower dialect z on adjacent high vowels lil and lui in both post- (VC) and pre-vocalic (CV) conditions. Table 4.9: Summary of the directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction VC CV Midpoint Edge (Offset) Edge (Onset) Midpoint i/q,? R <-j-»R. R u/q, Y R R R R i/s R R R u/s R 'J'R R i/z RfVB) X (GND/AJP) RfVB) X (GND/AJP) X X u/z R(VB) X (GND/AJP) TK (VB) X (GND/AJP) TK (VB) X (GND/AJP) X 4.2.4 Degree of retraction: VC versus CV Although this study has so far examined the presence/absence of St'at'imcets vowel retraction and the edge effects of such retraction, it is worth also briefly examining whether or not the magnitude of retraction is also mirrored between VC and CV contexts. In a previous study, Bessell (1997) examined acoustic data (Fl and F2) to identify the magnitude of St'at'imcets consonant-vowel coarticulation in CV and VC sequences. The use of ultrasound technology in this study provides direct articulatory data regarding the degree of St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects. In this study, only a qualitative examination of the degree of St'at'imcets vowel retraction is presented, wherein the articulatory tracing of a given vowel's midpoint position in VC context is overlapped onto its midpoint tracing in CV context. A quantitative investigation of the degree of St'at'imcets vowel retraction is left for future study. Results of section 4.2.2 indicate that vowels /i, ul underwent retraction when both preceding and following uvular consonants q and f. Because St'at'imcets vowel-uvular 49 "R" indicates retraction/lowering, "TR" indicates that there is a transition occurring at this time point but that this transition is also retracted/lowered relative to baseline, and "X" indicates that there is neither retraction/lowering nor a retracted transition occurring; in essence, "X" indicates equivalence to baseline. 1?x consonant retraction is consistently described as regressive (van Eijk 1997, Remnant 1990, Bessell 1992, Shahin 1997, 2002), it is predicted that a greater degree of retraction is present on the vowel preceding a uvular consonant (VC condition) than on the vowel following (CV condition). Acoustic evidence from Bessell (1997) corroborate this prediction where it was found that uvular consonants q and T raised the Fl and lowered the F2 of li, ul preceding the uvular more than the Fl, F2 of li, ul following the uvular (Bessell 1997: 72-73). With respect to the articulatory data, surface tongue tracings of lil adjacent to uvular consonant q (VC versus CV) and lui adjacent to uvular consonant ? (VC versus CV) are illustrated in Figures 4.50 and 4.51, respectively. Notice that in both figures, the TR position of i/_q and u/Ji are more retracted than for i/q_ and u/?_, respectively. Thus articulatory tracings below illustrate that St'at'imcets uvular consonants q and i retract vowels li, ul in VC sequence more so than in CV sequences, thus supporting Bessell's (1997) claim that "Vq and Vg structures in St'at'imcets are overall more heavily coarticulated than their CV counterparts" (1997: 78)50. Figure 4.50: Midpoint positions of i/_q versus i/q_ for GNd (U) Note that "g" in Bessell (1997) represents the uvular consonant listed in this study as f. 190 Figure 4.51: Midpoint positions of ul_S and u/Y_ for AJP (U) Concerning St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants Q, c', s, I and /', no previous literature exists with respect to the difference in degree of retraction between VC and CV sequences. In this study, articulatory tracings of /i, u/ adjacent to retracted coronal s (VC/CV) show a difference in magnitude effects between lil relative to lui. For lil, a greater degree of TR retraction and TB lowering occurs in i/s_ (CV) condition than in i/_s (VC) condition for participants VB and GNd51; this is illustrated in Figure 4.52 below where the tongue position for i/s_ is pushed more towards the bottom and left of the image than that of i/_s. 51 The degree of retraction for i/_s versus i/s_ for participant AJP was not examined due to the lack of stimuli for condition i/s . no Figure 4.52: Midpoint positions of il_s versus i/s_ for GNd (U) For lui in the context of the retracted coronal s, the degree of retraction between u/_s and u/s_ differ across participants, where for VB, u/s_ is more retracted than u/_s (Figure 4.53); for GNd, u/s is more retracted than u/s_ (Figure 4.54); and for AJP, the degree of retraction for u/_s is similar to that of u/s_ (Figure 4.55). Figure 4.53: Midpoint positions of u/_js versus u/s_ for VB (L) ni Figure 4.54: Midpoint positions of ul_s versus u/s_ for GNd (U) Figure 4.55: Midpoint positions of ul_s versus u/s_ for AJP (U) Finally, regarding differences in the degree of retraction between a vowel preceding the retracted coronal z of Lower St'at'imcets and a vowel following Lower z, results of section 4.2.2 indicate that while vowel retraction occurred on /i, ul preceding z (L), no retraction occurred on li, ul following z (L). As a result, comparing the magnitude of vowel retraction between VC and CV for z (L) is not applicable. As based on articulatory tracings illustrated above, a summary of the differences in magnitude for St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects is shown in Table 4.10 below. n? Table 4.10: St'at'imcets retraction magnitude differences between VC and CV Condition Degree of Retraction i, u/q, g vocv i/s cv> vc u/s variable across participants i, u/z (L) n/a 4.3 Discussion Both acoustic and articulatory data presented in this chapter demonstrate the effect of coarticulation in sequences of St'at'imcets vowels and retracted consonants. Results of section 4.2 indicate that across all participants, high vowels HI and lui undergo retraction/lowering at vowel midpoint when preceding and following St'at'imcets retracted consonants q, f, and s, as well as when preceding Lower dialect z. No retraction/lowering occurred for vowels li, ul preceding Upper dialect z and following both Upper and Lower St'at'imcets z. Across all participants, cues indicating St'at'imcets vowel retraction/lowering included greater tongue root (TR) and lower tongue body (TB) displacement from the transducer centre, as well as Fl raising and F2 lowering, in comparison to the TR and TB positions and F1/F2 values of the baseline vowel. Recall that three main predictions regarding St'at'imcets vowel retraction/lowering were made at the beginning of this chapter (see Table 4.1). First, it was predicted that for GNd and AJP (both Upper speakers), only one retracted quality would surface for a given vowel when adjacent to retracted consonants q, f, and s, while for VB (Lower speaker) the retracted quality of a given vowel adjacent to uvulars q and f would differ from that when adjacent to retracted coronals s and z. Second, because St'at'imcets vowels have an underlying nonretracted articulation, both HI and lui were expected to show retraction/lowering. Finally, it was predicted that an asymmetrical process of retracted consonant-vowel coarticulation would appear in St'at'imcets such that vowels preceding uvulars q, T and z (L) would undergo retraction/lowering at both vocalic midpoint and offset, while vowels following q, S, z (L) would move through a transitional configuration at onset en route to its midpoint baseline quality. Due to the phonological nature of St'at'imcets retracted coronal s, coarticulation from a retracted coronal s was expected to show retraction/lowering at the midpoint and edge nearest s in both VC and CV sequences. Results of section 4.2 indicate that in general, there are two retracted qualities of a given vowel: one when preceding/following q and £ and one when preceding z (L) and preceding/following s (/V/-»rVi]/{?, £}, [¥2]/ _z (L), \V2Vs). Results of section 4.2 also show both I'll and IvJ undergoing vowel retraction/lowering when within a retracting condition, thus corroborating initial hypotheses. Finally, with regard to the directional effects of St'at'imcets vowel retraction, section 4.2.3 reveals a general symmetry in vowel retraction effects, such that retraction effects on vowel midpoint and offset positions for VC sequences are mirrored in retraction effects on vowel onset and midpoint positions for CV sequences. Further discussion of these results is presented in the following subsections. It must be noted that midpoint and offset/onset qualities of baseline I'll were taken from an III occupying an unstressed syllable position (lil of muzmit "pitiful" and muzmit.s "to feel pity for someone"). The unstressed nature of baseline HI may confound results of HI retraction effects if unstressed lil has undergone vowel reduction/centralization. In St'at'imcets, van Eijk (1997: 27) states that reduction of a "full vowel" (li, u, al) to schwa occurs unpredictably, such that for some roots, the full vowel quality is retained when unstressed, e.g. qwal'ut [qwael'ut] "to deliver a speech" (qwaV "to speak, " -ut formative suffix) while for others, the full vowel, often reduces, e.g. xwik'mdlxw [xw3k'maeTxw] / [xwik'mael'xw] "shed for butchering fish" (xvik'dm "to butcher fish"). If baseline HI is truly centralized, then conditions of /i/-retracted consonant showing retraction/lowering for the latter relative to baseline HI might actually be more retracted/lowered than shown. Furthermore, in /i/-retracted consonant conditions where HI adjacent to a retracted consonant is not retracted/lowered and shows TR advancement and TB raising relative to a centralized baseline HI, then the HI in the retracting context is likely not retracted/lowered. Finally, if the articulatory/acoustic quality of lil adjacent to a retracted consonant is not found to be significantly different from that of a centralized 134 baseline I'll, then the centralization of baseline I'll is potentially masking the actual retracted/lowered status of lil adjacent to the retracted consonant. 4.3.1 Retracted surface variants for St'at'imcets /i, u/ As briefly mentioned above, the retracted surface quality of a given vowel in St'at'imcets vowel retraction depends on the inherent articulation of the adjacent retracted consonant. In general, the midpoint quality of both lil and lui surfaces with two retracted variants: one when li, ul are adjacent to St'at'imcets uvular consonants, and one when li, ul are adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants. For example, results of section 4.2.2 indicate that in St'at'imcets, the retracted midpoint quality of lui adjacent to uvular consonants q and f generally has a less retracted TR, higher TD/TB position than that of lui adjacent to retracted coronal s and preceding Lower z for each participant. Therefore, for VB (L) and GNd/AJP (U), there are two surface qualities of retracted lui: one when lui is preceding and/or following uvulars, another when lui is preceding/following s and preceding z (L) (i.e. /u/->[ui]/Q, [u2]/{s, _z (L)}). The multiple retracted variants of HI and lui is motivated by the difference in articulation between uvular consonants and retracted coronal consonants. St'at'imcets uvular consonants q and f are articulated with the tongue body and dorsum raised and retracted into the upper pharynx and with the tongue root retracted into the lower pharynx. Therefore, to produce a retracted lil or lui in the environment of uvulars q and f, backing of the tongue mass and depression of the tongue front is needed. In contrast, while there is a large portion of tongue mass in the posterior region of the vocal tract for retracted coronal s and Lower dialect z, some tongue mass is also needed in the anterior region of the vocal tract to enable the coronal, tongue tip constriction. Furthermore, for retracted coronals s and z (L), the surface of the tongue must be grooved, in a "narrow, longitudinal furrow" (Laver 1994:258); therefore, additional tongue mass is displaced along the midline and lateral sides of the tongue during retracted coronal articulation. As a result, to produce a retracted HI or lui adjacent to retracted coronal consonants 5 and z (L), backing of the tongue posterior, depression of the tongue body and midline, and extension of the tongue tip is required. Thus, greater manipulation of the tongue is needed for retracted coronal consonant vowel retraction than for uvular consonant vowel retraction. Although generally, HI adjacent to retracted consonants surface with two retracted outputs, the number of retracted qualities for HI in CV condition varies between participants. Articulatory data reported in section 4.2.3 indicate that for participant VB (L), only one retracted-/i/ quality surfaces when HI follows retracted consonants, (/i/->[i]/{g, ?, s}_), while for participant GNd (U), two retracted-/!/ variants surface (H/->[i\]l{q, [hVsJ). This difference in retracted HI quality for CV condition between participants might be due to a process of lexicalization present in GNd's i/s_ condition (H. Davis, p.c). For GNd, the stimuli used for si condition is si [sAai] "(a rude gesture made with the hands)." Notice that the surface quality of HI following s is the low-back to high-front retracted diphthong [ai], a quality that is significantly different from that of HI in any other retracting environment. To test whether GNd's si condition is truly lexicalized, a future study involving collection of other i/s_ stimuli is warranted; however, due to the limited occurrence of si sequences in St'at'imcets, this might not be possible. For the purposes of this study, it will be assumed that like lui, HI in St'at'imcets surfaces with two retracted variants: one when adjacent to uvular consonants q and T, and one when adjacent to retracted coronal consonants 5 and z (L). It is worth mentioning that because of the similarity in articulation between uvular consonants q and f, f patterned with q in producing similar coarticulatory effects on an adjacent vowel. Similarly, coarticulatory effects of the retracted coronal z (L) on a preceding vowel patterned with those of s; no significant difference occurred in the F1/F2/F3 and TR/TD/TB positions of u/_z and u/_s. With respect to CV condition, Lower St'at'imcets z patterned with Upper St'at'imcets z, wherein both HI and lui following z surfaced a midpoint quality equivalent to that of baseline HI and lui, respectively. Lower dialect z-vowel retraction effects are further discussed later in this section. 1U 4.3.2 St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects: VC versus CV Regarding the claim that vowel retraction/lowering effects in a language tend to be asymmetrical in pre- and post-consonantal conditions (Gick & Wilson 2005), results of section 4.2.3 generally do not comply with this claim. Offset (95%) and onset (5%) positions of vowels /i, u/ preceding and following retracted consonants, respectively, were compared with those of baseline vowels /i, vJ. As seen in Table 4.9 of section 4.2.3, St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects are generally symmetrical, such that the effect seen at the offset point in VC sequences was also seen at the onset point in CV sequences. This is especially true for conditions /i, ul adjacent to uvulars q, ? and lui adjacent to retracted coronal s, where offset/onset points for i/{q, T} and u/s showed a transitional configuration and offset/onset points for ul{q, ?} remained in the retracted position found at ul{q, f}-midpoint52. Why is there a difference in edge effects between il{q, f}, u/s (retraction with transition present) on the one hand and ul{q, f} (retraction without transition) on the other? According to Gick & Wilson (2005), the transitional element is a biomechanical byproduct of the movement from one articulatory position to another that is in direct conflict with the initial articulation. In St'at'imcets, movement from a front/raised TB position for i/_q-midpoint to a backed/lowered TB position for the following uvular stop q passes the TB through a medial front-back, high-low position in the vocal tract, surfacing at the vowel's offset. The opposite sequence of events occurs for CV context. With regards to uls edge effects, although both retracted lui and retracted coronal s have the bulk of the tongue mass in a retracted position, an anterior constriction is needed for the coronal articulation of s. To produce the anterior constriction of a following s, the tongue must compress the high retracted TD of a preceding lui while lifting the tongue blade/tip up, resulting in a transitional configuration at vowel offset. For su contexts, the opposite sequence of events unfolds. 52 Note that the transitional configuration present at the offset/onset points of \/{q, ?} and u/s is also retracted/lowered relative to baseline li, ul. Therefore, retraction/lowering is present at both the vocalic midpoint and edge nearest the retracted consonant. 137 Finally, based on Gick & Wilson (2005), the retracted-nontransitional position at edge points for lui adjacent to uvulars q, ? is not surprising since the midpoint retracted/lowered position of IvJ preceding/following q, f has an articulatory target very close to that of the following/preceding uvular53. As a result, no transitional configuration is necessary. Although St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects are in general directionally symmetrical, three test conditions exhibited an asymmetrical pattern of vowel retraction: I'll adjacent to retracted coronal s, and li, ul adjacent to the retracted coronal z of Lower St'at'imcets. For lil adjacent to s, results indicate that the offset position of i/_s is almost identical to that of the retracted midpoint position; whereas the onset position of i/s_ is retracted but with an additional transitional configuration en route to the retracted midpoint position. This difference in edge effect between il_s and i/s_ might be an effect of the unstressed nature of i/_s versus the stressed nature of i/s_. Articulatory conflict arises between the retracted coronal s and the following stressed retracted: the articulation of s requires the bulk of tongue to be in the posterior vocal tract, while the articulation of the following stressed HI requires the bulk of the tongue to be predominately in the anterior region of the vocal tract. As a result, movement of the tongue from s to a following HI pushes the backed tongue mass of s through a medial transitional position en route to the more front position for HI. However, in the is_ condition, if the unstressed nature of lil preceding s has centralized lil, then the conflict between HI and the following retracted s has lessened, leaving no need for a medial transitional configuration between lil and the following s. With regards to the retraction effects of Lower St'at'imcets z on adjacent vowels li, ul, in VC condition, both HI and lui preceding Lower z show retraction/lowering at vocalic midpoint, while lil and lui following Lower z (CV) are not significantly different from that of baseline at vocalic midpoint. The lack of both vowel retraction/lowering and transitioning suggests that the articulation of Lower dialect z is now compatible with that of a following nonretracted high vowel. Articulatory compatibility is possible in these See Wilson (to appear) for similar results for Nuuchahnulth. conditions if z (L) has lost its conflicting articulation, namely its retracted TR position . To test this newfound compatibility between Lower dialect z and following /i, u/, a future investigation of the retracted consonants in these particular conditions is warranted. Interestingly, retraction/lowering effects of HI preceding z (L) pattern similarly with those of HI preceding retracted coronal s in showing retraction/lowering with no transitional element at vowel offset. Like lil preceding s, stimuli collected for this study have HI before z (L) occupying an unstressed syllable position (izd "these (here)," izu "those (over there)"). The unstressed nature of i/_z (L) is potentially causing a centralization of HI in this sequence, therefore lessening the degree of articulatory incompatibility between HI and a following retracted coronal z (L). Finally, it was proposed that a transitional quality would surface as the tongue moved from the retracted articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z to an advanced position for the following li, ul. Results of section 4.2.3 (Table 4.9) show no such vowel transitioning in the context of HI following Lower z, however, a transition does surface at vocalic onset for lui following Lower z. This difference in onset effects between lil and lui following Lower z is discussed further in section 4.3.3 below. 4.3.3 St'at'imcets retraction effects: lil versus lui St'at'imcets vowels HI and lui are articulated with a nonretracted TR position. Because this nonretracted TR position of li, ul directly conflicts with the retracted TR position of St'at'imcets retracted consonants, initial hypotheses predicted that both HI and lui in St'at'imcets would undergo retraction. Results of section 4.2 indicate that HI and lui are both generally retracted/lowered when adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants, thus confirming the above hypothesis. A more exhaustive investigation revealed four main differences in St'at'imcets retraction effects between HI and lui. First, HI adjacent to uvulars q, T is both retracted/lowered and transitioned, while lui adjacent to uvulars q, T is only retracted/lowered. This difference is justified via the greater articulatory compatibility of 54 Recall from Chapter 3 that Lower dialect z articulation has a retracted TR, but lacks a retracted TD position. 13Q lui and uvular consonants (both require a high-backed TD position) than HI and uvular consonants (/i/'s front tongue position conflicts with the backed position of uvulars). Thus, the retracted transition between lil and uvulars is a biomechanical necessity in the drastic movement of HI articulation to uvular articulation (VC context) or vice versa for CV context, while the movement of lui articulation to uvular articulation is minimal and predominantly in the TR region. Secondly, notice in Table 4.9 of section 4.2.3 that the offset position of lil preceding retracted coronal s, z (L) is retracted, while that of lui preceding s_, z (L) is retracted and transitional. Recall from section 4.3.2 that the vowel HI preceding retracted coronals s and z (L) occupies an unstressed syllable position and thus might be subject to vowel centralization/reduction. If such centralization has occurred, then the articulation of retracted HI preceding s, z (L) is more compatible with that of the following retracted coronal, thus no transitional offset position is necessary for i/_j, z (L). In contrast, the articulation of retracted lui preceding s, z (L) continues to be incompatible with that of the following retracted s> z (L) so that a transitional configuration (involving compression of the TD and raising of the tongue tip/blade) is needed between the midpoint position of retracted lui and the retracted articulation of s, z (L). Another difference in retraction between lil and lui is between the onset position of HI following Lower St'at'imcets retracted coronal z and lui following z (L). Table 4.9 of section 4.2.3 indicates that the onset position of lui following z (L) is both retracted and transitional, while that of lil following z (L) is neither retracted nor transitional. The presence of a transitional onset position for lui following z (L) is due to the articulatory incompatibility between the retracted z (L) and the following lui, where the retracted TR, low TB, and unbacked TD position of z (L) is indirect conflict with the back and high TD/TB position of lui. Therefore, movement from the former position to that of the latter produces an onset position whose TD and TB positions are en route to becoming raised and backed. The lack of retraction or transition for the onset position of HI following z (L) is surprising since it is expected that movement from a retracted position (z) to a nonretracted position (HI) would result in either effect. Therefore, perhaps the conflicting retracted position of z (L) is lost in this specific condition, resulting in no need for lil-140 retraction or transition. A future study examining the articulation of z (L) specifically in the context preceding lil is warranted to make such a conclusion. Finally, the articulatory position of the vocalic edge for HI adjacent to s is relatively different from that of lui adjacent to s. In is/si sequences, the edge TR position of lil is more retracted than those of its midpoint and baseline lil. In us/su sequences, the edge TR/TD positions of lui are midway between the more retracted TR/TD of midpoint position and a less retracted TR/TD position of baseline lui. This difference in relative edge position between Us and u/s might be due to a difference in general movement from the articulation HI preceding 5 to s (VC context) and the articulation of lui preceding s to s (vice versa for CV context). For example, moving the tongue from a more advanced (but still retracted) midpoint TR position of i/s to the more retracted TR position of s results in an i/s offset TR position that is more retracted than its midpoint position and than baseline HI. In contrast, moving the tongue from a backed (and retracted) TD/TR midpoint position of u/_s to a less retracted/backed TD/TR position of s results in an u/_s offset TD/TR position that is less retracted/backed than that of its midpoint but more retracted/backed than baseline lui. Therefore, the difference in edge position between HI adjacent to s and lui adjacent to s is rooted in biomechanical differences between the two. 4.3.4 Degree of St'at'imcets vowel retraction: VC versus CV Although not initially pursued at the onset of this study, the examination of the degree of retraction between VC and CV conditions was possible by comparing the midpoint tongue tracings of li, u/ preceding q, f, s, z to those of li, ul following q, ?, s, z. Results of section 4.2.4 above corroborate Bessell's (1997) acoustic finding that li, ul preceding uvulars are more retracted/lowered than li, ul following uvulars (iQ, uQ retraction > Qi, Qu retraction). According to Bessell (1997: 78), a greater degree of retraction occurs for iQ, uQ sequences than Qi, Qu sequences because the vowel of the former signals information regarding place of articulation for the following consonant. In addition, the greater degree of retraction for li, ul preceding uvulars than li, ul following uvulars might also be indicative of the regressive nature of St'at'imcets vowel retraction induced by uvular consonants. 141 Regarding the degree of retraction between /i, ul preceding St'at'imcets retracted coronal s and li, ul following s, results of section 4.2.4 above indicate differences between lil and lui effects. For lil, there is a greater degree of retraction for lil following s than for lil preceding s (is retraction < si retraction). If the retracted coronal s is in fact the source of this /i/-retraction, then the greater degree of si retraction than is retraction might be indicative of the progressive nature of this type of vowel retraction (for a discussion of the other potential sources of St'at'imcets retracted coronal type vowel retraction see Chapter 5). However, the difference in degree of retraction between is and si sequences might simply be due to the difference in stress, wherein HI preceding s is unstressed, while lil following s is stressed. Finally, the difference in degree of retraction between lui preceding retracted coronal s and lui following s varies between participants. As shown in section 4.2.4, the degree of retraction for lui preceding s is either a) greater than that of lui following s (us > su), or; b) less than that of lui following s (us < su), or; c) equivalent to that of lui following s (us = su). This variability between participants might be affected by the particular stimuli chosen for these test conditions. Due to the rare occurrence of the retracted coronal S (let alone contexts of lui adjacent to s), for all participants, only the word psus "wild (bitter) cherry" was collected. Notice that the lui in this word is both followed and preceded by the retracted coronal s. Therefore, the retraction of lui in both us and su sequences might be the effect of a single following or preceding s, respectively, or a possible effect of both surrounding s's. In summary, acoustic and articulatory data presented in this chapter confirm the overall retracted status of St'at'imcets vowels li, ul preceding retracted consonants q, f s, z (L) and li, ul following q, ?, and s. 14? Chapter 5: General Discussion and Conclusion As discussed in Chapter 1, there is variation in the description of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects in previous literature. This variability is likely the result of using indirect acoustic and perceptual inferences to determine the articulatory composition of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction. In this study, the use of ultrasound technology, in combination with acoustic evidence, has allowed for a more direct examination of the articulations involved in St'at'imcets retraction. This investigation of St'at'imcets retraction set out to answer the following questions: (i) what are the articulatory mechanisms involved in the production of St'at'imcets retracted consonants—both inherently retracted (q, qw, q \ q'w, x, xw, f, Tw, ?', f"") and secondarily retracted (c, c \ s, I V, and Lower dialect z, z'), and; (ii) what are the coarticulatory effects of St'at'imcets retracted consonants on adjacent vowels? Based on the articulatory and acoustic data reported in Chapters 3 and 4, the major findings of this study are presented in Table 5.1 below. These findings are discussed further in sections 5.1 and 5.2 below. Table 5.1: A summary of the major findings of this study 1. St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction involve retraction of the tongue root towards the lower pharyngeal wall. 2. The articulation of the St'at'imcets retracted consonant T is equivalent to that of the uvular stop q, both involving tongue dorsum backing and raising towards the upper pharynx and tongue root retraction towards the lower pharynx (see section 5.1). 3. For St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants, the participation of a retracted and raised tongue dorsum varies across speakers (section 5.1). 4. The retracted surface quality of a given vowel differs between uvular consonant contexts and retracted coronal consonant contexts (refer to section 5.2 below). 5. Both IM and lui undergo retraction when adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants (section 5.2). 6. St'at'imcets exhibits a symmetrical pattern of vowel retraction effects, wherein the retraction effects on a vowel preceding a retracted consonant (VC) are equivalent to those on a vowel following a retracted consonant (CV) (section 5.2). 143 Section 5.3 concludes this study with a discussion of the implications of the present findings for the phonological representation of St'at'imcets retraction. 5.1 St'at'imcets retracted consonant articulation As mentioned above, the articulatory results reported in Chapter 3 indicate that St'at'imcets retracted consonants share a physical property of retraction, namely retraction of the tongue mass towards the rear pharyngeal wall. In fact, all retracted consonants in St'at'imcets exhibit a retracted tongue root position, with the presence of tongue dorsum retraction varying between speakers. 5.1.1 Inherently retracted St'at'imcets consonants q, qw, q', q'w, X, Xw, ?w, Examination of the uvular stop q [q] in Chapter 3 shows that St'at'imcets uvular consonants are articulated with a superior-posterior movement of the tongue mass towards the upper pharyngeal wall. More specifically, St'at'imcets uvular articulation involves raising and backing of the tongue dorsum towards the upper pharynx and backing of the tongue root towards the lower pharynx55. Although she analyzes this consonant as an emphatic velar, Shahin's (1997, 2002: 180) description of St'at'imcets q as having a primary uvular constriction with accompanying pharyngealization is consistent with the articulatory findings of the present study. It is interesting to note that van Eijk (1997: 10) perceives St'at'imcets uvular consonants as having an articulation close to that of velar consonants. Tongue tracings of St'at'imcets q [q] compared with those of k [k] in section 3.2.1 show that while q and k share a similar tongue dorsum height, q has a noticeably more backed tongue dorsum and root positions than those of k. The upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular articulation of St'at'imcets uvulars also resembles Montana Salish (MTS) uvular articulation, which consists of "production in the uvular area...coupled with a tongue presence in the pharyngeal area" (McDowell 2004: 96). This similarity in uvular production between St'at'imcets and MTS suggests that 55 See Wood (2004) for a similar upper pharyngeal constriction location for Swedish and West Greenlandic uvular consonants. 144 retraction of the tongue dorsum and tongue root is characteristic of uvular articulation throughout Interior Salish. With respect to the retracted consonant f, recall from Chapter 1 that previous studies have described T as either pharyngeal or uvular in articulation. In the present study, articulatory evidence indicates that f is made up of tongue dorsum and tongue root constrictions towards the upper pharyngeal/posterior uvular region of the vocal tract and the lower pharynx, respectively. In fact, by comparing surface tongue tracings of f with q (section 3.2.2), it is clear that f exhibits an articulatory makeup like that of uvular q, with a difference in the degree of retraction likely due to their difference in manner. Therefore, St'at'imcets f is the uvular approximant [K], a finding that corroborates Kinkade (1967) and Shahin's (1997, 2002) description of St'at'imcets f as uvular in place. Although St'at'imcets T is found not to be a "pharyngeal glide" as previously described by van Eijk (1997: 4), the uvular-pharyngeal articulation of St'at'imcets f may explain van Eijk's perception of f as midway between the Arabic pharyngeal f and the French uvular trill [R], since St'at'imcets f is neither solely lower pharyngeal nor solely upper pharyngeal. Finally, the tongue dorsum and root constrictions present in St'at'imcets f articulation are consistent with Carlson & Esling's (2003) laryngoscopic findings of Nie?kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish) f, fw, f'was being pharyngealized uvulars. In summary, it is clear from previous chapters that St'at'imcets uvular consonants q, qw, q', q 'w, x, xw, ?, fw, ff'whave an upper and lower pharyngeal component in their articulation. This uvular-pharyngeal articulation of St'at'imcets uvulars is also found in the articulation of uvulars in other Interior Salish languages (e.g. Nie?kepmxcin and Montana Salish). One question that arises is whether the tongue root retraction of Interior Salish uvulars is specific to Interior Salish or whether retraction of the tongue root is an inherent physiological consequence of uvular articulation. In support of the latter, Shahin (2002: 24) claims that tongue root retraction for uvulars (specifically Arabic [K] and [x]) is automatic, "presumably due to the proximity of the tongue back 145 and root." Based on this claim, it is expected that the articulation of uvular consonants universally includes a retracted tongue root position. Articulatory data on various dialects of Arabic support this claim56. Cinefluorographic data on Tunisian Arabic shows the articulation of uvular consonants consisting of backing and raising of the tongue dorsum, with additional narrowing of the lower pharynx caused by retraction of the tongue root and epiglottis (Ghazeli 1977: 56-57). Furthermore, a lower pharyngeal constriction coupled with a posterior-uvular/upper pharyngeal constriction is also illustrated in x-ray tracings of Lebanese Arabic uvular consonants (Delattre 1971: 130). The above articulatory findings suggest that the inherent articulation of uvular consonants does in fact involve retraction of the tongue root. In contrast however, the articulation of lui and various lateral approximants indicate that an upper pharyngeal ("uvular") constriction can occur independently of tongue root retraction. For example, in an investigation of Montana Salish lateral retraction, McDowell's (2004) ultrasound data indicates that retraction of lateral approximants IV, 1/ occurs at the tongue dorsum only, without coupling of secondary tongue root retraction. Furthermore, the articulation of the high back vowel lui presents another case of upper pharyngeal constriction without tongue root retraction. As a result, I will assume that the tongue root retraction present in the articulation of St'at'imcets uvular consonants is not an inherent consequence of upper pharyngeal constriction. The impact of this finding on the phonological representation of St'at'imcets uvular consonants is discussed in section 5.3.1. 5.1.2 Secondarily retracted St'at'imcets consonants c, c', s, 1,1', Lower z, z' Turning now to the articulatory makeup of St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants, the results reported in Chapter 3 indicate that in addition to a primary coronal constriction, retracted coronal consonants s [s] and z (L) [6s] have a retracted tongue root position towards the lower pharynx that is distinctly absent from nonretracted ("plain") 56A more cross-linguistic investigation of tongue root involvement in uvular consonant articulation is beyond the scope of this study. 146 counterparts s [f] and z (U) [z]. This tongue root articulation of s corroborates the findings of van Eijk (1997), Bessell (1992), and Shahin (1997, 2002) who claim that tongue root retraction is involved in the articulation of St'at'imcets s. However, rather than referring to this secondary articulation as "velarization" (Bessell 1992: 98, van Eijk 1997: 3), it is more accurate to describe it as "pharyngealization" (Shahin 2002: 180) since a lower pharyngeal constriction is made. Recall from previous chapters that the articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z was initially hypothesized to involve an upper pharyngeal locus of tongue retraction. However, as mentioned above, the articulatory results reported in Chapter 3 indicate that only a lower pharyngeal constriction is present for Lower St'at'imcets z articulation. The retracted articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z is similar to that of Chilcotin "flat z" as described by Latimer (1978). Palatographic results of Chilcotin indicate that "flat" consonants (including z) are produced with a coronal point of contact that is farther back than that of denti-alveolar "sharp consonants," thus suggesting that flat consonant articulation also includes a retracted tongue root ("pharyngealization") (Latimer 1978: 40-49). Although Latimer's (1978) results confirm a more backed coronal articulation for Chilcotin flat consonants, the use of palatography does not provide a direct look at the tongue root; therefore, further articulatory study of Chilcotin "flat z" is needed to conclude whether the retracted articulation of Lower St'at'imcets z is in fact similar to that of Chilcotin "flatz." Interestingly, a backed tongue dorsum position is also found in the retracted coronal s articulation of Upper St'at'imcets, but not in that of Lower St'at'imcets s. It was suggested that this difference in tongue dorsum articulation between Upper and Lower St'at'imcets_s might be due either to a loss of tongue dorsum articulation for Lower St'at'imcets or to variation expected between speakers. A future study testing more St'at'imcets speakers, specifically of the Lower dialect, is needed to determine if the lack of tongue dorsum backing is inherent in Lower dialect s articulation. The presence of tongue dorsum retraction for Upper St'at'imcets s supports Shahin's (1997, 2002) classification of St'at'imcets retracted coronals as being "uvularized" in addition to "pharyngealized." 147 Variability in tongue posterior articulation for retracted coronal consonants is also noted in previous articulatory descriptions of Arabic emphatic consonants. One view is that Arabic emphatics possess a lower pharyngeal constriction, without any upper pharyngeal involvement. For example, both fiberoptic (Laufer & Bauer 1988) and cinefluorographic data Ghazeli (1977) on Arabic emphatics illustrate the presence of a lower pharyngeal constriction with depression of the tongue dorsum, thus "ruling out the possibility of uvular co-articulation for emphatics" (Laufer & Bauer 1988 as summarized by Bessell 1992: 77). Alternatively, based on previous articulatory studies (e.g. Ghazeli 1977, Ali & Daniloff 1972), McCarthy (1994) states that Arabic emphatic consonants are produced with only an upper pharyngeal constriction and claims that "the so-called pharyngealized consonants of Arabic should really be called uvularized" (McCarthy 1994: 228). Finally, more recent accounts describe the articulation of Arabic emphatics as involving both upper and lower pharyngeal constrictions "due to retraction of the body and root of the tongue toward the posterior wall of the pharynx" (Elgendy 2001: 12-13). Regardless of the variation in tongue posterior articulation, it is clear that both Arabic emphatics and St'at'imcets retracted coronals have a tongue position farther back in the vocal tract than that of their plain counterparts. 5.2: St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects Previous literature on Interior Salish languages has described the process of vowel retraction as the general backing and lowering of the tongue towards the rear pharyngeal wall (Bessell 1998a, van Eijk 1987, 1997, Remnant 1990, McDowell 2004). Results of this study support this general description, further showing that St'at'imcets vowel retraction involves retraction of the tongue root and lowering of the tongue body, with additional backing of the tongue body present in some conditions. As was presented in Chapter 4, conditions exhibiting St'at'imcets vowel retraction included /i, ul preceding and following uvular consonants q and f, retracted coronal s, and li, ul preceding the retracted coronal z of Lower St'at'imcets. Interestingly, these results show vowel retraction occurring in two conditions previously analyzed as lacking vowel retraction, namely lil and lui following retracted consonants q and f (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Remnant 148 1990; Shahin 1997, 2002) and HI preceding Lower dialect retracted coronal z (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Remnant 1990; Bessell 1992; Shahin 1997, 2002). Recall from Chapter 1 that St'at'imcets vowel retraction has been historically categorized as two separate processes, one local and regressive involving uvulars and Lower dialect z z', the other progressive and non-local involving retracted coronal consonants. Despite this division and the difference in articulation between uvular and retracted coronal consonants, these studies report only one surface phonetic quality for each vowel (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Remnant 1990; Bessell 1992, 1998a; Shahin 1997, 2002). In contrast, results of this study indicate that overall, multiple retracted qualities surface for a given vowel. Which retracted quality surfaces depends largely on the local context, such that one variant surfaces when adjacent to uvular consonants, while another surfaces when adjacent to retracted coronal consonants. As discussed in Chapter 4, this surface variation is the result of biomechanical differences between vowel-uvular sequences and vowel-retracted coronal sequences. In brief, although both St'at'imcets uvular consonants q, T and retracted coronal consonants s and z (Li) require backing of the tongue mass towards the rear pharyngeal wall, retracted coronal consonants s and z (L) require additional tongue mass in the anterior region of the vocal tract to enable articulation of the coronal constriction and grooving along the midline of the tongue. St'at'imcets vowel retraction has also been divided into "uvularization" versus "pharyngealization," which involves backing of the tongue dorsum and tongue root, respectively (Shahin 1997, 2002). With respect to the output quality of a retracted vowel, Shahin (1997, 2002) states that all St'at'imcets vowels undergo pharyngealization when preceding all retracted consonants, but only vowels /a, o/ undergo uvularization when preceding retracted coronals and not when preceding uvular or pharyngeal consonants. Results presented in Chapter 4 corroborate the findings of Shahin (1997, 2002) in showing a retracted tongue root articulation for vowels /i, ul preceding all retracted consonants; however, unlike Shahin (1997, 2002), current results indicate that HI preceding uvular and retracted coronal consonants also undergoes uvularization. Differences in the retraction effects between St'at'imcets vowels HI and lui were also examined. Results of the current study indicate that HI and lui retract/lower in the same retracting conditions, namely when adjacent to St'at'imcets uvulars and retracted 149 coronal s and when preceding Lower dialect retracted coronal z. These findings corroborate earlier descriptions of St'at'imcets vowel retraction/lowering (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Remnant 1990; Bessell 1992, 1997, 1998a; Shahin 1997, 2002), except in the case of HI preceding Lower z. While previous literature claims that HI remains nonretracted when followed by Lower z z' (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Remnant 1990; Bessell 1992, 1998a; Shahin 1997, 2002), articulatory data presented in Chapter 4 indicate that I'll does, in fact, retract/lower preceding Lower z. The retraction/lowering of lui adjacent to St'at'imcets uvular consonants further corroborates the presence of a lower pharyngeal constriction in the articulation of St'at'imcets uvulars. In terms of articulatory (in)compatibility and methods of conflict resolution (Gick & Wilson 2005), lui would retract/lower preceding a uvular consonant only if a shared articulator is required to achieve opposite targets. Because lui and uvulars share a high-back tongue dorsum/body position, the articulator in conflict is the tongue root. The tongue root target for lui is in a nonretracted position, thus to create conflict (and later /u/-retraction) between lui and a following uvular, the tongue root position of the uvular must be retracted. Although both lil and lui were found to retract/lower when adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants, the articulators involved in producing /i/-retraction are different from those producing /u/-retraction. Articulatory results of Chapter 4 indicate that while retraction of both vowels involves tongue root retraction and tongue body lowering, retraction of the tongue dorsum is also present in /i/-retraction but not in lul-retraction. The absence of tongue dorsum retraction for lui adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants is not surprising given that the inherent tongue dorsum position of lui is already very backed, thus limiting further backing of the tongue dorsum in lul-retraction. Based on the above findings, it appears that retraction of the tongue root and lowering of the tongue body are fundamental to the retraction of St'at'imcets high vowels. Because St'at'imcets retraction results in a lower and backed tongue position of the underlying nonretracted vowel, it would be interesting to see what effects retraction has on the inherently low nonretracted lal in St'at'imcets. Previous descriptions of St'at'imcets vowel retraction state that lal ([as/e] Upper/Lower) also retracts/lowers to [a] 150 when in retracting conditions (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Shahin 1997, 2002). Backing of /a/ is also evidenced in Tunisian Arabic (Ghazeli 1977), wherein only the back version of the low vowel /a/ occurs adjacent to uvulars and pharyngealized consonants (= retracted coronal consonants). In contrast, acoustic results of McDowell (2004) suggest that the tongue position of /a/ in Montana Salish advances (seen via F2 raising) when adjacent to retracted lateral consonants /l, 1', 1, XV. To test the effects of retraction on St'at'imcets /a/, a future study examining /a/ adjacent to St'at'imcets retracted consonants is warranted. The presence of retraction on li, ul both preceding and following St'at'imcets uvular consonants has an impact on the study of conflicting articulatory target resolution. Results from Gick & Wilson (2005) suggest that a language exhibits an asymmetric strategy of conflicting target resolution, such that the strategy employed in vowel-consonant (VC) sequences (e.g. vowel transition through schwa-space) is different from that which it selects in consonant-vowel (CV) sequences (e.g. vowel retraction). In general, data presented in this study show that articulatory conflict is resolved via vowel retraction/lowering at the vowel's midpoint and edge nearest the retracted consonant both in pre- and post-consonantal conditions, e.g. scuf [ftjb<iw| "stripe," Tu?s [Yo?f] "to sink." Furthermore, the presence of an additional transitional quality at vocalic edge point occurs only if further movement of the tongue is needed to move to (VC) or from (CV) the position of the retracted consonant, e.g. ciqten [tfeAqtn] "spear." Therefore, articulatory conflicts in St'at'imcets are resolved via vowel retraction/lowering, as well as with transitioning when required by the context. St'at'imcets vowel retraction presents a case of a symmetric conflict resolution language absent in Gick & Wilson (2005). 5.3 Phonological implications of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction The phonetic data in this study raise important issues regarding the phonological representation of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction. One issue raised by the present study concerns the featural representation of pharyngeal 151 constriction. Previous theories of featural organization have tried to categorize a constriction in the pharynx via the articulatory feature [+low] (Chomsky & Halle 1968) or [-ATR] under a [Tongue Root] ([TR]) articulator node (Sagey 1990, Cole 1991)57. Further issues arise when determining the feature occurring below a proposed [TR] node, e.g. Sagey (1990) and Cole (1994) suggest that a binary [±ATR] feature is dominated by [TR] node, while Shahin (1997, 2002) assumes distinct advanced [ATR] and retraction [RTR] features below the [TR] node. Featural theories specifying tongue-root/pharyngeal constrictions need also to differentiate between upper and lower pharyngeal constrictions (McCarthy 1994, Shahin 1997, 2002 for St'at'imcets, Esling in press, inter alia). This differentiation of the pharynx becomes important when considering how the articulatory results of Chapter 3 show differences in loci of retraction between St'at'imcets uvular consonants (upper-pharyngeal/posterior-uvular region) and retracted coronal consonants (lower pharyngeal region). An upper pharyngeal constriction, caused by raising and retracting the tongue body, has been characterized via the combination of a [Dorsal] articulator node and a [Pharyngeal]58 place node (McCarthy 1994). Similarly, Shahin (1997, 2002) represents upper pharyngeal ("uvular") articulation as the combination of primary [Dorsal] and secondary [TR] nodes, with the latter dominating an [RTR] feature. A lower pharyngeal constriction, caused by approximation of the tongue root towards the "posterior wall of the laryngopharynx" (McCarthy 1994: 194), is generally represented via a [Pharyngeal] node or [TR]-[RTR] node-feature combination (McCarthy 1994 and Shahin 1997, 2002, respectively). A more recent articulatory study (Esling in press) differentiates upper and lower pharyngeal constrictions into "raised" versus "retracted" articulations, respectively. Using Esling's (in press) laryngeal articulator model, a "raised" segment has a high tongue position (pulled up and back), while a "retracted" segment has a retracted tongue position (and raised larynx) due to an aryepiglottic, laryngeal constrictor mechanism that closes the larynx. The feature [+low] indicates that the tongue body is lower than a 'neutral' position (Chomsky & Halle 1968), while the feature [ATR] under [Tongue Root] node indicates that the tongue root is not advanced (Sagey 1990, Cole 1991). 58 According to McCarthy (1994: 192), [Pharyngeal] segments are produced with "a constriction anywhere in the entire region that encompasses the larynx through the oropharynx." 152 Another issue that arises is the extent to which the phonetic variation between St'at'imcets retracted consonant types and vowel retraction effects should be encoded into the phonological system. For example, as discussed in section 5.2 above, the surface retracted quality of a given vowel differs depending on the retracted consonant type (uvular or retracted coronals s, z (L)) in its local context. The question that arises here is whether this surface variation of the retracted vowel is encoded phonologically as distinct retraction processes (one involving uvulars, another involving retracted coronals) or as a single underlying phenomenon whose variation is simply the effect of biomechanical constraints. In light of the issues above, sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 below discuss the articulatory and acoustic findings of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and vowel retraction effects reported in this study in terms of what should potentially be encoded into the St'at'imcets phonological system. 5.3.1 Phonological representation of St'at'imcets retracted consonants It is obvious from the data presented in this study that St'at'imcets uvular consonants possess a raised and retracted tongue dorsum articulation towards the upper-pharyngeal/posterior-uvula region of the vocal tract, as well as a tongue root constriction towards the lower pharynx. In terms of St'at'imcets phonology, the upper pharyngeal constriction of uvular consonants must be represented underlyingly in order to identify its inherent uvular status. The lower pharyngeal articulation of St'at'imcets uvular consonants must also be encoded in its phonological structure so as to classify its tongue root retraction as a distinct movement rather than as a physiological consequence of tongue dorsum backing (refer to section 5.1.1 above). Furthermore, the tongue root retraction present in uvular consonant articulation must be phonologically represented to produce retraction of an adjacent vowel, in particular lui since both lui and uvular consonants possess an upper pharyngeal constriction. Articulatory data reported in Chapter 3 indicate that for each participant, St'at'imcets retracted coronals s and z (L) exhibit tongue root retraction towards the lower pharynx in addition to their primary coronal articulation. This coronal articulation 1.53 of retracted coronals must be phonologically encoded to identify its primary coronal articulation. Specification of the lower pharyngeal constriction is also needed to differentiate the articulatory composition and retraction effects of St'at'imcets retracted coronals from their nonretracted counterparts59. Recall from Chapter 3 (and section 5.1.2 above) that an additional upper pharyngeal constriction was found for the retracted coronal s of Upper St'at'imcets. Regardless of this articulatory difference between dialects/speakers, the results of Chapter 4 (as summarized in section 5.2 above) indicate that the retracting effect of Lower dialect s is equivalent to that of Upper dialect s. The variability in s tongue dorsum articulation and the consistency of ^-retraction effects despite this articulatory variability suggests that the tongue dorsum position of retracted coronals need not be specified in St'at'imcets phonology. Table 5.2 below summarizes the constrictions necessary in the phonological representation of St'at'imcets uvular consonants and retracted coronal consonants. Table 5.2: Phonological encoding of St'at'imcets retracted consonant constrictions Uvulars Retracted Coronals Upper pharynx X Lower pharynx V 5.3.2 Phonological representation of St'at'imcets vowel retraction Data presented in previous chapters (as summarized in section 5.2 above) indicate that St'at'imcets vowels l\l and /u/ consistently exhibit a retracted tongue root position when adjacent to both uvular and retracted coronal consonants. Several factors suggest that St'at'imcets vowel retraction is best represented phonologically as the spread of tongue root retraction. First, St'at'imcets vowel retraction involves actual retraction of the targeted vowel, not simply lowering. As seen in the articulatory data reported in 59 Although beyond the scope of the present study, there may also be differences within the specification of the coronal articulation, (e.g. retracted coronals have been claimed to have a more front tongue blade articulation than that of plain counterparts (van Eijk 1987, 1997; Bessell 1992; Shahin 1997, 2002), thus perhaps this difference should also be specified in the phonological representation of St'at'imcets retracted coronals). 154 Chapter 4, HI adjacent to uvular consonant q surfaces as a retracted [e] (in both dialects), rather than [e]. Although phonological representation of tongue body lowering would account for lowering of high vowels adjacent to retracted consonants, actual retraction of such vowels is not generated. Secondly, retraction of IvJ adjacent to St'at'imcets uvular consonants indicates that backing of the tongue dorsum towards the upper pharynx is not driving St'at'imcets vowel retraction, since both IvJ and uvular consonants already share an upper pharyngeal constriction. Furthermore, results discussed in section 5.2 above illustrate that retraction of lil adjacent to retracted coronals varies at the tongue dorsum level between pre-/post-consonantal conditions, while tongue root retraction occurs for lil in all retracting contexts. Thus far, both St'at'imcets vowel-uvular retraction and vowel-retracted coronal retraction have been analyzed as the spread of tongue root retraction. Note however, that the results of previous chapters show the retracted quality of a given vowel to be dependent on the retracted consonant type in its local context. This contextual sensitivity raises the question of whether or not the variation between vowel-uvular retraction and vowel-retracted coronal retraction must be represented in the St'at'imcets phonology. Articulatory data reported in this study indicate that variable retracted vowel realizations are due to the biomechanical implementation of retracting the tongue root from/to an advanced vowel to/from a retracted consonant (Rose 1996). Although the retracted vowel qualities of St'at'imcets vowel-uvular retraction and vowel-retracted coronal retraction are phonetically predictable, other independent phonological evidence motivates the phonological differentiation between St'at'imcets vowel retraction processes. For example, as mentioned in Chapter 1, previous studies claim that the source of vowel-uvular retraction differs from that of vowel-retracted coronal retraction, wherein uvular consonants trigger the former (van Eijk 1997, Remnant 1990, Shahin 1997, 2002), while underlyingly retracted vowels (van Eijk 1997), underlyingly retracted coronals (Shahin 1997, 2002), and a floating retracted tongue root feature (Remnant 1990), have all separately been claimed to trigger vowel-retracted coronal retraction. Furthermore, retraction targets of St'at'imcets vowel retraction is claimed to differ between processes. St'at'imcets uvular consonants are consistently reported to target immediately preceding vowels (van Eijk 1997, Remnant 1990, Shahin 155 1997, 2002). For vowel retraction involving St'at'imcets retracted coronals, Remnant (1990) suggests that this type of retraction is long-distance, targeting vowels and plain counterparts of St'at'imcets retracted coronals60. Thus far, little mention has been made of the phonological representation of retraction involving Lower St'at'imcets retracted coronal z. Results of this study indicate that the retracted surface quality of a vowel adjacent to z (L) is equivalent to that when adjacent to s. This is not surprising given that the articulation of retracted coronal z (L) is nearly identical to that of Lower dialect s. Therefore, vowel retraction triggered by a retracted coronal z (L) also involves the spread of a lower pharyngeal constriction. However, given that retraction is not present on a vowel following the retracted coronal z (L), retracted z induced vowel retraction must be differentiated from both vowel-uvular retraction and vowel-retracted s retraction. Further details of the phonological analysis of vowel retraction induced by retracted z (L) are left open for future study. In summary, St'at'imcets vowel retraction is potentially divisible into three distinct processes: one induced by uvular consonants, another involving retracted coronals and "retracted roots," and the third involving retracted coronal z, which occurs only in the Lower dialect. A general comparison of these three St'at'imcets vowel retraction processes is presented in Table 5.3 below. Despite this differentiation, articulatory and acoustic results reported in this study indicate that all processes of St'at'imcets retraction are identified via tongue root retraction towards the lower pharynx. bU Note that "targeted" retracted coronals consist of only a subset of coronals present in the St'at'imcets consonantal inventory. Alternatively, it may the case that other consonants also retract in progressive, long distance retraction environments. This is particularly likely in instances where retraction occurs in segments flanking the nonretracted coronal consonant, e.g. lil in iutun' "to squash something soft (like a bug)" (Vfttf; -un' = transitivizer). Here, to maintain a nonretracted position for lil, the tongue mass must move from a retracted position for retracted lui to an advanced position for lil and then back again to a retracted position for the following retracted lui. To resolve such conflicting tongue root targets, the physical system may choose to forego the advanced status of lil. The use of ultrasound imaging in a future study will provide articulatory evidence for the presence or absence of retraction on other consonants in retracting conditions. 156 Table 5.3: Comparison of processes of St'at'imcets vowel retraction Vowel-Q Retraction Vowel-5 Retraction Vowel-z (L) Retraction Trigger Adjacent Q unknown Adjacent z (L) Retracted V-quality Distinct from retracted quality of vowel-5 and vowel-z (L) retraction Distinct from retracted quality of vowel-Q retraction; equivalent to retracted quality of vowel-z (L) retraction Distinct from retracted quality of vowel-Q retraction; equivalent to retracted quality of vowel-z (L) retraction Directionality Both regressive and progressive Both regressive and progressive Regressive only Distance Short range Long range Short range 5.4 Conclusion Using ultrasound technology, this study has provided the only articulatory evidence available for the investigation of St'at'imcets retracted consonants and their coarticulatory effects on adjacent vowels. Results indicate that St'at'imcets vowel retraction is driven by the presence of a retracted tongue root articulation for uvular and retracted coronal consonants. Articulatory and acoustic data of St'at'imcets vowel retraction effects reported in this study presents a case of a language exhibiting symmetrical conflict resolution strategies that is absent in the cross-linguistic study of Gick & Wilson (2005). Furthermore, data presented in this study has implications for the association of surface biomechanical/kinematics to phonological encoding, especially with respect to articulations in the oropharyngeal region of the vocal tract. Future directions of this study lie in extending the present methodology to investigate the coarticulatory effects of other uvulars, retracted coronal consonants, and previously categorized plain coronal consonants in St'at'imcets and in other languages. "Q" represents all St'at'imcets uvular consonants; "s" represents St'at'imcets retracted coronal consonants c, c', s, I I' in retracted roots (excludes retracted coronal z of the Lower dialect). 157 Bibliography Ali, L. and R. Daniloff. 1972. A cinefluorographic-phonological investigation of emphatic sound assimilation in Arabic, Actes du 7e Congres International des Sciences Phonetiques, 639-648, Montreal. Bar-el, Leora & Linda Tamburri-Watt. 1998. What determines stress in Skwxwu7mesh (Squamish)? International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages 33: University of Washington. Bessell, Nicola J. 1992. Towards a Phonetic and Phonological Typology of Post-Velar Articulation. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Bessell, Nicola J. 1997. International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages 32, 64-85. Port Angeles, Washington. 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. Boe, L. J., P. Perrier, and G. Bailly. 1992. The geometric vocal tract variables controlled for vowel production: Proposals for constraining acoustic-to-articulatory inversion. Journal of Phonetics 20: 27-38. Borden, Gloria J., Katherine Harris and Lawrence Raphael. 2003. Speech Science Primer: Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception of Speech. 4rd ed. Baltimore: Lippencott, Williams and Wilkins. Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1992. 'Targetless' schwa: an articulatory analysis. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, eds. Docherty and Ladd, 26-56; Cambridge University Press. Campbell, Fiona. 2004. The Gestural Organization of North American English AV: A Study of Timing and Magnitude. M. A. thesis, University of British Columbia. Carlson, Barry F. and John H. Esling. 2003. Phonetics and physiology of the historical shift of uvulars to pharyngeals in Nuuchahnulth (Nootka). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33 (2): 183-193. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. 158 Cole, Jennifer S. 1991. Planar Phonology and Morphology. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa and M. Dale Kinkade. 1998. Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Delattre, Pierre. 1971. Pharyngeal features in the consonants of Arabic, German, Spanish, French, and American English. Phonetica 23: 129-155. Elgendy, Ahmed M. 2001. Aspects of Pharyngeal Coarticulation. Amsterdam: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. Esling, John H. To appear. There are no back vowels: The laryngeal articulator model. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. Ghazeli, Salem. (1977). Back Consonants and Backing Coarticulation in Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Giannini, Antonella and Massimo Pettorino. 1982. The emphatic consonants in Arabic. SLR4, Instituto Universitario Orientate Seminario di Studi dell 'Europa Orientale Laboratorio di Fonetica Sperimentale 27. Gick, Bryan. 2002. An X-ray investigation of pharyngeal constriction in American English schwa. Phonetica 50: 38-48. Gick, Bryan, and Ian Wilson. 2005. Excrescent schwa and vowel laxing: Cross-linguistic responses to conflicting articulatory gestures. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology VIII, eds. Louis M. Goldstein, Doug H. Whalen, and C. T. Best. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gick, Bryan, Sonya Bird, and Ian Wilson. 2005. Techniques for field application of lingual ultrasound imaging, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19: 503-514. Gick, Bryan, I. Wilson, K. Koch, and C. Cook. 2004. Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position, Phonetica, 61 (4): 220-233. 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. Krauss, Michael E. 1975. Chilcotin phonology: A descriptive and historical report with recommendations for a Chilcotin orthography. Alaska Native Language Center: Unpublished. 159 Kuipers, Aert H. 1967. The Squamish Language: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. The Hague: Mouton and Co. Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. A Course in Phonetics, 4lh edition. U.S.A.: Thomson Wadsworth. Latimer, Richard M. 1978. A Study of Chilcotin Phonology. M. A. thesis, University of Calgary. Laufer, A. and T. Bauer. 1988. The emphatic and pharyngeal sounds in Hebrew and in Arabic. Status Report on Speech Research 95/96: Haskins Laboratories. Laver, John. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John J. 1994. The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology III: Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form, ed. Patricia Keating, 191-233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDowell, Ramona E. 2004. Retraction in Montana Salish Lateral Consonants. M. A. thesis. University of British Columbia. Matthewson, Lisa. 1994. Syllable structure in St'at'imcets. In Proceedings ojthe 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association (Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics), ed. Paivi Koskinen. Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Pickett, J. M. 1999. Acoustics of speech communication: The fundamentals, speech perception theory, and technology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Remnant, Daphne. 1990. Tongue root articulations: A case study of Lillooet. M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia. Roberts, Taylor. 1993. Lillooet stress shift and its implications for syllable structure and prosody. International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 28: University of Victoria. Rose, Sharon. 1996. Variable laryngeals and vowel lowering. Phonology 13: 73-1 17. Sagey, Elizabeth. 1990. The Representation of Features in Non-linear Phonology: The Articulator Node Hierarchy. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Shahin, Kimary. 1995. On the distinction between pharyngealisation harmony and uvularisation harmony in St'at'imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 30: University of Victoria. 160 Shahin, Kimary. 1997. Post-velar Harmony. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Shahin, Kimary. 2002. Post-velar harmony. Philadelphia: John Benjamin. Shahin, Kimary. 2004. Whence St'at'imcets pharyngeals. International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 39. Squamish Nation Education Department, West Vancouver: August 11-13. Shaw, Patricia. To appear. Inside access: The prosodic role of internal morphological constituency. In The Nature of the Word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge: MIT Press. Stevens, Kenneth N. and Arthur S. House. 1955. Development of a quantitative description of vowel articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica 50: 1180-1192. Stevens, Kenneth N., Samuel Keyser, and Haruko Kawasaka. 1986. Towards a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Invariance in speech processes, eds. Joseph Perkell and Dennis Klatt, 426-499. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. 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. van Eijk, Jan. 1987. Dictionary of the Lillooet language. Ms., University of Victoria. van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Wilson, Ian. 2006. Articulatory settings of French-English Bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Wilson, Ian. To appear. The effects of post-velar consonants on vowels in Nuuchahnulth: An acoustic and articulatory study. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. Wood, Sidney. 2004. A cineflurographic study of uvular consonants in Swedish and in West Greenlandic Inuit. Paper presented at From Sound to Sense, MIT: June 11-13. 161 Appendices Appendix A: Phonemic Conversion Chart Van Eijk's (1997) St'at'imcets International Americanist Practical Phonetic Phonemic Orthography Alphabet Alphabet a a [as] a ao [a] e e [3] e V [A] i i [i] (U)/ [e] (L) i ii [e] u u [u] (U)/[oj (L) u 0 [3] p P [p] t t [tj c ts [tfl c ts [ts] k k M kw [kw] q q [q] qw qw [qwl p' P' [p'l XQ t' [ri'l c' ts' [t'U c' ts' [t's] k' k' [k'l k'w k'w |k'w] q' q' [q'l q'w q' w [q'w] i lh [*] s s III s s [s] X c [x] xw cw [xw] X x lal xw xw law] 162 Van Eijk's (1997) St'at'imcets International Americanist Practical Phonetic Phonemic Orthography Alphabet Alphabet m m [m] n n [n] m' m' [m'] n' n' [n'] 1 1 [1] 1 1 m r r D'] r 1' [!'] z z [z] (U) r*s] (u y y [y] Y r [Yl ? g m <j>W gw h h [h] w w [w] z' z' [z'J (U) 1V] (L) y' y' [y'l Y' r' lY'] ?' g' [?'] 0'w g'w ? 7 m w' w' [W] 163 Appendix B: Stimuli Table Bl: Glossary of all Stimuli St'at'imcets English translation St'at'imcets English translation csqon "to put something on something" scur "stripe" toqon "to touch something" cu9wla? "steelhead trout" coYon "to tear, rip smt" psus "wild cherry" woTon "to sort things out" kusa? "to urinate (men)" ze?on "to growl at someone" pus "wet" losp "to get caved in" nosnus "damp" losan "to make something tust "it's mine! (said when cave in" grabbing smt that has been dropped)" kalesa "to cave in all of a sudden" ?usc "to throw it out" cosan "to stretch something" muzmit "poor, pitiful" mason "to put things close together" muzmit.s "to take pity on someone" k ozan "to polish, shine something" qimus "rainbow trout" q ezen "to use something" qixton "elbow" ciqtsn "spear" qi?xw "run away 'cause you're scared" ciqmin' "to stab with" qixwxal "to chase stuff away" ciqwxal "to do spearing" sqsmqim "head" lirmon "wrench" Yisloc "to have shrunk a sweater" lirioc "to break in (person into a house)" ?is "shrink" pi<iwxal "to skin a potato" ?icxal "to chew on something" seiwsir "loose, relaxed" n'cman "tooth, fang" lisas lisaput "angel" "apostle" sii nsihlaqsam' "expression of disrespect (rude gesture using the hands)" "to make sii gesture to someone" kwis "to rain" sit.st "night" kwisc "to drop something by accident" sima7 "come!" nskwisma "behind me" sil "material, cloth" iza "these (here)" zikt "trees fall down" 164 St'at'imcets English translation St'at'imcets English translation izu "those (over there)" zikalc "loghouse" naq nuq / "warm" qulun "to fill something" nuqw cuqwxal "to tie string together" qu? "water" niuqwmen "ladle, serving spoon" qusam / qusxit "to shoot at" 1UC3C "to have a miscarriage" siipaya "itch" Tiiy't "to sleep" sutik "winter" 1U?S "to sink" siiplax "to scratch oneself zumak "spring salmon" ztisaka? "to get handcuffed" zuxun' "to move something" Table B2: Stimuli collected per participant Cond. AJP(U) GNd (U) VB(L) GN1 (L) Retracted Consonant Articulatio n aq csqsn taqan caqan taqan caqan taqan caqan taqan cafan W9?3n ca?an wa?an wa?an zeYan ca?an wa?an 3S lasp lasan lasp lasp kalesa lasp 3S casan masan casan masan casan masan casan masan 9Z W * q azan k azan q azan W ' q azan q azan Vowel Retraction Effects iq ciqtan ciqmin' ciqtan ciqwxal ciqtan ciqmin' ciqtan ciqmin' ft hTman seTwsi?w pigwxal sersfT liiwman ligwlec li<iwman se?wsir is lisaput lisas lisaput lisas lisaput lisas IS kwis kwisc kwis kwisc kwis nskwisma kwis kwisc iz iza izu iza izu iza izu iza izu uq W ' w neq nuq ciiqwxal nuqw cuqwxal naq nuq ntaqwmen niuqwman W ' w neq nuq u9 scirT cu?wfa? scu?w scuTw No data 165 Cond. AJP(U) GNd (U) VB(L) GNI (L) us psus psus psus psus kusa? kusa? kusa? kusa? us pus pus nosnus nosnus nosnus nosnus rust 7usts uz muzmit muzmit muzmit muzmit muzmit.s muzmit.s muzmit.s muzmit.s qi qimus qimus qixton qixwxal qixton qixton qi?xw qixton ft Yicmen frcmen ftcmen ftcmon Yis Yfslec Ticxal si No data sii nsiiaqsam' No data si sit.st sit.st sii sit.st sima7 sima7 sima7 sima7 zi zikt zikt zikt zikt zikalc zikalc zikalc zikalc qu qulun qusom qusom qu? qu? qu? qulun qiisxit ?u 1U?S 5u?s Tucoc ?UC9C Tuy't ?UC9C ?uy't ?uy't su psus psus psus No data su siipaya suplox siipaya supaya sutik sutik sutik sutik zu zusaka? zuxun zumak zusaka? zumak zumak zuxun zumak 166 Appendix C: Additional Chapter 3 Statistics Figure Cl: TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, ?, s for VB (L) ANOVA Table for TR(cm) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 5.997 1.999 98.280 <.0001 294.839 1.000 Residual 28 .570 .020 Means Table for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 9 8 4.398 .176 .062 isp 10 3.520 .170 .054 q 6 4.662 .071 .029 s/ 8 4.171 .098 .035 Fisher's PLSD for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. 3, isp g, q g, s/ isp, q isp, s/ q, s/ .878 .139 <.0001 -.264 .158 .0019 .226 .146 .0036 -1.142 .151 <.0001 -.651 .139 <.0001 .490 .158 <.0001 Interaction Bar Rot forTR(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation($) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Figure C2: TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, ?, s for VB (L) ANOVA Table forTD(cm) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 7.423 2.474 120.583 <.0001 361.749 1.000 Residual 36 .739 .021 Means Table for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 9 10 4.891 .125 .040 sp 10 4.073 .095 .030 q 10 4.942 .189 .060 s/ 10 4.039 .146 .046 Fisher's PLSD for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value g, isp g, q g, s/ isp, q isp, s/ q, s/ .818 .130 <.0001 -.051 .130 .4312 .852 .130 <.0001 -.869 .130 <.0001 .034 .130 .5989 .903 .130 <.0001 Interaction Bar Plot for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 167 Figure C3: TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, ?, s for GNd (U) ANOVA Table for TR(cm) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 9.786 3.262 135.266 <.0001 405.798 1.000 Residual 32 .772 .024 Means Table for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 9 9 4.552 .154 .051 isp 10 3.460 .146 .046 q 8 4.834 .212 .075 s/ 9 4.262 .096 .032 Fisher's PLSD for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 96 Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. I . I g, isp g. q g. s/ isp, q isp, s/ q, s/ 1.092 .145 <.0O01 -.282 .154 .0007 .290 .149 .0004 -1.374 .150 <.0001 -.802 .145 <.0001 .572 .154 <.0001 5 4 c m <U 2 3 Interaction Bar Plot for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data s/ Cell Figure C4: TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, ?, s for GNd (U) ANOVA Table for TD(cm) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value lambda Power Condition 3 6.063 2.021 118.065 <0001 354.196 1.000 Residual 35 .599 .017 Means Table for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Count Mean Std. Dev. i 9 isp q s/ Std. Err. 10 5.092 .102 .032 10 4.199 .115 .036 10 5.191 .120 .038 9 4.712 .179 .060 Fisher's PLSD for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. 9, isp g, q g, s/ isp, q isp, s/ q, s/ P-Value .893 .119 <.0O01 -.099 .119 .0995 .380 .122 <.0001 -.992 .119 <.0001 -.513 .122 <.0001 .479 .122 <.0001 Interaction Bar Plot for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data 168 Figure C5: TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, ?, s for AJP (U) ANOVA Table for TR (cm) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 7.567 2.522 346.501 <.0O01 1039.502 1.000 Residual 31 .226 .007 Means Table for TR (cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 9 9 4.816 .108 .036 isp 10 3.812 .071 .022 q 7 5.011 .058 .022 s/ 9 4.613 .092 .031 Fisher's PLSD for TR (cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 9. isp g. q g. s/ isp, q isp, s/ q, s/ 1.004 .080 <.0001 -.196 .088 <.O001 .202 .082 <.0001 -1.199 .086 <.0001 -.801 .080 <.0001 .398 .088 <.0001 Interaction Bar Plot for TR (cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data Cell Figure C6: TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, f, s for AJP (U) ANOVA Table for TD (cm) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 1.220 .407 48.975 <,0001 146.926 1.000 Residual 36 .299 .008 Means Table for TD (cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 9 10 4.997 .074 .023 isp 10 4.680 .081 .026 q 10 5.143 .083 .026 s/ 10 4.825 .120 .038 Fisher's PLSD for TD (cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. i— —i 9, isp g, q g, s/ isp, q isp, s/ q, s/ P-Value .317 .083 <.0001 -.146 .083 .0010 .172 .083 .0002 -.463 .083 <.0001 -.145 .083 .0011 .318 .083 <.0001 Interaction Bar Plot for TD (cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data 169 Figure C7: TR ANOVA results of ISP, s, z, s for VB (L) ANOVA Table for TR(cm) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 2.199 .733 51.149 <.0001 153.447 1.000 Residual 33 .473 .014 Means Table for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. isp 10 3.520 .170 .054 s 10 3.774 .084 .026 s/ 8 4.171 .098 .035 z 9 4.009 .102 .034 Fisher's PLSD for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value isp, s -.254 .109 <.OO01 S isp, s/ -.651 .116 <.0001 s isp, z -.489 .112 <0001 S s, s/ -.397 .116 <0001 S s, z -.235 .112 .0002 S s/, z .162 .118 .0087 S Interaction Bar Plot for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Figure C8: TD ANOVA results of ISP, s,z,s for VB (L) ANOVA Table for TD(cm) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 .161 .054 4.485 .0091 13.454 .848 Residual 35 .418 .012 Means Table for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. isp 10 4.073 .095 .030 s 10 3.907 .097 .031 s/ 10 4.039 .146 .046 z 9 4.038 .086 .029 Fisher's PLSD for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. isp, s .166 .099 .0017 isp, s/ .034 .099 .4912 isp, z .035 .102 .4876 s, s/ -.132 .099 .0106 s, z -.131 .102 .0134 s/, z .001 .102 .9807 P-Value Interaction Bar Plot for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Cell 170 Figure C9: TR ANOVA results of ISP, s,z,s for GNd (U) ANOVA Table for TR(cm) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 3.976 1.325 104.105 <.0001 312.315 1.000 Residual 34 .433 .013 Means Table for TR(cm) Effect Condition Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. isp s s/ z 10 3.460 .146 .046 4.5 9 3.492 .105 .035 4 9 4.262 .096 .032 3.5 10 3.568 .093 .029 _ 3 Interaction Bar Plot for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Fisher's PLSD for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: S % Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value « 2.5 % 2 o 1.5 1 isp, s -.032 .105 .5384 isp, s/ -.802 .105 <.0001 isp, z -.108 .103 .0396 s, s/ -.770 .108 <.0001 s, z -.076 .105 .1530 s/, z .694 .105 <.0O01 Cell Figure CIO: TD ANOVA results of ISP, s,z,s for GNd (U) ANOVA Table for TD(cm) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 1.248 .416 25.532 <.0001 76.596 1.000 Residual 35 .570 .016 Means Table for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. isp 10 4.199 .115 .036 s 10 4.435 .101 .032 s/ 9 4.712 .179 .060 z 10 4.443 .107 .034 Fisher's PLSD for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data £ 3 0) 2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 1 isp, s -.236 .116 .0002 s isp, s/ -.513 .119 <.0001 s 0 isp, z -.244 .116 .0001 s s, s/ -.277 .119 <.0001 s s, z -.008 .116 .8894 s/, z .269 .119 <.0001 s Interaction Bar Plot for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: GNd.Ptl .Data Cell 171 Figure Cll: TR ANOVA results of ISP, s,z,s for AJP (U) ANOVA Table for TR (cm) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 6.205 2.068 164.925 <.0001 494.776 1.000 Residual 33 .414 .013 Means Table for TR (cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. isp 10 3.812 .071 .022 5 s 8 3.550 .098 .035 4.5 s/ 9 4.613 .092 .031 4 z 10 3.661 .161 .051 3.5 Fisher's PLSD for TR (cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl-Data z 3 1 2.5 o ^ Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value isp, s .262 .108 <.00O1 s -isp, s/ -.801 .105 <.0001 s o isp, z .151 .102 .0049 S s, s/ -1.063 .111 <.0001 S s, z -.1 1 1 .108 .0444 s s/, z .952 .105 <.0001 s Interaction Bar Plot for TR (cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data Cell Figure C12: TD ANOVA results of ISP, s,z,s for AJP (U) ANOVA Table for TD (cm) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 .564 .188 17.124 <.0001 51.372 1.000 Residual 36 .395 .011 Means Table for TD (cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. isp 10 4.680 .081 .026 s 10 4.562 .114 .036 s/ 10 4.825 .120 .038 z 10 4.519 .100 .032 Fisher's PLSD for TD (cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value isp, s .118 .095 .0164 isp, s/ -.145 .095 .0038 isp, z .161 .095 .0015 s, s/ -.263 .095 <.0001 s, z .043 .095 .3648 s/, z .306 .095 <.0001 Interaction Bar Plot for TD (cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: AJP.Ptl -Data 172 Figure C13: TR ANOVA results of ISP, q, f, z for VB (L) ANOVA Table for TR(cm) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 6.017 2.006 99.468 <.0001 298.403 1.000 Residual 29 .585 .020 Means Table for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Count Mean Std. Dev. I _ i I 9 isp q Std. Err. 8 4.398 .176 .062 10 3.520 .170 .054 6 4.662 .071 .029 9 4.009 .102 .034 Fisher's PLSD for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value 9. isp g. q g. z isp, q isp, z q, z .878 .264 .389 -1.142 .489 .653 .138 .157 .141 .150 .133 .153 <.00O1 .0018 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Interaction Bar Plot for TR(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Devlation(s) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Figure C14: TD ANOVA results of ISP, q, ?, z for VB (L) ANOVA Table for TD(cm) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F-Value P-Value Lambda Power Condition 3 7.228 2.409 139.248 <.0001 417.743 1.000 Residual 35 .606 .017 Means Table for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 9 10 4.891 .125 .040 isp 10 4.073 .095 .030 q 10 4.942 .189 .060 z 9 4.038 .086 .029 Fisher's PLSD for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Significance Level: 5 % Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 Mean Diff. Crit. Diff. P-Value g, isp .818 .119 <.0001 S g, q -.051 .119 .3919 g. z .853 .123 <.0001 S isp, q -.869 .119 <.0001 S isp, z .035 .123 .5638 q, z .904 .123 <.0001 S Interaction Bar Plot for TD(cm) Effect: Condition Error Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s) Row exclusion: VB.Ptl Data.2 173 Appendix D: Additional Chapter 4 Statistics Table DI: Articulatory measurements for lil vs. i/_q, UJ, i/_s, i/_z at 95% Condition 95% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB l\l: i/_q i/_q t p<.0001 i/_qf p< .0001 i/_q | p<.0001 (L) /i/: i/_? t p<.0001 UJ t p< .0001 i/_T 1 p<.0001 /i/: i/_s i/_s t p<.0001 U_s t p = .0056 i/_s 1 p = .0006 III: il z i/_z t p<.0001 NS i/_z I p = .0003 GNd /i/: i/_q i/_qt p < .0001 i/_q t <.0001 i/_q 1 p< .0001 (U) III: i/J il ? f p < .0001 il ? t < .0001 UJ I p< .0001 III: i/_s i/_s f p<.0001 i/_s t p = .0012 NS III: il z NS NS NS AJP /i/: i/_q i/_q f p < .0001 i/_q t p< .0001 i/_q ; p < .0001 (U) I'll: i/J il T t p < .0001 UJ t p = .0012 UJ 1 p<.0001 HI: U_s U_s t p < .0001 NS i/_s | p< .0001 lil: il z NS NS i/_z 1 p< .0001 Table D2: Formant measurements for I'll vs. i/_q, UJ, i/_s, i/_z at 50% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB N: i/_q i/_q t p<.0001 i/_q 1 p< .0001 i/_q | p < .0001 (L) III: UJ UJ t p < .0001 UJ i p<.0001 UJ I p<.0001 III: i/_s NS i/_s | p < .0001 U_s 1 p < .0001 lil: i/_z il z j, p = .0029 i/_z | p<.0001 U z | p = .0001 GNd III: i/_q i/_qt p<.0001 i/_q 1 p<.0001 i/_q | p < .0001 (U) III: UJ UJ t p<.0001 UJ i p< .0001 UJ | p < .0001 lil: U_s NS i/_s | p = .0042 i/_s | p = .0004 /i/: i/_z il z J, p = .0043 NS il z i p = .0442 AJP I'll: i/_q i/_q t p<.0001 i/_q | p<.0001 i/_q j p < .0001 (U) /i/: i/J i/_? t p< .0001 UJ 1 p<.0001 UJ i p< .0001 /U: i/_s i/_s | p = .0034 NS NS /i/: i/_z i/_z | p<.0001 i/_z | p = .0001 i/_z f p<.0001 174 Table D3: Formant measurements for lil vs. i/_q, UJ, il_s, i/_z at 95% Condition 95% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB III: i/_q i/_q T p < .0001 i/_q 1 p < .0001 i/_q | p = .0255 (L) lil: UJ UJ t p < .0001 UJ i p < .0001 UJ i p = .0006 lil: i/_s i/_s | p < .0001 i/_s I p = .001 i/_s I p = .0188 HI: i/_z il z 1 p < .0001 il JL \ p = .0001 NS GNd lil: i/_q i/_q T p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/_q 1 p < .0001 (U) lil: UJ UJ T p < .0001 UJ \ p < .0001 i/J j p < .0001 lil: i/_s i/_s | p = .0105 i/_s | p = .0305 i/_s I p < .0001 lil: i/_z NS i/_z \ p < .0001 i/_z I p < .0001 AJP lil: i/_q i/_qt p = .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/_q 1 p < .0001 (U) lil: UJ t p < .0001 MJ 1 p < .0001 UJ i p < .0001 lil: i/_s i/_s I p < .0001 NS NS lil: i/_z il_z I p < .0001 NS i/_z f p = .0040 Table D4: Articulatory differences across i/_retracted consonants at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB i/_q: i/J NS NS i/_q t p = .0436 (L) i/_q: i/_s i/_qT p < .0001 NS NS i/_q: i/z i/_qt p<.0001 i/_qt p = .0001 NS UJ: i/_s i/J t p < .0001 NS NS i/J: i/_z UJ t p < .0001 i/_T t p = .0003 NS i/_s: i/_z NS i/_s t p = .0070 NS GNd i/_q: UJ NS NS NS (U) i/_q: i/_s i/_q t. p < .0001 i/_qt p = .0017 i/_q j p = .0202 i/_q: i/_z i/_q t p < .0001 i/_q T p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 UJ: i/_s i/J t p < .0001 UJ f p = .0028 NS UJ: i/_z i/J f p < .0001 UJ t p < .0001 UJ i p < .0001 il s: i/ z i/_s t p < .0001 i/_s t p < .0001 il s J p = .0006 AJP i/_q: UJ. NS NS i/_qt p = .0087 (U) i/_q: i/_s i/_qt p<,0001 i/_qf p = .0003 i/_qi p = .013 i/_q: i/z i/_qt p < .0001 i/_qt p = .0055 i/_q j p<.0001 i/J: i/_s i/_T t p < .0001 il T t p = .0222 i/J i p<.0001 i/J: i/_z il ? t p < .0001 NS i/J { p<.0001 i/_s: i/_z i/_s t p < .0001 NS i/_s i p = .0070 175 Table D5: Articulatory differences across i/_retracted consonants at 95% Condition 95% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB i/_q: i/J NS i/_q T p = .0328 NS (L) i/_q: i/_s i/_qt p < .0001 i/_qt p < .0001 NS i/q: i/z i/_q T p < .0001 i/_qt p < .0001 NS i/J: i/_s i/J f p < .0001 i/J f p < .0001 i/J T p = .0461 i/J: i/_z i/J t p<.0001 i/J T p<.0001 NS il s: il z NS i/_s f p = .0036 NS GNd i/_q: UJ NS NS i/_qT p < .0001 (U) i/q: i/_s i/_q| p < .0001 i/_qT p<.0001 i/_q 1 p = .0046 i/q: i/_z i/_qt p < .0001 i/_qt p < .0001 i/_q I p <.0001 i/J: i/_s i/J T p < .0001 i/J t p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J: i/_z i/J t p < .0001 i/J t p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/_s: i/_z i/_s T p < .0001 i/_s t p = .0002 NS AJP i/_q: i/J NS NS i/_q T p < .0001 (U) i/_q: i/_s i/_qt p < .0001 i/_qt p < .0001 i/q 1 p = .0007 i/_q: i/z i/_q| p < .0001 i/_qT p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/J: i/_s i/J t p < .0001 i/J t p = .0051 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J: i/_z il i T p < .0001 i/J t p = .0261 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/_s: i/_z i/_s T p = .0002 NS NS Table D6: Formant measurement differences between i/_q, i/J, i/_s, i/_z at 50% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB i/_q: i/J i/_q | p<.0001 i/_q| p = .0165 NS (L) i/q: i/_s i/_q t p < .0001 i/_q I p = .0025 NS i/_q: i/_z i/_q t p < .0001 NS NS i/J: i/_s i/J t p < .0001 i/J 1 p<.0001 NS i/J: i/_z i/J t p < .0001 i/J 1 p = .0016 NS i/_s: i/_z i/_s | p = .0123 i/_s t p = .0224 NS GNd i/_q: i/J NS NS NS (U) i/_q: i/_s i/_q t p < .0001 i/_q i p < .0001 i/_q 1 p < .0001 i/_q: i/_z i/_qt p < .0001 i/_q 1 p < .0001 i/_q i p < .0001 i/J: i/_s NS i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J i p < .0001 i/J: i/_z i/J t p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 il s: il z NS NS NS 176 Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value AJP i/_q: i/J i/_q 1 p = .0002 i/_q T p <.0001 NS (U) i/_q: i/_s i/_qt p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/_q i p < .0001 i/_q: i/_z i/_q T p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/J: i/s i/J f p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J: i/_z i/J t p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/_s: i/_z NS i/_s I p = .0004 i/_s I p < .0001 Table D7: Formant measurement differences between i/_q, i/J, il_s, i/z at 95% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB i/_q: i/J i/_q j p < .0001 i/_qf p = .0011 NS (L) i/q: i/_s i/_qt p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 NS i/_q: i/_z i/_qf p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 NS i/J: i/_s UJ f p < .0001 i/J I p < .0001 NS i/J: i/_z UJ t p<.0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J I p = .0474 il s: il z NS NS NS GNd i/_q: UJ NS i/_qt p < .0001 i/_q t p = .0454 (U) i/q: i/_j> i/_qf p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/_q 1 p <.0001 i/_q: i/_z i/_qt p < .0001 U_qi p < .0001 i/_q i p < .0001 i/J: i/_s i/J r p < .0001 i/J i p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 UJ: i/_z UJ t p < .0001 i/J 1 p<.0001 UJ i p < .0001 i/_s: i/_z i/_s 1 p = .0004 il s t p = .0003 NS AJP i/_q: i/J NS i/_qf P-.0001 NS (U) i/q: i/s i/_qf p <.0001 i/_qi p < .0001 i/_q j p < .0001 i/_q: i/_z i/_qt p <.0001 i/_ql p < .0001 i/_q i p < .0001 UJ: i/_s UJ f p < .0001 UJ | p<.0001 i/J i p < .0001 UJ: i/_z UJ t p < .0001 i/J 1 p < .0001 i/J i p < .0001 il s: il z i/_s i p<.0001 NS NS 177 Table D8: Articulatory measurements for /u/ vs. u/q, u/J, u/_s, u/z at 95% Condition 95% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lui: ulq u/_q f p < .0001 NS u/q J, p < .0001 (L) lui: uls u/_s t p < .0001 ul_s I p < .0001 u/_s I p = .0033 lui: u/z ul_z } p < .0001 ulz I p < .0001 ul_z i p = .0021 GNd lui: u/_q u/_q | p < .0001 NS ulq I p < .0001 (U) lui: ulj u/_T t p < .0001 NS u/J 1 p < .0001 lui: ul_s u/_s f p<.0001 NS ul_s I p < .0001 lui: u/z u/_z 4 p = .0003 NS NS AJP lui: u/q u/q t p < .0001 ul_q I p = .0002 ulq I p < .0001 (U) lui: ulj ulj t p < .0001 u/J [ p = .0042 u/J 1 p < .0001 lui: ul_s u/_s t p < .0001 NS ul_s i p < .0001 lui: ul_z ulz ] p = .0007 NS ulz 1 p < .0001 Table D9: Formant measurements for lui vs. u/q, ulj, ul_s, ulz at 50% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lui: u/_q u/_q f p < .0001 ul_q T p = .0326 NS (L) lui: ul_s u/_s | p < .0001 uls t p < .0001 NS lui: ul_z ulz f p < .0001 u/_z t p = .0265 NS GNd lui: u/_q u/_q f p<.0001 u/_q t p = .0021 ulq I p = .0023 (U) lui: u/J ulj t p < .0001 NS ulj j p < .0001 lui: u/_s u/_s t p < .0001 uls I p = .0011 NS lui: ul_z NS ul_z T p < .0001 NS AJP lui: u/_q ulq f p < .0001 u/_q t p < .0001 NS (U) lui: ulj ulj t p<.0001 u/J t p<.0001 u/J i p < .0001 lui: ul_s u/_s t p<.0001 NS ul_s I p = .0003 lui: ul z ulz 1 p < .0001 ul_z t p < .0001 NS Table D10: Formant measurements for lui vs. u/_q, u/J, ul_s, ulz at 95% Condition 95% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lui: u/_q ul_q t p<.0001 ulq I p < .0001 u/_q t p < .0001 (L) lui: ul_s u/_s t p < .0001 ul_s t p < .0001 u/s | p = .0001 lui: ul z u/_z t p = .0021 u/_z t p < .0001 ulz | p = .0092 178 Condition 95% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value GNd lui: u/_q u/_q | p < .0001 NS u/_q I p = .0165 (U) IvJ: ulj ulj t p < .0001 ulj 1 p < .0001 ulj i p = .0046 IvJ: uljs vJjs t p = .0033 u/_s I p = .0262 NS IvJ: vJJL XiljL | p = .0134 U/JL | p < .0001 NS AJP IvJ: u/_q vJjq f p < .0001 NS NS (U) IvJ: ulj u/_? T p < .0001 NS NS IvJ: ul_s u/_s t p < .0001 u/js t p < .0001 uljs I p < .0001 IvJ: vJJL u/_z t p < .0001 UIL t p < .0001 uljz I p < .0001 Table Dll: Articulatory differences within u/retracted consonants at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) u/q: u/s u/_q: u/_z ul s: ul z NS NS NS u/q t p = .0002 NS VJJL t p < .0001 NS NS NS GNd (U) u/_q: ulj u/_q: u/_s u/_q: ulz ulj: u/_s ulj: VJJL u/_s: ulz NS u/_q 1 p < .0001 u/_q f p < .0001 ulj 1 P < -0001 u/_n P < .oooi u/_s t P < -0001 NS NS NS NS NS NS u/_q | p = .0423 u/_q t P = -0029 u/_q 1 p < .0001 ulj | P < -0001 u/J j P = -0048 u/_s I p < .0001 AJP (U) u/_q: ulj u/_q: u/s u/_q: ulz ulj: u/_s ulj: uljz ul s: ul z NS u/_q I p = .0063 u/q f p < .0001 u/J I p = .0308 ulj t P < -0001 u/s t p < .0001 NS u/q i p < .0001 u/q 1 p < .0001 u/J i P = -0063 u/J 1 P < -0001 u/s | p = .0337 u/_q t p = .0275 u/_q f p = -0013 u/_q | p < .0001 NS u/J i p < .0001 u/_s 1 p < .0001 Table D12: Articulatory differences within u/retracted consonants at 95% Condition 95% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) u/q: u/_s u/q: u/_z u/_s: u/_z NS u/q f p = .0021 NS u/q T p < .0001 u/q t p<.0001 u/s t p < .0001 u/s f p < .0001 u/_z t p < .0001 NS 179 Condition 95% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value GNd u/q: ulj NS NS NS (U) u/q: u/s NS NS NS u/_q: u/_z u/_q | p < .0001 NS u/q I p < .0001 u/J: u/_s NS NS NS u/J: u/_z u/J t p < .0001 NS ulj i p < .0001 u/s: u/_z u/s | p < .0001 NS u/_s I p < .0001 AJP u/q: u/J NS NS NS (U) u/_q: u/s NS u/q | p =.0025 ul_q I p<.0001 u/q: uljz u/_q t p < .0001 u/_q | p < .0001 ulq I p < .0001 u/J: u/s NS u/J j p = .0272 ulj i p < .0001 u/J: u/_z u/J t p<.0001 u/J I p = .0019 ulj 1 p < .0001 u/_s: u/_z u/s f p < .0001 NS u/_s I p < .0001 Table D13: Formant measurement differences between u/_q, u/J, ul_s, u/_z at 5 Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB u/_q: u/s u/_q | p = .0042 u/_q \ p < .0001 NS (L) u/q: u/_z NS NS NS u/s: u/_z u/_s | p = .0013 u/_s f p = .0006 NS GNd u/q: u/J NS NS u/q f p = .0076 (U) u/_q: u/_s NS u/_q | p < .0001 u/q I p = .0106 u/_q: u/_z u/_q t p < .0001 u/_q i p = .0169 ul_q I p < .0001 u/J: u/_s NS ulj t p < .0001 ulj I p < .0001 u/J: u/_z ulj t p < .0001 u/J 1 p = .0001 ulj I p<.0001 u/_s: u/_z u/_s t p<.0001 u/_s I p < .0001 NS AJP u/q: 11/J VS u/_q | p = .0032 u/_q | p = .0039 (U) u/_q: u/_s u/_q f p = .0005 u/q | p < .0001 u/_q | p = .007 u/_q: u/_z u/_q t p < .0001 NS u/q I p = .0163 u/J: u/_s u/J t p = .0028 u/J t p = .0041 NS u/J: ulz u/J t p < .0001 u/J 1 p = .0002 ulj i p<.0001 u/_s: u/_z NS u/_s i p < .0001 uls I p < .0001 180 Table D14: Formant measurement differences between u/_q, ulj, u/_js, u/_z at 95 Condition 95% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB u/_q: u/s u/_q I p < .0001 u/_q I p < .0001 u/_q t p = .0002 (L) u/_q: u/_z u/_q t p = .0075 u/_q I p < .0001 u/_q t p < .0001 ul s: ul z u/_s | p < .0001 ul_s t p = .0331 u/_s t p = .0498 GNd u/_q: ulj u/_q t p = .0002 u/_q t p = .0009 NTS (U) u/_q: u/_s u/_q t p < .0001 NS . u/_q I p = .0139 u/q: u/z u/_q t p < .0001 u/q I p < .0001 u/_q i p = .0012 u/J: u/_s u/J t p = .0002 NS u/J I p = .005 ulj: ulz u/J f p<.0001 u/J j p < .0001 u/J i p = .0003 u/s: u/z NS u/s I p < .0001 NS AJP u/_q: u/J NS u/_q T p = .0246 NS (U) u/_q: u/_s u/_q t p = .0009 u/q J, p < .0001 u/q | p < .0001 u/q: u/z u/_q t p < .0001 u/_q | p < .0001 u/q t p < .0001 u/J: ul_s u/J t p = .0207 u/J 1 p < .0001 u/J t p < .0001 u/J: u/_z u/J t p < .0001 u/J 1 p < .0001 u/J t p<.0001 u/s: u/z u/_s t p < .0001 NS NS Table D15: Articulatory measurements for HI vs. i/q_, i/Y_, i/s_, i/z_ at 5% Condition 5% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) lil: i/q_ lil: ill lil: i/s HI: ilz_ i/q_t p<-0001 i/? f p<.0001 i/s_ t p < .0001 NS i/q_ T P < .0001 i/? \ p<.0001 i/s_| p^.0016 i/z_ 1 p = .0012 i/q_ 1 p < .0001 i/Y I p<.0001 i/s_ 1 p < .0001 i/z_ i p < .0001 GNd (U) lil: ilq_ lil: i/?_ lil: i/s lil: i/z_ i/q_ t p < .0001 i/? f P<-0001 i/s_ t P < -0001 i/z_ j p = .0382 i/q_ t p < .0001 i/T | P<-0001 i/s_ t p < .0001 NS i/q_l p = .0110 i/Y I p<.0001 i/s_ 1 p < .0001 i/z_ i p = .0003 AJP (U) lil: ilq_ lil: i/Y_ /i/: i/z i/q_ t p < .0001 i/s? f P<-0001 NS NS i/e 1 p = .0001 NS i/q_ | p < .0001 i/c- I p<.0001 i/z_ I p < .0001 181 Table D16: Formant measurements for lil vs. i/q_, i/Y_, i/s_, i/z_ at 5% Condition 5% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lil: i/q_ i/q_T p < .0001 i/q_T p = .0003 i/q_T p < .0001 (L) lil: i/i_ i/?_t p < .0001 ulj 1 p < .0001 i/?_t p < .0001 /i/: i/s_ i/s_ t p < .0001 i/s_ 1 p < .0001 i/s_ t p<.0001 lil: ilz_ i/z t p = .0003 i/z | p < .0001 i/z t p < .0001 GNd HI: i/q_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_f p = .0017 i/q_t p = .0374 (U) /i/: i/<i_ i/?_T p <.0001 ulj i p < .0001 i/?_t p = .0005 HI: i/s_ i/s_ t p < .0001 i/s_ j p < .0001 i/s_ t p<.0001 /i/: i/z_ NS i/z t p < .0001 i/z_ t p < .0001 AJP HI: i/q_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_t p = .0458 NS (U) /i/: i/Y_ i/9_t p<.0001 u/J i p<.0001 i/?_T p < .0001 /i/: i/z_ NS i/z_ t p < .0001 i/z_ t p < .0001 Table D17: Formant measurements for HI vs. i/q_, iA_, i/s_, i/z_ at 50% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) HI: i/q_ HI: i/?_ lil: i/s_ lil: i/z i/q_t i/Y_t i/s_ | p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001 NS i/q_ j i/Y_ 1 i/s_ 1 p<.0001 p < .0001 p < .0001 NS i/q_t i/?_T p = .0004 p < .0001 NS NS GNd (U) lil: i/q_ HI: i/Y_ lil: i/s_ lil: i/z i/q_t i/Y_t i/s_ t p < .0001 p = .0009 p < .0001 ^S i/q_l i/Y_ 1 i/s_ 1 i/z 1 p < .0001 p<.0001 p < .0001 p = .0003 i/q_ 1 i/<r_ i i/s_ I p < .0001 p = .0023 p<.0001 NS AJP (U) lil: i/q_ lil: il<i_ lil: ilz_ i/q_t i/Y_t p < .0001 p<.0001 NS i/q_ j ] 1 p = .0003 NS NS NS NS i/z_ t | P < -0001 182 Table D18: Articulatory differences within i/retracted consonants_ at 5% Condition 5% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) i/q_: i/°_ i/q_: i/s_ i/q_: i/z_ i/Y_: i/s_ i/?_: i/z_ i/s_: i/z_ NS NS i/q_ t P < -0001 NS i/c | p<.0001 i/s_ t p < .0001 i/q_ 1 p < .0001 NS i/q_ t P < -0001 i/9 t P<-0001 i/c | p<.0001 i/s_ t p < .0001 i/q_ t p < .0001 i/q_T p = .0021 i/q_l p = .0031 i/Y_l p = .0031 i/? i p<.0001 i/s_ | p < .0001 GNd (U) i/q_: i/?_ i/q_: i/s_ i/q_: i/z_ • i/Y_:i/s_ i/z_ i/s_: i/z_ i/q_ j p = .0006 i/q_ | p < .0001 i/q_ f p < .0001 NS i/e t P<-0001 i/s_ f p < .0001 i/q_| p = .0011 NS i/q_ T P < -0001 i/c | p<.0001 i/c | p<.0001 i/s_ t P < -0001 i/q_ t P < 0001 i/q_t p<-0001 NS i/c | p = .0006 i/c i p<.0001 i/s_ | p < .0001 AJP (U) i/q_: i/?_ i/q_: i/z_ i/?_: i/z_ NS i/q_ t P < .0001 i/c | p<.0001 i/q_ | p = .0005 NS i/Y t P<-0001 i/q_ t p < .0001 i/q_ 1 p = .0008 i/S 1 p<.0001 Table D19: Articulatory differences within i/retracted consonants_ at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) i/q_: i/q_: i/s_ i/q_: i/z_ i/s_ i/<i_: i/z_ i/s_: i/z_ NS NS i/q_ t P < -0001 NS i/e | p<.0001 i/s_ T P < -0001 i/q_ 1 p < .0001 NS i/q_ f p = .0024 i/V_ T P = -0312 i/? | p<.0001 i/s_ t p < .0001 NS NS i/q_l p = .0017 i/c_ | p = .0224 NS i/s_ | p < .0001 GNd (U) i/q_: i/T_ i/q_: i/s_ i/q_: i/z_ iA"_: i/s_ i/z_ i/s : i/z NS i/q_ 1 p = .0006 i/q_ f P < -0001 i/c 1 p<.0001 i/y f p<.000i i/s_ t p < .0001 NS i/q_ T p = .0348 i/q_ j P < -0001 NS i/c f P = -0003 i/s_t p = .0016 NS i/q_ t P < -0001 i/q_ | p - .0057 i/c | p<.0001 NS i/s_ 1 p < .0001 AJP (U) i/q_: iA"_ i/q_: i/z_ i/?_: i/z_ NS i/q_ t p < .0001 ifi | p<.0001 NS NS NS NS i/q_ 1 p < .0001 i/° 1 p<-0001 183 Table D20: Formant measurement differences between i/q_, i/Y_, i/s_, i/z_ at 5% Condition 5% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB i/q_: i/i_ i/q_ 1 p <.0001 i/q_ t p < .0001 NS (L) i/q_: i/s_ NS NS i/q_f p = .0348 i/q_: i/z_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_t p = .0006 i/Y_: i/s_ i/i_t p < .0001 i/Y_ 1 p = .0004 i/Y_T p = .0002 i/Y_: i/z_ i/9_t p < .0001 i/Y_ 1 p < .0001 i/Y_| p < .0001 i/s_: i/z_ i/s T p < .0001 i/s I p < .0001 NS GNd i/q_: i/Y_ i/q_t p =.0004 i/q_t p < .0001 NS (U) i/q_: i/s_ NS i/q_ t p < .0001 NS i/q_: i/z_ i/q_t p<.0001 NS i/q_ j p = .0306 i/Y_: i/s_ i/Y_ j p = .0033 NS NS i/i_: i/z_ i/Y_ 1 p < .0001 i/Y_ 1 p < .0001 NS i/s_: i/z_ i/s t p < .0001 i/s I p < .0001 NS AJP i/q_: i/Y_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_ I p < .0001 (U) i/q_: i/z_ i/q_t p<.0001 i/q_ 1 p < .0001 i/q_ I p < .0001 i/Y :i/z i/Y_| p < .0001 i/Y_l p<.0001 i/Y_i p = .0049 Table D21: Formant measurement differences between i/q_, i/Y_, i/s_, i/z_ at 50% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB i/q_: i/Y_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_ | p = .0044 NS (L) i/q_: i/s_ i/q_T p < .0001 NS i/q_t p = .0011 i/q_: i/z_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_ j p < .0001 i/q_t p < .0001 i/Y_: i/s_ i/i_t p - .0487 i/Y_| p < .0001 i/Y_| p < .0001 i/Y_: i/z_ i/Y_f p < .0001 i/Y_l p < .0001 i/Y_f p<.0001 i/s_: i/z_ i/s | p < .0001 i/s 1 p < .0001 i/s_ t p - .0332 GNd i/q_: i/Y_ i/q_t p <.0001 i/q_i p = .0002 i/q_ | p = .0077 (U) i/q_: i/s_ i/q_ j p < .0001 i/q_t p < .0001 NS i/q_: i/z_ i/q_t p < .0001 i/q_l p < .0001 i/q_ j p = .0002 i/Y_: i/s_ p < .0001 i/Y_t p < .0001 i/Y_| p = .039 i/Y_: i/z_ i/Y_t p<.0001 i/Y_l p = .027 NS i/s : i/z i/s_t p < .0001 i/s_ j p < .0001 i/s_ i p = .0006 184 Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value AJP i/q_: iA"_ i/q_T p = .0007 i/q_ 1 p = .0065 i/q_ 1 p = .0145 (U) i/q_: i/z_ i/q_ t p < .0001 i/q_ 1 p < .0001 i/q_ 1 p < .0001 i/z_ i/9_t p < .0001 p = .0209 p < .0001 Table D22: Articulatory measurements for /u/ vs. u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 5% Condition 5% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lui: u/q_ u/q_ | p<.0001 u/q_ t p = .0245 u/q_ I p < .0001 (L) lui: ufi_ u/?_ t p < .0001 u/?_ T p = .0213 u/?_ 1 p < .0001 lui: u/s_ u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/s_ | p < .0001 /u/: u/z_ u/z_ f p = .0065 u/z_ I p = .0094 u/z_ 1 p = .0002 GNd /u/: u/q_ u/q_ | p < .0001 NS ulq_ i p < .0001 (U) /u/: u/?_ u/?_ t p < .0001 NS u/9_ 1 p < .0001 lui: u/s_ u/s_ f p < .0001 uls_ I p = .0499 u/s_ I p < .0001 /u/: u/z NS NS ulz_ i p = .0044 AJP /u/: u/q_ u/q_ | p < .0001 u/q_ I p < .0001 u/q_ | p < .0001 (U) /u/: u/?_ u/Y_ t p < .0001 NS u/e_ | p < .0001 /u/: u/s_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ | p = .0001 u/s_ I p < .0001 lui: ulz_ NS u/z_ I p<.0001 NS Table D23: Formant measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/?_, u/s_, u/z_ at 5% Condition 5% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lui: ulq_ NS u/q_ I p < .0001 u/q_ t p < .0001 (L) lui: u/i_ NS u/?_ 1 p < .0001 u/?_T p < .0001 lui: u/s_ u/s_ f p < .0001 u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ t p = .0351 lui: ulz NS u/z_ ] p < .0001 ulz_ I p = .0205 GNd lui: ulq_ u/q_ 1 p = .0123 u/q_ I p<.0001 ulq_ I p < .0001 (U) lui: u/<?_ u/?_f p < .0001 ul<i_ 1 p < .0001 u/c_T p = .0335 lui: uls_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ f p = .0005 u/s_ t p = .02 lui: ulz_ NS ulz_ f p < .0001 NS AJP lui: u/q_ u/q_ t p < .0001 NS NS (U) IvJ: u/Y_ p = .0316 u/?_l p =.0073 NS lui: uls_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ t p <.0001 NS lui: ulz_ NS u/z_ f p<.0001 NS 185 Table D24: Formant measurements for lui vs. u/q_, u/Y_, u/s_, u/z_ at 50% Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB lui: u/q_ u/q_f p = .0425 NS NS (L) lui: u/?_ u/?_t p < .0001 u/?_t p = .0063 NS lui: uls_ u/s_ | p < .0001 u/s_ t p = .0005 u/s_ t p < .0001 lui: ulz_ NS u/z_ t p < .0001 NS GNd lui: ulq_ NS u/q_ j p = .0002 u/q_ I p = .0002 (U) lui: u/?_ u/T_ t p < .0001 u/?_ 1 p = .0275 NS lui: uls_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ 4 p = .0393 NS lui: ulz_ NS u/z_ t p < .0001 NS AJP lui: ulq_ NS NS u/q_ i p < .0001 (U) lui: u/?_ u/?_f p< .0001 u/?_t p = .0183 NS lui: u/s_ u/s_ f p<.0001 NS u/s_ I p < .0001 lui: ulz NS u/z_ t p < .0001 ulz_ I p = .0096 Table D25: Articulatory differences within u/retracted consonants_ at 5% Condition 5% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB (L) u/q_: u/°_ u/q_: u/s_ ulq_: ulz_ u/c_: u/s_ u/e_: ulz_ uls_: ulz_ NS u/q_ j p < .0001 u/q_ f p = .0004 uAL 1 P < -0001 u/T_ | P < -0001 u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/q_ f p = .003 u/q_t p<.0001 u/?_ f P = -0025 u/T_ t P < -0001 u/s_ t p = .0466 NS u/q_l p<.0001 u/q_ i p < .0001 u/?_J p<.0001 u/?_ j p < .0001 NS GNd (U) ulq_: u/9_ u/q_: u/s_ u/q_: ulz_ u/?_: u/s_ u/°_: u/z_ u/s : u/z ulq_ i p = .0026 ulq_ i p - .0068 u/q_ T p < .0001 NS u/y_t P<.OOOI u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/q_t P = -0013 u/q_T p = .0169 u/?_t P = -0014 u/?_ t P = -02 NS u/q_t P = -0213 u/q_t p = .0017 u/q_ j p < .0001 NS uAL j p < .0001 u/s_ 1 p < .0001 AJP (U) u/q_: u/?_ u/q_: u/s_ u/q_: u/z_ u/?_: u/s_ u/°_: u/z_ u/s_: u/z_ u/q_ 1 p < .0001 u/q_| p<.0001 u/q_ f p < .0001 NS u^_ t P < -0001 u/s_f p<.0001 u/q_ 1 p < .0001 NS NS u/?_ f P < -0001 u/?_ t P < -0001 NS NS NS ulq_ i p < .0001 NS u/?_ j p < .0001 u/s_ | p < .0001 186 Table D26: Articulatory differences within u/retracted consonants_ at 50% Condition 50% TR TD TB Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB u/q_: u/Y_ NS NS u/q_ I p = .0456 (L) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ 1 p < .0001 NS u/q_ f p < .0001 u/q_: u/z_ u/q_ f p = .0461 NS NS u/Y_: u/s_ u/Y_ 1 p < .0001 NS u/?_ T p < .0001 u/Y_: u/z_ u/Y_ t p = .0066 NS NS u/s : u/z u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/s_ I p < .0001 GNd u/q_: uA'_ NS u/q_ f P = .0071 NS (U) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ | p < .0001 u/q_ t P = .0001 u/q_ f p < .0001 u/q_: u/z_ u/q_ | p < .0001 NS u/q_ 4 p = .0036 u/Y_: u/s_ u/i_ j p < .0001 NS u/Y_ t p < .0001 u/Y"_: u/z_ u/Y_ f p < .0001 NS u/T_ i p = .0027 u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ i P = .0171 u/s_ I p < .0001 AJP u/q_: u/Y_ u/q_ | p < .0001 NS u/q_ | p < .0001 (U) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ j p < .0001 u/q_ 4 P = .0003 u/q_ | p = .0033 u/q_: u/z_ u/q_ | p < .0001 u/q_ I P = .029 u/q_ j p < .0001 u/Y_: u/s_ u/Y_ 4 p < .0001 u/Y_ i P = .0006 NS u/Y_: u/z_ u/Y_ T p<.0001 NS u/"i_ 1 p<.0001 u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ t p < .0001 NS u/s_ 4 p < .0001 Table D27: Formant measurement differences between u/q_, u/Y_, u/s_, u/z_ at 5% Condition 5% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB u/q_: u/Y_ NS u/q_ | p = .0039 NS (L) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ J, p < .0001 u/q_ I p < .0001 u/q_ t p = .0118 u/q_: u/z_ u/q_ t p = .0038 u/q_ I p <.0001 u/q_ f p < .0001 u/Y_: u/s_ u/?_ J, p < .0001 u/Y_i p < .0001 u/Y_t p = .0003 u/?_: u/z_ NS uA_ | p < .0001 u/Y_t p < .0001 u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ f p < .0001 u/s_ I p < .0001 u/s_ f p = .0001 GNd u/q_: u/Y_ u/q_ J, p < .0001 u/q_ | p = .0231 u/q_ 4 p < .0001 (U) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ J, p < .0001 u/q_ j p < .0001 u/q_ 4 p < .0001 u/q_: u/z_ NS u/q_ 4 p < .0001 u/q_ 4 p < .0001 u/Y_: u/s_ u/i_ 1 p = .002 u/?_ 4 p < .0001 NS u/9_: u/z_ u/?_f p < .0001 u/Y_ 4 p < .0001 NS u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ 4 p < .0001 NS 187 Condition 5% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value AJP u/q_: uA'_ u/q_ t p = .0401 u/q_ T p = .0010 NS (U) u/q_: u/s_ NS u/q_ I p < .0001 NS u/q_: u/z_ u/q_ t p < .0001 u/q_ | p < .0001 NS u/Y_: u/s_ u/i_ i p = .0008 u/i_ | p < .0001 NS u/Y_: u/z_ u/i_f p = .0017 u/?_ 1 p < .0001 NS u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ t p<.0001 u/s_ | p<.0001 NS Table D28: Formant measurement differences between u/q_, u/Y_, u/s_, u/z_ at 50 Condition 50% Fl F2 F3 Effect P-value Effect P-value Effect P-value VB u/q_: uA'_ u/q_ | p < .0001 NS u/q_ T p = .0299 (L) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ i p < .0001 u/q_ I p = .0271 u/q_ 4 p < .0001 u/q_: u/z_ NS u/q_ j p<.0001 NS u/?_: u/s_ u/Y_ 1 p < .0001 NS u/Y_ 4 p < .0001 u/Y_: u/z_ u/Y_t p < .0001 u/Y_ 1 p<.0001. u/Y_ 4 p = .035 u/s : u/z u/s_ t p < .0001 u/s_ I p < .0001 u/s_ f p = .0002 GNd u/q_: u/Y_ u/q_ | p = .0004 NS u/q_ 4 p = .0109 (U) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ | p<.0001 NS u/q_ 4 p = .0043 u/q_: u/z_ NS u/q_ j p < .0001 u/q_ 4 p < .0001 u/Y_: u/s_ U/Y_ j p =.0002 NS NS u/Y_: u/z_ U7Y_f p<.0001 u/Y_ 4 p < .0001 NS u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ f p < .0001 u/s_ 4 p < .0001 NS AJP u/q_: u/Y_ u/q_ | p < .0001 u/q_ 4 p = .0357 u/q_ 4 p = .0015 (U) u/q_: u/s_ u/q_ J, p<.0001 NS NS u/q_: u/z_ u/q_ J, p = .035 u/q_ 4 p<.0001 NS u/Y_: u/s_ NS u/?_ t p = .0196 u/Y_ t p<.0001 u/Y_: u/z_ u/i_ T p < .0001 u/Y_ 4 p < .0001 NS u/s_: u/z_ u/s_ t p<.0001 u/s_ 4 p<.0001 u/s_ 4 p = .0008 188 Table D29: Formant means for lil preceding retracted consonants q, ?, s, z (VC) VB GNd AJP Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 /i/-50% 404 2329 2705 408 2516 2904 418 2182 2541 /i/-95% 421 2268 2739 421 2268 2739 455 2214 2605 /u/-50% 394 969 2578 416 1145 2719 409 844 2518 /u/-95% 325 954 2545 295 1072 2700 334 874 2652 il q-50% 558 1896 2462 559 1911 2482 516 1936 2387 il q-95% 547 1698 2580 624 1601 2550 536 1633 2372 i/J-50% 647 1784 2468 534 1959 2487 562 1791 2360 i/Ji-95% 643 1510 2485 593 1332 2441 519 1408 2416 il s-50% 397 2045 2451 392 2349 2745 380 2185 2537 il s-95% 315 2073 2567 259 2350 2802 308 2149 2659 i/ z-50% 358 1935 2483 370 2406 2819 363 2311 2712 il z-95% 300 2042 2625 364 2171 2797 367 2148 2704 Table D30: Formant means for lil following retracted consonants q, ?, s, z (CV) VB GNd AJP Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 IU-5% 297 1933 2467 386 1783 2631 393 1748 2325 /i/-50% 404 2329 2705 408 2516 2904 418 2182 2541 i/q_-5% 483 1744 2807 625 2047 2748 609 1841 2382 i/q -50% 667 1921 2848 631 2004 2601 575 1887 2491 i/g -5% 602 1493 2885 572 1472 2804 500 1332 2651 i/g_-50% 562 2046 2878 450 2229 2754 516 2103 2586 i/s -5% 508 1677 2721 607 1482 2838 i/s -50% 526 1859 2718 731 1328 2659 i/z -5% 367 2143 2661 382 2092 2867 401 2074 2772 i/z -50% 390 2350 2638 398 2335 2823 403 2242 2878 Table D31: Formant means for lui preceding retracted consonants q,?,s^z (VC) VB GNd AJP Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 /u/-50% 394 969 2578 416 1145 2719 409 844 2518 /u/-95% 325 954 2545 295 1072 2700 334 874 2652 u/ q-50% 582 1042 2662 574 1305 2522 548 1116 2473 u/ q-95% 464 762 2998 559 1028 2568 621 891 2674 u/Ji-50% 577 1218 2352 539 1010 2378 u/J-95% 472 906 2546 594 826 2615 u/ s-50% 643 1228 2702 569 941 2719 492 884 2365 ul s-95% 649 1614 2785 372 980 2733 536 1049 2372 189 VB GNd AJP Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 ul z-50% 567 1057 2682 407 1433 2811 482 1151 2551 ul z-95% 405 1508 2671 350 1845 2764 427 1024 2366 Table D32: Formant means for lui following retracted consonants q, ?, s, z (CV) VB GNd AJP Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 lul-5% 426 1127 2648 407 1338 2635 417 900 2548 lul-50% 394 969 2578 416 1145 2719 409 844 2518 u/q_-5% 456 927 2771 377 917 2409 481 923 2456 u/q -50% 427 1070 2591 430 931 2423 427 854 2376 u/g -5% 421 820 2804 464 819 2746 450 794 2528 u/g -50% 515 1167 2518 496 1031 2614 501 917 2479 u/s -5% 604 1506 2703 502 1494 2761 503 1189 2552 u/s -50% 705 1227 2772 566 1036 2645 503 847 2320 u/z -5% 381 1884 2572 389 1732 2725 402 1616 2483 u/z -50% 403 1796 2605 410 1376 2754 404 1226 2432 190 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0092646/manifest

Comment

Related Items